Is there something inherently different in Glock pistols?

[TheProf]

I'm a Glock fan. Been waiting for a single stack 9mm. But...I'm looking at an M&P Shield or LC9 pro.... (instead of G43).

Question:

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

Or does the Glock design have something unique in it that separates it from the rest? (in terms of reliability and durability)

 

[Deaf Smith]

Well the newer offerings are 'new kids' on the block and have to prove themselves.

Takes time to do that.

Deaf

 

[Telekinesis]

Reliability wise as long as you're looking at top manufacturers they're all pretty close. There may be some extremes like a Glock may do better than a Sig if you're looking at VERY muddy enviromments as there's no hammer to block with mud, but that usually clears itself up on the second pull of the trigger. Look at some high round count shooting schools to see what they recommend as they see a lot of guns firing a lot of rounds.

The biggest advantage of the Glock in my opinion is its user serviceability. In just a couple of minutes I can detail strip my Glock and replace literally anything that may be broken, however on something like a Sig, I'm a little hesitant to detail strip it because I don't want to deal with nested roll pins (in the slide of older German guns) which means every 5k rounds it gets to go to an armorer.

The biggest reason I see for guys who carry Glocks to get a G43 instead of something like a shield is that the triggers will have the same feel, but that's pretty far down on the list of considerations. If you're looking to buy in the near future I'd go with a shield as they're probably going to be a bit cheaper while the world is going crazy for the G43, and it's a proven platform. While I think Glock has a good design, very few guns get through an initial launch without some sort of issue (the whole R51 debacle and the Glock gen 4 brass to face issue are two examples that immediately come to mind).

 

[Jim Watson]

I am of the opinion that you can have A Glock or you can have THE Glock.
The original Glock 17 is a real deal mil-spec military service weapon, tested and approved by whatever Austria uses for an Infantry Board. It is known to be reliable and durable.

I consider other models of Glocks to be reasonable commercial products to be sold mostly to the police agencies and consumers of the North American Colonies.

 

[Tallball]

I owned one of my Rugers for about 30 years and it never once malfunctioned.

Out of my three S&W's, one is newish and has given me zero problems. The other two are about 100 years old and 85 years old, respectively, and neither has ever malfunctioned for me.

So yeah, when someone shows me their 100 year old Glock that still functions perfectly, then I might consider them to be as durable and reliable as my S&W's.

 

[yaonttwo]

WOW!! Four guns and never had a malfunction in any of them!!! Unbelievable.

 

[JRWhit]

The biggest advantage of the Glock in my opinion is its user serviceability.

This is my take on it. I really dont have good reason to believe others are not as reliable. The Glocks ,in my opinion, sell for far more than they should. Rightly so, they are relying on name recognition for a large chunk of their sale price. Ive wanted to have a Glock and have tried many times, mainly because they are like the small block chevy of the gun world, but every time i pick one up the only thought that comes to mind is,"There is no way this thing should sell for $500."

I have a lc9s pro and have been thoroughly impressed. As far as reliability, Im only at about 300rds and have seen no issues thus far.

 

[jmr40]

Reliability and durability are different. Lots of guns are probably every bit as reliable as a Glock. But Glocks use probably the simplest design with the emphasis on durability. I've see nothing that can hold up to long term use and abuse like Glocks. There may be other guns that could do as well, but thus far no one has proven they can.

Lots of folks complain about the Glocks different grip angle, I know it was the primary reason I held out for so long. There have been lots of companies that have attempted to copy the Glock concept with varying degrees of success. Their biggest mistake was not copying the grip angle. Once you understand what it does you start to understand that it is part of the secret of Glocks success.

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. People who have never fired any other guns automatically prefer the feel of the Glock grip. This is why they have take off with new shooters while older guys have resisted. While I can't prove it, I also believe the grip angle contributes to better reliability because there is less of an angle for the cartridges to transition between magazine and chamber.

 

[Jim Watson]

Well, the Glock was designed in Austria, which is right next door to Germany, which is where the Luger came from, and people have been waxing poetic about the "pointability" of the Luger for a long, long time.

And if you are going to point a pistol, that might matter.

At the time the Glock and AUG came along, the Austrian army was largely made up of short term conscripts under universal military service. The weapons had to be simple, the tour of duty wasn't long enough to learn anything fancy.

