Monac
Member
True. Which is strange, when you think about it, if we are talking about "the innovative Glock".
The Innovative Glock in 1991
- Thread starter Miami_JBT
- Start date
- Status
True. Which is strange, when you think about it, if we are talking about "the innovative Glock".
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 4,976
I can't imagine how awful the Gen 1 Glock triggers were. Like, I've tried Gen 3 and they weren't what I'd call good. Compare the Ruger P series to Gen 1 Glocks, not too mention the price for a non poly frame pistol, and I am seeing why so many people owned a P series back in the day and why some still do.
I would really like to see Ruger get back in the DA/SA market. Too much following everyone else ever since Bill died.
I would really like to see Ruger get back in the DA/SA market. Too much following everyone else ever since Bill died.
OP
OP
Miami_JBT
Member
Not really since even in 1991 GLOCK was innovative in that they produced a 13rd .45 ACP pistol that weighed less while full than their competitors empty single stacks. The .45 ACP market was especially stagnant and sluggish to change. Ruger released the P90 that same year and it only held 7rd for Christ's sake.... and I like my P90, but I fully understand the difference and more importantly, the importance of how GLOCK continued to flip the apple cart even in 1991.
OP
OP
Miami_JBT
Member
They were absolutely the same. The Gen 1 and Gen 3 shared all the same parts. And I didn't own a P Series Ruger until long after the mid 2010s. I've been a GLOCK guy since the 1990s.
Homerboy
Member
Eh. Glocks never bowled me over, and I’ve owned 2. The only radical thing about them is the weight savings, but we’re talking about a plastic gun compared to an all steel gun, so of course the weight is gonna be different. 13 rounds vs 7? Big difference for sure, but I’ve held the double stack Glock .45 and the grip is ridiculously fat. I have a S&W M&P 2.0 in .45. Slightly smaller capacity but grip feels much nicer to me.
Glocks did do one thing very well. Marketing. Nearly giving away new guns to police departments got their foot in the door and the rest is history. Also the product placement in movies. Die Hard 2, US Marshals, and others. They’re a good gun. They are not the “Perfection” that they claim to be. Given a choice, I’d rather carry something else.
JR24
Member
Lol, comparing the Glock trigger to he heavy spongy, no break slopfest that was my P89. Easy to see why the clunky things went away after Glocks got popular.
Ok, I'm exaggerating a bit, but my P89 did have a pretty poor trigger in my eyes, much preferred the Sig's or S&W at the time.
As for too much following? Isn't the P-Series just following the Sig, S&W and Beretta of the times?
Much as some hate to admit current reality, but heavy DA/SA are a dying breed. Simple market forces, if there was a demand, everyone wouldn't be moving to polymer strikers and shrinking their DA/SA lineups. Maybe things will change in the future, but I see more of the same down the pike.
OP
OP
Miami_JBT
Member
Hammer Fired DA/SA guns are kind of having a small resurgence in popularity but I think it is simply a brief fad due to the cheap guns of LE surplus. That supply is drying up or has dried up. Folks that grew up on striker fired guns got a DA/SA gun on the cheap and realized that they're nice guns. But it isn't their go to gun. It is a range toy or someone being a hipster.
SIG has cut a lot of their DA/SA guns from the lineup and continue to do so. CZ while still doing well with the 75B line has seen the writing on the wall and now have a striker fired gun. HK and Beretta have done the same. S&W and Ruger ditched the DA/SA altogether and eventually I see others doing the same.
For the vast majority of people, a striker fired gun is easier to use and train on. One constant trigger pull, no manual safeties to deal with, lightweight, cheaper in price, easier to clean and field strip, etc...
Me, I have my striker fired autos, my SAOs, DAOs, DA/SA autos. Same with my wheel guns, I have them as DA, DAO, and SAO.
SIG has cut a lot of their DA/SA guns from the lineup and continue to do so. CZ while still doing well with the 75B line has seen the writing on the wall and now have a striker fired gun. HK and Beretta have done the same. S&W and Ruger ditched the DA/SA altogether and eventually I see others doing the same.
