Glock Imperfection

Status
Not open for further replies.
perhaps it's because of Kant's Transcendental Unity of Apperception.
Click to expand...
<giggle> No way. Kant can't.

Simplified perception bias example:

I say:
"My first handgun was a Glock 21. I found it reliable and appreciated the simplicity. I was perplexed that they had decided to place the parking brake release on the accelerator."

There's two positive observations (reliable, simple) and one negative / neutral (a question on why the safety is on the trigger).

An obsessive Glock fan would read the post as overall negative. His counterpart would read it as positive. The reality is "mostly positive".
 
They had to put the parking brake release somewhere didn't they? Seems like the accelerator is as good as anywhere. :)
 
Thank You all

Now I remember why I got into this blog, to laugh my backside off.

Thank You All.

Like them or hate them (glocks) they are like anyother firearm out there.
I dislike 92s and I shot and carried one for 15 years(even in the sandbox), however I do not own one. I don't care for Sigs, but I shoot the 229 better than my 4006, so I keep it. My 1911s are safe queens, because I like having that first round double action. My carry is a S&W 1006(duty) or 1066(ccw), why, I like the caliber, how it feels in my hand, how well I shoot it, etc etc, etc. Yes I do own ONE glock, a model 29 (small and in the right caliber). Oh and I shoot lead reloads through it for range time.

Do I pick on others for what they carry (make or caliber) sure. Does it mean they are Wrong? No! I like chevys and not fords. Do I pick on my friends for driving fords (fix or repair daily) you bet I do.

Most Police Departments in this area/state issue glocks. When I finally get into the department I wish, I will be issued a HK2000 for duty carry. I have shot one and don't care for it, but I have no choice. Some police officers that are shooters only carry their glock on duty and carry something else off.
Then there others that only know the glock so that is what they carry.

Again Thanks
 
People take the criticism of a weapon personally because of a perception that the criticism of the weapon, or of the weapon's fan base in this case as well, directly reflects upon the values of the buyer.

Calling a Glock cheap is taken for calling the owner cheap.
Calling a Glock inexpensive is taken for calling the owner cheap.
Calling a Glock ugly is taken for calling the owner out as someone who dates butterfaces.

So on and so forth.

The same dynamic in different expressions is true of members of all ownership groups. Calling a 1911A1 obsolete will get many owners' dander up at being implied Luddites. Pointing out to a Browning High Power fan that the master JMB had little or nothing to do with what became the P-35 in its final form gets many of them bent out of shape. Why many of them want to discredit Dieudonné Joseph Saive is a mystery to me.

I am quick to defend Berettas, but never take it to the level of "maybe you're not man enough to own/use one."

Oh, who am I kidding? Of course I do. It's the internet.
 
"My first handgun was a Glock 21. I found it reliable and appreciated the simplicity. I was perplexed that they had decided to place the parking brake release on the accelerator."
Click to expand...

Are you being negative toward the Glock 21? Your anti-Glock aren't you:confused:



;)
 
Glock's are known to be reliable, trustworthy and reasonably cheap. I can't stand the way they look and hate they way they feel in my hand and shoot. Why would I want an ugly, hard to hold, hard to shoot gun when I have a myriad of other choices. The answer: I don't. I've never owned a Glock, never will. I have shot one a few times though, and each time I do, it convinces me that I don't want one. The M&P and XD are both much better for me, with the XD getting the edge.
 
This is the same reason why, per capita, you see more Ford Mustangs and Chevy Camaros wrapped around telephone polls than Corvettes or 911s. Usually, it is a younger, less experienced crowd with the Mustangs or Camaros, so it stands to reason that they would be involved in a higher percentage of crashes than other high performance cars that a purchased by older, more experienced drivers. It's really not the car, just the clientell who buys them.
Click to expand...

Well, in the case of the Mustang, it really is more dangerous in the hands of a less experienced driver and not due to demographics. It's always nice when I hit a small bump and the rear tires lose contact with the road momentary while I'm driving. It can really induce a loss of control if you are doing evasive driving or entering a turn. Bottom line, it is a more dangerous car design except for those that truly know how to handle it.

I'd say the same applies to the Glock design and new shooters to a certain extent. No manual safety, requiring a trigger pull in order to decock it for field stripping, etc. There's more room for new shooters to make mistakes due to the design coupled with their relative inexperience.
 
Last edited:
to take apart the gun, you must pull the trigger...

Rather your a glock fan boy or the bigest hater, you have to admit, that is a bad design feature.
Click to expand...

You are right... it is a very bad design feature... for stupid people. If you are stupid, don't buy a Glock. If you have a habit of staring down the barrel as you pull the trigger, don't buy a Glock. For the rest of us, I think we can handle clearing our guns before cleaning.

I can't believe how pathetic this thread has gotten.


...
 
Mine almost forces me to check the chamber anyway. Not that I would clean or feild strip my gun without doing so.
 
