What do you not like about Glock?
- Thread starter wecklish
- Start date
- Status
Dave88LX
Member
I can't say about shooting the gun, but just holding it in my hand (forget the model, it was a 9mm sub-compact), it has individual finger "reliefs"? is the word? My knuckles were too wide, and I couldn't hold it comfortably.
[email protected]
Member
The grip angle is more suited to pre - "modern doctrine" one-handed shooting... very reminicent of the Luger... which was lauded for its natural pointing characteristics back when a two-handed grip was practically unheard of.
The factory front sight is completely inadequate for any sort of serious use. Twice in the last six months I've had guns come into the shop still sealed in the factory box with the front sights rattling around in the case.
The magazine and slide releases are not conducive to rapid reloading... this is probably a result of the European breeding. It seems to me European handgun doctrine doesn't stress reloading as much as Americans do.
The trigger is... well, the trigger just suffers from the same problem as most pistols made since oh... about 1911 or so.
It can be either light or safe, but not both.
That's a few things I don't like about them...
DanO
The factory front sight is completely inadequate for any sort of serious use. Twice in the last six months I've had guns come into the shop still sealed in the factory box with the front sights rattling around in the case.
The magazine and slide releases are not conducive to rapid reloading... this is probably a result of the European breeding. It seems to me European handgun doctrine doesn't stress reloading as much as Americans do.
The trigger is... well, the trigger just suffers from the same problem as most pistols made since oh... about 1911 or so.
It can be either light or safe, but not both. That's a few things I don't like about them...
DanO
tinygnat219
Member
You mean other than it's looks? 
Seriously, I dislike the way they fit in my hand. It just doesn't point right for me.
That's about it. I actually recommend the Glock to folks starting out. It's simple, reliable, and works out of the box without any modifications.
Seriously, I dislike the way they fit in my hand. It just doesn't point right for me.
That's about it. I actually recommend the Glock to folks starting out. It's simple, reliable, and works out of the box without any modifications.
briansp82593
Member
ha glocks i could go on and on
first its plastic... im a metal guy
all the ones i shot were pretty inaccurate
feels like a 2x4 in my hand
i watched a glock 18 explode in my friends hand
and pretty much all the sights on them are horrible
first its plastic... im a metal guy
all the ones i shot were pretty inaccurate
feels like a 2x4 in my hand
i watched a glock 18 explode in my friends hand
and pretty much all the sights on them are horrible
alucard0822
Member
I may be concidered biased, but I favor revolvers for defense more so than autos, but I do own a few and fire them often, My dad has a G19 that he loves, I just can't get it to feel comfortable in my hand, as most have already said the trigger sucks, and it just has a flimsy feel. I don't like the sights, but for some it works great, If I were to choose an auto the p99 or sig 229dak pistols would be my choice, I have no experience with the XD's but they seem like a lot of gun for little $$$ all in all I don't belive in the "something different" argument, if a glock works for you it's a reliable arm and a good choice, but ultimately you are the one who will be carrying it, do your homework and see what works for you.
hexidismal
Member
My major problem with glocks has always been the grip angle, and in relation to that, the angle of my hand to the rear of the slide. With my big hands, I've gotten slide bite almost every time I've fired a glock. I'm sure that's something that could be overcome with an amount of training with the gun, but why bother when other guns fit an function for me much better.
Lloyd Smale
Member
that there not a all steel 1911!!!
CSA 357
Member
I have one glock a 30 45 acp, its a great gun its not pretty, but i shoot it well, and it always shoots, thats what i think it was made for, more of a tool ,and 10 rounds of 45 acp, i think you get your moneys worth when you buy a glock, there was atime when i said ill never own one of those things! but some how i got a glock 21 liked it, then got the 30 i shoot it better than i did the 21 , so here i am a glock toter!
Sir Aardvark
Member
They have no soul....
Stevie-Ray
Member
Need to be thinner. That's all. If it was 1/4 inch thinner, the G26 would be the perfect carry gun.
varoadking
Member
They lack the accuracy found in quality semi-autos...
*
On the positive side, the Glock is reliable, durable, simple and inexpensive to manufacture. (Why isn't it inexpensive to buy?) It is simple to learn to operate by the new shooter, and therefore inexpensive to train new shooters (like new cops and infantrymen) to attain basic competence.
