Glock Imperfection

[SHusky57]

After renting a Glock a month ago, I now have 3... the G21, G30, AND G36. I simply can't find a complaint with them. The finish is durable, the action is reliable, the capacity is outstanding, and the accuracy is as good as any other service/defensive pistol out there.

After shooting Sig (great firearm), Beretta (I really love Beretta), H&K (I don't really care for them) and a 1911.... I simply see the Glock as the best thing on the market. I never rented an XD b/c the grip angle doesn't feel as good to me, but was basically under the impression that the XD and M&P are just Glock ripoffs with little added (other than a grip safety and a loaded chamber indicator for the XD).

I am curious to know why some people might find Glock Perfection to be less than true.

The only two I can think of:
-No double-action second strike in case of a bad primer
-No external safety (kind of a double-edged sword)

But, I really can't see myself spending $800 on a Sig or HK when a Glock is even better for $500. Anyone beg to differ?

 

[jad0110]

Well, for one thing, man isn't perfect, so anything made by man won't be perfect either.

Glock ergonomics seem to be more hit or miss for people than just about any other platform. They flat don't feel right at all to me, and since they don't fit my hand well I can't shoot them worth a crap. Of all the handguns I've shot, I perform worst when shooting Glocks.

Also, I just don't like the way polymer guns feel to my hands under recoil. Had an XD9 that I acknowledge was a great gun, just not for me. I could feel the polymer frame flex/vibrate/squirm when firing, which I just didn't care for. And though it fit my hand better than a Glock, it was still less than ideal. I shot it okay - not bad - but not good either. Again, not dissing polymers, XDs or Glocks, I just don't care for them myself.

Now, they certainly have my respect (Glocks, XDs, etc). They are great choices, like many others, assuming you can shoot 'em well. They just don't work for me. Revolvers and 1911s are what I do best with; I also shoot HiPowers and CZs reasonably well. I like New Balance sneakers, you may prefer Nikes. All a matter of preference.

 

[verdun59]

I think Glocks blow up more often than the others.

 

[mtlucas0311]

Aside from the two very good points raised by the two previous posts (fit to the individuals hand and the polymer frame) I think a lot of people just plain DO NOT like the way Glocks look. I think it is a very silly reason to condemn a gun to the "I don't like it list"; but I have to admit that I am as guilty as any one. When I think about a potential gun purchase, I know that I am considering the firearms cosmetic "appeal" as well as rational facts about it's performance. It's so terribly vain and foolish, but I think it's true for most of us.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

1. I don't much care for plastic guns as a general thing;

2. I REALLY don't care for plastic pistols as a more specific thing;

3. The Glock grip angle is wrong for my hands and the handle feels funny;

4. I don't fully trust striker-fired pistols with a round in chamber, not even my Ortgies .32ACP;

5. My Beretta 92FS and my Remington-Rand 1911A1 (w/Colt National Match Barrel, high-aspect sights and Hogue grip) are such incredibly accurate, reliable, fun and otherwise perfect machines that a Glock Imperfection would be a significant step backwards;

6. I keep reading stories in the news about Glocks blowing up or being negligently discharged;

7. So many idiots love them and think they are superior firearms that I worry I'd be tainted by association.

 

[Jolly Rogers]

Posted by Duke of Doubt:

7. So many idiots love them and think they are superior firearms that I worry I'd be tainted by association.

I don't care who you are...that right there is funny. (compliments of Larry the cable guy)
Joe

 

[SHusky57]

I love Beretta.... but DoD's comments don't seem to have any basis in reality, just opinions.

1.2. irrelevant to functionality, but taken... I felt the same way until I saw the Glock 21 torture test online.
3. Valid point

4. A striker fired pistol is safe loaded. And you don't trust your 92FS loaded either. You say you won't carry a 92Fs loaded b/c you prefer a SA trigger pull to the heavy DA pull.... I mean, do you want to have your cake and eat it too?
5. Beretta is my choice for 9mm.... I wish I had a 92FS but I picked up the PX4 for the rail and slightly higher capacity. I really want a hi-power as well. Hard to beat a 1911 for target shooting, but the Glock is easier to maintain and probably has a slight edge on reliability. The reason I went with Glock over the Beretta DA is precisely because the external safety and the heavy DA first shot tended to reduce my accuracy and speed.
6. Any pistol can have Kb!s, I have seen Kabooms with HKs and Beretta 92s (courtesy of youtube and other sites). Negligent discharges... if you watch the DEA agent that shot himself he admits to pulling the trigger. They don't go off on their own.

