Is there something inherently different in Glock pistols?

[barnbwt]

"I don't like some of the people who drink water, should I only drink root beer?"
No, but they kinda ruined Perrier for me

TCB

 

[GLOOB]

Nothing special, no. They were the first to DESIGN a gun that will work with mass produced parts. No tight tolerances or hand fitting is needed. I guess that has to do with reliability.

Now that their patents have expired, there are many other guns using a very close copy of the design. Some Taurus guns and the M&P come to mind.

I agree that one of the major Glock selling point is serviceability. Glock sells massive amount of parts, wholesale, to major distributors. All of them. You can even buy replacement factory barrels, now, through LWD. If you want to replace any part of it, you can easily do so yourself. Cheap and easy.

Try finding all the spare parts for an XD. Last I checked, there were some parts that are not available to consumers. For certified repair centers, only.

 

[breacher]

 

[DevsAdvocate]

Nothing special, no. They were the first to DESIGN a gun that will work with mass produced parts. No tight tolerances or hand fitting is needed. I guess that has to do with reliability.

Now that their patents have expired, there are many other guns using a very close copy of the design. Some Taurus guns and the M&P come to mind.

I agree that one of the major Glock selling point is serviceability. Glock sells massive amount of parts, wholesale, to major distributors. All of them. You can even buy replacement factory barrels, now, through LWD. If you want to replace any part of it, you can easily do so yourself. Cheap and easy.

Try finding all the spare parts for an XD. Last I checked, there were some parts that are not available to consumers. For certified repair centers, only.

GLOOB, I don't think they're the first ones to design a gun in a manner allowing mass produced parts and swapping them out. I think early M1911A1s were able to accomplish that during WWII.

I don't think their patents were as effective as you think they were. For one thing, striker fired guns existed before Glock, as did polymer framed ones (H&K VP70 did both before Glock did). So Glock didn't have the patent on the action of his system or some features. What I believe set them apart was combining those two features with the tennifer finish, as well as Glock's Safe Action system (drop safety). But it did take some time before American gun makers (S&W Sigma for example) to catch up. But that was the early 1990s (Glock entered production in 1982).

Glock competitors hit the scene early, but they didn't do anywhere near as good of a job building a quality handgun. I've never shot a Sigma before, but by most accounts, they were utter **** compared to Glocks.

Your last point is the big one: Glock is ubiquitous. So many parts and accessories out there. It's weird moving to a non-Glock for me (Sig P320) and not having holsters available for it. While holsters for Glocks are pretty much guaranteed! As well as spare parts.

 

[george burns]

Stick with the company that took it to the level that everyone tries to copy. There may be a few out there that did one or two things better on a particular model, but Glocks are an institution when it comes to predictability and service, and replacement and spare parts as well as accessories. There is no gun that has an entire industry built on supporting and selling accessories from sights to screws like Glock does.
You can have a replacement part sent just about any place in the world overnight, not like some guns, that you have to wait 9 months or more to get a magazine for, "M&P", 17 rounders, " waited 7 months and finally sold the gun". How S&W could allow that to happen is beyond me, If they were trying to crack into the LEO market, that was a huge failure.
I want my gun to be in service, not waiting for the company to start up an assembly line or rely on someone to make their parts.
This is a very important part of gun ownership if you ever find yourself with a paperweight waiting for a simple spring or magazine.

 

[krimmie]

I've always felt Glock's rise in the market was related to the mass distribution of the Internet.

 

[DevsAdvocate]

I've always felt Glock's rise in the market was related to the mass distribution of the Internet.

Eh, they were on the rise since the early 1980s. By the time the internet became relevant, they had a pretty good foothold in the firearms community at large. Plus, they were clever in their marketing and two-stepping.

 

[DevsAdvocate]

Stick with the company that took it to the level that everyone tries to copy. There may be a few out there that did one or two things better on a particular model, but Glocks are an institution when it comes to predictability and service, and replacement and spare parts as well as accessories. There is no gun that has an entire industry built on supporting and selling accessories from sights to screws like Glock does.
You can have a replacement part sent just about any place in the world overnight, not like some guns, that you have to wait 9 months or more to get a magazine for, "M&P", 17 rounders, " waited 7 months and finally sold the gun". How S&W could allow that to happen is beyond me, If they were trying to crack into the LEO market, that was a huge failure.
I want my gun to be in service, not waiting for the company to start up an assembly line or rely on someone to make their parts.
This is a very important part of gun ownership if you ever find yourself with a paperweight waiting for a simple spring or magazine.

