Lennyjoe
Member
Guess you havent seen or heard of primer strike issues with Winchester primers in Glocks have you?
http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=480118
http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=480118
Pros and Cons about Glock
- Thread starter PinnedAndRecessed
- Start date
- Status
Assinine and retarded?
Well, three reasons a second strike can be nice. 1. Some military surplus ammo has "hard" primers and once in a while a round takes a second strike to fire, Ive seen this a few times, and it almost always fires on the second strike. 2. If you are a reloader and dont seat the primers deep enough accidently, sometimes it takes a second strike, after the first strike seats the primer. 3. Winchester large pistol primers are notoriously hard, many guns have to hit them twice to fire them. You can search on Glocktalk for "WLP" and find it alot.
I'm not defending reckless reloading, but it does happen.
All you have to do is retract the slide about 3/8 or 1/2 inch and release, and the striker will be cocked for a second strike. With a little practice, this can even be done one-handed (without pushing the gun against anything). Not something you want to do in the middle of a gunfight, but good enough for just target shooting.
Lennyjoe
Member
My point exactly. For a DAO only pistol with no hammer to pull back for a second shot, the second strike is a nice feature to have.
Anytime you pull the trigger and the round doesnt go off, your best bet is to hold the gun pointed down range for quite a few seconds in case the primer decides to fire. Instead of waiting that time to recharge the trigger, I'd rather just pull the trigger a second time. I always wonder how long to wait anyway. Could you image a round going off as you pulled the slide back? KABOOM!
Can someone explain the dislike for second strike capability?
I think it's mostly a manual of arms thing. Responding to any malfunction with a tap-rack-bang simplifies things a little. Uh oh, it didn't fire. Do I tap-rack-bang, pull the trigger again, or cock the hammer and then pull the trigger again? Making a decision when there's only 1 choice is a lot faster than 2 choices.
Which is why I said that second strike with a Glock is only something you want to do on the range. Probably the same with any other gun. I mean, if a certain type of ammo needs a second strike a couple percent of the time, you aren't going to carry that ammo for self defense unless there's no other alternative. That would be insane.
People often say "when X type of ammo doesn't go off on the first whack, a second hit usually works." But chances are none of them carry that ammo for self defense. With good quality carry ammo, if it doesn't go off the first time, chances are much higher that it won't go off the second time either, compared to military ammo or whatever.
Which is why I said that second strike with a Glock is only something you want to do on the range. Probably the same with any other gun. I mean, if a certain type of ammo needs a second strike a couple percent of the time, you aren't going to carry that ammo for self defense unless there's no other alternative. That would be insane.
People often say "when X type of ammo doesn't go off on the first whack, a second hit usually works." But chances are none of them carry that ammo for self defense. With good quality carry ammo, if it doesn't go off the first time, chances are much higher that it won't go off the second time either, compared to military ammo or whatever.
Last edited:
MTMilitiaman
Member
Just like Ryan stated, it simplifies things to have one basic reaction to anything that goes wrong with your pistol.
If it doesn't go bang the first time, I would prefer just to get it out of the system, eliminate it as a possible error in the future, and move on. I don't care if it is improperly seated or hard primers. Rack the slide, tap it, and fire. You can stand there and pull the trigger again, but it may or may not go off. How many chances are you going to give it? If it doesn't go off, you've just wasted that much time that you could have used to clear it and be done with it once and for all. Now you have to decide if it goes click instead of boom do you rack and tap or pull the trigger again. It only complicates things. It is unnecessary at best and fatally erroneous at worst to rely on another trigger pull to do what the second one failed to do, and to add another procedure and decision to your manual of arms.
If it doesn't go bang the first time, I would prefer just to get it out of the system, eliminate it as a possible error in the future, and move on. I don't care if it is improperly seated or hard primers. Rack the slide, tap it, and fire. You can stand there and pull the trigger again, but it may or may not go off. How many chances are you going to give it? If it doesn't go off, you've just wasted that much time that you could have used to clear it and be done with it once and for all. Now you have to decide if it goes click instead of boom do you rack and tap or pull the trigger again. It only complicates things. It is unnecessary at best and fatally erroneous at worst to rely on another trigger pull to do what the second one failed to do, and to add another procedure and decision to your manual of arms.
While I agree with what Ryan said in a defensive situation, I still would like to have the option when at the range to pull the trigger a second time without having to grab the slide and reset the trigger. If thats such a horrible thing, then somebody needs to write HK a letter and tell them about how crappy their new LEM system is.
MTMilitiaman
Member
I already wrote two letters to HK letting them know how crappy their entire USP is, as politely as possible, of course, and inquiring as to how I could get mine serviced--they never replied. So you could write to them, but it wouldn't do you any good.
