Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Glock, I'm not sure I get it.

If you don't love it, why did you buy it? I don't spend money on guns I'm not at least infatuated with.

Yes, they are ugly as hell. They're uncomfortable in the hand and the grip angle doesn't work for me. I did find others I liked better. Neither is as beautiful as a Colt SAA but to my eyes, the M&P and XD are better looking. Not to mention infinitely more comfortable to shoot. And no, Glock does not have a monopoly on reliability, despite the fanboy tripe about "perfection".

Glocks remind me of an old German farm wife, a little thick, but can work all day and all night.

Great line


ND you bought the handgun equivalent to a bic lighter ime&o

It ain't and never will be a zippo


But it works

As most regulars know, I prefer Glocks and 1911s (and N Frame .44 mags).

Yes, for most 1911s have a classic style that screams 'Merica!! . The familiar heft is also reassuring in a knuckle dragging sort of way, and they DO in fact make good impact weapons for "Earth Sack's" skulls. Earth Sack is the politically correct word for DirtBag BTW.

Now as for Glocks. I personally DO like the looks of them. I associate that looks with 20+ years of experience shooting these ultra reliable tools.

Glocks remind me of that "One Knife" that I have skinned so many elk and deer with, that one hammer I have swung for years on various projects, that one trusty zippo, marbles metal match container, etc, etc.

They have a phenomenally well earned reputation for ultra reliability. Lately they have had some issues in some, but they always get sorted out.

I have carried Glocks in some of the crappiest conditions, in the most austere of environments and KNEW with complete confidence that when I needed my Glock to help me lay hate into whatever needed it, it would do so with total efficiency.



Carry one long enough, in crappy enough conditions and have it do what it needs to, and most men I know start to think highly of them.

My advice: Go put 20K rounds through it. The trigger will smooth up and you will know that you have an uber reliable hammer.

In the pic below, visibility was about 75 feet, due to typical dust storms. Then it got ugly, with a total brown out/visibility got down to around 10 feet max.

My issued gun was caked inside and out with fine particulate matter. When I test fired it later, back at our base, it dumped the entire mag without hiccup.




Experiences like that make me view it as a modern piece of art, for the art of Battle.

MM,

I too did the BFFOC instructor course through DOS. Good course, as you know it is shooting intensive. Our G19s ran hot and heavy with nary a bobble. I had not shot an issued M9 Beretta in quite a while, and it was like shooting an overweight, overly large, chunk of bad news compared to the smooth shooting Glock (still shot 100% with it though. Just had to really concentrate. )

When we did BFFOC, our organization does "Performance on Demand" instructor schools. In other words, there is no warm up. If you have not fired a platform in 5 years, too bad. You step up and it is pass fail the very first time. Then if you pass, you continue with the course and get tons of trigger time on the platform, whether its SR-25s, M24s, belt feds, 10" Colts, etc, etc. It is a good way to weed out those without strong skill sets.

Good Times!

Mackay_Sagebrush
Thank you, Thank you. GLOCK's are just as you described...ugly as he** but they work...you sound like a man
who 'has been there, done that'.So after reading this endorsement of Glock Handgun's the original poster who started this thread...should have no Buyer's remore on buying his Glock.

ND, I agree. It's ugly and the grip angle doesn't work for me. I prefer my 4 M&P's. That said the answer to your question is YES you do have to shoot it, and shoot it, and shoot it. Get a proper grip, and bring it up to your line of sight about 1000 times and you will notice it's starting to come up right. It's a muscle memory thing and that can be learned reasonably easy with just a little practice and to save money you can even do it dry firing it. Then you have to get used to the trigger return, that takes ammo. All it really takes to make any gun that shoots, shoot for you is practice and determination. The M&P and XD just starts out at the right angle and for me that makes them pretty. But my Ruger SR9, SR9c, and SR45 comes up for me and shoots like a lazer. And I didn't have to be nearly do determined. They JUST WORKED. That's the difference. YOU have to decide how determined you are, or is it just trade bait?

Good stuff.

When I went through the DOS school (1995), there was one afternoon where the instructors gave each of us a foreign weapon (I got handed a Sten gun) and no instructions whatsoever. We had a few minutes to figure out the weapon, then give a quick period of instruction on loading, making ready, firing, making safe.....followed by live fire. it was a good school.

You really are an inexperienced moron. Truly.



Travis

Right, so is Rob Leatham then. You dumb mofo. How 'bout you look up and share with all what wins at the Bianchi Cup every year?

Internet searching seems to be your forte. I'll leave the googling to you and the experience to me.





Travis

Not in my experience.

The last intensive handgun course I attended, there were about 16 attendees. If I remember correctly all were glocks except for 2 or 3 XDs, 1 1911 (maybe) and 2 H&Ks. If I remember correctly, I fired around 800 rounds that day. That makes for about 15,000 rounds fired for all the participants.

The glocks had not a single FTE, FTF, etc.
The H&Ks had 1 issue. I had a stovepipe when I was transitioning and limp-wristed once (my fault). Split second to clear and we were on our way.
The XDs struggled all day. There were multiple issues with each XD. These mostly involved mag issues. Especially when dumping mags and getting them dirty. The springs and followers really sucked. One XD locked up so tight the armorer has to resort to a hammer.

That course opened my eyes as I was about to purchase an XD for my wife. I also witnessed how hard a single-handed clearing was with the XDs.

Now XDs are nice to shoot (IMO). But I have no desire to own one and rely on it. I'll take my USPc any day, all day or a P7.

The USP with stainless slide looks alright in my estimation, for a "plastic" gun.

It really starts to remind me of Lee24....

Yeah, lots of exposure tends to expose things. I don't understand why folks assume the new kids on the block have these sterling reputations. Not saying they're not good, but I'm real hesitant to claim they're just as good as a Glock. The Glocks have been around a lot longer and proven themselves.


Travis

The XD and M&P haven't been around as long as Glock, but they have both proven themselves quite well. About the toughest environment for a handgun is the shooting schools. The XD and M&P both have a heavy presence at schools all over the country and have been holding up quite well; every bit as good as the Glock.

I consider all three to be pretty much equal; they're just different.

Anyone who rubs you the wrong way does that, though.

I shot Glocks for 15yrs before moving on. I've had my XD .45 for 8yrs now and it has never malfunctioned or given me any indication that it won't be as reliable as the Glocks I had. To my recollection, it has never been cleaned as has basically been a truck gun for all its life. I believe them to be a more refined and improved design over the Glock.

As I said, Glock does not have a monopoly on reliability.

How do pre-83 S&W revolvers hold up in those schools?

I guess Tarkio went to the wrong school.


Travis

I owned an XD and it was problem free as well.

How many rounds does yours have through it without cleaning?


Travis