Is there something inherently different in Glock pistols?

[JohnKSa]

That sounds like a description of the small block Chevy V8...and calling it an improvement over the Ford small block because it has a different firing order.

Chevy had been in the automotive market for many, many years when they came out with this design. This was Glock's first entry to the gun market. For it to be similar, the small block Chevy V8 would have had to be the first engine that Chevy had brought to the market and they would have had to be an unknown in the automotive world when they introduced it.

It would have had to be a new combination of features, appearance and function, so different (overall) when introduced that the establishment would generally be convinced that it couldn't possibly succeed.

Then, to be similar, their product would have had to, within a few years, dominate major sectors of the automotive market, virtually monopolizing significant business areas away from the existing, longtime players.

Then, eventually, it would have to remake significant portions of the automotive market as other makers eventually moved to copy the product. Essentially changing the picture of what many people visualize when they think "engine".

It's just engineering. All the basics were pre-done. It probably didn't take very long to work out the details.

Sure. It was all simple, all easy, all obvious and didn't take long to work out. And yet no one combined all those features until Glock. And they not only managed to come up with a good combination of features, it turned out to be a pretty great combination of features (based on market response). And not only did they hit the ball out of the park, they did it on the first swing.

Like I've said twice (three times now) on this thread, Glocks aren't the end-all/be-all when it comes to durable, reliable guns. But it is true that the original Glock concept (not the individual design components but the overall design concept) was pretty unique when it first came to market. It's not so unique now, especially now that Glock has started modifying the initial design to copy those who initially copied Glock and improved on the design.

This topic cracks me up. It seems that people can't stand to just state the facts and let things be. It seems that people feel like they have to either downplay the facts to minimize the things that Glock did actually achieve, or exaggerate the facts to make Glocks seem something more than they really are.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

I was cleaning my Glock 20 yesterday and I was thinking you have to give Glock its due. It is a simple design, well executed which results in high reliability. Beyond that I don't think they are particularly special overall, just very well executed.

 

[1911Tuner]

Yeah, I know about the Chevy V8, John.

Anyway...to address the topic question directly with a simple answer...No. Not really.

These things that I've said don't come from disdain or dislike of the Glock. It's a good, solid weapon. If it weren't, it would have gone the way of the Chau Chat instead of still being with us for over 30 years. These are merely observations from an engineering standpoint. The notion that the Glock was some sort of revolutionary lightning bolt that made all its predecessors obsolete...well...sorry...it just isn't.

Its basic operation...locked breech, short recoil operated, tilting barrel and forward slide dismount...is 104 years old. The striker is even older, and the fire control linkage from the frame to the side can be traced straight back to the Grande Rendement...90 years old.

One place that the Glock has it over the 1911 is strength and durability and simplicity in its locking system, with one large upper lug that spreads the stresses out instead of the small radial lugs with the stresses concentrated in small points. In one fell swoop, that made the breech stronger and omitted the need to have three barrel lug locations coincide with those in the slide. It did make necessary a square, blocky slide as opposed to the more aesthetically appealing, svelte shape of the multiple lug design...but that doesn't detract from its utility, other than making it a bit less comfortable to carry inside the waistband.

And just for the record...I don't really like the 1911 all that much. I just know it well. I'm actually more of a revolver man.

 

[txblackout]

Chevy had been in the automotive market for many, many years when they came out with this design. This was Glock's first entry to the gun market. For it to be similar, the small block Chevy V8 would have had to be the first engine that Chevy had brought to the market and they would have had to be an unknown in the automotive world when they introduced it.

It would have had to be a new combination of features, appearance and function, so different (overall) when introduced that the establishment would generally be convinced that it couldn't possibly succeed.

Then, to be similar, their product would have had to, within a few years, dominate major sectors of the automotive market, virtually monopolizing significant business areas away from the existing, longtime players.

Then, eventually, it would have to remake significant portions of the automotive market as other makers eventually moved to copy the product. Essentially changing the picture of what many people visualize when they think "engine".

A better example is google. At the time that google was born the kings of search were altavista and yahoo. Google was no big deal and they didnt really have anything new. Now look at them.

To those of you who have never invented anything, to claim there is "nothing new" is why you will never invent anything. The little things that google did were "nothing new" and yet were everything.

Same with facebook.

Same with the iphone

etc.

The market is telling you that they all created something different and so much better than the competition and you are still claiming it is nothing..