I won't lie, plenty of companies out-Glock the Glock these days. IMO, the H&K VP9 and Sig P320 are both superior to the Glock by having better triggers, and in the case of Sig: modularity. Both the VP9 and P320 are technically as reliable too as I've yet to hear either having any major issues.

Glock is still the safe bet though with its aftermarket support... so much stuff out there for it.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

...There is no gun that has an entire industry built on supporting and selling accessories from sights to screws like Glock does.

I've had a number of Glocks over the years and have two at the moment: a 35 and 38. I like them a lot. That said, and in response to your comment, cited above, one might also say no other gun NEEDS so much after-market support and so many accessories.

 

[mgmorden]

I trust Glock's legendary reliability. But..have other manufacturers (such as Ruger and Smith & Wesson) closed the reliability gap?

IMHO Glock's reliability is only "legendary" if you compare it against guns from 50-60 years ago. Against most modern guns they certainly work, but so does almost everything else on the market.

I've got a Glock, I've got Rugers, Berettas, SIGs, S&W's, etc. The Glock works and works well, but it doesn't work any better than the rest of them.

 

[herrwalther]

Well herrwalther,

While Ruger and S&W have been here a while, their polymer handguns have not (and some of S&W first polymer guns didn't fare so well.

Add to that what armies of the world have adopted ANY polymer handguns other than Glocks?

As I said, I probably read too much into the new kid on the block line. As for polymer guns, there are other manufacturers that make polymer firearms besides Glock. I have seen more Taurus and FN polymer firearms in the hands of militaries than I have ever seen Glock. I have worked with special units from our own military and nearly every country of Europe, not a single one carried Glock. I recall a genuine Australian operator who carried a Taurus who could not stand Glock because of how unreliable they were in when he was in Southern Afghanistan.

 

[Deaf Smith]

As I said, I probably read too much into the new kid on the block line. As for polymer guns, there are other manufacturers that make polymer firearms besides Glock. I have seen more Taurus and FN polymer firearms in the hands of militaries than I have ever seen Glock. I have worked with special units from our own military and nearly every country of Europe, not a single one carried Glock. I recall a genuine Australian operator who carried a Taurus who could not stand Glock because of how unreliable they were in when he was in Southern Afghanistan.

Strange, Taurus does not tout their being adopted by units of any army.

And the Israelis have their own views.

http://doubletapper.blogspot.com/


Deaf

 

[Gtscotty]

As far as I can tell the main difference between Glocks and the lesser brands is that Glock goes the extra mile and insists on lubing up each of its new pistols with fresh Cheetah blood before it can leave the factory and be shipped to a lucky owner. Sure you could use the Cheetah blood treatment to bring many other pistols into a state of "perfection" after the fact, but to me it means a lot that Glock cares enough to do the right thing, straight from the factory.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

I like Glocks, I really do, but I do not own one. And do not particularly enjoy shooting them.

I think that Glocks have risen in popularity for a few reasons
1. They work. Simple/reliable wins.

2. Cops use them. For whatever reason (marketing, cost per unit, etc) the cops use them and they work.

3. People invest their ego into whatever gun they buy.

Doesn't matter if its a kel-tec or a sig or a Wilson. Nobody wants to believe that they bought something subpar or junky. Glocks have a price point that many folks can afford, so many people buy them and hold them up as the cat's pajamas of handguns.
I cannot tell you the number of times I have been to a match or out shooting with friends who report that their gun has been 100% reliable from day one(!) only to have it jam up or fail right in front of me (that is not just for Glocks, BTW).

Glocks are great guns but they are only special in that they are affordable (great!), easy to use (awesome!), reliable (fantastic!) and reasonably accurate. Many, many other gun makes/models meet or exceed the same criteria (with the exception of affordable, perhaps).

 

[DevsAdvocate]

Strange, Taurus does not tout their being adopted by units of any army.

And the Israelis have their own views.

http://doubletapper.blogspot.com/


Deaf

Deaf, what am I looking at in that hyperlink?

 

[DevsAdvocate]

Stick with the company that took it to the level that everyone tries to copy. There may be a few out there that did one or two things better on a particular model, but Glocks are an institution when it comes to predictability and service, and replacement and spare parts as well as accessories. There is no gun that has an entire industry built on supporting and selling accessories from sights to screws like Glock does.
You can have a replacement part sent just about any place in the world overnight, not like some guns, that you have to wait 9 months or more to get a magazine for, "M&P", 17 rounders, " waited 7 months and finally sold the gun". How S&W could allow that to happen is beyond me, If they were trying to crack into the LEO market, that was a huge failure.
I want my gun to be in service, not waiting for the company to start up an assembly line or rely on someone to make their parts.
This is a very important part of gun ownership if you ever find yourself with a paperweight waiting for a simple spring or magazine.