Anyone stupid enough to pull the trigger on ANY gun without checking the chamber is a MORON.

Anyone this stupid has no business with ANY gun or sharp object.

They also are too stupid to be trusted with a drivers licence.

They should be locked away in a nut house away from society.

You can expect a four year old child to do something like this but any adult and especially a cop who is supposed to be in a position of athority over us common folks should know better.

:cuss:
 
Well, I seriously doubt anyone on this board would argue in favor of pulling the trigger without checking the chamber. However, there has always been a difference between what should be and what is. That difference, and human nature, is what causes stuff to happen.

Stuff has always happened. It seems to be happening more these days though does it not?

It even happens enough to support cottage industries in ballistic containment. I'm not proposing that such things are "right" or "smart", merely that they exist. There's even a rather impressive list of people endorsing the product.

I suppose it's quite possible that the Academy Pad could have been developed without Glocks ever having been invented. I wonder what the odds of that are?
 
I am curious about your G19 kb. What ammo were you using? Over the years in IDPA shooting, I have seen a 9mm P226 and Wilson 1911 kb. Both times, the shooter's was using reloads.
 
Pizzagunner: "Calling a Glock cheap is taken for calling the owner cheap."

That's part of it, all right. The other part is that the typical Glock owner has a one word vocabulary when it comes to guns.

"Hi, everyone! I've been thinking about buying my first ..."
"Glock."
"... handgun, and I'm not sure if I ..."
"Glock."
":... should get a ..."
"Glock.
"... revolver or maybe a ..."
"Glock."
"...shotgun would make more ..."
"Glockglockglockglockglockglock."
...sense ..."
"Glock."

The Glock is a cheap plastic pistol which competes with better pistols such as the Beretta most often through police giveaways. Some Glock owners apparently are insecure enough that they actually insist their cheap gun is somehow superior. It's like a Subaru owner bragging to a Ferrari owner: "But mine is cheaper, and the fenders won't dent."
 
Duke of Doubt said:
It's like a Subaru owner bragging to a Ferrari owner
Click to expand...

Now that is a perfect analogy.
The Subaru costs less to manufacturer, is infinitely more reliable than a Ferrari, parts are a commodity easily obtained for reasonable cost, you don't have to worry about "getting it dirty", or "cleaning it". So what if it "gets scratched". You never have to worry about it getting you from Point A to Point B - it always just does the job. it will run on just about any gas you feed it, no need for 103 octane. It can be serviced by just about anyone, anywhere, anytime. And if you decide to sell it, it will go pretty quick. It's just a safe, reliable car that I wouldn't hesitate trusting my family's lives in. A Ferrari would be fun to buzz around a track with for about an hour...beyond that, it's just not a practical choice.

I'll take the Subaru, thanks. But hey, to each his own.
 
My Glock wasn't cheap! Cost was not an issue, though. I chose it because I felt it would require the least maintenance... meaning it can lie around without getting cleaned and oiled, collecting holster lint, and it will hopefully still work the one time I might need it. I dunno how true that is, but I think there's more than a myth here. It seems logical to me that shortened slide rails would need less (or even no) oil and still cycle reliably. The fact that it relies on a lot of slide mass rather than overstiff recoil springs or precision machined gizmos also bodes well for reliability.

As for the OP (which was probably posted years ago?): no second-strike capability is an advantage. 99% of the time, a second, third, or fourth strike will NOT ignite a primer. The primer has already been dented on the first stike, and subsequent strikes will not impart enough energy for ignition. By the second or third "click," whoever you have the gun pointed at is going to gain a hella lot of confidence in this confrontation. Instead of standing there trying to win the lottery, you should immediately chamber a new cartridge.

To get any chance of a "second strike," you need to eject the cartridge and reinsert it, so the striker impacts a new spot.

Personally, I like having no safety. And I think the trigger on a Glock is just about perfect for precision shooting. In fact, I think it's a little light for carry. And the grip angle is great. I don't understand how the 1911 became the gold standard end-all be-all of grip angles. It's ridiculously straight, noticeably raising bore axis. Also, try putting a red dot on a 1911.. you have to practically cock your hands backwards to use it.

For the record, I love the 1911. That was my first gun, and I might own another in the future. It's got a lot going for it, but I never liked the grip angle. I also abhorr the rounded slide. A flat slide or a sighting rib helps my acquisition speed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Glock 21 vs. Springfield XD45
2
Replies
47
Views
24K
kansas45
K
1
  • Locked
Glock 30sf for ccw
Replies
4
Views
1K
swinokur
S
G
  • Locked
Trigger pull of a Springfield XD vs. Glock vs. 1911?
Replies
9
Views
2K
possum
P
B
  • Locked
Comparing the Springfield XD to the Glock...
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
3K
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
N
  • Locked
Springfield XD - Am I the only person who doesn't like it ?
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
Ian11
I
Back
Top