Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Looking for home defense pistol, Glock???

You are assuming the fight will stay indoors. Not always so. Buckshot is a far better choice. E

That's my opinion as well. My shotguns are loaded with Buck.

Yep...

One sits loaded in the safe as I speak.



My wife shoots well with it too.

Not so much with autoloaders.

Birdwatcher

Ummmmmm, after reading through these posts, brings about the sense that GLOCK has a trigger problem, I don't buy that BS at all folks. There are NO safety's to sweep off in order to fire a round and the trigger pull is the same from the get go and easyier than many double action revolvers to pull.

However, if your wanting a house gun with the up most ability to handle the home invader, start with the proper tool in the first place and that is a pump shotgun. Nothing beats a pumpgun loaded up with #6's or #7.5 shot at close range (30ft or less) you sure as hell don't want to be blowing through drywall into a kids bedroom etc with Buck-Shot or rounds from your 9mm or 45 cal pistol etc.

Now as far as GLOCKS not having a great trigger (maybe not for competition!) I think someone is just playing with half a deck of cards. I'll take a non-shooter and have them shooting tight groups at 21ft compared to using a S&W double action revolver.

I have a GLOCK 22 (.40cal) at my nightstand but I reach for that 590 Mossburg 12ga. pumpgun at bedside, first thing, when I suspect a possible problem in house or outside. A SHOTGUN is your best bet for home protection in my humble opinion.

For precision work, the Glock's trigger it terrible. Can it be mastered? Yes. Even a staple-gun-like trigger can be mastered, but since a typical S&W double action K or larger frame revolver has a double action trigger stroke that feels in comparison like it's parts are made of oiled glass, why would anyone wish to handicap themselves with a Glock's staple-gun-like trigger unless their department mandated it? If you think a Glock has a better trigger than a typical K or larger frame S&W double action revolver, you need to consult your psychiatrist about a change in you meds.

Every pistol and revolver has its pluses and minuses. These pluses and minuses can be, in the case of Tonk and TRH, found in the trigger operation. On the plus side of the K,L, and N frame Smiths is their smooth, consistent double action pull. On the plus side for the Glock is its consistent trigger pull. Training on either of the two is the same due to the consistency of both. Training someone on a typical DA/SA pistol is usually a more difficult task due to the first shot being DA and the subsequent SA pull differences. Folks often load up a magazine with 15 or so rounds and that results in practicing the DA/SA transition 1 time per magazine, unless a decocker is used. The Glock trigger can easily be changed to more closely feel like that of a DAO revolver. In that case a 4.5 pound connector and a NY spring gives a much similar feel to a DAO rather than the typical Glock 2 stage. Still not as slick as that of a Smith, but in no way a great hindrance to shooting at typical self defense distances. Different requirements such as self defense, target shooting, etc; lend themselves to different platforms. While they all launch bullets, intracasies of operation leave one with a decision to make on the compromise involved in those differences. That said, I like the DA trigger pull of my Smiths better and from a concealed carry setup I can pretty easily shoot the NQC course of fire cleanly with it, my split times are slower for the revolver and my reload times are slightly slower even using full moon clips. Score wise between a Beretta 92FS, Smith 646, Baer 1911, or Glock 19 I give up little more than the random good day shooting vs bad day shooting between any of them from a concealed carry setup. Split wise, fastest is usually the 1911, then the Glock 19, the 92FS and the 646 are usually too close to call when using the DA/SA of the 92FS. Training and practice easily overcome the perceived shortcomings of the different trigger systems more so than the mechanical device itself. Decisions of the value of the pluses and minuses vary from individual to individual and their intended use.

Glocks are fine, and I have 3 of them....but make sure you get decent training, and practice with them....especially speed reloading and administrative reloading of the mags....they have "fat" grips and if you have smaller hands like I do...it takes a lot of practice to master reloading. I do tend to agree with Hawkeye on the revolvers though....I enjoy all my semis....but I am still a revolver guy at heart!!....just remember.....5 or 6 FOR SURE....with the revolvers.

I know I didn't make that claim. The problem with the Glock trigger is I don't like it. I don't particularly like the grip frame either. I find other guns - revolvers and pistols - easier to shoot well. Guns that shoot with precision and ease are more fun to use, hence I am more inclined to use them often. Glocks, for me...not so much. I can shoot them well, after some "get acquainted" time (every time), but I don't see any reason to bother when I don't have to use a Glock.

Exactly.

Why is it that everyone one talks "hardwear" and hardly a mention of "softwear"? You folks think shooting someone is easy...just mechanics...go buy a gun and defend youself? If you are not physically, mentally and emotionally prepared to defend your life when it happens you are going to get far more than you bargained for...maybe even prison.

How about the laws of Use of Deadly Force...do you know what they are in the area you are living...or do you just think you know. What about laws on safe storage, posession and a lot of other things.

My advise to anyone who has no clue about guns or personal defense is to call the NRA and find out who in your area gives the Basic Pistol Course and Personal Protection in the Home Course. After you have finished those two you'll have a clue what you are getting into...

