I'm prejudiced---I don't like Glocks

Status
Not open for further replies.
*sigh* - here we go... I don’t know why I get drawn into these threads…

There is no such thing as an "accident" when it comes to weapons. That's what people call it when they try to come up with an excuse for their own negligence. Calling it an "accident" shows a lack of accountability for you own actions and tries to put blame anywhere except where it squarely belongs: on you. No one has ever had an accident with a Glock, they *have* been negligent in their trigger discipline though.
Yes you can have a New York trigger or a heavier trigger bar put in, or even an external manual safety – but these don’t make the weapon any safer. They just allow people to make more excuses for their lack of respect for the Four Rules.
And as far as your demonstrated lack of knowledge for the Glock’s *3* safeties, of which the trigger safety is surely one, please read up on them:
http://www.famous-guns.com/safe-action/
 
To each his own.........that's why there is diversity in the marketplace, isn't it wonderful.

Glocks are good for their intended purpose. I used to have one and there was simply no "pride of ownership" I felt with it.
 
I don't have much to add, except that I'm not crazy about Glock either. I've had three Glocks 26,27,23 After owning three, I still can't tell you why I don't like them. I will say one thing though, The ones I had were 100% reliable. I can't think of a single failure-to-anything with the Glocks I owned. Like 'em or not, there's no arguing the fact they do their job.
 
I agree with gator1gear I had a Glock26, the thing fired every time you pulled the trigger...never a problem with it but somehow it just didn't feel right and to me that's important. As far as looks that's way down the list of importance when considering a life saving device. As I said I no longer own mine but they are damn good guns.
 
Glocks have my respect, but not my heart. To me they are tools that do a job, but they elicit no emotional response from me. But I don't follow this fine blog religiously due to mere utilitarian needs--I follow it out of the joy that I get as an enthusiast.

I have no bias against Glock, nor am I enamored with them (I don't own one, but the G26 is still on my short list). I just find it amusing that so many people are one or the other.

My only pet peeve; "Safe Action" is a marketing term. One may prefer that style trigger, and that is fine. But don't equate a mere descriptive "label" with actual safety. My minimum definition of a safety feature would be that it would require an additional positive action in order to fire. A trigger that won't fire the gun unless the trigger is pulled does not fit that definition.
 
I turned up my nose to Glocks for years for many of the same reasons. However, I now rely on Glock exclusively for my defensive handgun needs.

Last year, I finally got my Texas carry permit after moving here from elsewhere. I shot the qualification course of fire with my 1911. Two weeks later, I accompanied my wife to a First Steps course and shot the same course of fire with a school provided Glock 26. I shot better, got used to the odd clunky feel after about 50 rounds and the pinky dangling after another 50. I ran out and purchased a 26 and 34 and haven't looked back. The icing on the cake was my first cleaning: amazingly easy.

Buy what you like and feel free to dislike what you choose. Just don't be a gun snob by criticizing others for their choices.
 
They just allow people to make more excuses for their lack of respect for the Four Rules.

Bulls--t.

Why not walk around with a 1911 cocked and unlocked, or a 686 with the hammer cocked? If you follow the four rules, there's nothing to worry about, right?

Bulls--t.

The Glock "safeties" add up to good drop safety, and absolutely NOTHING else. The design is an AD waiting to happen, and the humorous (because I really can't stand the guy's personality from what I can tell) video of the cop shooting himself in the leg in front of a classroom full of kids demonstrates the real danger of this happening. Other police videos concur, as well.

The 4 rules are great for the range, and to an extent for hunting, but if you really followed them religiously, you would never carry a concealed or holstered gun. A carried gun gets pointed at things that nobody wants to shoot ALL THE TIME, and there's no reason to make sure it's "clear" -- you keep it loaded on purpose. Sure, you can keep your finger off the trigger, but what about your shirt, threads, or anything else?

And what about an extreme-stress situation, which would be ANY situation where you may need to actually use the gun? Forget about your range-style safety rules because they aren't enough to save your ass. I doubt I'll ever hear a voice say, "Ready on the right? Ready on the left? Ready in the dark alley? Innocent guy, load!"