 

[tarosean]

The market is telling you that they all created something different and so much better than the competition and you are still claiming it is nothing..

Yet the facts about the market prove Ruger outsells every manufacture period.

 

[Wanderling]

To me Glock is the A47 of pistols - i.e. rugged, reliable, no-BS gun that just works, reasonably priced (although I wouldn't call them inexpensive), not a thing of beauty but an exceptionally well executed design from the engineering perspective. Although A47 doesn't have very good accuracy when compared to it's peers, while Glock has decent accuracy.

I started with G17 and when shopping for my CCW piece at first wanted something different, but after looking at various compacts including Shield ended up with G26.

 

[mavracer]

But..have other manufacturers (such as Ruger and Smith & Wesson) closed the reliability gap?

Little secret there never was a gap, it's just Glock's propaganda machine. One question I've yet to have answered by a Glock fanboy is "exactly how is a Glock more reliable than my Sig, Smith, Ruger, Colt, FN, Browning, Walther or CZs that have never jammed?"

And yes there is something inherently different in their design, the ergonomics of it suck for me the grip angle combined with the short trigger window makes my short fat trigger finger drag on the bottom of the trigger guard.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Glocks, they work otherwise you would not see their worldwide adoption by police and military.

"Widely adopted" and "widely used" (the second is a sales term used by CZ) doesn't mean MOST used -- and if you try to check the numbers you'll see that while there are a lot of Glocks out there, they have pretty strong competition.

I agree that they work, that they are a good design, and have been widely adopted by police in the United States, but disagree that they're widely used by militaries around the world. They're no more "widely adopted" than SIG, Beretta, or Smith & Wesson, and CZ pattern guns. The CZ-pattern guns from a number of sources, are widely used throughout the Middle East, but made in the Czech Republic, Israel, Turkey, and Italy. In fact, I'd argue that there are probably far more Berettas in military service (counting just the U.S. alone), and possibly more SIGs, when you count the U.S., Germany, and a number of NATO members.

Great Britain is probably the first "larger" military force to adopt the Glock, and that was a recent thing. As for police usage, S&W seems to be creeping up on Glock in the U.S. And in recent years I've seen as many SIGs and S&W M&Ps in police holsters than Glocks. Darned few Berettas, any more -- but they were once the "go-to" gun.

Glocks are being used by the U.S. military in some units, but use there it's generally up to the individual -- they are not the standard issued weapon. And not very many are actually being used, as best I can tell.

I've had a bunch of Glocks over the years, and have a Glock 35 and Glock 38 at the present. Great Guns. And as I've noted -- as have others -- it's an elegantly simple design, and almot anyone can do almost anything that needs to be done, with the simplest of tools (maybe just one!) The adjustable grips of the 4th Gen. guns seems to address the complaints about the grip angle -- but not everyone finds the grip angle a problem.

None of this is meant to disparage Glock as a service weapon. It's simply meant to suggest that not all the stuff you hear or read in gun mags or see on the 'net about Glocks (or any gun, for that matter) can be accepted as Gospel. What you're hearing or reading is is advertising language -- intended to keep existing users happy and maybe draw in some new users.

 

[JRWhit]

I'm of the opinion that Glock is a little behind the curve right now. For one, in this current polymer market they are well over what the current going rate is for a reliable polymer pistol.
And with the teething issues on their single stacks one could argue that the reliability reward goes to the competition.

The only thing being a Glock Fanboy, or a fanboy of any other manufacturer, gives you is missed opportunities to try out other fine pistols.
It's not a religion, its just a gun. I'll have a Glock for myself, but not until they catch up to the market value and knock $100 off their retail price.

 

[herrwalther]

I agree that they work, that they are a good design, and have been widely adopted by police in the United States, but disagree that they're widely used by militaries around the world. They're no more "widely adopted" than SIG, Beretta, or Smith & Wesson, and CZ pattern guns.

Adding to this, Glock likes to scream the loudest and most whenever a department/state/country adopts their firearm. By comparison the BHP was used by over 50 countries for decades (some still) before being replaced. Before registering for THR, I had never heard of a BHP but already had a 1911. It boils down to economics. Glock offers steep discounts for governments to the point where they virtually give away their pistols. You, me, and Joe at the local gun store will pay anywhere from 500-800 on a Glock depending on model and caliber. But a police department or military? Much less.

