Acceptance of Glock over the years.

[el Godfather]

Dear Thr,
I have noticed that people in general are more open to the idea of Glock being one of the industry leaders and possibly one of the best auto loader is most categories. This was not the case a few years back, but I guess due to their cosistent quality and renowned reliability more civilians are considering Glocks then ever before. What are your thoughts on this?
Thanks

 

[allaroundhunter]

I would say the media has something to do with it as well.....

If other guns would get the media attention that the Glock does, it would be seen by other not-so-gun savvy people looking to purchase a handgun that Glock does not make the only handgun on the market. I love my Glock, but there are way too many people who praise what it does as if no other pistol will do the same.

And as Sam said, it has been quite a while, not just a few years.

 

[Sam1911]

"A few years back?" How many years back? I think Glock has been pretty widely accepted as king of the modern handguns hill for at least 15-20 years now. In fact, I'd say that it is only recently that their dominance has even been seriously challenged.

That's not to say they've been universally loved -- especially by the gun-nut community -- but as the gun to beat in duty and in ("practical") competition, yes.

 

[el Godfather]

May I ask seriously challenged by which few? For my education sake not as argument.

 

[LTR shooter]

I fired one for the first time in the late 1980s , a Glock 17 if I recall. I found it to be the least desirable handgun I had ever fired at that time. Since that time I've handled many at gun shows and none ever felt right.

A few years ago another guy let me shoot his Glock in 40 S&W and I finally experienced something I've never felt before - the trigger pinched my finger with every shot.

The widespread acceptance is undeniable , I'll never understand the appeal of these pistols.

 

[allaroundhunter]

May I ask seriously challenged by whivh few?

Challenged by Springfield with the XD/XDm, challenged by Smith and Wesson with the M&P (which is quickly gaining popularity amonst LEA's)

The Walther PPQ is a close example that I see getting a lot more attention in the years to come.

 

[el Godfather]

Ok. So whats the big deal with mp. I dont get it.

 

[Armed012002]

Smith & Wesson actually tried three times to compete with Glock: the Sigma, M&P, and SW99. Four if you count the SD series.

Here's everything I can think of competing against Glock.

Ruger SR9/SR40
S&W SW99
S&W Sigma
S&W M&P
S&W SD
Springfield Armory XD/XDm
Walther P99
Walther PPQ

 

[Shoobee]

Dear Thr,
I have noticed that people in general are more open to the idea of Glock being one of the industry leaders and possibly one of the best auto loader is most categories. This was not the case a few years back, but I guess due to their cosistent quality and renowned reliability more civilians are considering Glocks then ever before. What are your thoughts on this?
Thanks

Where did I put my knee-high mud mucking boots? And my shovel?

That's not to say they've been universally loved -- especially by the gun-nut community -- but as the gun to beat in duty and in ("practical") competition, yes.

Cheeeeapp cheap cheap cheap!

Did anyone mention cheap?

 

[Armed012002]

Ok. So whats the big deal with mp. I dont get it.

It's different. It might fit you better. Best thing to do is try shooting each and see which one you're most comfortable with. It might be a Glock. It might be a Walther. You might find you don't like any striker-fired semiauto. Maybe you'll like a revolver better? There's lots of different styles and options out there for different folks.

There's no "best" for every person

 

[TennJed]

Ok. So whats the big deal with mp. I dont get it.

Same deal as the Glock. Super Reliable and tough. Lots of people feel the ergos of the MP are superior to Glock's.

Glock was not the first Polymer pistol, nor is it the only one. They were the best at marketing it though. They are very very good pistols, but so is the M&P, XD, SR9/SR40, P99/PPQ, Sigs, HKs, ect.