 

[shockwave]

The Ruger LC9 series now has a 9+1 magazine option. That's 10 rounds onboard a platform not much bigger than an LCP.

I've got the original LC9 (not the s model) with the mag disconnect safety out and it's easily the most reliable semi-auto in my lineup. Had one hiccup with the SR9c, due to an ammo change and it's been fine since, but still the LC9 gives me the confidence of knowing that if I pull the trigger, the gun will fire.

The LC9s looks to be even better, and the pro model is definitely the one to get. Thinking that I'll be trading in to get one. Glocks are OK - I shoot them well and they have a good reputation. They don't feel as good as the Rugers and they usually do better in competition. I wish I could like Glocks because that would simplify my world.

 

[george burns]

Glock and CZ have done extensive testing with their guns over the years. I am not going to start googling articles, but CZ actually has their testing procedures on their website, >less than .05 percent failures in 5000 rounds, "or something close to that".
I from my own experiences with hundreds of handguns over 45 years of carrying, have never felt more comfortable as with a Glock in the holster.
I enjoy shooting many other guns more, but for reliability sake I never ever had one fail in any way on me. No FTE, FTF, failure to go into battery or any other malfunction that could stop me from breathing. If anything can be said for them they don't do everything the best, they just do everything every time you require it.
I have left Glock mags loaded for 15 years, and put them in a new pistol, and they worked as well as if I just loaded them up. I really cannot say that about any other gun I own, even if it were true, I don't have them long enough to know if they would be as reliable.
My nightstand gun is a 30, and my go to is a 26, and I may carry a Kahr pm9 or an XDS, at times, also they have never failed to fire, but just don't have the time in. I would not expect a 1911 to do the same if not occasionally checked and have routine maintenance performed on it, "but it may as well do the same". I just know the Glock will fire from my past experiences, as much as anyone can be sure of anything.
Understand that anything can break, we are just looking for the least likely to break in the longest amount of time.

 

[WardenWolf]

The Ruger P-series has always been on par with Glock, but it's sadly long gone. The Springfield XD, the Smith & Wesson M&P, and others are all on par.

 

[Comrade Mike]

WOW!! Four guns and never had a malfunction in any of them!!! Unbelievable.

Some people like to exaggerate

 

[ritepath]

Everyone knows that the only real guns are glocks. All others should either be safe queens or left for range toys.

Unless you're wanting a fudd gun the only name you need to know is Glock.

Isn't your life worth a glock....

 

[DP03]

To me CZ and Glock seem to take on very different approaches. I just got a CZ97 BD, and all i can say, the tolerances and workmanship is better than I've ever seen. Really reminds you of a very good quality 1911, right down to using a barrel bushing.

My Glock 21, however did not give you that feeling whatsoever. In fact I was uncomfortable with a handgun that I could read a newspaper through the gap between the slide and the frame.

I'm not saying Glocks are unreliable at all. To me, they're just too many better choices out there (and yes, I'm one who does not like the grip angle). Since selling my 21 I haven't looked back.

 

[JohnKSa]

You certainly don't have to buy a Glock to get a durable, reliable pistol.

I think the one unique thing that the original Glocks had going for them is that they were designed and built by people who weren't concerned about anything other than pure functionality.

They didn't have someone whispering in their ear that no one will buy a gun if it looks like that or is made of this, or doesn't have that feature. No one was telling them that gun owners wanted this doodad or hated that gadget, etc.

That kind of thing doesn't happen often and the result was similarly unusual.

That was a long time ago. The newer Glocks are obviously trying to compete with other designs and that is resulting in modifications to the original design--some good and some bad--but either way it's a pretty radical change from the original design philosophy.

 

[Hammer059]

People have pretty much covered any point I would have mentioned here, but….

I really think Glock was too little too late with the 43. Comparable single-stack 9mm's have been out for several years. The Glock is more expensive than the others and has a smaller capacity. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Glock's full size semi-autos. At the same time, I can't stand the people that worship everything Glock without considering that there might be better handguns out there (which there are).

 

[Skribs]

If something came out 30 years ago and another thing came out 10 years ago, and both still work, which is more reliable?