Personally, I like the XD's grip safety design. There's no manual safety to forget to operate, and at least the gun won't operate unless that's depressed. I'll buy that as a second line of defense against AD, a lot sooner than I'll buy Glock's "three" safeties.:rolleyes:

Glocks are reliable guns, with a lot to recommend them if you don't use the gun for serious target shooting (or don't mind getting a spare barrel). I'm not against carrying them. But 23Glock, don't piss down my back and tell me it's rainin'. That's what you're doing (and so is Glock's marketing department).
 
Last edited:
P.S. In no way am I denigrating the 4 Rules or any other standard gun safety orthodoxy, at least insofar as that orthodoxy is understood by intelligent people.

What I am saying is that, for a gun that is carried so it can be used in defense against immediate threats to one's life, you need all the help you can get: good habits, good gun engineering, everything you can get.

Ranting that the Four Rules would have prevented some accident is good if you're instructing people in gun safety.

But it's BS as a defense of a design whose maker claims has a level of safety that simply does not stand up to real-world scrutiny. Furthermore, it's dangerous hubris.

If you're going to carry a Glock, you'd best treat it according to real-world experiences people have had, not according to marketing claims. Otherwise, you could become another ugly example of how the Four Rules should have saved the day, but didn't.

The only gun that can't fire accidentally is one that is unloaded, disassembled and locked in a safe. If you don't hedge your bets, you're asking for a tragedy.
 
Personally, I like the XD's grip safety design. There's no manual safety to forget to operate, and at least the gun won't operate unless that's depressed. I'll buy that as a second line of defense against AD, a lot sooner than I'll buy Glock's "three" safeties.

Glocks are reliable guns, with a lot to recommend them if you don't use the gun for serious target shooting (or don't mind getting a spare barrel). I'm not against carrying them. But 23Glock, don't piss down my back and tell me it's rainin'. That's what you're doing (and so is Glock's marketing department).


But it's BS as a defense of a design whose maker claims has a level of safety that simply does not stand up to real-world scrutiny. Furthermore, it's dangerous hubris.

If you're going to carry a Glock, you'd best treat it according to real-world experiences people have had, not according to marketing claims. Otherwise, you could become another ugly example of how the Four Rules should have saved the day, but didn't.

The only gun that can't fire accidentally is one that is unloaded, disassembled and locked in a safe. If you don't hedge your bets, you're asking for a tragedy.

:barf:


Like I said mention it and they will come.
 
All I can say is "wow". No point in arguing with that ration of sh...interesting observations...
 
Just a thought

Not trying to bash on you, but if you don't like glocks why are you asking about a safety for one? Do you know someone who is looking for a mech safety for it? It just seems odd because there are plenty of reliable pistols out there that would have the features that you want.

No, I was not asking about a safety for a Glock, just suggesting (for those who may not know about it) that one does exist. And yes, a safety doesn't work if you don't use it. And I agree that the "perfect handling" of a gun will prevent accidents. But I'm sure there are a few of us who are not perfect--that's what safeties are for. And I already have (several) guns I really like. I do apologize to Glock admirers that I don't have a Glock.
 
aftermarket add-on Glock safety kits

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=247176
image


http://stores.myglockdoc.com/Detail.bok?no=58
slider.jpg


http://www.tarnhelm.com/GlockSafety.html
GlockSafetyLg.jpg

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=977325&highlight=safety
g17s_left.jpg


http://glocktalk.com/forums/search.php?searchid=2632205

deaglock40.gif

kool_aidGlock.jpg
 
holstered = manual safety.

out of holster = hot.

during my 5-year stint in the law enforcement biz (I was a prosecutor, not a cop), I had 2 cases in which a homeowner attempted to use a handgun in self-defense and was unsuccessful due to a manual safety being engaged.

In the first case, the gun was seized by the bad guy and the homeowner was held at (his own) gunpoint while accomplice emptied the house of valuables. When they were done, the gun was taken also, of course.

