Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by Runningman, Dec 28, 2008.
thats all i can say........oh, and i maybe in the market for a Glock
Impressive, but most modern day defensive pistols using modern materials will have very similar results. I would say that the newer S&W M&P would probably last longer and handle being buried better than the Glock since it uses a better quality stainless steel slide and barrel. It also uses conventional rifling with a reduced twist rate which increases barrel life and reduces recoiling torque.
Kudos to Gaston though, he definately raised the bar for handgun durability and simplicity of design.
Take that quote, remove the nonsense about twist rate, and replace conventional with polygonal and....you've got what everybody's been saying regarding polygonal in comparison to conventional rifling.
This test just shows how durable and reliable Glocks are. I did not buy one to get on the band-wagon but because they have proven to be durable, reliable and accurate guns.
On reliability, Glocks, and 9mm Glocks in particular, have proven themselves very, very reliable with a minimal of maintenance over very, very impressive round counts.
This in an age where manufacturers typically warranty their pistols for 10,000 rounds.
When I decide to bury a gun in the back yard...
I am going to make sure its a glock.
just out of curiosity, who only gives a 10k round warranty?
When governmental entities (fed, state, local) purchase pistols the standard warranty range is 10,000 rounds. Glock, Sig, and H&K warranty their pitols for 10,000 to the US federal gov't, for example. Subsequently, every 10,000 rounds I turn in my pistol for a new one whether I need to or not.
do you do the spring changes?
SIG for example recommends to change the recoil spring at the 6k round mark, but the biger parts like barrel or slide have a average live expectancy of 60k-70k rounds for 9mm.
do you get a production new one or is it just send back to the manufacturer for a checkout and get one that was issued to someone else and had the checkup done before?
im not buying a glock but not because they "arent reliable" thats crap if there is one thing the glock has for sure its reliability
i dont want a glock because
1 its ugly im into perty guns (ie walnut blueing ect...)
2 i hate the triggers but i jsut dont like da triggers they bug me
3 price is outa my range for now
maybe when im older and settled down and have some money i may get a glock for carry because then its all about needing the gun to work when its needed not and actually shouldnt be seen lol
Pulse, it depends on a given federal/state/local agency and their given contracts.
I've been issued a Glocks, Sigs, and HKs over the years. I ran one past the 10,000 round mark that was replaced with a NIB pistol. I ran a lightly used pistol pistol near the 10,000 round mark that was replaced with a NIB pistol. As I understand it, sometimes they are rebuilt, sometimes they are excised to other federal/state/local agencies, and sometimes they are retired, depending on... I do not know. I do know that given the price points of the larger contracts, rebuilding is not as popular an option as it might otherwise be.
What government agency did you work for that let you shoot a pistol that much?
He cleaned it after he dug it up, that's not that impressive. :/
awfully strange to SOME ANYWAY that every gun is compared to GLOCKS. not kel tecs or Bersa's.
smoke um if you got um
I certainly ain't buying the barrel life crap on glocks.
I feel better about the 23C I just bought. All that really comes to mind is:
HOLY CRAP BATMAN
That gun really has proved "to hell and back reliability". I wish I had the $ and time to replicate the tests with a few other brands/platforms for comparison.
"What government agency did you work for that let you shoot a pistol that much?"
One which frowns on confirming such things on a public forum.
I've been fortunate in being able to run approximately 2500-3000 rounds a year through my primary pistol and approximately 1,000 rounds a year through my secondary pistol. And then there are the long arms...
No, whats awefully strange is that Glock never campares themself to ANYONE. I haven't seen one of these silly torture test that was done head to head with its competition. Most if not all high quality firearms can do the same things. They feed on the ignorant who ASSUME that because Glock does it no one else can but they have never given one IOTA of evidence to support that.
Actually its not the ignorant masses, the glock has been tested and proven to take the abuse. Its the other guns that have "never given one IOTA of evidence" to support that they can withstand it. I know you like to flamebait anyone that says glock so lets not ruin another thread because you saw it contains the "G" word in it.
So... is it GLOCK'S JOB to demonstrate the average durability of THE COMPETITION???
I am not sure I understand what top secret information you are giving away just by stating the name of the agency that allows that much shooting. Is it one we have heard of? Or something unknown to simple civilians?
Don't be ridiculous. I"ll try to make it very simple for you. The torture tests are like Toyota driving a truck up a steep hill and then saying, "Buy OUR truck because OUR truck can drive up this hill" but the fact is that their competition could drive right up the same hill too. They rely on the fact you aren't going to have enough independent thought to put that fact together. if they were that confident about their product why not do it back to back to show the others fail when yours doesn't? The answer is that most quality handguns are capable of the same things.
Yes, it's curious... maybe US Postal Service Super Commandos???
Okay. Let me make it simpler, for the benefit of ALL, not just you.
Glock runs their product through all kinds of tests, accuracy, durability, reliability, etc. They make the outstanding results available to their marketing dept.
"Hey, look at what our product can do! Would you like to have a gun that can do this? Well then, consider buying our product!!!"
See how that works? & not nearly as passive-aggressive as your post...
Separate names with a comma.