On the other hand;
1. Grip size. The grip of my Glock 20 is far bulkier than any other pistol I own. Since I have long fingers this is not a major problem, but it's getting there.
2. Balance. With a heavy slide and light grip frame, this thing balances like a brick with a plastic handle.
3. Ergonomics. The magazine release is not too bad, but the slide release is not easy to operate well. It should be. The take-down plunger is considerably more difficult to manage than need be. A lot of people have trouble with the grip angle.
4. No manual safety. The Glock is quite safe until you get a finger (maybe someone else's finger) or some sort of foreign object into the trigger guard. There was a small furor about this when a line of Fobus holsters had to be recalled after a retention strap got into the trigger guard of a Glock and caused an accidental discharge. Other similar incidents have happened. The Glock really ought to have a manual safety. I'm springing for one for mine.
5. Sharp-edged chamber throat. This means you're not supposed to shoot lead bullets. I think the lead bullet prohibition has little to do with polygonal rifling. I shot a lot of lead bullets through my stock Glock barrel without any detectable bore leading with normal cleaning. However, lead did accumulate at the leading edge of the chamber throat. If you shoot a lot of lead bullets (or even a whole lot of jacketed bullets) without frequent enough cleaning, this can cause the cartridges to fail to seat fully into the chamber. When this little problem combines with the next two design faults, then you may have a big problem.
6. Unsupported chamber. In order to promote better cartridge feeding, the chamber mouth has a rather large bevel, quite a bit larger than most other pistols. This, in turn, leaves the area of the cartridge near the case head with a considerable lack of support. If the chamber pressure is too high (this is not rare with some cartridges, like .40 S&W, even with nearly new factory ammo), or if the cartridge case is weaker than it should be (Don't shoot reloads with a stock Glock Barrel!), then you may have a problem. (Kaboom) This problem can combine with #5 to result in a larger problem (KABOOM). If you shoot reloads, especially with lead bullets, and you are less than 100% meticulous, then you can, without knowing it, achieve some undesirable combination of; leading in the chamber throat causing failure of the cartridge to seat fully, inadequately resized/poorly crimped cases causing failure of the cartridge to seat fully, slightly to extremely "hot" loads causing chamber pressure to exceed standards, overused brass becoming brittle causing weakness in the case head area, repeated resizing causing thinning of brass in the case head area, etc. Any and all of these factors can combine to really ruin your day. I don't think that there are any pistols that are completely immune to this sort of problem, but the Glock has a heaping helping of extra vulnerability.
7. Ability to fire out of battery. This means that the pistol can fire when the action is not completely closed and locked, as when the cartridge is too long or not fully chambered. It means that the pistol can fire when the thinner, weaker portion of the case is exposed in the overly large bevel of the chamber mouth. (Kaboom) This fault, combined with some of the previously mentioned faults, can give you a major problem (KABOOM) and possibly cost you an eye or a finger. In stock condition, my Glock could fire as much as .025" out of battery. In consideration of some of the foregoing points, I replaced the stock barrel with a "semi-drop in" barrel from Bar-Sto. It took about three good strokes from a medium India stone to fit the barrel, and then the pistol would not fire more than .0005" out of battery. Accuracy improved, too.
8. Relentlessly, devoutly crappy trigger. I have about thirty handguns, revolvers and autos, expensive and cheap; S&W, Colt, Ruger, Springfield Armory, Hi-Standard, Auto-Ord, Taurus, Rossi, Star. The Glock's trigger is nastier by far than any of them. It's not just that the trigger pull is long and heavy; most double-action revolvers have triggers that are considerably longer and heavier. But they can usually be made very smooth. The main trouble is that the Glock's trigger is very, very creepy; full of hesitations, false starts and false stops. In dealing with my Glock's trigger, I read books and fluffed and buffed, watched videos and buffed and fluffed, changed springs and connectors, etc. I finally bought a "3 1/2 pound trigger kit" (came out more like 4 pounds) and achieved some significant results. Instead of feeling like pulling a tomcat off a screen door, it now felt more like pulling a kitten off a screen door. In other words, the length of pull was reduced slightly, the weight was reduced considerably, and the creep was reduced hardly at all. Then I checked the lock-up. It now would fire .040" (!) out of battery. (Sigh)
The upshot is that the Glock is a simple and durable shooting device that could stand some improvement. It is not a fine firearm, not even close. Overpriced Tupperware.
