I was wrong about the Glock 17

Status
Not open for further replies.
I also started with a 40 Glock..a G23. I liked it, but never shot it as well as other handguns, and eventually I sold it.
Now, 10yrs later, I was looking for a compact 45, and found the Glock 30...
I found a good deal on one locally in a face to face deal...it came with night sights, a good holster, and four mags, all for what I would have spent for an entry level 1911.
After shooting it, and finding I shot it really well, I decided a 9mm Glock would make for some cheaper practice.
A person near me advertised a near new OD G17 for trade for a beretta 92.
I traded my beretta off and couldn't be happier. The G17 just rocks.
Accurate, light, reliable....and compact...I can CCW it in an IWB kydex clip holster with no problem.
While plenty of haters will probably show up because this thread has Glock in the title, I will boldly state that, after decades of shooting most of the best known and most widely used 9mm's in the world, the G17 is absolutely one of the best.
It certainly is THE best for my purposes.
 
Glock has it's haters because of it's success and strong following. If Glock didn't have that, the haters wouldn't care about Glock.

I don't see why folks have to hate a gun they don't personally shoot well or enjoy though.

We all have our preferences, and that's perfectly fine. No need to hate though.
 
I myself thought I was through with Glock after my G23 experience. I went ten years without one.
It was my love for the 1911 and the 45 cartridge that led me back to Glock and the G30.
I wanted a compact 45, but my research found that of all the 1911's, the compact versions can be the most problematical.
Then, I started looking at other options in compact 45's. I immediately found the Glock 30, a pistol many consider one of the finest and most accurate Glock combat models. Having found one for what I considered a great price, I decided to give it a try, figuring I could always sell it if it didn't work out.
Well, it worked out. In the Glock 30, I got a pistol that is light, reliable with FMJ or JHP, holds 10 rounds with the option of using 13rd G21 mags...and is incredibly accurate. I shoot it as well as a full sized 1911, and don't need to make any 1911 excuses for modern 1911 non-performance.
 
You see, the title of your thread was ambiguous...the glock haters are drawn to it because they hope it is the story of a REFORMED glock fan..."I was wrong about the Glock 17" could be interpreted in more than one way.
 
Love my G17's

I hate the H&K USP SOCOM .45 because I can't afford to own one. So, I have 5 Glocks. Oh well.......:neener:
 
Last edited:
The G17 has been popular for a long time for good reason. It's one of my favorite 9mms.
 
Isn't that the same pond forum member Sturmgewehre uses?

Haha, I never said that was me in the video. :)

I link his videos and other people's videos in my blogs to demonstrate certain points.
 
Sort of like you bashing the M&P every chance you get. Does that make you a troll? I don't own any Glocks and might never buy one for one simple fact: I shoot the M&P much better, prefer it's trigger (once corrected) and I still don't have square hands.

Glocks are reliable, combat accurate and easy to maintain. My not buying one doesn't mean I'm a bad shot or Glock hater. I read the post title with mild interest as to what new revelation RMT had about the 17. No real surprises, carry on fanboys, carry on.
 
Eventually I'll get a Glock & when I do, I expect it will be a 17. The only real question for me is NY-1 trigger or not. l lean towards it.
 
I agree with Skylerbone - all the Glocks I've owned or shot ran with perfect reliability and did what they were supposed to do. I'd probably take G19, 26, or whatever the small single stack .45 version is without hesitation.
Having said that, they're just guns. Personal preference plays a big part.
 
Had a Glock 21 (didn't part with it due to the gun being a turd, just got offered a good deal) that was nice and did everything I asked it to. Can't imagine that a G17 wouldn't be just as good.
 
Sort of like you bashing the M&P every chance you get. Does that make you a troll? I don't own any Glocks and might never buy one for one simple fact: I shoot the M&P much better, prefer it's trigger (once corrected) and I still don't have square hands.

Glocks are reliable, combat accurate and easy to maintain. My not buying one doesn't mean I'm a bad shot or Glock hater. I read the post title with mild interest as to what new revelation RMT had about the 17. No real surprises, carry on fanboys, carry on.

You are dead wrong on that. You may have mistaken me for someone else, or you misunderstood what I was saying in another post. I have never said the M&P was a bad gun or that those who like them are "fanboys" or any other backhanded insult.

I actually think the M&P is a very good gun. I've reviewed the M&P45c on my blog too and had a lot of good things to say about it.

I am not a fan of the trigger, and I am a little perplexed as to how they could have messed that aspect of the gun up, but I do believe the M&P is an excellent firearm otherwise. I personally don't shoot it very well because I don't like the trigger. However, two of my brothers own M&P's and they like them. Personal preference, but I have never "bashed" the M&P like you suggest.

All this thread is, is me stating that I have come around in regards to a misconception I had about the Glock 17 that I have overcome.
 
Last edited:
I may have come across a bit harshly but you did refer to the trigger as a whole other kind of lousy (paraphrasing) in regards to another S&W (whose trigger you did not like). Reading back I was indeed putting words in your mouth and I apologize. It seems you found the Glock more suitable and we do indeed agree to disagree.

To me it's Ford or Chevy, tastes great, less filling all over again. I must concede that I've yet to meet a factory trigger that stayed that way for long, I am a bit of a fan boy when it comes to S&W and I have little more than personal experience to back up why.
 
I am not a fan of the trigger, and I am a little perplexed as to how they could have messed that aspect of the gun up, but I do believe the M&P is an excellent firearm otherwise.

Agreed, great gun but the trigger is crap if left uncorrected. I can deal with heavy pulls, but grittiness is unbearable. I think S&W didn't put enough thought into that trigger, or they think people don't mind gritty triggers.
 
I personally hate Glocks. They take up way too much space in my safe, cause me to spend too much money for range ammo because I can make one Glock gun shoot 9mm, 40s&w & 357sig with just a barrel & mag swap, make me buy 10 holsters because the next one will be the perfect concealed carry holster (along with all of the other paraphernalia that is available to customize my Glocks), and drive me crazy when I want a different manufacturer's gun... Currently I really want a S&W M&P 40 Pro with a 5" barrel, but the Glock 35 practical/tactical won't quit screaming "Hey what about me? Am I nothing more than chopped liver? What does M&P have that I don't have?" Yeah, I hate Glocks...
 
Last edited:
Ya my favorite Glocks are the 17 and my most favorite is the G30. I always carry my G30 perfect size for a 45 acp and it works everytime I squeeze the trigger. ( at the range of course)
 
I personally hate Glocks. They take up way too much space in my safe, cause me to spend too much money for range ammo because I can make one Glock gun shoot 9mm, 40s&w & 357sig with just a barrel & mag swap, make me buy 10 holsters because the next one will be the perfect concealed carry holster (along with all of the other paraphernalia that is available to customize my Glocks), and drive me crazy when I want a different manufacturer's gun... Currently I really want a S&W M&P 40 Pro with a 5" barrel, but the Glock 35 practical/tactical won't quit screaming "Hey what about me? Am I nothing more than chopped liver? What does M&P have that I don't have?" Yeah, I hate Glocks...

Haha, yeah, I feel your pain!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top