Why Glock?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I really did not like them. They never fit my hand well. Then my shooting buddy got a police trade-in Model 22 for really cheap and I shot it some. I shot it well and easily.

Now I own three of them. I shoot them well and they have given me zero problems. They are not my absolute favorite, but they work just fine and I don't mind carrying them.
 
Last edited:
It was the first polymer wonder 9 to garner widespread success as far as I know, this alone has cemented it's place in the gun world,and the continual "innovation" doesn't hurt either. I strongly dislike the "glock hump", and have replaced the frame on my gen 3 17 with one from p80.
 
IMHO they lost the federal contract to Sig and are justifiably recouping their R&D efforts. I have many Glocks, Sigs and S&Ws but I've moved on from Glock as I don't shoot them as well as the others. I do think they are fine weapons.
 
I did not start out with Glock handguns, actually thought they were overrated. Had several other import plastic 9's that were quite nice.

Then I shot a buddies G17 and the bug hit. For me it's a natural shooter ergo wise. The grip angle reminds me of a target 22, similar to the Ruger Mark series pistol.

Couple that with never ever ever having to worry about finding virtually anything for a Glock, and I was sold.

I currently have a 4th gen G17 and a 3rd gen G26 and am very satisfied.


I suspect there are an equal amount of folks that have Glocks for just the brand as there are folks that have them because they genuinely work for them.
 
As to Glocks in general it took me a long time to try one.

Me too. I actually collected mostly Italian berettas for years first. I had even started buying german sig and HK guns. I was a glock basher. But I simply said they were ugly and cheap feeling and didn't have a hammer. I still say that. Lol. I got a 27 cheap. Then I bought one for 10mm since they were about the only option back then. But then I liked it and bought more. Now they are my first recommendation if they fit the user.

For me it's a natural shooter ergo wise. The grip angle reminds me of a target 22, similar to the Ruger Mark series pistol.

That could very well have played a role to me too. High standard, Colt, and Ruger semi auto 22s were about all I had the chance to shoot growing up, everyone had revolvers if they had a handgun at all.
 
First, I want to make it clear that I’m neither a Glock lover nor a Glock hater. Like many, they’re a manufacturer of fine firearms, all of which have their place.

My question is why all of a sudden for the past year or so are we seeing Glock everywhere? Blog articles, forum threads, videos, magazine articles, television gun shows, and an avalanche of aftermarket parts and accessories etc. I suspect that Glock must have opened their platform and maybe released some patents or had them expire which would explain the parts and accessories but that doesn’t (to me) explain the super high visibility of their guns everywhere, even on television drama shows. Is it money or something else that I don’t know about?

Who can shed some light on this for me?
Thanks in advance.

Glock is a tool not a fine firearm. Please see posts by Bc1023 to see lots of fine very high quality firearms. Last topic Sphinx 2000.
Many shows that feature guns probably have advisors with law enforcement or military background that is why Glock is so prominently featured in cinema.
 
Last edited:
With gen5 release your just seeing old models kicked down the road. Nothing new.


I'll take the old glocks. Thanks
 
They are simple, sturdy, and cheap.
If there has been a substantive improvement since the original 17 I can't see it.
I can't hit PDS with one and am wondering if I really need to stay in GSSF.
But my little G43 is a fine hideout gun.
 
The aftermarket for a fancy machined Glock has generated appeal for those that are willing to spend money for customization. Glocks build qualities makes some simple DIY accessible. Especially for the Poly 80's. Not every gun owner may want to go down the $$ 1911 road.
 
I bought a Glock 17 a few years ago because...
First, I was interested in what all the hype was about Glocks.
Second, my British son-in-law wanted to shoot one and asked if I had a Glock.

I enjoy shooting the Glock 17 at the range but I'm not comfortable carrying one. Too much fear of "Glock leg".

But, whatever floats your boat when it comes to carry hand guns.
 
I am a revolver guy down to the bone. I have about 5 at any given time. I generally only have about 2 autos. One is a 1911 and one is a Glock 19.

The Glock gets shot way more. It is a home defense and carry gun as well as the occasional competition gun.

Why? Well because I can buy 10 factory magazines for 100 bucks off GB. Buy several big name holsters off eBay for under 100 total, cheap trigger bars, And other internal parts. I don’t really do a lot of aftermarket mods but if I wanted night sights they would only be a few clicks away.

I was turned off to Sigs when I got to shoot two different ones the MI State Police were transitioning to and from. I liked the newer DAK one a bit better but in the end they had a clunky feel to me and cost a few hundred more.

