Is there something inherently different in Glock pistols?

[gregshake2]

CZs are the widely use military, security and police pistol in the world

 

[Warp]

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 suppo

Most people don't need t go to a gunsmith to work on a Glock. They can do it themselves. And parts are "drop in".

Why are there SO MANY outside providers offering support? Because Glock is SO POPULAR

 

[stchman]

Glock does not have a "magic" formula to make dependable firearms. What Glock does is that they have a design and they use it on all their pistols. Pretty much every Glock is essentially the same basic design as the original. Other firearm makers when they make a new firearm, they usually do it from the ground up rather that use a proven design.

With all this being said, a firearm from a reputable manufacturer that has been making that model for a while will be dependable.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Glock does not have a "magic" formula to make dependable firearms. What Glock does is that they have a design and they use it on all their pistols. Pretty much every Glock is essentially the same basic design as the original. Other firearm makers when they make a new firearm, they usually do it from the ground up rather that use a proven design.

All that is true, but not all parts are 100% functionally interchangeable as you move from one model to another, and some design changes were needed in the various models, moving from one caliber to the next, or from sub-compact, to compact, to full-size, etc.

That said, I'd argue that there may still be a little "magic" in the design.

Whether this "magic" was an intentional design objective or a serendipitous feature that popped up by accident is unknown, but the Glock design is apparently very tolerant of some slightly out of spec parts.

This was first noticed by the firms that offered metal Glock frames. Those firms found that many of the after-market parts that worked beautifully in the polymer-framed guns simply would not work (without signficant gunsmith-fitting) in the metal-framed versions. This was sometimes true with different copies of the same part from the same after-market vendor! -- the after-market vendors were not ALL as attentive to consistent specs or quality control as Glock or some of their after-market competitors.

I think folks who shot IPSC and USPSA wanted the added precision that a metal frame could offer, but it may have proved more troublesome and costly than it was worth. I think nearly all of the firms that offered metal frames no longer do so...

I like Glocks and have had several. But I like other gun designs and gunmakers, too... so don't consider my comments above to be the testimony of a dyed-in-the wool Glockaholic. I'm not.

 

[mavracer]

That said, I'd argue that there may still be a little "magic" in the design.

I'd argue that that is false and the fact that you actually believe that is a result of the real "magic" of Glock which is the propaganda machine that is their marketing.

 

[MIL-DOT]

At the risk of repeating myself.....I'm gonna repeat myself .
The overwhelming majority of objections to Glocks, are based on subjective opinion, and personal biases, rather than on the most critical criteria (i.e. "does it work").
We hear, ad nauseum, complaints about the grip angle, the non-competition-grade trigger, the sights, it's unappealing looks, it's lack of "history", it's modern construction materials, Glock's self-serving publicity campaigns, hate-ons for the fanboys, the fact the John Moses browning didn't design it, blah,blah,blah.
I like Glocks, I bought my first one, an early gen1 G17, around 1985,and have been through several,since.
But, I also really like other handguns, from revolvers to 1911's. So I don't think Glocks are the end-all of handguns.
But, the fact is, the damned things simply work. They are highly effective,functional,reliable, simple, economical, pistols that do what they're designed to do.
THAT'S what matters. If you don't like them, then don't own one, but for God's sake, shut-up and quit sniveling about them on the internet forums.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

That said, I'd argue that there may still be a little "magic" in the design.

I'd argue that that is false and the fact that you actually believe that is a result of the real "magic" of Glock which is the propaganda machine that is their marketing.

I currently have 18 handguns, and I'm not a collector -- I shoot them all, as time and money allows. At present, only one of the 18 is a Glock, but that may change if I stumble across a good deal farther on down the road. I've had 6-7 Glocks over the years, but I've had even more 1911s and a lot more CZs and CZ-pattern guns.

As I said, I'm not a Glockaholic -- but I do recognize at least one characteristic of the Glock design that may be unique and which is typically NOT so easily seen in other guns: a design tolerance for variances in the part dimensions that may have been an unintended or accidental but positive (i.e., serendipitous) characteristic of the design.

