Let's have a candid conversation about GLOCKs.
- Thread starter TexasGunbie
- Start date
- Status
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
While we're on the subject, let's have a candid conversation about GLOCK magazines. Specifically, taking them apart. Disassembling your magazines from time to time in order to clean them is a smart thing to do, especially if you shoot outside and train on things like mag changes where you might drop one on the ground. Glock magazines are some of the most difficult magazines to take apart I have ever encountered. Not only do they have the little push-button on the floor-plate, like most other manufacturers, but the floor-plate is also held in place by little notches on both sides, preventing it from sliding off, even when the button is depressed. You have to actually crush the body of the magazine in order to warp it out of shape, just to slide the floor-plate off. It is honestly one of the stupidest ideas I have ever seen.
I own two Glocks, but I didn't drink the KoolAid. I do like the grip angle on the ones that work for me (the 17/22 and the 26/27 fit my hands, but the 19/23 just feels wrong, and the 20/21 is too fat). I hate the factory trigger, but I do enjoy the 3.5# aftermarket option. I like the simplicity of operation, and the outstanding durability and reliability of the platform.
But that's only my opinion. Plenty of other folks hate 'em, and that's just fine by me. Shoot what you want.
R
But that's only my opinion. Plenty of other folks hate 'em, and that's just fine by me. Shoot what you want.
R
I have a G23 and it's been a super gun. But I've never like the feel of the grip and been considering an SA XDM. I've only found the 4.5 version in town, so I am wondering how the 3.8 compares to the G23 in terms of grip length. I'd prefer something closer to the G23 in terms of grip length. This will be a daily carry gun.
Taking them apart is a snap once you know how. Just compress the sides slightly with a small C clamp, like a 2 inch one slightly, then pop off the end cap.
ForumSurfer
Member
I wish Springfield made an XD that had a grip length the same as a 19/23. It is just a little bit longer than the 19/23. That little bit proved uncomfortable for me.
Beretta seems to get the picture since they planned to release a PX4 compact. I keep seeing teasers about it all over the web, but I've yet to see it in distributors. Then again, I gave up looking long ago since they were so slow to release it.
CoRoMo
Member
Wow. Four pages in less than 24 hours. Who woulda thought?
Me.
Me.
MisterMike
Member
Yeah, the only topic more likely to draw comment is religion.
The number of Kool-Aid drinkers is roughly equivalent to the number of Glock-haters, and the latter group has been statistically proven to be more likely than any other demographic group to make up facts about Glock failures (just scroll up a few posts to see what I mean). I don't own a ton of firearms, but three of the six handguns I own are Glocks. I find the ergonomics to be "okay" to "good," but their grips do tend to feel a little blocky. As with any gun, I'd imagine that if you used one exclusively for an extended period of time, you'd adapt to it.
The great attributes of any Glock are its simplicity of design and near-100% reliability. Yes, you can undoubtedly find anecdotes of malfunctions, but they're relatively few and far between, considering the millions of Glocks in use. In fact, the very fact that any Glock "kaboom" story is repeated ad infinitum on the web is probably pretty good proof that it's a rarity.
There are reasons why I might choose to carry another handgun--size, weight, ergonomics, or just plain prettiness--but I feel confident that there is no more reliable handgun brand in existence.
But, really, I don't much care what others choose to buy. What does strike me as goofy is the fact that so many choose to criticize others' choices, whether it's Glock, Kimber, Kel-Tec or whatever. Generally, it seems that the most strident critics seem to suffer from personal insecurity.
MTMilitiaman
Member
Maybe I drank too much Kool Aid, but there isn't much I would change about the Glock. The grip angle is different, but I am not convinced that is a bad thing, and at any rate, all it means as near as I can tell is that you hit a couple inches higher. That is a training issue, if you call it an issue at all. The grip can be bulky. My G20 is no small pistol. But I've seen a 100 pound 16 year old girl shoot it well enough that I have difficulty seeing what all the hub-bub is about. The trigger reach isn't as bad as most DA autos, either. So I call this a personal problem, more than anything. If the Glock fits you, there really aren't many (if any) better choices for an all around defensive handgun.
