I wonder how many rounds they had to shoot to figure out that the magazines are plastic?
Why Glock?
- Thread starter tcoz
- Start date
- Status
JR24
Member
Psst. They are metal under the polymer coating ...
Which makes them cheap but much thicker than necessary, so guess what the grip ends up larger than necessary. Not that it's a functionally bad design they work as long as your fingers are long enough to deal with the added girth.
And again I knew this before I ever fired the first round threw one, amazed others couldnt.
Old Dog
Member
One thing about internet discussion forums, when it comes down to a question of one platform (sorry, gun make or model) vs. any other ... whatever side one starts out on is always the side on which one finishes the discussion. There's really no convincing. Everyone's experience is different. Some of us prefer blue steel (or stainless or nickel) and walnut, cocobolo or rosewood. Others make do with soul-less black plastic, pitiful factory sights, average ergonomics and mediocre triggers.
But I do like my polymer-framed striker-fired black pistols for what they are and appreciate the durability and reliability.
I wanted to share a photo of my favorite personally-owned Glock (as my buddies sometimes accuse me of being a Glock-hater). It's fabulously durable, totally reliable and quite a good all-around weapon ...
But I do like my polymer-framed striker-fired black pistols for what they are and appreciate the durability and reliability.
I wanted to share a photo of my favorite personally-owned Glock (as my buddies sometimes accuse me of being a Glock-hater). It's fabulously durable, totally reliable and quite a good all-around weapon ...
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
I dont really swear by any one of them either. And Im pretty broad in my experience, and own and shoot a lot of different types and makes of guns, and on a regular basis.
I do know which one works the best for me for the need at hand though, and adjust that as it becomes necessary and/or somethng better comes along.
All of those choices are based on actual experience in use and shooting, none on a first blush apprasial.
If I find something that I think looks promising, I get one and try and ring it out, and see how it goes. Some things fill my needs better than others, and some, while fine, dont do anything better than what I have. But anyway you look at it, Ive usually shot the snot out of it and know exactly what it will do, or if its going to be trouble.
As far as you "instantly" knowing, OK I guess. If you can do that and know exactly how the gun will be, youre way ahead of me.
The only "instant" disqualifier I can think of, would be an obvious lack of quality, and/or widespread and documented proof of failures during use, etc. Beyond that, if it interests me, I'Il try it, and any disqualifier, wont be from a lack of shooting it.
Over the past 60 years or so Ive been shooting, I cant remember a trigger on anything being hard to reach and use (and rarely unshootable), or sights not being "useable" or functional as they come, even if I were to upgrade them later (sights that is).
Look, if you dont like something, for what ever the reason, fine, dont buy or use it. It just gets annoying, when people start going off on things, they have no experience with, which to me, negates any opinion they might have of them. What are you basing the hate on, if you havent bothered to prove it?
If you bought one, shot it until you knew and understood it, and it didnt work, would not shoot well (because something was wrong with it), failed to perform as advertised, then yea, you have a vaild reason to bitch, and to actually have a valid opinion.
How many Glocks have you had that problem with? What guns that youve done that with, fit that bill?
JR24
Member
So you understand that your first statement
Is misleading and untrue.
Edit: uh, here I am feeding the self admitted troll. Sorry
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
This is a perfect example of ignorance and/or just being flat out disingenuous.
Using a Glock 17 and a standard 1911 as an example, my Glock 17's grips, are actually narrower than my 1911 grips. I actually measured them with a set of calipers. And most of my Glocks have been stippled, which actually makes them a tad fluffier/fatter.
My 1911's are longer fore to aft, and wider side to side, so in theory, the trigger should be harder to reach. Its not.
So, with my Glocks grips, being narrower, and the fore to aft dimension being shorter, why, or how is it, the trigger is harder to reach?
And as far as Glock mags go. They are about the cheapest out there when you compare, and actually hold up better to hard use, and any of the others Ive used. And that includes the super cheap, Korean surplus versions you can get for about less than half of what a factory Glock mag costs.
Ive been shooting about 20 of those mags on a weekly basis now, for about 10 years, and they are still going strong. Cant say that about most of the others Ive used in the same manner in the past.
Again with the ad hominem attack just call me a troll and don't discuss anything.
Mowgli Terry
Member
My Opinion: Number of rounds. I had gotten a current Ruger Bear Cat Ruger in a complicated trade. I looked at this thing what was too small to be a boat anchor etc. Yesterday we went nuts shooting rimfires. I had something over a hundred rounds total since day one with this handgun. This time out the tiny little gun kept 8 our of 10 in the 10ring of a fifty yard target at fifteen or so yards. The little gun has not gotten the newness worn of yet but is coming along very well. Yes, it take what it takes shooting a handgun. You get to the point where you can identify shooter error. You would be surprised how much that has to do with human eye, thumb and trigger.
Addendum: This is the first time I recall reading about flimsy Clock magazines. In the gun safe are probably all the variations of Glock OEM magazines. Each and every one works very well. Got Colt, HK USPC, and Glock's. All of them are great.