You responded to your own imaginary version of what I wrote, using it as an opportunity to voice your apparent dislike of the guns (or how they are sold, but you offered no real specifics. I

f you really dislike Glocks -- and you seem to -- that dislike could be better presentedby offering us a list of actual of Glock design shortcomings that make Glock weapons less good than competing brands. Instead, all you really do is attack the gun's popularity and attribute that popularity to propaganda (or, put more nicely, Glock's markeing savvy.) In my long career -- I'm now retired -- I spent almost a decade in marketing, advertising, and a few years in new product development. I will agree that advertising and marketing, (and propaganda) can be powerful things -- but they seldom help an inferior product or service to survive very long. Advertising and marketing can speed up the success of an adequate product -- but even then, users aren't as malleable as you seem to think. Advertising and marketing can also hasten the death of an inferior product.

Glocks have been around for almost 35 years now, and a truly inferior product can't be kept alive due to marketing prowess alone. Unless there's a reasonably good product to start with, there won't be that many repeat buyers -- and repeat buyers are what business is all about.

How about some substance to justify your claim? Show us something more than your emotional response to a product you don't like.

 

[mavracer]

but I do recognize at least one characteristic of the Glock design that may be unique and which is typically NOT so easily seen in other guns: a design tolerance for variances in the part dimensions that may have been an unintended or accidental but positive (i.e., serendipitous) characteristic of the design.

Everything mass produced has tolerance designed in for manufacturing variances, Glock isn't "magic" they are just a machine build it to design specs and it'll run but so will a 1911, Sig P2XX, Beretta, CZ, Smith or any other well designed gun.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Again, you obviously didn't read what I wrote... you continue with the same old arguments, but again without any real claims of issues.

I said that METAL FRAMED glocks didn't work well with many after-market parts, even when the after-market parts were for the same part from the same supplier. To much variance in products from a given maker. But the same parts work well in polymer Glocks. Their polymer design may accept more variances than do metal frame versions. The metal-framed versions were exact copies of the polymer-framed guns -- with all dimensions matching.

I'm sure Glock parts ARE made to Glock specs, but many after-market parts ARE NOT. That may account for their success with the secondary market suppliers. And the availablilty of after-market parts is certainly one of the things that make some of the less likeable traits of the Glocks (like triggers) more tolearable.

You pooh-poohed my example, but can you cite some other gunmakers that also accept that sort of variance from spec and still have their weapons function properly?

As I said from the start -- this may not have been an intended design feature, but it could be one that has helped make them successful.

 

[Tenguns]

What's inherently different about Glock? Brilliant marketing strategy, first and foremost. Practically give them away to LE to build up that professional legitimacy factor, and then leverage that reputation in the broader civilian marketplace. Yes, they're good reliable guns for the money. The "best"? Please.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

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

Czech paratroopers use the CZ-75 SP01 Phantom.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Actually, I haven't read too many responses in this discussion claiming that Glocks are BEST, only that they're functional, practical, reliable, easily serviced, and well-liked. They're not MY favorite gun, but I like'm well enough.

I agree that Glock turned the world upside down in the U.S. with their marketing approach, but as I noted earlier, great marketing won't really help with an inferior product. Great marketing can do wonders with a good product, even when better products are available. The Volkswagen Beetle (the original ones) were a stellar example of that.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

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

U.S. Special Ops troops favor the H&K 45s for certain missions -- especially ones that call for the use of silencers or suppressors. The Russian Army has just introduced a new polymer-framed gun. The Brazilian Defense forces are switching to the CZ P-07. I suspect it's inevitable. I won't be surprised if the next U.S. Army weapon is polymer-framed, either.

And almost all sub-guns and carbines in use in the West are now polymer-framed weapons.

 

[mavracer]

said that METAL FRAMED glocks didn't work well with many after-market parts, even when the after-market parts were for the same part from the same supplier. To much variance in products from a given maker. But the same parts work well in polymer Glocks. Their polymer design may accept more variances than do metal frame versions. The metal-framed versions were exact copies of the polymer-framed guns -- with all dimensions matching.

Many, some, maybe, may not. and apparently the metal ones aren't EXACT copys with all dememsions matching.

I'm sure Glock parts ARE made to Glock specs, but many after-market parts ARE NOT.

Most are made to tighter tolerances and many are intentionally left larger than spec to allow for fitting.

You pooh-poohed my example, but can you cite some other gunmakers that also accept that sort of variance from spec and still have their weapons function properly?