George? Are you a LEO using an S&W as a service pistol? I assume S&W in supporting a PD contract would bend over backwards to support their user there... but for us civvies, the situation is different.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Deaf, what am I looking at in that hyperlink?

He is in the IDF. He uses a Glock 17 and has lots of info on it (it is very popular over there for anyone lucky enough to get one.)

He also has a real good facebook page if you want to contact him and ask!

But say, again why doesn't Taurus mention so many use their guns? I don't even see any LEO organizations using it nor military around the world.

Deaf

 

[HKGuns]

The main difference, in my experience, is some of their owners attributing higher than reality reliability, especially with G3 - G4 and ignoring a noticeable drop in quality and reliability.

The G4 launch was, in my opinion, largely a debacle and excuses were quite common.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Lots of folks complain about the Glocks different grip angle... For those who grew up shooting other guns the Glock feels odd at first. But once you master it you'll realize it is truly better.

Thanks- You made me spray soda out of my nose in a most unpleasant fashion.

My entire shooting experience with Glock, ranging from my brother's Gen 1 G17 in the late 80's to a buddies Gen 4 G22 last year, has been a disaster, with malfunctions and inaccuracy being par for the course.

IMHO, the whole Glock series is an over-hyped, under-engineered, ergonomic disaster, with critical safety issues serving as the cherry on top.

Of course, your view may vary...

 

[GLOOB]

GLOOB, I don't think they're the first ones to design a gun in a manner allowing mass produced parts and swapping them out. I think early M1911A1s were able to accomplish that during WWII.

Haha, no way. During WWII, there were so many companies making different versions of the 1911, there is no way you could swap parts without hand fitting. Even in the modern age, there are many parts for a 1911 that may require some hand-fitting. When Glock demonstrated this ability with their gun, it was somewhat revolutionary.

I don't think their patents were as effective as you think they were. For one thing, striker fired guns existed before Glock, as did polymer framed ones (H&K VP70 did both before Glock did). So Glock didn't have the patent on the action of his system or some features. What I believe set them apart was combining those two features with the tennifer finish, as well as Glock's Safe Action system (drop safety). But it did take some time before American gun makers (S&W Sigma for example) to catch up. But that was the early 1990s (Glock entered production in 1982).

Glocks patents have nothing to do with striker-fire or polymer frames, my friend. The tennifer finish is nice, but it is icing on the cake. What makes a Glock special is how is it designed to fit together and work. The trigger spring, the disconnector, the trigger bar, the trigger safety, et al. The way the Glock is designed, it easily comes apart and reassembles without tools, and there is no high tolerance steel-on-steel fitting, anywhere, except for the slide to barrel fit. Even the striker doesn't ride directly in a milled hole in the slide; there's a plastic sleeve inserted in there. In parts count and tolerances, it is the AK47 of handguns. Most all the parts beside barrel, slide, and striker, pins, and extractor are stamped sheet metal and/or injection molded plastic. The barrel flops around like a fish out of water when the slide is partway back... no cam pivot/link in there. You don't need an exact hand-finished geometry on the 1mm edge of a sear to get positive sear/hammer interface. There is not a single screw, split washer, roll pin, friction fit doodad (beyond the rear sight and the rear plastic pin), or a drop of glue/locktite in the entire gun, and yet somehow the gun doesn't fall apart, nor parts walk themselves loose. Glock identified and removed what WASN'T needed and simplified what WAS. That all this is possible while maintaining accuracy, reliability, and durability is what made the Glock design revolutionary when it was put on the market. You don't need skilled workers using specialized equipment (and a lot of time) to maintain a fleet of Glocks. The striker fire and lack of manual safety are just a footnote, because they are obvious to the casual observer; they just happened to be the path that Glock followed for simplicity's sake.

Nowadays, there are many similar guns, now that Glock has made the road map. But before the Glock, there was NOTHING even close to similar. The Glock wasn't a minor evolution of a line of predecessors. It came out of nowhere. VP70 is NOTHING like a Glock, internally. Glock came along in a time when other guns were made out of finely tuned watch parts and said, hey look at this. We can build a reliable handgun out of Legos, and the average 10 yr old can learn to maintain it.

There was a lot of skepticism. But the darn guns simply worked, right out of the box, no break in, no tuning. The rest is history.

 

[JRWhit]

3. People invest their ego into whatever gun they buy.

Doesn't matter if its a kel-tec or a sig or a Wilson.

That is gospel. I've seen the same loyalty to Highpoint. People who swear that if you pay more for anything else, your just wasting money.

I don't even see any LEO organizations using it nor military around the world.

