I am curious to know why some people might find Glock Perfection to be less than true.
I guess I'll join in........
Glocks seem to have a higher than normal rate of unintended discharges. I do not know whether this is because less skilled gun handlers tend to carry them, whether less safety concious gun handlers tend to carry them, or whether it is a flaw in the safety on the trigger concept. It isn't because Glocks are carried by more people than anything else. They are not. They are a popular handgun, but the rate seems to be greater than other handguns combined, or at least significant enough to make one wonder whether the pistol was a Glock any time an unintended discharge occurs.
The last unintended discharge that happened to a person I know occured when the bead on the waist lanyard of his jacket entered the triggerguard on reholstering. Yep, the gun was a Glock. The man had his trigger finger indexed on the frame as he was supposed to, and still shot himself in the thigh.
In my opinion a handgun with the only safety (outside the shooter's head)
on the trigger, with a trigger pull as light as a Glock, is not a handgun that is designed for the casual shooter. Even a highly trained shooter could screw things up under the stress of actual self defense. Of course that could happen with any gun.
I think a handgun that costs more than ten dollars and does not hang in a blister pack in the grocery store should have metal sights provided by the manufacturer.
The grip angle is wrong for me. Others may vary. Oddly, I prefer the same grip angle on the Ruger MKII, but the grip is more narrow. Others may find the grip ideal.
I wonder why Glocks are not used to compete in shooting sports if they are the next best thing since Saran wrap. Why doesn't Todd Jarrett use a Glock if they are the best? Rob Leatham? Jerry Miculek? Kay Clark? Brian Enos? Any top shooter that is not on the officially sponsored Glock team? Why does Glock have to have their own tournaments and shoots? Why can't 1911s compete in those tournaments? They say it isn't fair. I think Jeff Cooper said it best. “The 1911 pistol remains the service pistol of choice in the eyes of those who understand the problem. Back when we audited the FBI academy in 1947, I was told that I ought not to use my pistol in their training program because it was not fair. Maybe the first thing one should demand of his sidearm is that it be unfair.”
Of course Glocks weren't around then, and Cooper is sneered at by many today. About the Glock specifically, he said "The continued sales triumph of Glock pistols demonstrates the virtues of skillful marketing. The Glock is okay. It is generally reliable, it is comparatively inexpensive, and it is available in respectable calibers. Above all, its aftermarket service is superior. The great part of its sales comes from police departments, where maintenance and quick service are of primary importance. It may not be the best choice for the expert pistolero, but such people are not in the majority." I tend to listen to what the old man said. He knew more about this stuff than me.
Lastly, any pistol that is touted by the manufacturer as being Perfection is bound to not reach that lofty goal. What is perfection for one person may not be for another. We all have different standards and needs. A Glock might be perfection for one man, a Hi Point for another, a 1911 for the next, and a Model 10 for his buddy. Claiming your pistol is "Perfection" or "No Compromises" or whatever is just marketing. The thing is a plastic and metal handgun that shoots fairly accurately, and has a decent reliability record. The manufacturer placed it in the hands of many police officers with trade-in programs, and the general public followed suit, thinking if cops carry it, it must be good. The Glock hype and the refusal to address the rail failures that were occuring a few years back were what finally did it for me.
Of course, others are free to hold a different opinion.