*
On the positive side, the Glock is reliable, durable, simple and inexpensive to manufacture. (Why isn't it inexpensive to buy?) It is simple to learn to operate by the new shooter, and therefore inexpensive to train new shooters (like new cops and infantrymen) to attain basic competence.
On the other hand;
1. Grip size. The grip of my Glock 20 is far bulkier than any other pistol I own. Since I have long fingers this is not a major problem, but it's getting there.
2. Balance. With a heavy slide and light grip frame, this thing balances like a brick with a plastic handle.
3. Ergonomics. The magazine release is not too bad, but the slide release is not easy to operate well. It should be. The take-down plunger is considerably more difficult to manage than need be. A lot of people have trouble with the grip angle.
4. No manual safety. The Glock is quite safe until you get a finger (maybe someone else's finger) or some sort of foreign object into the trigger guard. There was a small furor about this when a line of Fobus holsters had to be recalled after a retention strap got into the trigger guard of a Glock and caused an accidental discharge. Other similar incidents have happened. The Glock really ought to have a manual safety. I'm springing for one for mine.
5. Sharp-edged chamber throat. This means you're not supposed to shoot lead bullets. I think the lead bullet prohibition has little to do with polygonal rifling. I shot a lot of lead bullets through my stock Glock barrel without any detectable bore leading with normal cleaning. However, lead did accumulate at the leading edge of the chamber throat. If you shoot a lot of lead bullets (or even a whole lot of jacketed bullets) without frequent enough cleaning, this can cause the cartridges to fail to seat fully into the chamber. When this little problem combines with the next two design faults, then you may have a big problem.
6. Unsupported chamber. In order to promote better cartridge feeding, the chamber mouth has a rather large bevel, quite a bit larger than most other pistols. This, in turn, leaves the area of the cartridge near the case head with a considerable lack of support. If the chamber pressure is too high (this is not rare with some cartridges, like .40 S&W, even with nearly new factory ammo), or if the cartridge case is weaker than it should be (Don't shoot reloads with a stock Glock Barrel!), then you may have a problem. (Kaboom) This problem can combine with #5 to result in a larger problem (KABOOM). If you shoot reloads, especially with lead bullets, and you are less than 100% meticulous, then you can, without knowing it, achieve some undesirable combination of; leading in the chamber throat causing failure of the cartridge to seat fully, inadequately resized/poorly crimped cases causing failure of the cartridge to seat fully, slightly to extremely "hot" loads causing chamber pressure to exceed standards, overused brass becoming brittle causing weakness in the case head area, repeated resizing causing thinning of brass in the case head area, etc. Any and all of these factors can combine to really ruin your day. I don't think that there are any pistols that are completely immune to this sort of problem, but the Glock has a heaping helping of extra vulnerability.
7. Ability to fire out of battery. This means that the pistol can fire when the action is not completely closed and locked, as when the cartridge is too long or not fully chambered. It means that the pistol can fire when the thinner, weaker portion of the case is exposed in the overly large bevel of the chamber mouth. (Kaboom) This fault, combined with some of the previously mentioned faults, can give you a major problem (KABOOM) and possibly cost you an eye or a finger. In stock condition, my Glock could fire as much as .025" out of battery. In consideration of some of the foregoing points, I replaced the stock barrel with a "semi-drop in" barrel from Bar-Sto. It took about three good strokes from a medium India stone to fit the barrel, and then the pistol would not fire more than .0005" out of battery. Accuracy improved, too.