The pistol still sucks compared to the Glock. Even if you pay twice as much for it, the HK is still only half as good on a good day as the Glock.
The pistol still sucks compared to the Glock. Even if you pay twice as much for it, the HK is still only half as good on a good day as the Glock.
Lonestar, you are correct about a single stack being easy to conceal. I carried a Series 70 LWT Commander for years. I then discovered the Glock 23. Yes it is a little wider, but not by much. I like the 14 round capacity of the G23. The one thing I do not like about the 1911s is the thumb safety. I have seen too many shooters make that lightening draw only to look at their gun trying to figure out why it won't shoot. Whoops, thumb safety was still on.
My only complaint on Glocks is I wish it had second strike capability.
END QUOTE
Not to pick on you but even if you had second strike you should not use it.
If its a dud round it may fire your right with the second pull. But while your wasting time what if the chambe was simply empty because you did not load your weapon or because the mag was not seated. Now you have wasted precious time pulling the trigger when you could have been performing the tap rack access and getting ammo into your pistol. Also the most common cause for a fail to fire is operator error in loading the pistol.
Pat
END QUOTE
Not to pick on you but even if you had second strike you should not use it.
If its a dud round it may fire your right with the second pull. But while your wasting time what if the chambe was simply empty because you did not load your weapon or because the mag was not seated. Now you have wasted precious time pulling the trigger when you could have been performing the tap rack access and getting ammo into your pistol. Also the most common cause for a fail to fire is operator error in loading the pistol.
Pat
Pros:
- Reliable
- simple...even in high-stress, just pull the trigger.
- easy to shoot well
- easy to maintain, repair, get parts.
- so functional and ugly.... it's pretty
- proven
- did I say, reliable!
cons:
- some glockers are a bit abrasive (but, so are some anti-glockers).
- Reliable
- simple...even in high-stress, just pull the trigger.
- easy to shoot well
- easy to maintain, repair, get parts.
- so functional and ugly.... it's pretty
- proven
- did I say, reliable!
cons:
- some glockers are a bit abrasive (but, so are some anti-glockers).
Pros:
Accurate and Reliable.
Light Trigger.
Light Weight.
Plenty of Upgrade options (Mounts, laser sights, heavier recoil springs, etc.).
Very Popular
Cons:
Light Trigger makes it very difficult to take up the trigger for a semi-single action
like trigger pull.
Inaccurate (when I shot one).
Expensive, but getting cheaper.
No real safety.
No double strike capability (not sure if it has a stupid magazine disconnect feature).
Frame Rails could be a little longer and thicker.
I suggest field stripping and shooting one for yourself.
Accurate and Reliable.
Light Trigger.
Light Weight.
Plenty of Upgrade options (Mounts, laser sights, heavier recoil springs, etc.).
Very Popular
Cons:
Light Trigger makes it very difficult to take up the trigger for a semi-single action
like trigger pull.
Inaccurate (when I shot one).
Expensive, but getting cheaper.
No real safety.
No double strike capability (not sure if it has a stupid magazine disconnect feature).
Frame Rails could be a little longer and thicker.
I suggest field stripping and shooting one for yourself.
KaceCoyote
Member
I dont know what everyone is so crazy for reliability for.
My CZ ran like a top through 2000 rounds over the course of 3 weeks without cleaning. Just because 1911s require thousands to become reliable doesnt mean that everyone else does.
Glocks are fine weapons, but they're no longer top of the stack in terms of reliability. I'd say there are presently a few pistols capable of going blow for blow in terms of reliability, and which still lack that retarded DAO thing. I'd say a CZ-75, the P99s, Taurus 24/7 seems to be either or at times, Makarovs, Certain select M1911s and a few others. Sorry but DAO is retarded.
My CZ ran like a top through 2000 rounds over the course of 3 weeks without cleaning. Just because 1911s require thousands to become reliable doesnt mean that everyone else does.
Glocks are fine weapons, but they're no longer top of the stack in terms of reliability. I'd say there are presently a few pistols capable of going blow for blow in terms of reliability, and which still lack that retarded DAO thing. I'd say a CZ-75, the P99s, Taurus 24/7 seems to be either or at times, Makarovs, Certain select M1911s and a few others. Sorry but DAO is retarded.
Thought we hashed this out on this thread when you said you were beating a dead horse. Guess you think it's back up and running again?Joe D said:
It may not be in the manual, but Glock doesn't make a secret of the fact. If you call Glock, they will tell you not to shoot lead in their barrels. If you read any of the Glock Annuals, it's almost always spelled out in the first few pages.
