Glock misconseption

[GLOOB]

One gun isn't better than the other in every way for every person. It depends on what your needs are. But I hear where you're coming from.

FTR, I've shot a few 1911's. A 1911 was technically my first hand gun, many years back. I have always shot them very well, and I wouldn't hesitate to say I could shoot a smaller group with the average 1911 vs my G19 (but hopefully I'll work out a hand load to change that). But I group my G21SF just as well as a have done with 1911's. So I dunno. I'm not quite ready to label Glocks as simply "combat accurate" yet, because my G21 is well beyond that label, and my G19 is starting to show some signs of untapped potential. I've actually never been as consistently accurate with any 9mm, compared to even the worst .45 I've handled. Not that any have been bad. Seems like every .45 I have shot has always put the bullets where I'm aiming.

 

[KodiakBeer]

I think it's just that Glocks have that long, mushy trigger pull. If observations at the range are any clue, most people never really learn to shoot a Glock very well.

 

[Weevil]

I think it's just that Glocks have that long, mushy trigger pull. If observations at the range are any clue, most people never really learn to shoot a Glock very well.

Well that's because it's cocking the striker spring.

Yes an SA trigger is always easier to shoot well with than any DA trigger, Glock or otherwise. No surprise there.


Yeah I can shoot great with my 1911s but I can shoot pretty darn well with a Glock too.

Mastering a DA trigger is always gonna be tougher but it can be done if you're willing to make the effort.

 

[DriderX]

Yeah, OK, this is probably a unnecessary thread . But as long as we're opining on Glocks vs. the rest and I'm new here, I'll put out my for criticism what I've concluded over the years.

Background: Since my first CCW in the early '90s my primary carry pieces have gone from M1911 to Glock 27 to HK USPs, back to a Glock (they're so popular I thought maybe I didn't give enough of a fair shake the first time), Walther P99c, Taurus 24/7 (.45 then 9mm), but when I had a chance to try an XD it was like it was made for me. The ergonomics were perfect for me (unlike the "pine 2x4" feel of earlier Glocks -- much better on the new Gen 4s). The XD also had one of the features I most missed from M1911s, which was the extra protection of the grip safety, while still having the simple ease of operation (grab, pull trigger, goes bang) people like about Glocks.

A grip safety elegantly ensures that accidental force on the trigger (from a drop, snag, etc.) is not enough to fire the weapon, yet it does not in any way complicate or impede ease or speed of operation. All upside, no downside, IMO.

Re Glocks per se: Glocks are a wonderful solution for its original design problem: A simple, reliable, inexpensive (for volume purchasers), easy-maintenance pistol that requires little training to use.

Pull the trigger, it goes bang. To clean it, pull down the slide latch, remove the slide, later just slide it back on. Don't mess with anything else. Really, how much easier can it get? (Compare with the multiple ready conditions and relatively complex manual of arms of a 1911, Browning HP, or even HK USP.)

Gaston Glock isn't really a "gun guy." He wasn't concerned with aesthetics or clever features -- it's black plastic and that's it. Herr Glock was going for a government contract for a pistol that army conscripts, most never before having touched a pistol, could be trained to use in minimum time, ideally minutes instead of hours. Glocks are great for that. And it just so happens those requirements meet the requirements of many millions more than just the Austrian army.

But Glocks are not the do-all and end-all that some Glock fanatics seem to claim (present company excluded, of course~). Truth is, there are many things that, say, a 1911 will do much better than a Glock. But Glocks have been such a phenomenon, have sold in such overwhelming numbers, that its booming popularity has brought to prominence fast-action shooting sports (IPSC, all-metal matches, etc.) and training methods that accentuate the Glock's strengths and de-emphasize the strengths of 1911s, such as the 1911's unmatched trigger and ultimate accuracy capability.