 

[Richard Head]

Glocks are good guns but they're nothing special. They're no more reliable than a S&W, Sig, HK, Ruger, ect. They have a large loyal fanbase that gets a little carried away with Glocks marketing and think their Glocks are perfection, but they're nothing special.

 

[Jim Watson]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Glock mass marketed the striker fired, plastic receiver pistol. Yes, you can still get metallic frames and swinging hammers but most of the other makers are adding Glockoids even if not completely going over to them.

Glock has a large cottage industry of parts vendors and gunsmiths, S&W Plastic M&P has a small one, XD smaller still. Sig P320 has Bruce Gray. Walther, HK, Ruger, and FN have their adherents, but you had better like them the way the factory delivers them.

 

[tarosean]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

It sure is...

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

I've had both a Glock and a Springfield Armory XDM in .40S&W. The Springfield Armory XDM was the superior pistol in pretty much every way, it certainly shot a heck of a lot better, indeed, it felt like I was shooting a Glock 17.

Now, I own a Glock 23 and what makes me love this pistol is its versatility and customization. Now, the XDM was a larger pistol, not a CC pistol. Yes, the Springfield Armory XDM is a big pistol, and that is exactly why it shoots so nice. Far superior to the Glock 23 (yes, this is a CC, 3.9" barrel pistol, but still).

If you are a law enforcement person, and you have to carry a pistol with you and you don't have to worry about CC, I'd recommend the XDM .40S&W due to its excellent shooting characteristics and its 18+1 capacity AND its price point.

And I'm a Glock guy. Just say'n that there is a pistol for everyone, and no, one size does not fit all and no, Glocks are not the end-all-be-all of polymer pistols.

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

If you talk to people who actually do high-volume shooting with Beretta 92s, you will find that all of those components last much longer than the figures provided there.

Ben Stoeger went over 100,000 rounds each on several different 92 Elites. A number of people on Brian Enos's and Todd Green's forums have done the same -- and no one is reporting major component failure at anything resembling those figures (or of anything but the aluminum-alloy frame at high rounds counts, which is what one would expect would give out first). I'm just shy of 40,000 rounds on the 92FS I shoot the most -- one from 1993, before durability enhancements like the thickened dustcover were implemented -- and that includes healthy dosages of +P and +P+ ammo (Winchester Ranger T 127-gr., 9BPLE). No breakages of any kind yet within proper maintenance windows. I did decide to always shoot the trigger-return springs to failure, since I don't depend on that particular gun for SD. The recommended replacement interval is every 5,000 rounds, which hasn't ever changed, even though the spring design was significantly strengthened around 2001. My original (pre-design change) spring lasted a little more than 11,000 rounds, with at least an equal number of dry fires. The replacement (post-design change) lasted from there until just over 30,000 rounds, once more with a similar number of dry fires. The current spring has close to 10,000 rounds on it. I follow the other maintenance schedules, and nothing else has yet broken or appears anywhere close to doing so.

Complaining about the locking block doesn't make much sense to me. It's a sub-$30 part intended to be replaced at 15,000-round intervals. The third-generation locking block lasts much longer than that on average (when recoil springs are replaced at appropriate intervals). Grip thickness is undeniably a problem for folks with smaller hands/shorter fingers -- though the re-release of the Vertec takes care of that problem for most.

All that said, I will agree that, given the generally poor maintenance that military sidearms receive, an aluminum alloy-framed pistol is definitely not ideal. (But, given the very minor role of sidearms in today's military, the very recent purchase of a half-million new M9s, the pressing military needs in so many other more important areas in the age of sequestration, and the ridiculous costs somehow always associated with trials for new equipment, I also think devoting resources toward new pistol trials would be completely moronic.) When the M9 is maintained properly, it works very well. When not, not so well. (They work very well when OEM parts are used, that is, which is certainly no given -- DoD has in recent years sourced garbage mags from Checkmate and Triple K, non-OEM locking blocks with a fraction of the durability of the current OEM locking block, and low-quality springs, among other things.) M9s are often shot on recoil springs that aren't replaced until the springs actually break, many thousands of rounds beyond their intended service life. This sort of mistreatment is going to cause problems with any gun, which is why it's bizarre to me that people act like the fault chiefly lies with the design of the gun. However, given that sidearm maintenance will probably always remain poor, polymer-framed pistols would certainly make the most sense when a new pistol is selected, as they will be the most tolerant of mistreatment; if the goal is to select an entirely new pistol, al. alloy-framed guns shouldn't even be considered.