KBs? Unsupported chamber? Bullpucky. The Glock's chamber still offers roughly the same support as many of the older 1911s on the market. It is still within SAAMI spec, and perfectly safe to shoot with all SAAMI spec ammo, provided you adhere to at least the manufacture's recommendation not to shoot un-jacketed ammunition through it. And for $100 or so you can drop in an aftermarket, conventionally rifled barrel and worry not even about that. The only reason I dropped a KKM Precision in my Glock 20 was because I started handloading for it, and while the chamber being on the looser slide of SAAMI specs makes it very reliable and tolerant of a wide variety of ammunition, it also accelerates case wear. The only reasons to buy an aftermarket barrel for your Glock are as follows:
+Better case life if you reload
+Safer shooting un-jacketed ammunition
+Caliber conversion
You might get better accuracy, but for most applications, this won't be necessary and in fact, a lot of people won't even be able to shoot their Glocks well enough under duress to take advantage of any accuracy advantage anyways. However, if you're one who can and you want this accuracy, add that to the list as well.
And don't even get me started on kBs. I don't even worry about them.
That's about all the con's I can think of. Now consider the pro's:
+Reliability. Sure, they fail like everything else. But they seem to fail less than most. The Glock has become the standard by which all others are judged. It is like the AK. Shoot it hot, shoot it dry. Shoot it covered in ice. Shoot it over and over again until your finger falls off and the cows come home. Shoot it until pallets of ammo have been reduced to noise and brass. The Glock keeps on working. People were initially skeptical of Gaston's plastic pistol until he proved you could rely on it to save your life. His success in doing so is evident by the overwhelming popularity of these pistols in the law enforcement and civilian defense marketplace, as well as in foreign military and counter-terrorist organizations.
+Durability--we've seem them shot out of cannons, dropped out of airplanes, dragged behind cars, shot with other firearms, and generally just abused in the most obnoxious ways possible. The Glock is probably responsible for starting the "Torture Test Craze." What does it prove? That Glock can take a lot of abuse.
+Lightweight with good capacity. My Glock 20 gives me 15+1 capacity of full power 10mm Auto. That is like having three .357 Magnums! It's a platform with roughly the same dimensions and weight as a loaded 1911, but with at least twice the firepower.
+Very good defensive weapon trigger. The trigger pull comes in between 5 and 6 pounds, stock, from most accounts. It is relatively short with only a tolerable amount of take up and grit. What's better? The trigger pull is the same every time, and has one of the shortest and most distinct resets available.
+SIMPLE! From its design to its operation, the Glock embodies the spirit of simplicity. It has relatively few parts--in the neighborhood of 33, most, if not all of which are interchangeable between at least pistols of the same model. This is less parts to break at inopportune moments. Less parts to fail. Less parts for armorers to keep stocked, and replace. Detail stripping the pistol is like playing with Legos, and there is not a part on my Glock I don't feel confident that I could replace if it broke. I have some experience with a lot of autos, but the Glock is the only one I can say that about. And it's a point and click interface. Not only do you not have to memorize and train for two separate trigger pulls like many of the DA autos on the market, you don't really even have to train to remove an active safety. All you have to do is train to keep you trigger out of the trigger guard, and getting that front sight center mass before you squeeze. Simple. I like that. Keep it simple, silly.
+Control--love it or hate it, the steeper grip angle does allow for a very good level of control. Add to this one of the lowest bore axises on the market, a little bit of flex in the frame, and a wide grip that helps distribute recoil and shock forces over a larger part of the hand, then add that to a relatively light trigger pull with a very short reset, and you have a pistol that works with you to help get rounds on target quickly.
+Modularity and aftermarket support. Only the 1911 can claim among all other centerfire autoloading handguns to have as much or more aftermarket support than the Glock. From your choice of sights, to trigger options, and just about everything else, the Glock has an amazing array of choices. This combined with the amount of interchangeability and modularity the platform offers gives you options and flexibility that most just don't have. Swapping out barrels for caliber conversions and being able to use pretty much all magazines of the same caliber in any Glock chambered for that caliber, regardless of frame size or slide length is just the beginning. Take a look at LoneWolf Dist and consider the plethora of different slides available, check out the growing array of custom gun makers marketing grip sculpting, as well as the alloy frames becoming available. Possibilities are endless.