For a few folks out there, Glocks are so common they are boring. “Hey I heard you got a new gun. What is it? Oh. Just a Glock”
 
Why Glock? They can be effectively operated by shooters with the lowest skill level. They rarely malfunction so no need to know how to clear a malfunction, they have no external safety so you don't have to remember to disengage the safety, they are striker fired meaning they only have one trigger weight to deal with which is perfect for shooters who aren't proficient enough to safely use a Double Action/Single Action platform, their finish appears to be very durable and you have magazine compatibility across the entire double stack line.

What I don't like about Glock? Glock Leg and Fanboys who can't even reply to a post about a H&H double barrel rifle without mentioning their Glock 26.
 
Glocks are great guns for sure. I bought the Nano because it was similar to a Glock, which meant few parts and a robust build quality. I like the size more than what Glock offered. That said, the move up in Size maybe a Glock 43x. I also like the Kahr's which are similar to Glocks in build and keep the same uniform striker fired DAO triggers.
There are a lot of nice guns out there now and some seem to be following the Glock pattern. I shot a Beretta APX compact a few weeks and really liked that gun and Beretta seems to be moving big with the APX line. I also like the way Mossberg is competing with the Glock. I love the way they made the striker so it is easy to remove and clean.And the fact they take Glock Magazines.
While Glocks are great guns, does not mean they are perfect for every application. My Beretta Pico comes to mind. While Glock has a nice 380, it does not compete with Beretta in Size and weight. Do not want a bigger gun for that application. The Kahr CM 9 is my pick over anything Glock makes and now some folks like the Sig 365.
All are GREAT GUNS.

Glocks deserve a lot of credit. Make it strong, keep it simple, keep it uniform. Kind of reminds me of a good military unit.
 
Last edited:
Huge credit to the OP for wording his question in such a way as to produce some very interesting perspectives and detailed posts.

To answer the question “why Glock”, I’d sum it up like this...accessibility.

Glocks are available world wide. Glock parts and access are available world wide. Glock OEM parts are very reasonably priced. With You Tube access and a 3/32 punch, anyone can replace pretty much any part on a Glock themselves. If your Glock breaks and you send it in, Glock will almost always (I’ve never heard of them denying warranty service) repair and rebuild your gun, regardless if it is in warranty or not, at their expense.

My current thoughts on Glocks has evolved much over the last 10 years when I bought my first G23. These days, I’m trying to simply my life. Glock works well towards that goal with interchangeable parts, accessories, and magazines. I can stock inexpensive spare parts and use them for different guns. My single stack CHL guns are S&W Shields, which are good guns (got 3 of them, all stock), but I cannot (dare not) pull them apart and put them back together like I can with my Glocks. Got me thinking about that G43 more and more...

As a 56 year old retired USAF guy how only qualified on M16/M4/M9’s and owned bolt rifles, revolvers, and pump shotguns, the Glock was my first semi auto pistol. Wanted a nice 1911, but bought the Glock based on price and some research. After many thousands of rounds, and three Gunsite classes, that G23 still shoots fine. Only ever had one issue, a “kaboom” with factory reman ammo. Bought a KKM barrel and pressed on. It’s still my favorite Glock, even if it’s the Glock I probably shoot the least (these days).

Today, there are many more Glocks in my home, almost all are 9MM. The G23 is joined by a G21 as my “other caliber” Glocks. I am hoping a G20 and G30 immigrate to the safe sometime soon....but either a G45 or a G48 are likely the next inbounds. The biggest reason for the G48 is my daughter. She has tiny hands, and has a hard time with a G19. She has an XDm 9MM that is a great gun, but she wants something slimmer, so we’re looking at the G43X-G48 platform.

Glock allows me to buy 2 Blue Label guns per year (good prices). I do my best to take advantage that benefit, as it offsets the cost of new sights I put on all my Glocks.

Am I a Glock fan? Yes. Am I a Glock FanBoy? Nope. You drive your Dodge, Toyota, or Ford, and I’ll drive my Chevy...and respect your choice.

Sorry for the randomness and rambling. Stay safe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vba
Advertising is where it's at. The more people see it the more it's in the front of their mind when they go to buy a gun. Oldsmobile should've had that mind set and Pontiac.
 
I guess some folks just gotta have a pistol you can't uncock without totally unloading it.
 
According to Forbe's source from November 2018, "Glock has a nearly 65% market share of the handguns in the U.S." Considering the number competitors in the market, that's a very big deal and it's sure to make an impression within the marketplace. I think that's all there really is to it.