For civilian use, though, fixating on the problems of poorly treated .mil examples is just silliness. For someone who takes care of their guns, a Beretta 92 will be as reliable as any pistol they own, or more so, and it will likely well outlast them, unless they shoot the volumes of ammo that big-time competitors do.

It just makes sense that these big, all-metal pistols last a long, long, long time. They really should be designed that way for a long life being the military's choice for a pistol.

I've always wanted one but they are pricey and I can't justify spending the money on a new one. That being said, if the US Military decides to go with another pistol (I'm thinking a polymer pistol of some sort) I may try and buy a used Beretta 92 (or variant) because maybe they will be sold on the cheap do to the military unloading them, especially if I can hold one in my hand and inspect it before I buy it. I don't like the idea of buying any used gun that I cannot first inspect.

 

[Jim Watson]

It sure is...


I guess, I should say Imitation of SUCCESS is the sincerest form of flattery.
I am sure the Glock team knew all about the VP70, but who of the other Plastic Pistole makers does or cares?

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Glock mass marketed the striker fired, plastic receiver pistol. Yes, you can still get metallic frames and swinging hammers but most of the other makers are adding Glockoids even if not completely going over to them.

I like Glocks. I've had a number of them, and have a Glock 35 and 38 at present. So don't take this wrong...

Glock wasn't the first striker-fired gun: the Luger did it long ago, and had a much better trigger. The intial design drawings for the Browning Hi-Power included a striker... later changed to hammer.

Glock wasn't the first polymer-framed weapon: The Remington Nylon 66 got there first.

Glock wasn't the first polymer-framed pistol. The H&K VP70 was, as noted above.

Glock wasn't the first polymer-framed, striker-fired pistol. The H&K VP70 also got there first.

What Glock did was package all of these things together in a very functional package. And used effective marketing techniques (and deep pockets) to establish itself in the marketplace. I applaud their approach and their effectiveness. If you believe in the Capitalist system, they've done it right.

Glock has a large cottage industry of parts vendors and gunsmiths, S&W Plastic M&P has a small one, XD smaller still. Sig P320 has Bruce Gray. Walther, HK, Ruger, and FN have their adherents, but you had better like them the way the factory delivers them.

There is a big cottage industry of parts vendors and gunsmiths. But that's true of 1911s, too. That said, can you name a top (i.e., nationally known/recognized) gunsmith who specializes in or gladly works with Glocks? With Glocks, you also have to ask why there are SO MANY outside providers and gunsmiths offering support, if the gun is fundamentally so great.

Bruce Gray also works with other SIG models (beside the P320) The P320 is very, very new, and hasn't been around long enough to create a demand for service or parts, yet.I think it will. Those aftermarket providers for Glock didn't spring up overnight, either. Bruce Gray was also once the top H&K (P7) gunsmith in the country; he takes guns that he thinks have great potential and makers them greater. I have a P228 that has been worked over by Gray Guns, and it's a very impressive weapon.

I would argue that there is not as great a FELT NEED for after-market parts for SIGs and some of the other guns as there is for Glocks. (An exception might be the new S&W M&P Pro line, which seems to be creeping up on Glock in popularity. I have two of those as well, and like the tuned triggers much better than tuned Glock triggers.)

The guys who make alloy and steel frames for Glocks -- there are several firms doing that -- also like Glocks, but find that many of the aftermarket providers are very lax in their production standards, and many of the parts -- when installed in metal frames -- must be fit by a gunsmith or armorer. They say there's too much variance in the products supplied by the aftermarket.
Happily, those variances aren't noticed (i.e., don't matter) when they're installed in a Glock polymer frame.

Functionality is a key Glock characteristic; some of that is arguably achieved through a design that doesn't require the same level of precision as other guns. Functionality was a key design focus from the first, and they did THAT well.

.

 

[burk]

Little secret there never was a gap, it's just Glock's propaganda machine. One question I've yet to have answered by a Glock fanboy is "exactly how is a Glock more reliable than my Sig, Smith, Ruger, Colt, FN, Browning, Walther or CZs that have never jammed?"

And yes there is something inherently different in their design, the ergonomics of it suck for me the grip angle combined with the short trigger window makes my short fat trigger finger drag on the bottom of the trigger guard.