Deaf

Deaf, surely you remember this, http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/09/26/brazilian-police-recall-98000-taurus-247-ds-pistols/

There is at least one LEO contract. At least if they managed to keep it.

 

[DevsAdvocate]

Haha, no way. During WWII, there were so many companies making different versions of the 1911, there is no way you could swap parts without hand fitting. Even in the modern age, there are many parts for a 1911 that may require some hand-fitting. When Glock demonstrated this ability with their gun, it was somewhat revolutionary.

GLOOB, pretty sure requiring "hand fitting" defeats the purpose of a mass produced combat pistol. Hand fitting of 1911 parts is a more recent invention as shooters wanted to make their guns more accurate, this required smaller clearances between moving parts. This is evident in accuracy comparisons between GI M1911A1s vs. modern 1911s. While GI ones were combat accurate, modern ones were tack drivers.

Besides, if a 1911 broke down in Europe, an armorer is probably not going to want to waste time hand fitting new parts to it.

Glocks patents have nothing to do with striker-fire or polymer frames, my friend. The tennifer finish is nice, but it is icing on the cake. What makes a Glock special is how is it designed to fit together and work. The trigger spring, the disconnector, the trigger bar, the trigger safety, et al. The way the Glock is designed, it easily comes apart and reassembles without tools, and there is no high tolerance steel-on-steel fitting, anywhere, except for the slide to barrel fit. Even the striker doesn't ride directly in a milled hole in the slide; there's a plastic sleeve inserted in there. In parts count and tolerances, it is the AK47 of handguns. Most all the parts beside barrel, slide, and striker, pins, and extractor are stamped sheet metal and/or injection molded plastic. The barrel flops around like a fish out of water when the slide is partway back... no cam pivot/link in there. You don't need an exact hand-finished geometry on the 1mm edge of a sear to get positive sear/hammer interface. There is not a single screw, split washer, roll pin, friction fit doodad (beyond the rear sight and the rear plastic pin), or a drop of glue/locktite in the entire gun, and yet somehow the gun doesn't fall apart, nor parts walk themselves loose. Glock identified and removed what WASN'T needed and simplified what WAS. That all this is possible while maintaining accuracy, reliability, and durability is what made the Glock design revolutionary when it was put on the market. You don't need skilled workers using specialized equipment (and a lot of time) to maintain a fleet of Glocks. The striker fire and lack of manual safety are just a footnote, because they are obvious to the casual observer; they just happened to be the path that Glock followed for simplicity's sake.

Nowadays, there are many similar guns, now that Glock has made the road map. But before the Glock, there was NOTHING even close to similar. The Glock wasn't a minor evolution of a line of predecessors. It came out of nowhere. VP70 is NOTHING like a Glock, internally. Glock came along in a time when other guns were made out of finely tuned watch parts and said, hey look at this. We can build a reliable handgun out of Legos, and the average 10 yr old can learn to maintain it.

There was a lot of skepticism. But the darn guns simply worked, right out of the box, no break in, no tuning. The rest is history.

Agreed on this point. Glock was the first to do all those things and put it together correctly.

 

[herrwalther]

Strange, Taurus does not tout their being adopted by units of any army.

A gun company isn't going to tout one person's firearm, or even small orders. Beretta brags that the VAST majority of the US military uses their M9. With a handful of smaller, specialization units carrying SIG M11, FNH handguns, Glock (although haven't seen that one personally.)

 

[AustinTX]

Yea I know Beretta but to me it's not that good a gun.

I know it's popular to bash the Beretta in some quarters (I'm guessing you're meaning the 92, though perhaps you're including the PX4 -- another excellent gun), but I've always found it amusing that some people turn up their noses at a pistol with a higher independently-verified mean-rounds-between-stoppages figure than any other on the planet. They're refined, well-made guns using 4340 and 8640 steels for slides and barrels, where almost everyone else is using 4140; they eat virtually anything; they're accurate; and they're quite durable for an aluminum alloy-framed gun. The only truly legitimate gripe is its size and weight for certain applications -- though these are also characteristics that make it about as soft-shooting as a 9mm service pistol can be.

 

[AustinTX]

As far as I can tell the main difference between Glocks and the lesser brands is that Glock goes the extra mile and insists on lubing up each of its new pistols with fresh Cheetah blood before it can leave the factory and be shipped to a lucky owner. Sure you could use the Cheetah blood treatment to bring many other pistols into a state of "perfection" after the fact, but to me it means a lot that Glock cares enough to do the right thing, straight from the factory.

That, and, as someone mentioned earlier, their use of the special polymer that can only be mined in Austria. Those are the keys.