In the other case, homeowner got stabbed in the abdomen 7 or 8 times with a large kitchen knife. His pistol was taken by bad guy, but then dropped elsewhere in the house before making his exit. Again, the weapon used against him (kitchen knife) was his own property. He survived, but seeing the damage, I had to wonder how he felt about being alive.

In both cases, the homeowner/victim was elderly and the gun was an old blowback design ... one was a .25acp, the other a .380 IIRC. Certainly, neither of the victims were well acquainted with the operation of their own guns, and that was the real deciding factor. But panic being what it is, I remain convinced that any HD handgun I ever use will not have a manual safety. Doesn't have to be a Glock though. Revolver, DA/SA, or plastic fantastic ... all fine.

If your opinion differs, fine by me.
 
Last edited:
If you're really scared of your glock going off, don't carry with one in the pipe...
 
Well, speaking as a retired LEO with over 30, half that time as a CLEO, I can unequivocally state that I don't like Glocks for the simple reason that the AD rate with them is more than just unacceptable....................the damned things are dangerous.

I can state a case wherein a young deputy had the base of his spine blown out by a young female that thought the gun was a "toy", another case wherein the "cleaner" blew a hole thru his hand and the bullet wound up in his partners abdomen....another wherein a rather high ranking officer put one thru a wall, and subsequently the chest and both lungs of a rookie standing in a parking lot...............sorry folks, and I KNOW this will incite the PGers (pro Glockers) to riot, but any gun that one must have a special holster to carry safely IS an unsafe firearm.....I Forbade my folks from carrying them, but now I'm gone and a fossil, so they do....the AD issue tho, remains.

That design both shoots and handles well, very intuitive in handling, but lacking some means of SAFELY disabling it, remains a very real hazard.


FLAME AWAY!
 
Dogrunner: No flame, but all the instances you cite are the fault of negligence or outright stupidity, not a gun design. And define a "special" holster.
 
Last edited:
Like it or don't that's fine. If you need a safety, buy a gun with a safety.

All these cases of people pulling the trigger on loaded guns and calling it accidental or the guns fault is just ridiculous. Guns don't go off on their own, safety or not.

Hopefully one of the Moderators will do us all a favor on this one. :banghead:
 
Every time I hear about an accidental discharge (especially by someone who seems pretty marginal), I think "Glock." Later, it invariably comes out that the gun was a Glock.


If there are multiple companies selling aftermarket safeties for Glock, that says something.


On the other hand, they do have a reputation for reliability.


Glock's problem, I guess, is that they're very popular, including among fools and criminals. If a bunch of bangers and goofballs carried 1911s, maybe they'd be involved in more accidental discharges.
 
Well, speaking as a retired LEO with over 30, half that time as a CLEO, I can unequivocally state that I don't like Glocks for the simple reason that the AD rate with them is more than just unacceptable....................the damned things are dangerous.

I can state a case wherein a young deputy had the base of his spine blown out by a young female that thought the gun was a "toy", another case wherein the "cleaner" blew a hole thru his hand and the bullet wound up in his partners abdomen....another wherein a rather high ranking officer put one thru a wall, and subsequently the chest and both lungs of a rookie standing in a parking lot...............sorry folks, and I KNOW this will incite the PGers (pro Glockers) to riot, but any gun that one must have a special holster to carry safely IS an unsafe firearm.....I Forbade my folks from carrying them, but now I'm gone and a fossil, so they do....the AD issue tho, remains.

That design both shoots and handles well, very intuitive in handling, but lacking some means of SAFELY disabling it, remains a very real hazard.


FLAME AWAY!


Makes you wonder how certain people were ever law enforcement qualified, but I guess if Barney Fife could be a deputy then anyone could back 30 years ago. ;)

:barf:
 
The inanity of the original post aside, and really, there isn’t much there that one could consider an intelligent argument against the Glock, I think it’s possible to appreciate something for what it is whether one finds it personally practical or not. I bought a G17 in 1987 (serial number AYXXX) and always thought it to be perfectly safe and reliable. I didn’t get rid of it because I was too much of a panty-waste to safely handle it, but because I was never able to shoot it well. I used the proceeds to buy a Sig P239, which still amazes me with its accuracy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top