Now that Glock's new 5th gen comes with ambi slide stops, can we at last let go of the notion that it's somehow bad or against the design intent to release the slide using the lever/button attached to the stop?
Now that Glock's new 5th gen comes with ambi slide stops, can we at last let go of the notion that it's somehow bad or against the design intent to release the slide using the lever/button attached to the stop?
Now that Glock's new 5th gen comes with ambi slide stops, can we at last let go of the notion that it's somehow bad or against the design intent to release the slide using the lever/button attached to the stop?
Just as a historical footnote, let us remember that the original G17 was designed to have the slide released by pulling back on the slide. The slide stop was intended solely to lock the slide open.somehow bad or against the design intent
Plan B said:I wish. But there's that argument that pulling the slide back let's it slam home with the "full force" of the spring. You know, because that extra 2-3mm of travel is going to add soooooo much more force. Me, I prefer the speed advantage of the slide release lever. IMHO, If that 2-3mm is more advantageous than the speed of the slide release, there's something wrong w/ the design of the gun and/or recoil spring.
The translation would be, "Is it a crane or a yoke?" or "Is it better to push (forward or in) or pull on the cylinder release?"The revolver eliminates the back-forth on if it is a stop or release.
The paradigm you're presenting is a non-sequitur. Ambidexterity in the slide stop does not mean it's meant to be operated one handed, or mean it's meant to be operated as a slide release. An ambidextrous slide stop only means you can comfortably operate it with either hand - NOT precluding you from withdrawing the slide with the off hand, regardless of which hand is gripping the pistol.
Or, we can assume that Glock thinks they can sell more guns if they offer them in this configuration.Now that Glock's new 5th gen comes with ambi slide stops, can we at last let go of the notion that it's somehow bad or against the design intent to release the slide using the lever/button attached to the stop?
Except when your release from getting that extra few mm of travel slows down its moving forward and causes a feed failure -- like can and does sometimes happen with the little Kahr pistols.I wish. But there's that argument that pulling the slide back let's it slam home with the "full force" of the spring. You know, because that extra 2-3mm of travel is going to add soooooo much more force.
Decision-making is a good reason. However, from "an economy of motion" standpoint, the overhand is a less economical method than the slide stop/slide release.I grasp the slide, using the overhand method, retract and release... It's a decision-making and economy of motion thing and not tied to any "slide lock" or "slide release" dogma.
If people want to keep "slingshotting" every slide release, that's fine. As long as they don't bother timing it and realize that they're slower because of it.
Did someone post this in this thread. The only comment I'd noticed was from Walt SherrillI didn't realize the military had gone TO the slingshot.
The DoD now teaches the use of the slide stop/release.
To me this is indicative of a poorly engineered/manufactured gun....I have seen guns on the used market with rounded out slide stop notches, to the point where the slide stop was no longer functional . . .
To me this is indicative of a poorly engineered/manufactured gun....