That may be true now, but it certainly wasn't the case in the 80's when the Glock was introduced. If you wanted to go Semi-Auto, your choices were Colt 1911 (which almost no LE carried at the time), S & W third gen which were reliable (if clean), weighed a ton and was a pain to maintain. Also available was the Sig 226, and the Beretta 92 The other options were the Browning HP which had a god awful trigger, and was sensitive to a lack of maintenance. All of which retailed for about double of what the Glock retailed for and with the exception of the Browning were heavy and not particularly concealable. Most LE carried Smith model 10's, 19's or 66's wheel guns.

The Glock was lighter, far cheaper, and it gave long term reliability even when not maintained that was unheard of at the time. I remember the 20,000 round reliability, zero maintenance tests in gun mags at the time. No other manufacturer approached it at the time. Wether, you like them or not, wether you feel the competition has caught up or not. And reasonable view of firearms history has to consider the Glock 17 a truly revolutionary design, that certainly came at the right time and place. It took Smith and Wesson until 2005 to even begin to catch up. And the fact that within the last three years Sig, Ruger and HK have introduced competitors says something about there effect on the market

 

[Jim Watson]

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the Roth Steyr 1907 as an ancestor of the Glock, since it had a partially preloaded striker, fully loaded and dropped by a mush trigger.

 

[1911Tuner]

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the Roth Steyr 1907

Ah!

Never handled one, Jim...and don't know much about those pistols other than the name and a little history.

Another one to add to the list of accomplishments that make up the Glock.

 

[mavracer]

That may be true now, but it certainly wasn't the case in the 80's when the Glock was introduced.

You have obviously bought into the propaganda, While Ruger didn't release the P85 until the mid 80's all those other manufactures were building reliable pistols long before Glock came along.

S & W third gen which were reliable (if clean)

lol that's funny right there.

weighed a ton

My 6926 weighs 26oz about the same as a G19.

 

[Polar Express]

wake up an old thread...

Been asking myself this similar question for a while now. Been a 1911 lover for years. I’m 41, and I’ve been shooting since I was 5. I’ve logged more rounds downrange in a 1911 platform than all others put together, several times over. I just love that gun. But saying that JMB’s 1911 design is infallible is a bit naïve. Sure, there is an elegance to it, but that’s like saying the SR-71 is the greatest plane in the sky. Ummm, in it’s day, it was pretty awesome, but… some new technology has come along since then, allowing for all sorts of new options. And.. also… for what purpose? Even in 1965, you wouldn’t want to take a Blackbird into a dogfight. The 1911 was never designed to carry concealed. It’s a full-size, weapon, you weren’t trying to hide that you had one. But I digress….

That being said, I’m doing some serious re-evaluation of my CC plan. A good friend of mine has gotten deep in the training aspect, and is doing some pretty cool and practical instruction for CC. He’s also been one of my fellow 1911 fans…. Until recently. Now, my 1911’s were mostly just plain 1911s, nothing fancy. He went Kimber, and had all kinds of finicky issues, great shooting piece… when it worked. He grew tired of the ‘hassles’, and has landed on Glock with a couple short stops in-between.

I’ve always respected Glock for what they are, and what I view them to be: Rugged, rather light, simple, durable. I see both sides of the ‘who invented what’ argument. Sure, lots of others invented individual design details, but Glock appears to be the first to put together the various elements in the fashion that they did. “GLOOB” does a fine job of detailing this in post #70. But, I also understand the power of a strong and ruthless marketing campaign, coupled with the ability to win contracts with silly low prices. IMO, THAT is why they took off the way they did. I remember the sales pitch the guy heaped on my dad when he was first looking at them when I was a pup.

Personally, I’ve never liked how they felt in my hand. There have been some posts about grip angle, and I am in agreement with ”jmr40” in post #8 that I too suspect (although difficult to prove) that the grip angle has something to do with the ‘reliability’ of the feeding. Sure, a slightly sloppy (oversized) chamber makes sense to contribute so the claimed reliability of feeding. “jmr40” also points out in that same post, that when you are new, or relatively new to shooting (auto-loading handguns) that the grip angle isn’t a big issue, because it’s all you know. For those of us that have lots of rounds on a different auto-loading platform – like a 1911 or Beretta 92 (of which I’ve actually never fired) the angle would feel quite unnatural. But, I do not subscribe to his statement that it’s truly a better angle (for shooting). Perhaps it’s a superior angle for feeding rounds, that, I feel could be argued rather well.