7. Dead on.

 

[armoredman]

I've had three Glocks fail in my hand, as opposed to no CZs. I agree the Glock is a well made reliable durable pistol, but just as others are quick to point out my pistol of choice is not perfect by any means, neither is Glock.
That's my experiance, as the old saying goes, your mileage may vary.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

SHusky57: "4. A striker fired pistol is safe loaded. And you don't trust your 92FS loaded either. You say you won't carry a 92Fs loaded b/c you prefer a SA trigger pull to the heavy DA pull.... I mean, do you want to have your cake and eat it too?"

No, but kudos for remembering. Just because I don't normally carry it around town with a round in chamber doesn't mean I don't occasionally chamber a round in anticipation of potential trouble -- I do. And while I didn't say striker-fired pistols are unsafe, I don't trust them with a round in chamber because of the potential for failure. Sure it's unlikely; so are most of the things we talk about in here. We are a community of Detective Monks; don't begrudge me a Monk Moment.

 

[jad0110]

I think it is a very silly reason to condemn a gun to the "I don't like it list"; but I have to admit that I am as guilty as any one. When I think about a potential gun purchase, I know that I am considering the firearms cosmetic "appeal" as well as rational facts about it's performance. It's so terribly vain and foolish, but I think it's true for most of us.

I wouldn't call it terribly vain and foolish. Looks do matter ... same as when buying a car or finding that special someone. But as always, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some people find pencil barrel S&W revolvers to be hideous, I think they look classy.

Granted, many (including a few Glock owners) find Glocks to be, errr, not too blessed in the appearance department . I wouldn't go so far as to call them totally butt freakin' ugly, they do have a certain utilitarian appeal to them. I guess they are just standard ugly in my eyes. Certainly not as good looking as Browning HiPowers, 1911s or Walther PPKs, to me anyway.

 

[DawgFvr]

Nothing is perfect and everything organic is impermanent. Weapons are tools...some situations require different types/employments...but I never met a weapon I did not like.

I have various weapons...and I think Glocks are great.

I carry the G17 at work and a G26 is my off duty CCW. The other weapons in my inventory wait their turns at the Range. My Revolver and Rifle goes into the woods with me.

 

[CleverNickname]

Just because I don't normally carry it around town with a round in chamber doesn't mean I don't occasionally chamber a round in anticipation of potential trouble -- I do.

Manipulating a gun often to chamber/unchamber a round creates more opportunity for the operator to ND than just leaving the gun constantly loaded in the holster.

 

[crebralfix]

1) Many people think their guns have a "soul" and apply some sort of mystical aura to it. It's pretty silly (almost worshiping an icon, but it satisfies them). It's just a tool to me, but some people believe otherwise.

2) Some people don't understand the internal function of many guns and "don't trust striker fired guns". I'm not sure what this says about such folks, nor do I care. If they won't carry such a gun, and that gun was the only choice, then they'd be disarmed. Being unarmed is not acceptable. Fortunately, we have many choices.

3) The grip angle complaint is just another crutch for people who are less than proficient. I argue the other way: be competent with ANY handgun. Think in terms of "battlefield pickup"--what's likely to be laying around in a fight? Many police departments issue Glocks and thugs seem to like them. Get proficient with revolvers, Glocks, 1911's, AK-47s, SKS, Remington 870's and so forth. Don't confuse target shooting with combat shooting. They are very different skills.

4) Aesthetics. Some people just have to have good looking stuff. That's fine...it's their opinion and their option. Be armed.

5) I view my carry guns as part of the cost of "doing business". Consider it a $600 downpayment on future legal bills (should I get into a justified shooting situation). This is one reason why I tend to not carry expensive or rare guns: the court system will confiscate the weapon.

6) Safety is in the brain, not the gear. Too many people become casual in their gun handling. I'm preaching to the choir!

 

[Duke of Doubt]

crebralfix: "1) Many people think their guns have a "soul" and apply some sort of mystical aura to it. It's pretty silly (almost worshiping an icon, but it satisfies them). It's just a tool to me, but some people believe otherwise."