For the vast majority of people, a striker fired gun is easier to use and train on. One constant trigger pull, no manual safeties to deal with, lightweight, cheaper in price, easier to clean and field strip, etc...
Me, I have my striker fired autos, my SAOs, DAOs, DA/SA autos. Same with my wheel guns, I have them as DA, DAO, and SAO.
FAS1
Member
Whenever I hear the P series Ruger mentioned with Glock it reminds me of the Luby's shooting in Killeen TX that is a couple hundred miles up IH35 from me. That was my introduction to Glock pistols since it was all over the news and I bought my Gen2 G17 that year. It's still my dedicated HD gun.
My best friend thought I was crazy to buy that "plastic POS" and he bought a Springfield 1911 45 auto. We went to the range and he had one misfeed after another while I was emptying 17 and 19 round magazines without and issues.
Today he owns more Glocks than I do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_shooting
My best friend thought I was crazy to buy that "plastic POS" and he bought a Springfield 1911 45 auto. We went to the range and he had one misfeed after another while I was emptying 17 and 19 round magazines without and issues.
Today he owns more Glocks than I do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_shooting
Last edited:
Homerboy
Member
I watch Die Hard every Christmas. I was bored the other night so I put on Die Hard 2. Funny how they both look so cheesey now, with the clothes, hair and dialogue. The whole “yippe kayee motherf*****” line that seemed so cool back then is kind of lame now. The Glock 7 line caused a real panic back then, I remember. Stupid public bought it hook, line, and sinker.
But I’ll continue to love them, along with Lethal Weapon and the other 80’s and 90’s movies. Honestly, they remind me of simpler times.
Homerboy
Member
Lighter than an all steel gun? Surely. Lighter than an alloy framed gun? Not such a big difference.
Not having to “deal with” a TDA trigger? What’s the big deal? A little extra assurance before you let a 124 grain projectile hurtle towards its target at 1100 fps? I’m cool with that. Having a hammer to rest my thumb on as I holster? I’m very cool with that. Which is why I just bought a S&W 3953. I alternate between that, a S&W Shield, and a Ruger LC9-S. The Ruger and the Shield both have manual safeties by the way. I’d never carry a striker without one.
Point is most people don’t really know anything about guns and they let themselves be talked into buying a gun by the clerk behind the counter and what they see on the hips is both movie and real cops. Frankly, I think of striker fired guns as guns for more experienced people. Certainly not first time gun owner guns b
I don’t own Glocks anymore, but I do have several S&W M&P pistols. When I put one of them on a table next to a comparable sized metal Beretta or Smith, and let people pick them both up, and show the differences between the two, the pros and cons of both types, the choice is very often for the hammer gun, especially an alloy framed one.
A wild card left out by the OP was the Para Ordnance high cap 1911 45 cal FRAME in 1991.
Downside was you had to have it built. But at least the 1911 fanboys DID have an option.
Then a few years down the road Para started building the whole gun which gave us the choice of metal with big bore capacity.
I’ll admit to buying that G 21 Brick, but I did not enjoy shooting it. I quickly replaced it with the superior grip of the XD 45. ( I don’t shoot it either)
And BTW, that clunky Ruger never even got a first look from me, no matter how cool the movie, Desperado made the P-series Rugers look.
Downside was you had to have it built. But at least the 1911 fanboys DID have an option.
Then a few years down the road Para started building the whole gun which gave us the choice of metal with big bore capacity.
I’ll admit to buying that G 21 Brick, but I did not enjoy shooting it. I quickly replaced it with the superior grip of the XD 45. ( I don’t shoot it either)
And BTW, that clunky Ruger never even got a first look from me, no matter how cool the movie, Desperado made the P-series Rugers look.
Last edited:
JTQ
Member
I think it may be a brief fad, but I don't think it is a cheap LE surplus gun issue, those surplus DA/SA guns were on the streets a decade ago, the current surplus LE guns are M&P's & Glock's.