In all honesty, the 1911 is difficult to conceal, and I’m a big guy. I go 6’2”, and I’m a fit 230#. It’s a big gun. I even bought a Kimber Ultra Carry 2 for that reason, and I REALLY like my trigger compared to any Glock product I’ve ever shot. Yes, I do prefer a true SA trigger, I just do but, frankly, I don’t like the idea of having to drop the safety before pressing the trigger, and I’d prefer the rear of the slide to be smooth, to minimize snagging when drawing from a CC location.

“Telekinesis” mentioned in post #3, calling some of the schools that burn lots of ammo in their classes, and ask them about reliability in the various products. Seems like wisdom to me. That only costs some time, and you should get some quality feedback. I actually plan to do just that.

There was a part of this thread where several different members discussed modularity in parts, original GI issue tolerances, which allowed for ‘combat accuracy’ and modern hand fitting methods that result in ‘tack drivers’. ARs are super modular, and so many part makers can make a nice rifle. And… the design is more accurate, and also needs more attention. Sure, the AKs are renowned for running fine while full of mud and sand…. But… for a CC piece, why in heck would the ability to run 20K rounds through a platform with ZERO cleaning or PM even appeal to me? To me, that’s like someone bragging that their car will go 50K miles without changing the oil. Okaaayyyyy….. so it will… but why would you ask it do to that?

That same friend I mentioned earlier put a Gen 4 in my hands the other day, and … wow…. What a difference from earlier models I’ve owned, handled and shot. (still haven’t shot a G4 yet) But, as I read through the thread, I noticed several folks mentioning the issues Glock had when they released the Gen 4s. Now that theory of the grip angle and feed process seems to carry a bit more water. The thread is a year old, so maybe the issues have been cleaned up?

There was a lot of banter in this thread about “reliability”. Would it be safe to say that the “reliability” being discussed was in fact “feed reliability”? Firing mechanisms, case ejecting, that sort of stuff seems to be handled rather well, doesn’t it? (Someone please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong here). So, let’s go back and look at those shooting schools once again. I’m going to use an extreme example to illustrate a point, so please, bear with me: IF (and I’m just doing a ‘for-instance’ at this point) (_________ insert brand/model name here) are SO reliable… Then why would you need to practice the ‘tap, rack, bang’? Ever? Now, if the Gen 1 Glock is infallible, then there is not a need to ever practice the ‘tap, rack, bang’ process. But, those shooting schools do train that way, they do teach that. So, that means that by default, every single platform out there is susceptible to a mechanical malfunction.

When the experts seem to agree that majority of ‘failure to cycle properly’ is a direct result of the magazine, rather than the design of the slide assembly cycling, shouldn’t we be putting more emphasis on the design and quality of the magazines? Incidentally, I’ve got a small collection of some pretty cheap and ratty 1911 mags, and they all cycle the 230 FMJ military ball ammo without glitches. Now, please understand, I’m NOT trying to claim the 1911 is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I’m trying to ask some honest and unbiased questions about some various platforms. I’m strongly considering making a significant change to the firearms I shoot the most. So, yes, I’m asking some hard questions.

I’ve actually never shot a Sig, or HK product either. Owned an M&P, and liked it. Owned 2 Glocks over the years, and I tried, but just didn’t like how they felt in my hand. Held a few Sigs, and they do feel quite nice. Really interested in learning more about the Gen 4 Glock, and with Sig’s P320 offering…. I want to feel the triggers, and compare the sizes for CC.

After that, I have to decide.. .45, or 9mm, but that’s a discussion for a different thread….

 

[zb338]

I shot a Glock 34 at IDPA for years and it never jammed once.

Zeke

 

[JohnKSa]

Really interested in learning more about the Gen 4 Glock, and with Sig’s P320 offering…. I want to feel the triggers, and compare the sizes for CC.

You owe it to yourself to survey what's out there before buying. Even compared to just 5 years ago, the polymer striker-fired market has grown (and grown up) a lot.

 

[AZ Desertrat]

Have owned at least 6 Glocks over the years....I have two left....a G19 and a G20SF....YES....they are durable, reliable, etc. But the end all...be all....maybe...maybe not.
I just know they work. But I love my Colt 1911's as well if not better than the G. To each
his own.