And it's not even like this is something Glock cooked up. Here's what Gale McMillan has to say on the topic.
It's the nature of a polygonal barrel that soft lead wants to skid across the rifling and lock up. With a bullet it will actually shear the lead causing high pressure. ... If you haven't had trouble just be patient.
Gale McMillan
Of COURSE you can shoot lead bullets in Glocks. You can also play golf in a thunderstorm or cross the street without looking both ways. Gale McMillan
People get away with shooting lead in Glocks and doing many other things that are not necessarily wise--sometimes for a long time. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to recommend it. The pressure rise from shooting lead bullets is predictable, it has been documented, and it is factual, not myth as you have repeatedly stated on this forum. The fact that you may get away with it for a long time doesn't make it safe--it just means you're either very careful, very lucky, or both.
I'm glad you have gotten away with this practice for a long time. I'm not trying to get you to stop because I know there's not a chance of that. But I sincerely wish you would stop telling other people that it's perfectly safe.
You're disagreeing with:
The company that made the gun.
A forensic mechanical engineer that did pressure measurements.
An expert in barrel making.
Many people who have actually had the "pleasure" of blowing up Glocks with lead bullets.
Now, maybe all of them are wrong and you're right! If so, please publish your credentials and pressure testing numbers confirming your allegation and convince Glock to stop warning people about shooting lead in Glocks. It should be no problem if it's really a myth.
Good luck,
John
noresttill
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2005
- Messages
- 329
Feild Stripping!
I can field strip and reassemble my Glock 17 in under a minute. At first, the slide release is tricky, but after you get that its like assembling a Glock (I tried to think of something easier to assemble, but couldn't so Glock is the standard)
Jesse
EDIT: Geez, I cant spell!
I can field strip and reassemble my Glock 17 in under a minute. At first, the slide release is tricky, but after you get that its like assembling a Glock (I tried to think of something easier to assemble, but couldn't so Glock is the standard)
Jesse
EDIT: Geez, I cant spell!
Pros = Everyone will love you if have a Glock on your hip.
Cons = Everyone will hate you if have a Glock on your hip.
Great gun at a great price. The models that are off the shelf today are an evolution of upgrades that Glock has made on improvements over the years. There have been obvious short comings that have been addressed by the factory and today's new models are far different then their older siblings imported years ago.
My favorite? The G19. I think it is the best for overall weight, firepower, dimensions and flat out "shoot-ability".
I don't think you can go wrong owning one... or two.
Cons = Everyone will hate you if have a Glock on your hip.
Great gun at a great price. The models that are off the shelf today are an evolution of upgrades that Glock has made on improvements over the years. There have been obvious short comings that have been addressed by the factory and today's new models are far different then their older siblings imported years ago.
My favorite? The G19. I think it is the best for overall weight, firepower, dimensions and flat out "shoot-ability".
I don't think you can go wrong owning one... or two.
Glocker
Member
This is simple
pro's on a Glock : Gaston Glock is a god !
con's on a Glock : can't think of any
nuff said
pro's on a Glock : Gaston Glock is a god !
con's on a Glock : can't think of any
nuff said
IndianaDean
Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2004
- Messages
- 541
Major downside to my Glock 19:
I go through rounds at the range way too fast!
I go through rounds at the range way too fast!
John, I have asked the person that did all of those "pressure test" to publish his actual findings. I have asked to see his testing protocol. I have asked for the type and model of his testing equipment. No answers so far.
I tend to have little respect for "experts". All too many times they have been proven wrong. Good thing Chuck Yeager did not listen to the "experts" or we would have never gone past the sound barrier.
Perhaps the key wording in Gale McMillan's quote is "soft lead". I wonder what his definition of "soft" is. The lead bullets I use come from two quality bullet makers. Both cast their bullets in the 18-20 range. I have "read" where others have shot soft lead bullets through their Glocks without any ill effects. I do not know this to be true as I have not tried it. What I do know is a large number of Glock owners shoot lead bullets through their guns without any issues. My Kimbers lead more than my Glocks.
My question to you is do you even own a Glock. If so have you ever tried lead bullets or do you just accept what the "experts" say as gospel.
As far as the "dead horse" issue I will continue to refute those, like you, that claim one cannot shoot lead through a Glock. My credentials? I have been shooting competitively since I was 12 years old. I have been gunsmithing for over 30 years. I have probably worked on more Glocks and 1911s than you have ever seen.
It sounds like you are comfortable living in a "safe little cocoon" never questioning the "experts". It is probably hard for you to admit you could be wrong. That's OK.
Feel free to continue your lead bullet posts, I will do the same.
BTW I do not believe in luck.