+Price. In a market where performance is supposed to have a price, the Glock gives you a lot of performance for relatively little price. There may be better deals out there, sure. But the Glock does a good job of providing proven, reliable firepower at a price that the common, working man can afford. Power to the people? Heck yeah!
It takes a little force, but lets consider some things.
First off, the weak link to any autoloading firearm is usually the mags. Lots of different firearms have been hindered by flimsy, unreliable magazines. Consider the Beretta M9 and the M16/AR-15. Today, magazine selection has improved for both of these models, but in the past, this wasn't always so. Weak springs, poorly designed followers, and shoddy, flimsy craftsmanship that allowed the magazines to dent easily can turn a functional firearm into a paperweight very quickly.
Second, most on the frontlines, whether they be police officers on the streets, or soldiers on a battlefield, probably don't clean their magazines much. If a magazine becomes lost, dirty, or damaged, it is more likely that they are just going to turn the defective magazine into the armorer, who is either going to fix or replace it.
What Glock has done is create a simple, durable, reliable magazine with decent capacity--one that can take abuse--but which is cheap enough to replace if actually broken. If they had went the other way and not designed their magazines to be as durable as the rest of the platform, then there would be all sorts of complaints about the lack of reliability/durability, ect. You can't please everybody, but erring on the side of caution by ensuring, if nothing else, the reliability of the pistol and its magazines is a pretty good place to start.
Armorers can deal with the magazines easy enough. The troops mostly just care that the pistol fires when they pull the trigger.
I know I only clean my mags once in a blue moon. So if I have to put a lil bit of elbow grease into popping off my floorplate, that fine with me. At least I know it's not going to pop off at a less opportune time, and at least I know the magazine is going to be durable enough to take hard use. That is far more important to me. And Glock manages to keep these mags readily available, even to non-military/LEO customers, for around $20 to $25. Compared to lots of magazines out there running $40 to $50, many of which aren't as durable or reliable as the Glock's, I think Glock got the important things right. I'm fine with the Glock magazines.
KBs? Unsupported chamber? Bullpucky. The Glock's chamber still offers roughly the same support as many of the older 1911s on the market. It is still within SAAMI spec, and perfectly safe to shoot with all SAAMI spec ammo, provided you adhere to at least the manufacture's recommendation not to shoot un-jacketed ammunition through it. And for $100 or so you can drop in an aftermarket, conventionally rifled barrel and worry not even about that. The only reason I dropped a KKM Precision in my Glock 20 was because I started handloading for it, and while the chamber being on the looser slide of SAAMI specs makes it very reliable and tolerant of a wide variety of ammunition, it also accelerates case wear. The only reasons to buy an aftermarket barrel for your Glock are as follows:
+Better case life if you reload
+Safer shooting un-jacketed ammunition
+Caliber conversion
You might get better accuracy, but for most applications, this won't be necessary and in fact, a lot of people won't even be able to shoot their Glocks well enough under duress to take advantage of any accuracy advantage anyways. However, if you're one who can and you want this accuracy, add that to the list as well.
And don't even get me started on kBs. I don't even worry about them.
That's about all the con's I can think of. Now consider the pro's:
+Reliability. Sure, they fail like everything else. But they seem to fail less than most. The Glock has become the standard by which all others are judged. It is like the AK. Shoot it hot, shoot it dry. Shoot it covered in ice. Shoot it over and over again until your finger falls off and the cows come home. Shoot it until pallets of ammo have been reduced to noise and brass. The Glock keeps on working. People were initially skeptical of Gaston's plastic pistol until he proved you could rely on it to save your life. His success in doing so is evident by the overwhelming popularity of these pistols in the law enforcement and civilian defense marketplace, as well as in foreign military and counter-terrorist organizations.
+Durability--we've seem them shot out of cannons, dropped out of airplanes, dragged behind cars, shot with other firearms, and generally just abused in the most obnoxious ways possible. The Glock is probably responsible for starting the "Torture Test Craze." What does it prove? That Glock can take a lot of abuse.
