You have me wrong. I retired from an LE job, and I carried a Glock. I carried a 1911 for several years, but I had too many malfunctions, and lost faith in 1911s in general. I went to a Glock 20 and the only malfunction I ever had with that pistol was a fail to fire, and it was the ammo, not my pistol.
I'm challenging the posters who like stirring the Glock pot to prove to me the Glock is inherently more dangerous than other pistols. I know it's not, but I also know there is no "holy grail of information" regarding pistol and revolver catastrophic failures. So, the [bleep] stirrers are accomplishing just that; stirring [bleep]. Their anecdotal evidence doesn't even make me blink. I was at the range today and shot both of my Glock 20s. Both pistols performed flawlessly.
I don’t know how to put it any plainer to you, unless you just want to pick a fight with a fellow Glocker. If so, saddle up, let's get it on.
I think I can help you, although this has been explained earlier in this thread better than I probably can.
No one is saying that Glocks are statistically more dangerous, because as you point out, these statistics do not exist.
People get tired of the Glock fanatics blathering on about their "Perfection". Ergo they love rubbing the KBs, and other failures, etc., of which there seems to be no shortage of pictures of on the internet, in the faces of said fanatics, because of the indignant reaction they get, of which this thread is a good example.
Hope that clears it up.