 

[Teachu2]

I believe the competition in polymer-framed pistols has actually increased the acceptance of them by the public. I worked for a gunsmith in the early '80s, and he was completely closed-minded about Glock. Thought they were junk that wouldn't last. He was wrong.
I recently decided I would like to own a 9mm range pistol, to take advantage of cheap ammo and reduced recoil. Since I'm in California for the foreseeable future and didn't want to buy a gun sight unseen and find someone to do a SSE, I limited myself to the CA list. Polymer frames dominate the CA market in 9mm pistols, which made me re-examine my position. Thirty years of widespread use didn't show the old gunsmith to be correct.
I rented a Glock 17 - and hated it. Stewed some more, and went back. Tried the XD, S&W M&P, and Glock offerings again, and worked on the basics. Still wasn't convinced, but for some reason I decided to try a Glock 30 sub-compact .45acp. As Gomer Pyle would say, "Shazaam!" - I was able to shoot it well and enjoy doing so.
Of course, now that I'm getting on the Glock bandwagon, Glock is giving the CA market the finger. There will be Gen4 Glocks in CA, but only by SSE - Glock has told the CA DoJ that they will no longer participate in testing. S&W and Springfield both applaud Glock taking this stance, but will do their best to capture the market share as Glock's availability declines.

 

[19-3Ben]

I think Glock has been pretty widely accepted as king of the modern handguns hill for at least 15-20 years now. In fact, I'd say that it is only recently that their dominance has even been seriously challenged.

Exactly. I'd even go so far as to say that the unquestioned popularity of Glock created somewhat of a backlash by people who want the positive attributes of Glock (high capacity, light weight, corrosion resistance, etc...) but not be "just another guy with a Glock." Some people want to stand out and don't want the Toyota Camry of the gun world.

So whats the big deal with mp. I dont get it.

It has the same qualities as a Glock, but in my hand, has much better ergos and lower recoil. Reloaders like that it has a traditional land/groove barrel so they can shoot cast lead without having to worry about the polygonal rifling in a Glock.

I should add that I have nothing against Glock at all. I just see them as one player among the many high quality modern pistol makers.

 

[Smith357]

As a die hard revolver guy I truly loathed the Glock when it first came on the market. I thought they were utter garbage bottom feeders being made from plastic with the worlds worst heavy mushy triggers. Over the years they have proven themselves to be a dead reliable handgun. I recently gave them a second chance and was actually looking to buy a full sized Glock .45, The triggers still suck dead bears compared to a good DA wheelgun but for a combat handgun they are good enough. But the full sized Glock just did not fit well in my girlie hands. I ended up getting an M&P because of the ergonomics, if the Glock had fit me better I would now be eating crow, as it is I still went against everything I ever preached, I bought and like a plastic pistol, and I no longer bash Glocks. They are what they is, a damn fine combat pistol for the money, you could do a lot worse. It took 30 years but I finally accept the Glock.

 

[Sam1911]

Ahhh, others beat me to the answers. The M&P is probably the closest thing to real "competition" on the market for the Glock line. The xD is a good gun, but doesn't have the special something (marketing maybe?) that really makes it so popular.

Cheap, cheap, cheap? Yeah? Just like every other polymer pistol. Cheap doesn't win matches or stand up to torture tests. Cheap is nice, but a Sigma is cheap. A Hi-Point is cheap. Gotta be good enough to stand up the best of the other alternatives (and maybe even BEAT them) -- in the pertinent "practical" categories. ...then "cheap" is worth something.

 

[allaroundhunter]

Ok. So whats the big deal with mp. I dont get it.

They are better than Glocks (at least for me)

 

[19-3Ben]

What is your infatuation with constantly trying to prove that Glock is the best?

If you look at el Godfather's postings, he's started many threads recently that ask questions that many more seasoned shooters might think are rather simplistic, or have self-evident answers.
My guess is he's new to the gun world. We've all been new to the sport at some point in our lives. Let's give him a break.

 

[allaroundhunter]

If you look at el Godfather's postings, he's started many threads recently that ask questions that many more seasoned shooters might think are rather simplistic, or have self-evident answers.
My guess is he's new to the gun world. We've all been new to the sport at some point in our lives. Let's give him a break.

Fair enough, my apologies

 

[Art Eatman]

I bought a collection which had whatever model Glock is a full-size .45ACP. I shot a couple of boxes through it. It wasn't bad, and I could hit, but it had nowhere near as good a trigger as my 1911.

For all that I went and bought an FN 5.7 (because of low recoil and my arthritis), I still don't like looking at "black plastic".

Since a 1911 works just as well as any other semi-auto, I'll stay with blue and wood, mostly.

Bottom line: "The best pistol is the one with which you can best hit the target."