Bob Makowski

The security-types I talked with during the Katrina fun often used shotguns while clearing buildings, but none of them used birdshot or buckshot. They used slugs for the penetration - they wanted to be able to shoot through chairs, couches, etc. that a bad guy might be using for cover. Out in the open they used AR's.

Eight-tenths of what a person of normal intelligence and prudence needs to know about his weapon in order to defend himself is contained in the owner's manual that came with it. An additional one-tenth can be acquired with some regular, well advised, and self-directed practice. If you want to work at that last one-tenth of preparedness still unaddressed after that, that's what the various hands-on professional training programs are for.

We see way too many cases of 90 year old great-grandma's holding burglars for the police with their deceased husband's rusty Model 10s to deny this reality.

Is hands-on training by a professional a good thing? Absolutely. Does everyone need to sign up for a seven day course at Front Sight in order to be equipped to defend themselves from criminals? Absolutely not.

Hawkeye..having had to re-train the self-trained for the last 20 years I can only say you have no clue what you are talking about.

If I am not mistaken from a previous post you have not even spoken to anyone who has ever been in a gunfight let alone anyone who has ever killed someone. If you think one can get enough to win a real serious personal confrontation from the guns instruction manual you are very wrong...

Bob

The recorded statistics concerning armed citizens in confrontation with violent criminals simply do not support your conclusion.

Does the fact that I have received twenty hours of instruction from an NRA certified instructor in defensive handgun improve my chances? Of course it does, but not by much according to all available relevant statistics.

Does the fact that I've been an avid handgunner for 25 years, who occasionally competes in practical shooting matches, improve my chances? Of course, but again, not by much according to all available relevant stats.

The most important thing by far in an encounter with a violent criminal is that you have a gun and are willing and able to use it. All the rest is icing on the cake.

If you can please email where you have seen these "recorded statistics" I would appreciate it...then I can quit teaching and have more time for my own shooting.

Bob

Bob - we did mention this early on. You must've missed it.

Anyhoo, I agree somewhat with both of you. What is available (I'm thinking of Lott's work) does seem to imply that the odds of survival are improved just by having the gun and making the decision to use it. But statistics are meaningless to individuals in the face of an attack. All statistics have exceptions, and the point of training is to reduce the chance that you will be on the outside of the curve that makes up the statistical point.

Keep training those who will seek it, but don't get too wrapped about those who don't.

Exactly. I am not in the least against training. Some people, however, seem to be obsessed with the notion that only those who have completed two or three seven day courses at Thunder Ranch, or what have you, stand a chance of surviving an encounter with a violent criminal. The facts just do not bear this out. As you say, however, that extra dose of preparation will likely come in handy on the thin edges of the normal curve, so it's certainly money, time, and effort well spent. This lines up with what I said earlier, i.e., that such courses of intensive training address that remaining one-tenth of preparedness for such potential encounters.

I agree that Americans tend to focus on equipment, but let's be frank, in order to protect yourself with a handgun, you must first have a handgun. After that, comes the training. And for that there are two things I recommend, in order of importance:

1 - In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection by Massad F. Ayoob : http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=in+the+gravest+extreme
The book is dated but the principles are still the same.

2 - A .22 Conversion unit for your Glock. Practice is the key to proficiency and this give syou cheap pracitce.

It's my belief that a well-educated man ought to be able to pick up another man's handgun off the ground and - without knowing or caring what it's loaded with - use it with dispatch and effectiveness at close range.

Any of the handguns mentioned in this thread, for example.

- Tom

...well I guess I have it backwards then. In the classes that I have run or helped with 75%+ of the people who purchased a gun before class were given advise from a friend, LEO, gun shop owner/employee...whoever and they quickly found out while better than nothing there was something better out there. So money and time were wasted.

Yesterday was Day II of the NRA Basic Pistol Course our club sponsored. Unlike the NRA that has now dumbed the course down from 10 to now 8 hours, we did two full days 0900-1700 and 0830-1700. There were 20 students ranging in age from 18-80, almost 1/2 were women. In four range sessions covering single action shooting, double action shooting and semi-autos each student fired 200 rounds of .22 ammo. During the Selection Lesson after explaining how to buy a handgun they then got to shoot up to 20 different centerfire handguns that the instructors brought in for them to try...100 more rounds of ammo fired.

In the reviews from past classes, many students rated this as one of the most important sessions right after safe gun handling.

In three weeks will be the Personal Protection in the Home Course. Again we do it in 18 hours not the 8 suggested by the NRA. By the time these people complete these courses they will have a much better idea how to propely select a gun for personal protection, the laws of self-defense, measues to take to prevent an attack in the first place and what to do in case of attack.

I equate purchasng and using a handgun with buying and driving a car. Keeping and using a gun for self-defense is like racing at Indy. Would you as a licensed driver bring a car home to your wife, tell her to read the instruction manual, park it in the garage and tell her that in case of emergency to drive her dying son to the hospital... You gotta know how to start it, maintain it, shift it, fuel it up...she going to remember all that when your son eats some poision and is dying? She just crossed the line from reading the manual to driving at Indy in one split second...and she doesn't even know the "rules of the road" let alone the rules of Indy.

Sorry, but I take this very seriously because in the 30+ years I spent in LE I saw people, including LEOs, killed because of the wrong attitude.

Bob