I tend to have little respect for "experts". All too many times they have been proven wrong. Good thing Chuck Yeager did not listen to the "experts" or we would have never gone past the sound barrier.
Perhaps the key wording in Gale McMillan's quote is "soft lead". I wonder what his definition of "soft" is. The lead bullets I use come from two quality bullet makers. Both cast their bullets in the 18-20 range. I have "read" where others have shot soft lead bullets through their Glocks without any ill effects. I do not know this to be true as I have not tried it. What I do know is a large number of Glock owners shoot lead bullets through their guns without any issues. My Kimbers lead more than my Glocks.
My question to you is do you even own a Glock. If so have you ever tried lead bullets or do you just accept what the "experts" say as gospel.
As far as the "dead horse" issue I will continue to refute those, like you, that claim one cannot shoot lead through a Glock. My credentials? I have been shooting competitively since I was 12 years old. I have been gunsmithing for over 30 years. I have probably worked on more Glocks and 1911s than you have ever seen.
It sounds like you are comfortable living in a "safe little cocoon" never questioning the "experts". It is probably hard for you to admit you could be wrong. That's OK.
Feel free to continue your lead bullet posts, I will do the same.
BTW I do not believe in luck.
John, answer this question for me. I have a G35 that I bought a 9mm conversion barrel for. This barrel has conventional rifling. My wife's G34 has the stock factory barrel. We both shoot the same practice load. That is a 125 gr lead bullet from Valiant loaded to a little over 1050 fps. After 500 or so rounds her barrel will have no lead what so ever. My 9mm barrel will have enough lead build up that it will require a fair amount of scrubbing to clean. My barrel is not what I would consider rough as a patch will slide easily through the bore. The bore size must be OK as the gun groups under 2" at 25 yds with this load. I have not slugged the barrel so I do not know for certain.
Why does one barrel lead and the other, that is supposed to, not?
I am certainly willing to listen to your reasons.
Why does one barrel lead and the other, that is supposed to, not?
I am certainly willing to listen to your reasons.
dmallind
Member
You'd think I'd get this "soul" concept. Apart from one pocket gun all I have is Glocks (almost universally derided as having no "soul") and 1911s (usually held up as the epitome of "soul").
Bugger me with a banjo if I can see anything I would call "soul" in either of them. And I'm not even being pedantic and talking about a "nephesh" breath of god type soul here. I see nothing in 1911s that evokes any kind of emotional, spiritual or whatever response. I see nothing in Glocks that does either. Clearly most people agree on the latter, but many do not on the former.
Other than having a little more interesting lines with some curves and some straights blended together rather than the all-straight-line Glock, I don't even see any great aesthetic principles being demonstrated by the 1911.
What is this "soul" idea? Is it nostalgia mostly - do you look at a 1911 and imagine all the battles and gunfights it's been used in? Is it some sense of the aesthetic reaching some sublime level? Sorry but I don't see any great visual beauty per se in any gun. In 1915 or so did old time shooters wax lyrical about the "soul" of the service revolver and the boring practical mechanistic ugliness of the new fangled slabbly 1911? Why or why not?
Again make no mistake I enjoy my 1911s immensely and am trending almost exclusively in that direction. I am doing this though for very objective reasons - the trigger action, the accuracy for me, the practicality anmd modularity of the design. I also have Glocks for similarly objective reasons - simplicity, durability, reliability, consistency, cost.
Maybe I'm just a rational materialist here but "soul" in this context means nothing.
Bugger me with a banjo if I can see anything I would call "soul" in either of them. And I'm not even being pedantic and talking about a "nephesh" breath of god type soul here. I see nothing in 1911s that evokes any kind of emotional, spiritual or whatever response. I see nothing in Glocks that does either. Clearly most people agree on the latter, but many do not on the former.
Other than having a little more interesting lines with some curves and some straights blended together rather than the all-straight-line Glock, I don't even see any great aesthetic principles being demonstrated by the 1911.
What is this "soul" idea? Is it nostalgia mostly - do you look at a 1911 and imagine all the battles and gunfights it's been used in? Is it some sense of the aesthetic reaching some sublime level? Sorry but I don't see any great visual beauty per se in any gun. In 1915 or so did old time shooters wax lyrical about the "soul" of the service revolver and the boring practical mechanistic ugliness of the new fangled slabbly 1911? Why or why not?
Again make no mistake I enjoy my 1911s immensely and am trending almost exclusively in that direction. I am doing this though for very objective reasons - the trigger action, the accuracy for me, the practicality anmd modularity of the design. I also have Glocks for similarly objective reasons - simplicity, durability, reliability, consistency, cost.
Maybe I'm just a rational materialist here but "soul" in this context means nothing.
- Status