 

[balance 740]

I have noticed that people in general are more open to the idea of Glock being one of the industry leaders and possibly one of the best auto loader is most categories.

Personally, I've noticed the opposite.

I think it is the Glock fans that have been more open to the idea that Glocks aren't better or worse than the other polymer pistols offered, where years ago, I noticed a lot more elitism within their fanbase. I've noticed a lot less "you should have bought a Glock" and "just buy a Glock" comments recently, than years ago. Come to think of it, I can't remember the last time I heard either those, or any other (ignorant) comments like that directed at people who went a different direction for the simple fact that they did not want to just buy a Glock, for whatever reason.

I think Glock changed the firearm industry with their products and marketing strategies. I don't love or hate them, they are just not for me at the moment.

 

[GLOOB]

The second biggest achievement of the Glock was to make it OK for a semiauto handgun to not have a safety or a decocker. Melikes. W/e else comes out in the future from different makers I'm sure can be just as good, depending on your preference and budget. Nowadays, you can pick your flavor of polymer handguns, but there's still only a few that offer no safety. Sigma, M&P, Walthers, DAO HK variants, and XD. The Ruger SR has a manual safety. And I dunno why, but I've heard that the new FNS is not going to be offered without a manual safety, either.

 

[theQman23]

My glocks do not have crispy triggers like my 1911's. My Glocks are not attractive. I even spent time trying to make one of them attractive, and it still, well, is not. My glocks do not have perfect "in the hand feel" or crisp solid recoild mitigation like my 9mm smith 39 does.

What my glocks have is this............. I bought both of them for less than 600 a piece brand new, which is less than what I have invested in parts for ONE of my 1911s...... and yet they still go bang, thousands, and thousands, and THOUSANDS of times in a row with no problems.

My 27 .40 has over 4 thousand rounds through it, and my 21 .45 has at least as many or maybe 5........... and in almost ten thousand rounds between two guns, I have had a grand total of three failures to feed.

That's right. Three.

I don't work for GLock, I paid near retail for both of mine, and have no skin in this game or reason to praise them. In fact, I like 1911's more because of the triggers..... but when my other guns fail to feed three times a month, or even three times a day, my glocks have failed an average of 1.5 times a piece in almost 10,000 rounds.

I don't know of any other manufacturer, working ANY other design, that can even come close to that.

This record of reliability performance is so uncanny, and unbelievable that if I were you and I were reading this post, I would swear that I was lying. But it just is.

Glock Perfection.

 

[Ex]

I see the speak of Glocks "mushy" triggers. To me, expecially on my G29, a very crisp, predicable trigger break and pull (Gen3). My Gen2 G22 does have a loger travel and not as crisp.

When I think of REAL CRISP, I think of my Ruger Single Six (new model) 22 WMR. Not owning a 1911, (but I have one on order) please define "crisp" as pertains to the 1911 vs Glock. Are these 1911s worked on? Are they $900 or $1800 or $2500 1911s?

Thanks

Ex

 

[GLOOB]

Trigger pull is a very individual thing. What works for you and I is one thing. Another shooter might pick up the same gun and not even be able to pull the trigger. The Glock trigger is just too heavy for some. Personally, I have a 686 with a scary 2lb hair trigger and I've done a lot of shooting with a Gold Cup. And there's no difference in my group size compared to my G21. Fact, I prefer the Glock trigger for double taps. Now going up to an 8-9 lb trigger, my accuracy suffers. I'd say 7 lbs is near my own "breaking point" for accurate work. Of course, this also depends on the ergos of the gun and the smoothness of the trigger. FTR, I shot a Single Six once, and I couldn't hit squat. Nice trigger, though.

 

[daytodaze]

I don't think there is anything wrong with getting comfortable with any particular platform and sticking with it. Many people only buy one or two guns a year and don't want to risk getting a gun that they might have a bad experience with (or give a brand another chance to convince them to bring their business back).

In the interest of neutrality, here is a non-glock example: I have owned one lemon, and I will never buy another gun from that manufacturer. Statistically speaking, it's unlikely that I would end up with another faulty gun from them, but my money will forever vote for Smith & Wesson when it comes to revolvers, now.