"Soul," not "a soul." They are made by man, not by God. But some machines and tools have more soul than others. The Ford Taurus SHO was as fast or faster than a Mustang (perfect example of a car which lost and then regained soul) but had no soul. The 1911, the Smith 10 or 29 and the Colt (ANY Colt) have soul. The Beretta 92FS -- not so much, but a little. I mean, it's a Beretta. But the Glock? Forget it.

2) Some people don't understand the internal function of many guns and "don't trust striker fired guns". I'm not sure what this says about such folks, nor do I care. If they won't carry such a gun, and that gun was the only choice, then they'd be disarmed. Being unarmed is not acceptable. Fortunately, we have many choices.

Oh, I understand them. I choose not to own a Glock, as fortunately they aren't the only choice. If a Glock was my only weapon, sure I'd use it. But I have many superior choices.

3) The grip angle complaint is just another crutch for people who are less than proficient. I argue the other way: be competent with ANY handgun. Think in terms of "battlefield pickup"--what's likely to be laying around in a fight? Many police departments issue Glocks and thugs seem to like them. Get proficient with revolvers, Glocks, 1911's, AK-47s, SKS, Remington 870's and so forth. Don't confuse target shooting with combat shooting. They are very different skills.

No need for "battlefield pickup" -- I already have plenty of guns. And no state or local police or other government agency in my state carries Glocks. They may, in fact, be prohibited. Sigs and HKs pretty much rule the police roost, not that I own either. I also wouldn't even think of helping myself to police weapons. If an officer is down, I may well come to his assistance -- with my gun. I wouldn't steal his.

 

[Pulse]

I felt the same way until I saw the Glock 21 torture test online.

that is reason 1.
the Glock torture test is nothing special, most quality handguns can pass that one.. owners of said guns just dont feel the need to communicate it to the rest of the world.

also, do you know that Sphinx, H&K, SIG and CZ and most of the high quality 1911 clones type of handguns function and fire underwater.. they dont need a 'Maritime/Marine Spring Kit', yet you dont see 289 videos of said guns on youtube beeing fired underwater.

reason 2:

in all cases where i heard someone say "sheepdog", i could see a Glock on his hip.

 

[Guillermo]

A lot of people do not like the ergonomics of the Glock. This is understandable.

Most of the other complaints are mostly "brandism" or simply preference.

Glocks are exceptionally safe and durable. I cannot imagine anyone not being comfortable with a round in the chamber of a striker fire gun but hey, we all have our own ideas.

The bottom line is that millions of policemen, military personnel and private citizens trust their lives to a Glock sidearm.

All that said, the last bottom feeder that I bought was a Springfield XD 45. Better ergonomics than a Glock and some other nice features.

but my Glock is not for sale

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Guillermo: "The bottom line is that millions of policemen, military personnel and private citizens trust their lives to a Glock sidearm."

Millions? I don't think so. Maybe thousands. Our Army and many others carry the Beretta 92FS, and I've never seen a cop with a Glock -- anywhere. Doesn't mean there aren't thousands who do carry them, but, "millions"? No.

 

[mljdeckard]

To me, aesthetics are represented by functionality. The utility of a Glock is more beautiful to me than the engraving on a $10k commemorative 1911.

I don't carry a Glock anymore, but I did for years. I didn't give it up because I had any problems with it, I just like other guns (1911s) MORE.

There is no such thing as a gun that is perfect for every person in every application. There is no such thing as a gun that will never break. There is no such thing as a handgun that is adequate for personal defense. What we accept instead is the platform that works for the most people, in the most jobs, under the most circumstances. (In the most cost-effective way.) In this, the OP is absolutely right. There are guns that are much more expensive, that either don't perform any better than a Glock, or do any jobs that a Glock can't do. As a former army armorer, I would very much have preferred issuing and maintaining Glocks to soldiers. There are fewer things for them to tinker with and break than with Berettas OR 1911s.

In a hypothetical where I was dropped into a hostile situation and saw a variety of handguns lying all around me in the dirt, say, an example of every single one named before OR AFTER this post, I would reach for the Glock, function check it, and scavenge the others for ammo to feed it. I like 1911s better, but I have extensively tinkered and tested my own 1911 to know it is reliable. I would not give the same trust to a strange one. I WOULD give that trust to a Glock, sight unseen.

If you don't like them, don't carry them.