For large contracts that can really move that market share number, Sig appears to be the most significant competitor. I'm not saying that S&W or Springfield or whomever's products aren't competitive alternatives for individuals, but that they're not positioned to grab another 10% of the market share anytime soon. Sig is advancing significantly in sales and market share because they won substantial government contracts and their P365 has been a blockbuster product in civilian sales. Still, it's not likely that Glock's leadership in market share is going to be overturned anytime soon. It will likely take a disruptive technology or change in the market to do that, just as it took to unseat S&W who dominated the market for many decades.

There are tons of threads and endless posts on why Glock has succeeded and what people's opinions on them are. I don't care to rehash that, but I'm more interested in what that technology or change might be. In other threads, we've discussed "the next big thing" including everything from electronic ignition to energy weapons, and we know that these things aren't totally new or unprecedented, but they're still likely the future -- just not yet. But consider instead how very simple and actually how "low-tech" the changes were that totally upended the market when revolvers were replaced with double-stack, polymer-framed, striker-fired automatics. Glock didn't even innovate any of the key characteristics that define their product. Like Apple's iPod which similarly didn't innovate anything or set any precedents, they just packaged those features better than predecessors and went on to totally dominate market share, until... the market moved on.

I'm convinced that one of Glock's and similar striker-fired auto's problems is that they're too hard for most people to use. Gun guys don't have any problem, but most wives, girlfriends, and grandmas will have a hard time racking the slide and dealing with the recoil, and so will the majority of US men who presently do not carry any firearm. You can show them "some techniques" all you want but anyone wanting to grow the handgun market size in the US isn't going to do it with a "me too" product. The 380 EZ was a good shot at some of the issues, as was the PMR30, but both compromise too much to result in a big market shift and neither really address all of the problems.

Nevertheless, a solution doesn't need to fix everything. The "Glock" didn't fix everything with the revolver. It turned .357 Magnum power levels back to .38 Special. That was considered an acceptable compromise by enough people. The trigger is vague and lame compared to a 1911, but again, a widely accepted compromise.
 
Last edited:
ever replace the recoil spring in that gun?

murf
I replace the RSA's on the guns I shoot a lot, twice a year or so. I havent had one fail "the test" yet, so it seems to be sufficient.


I guess some folks just gotta have a pistol you can't uncock without totally unloading it.
Not sure what your point is here. The gun is uncocked, albeit, partially cocked, until you "cock" it (sorta) when you pull the trigger.

Putting some of the hammer fired guns into that condition can be scarier than a Glock just sitting there.

I'm convinced that one of Glock's and similar striker-fired auto's problems is that they're too hard for most people to use. Gun guys don't have any problem, but most wives, girlfriends, and grandmas will have a hard time racking the slide and dealing with the recoil, and so will the majority of US men who presently do not carry any firearm. You can show them "some techniques" all you want but anyone wanting to grow the handgun market size in the US isn't going to do it with a "me too" product. The 380 EZ was a good shot at some of the issues, as was the PMR30, but both compromise too much to result in a big market shift and neither really address all of the problems.

Nevertheless, a solution doesn't need to fix everything. The "Glock" didn't fix everything with the revolver. It turned .357 Magnum power levels back to .38 Special. That was considered an acceptable compromise by enough people. The trigger is vague and lame compared to a 1911, but again, a widely accepted compromise.
Im not seeing how they are any "harder" than anything else. Recoil on most Glocks is pretty soft and easy on the shooter.

You have to load the Glocks, just like any other auto, and the slides are not any harder to pull back than anything else, and lighter than some.

The triggers on all my Glocks are not much different than my 1911's, or any of the DA guns I have in SA, and break clean and at about the same weight. Then again, I dont shoot light tuned triggers in my 1911's, or anything else for that matter. Just factory stock triggers, which is all thats really needed anyway. I cant remember seeing a "bad" factory trigger in anything commercially current, or in the even distant past either, for that matter.

I think too many people worry WAY too much about triggers. If theres trouble shooting the gun, its usually not the trigger. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: vba
jonb32248

Advertising is where it's at. The more people see it the more it's in the front of their mind when they go to buy a gun. Oldsmobile should've had that mind set and Pontiac.

In the case of Oldsmobile and Pontiac it really didn't have anything to do with advertising. GM was just looking for a way to pare down some of the overlapping models that they offered in all their divisions. It was more cost effective and profitable for them to eliminate Oldsmobile, Pontiac, and Saturn, which had declining sales, than it was to keep building cars for them.

I'm convinced Glock on the other hand would still be a force to be reckoned with in the marketplace, even without any advertising.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top