+Lightweight with good capacity. My Glock 20 gives me 15+1 capacity of full power 10mm Auto. That is like having three .357 Magnums! It's a platform with roughly the same dimensions and weight as a loaded 1911, but with at least twice the firepower.
+Very good defensive weapon trigger. The trigger pull comes in between 5 and 6 pounds, stock, from most accounts. It is relatively short with only a tolerable amount of take up and grit. What's better? The trigger pull is the same every time, and has one of the shortest and most distinct resets available.
+SIMPLE! From its design to its operation, the Glock embodies the spirit of simplicity. It has relatively few parts--in the neighborhood of 33, most, if not all of which are interchangeable between at least pistols of the same model. This is less parts to break at inopportune moments. Less parts to fail. Less parts for armorers to keep stocked, and replace. Detail stripping the pistol is like playing with Legos, and there is not a part on my Glock I don't feel confident that I could replace if it broke. I have some experience with a lot of autos, but the Glock is the only one I can say that about. And it's a point and click interface. Not only do you not have to memorize and train for two separate trigger pulls like many of the DA autos on the market, you don't really even have to train to remove an active safety. All you have to do is train to keep you trigger out of the trigger guard, and getting that front sight center mass before you squeeze. Simple. I like that. Keep it simple, silly.
+Control--love it or hate it, the steeper grip angle does allow for a very good level of control. Add to this one of the lowest bore axises on the market, a little bit of flex in the frame, and a wide grip that helps distribute recoil and shock forces over a larger part of the hand, then add that to a relatively light trigger pull with a very short reset, and you have a pistol that works with you to help get rounds on target quickly.
+Modularity and aftermarket support. Only the 1911 can claim among all other centerfire autoloading handguns to have as much or more aftermarket support than the Glock. From your choice of sights, to trigger options, and just about everything else, the Glock has an amazing array of choices. This combined with the amount of interchangeability and modularity the platform offers gives you options and flexibility that most just don't have. Swapping out barrels for caliber conversions and being able to use pretty much all magazines of the same caliber in any Glock chambered for that caliber, regardless of frame size or slide length is just the beginning. Take a look at LoneWolf Dist and consider the plethora of different slides available, check out the growing array of custom gun makers marketing grip sculpting, as well as the alloy frames becoming available. Possibilities are endless.
+Price. In a market where performance is supposed to have a price, the Glock gives you a lot of performance for relatively little price. There may be better deals out there, sure. But the Glock does a good job of providing proven, reliable firepower at a price that the common, working man can afford. Power to the people? Heck yeah!
It takes a little force, but lets consider some things.
First off, the weak link to any autoloading firearm is usually the mags. Lots of different firearms have been hindered by flimsy, unreliable magazines. Consider the Beretta M9 and the M16/AR-15. Today, magazine selection has improved for both of these models, but in the past, this wasn't always so. Weak springs, poorly designed followers, and shoddy, flimsy craftsmanship that allowed the magazines to dent easily can turn a functional firearm into a paperweight very quickly.
Second, most on the frontlines, whether they be police officers on the streets, or soldiers on a battlefield, probably don't clean their magazines much. If a magazine becomes lost, dirty, or damaged, it is more likely that they are just going to turn the defective magazine into the armorer, who is either going to fix or replace it.
What Glock has done is create a simple, durable, reliable magazine with decent capacity--one that can take abuse--but which is cheap enough to replace if actually broken. If they had went the other way and not designed their magazines to be as durable as the rest of the platform, then there would be all sorts of complaints about the lack of reliability/durability, ect. You can't please everybody, but erring on the side of caution by ensuring, if nothing else, the reliability of the pistol and its magazines is a pretty good place to start.
Armorers can deal with the magazines easy enough. The troops mostly just care that the pistol fires when they pull the trigger.
I know I only clean my mags once in a blue moon. So if I have to put a lil bit of elbow grease into popping off my floorplate, that fine with me. At least I know it's not going to pop off at a less opportune time, and at least I know the magazine is going to be durable enough to take hard use. That is far more important to me. And Glock manages to keep these mags readily available, even to non-military/LEO customers, for around $20 to $25. Compared to lots of magazines out there running $40 to $50, many of which aren't as durable or reliable as the Glock's, I think Glock got the important things right. I'm fine with the Glock magazines.
bartman06
Member
I"m pro Glock but i no longer own one. I hope to get a couple more in the future. The original question was why don't people like them well some people have some legitimate issues with the platform but most i think just hate the prom queen cause they (Glock) are they prettiest and biggest target.