That said, I'm glad that there's a growing market for premium 1911s. There was a time when I feared the U.S. military dropping the 1911 and Glocks eating up the "cheap & practical" mass market would mean the end of the 1911. I don't shoot them very much anymore (though I still own a Kimber 10mm Eclipse that I find very practical for some things), but I'm glad their survival and improvement is ensured by virtually taking over the premium-pistol market.

Brain dump over, critiques welcome. I appreciate the opportunity to voice a few thoughts for reality check.

 

[dcarch]

Excellent summary, DriderX. I couldn't agree with you more. That's how I feel about my Kimber and my FNP 40. Different tools for different purposes.

 

[FatPants]

Yeah, OK, this is probably a unnecessary thread . But as long as we're opining on Glocks vs. the rest and I'm new here, I'll put out my for criticism what I've concluded over the years.

Background: Since my first CCW in the early '90s my primary carry pieces have gone from M1911 to Glock 27 to HK USPs, back to a Glock (they're so popular I thought maybe I didn't give enough of a fair shake the first time), Walther P99c, Taurus 24/7 (.45 then 9mm), but when I had a chance to try an XD it was like it was made for me. The ergonomics were perfect for me (unlike the "pine 2x4" feel of earlier Glocks -- much better on the new Gen 4s). The XD also had one of the features I most missed from M1911s, which was the extra protection of the grip safety, while still having the simple ease of operation (grab, pull trigger, goes bang) people like about Glocks.

A grip safety elegantly ensures that accidental force on the trigger (from a drop, snag, etc.) is not enough to fire the weapon, yet it does not in any way complicate or impede ease or speed of operation. All upside, no downside, IMO.

Re Glocks per se: Glocks are a wonderful solution for its original design problem: A simple, reliable, inexpensive (for volume purchasers), easy-maintenance pistol that requires little training to use.

Pull the trigger, it goes bang. To clean it, pull down the slide latch, remove the slide, later just slide it back on. Don't mess with anything else. Really, how much easier can it get? (Compare with the multiple ready conditions and relatively complex manual of arms of a 1911, Browning HP, or even HK USP.)

Gaston Glock isn't really a "gun guy." He wasn't concerned with aesthetics or clever features -- it's black plastic and that's it. Herr Glock was going for a government contract for a pistol that army conscripts, most never before having touched a pistol, could be trained to use in minimum time, ideally minutes instead of hours. Glocks are great for that. And it just so happens those requirements meet the requirements of many millions more than just the Austrian army.

But Glocks are not the do-all and end-all that some Glock fanatics seem to claim (present company excluded, of course~). Truth is, there are many things that, say, a 1911 will do much better than a Glock. But Glocks have been such a phenomenon, have sold in such overwhelming numbers, that its booming popularity has brought to prominence fast-action shooting sports (IPSC, all-metal matches, etc.) and training methods that accentuate the Glock's strengths and de-emphasize the strengths of 1911s, such as the 1911's unmatched trigger and ultimate accuracy capability.

That said, I'm glad that there's a growing market for premium 1911s. There was a time when I feared the U.S. military dropping the 1911 and Glocks eating up the "cheap & practical" mass market would mean the end of the 1911. I don't shoot them very much anymore (though I still own a Kimber 10mm Eclipse that I find very practical for some things), but I'm glad their survival and improvement is ensured by virtually taking over the premium-pistol market.

Brain dump over, critiques welcome. I appreciate the opportunity to voice a few thoughts for reality check.

Lets be honest here, the Glock is very, very accurate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFd3kF6LHz4

 

[Zerodefect]

Glocks have excellent CHF barrels and lock up plenty tight. It's just a matter of manipulating that trigger.

While effective, that trigger feels terrible. I still find it hard to believe that Glock can make such an excellent weapon, but that grit in the trigger is acceptable to them?

Long live the 1911. Hopefully the doublestack 2011's will evolve and melt a little, lose some of those edges, maybe become a contender for carry, not just competition.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I think enough folks have chimed in on the OP's mistaken understanding of differing trigger systems and we are now drifting pretty far afield.

Time to put this one to bed