8. Relentlessly, devoutly crappy trigger. I have about thirty handguns, revolvers and autos, expensive and cheap; S&W, Colt, Ruger, Springfield Armory, Hi-Standard, Auto-Ord, Taurus, Rossi, Star. The Glock's trigger is nastier by far than any of them. It's not just that the trigger pull is long and heavy; most double-action revolvers have triggers that are considerably longer and heavier. But they can usually be made very smooth. The main trouble is that the Glock's trigger is very, very creepy; full of hesitations, false starts and false stops. In dealing with my Glock's trigger, I read books and fluffed and buffed, watched videos and buffed and fluffed, changed springs and connectors, etc. I finally bought a "3 1/2 pound trigger kit" (came out more like 4 pounds) and achieved some significant results. Instead of feeling like pulling a tomcat off a screen door, it now felt more like pulling a kitten off a screen door. In other words, the length of pull was reduced slightly, the weight was reduced considerably, and the creep was reduced hardly at all. Then I checked the lock-up. It now would fire .040" (!) out of battery. (Sigh)
The upshot is that the Glock is a simple and durable shooting device that could stand some improvement. It is not a fine firearm, not even close. Overpriced Tupperware.
*
Vitamin G
Member
1) Finger grooves. I found that the angle was okay (not as 1911-ish as I'd like, but i can adapt to it) once i found 2nd gen glocks without finger grooves.
2) Poor case support. I mean really, other than cheesing off reloaders, why make a sloppy chamber? (Don't give me that reliability crap. I have match barrels that feed reliably.)
3) Stock trigger (Though easily fixable with a 3.5lb connector)
4) Lack of any real safety. I'd like a little something. Call me paranoid. If you really think about it, its probably safer to be carrying a cocked and UNlocked 1911, than a glock. At least with the 1911 you have to be gripping it for it to discharge.
2) Poor case support. I mean really, other than cheesing off reloaders, why make a sloppy chamber? (Don't give me that reliability crap. I have match barrels that feed reliably.)
3) Stock trigger (Though easily fixable with a 3.5lb connector)
4) Lack of any real safety. I'd like a little something. Call me paranoid. If you really think about it, its probably safer to be carrying a cocked and UNlocked 1911, than a glock. At least with the 1911 you have to be gripping it for it to discharge.
Zach S
Member
What dont I like about glock. Hmm, lets see...
The trigger sucks. The grip angle is too sharp. The fingergrooves dont fit me. Plastic sights. One of the ugliest pistols in production, second only to the hi point.
That said, I own a G19. For the price and reliabilty, it makes a good beater handgun. My G19 has had the figergrooves sanded off of it (and I stippled the grip out of bordem), and the beat to crap plastic front sight replaced with a steel one. The trigger and grip angle I just deal with. And I still think the hi point is the only pistol in production thats uglier.
The trigger sucks. The grip angle is too sharp. The fingergrooves dont fit me. Plastic sights. One of the ugliest pistols in production, second only to the hi point.
That said, I own a G19. For the price and reliabilty, it makes a good beater handgun. My G19 has had the figergrooves sanded off of it (and I stippled the grip out of bordem), and the beat to crap plastic front sight replaced with a steel one. The trigger and grip angle I just deal with. And I still think the hi point is the only pistol in production thats uglier.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Grip angle.
Shell Shucker
Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2006
- Messages
- 189
I had an OLD G-17. It was 100% reliable. Finish was tough as nails. Simple.
One of my mags was "drop free", the other was not.
It threw cases EVERYWHERE, many strait back at my head!
The slide release is microscopic and slick.
I'm not very comfortable with "cocked and unlocked" anywhere but the range.
Leading nightmare when shooting cast bullets.
Take down levers difficult to use.
Plastic sights are cheezy; mine never fell off......
Ergonomics; I could only shoot it accurately if I practiced VERY often. I have not had this problem with other pistols.
If I didn't have to work so hard to put rounds on the target I'd probably still own that G-17.
One of my mags was "drop free", the other was not.
It threw cases EVERYWHERE, many strait back at my head!
The slide release is microscopic and slick.
I'm not very comfortable with "cocked and unlocked" anywhere but the range.
Leading nightmare when shooting cast bullets.
Take down levers difficult to use.
Plastic sights are cheezy; mine never fell off......
Ergonomics; I could only shoot it accurately if I practiced VERY often. I have not had this problem with other pistols.
If I didn't have to work so hard to put rounds on the target I'd probably still own that G-17.
Xlr8torZ28
Member
When my hand is cupped to hold a pistol, it is round, not square like a glock. I owned a Glock for about 2 months and sold it. It wasnt comfortable to hold at all. The only reason glock got so big is because they sold like a bajillion of them to law enforcement. I know their quality is suppose to be very very good, but if you arent comfortable holding it, how good can you be shooting it? Just my two pennies.
sm
member
I was born in 1955.