Actually most will accept aftermarket parts made to tighter tolerances and run just fine. I've put all kinds of drop in parts in my guns and had them run.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

oops, also forgot to mention the FN Five-Sevens in military service.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Many, some, maybe, may not. and apparently the metal ones aren't EXACT copys with all dememsions matching.

As you say (in a slightly different way), perhaps or perhaps not. But at least two of the metal {Glock} frame makers offered examples of parts (supposedly using the same part number, ordered weeks apart) from the same vendors that came to their shop with different dimensions.

Most are made to tighter tolerances and many are intentionally left larger than spec to allow for fitting.

Most are made to tighter tolerances? If so, HOW do you know this? Have you actually been measuring after-market Glock parts to know determine this truth, or are you just making this stuff up as you go? And, when you say tighter tolerances do you mean tighter (i.e., different) than the correct factory part design specs?

I know that certain models of the Ghost trigger kits for Glocks are left longer, but that IS, as you say, to allow fitting so that the shooter can get things the way he or she wants them. The parts that the metal-frame makers were talking about weren't THOSE kind of parts -- and they were supposed to be drop in parts.

Actually most will accept aftermarket parts made to tighter tolerances and run just fine. I've put all kinds of drop in parts in my guns and had them run.

"Drop in" parts are supposed to drop in and run just fine, but they won't always runs as well as fitted parts. I've dropped in a number of barrels, but also had some that had to be fitted even though they were supposedly drop-ins. (I left that to my gunsmith who knew what he was doing.) You may not want to drop in a Bar-Sto barrel -- generally considered the Gold Standard of barrels -- if you want the best accuracy. It goes without saying that a lot of parts for some guns require fitting for best performance, but they might run just fine without fitting.

Let's get back to a more important point -- the one you keep avoiding: tell us what's wrong with Glocks, but give us some specifics --so that we know that your dislike is based on more than just an emotional (or unexplained) response or a fundamental dislike of Glock's marketing approach.

As I said earlier, great marketing can sell a crappy gun for a while, but not for 35+ years.

And again, like others here, I don't consider the Glock the best handgun available. I consider it a good, reliable gun suitable for many uses. I like others better, but I have one in a small bed-side gun safe bolted to the floor, in case things ever go bump in the night.

 

[Llama Bob]

I've never considered Glocks particularly reliable, or accurate, or shootable, or ergonomic, or really to have much in the way of positive properties.

I guess they do have a durable slide finish. If that's your thing...

 

[mavracer]

I've dropped in a number of barrels, but also had some that had to be fitted even though they were supposedly drop-ins. (I left that to my gunsmith who knew what he was doing.) You may not want to drop in a Bar-Sto barrel -- generally considered the Gold Standard of barrels -- if you want the best accuracy.

Bar-Sto doesn't make a drop in barrel, but at least this helps me to understand part of the problem. I can't help someone who wishes to remain Ignorant.

tell us what's wrong with Glocks

Other than the ergonomics suck really nothing, but they ain't magic either.
My question still goes unanswered too.
"exactly how is a Glock more reliable than my Sig, Smith, Ruger, Colt, FN, Browning, Walther or CZs that have never jammed?"

 

[Warp]

Bar-Sto doesn't make a drop in barrel, but at least this helps me to understand part of the problem. I can't help someone who wishes to remain Ignorant.



Other than the ergonomics suck really nothing, but they ain't magic either.
My question still goes unanswered too.
"exactly how is a Glock more reliable than my Sig, Smith, Ruger, Colt, FN, Browning, Walther or CZs that have never jammed?"

You have at least 8 guns that have never had a failure?

Shoot more!

 

[mavracer]

You have at least 8 guns that have never had a failure?

Shoot more!

I shoot between 500 and 1k rounds a month any more and I'm gonna need a sponsor PM me and I'll let you know where to send the check.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Bar-Sto doesn't make a drop in barrel, but at least this helps me to understand part of the problem. I can't help someone who wishes to remain Ignorant.

Bar-Sto offers a number of barrels that MAY require fitting (and the implicit message is that some may not). I had a B-S .357 SIG barrel for a SIG 2340 that DID drop in. I'm sure I was lucky. The Bar-Sto Precision Match Target barrels MUST be fit by a gunsmith, and it makes sense to have Bar-Sto do it. They say their Glock barrels MAY require fitting, too.