I really like how smooth feeding, loading and durable their magazines are but they are a PITA to take apart. My usual method is to use two small, thin flat head screw drivers to pry the floor plate away from the mag body and slide it off. I then proceed to round off the annoying and pointless notches on the side of the magazine. I do plan to buy a good c-clamp, that sounds much easier.
Fishman777
Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2007
- Messages
- 520
Glocks are good guns...
I like Glocks a lot, but I wouldn't buy one.
I like M&Ps better for a number of reasons, but I won't hijack this thread. I don't really care if others agree or disagree with my choice.
Anyways, Glocks are not as good as their near-mythical reputation for durability and reliability, but they are among the best pistols out there. I don't put any stock in internet or gun magazine torture tests. They are biased and easy to fake. I prefer military and police testing, because these types of tests aren't as biased. These agencies are trying to spend their money wisely, so they are less likely to fudge results to get a certain outcome.
Glocks are one of the most reliable guns on the market. I'd place the Beretta 92 series, the P226, and the M&P in the same category. I've never seen data from government tests for HKs, XDs, or CZs. I'm sure they are very reliable, but I want proof of reliability through exhaustive tesing through non-biased parties. Springfield, HK, and CZ didn't even submit pistols in the recent ATF pistol trials. I can only guess that this is because they didn't think they'd win the contracts and were concerned about how it might hurt their brand image. The Sig's p250's lack of performance in the ATF will probably kill this model. Who wants to trust their life to a gun that failed the ATF reliability testing?
Glocks are reliable and they are durable. By modern standards, they don't support ammunition casing as well as most other modern firearms. The support is better on G3 and G4 pistols, but a significant amount of the casing is not supported by the feeding ramp. After market barrels should solve this, so this isn't the big issue with me.
My reason for not owning them has to do with the ergonomics, or lack there of. The only glock that I'd consider would be the 20 sf. This is because 10 mm handguns are hard to find.
In a world without M&Ps, I might own a Glock or two. As long as M&Ps are available, make mine an M&P.
I like Glocks a lot, but I wouldn't buy one.
I like M&Ps better for a number of reasons, but I won't hijack this thread. I don't really care if others agree or disagree with my choice.
Anyways, Glocks are not as good as their near-mythical reputation for durability and reliability, but they are among the best pistols out there. I don't put any stock in internet or gun magazine torture tests. They are biased and easy to fake. I prefer military and police testing, because these types of tests aren't as biased. These agencies are trying to spend their money wisely, so they are less likely to fudge results to get a certain outcome.
Glocks are one of the most reliable guns on the market. I'd place the Beretta 92 series, the P226, and the M&P in the same category. I've never seen data from government tests for HKs, XDs, or CZs. I'm sure they are very reliable, but I want proof of reliability through exhaustive tesing through non-biased parties. Springfield, HK, and CZ didn't even submit pistols in the recent ATF pistol trials. I can only guess that this is because they didn't think they'd win the contracts and were concerned about how it might hurt their brand image. The Sig's p250's lack of performance in the ATF will probably kill this model. Who wants to trust their life to a gun that failed the ATF reliability testing?
Glocks are reliable and they are durable. By modern standards, they don't support ammunition casing as well as most other modern firearms. The support is better on G3 and G4 pistols, but a significant amount of the casing is not supported by the feeding ramp. After market barrels should solve this, so this isn't the big issue with me.
My reason for not owning them has to do with the ergonomics, or lack there of. The only glock that I'd consider would be the 20 sf. This is because 10 mm handguns are hard to find.
In a world without M&Ps, I might own a Glock or two. As long as M&Ps are available, make mine an M&P.
Last edited:
I will sum it up like this. Not counting those I inherited, I have the following handguns, in order of acquisition:
1. Glock 17 (acquired 1986)
2. Glock 26
3. Glock 32C
4. Glock 31C
5. Kahr P9
6. EAA Witness 10mm
7. EAA Witness 10mm (yes I have two)
8. Glock 20SF (highly customized)
9. Dan Wesson Sportsman 1911 10mm (acquired last week)
If I thought I was going to be in a gunfight, it would be the Glock 20SF - no question what-so-ever.