 

[george burns]

I never had a malfunction in any of the 4 guns I carry. I have had over a hundred in 45 years which is not a lot as many here will attest to. But I only keep the guns that don't have any failures to carry. If it were due to bad ammo, I would not count it, but none of my current guns have ever failed.
If a gun has a problem I sell it, it's that simple. There is no reason to keep a gun if it fails for some unknown reason. Or if it has a problem that re occurs, like a slide that keeps on loosening up. I carried revolvers for 25 years for that reason, and expect no less from my auto pistols. If you shoot high quality ammo there is no reason for the gun to fail unless something breaks. There was a time I would fix things like spongy triggers or guns that had ejection problems, I learned it's cheaper just to get a new gun than putz around with a problematic one, unless you enjoy that kind of thing.

 

[Mastrogiacomo]

I'm a Glock fan, I own three. Would I love the single stack? Yes. Do I want to pay twice what's worth in my state via private sale? No. I'll be buying the Walther PPS 9mm for that reason. I'm frankly ticked off that Glock has ignored this market for so long that I don't feel any obligation to buy. If and when I see the prices go down, I'll consider it but I think the Walther will do nicely.

Laura

 

[AustinTX]

Question:

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

This is a terribly loaded question.

There were pistols that were every bit as reliable as the Glock when it released, and there have been numerous pistols for many, many years now that are every bit as reliable. In fact, with Glock's repeated teething issues with Gen4 models and new designs, there are a large number of semi-autos I'd trust more than Glocks.

A lot of Glock's reputation for "legendary" reliability is due to smart advertising and a giant fan base that tells each other and everyone else within earshot how special their Glocks are, downplaying almost all problems as "user error."

 

[JR24]

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

I've had more stoppages with my Glocks than with my 1911's. Have more rounds in my 1911's too.

But I trust any of em with my life.

I don't think there's much of a reliability difference between any of the major manufacturers these days, especially in the poly selections (S&W, Ruger, Springfield, Sig, HK, Glock, CZ, Walther, etc). One nice thing about Glock is that you have a size/caliber for every situation and the same trigger, so that's nice for training consistently.

As for single stack 9's, I just don't see the need. For me, personally, single stack 9's don't offer enough ease in conceal/carry to justify their choice over a similarly sized double stack (e.g. Ruger SR9c, Glock 26, etc).

For pockets I personally prefer a J-Frame .38 or .357.

Just my opinion, YMMV.

 

[george burns]

There are several 9mm's that I find more interesting than the 6 round single stack model that Glock is releasing. Your question has been answered in as much as Glock has been knocking out so many guns in the past 20 years, that if they haven't got it right, no one will. Nothing remarkable about them, just a good design that has been improved on with every model that they make.
I can't see anyone making a more reliable gun in this price range.
Unless there is a huge breakthrough we are probably seeing their model of the striker fired pistol, as the semi auto standard for some years to come.

 

[Deaf Smith]

This is a terribly loaded question.

There were pistols that were every bit as reliable as the Glock when it released, and there have been numerous pistols for many, many years now that are every bit as reliable. In fact, with Glock's repeated teething issues with Gen4 models and new designs, there are a large number of semi-autos I'd trust more than Glocks.

A lot of Glock's reputation for "legendary" reliability is due to smart advertising and a giant fan base that tells each other and everyone else within earshot how special their Glocks are, downplaying almost all problems as "user error."

I'd say it's reliability reputation comes from the Glock 17.

I shot the Glock .vs. 1911 matches for years. You had to fire 1000 rounds in the match, NO CLEANING ALLOWED. At lunch time you had to leave the gun at the range in a table that was guarded and the guns photographed.

If a gun jammed you had to stop immediately and they record the type of jam and round count.

All types of handguns were allowed in the match, not just 1911s.

Well virtually ALL the Glock 17s and most of the Glock 19s flew through that match every year without one jam.

Once a STI 9mm completed the match without a jam but very few other makes. Most 1911s didn't make it.

Glock 45s had a few jams as did my Glock 22 in .40 S&W.

Anyway it was that kind of reliability that made the rep. In the Middle East Glocks are highly sought out.

Deaf

 

[jimbo555]

I agree that the legendary reliability comes from the Glock 17. Like most other pistols the more compact you make them the less reliable. That has been my experience with the Glocks I used to own, 26, 36 and 30s. I came to the conclusion that for me if a pistol doesn't feel good in my hand I don't want it. Simple.