I think the thing driving this DA/SA resurgence is Ben Stoeger (and others) winning a bunch on the competition circuit with DA/SA guns, and Bill Wilson and Ernest Langdon getting Beretta to up their game in the M9/92 and PX4 offerings, especially those with the decocker only "G" models. The Corona Virus put a bit of a damper on it, but both Wilson and Langdon were selling guns as fast as they could get them from Beretta.
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 4,976
I've found the SA trigger on DA/SA guns to be exceptionally good, for me at least. I just know when and where the break is, but striker triggers my as well be struggle triggers.
The DA first pull not only adds a second strike ability for a potential light strike, but also the longer pull makes for a safe carry gun.
The DA first pull not only adds a second strike ability for a potential light strike, but also the longer pull makes for a safe carry gun.
.455_Hunter
Member
You've done it now...
The strikerafia will be along soon to "reeducate" you on keeping your booger hook off of the bang switch.
Homerboy
Member
Yeah. I really hate that stupid “booger hook off bang switch”. Sounds so stupid. Hey, if people were perfect we’d hardly need emergency rooms.
I prefer a hammer, but for most carry, I gotta admit I carry striker. They’re smaller and lighter and for me, that’s number one for carry. If they made a hammer fired gun the size and weight of my Ruger LC9S, I’d happily carry it. I do insist on a safety for those striker guns, though.
.455_Hunter
Member
Using a manual safety on a striker gun is also a party foul. Tisk, Tisk...
While in all honesty I've never owned a Glock & I'm not a Glock guy a 3rd generation G-23 ruined the XD-40 I had for me. My neighbor & I had been hunting, we were walking out & he suggested we shoot our pistols at a knot on a tree. I shot a smaller group than he did. Then he told me I should shoot his G-23. I did & produced a group half the size of the one I had just shot with the XD that I had about 2000 rounds through at that time. I am not saying the XD wasn't mechanically accurate. I think the Glock ergonomics just worked better for me. I kept the XD for a long time after that but I never felt the same about it.
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 4,976
I've shot every type of trigger on every type of semi auto, SAO, DAO, DA/SA, striker... and I feel safe with all of them, but I prefer the DA/SA, it's a better system than the SAO that you'd be crazy not to have and use a safety if it were carried chamber loaded and strikers are just bad triggers. If striker triggers were so good they'd be getting used in competitions, but instead it's hammer guns, be it SAO or DA/SA.
The second strike is a bigger factor for me. If for whatever reason the round doesn't fire you don't have to automatically rack the slide and get a new round in, something that requires a second hand to do, a second hand that you may not be able to use in the event of a struggle.
One need look no further than the Ferguson police shooting to understand this.
JR24: said:
My Gen3 17 & 19 both have Grip Force Adapters installed and my Gen4 21 has the large beavertail backstrap installed. Otherwise, the slide bite was bad with the Gen3 17 & 19 and really bad with the Gen4 21.
Seeing the Gen2 20 & 21 without the finger-grooved grips really make me anxious for the release of the Gen5 versions of these guns.
Monac
Member
OK. So what you mean is that the 45 Glock was a big innovation in 45 caliber automatics. That's not what the title of this thread would is, so let's consider some things.
A) Glock took an existing design and scaled it up to use 45 ACP. Since the original was a high-cap 9mm, this resulted in a high-cap 45 ACP. This does not seem like a major innovation to me. The original Glock? You betcha. It has become the new fundamental pistol design of our time, just like the various Browning pistols were in theirs. Was this new Glock a big deal in the design of 45 caliber automatics? Sure. But that leads to my second point.
B) We keep having threads about "Is 40 S&W a dying cartridge?" We don't have them about 45 ACP. That is because 45 ACP is already gone from police use, where it was never very common in the first place. The Army switched to 9mm nearly 30 years ago. I don't think 45 ACP is a major choice for every-day-carry self-defense pistols, or even home defense guns. Do significant numbers of people use it for those things? Yes, of course. Is it anywhere near as common as 9mm for that use? IMO, nope.