In order of size, these are the guns I actually carry every day:
1. Glock 20SF (largest)
2. Glock 32C (med)
3. Kahr P9 (smallest so far)
I have owned Glocks since they were imported in 1986. Never had a single failure fire or cycle in 24 years -- except once -- when the primer was actually missing from a round.
There is no better self defense handgun for the vast majority of people. I don't care one bit about style, function is king. Learn to point it. And learn to love the trigger, or go aftermarket. If you can't hold it, have a grip reduction. If there is something that doesn't fit, modify it.
1. Glock 17 (acquired 1986)
2. Glock 26
3. Glock 32C
4. Glock 31C
5. Kahr P9
6. EAA Witness 10mm
7. EAA Witness 10mm (yes I have two)
8. Glock 20SF (highly customized)
9. Dan Wesson Sportsman 1911 10mm (acquired last week)
If I thought I was going to be in a gunfight, it would be the Glock 20SF - no question what-so-ever.
In order of size, these are the guns I actually carry every day:
1. Glock 20SF (largest)
2. Glock 32C (med)
3. Kahr P9 (smallest so far)
I have owned Glocks since they were imported in 1986. Never had a single failure fire or cycle in 24 years -- except once -- when the primer was actually missing from a round.
There is no better self defense handgun for the vast majority of people. I don't care one bit about style, function is king. Learn to point it. And learn to love the trigger, or go aftermarket. If you can't hold it, have a grip reduction. If there is something that doesn't fit, modify it.
Last edited:
md7
Member
Pro Glock here.
I own a 17 and a 23. Would like to pick up a 26 too. There are numerous reasons why I spend my money on Glock products.
-reliability- All of mine have been reliable. I have confidence in them, and my ability to perform with them.
-durability- I have no doubt that when I expire my Glocks will still be in good working order.
-performance- I shoot the Glocks very well, like the grip angle, and they "fit" my hands.
-trigger- I prefer the trigger and like the short reset.
-looks- the gun looks homely and soul less. It's a defensive weapon, a machine. I don't care if my defensive weapon has soul. I want it to function with an extremely high rate of success. It looks kind of cold. Good, it's a firearm. I don't care how it looks, just so long as it works.
Is Glock the "end all, be all" for EVERYONE? --------> NO. Different strokes for different folks. Plenty of other good, reliable guns out there to fit an individual's criteria.
Glock fits mine.
I own a 17 and a 23. Would like to pick up a 26 too. There are numerous reasons why I spend my money on Glock products.
-reliability- All of mine have been reliable. I have confidence in them, and my ability to perform with them.
-durability- I have no doubt that when I expire my Glocks will still be in good working order.
-performance- I shoot the Glocks very well, like the grip angle, and they "fit" my hands.
-trigger- I prefer the trigger and like the short reset.
-looks- the gun looks homely and soul less. It's a defensive weapon, a machine. I don't care if my defensive weapon has soul. I want it to function with an extremely high rate of success. It looks kind of cold. Good, it's a firearm. I don't care how it looks, just so long as it works.
Is Glock the "end all, be all" for EVERYONE? --------> NO. Different strokes for different folks. Plenty of other good, reliable guns out there to fit an individual's criteria.
Glock fits mine.
Glock reliability and durability rivals that of the most durable and dependable auto loader ever designed and made, the Russian Makarov PM. They share the same principles, less parts equals less problem and totally serviceable by the end user in the field with little required training. Plus universal parts replacement also like the Mak. To me, that is very intelligently thought design for a combat weapon. Like them or hate them they simply work and work well in a very high percentage of the time.
My personal observations is that they are excellent CCW with no protruding and sharp edges like a 1911 or a S&W revolver and I am sure that was not by accident either. I read somewhere that a 1911 is what you show your friends and a Glock is what you show you enemies.
My personal observations is that they are excellent CCW with no protruding and sharp edges like a 1911 or a S&W revolver and I am sure that was not by accident either. I read somewhere that a 1911 is what you show your friends and a Glock is what you show you enemies.