Other than the ergonomics suck really nothing, but they ain't magic either.
My question still goes unanswered too.
"exactly how is a Glock more reliable than my Sig, Smith, Ruger, Colt, FN, Browning, Walther or CZs that have never jammed?"

It sems as though you're asking me to defend some claims made by others. I didn't make any such claims about Glocks being MORE of anything. And I've never been crazy about the grip angle, but found that IF I used the sights, I could hit quite well with them. Some of the best scores I've ever shot in IDPA were done with a Glock 34 in my hand. I much prefer shooting my CZ, or my Sphinx SDP, but if I use the sights on the Glock, the bullets tend to go where they should. And for some reason, I'm always a little bit quicker out of the holster for the first shot. I understand that the Gen 4 grips may help solve that "grip problem" a bit -- but haven't tried a Gen 4 gun, yet.

I've made no claims about a GLOCK being better than anything else. I did suggest that the design MAY be a bit more tolerant when it comes to the precision required of some of the internals. Check back through my responses. I did say that they are functional and reliable. I will also say that the ones I've owned were accurate, too. Those claims takes nothing away from any of the guns you mention -- and I've not said Glocks were better. My comments were mostly in response to your almost EMOTIONAL diatribes about Glocks.

The fact that Glock has taken a good gun and sold the hell out of it, through an effective marketing approach, doesn't make it -- as you seem to imply -- a bad weapon choice.

Grip angle, at least until the Gen 4 guns, was a problem for some shooters. But, the fact that some of the guns that fit me well don't fit other well is a fact, too. A number of my friends just can't handle the long trigger pull of the standard (safety-equipped) DA/SA CZ (or similar CZ-pattern weapons) when starting from hammer down. That doesn't make the CZs a bad guns, but it does mean that some folks will choose a different weapon. Similarly, the Glock's awkward grip angle with which many of us are familiar can be offputting, too. Maybe that's fixed with the newer guns?

(One place where Glocks do seem to excel is with their magazines! They offer high quality, reliable magazines including both high-cap and very hi-cap mag versions, for very low prices. I've picked up a number of Glock's (branded) full-size and compact mags for around $20. I don't think I've ever had a Glock magazine fail. I'm sure it happens. Heck, I could even pick up a 33-round 9mm mag at MidWayUSA today for $35. Try to do that with any of YOUR guns. That said, I have no interest in the 33-rounder mags...)

 

[Polar Express]

I sure didn't mean to start a holy-war when I brought this thread back up. I truly was interested in more and more input.

Throughout this thread, I've been pleased to read what I took to be objective feedback from the OP's question. I've also seen some emotionally charged opinions, both for, and against the Glock brand. I find it fascinating how polarizing it can be, and the various reasons for each posters' opinions.

To me, it seems very much like the Ford/Chevy debate, with some similar traits, and some different ones too.

Thanks to "JohnKSa" for your advice to open up the search to see whats available on the market today, frankly, it's been so long since I even went to the sales desk or picked up a magazine to see just what's out there. (and no, I don't live under a rock, I just don't frequent the gun sales counters when I don't have cash to spend)

If one was to answer the OP's question directly, it would appear that plenty of other options are just as reliable as the Glock products, and there are plenty that have been out an run long enough to get reliable numbers on any failure rates.

PE

 

[Jim NE]

Is there something inherently different in Glock pistols?

I don't know if it's "in" the pistol, but keep in mind that Glock only does one thing. Different calibers and sizes, but they're all very much the same pistol design philosophy. And ONLY pistols...all of which are identifiable at a glance.

Smith and Wesson, Ruger, CZ and other companies have a much wider range of weapons they produce. It's like a brain surgeon vs. general practitioner. No offense to anyone, but I'd rather have my CZ 75's (heavy as they are) than Glocks.

CZ...reliable AND attractive. Imagine that!

 

[tarosean]

I'm sure Glock parts ARE made to Glock specs, but many after-market parts ARE NOT.

Yet you can build a 9mm Glock entirely from aftermarket parts, just like a 10/22, Rem 700, AR, etc. etc. etc.

 

[mavracer]

It sems as though you're asking me to defend some claims made by others.

You said " I'd argue that there may still be a little "magic" in the design."

If you understood how they worked well enough that you wouldn't need "my gunsmith who knew what he was doing" you would understand there's no "magic" in the design.