I shot MY revolver at age 3
Age 6 shot my first center fire handgun.
My Foundation for handguns were decided on gun fit to me, platform and the calibers of the times.
I have not changed my decisions on MY foundations for handguns, especially CCW.
I do not do .40 cal, it was not around and an abomination to John Browning's
High-Power later having it in .40.
Damn BHP IS THE 9mm.
I was raised shooting 38spl out of K frames, 45ACP out of bone stock 1911 - not these wanna be clones. and 9mm out of a BHP.
Three real guns, proven! Now I may or may not have added something over the years, like J frames in 38spl, or .357 from a Model 19 [Kframe] or .22 lr in NAA.
I will never leave MY foundations of what I have used, prefer, carried all these years.
Glocks, Sigs, HKs ...whatever floats your boat.
I am not going to be at your gunfight - Awerbuck
I shot MY revolver at age 3
Age 6 shot my first center fire handgun.
My Foundation for handguns were decided on gun fit to me, platform and the calibers of the times.
I have not changed my decisions on MY foundations for handguns, especially CCW.
I do not do .40 cal, it was not around and an abomination to John Browning's
High-Power later having it in .40.
Damn BHP IS THE 9mm.
I was raised shooting 38spl out of K frames, 45ACP out of bone stock 1911 - not these wanna be clones. and 9mm out of a BHP.
Three real guns, proven! Now I may or may not have added something over the years, like J frames in 38spl, or .357 from a Model 19 [Kframe] or .22 lr in NAA.
I will never leave MY foundations of what I have used, prefer, carried all these years.
Glocks, Sigs, HKs ...whatever floats your boat.
I am not going to be at your gunfight - Awerbuck
trainwreck100
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2006
- Messages
- 175
I'm surprised someone hasn't beat me to it, but a lot of folks just like a good ol' piece of Amerkan injuneering...Like a Ruger, or Smith, or Springfield, or anything but a GLOCK!!! And no, I'm not one of the "more experienced" guys, I'm 19 years old, but I'd still take a Smith and Wesson model 67 Combat Masterpiece over one of them foreign pieces any day.
Banshee
Member
they are ugly, and The trigger sucks
lesjones
Member
My main beef is that it just doesn't feel good in my hand and the trigger isn't as good as some of the other guns I like (S&W revolvers, 1911s, SIGs). The shape of the is thick and chunky.
Minor beefs are plastic sights and the requirement to dryfire during disassembly.
If Glock addressed the major problems I'd buy one to get the Glock's reliability, durability, and corrosion resistance.
Minor beefs are plastic sights and the requirement to dryfire during disassembly.
If Glock addressed the major problems I'd buy one to get the Glock's reliability, durability, and corrosion resistance.
It's plastic. I'm not just hating on Glock, I dont like any plastic guns (although the Smith & Wesson M&P is something I'd like to check out). To me there is something inherently wrong with plastic guns. But the reasons I specifically hate Glocks: 1. They're ass ugly (the 26 has to be one of the ugliest guns I've ever seen), 2. Everyone has a Glock, they're like the Honda Accord of guns, 3. It's not American, 4. They feel like crap in my hand, 5. The aforementioned plastic issue. Basically I see Glocks as appliances, not guns.
evan price
Member
My pet peeve is the magazines don't drop free and I don't like how the grip of the gun and the mag both flex as you slam a mag in. I much prefer the XD's stainless mags and ambi mag release. Glock was a good gun and a fresh idea twenty years ago but their only so-called improvements over the years has been adding finger grooves (Which don't fit my fingers) and then adding an accessory rail (which should have been there originally). The XD is the "New Glock" to me.
As I shoot more and own more guns I find myself shooting my Glocks less and less. I haven't shot my G21 in a long time. I find myself drawn more to SIGs, than Glocks. I have actually sold most of my Glocks and started buying XD's.
As I shoot more and own more guns I find myself shooting my Glocks less and less. I haven't shot my G21 in a long time. I find myself drawn more to SIGs, than Glocks. I have actually sold most of my Glocks and started buying XD's.
- Status