DonRon said:
I'm guessing that a 14 year old boy with lots of Ghost Recon time came up with that expression.
I wouldn't be surprised if the "head count" from every Glock ever made is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the carnage caused by the 1911 during the 20th Century.Not a big polymer fan, but I've toyed with the ideas of getting a G19 at some point, just to try. I think this is the sweet spot in the Glock line up. I've shot a friends G17, G36 and G26 and found them accurate, reliable and a lot easier to shoot well than I would have ever thought. Once I got used to the trigger, I was able to shoot them fine.
Count me in the neutral camp as well.
Count me in the neutral camp as well.
ForumSurfer
Member
Don't do it, Ben...get the 23 instead. I was thinking the same, exact thing when I bought my 19. Now I wish I had gotten a 23 so I can buy barrels, mags and extractors to turn a 23 into a 357, 40 or a 9mm. It's simple enough to do at the range on a bench. But alas, I bought a 19 and I'm stuck with just 9mm.
easyg
Member
That's a fairly safe thing to say considering that the Glock has only been around for a little over twenty years while the 1911 has been around for over one hundred years.
But the difference might be far less than you might think....
The vast majority of military personnel never carried the 1911, and handguns played a rather insignificant role in all modern wars (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam...the "heyday" of the 1911).
As for non-war related shootings....
The 1911 was never overly popular with cops or criminals.
easyg said:
I guess LAPD didn't get the memo (see below). In the hands of a competent individual, the 1911 is an effective and reliable pistol. Of course, many find the magazine capacity to be an issue for them but that's hardly surprising given what we know about the number of shots fired compared to hits on target (military, law enforcement, civilian). Now add in the cost of 1911s compared to Glocks and the shoestring budget of many police departments and it all starts to make sense. Let's see if the Glock is still around in its original form 100 years from now.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEU(SOC)_pistol
ICQB Pistol
Discovering that the Los Angeles Police Department was well pleased with their special Kimber-made M1911 pistols, a single source request was issued to Kimber Manufacturing for a similarly built pistol, despite the imminent release of their TLE/RLII models.[11] Kimber shortly began producing a limited number of what would be later termed the Interim Close Quarters Battle pistol (ICQB). Maintaining the simple recoil assembly, 5-inch barrel (though using a stainless steel match grade barrel), and internal extractor, the ICQB is not much different from Browning's original design.[10]
The final units as issued to MCSOCOM Det-1 are the Kimber ICQBs with SureFire Integrated Military Pistol Light (IMPL), Dawson Precision rail, Gemtech TRL Tactical Retention Lanyards based upon the jury-rigged telephone cord versions, modified Safariland 6004 holsters, Simonich G-10 Gunner Grips manufactured by Simonich Knives and Strider Knives replaced the original Pachmayr rubber grips, and Wilson Combat's '47D' 8-round magazines.[9][11] Tritium Novak LoMount sights replaced the originals which were made in-house by the Marines.[9][11]
A source request was sent out to Springfield Armoury as well, hence the Springfield Operator, based on the FBI's TRP setup. Kimber won out in the end though.
Last edited:
ny32182
Member
Considering the 1911 was carried primarily by one military, and Glocks are carried by mil and police the world over, I'd bet the Glock "head count" rolleyes is bigger than the 1911's by a sizeable margin.
rolleyes is bigger than the 1911's by a sizeable margin.Joe Demko
Member
The 1911 was never as widely issued among US police agencies as the Glock is today or S&W/Colt .38 specials were in the past. Yes, it is possible to find agencies here and there who use it or used it, but it was never a common cop-on-the-street gun.
Before you launch into an impassioned defense of the 1911, two things:
1. That isn't the topic of the thread.
2. I like 1911's perfectly well and carried one as a deputy sheriff at an agency where we bought our own guns.
Joe Demko said:
True, but when someone makes a moronic statement such as the one in post #90, it deserves a response. Reliability, accuracy, lethality and longevity are NOT unique to Glocks even though internet lore would have us all believe this to be the case.
CoRoMo
Member
This thread is lacking. We need a fifth page. That should get us to a consensus... right?
- Status