Addendum: This is the first time I recall reading about flimsy Clock magazines. In the gun safe are probably all the variations of Glock OEM magazines. Each and every one works very well. Got Colt, HK USPC, and Glock's. All of them are great.
Last edited:
LOL measuring two dimensions would be relevant if the human hand was bone with just 2 joints. However the human hand is flesh covered and has several joints as such the fact that a 1911 is more of an oval and the Glock is more rectangular means that the circumference of a 1911 being smaller is the reason it's reach isn't harder and a note a 1911 is designed for a .1" longer round.
Now just who is be ignorant or disingenuous?
JR24
Member
Hah, I'm simply repeating what you yourself admitted to in this very thread. No need to play the victim
Last edited:
Nope you called me a troll like I said earlier this thread was 100% troll to start with OP dropped a line and hasn't been back.
Now do you want to discuss any facts or do you want to continue the name calling?
danez71
Member
There's a lot that I agree with generally speaking.
But it doesn't take long to figure out that if you have problems reaching the trigger (mostly DA/SA in DA mode for me) or if your thumb doesn't even reach far enough to operate the thumb safety (every CZ I've touched) that there is going to be big problem operating it.
That's all fact. My opinion that DA/SA isn't for me is based on the factual fitment of my hand to every DA/SA I've touched which is probably around a dozen over the decades.
Is there a problem with the gun. No. Its my hand in relation to the gun.
It only take a few seconds more to figure out that you can't see the all black sights (for example) of some guns. Those aren't for me... and I don't need to fire a single round to figure that out. (I actually like Glock sights fwiw)
I'm not sure of your last question but I really tried to like a Colt Govt I had for about a decade before I sold it. Should of sold it sooner and saved a lot on ammo and accessories.
The G26 I really wanted to like because I was looking for a carry gun. My finger is too short for the trigger reach. I barely get the tip on it and would hit the side of the dingle blade. I never bought it. However, the 19 seems a bit better and I may get one of those
JR24
Member
Which generation of Glock 26 did you try? The Gen 4/5 seems just a bit smaller than the Gen 3 and might help a bit, but yeah if you can't reach the trigger that's certainly something that will pop right away and can't really be helped by shooting more, unless you have a really funky grip to correct or something.
I don't much worry about sights as they are easy enough to replace so if I really like everything else I just replace them.
JTQ
Member
Within generations, I'm pretty sure the trigger reach on all Glock's (not counting the new single stack guns) is the same. The Gen 4 and Gen 5 (and the SF models for guns that have SF models) have a shorter trigger reach than the Gen 3 and previous models. However, the S&W M&P, and Beretta APX, and probably several other striker fired guns would be expected to have a shorter trigger reach than a Gen 4 Glock without any back straps.
danez71
Member
This is a perfect example of ignorance and/or just being flat out disingenuous.
Using a Glock 17 and a standard 1911 as an example, my Glock 17's grips, are actually narrower than my 1911 grips. I actually measured them with a set of calipers. And most of my Glocks have been stippled, which actually makes them a tad fluffier/fatter.
My 1911's are longer fore to aft, and wider side to side, so in theory, the trigger should be harder to reach. Its not.
So, with my Glocks grips, being narrower, and the fore to aft dimension being shorter, why, or how is it, the trigger is harder to reach?
And as far as Glock mags go. They are about the cheapest out there when you compare, and actually hold up better to hard use, and any of the others Ive used. And that includes the super cheap, Korean surplus versions you can get for about less than half of what a factory Glock mag costs.
Ive been shooting about 20 of those mags on a weekly basis now, for about 10 years, and they are still going strong. Cant say that about most of the others Ive used in the same manner in the past.
Actually, I think your post is a good example of ignorance and narrow mindedness.
So you measured the width and length and question how could it be harder to reach.
The shape is hugely influential in this. The 1911 grip shape is much more tapered at the front where your finger has to reach around the grip to reach the trigger. The glock grip shape wants your finger to parallel with the slide a further distance than a 1911 before your finger can take a sharper turn towards the trigger as compared to a 1911.
The shape of the 1911 grip lets you start angling your finger toward the trigger sooner. Shortest distance is a straight line.
danez71
Member
I'm almost positive it was a G3. At the time I was in AZ and G4 hadn't come out yet. Now in CA and can't get a G4 or G5 otherwise I'd have a Gen 4 19 and or 26 right now... and still may get a Gen 3 19 because it seems a bit better and I think I can get use to it or do a smallish grip mod.
Just for reference...Med gloves fit my palm well but are always way too long in the fingers. Some arent too bad so I buy those after trying on for maybe 10 seconds. I dont need to dig 2 miles of trench to figure that out. Small gloves don't fit my palm.
If we start calling each other names, it’s time for a close. Is there anymore than the typical Glock wars cliches. Personally I find the debate boring by now
Shoot what shoots well and runs with the accuracy you want. If it’s the Gluger 1933, shoot it,
Shoot what shoots well and runs with the accuracy you want. If it’s the Gluger 1933, shoot it,
danez71
Member
Crickets. I thought so.
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
The bickering stops now.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