 

[SaMx]

treally, you've never seen a cop carrying a glock pistol? The majority of cops I've seen carry glocks. Over 50% at least. I was under the impression it's one of the most issued police pistols.

Personally, I don't like the feel of the grip or the trigger as much as other guns, but they are reliable and durable pistols.

 

[mljdeckard]

It's been a long time since I've seen a cop armed with anything OTHER THAN a Glock. (This includes my recent excursion from Utah through Arizona, NM, and TX.) I understand something like 70-80% of the police in the country carry them, particularly the Glock 22 in .40 S&W. This may well be because Glock practically gives them away to police agencies to enhance their perceived universality. The UHP used to issue H&K P-7s. Dropped them for Glocks. Another reason for this is ease of maintenence. Anyone with a set of punches and a DVD can detail strip a Glock, a lot easier than most pistols. (The only one I think is easier is a 1911.)

 

[GTSteve03]

GLOCKs can fire out of battery. Granted, so can many other guns.

I still trust them, but they aren't perfect.

 

[SHusky57]

I should have clarified my ideal of perfection.

Basically, as a combat pistol, the Glock seems to come to about as close as you can get.

I love the Beretta 92 and PX4.

This post is theoretical of course, but assuming an urban combat situation. The 92 would require you to unholster, disengage safety if it is on, DA-SA, decock and engage safety, then disengage safety, then repeat. The Glock on the other hand is a one stop shop, draw, shoot, holster.

The 1911 is great, but without having a custom tuned 1911 I would question reliability. Field maintenance would also be more difficult. Also, the G21 holds 13+1 opposed to 7+1 and weighs about the same if not less.

I'm just theorizing about what would be the ideal combat handgun. It seems Glock fits the bill, alhough the XD and SW MP are up there too.

I am okay with HKs and like Sigs, but considering they run about twice the price of the Glock and seem to offer no competitive advantage.... that is my criticism. The HK would be great carried cocked and locked, but that adds another level of complexity - which can be detrimental in stress. The Sig is great too, but the finish isn't as durable as the Glock and the decocker and DA shot are another factor to take into consideration. The biggest mags for the 220 are 10 rds, yet another edge for the Glock.

I am not debating a 1911 or whatever is a better CCW gun or target gun.... but for out of the box, consistent, reliable defensive performance.... the Glock just seems to come out on top.

I just want to see if anything out there has a comparative advantage, or if something out there could be fathomed (within reason, not Han Solo's laser blaster) that would beat the Glock pound-for-pound.

My reason for choosing Glock was to have a full size and compact 45 sharing the same mags, and a sub-compact G36.... all sharing the same function and caliber. And I got them all for the price of a Kimber.

The only reason I don't see our military adopting a Glock is a) logistical, there are already a gazillion Berettas out there and b) no external safety, external safeties seem to be a requirement for general issue weapons. But as far as combat pistols go, it seems to be the best out there for what it's made to do, costs considered or not.

Maybe we could issue 450,000 Kimber 1911s but even then I wonder.... are they going to be reliable for the average GI, and easy to maintain in the field? And if you were a tanker getting ambushed, wouldn't the extra 21 rounds of 45 acp be a comfort (assuming 3 mags are carried)? It's all speculative I know.... But if the Army ever does start their pistol trials again (probably not for 10 years since the huge order of M9s), and they do go to a .45 - the XD and M&P seem like they would come out on top for price and quality; unless they nixed the external safety requirement, and then possibly Glock.

And lastly, I'd like to clarify - this is not a dis of Sig, HK, or Beretta. Beretta still makes my favorite DA pistol, and my wife hates Glocks because they are boxy and loves her HK. But my G36 with 7 rounds of 45 is the same size and weighs less than her HKP2000SK with 10 rds of 9mm.

The debates are entertaining and enlightening though. And to get a last word in, next year (my gun buying quota is up for this year).... if they haven't banned hi-cap mags.... I really want a G17L with a few 33 rd mags. I wish we could get some objective data on what the spec ops guy prefer since they get their pick of the litter, but a G17 w/ 1-17 rd mag and 2-33rd mags seems like a decent back-up.

 

[CDW4ME]

Glocks have always worked perfectly for me right out of the box (avoid magazine extensions). Beauty is as beauty does. Don't have to spend 500 rounds of ammo on "break in". Count me as a Glock fan.

 

[legion3]

 

[legion3]