Nowadays, the main use of 45 ACP is in 1911-style pistols. That, to me, makes it the 21st century equivalent of 45 Colt and its popularity in Colt SAA style pistols. Both are good guns, just as good as they ever were; even better, in fact, because of detail refinements made to the original designs. But both have been left been by progress, and are the choice of people who have put significant effort into specializing in them.
So, in 1991, Glock introduced an existing design in a caliber that was fading in popularity then the way 40 S&W is now. This, to me, is not major innovation. I guess it's a landmark in 45 automatic pistols. That's a big deal if you love 45 automatics, but what about the rest of us? To me, it's less of a landmark than the 10mm Glock, because the power of that cartridge really justified the extra size of the bigger frame. 10mm did not turn out to be a major player, but who knew that then?
I guess this is a pretty small argument. You think the 45 Glock was an innovation. Well, yes, but was it a major one? Compared to the introduction of the original Glock design in 9mm, it was bupkis, in my opinion. I have been trying to explain why I think that, so that I am not merely being dismissive.
A counterargument to my position would be that the introduction of 45 caliber-size swing-out-cylinder revolvers back around 1900, like the Colt New Service and the S&W N-frame was an significant innovation, so this larger size Glock is too. I just don't see it that way, but I can always be (and have often been) wrong. Or I may have misunderstood the whole thrust of the OP's point. That is often the case when I write posts that are far too long, like this one.
Last edited:
Homerboy
Member
The original Glock 17 was an innovation. Every Glock since then has simply been an update to their original design and hardly innovative at all. They were among the last to come out with a single stack 9MM and their .22 cal isn’t shaking world by storm. It kind of reminds me of the Sig Mosquito, and most here know that was a flop.
it took them forever to come out with different sizes of grip panels. They still require a pull of the trigger to field strip, which I thought was a bad design. I honestly think they don’t want to make too many changes because of the “Perfection” slogan.
Was it innovative to introduce a lighter higher capacity .45 at a time when .45 meant 7-8 rounds and higher weight? I guess. Those who wanted a higher cap .45 had what they wanted. But in my opinion, Glock hasn’t been innovative in over 30 years.
it took them forever to come out with different sizes of grip panels. They still require a pull of the trigger to field strip, which I thought was a bad design. I honestly think they don’t want to make too many changes because of the “Perfection” slogan.
Was it innovative to introduce a lighter higher capacity .45 at a time when .45 meant 7-8 rounds and higher weight? I guess. Those who wanted a higher cap .45 had what they wanted. But in my opinion, Glock hasn’t been innovative in over 30 years.
halfmoonclip
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2011
- Messages
- 2,748
Meh, can't get excited about 0.4" and Glock in the same sentence. Had a 36 (yeah, know they were problem children), and didn't like it overmuch.
Did like a buddy's G19.2, tho', and was amazed that I could actually hit things with it, and that it worked all the time. Sights I could see, and a weird trigger I could live with.
Still like 0.355" Glocks (19s and 42s), but .45s should be shot in 1911s and Smith 25s.
A 10mm Glock might make sense under the right circumstances.
Moon
Did like a buddy's G19.2, tho', and was amazed that I could actually hit things with it, and that it worked all the time. Sights I could see, and a weird trigger I could live with.
Still like 0.355" Glocks (19s and 42s), but .45s should be shot in 1911s and Smith 25s.
A 10mm Glock might make sense under the right circumstances.
Moon
FFGColorado
Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2020
- Messages
- 1,129
Last edited:
JR24
Member
I do to. I hit my action movie stride (I.e. old enough to watch em) in the late 80s/early 90s and have so much nostalgia for those awful, hokey, wonderful films. Then again I have soft spot for bad movies in general, probably why Mystery Science Theater 3000 was and remains one of my favorite series.
You know, I was dead set on "upgrading" my Glock 21 to an XD a few years back. Superior trigger and ergos I thought, a bit smaller in the hand.
But when I finally got them side by side, Gen 4 21 felt better in my hand by a mile, XD just felt ... cheap... in comparison, though I know it's a well made gun. Guess I was just used to the Glock.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
