My first handgun was a glock 23 about 10 years ago. I'm a newbie compared to most of you, but I do buy and sell a lot of guns. I've had a bunch of different brands, and I kept looking for something "better" than my first glock. I sold some looking for the best. Well, I haven't found it.
I've never had a malfunction with my glocks, a 23, a 29 and a 19. I know that they will work, every time. I can't say that for HK, Kimber, S&W, Sig or FN.
I've paid a lot more for guns. I've liked other guns a lot more for other reasons. But I've never trusted anything more than my glocks.
Glocks are the ugliest. They are the plainest. They are the simplest. And they work.
Gaston was a genius. Never designed a gun before, and he created something that has stood the test of time. Say what you want about 'em, they are the gold standard in auto reliability in my mind and they've earned my trust.
My first handgun was a glock 23 about 10 years ago. I'm a newbie compared to most of you, but I do buy and sell a lot of guns. I've had a bunch of different brands, and I kept looking for something "better" than my first glock. I sold some looking for the best. Well, I haven't found it.
I've never had a malfunction with my glocks, a 23, a 29 and a 19. I know that they will work, every time. I can't say that for HK, Kimber, S&W, Sig or FN.
I've paid a lot more for guns. I've liked other guns a lot more for other reasons. But I've never trusted anything more than my glocks.
Glocks are the ugliest. They are the plainest. They are the simplest. And they work.
Gaston was a genius. Never designed a gun before, and he created something that has stood the test of time. Say what you want about 'em, they are the gold standard in auto reliability in my mind and they've earned my trust.
the horseshit on the internet is epic if nothing else, it boldly goes where no real human would ever go. Over a dozen glocks, thousands of rounds, no jams, no FTF, no misfeeds but let one out of a million have a problem which may or may not be true etc...
its statistics my friends. self defense guns, dice, and roulette are all the same, place your bet with your nickle and your life, me I am going with what works in most of the average folks hands...
I refer to a glock as a pistol i love to hate. Talking to a returned green beanie type a few years ago back from the stans, he said he could carry anything he wanted. started with the berreta, switched to a hi power, but finish up with a glock 17, the reason being they worked kind of like the a.k., they could take the dirt gut go bang every time. I agree with him. Having said that i can also tell you of a whole bunch of other sidearms i am comfortable with including almost all the s&w revolvers i have fired before glock every got out of plumbing parts.
I have shot a glock alot a years. Through the years I bet I have seen hundreds of thousands of rounds shot through glocks during training. I have seen glocks jam. My personal duty gun and Glock 27 have both mlfunctioned one time apiece. It makes me wonder if the ammo was out of spec. Of the glocks that I have seen malfunction it was always a one time deal and then they were back on to shooting.
I do work with a guy that grips a pistol like a infant and he can make a glock a malfunction but that is not the guns fault.
In all the rounds I have seen fired I bet I have witnessed less than six malfunctions total (not counting infant boy). I will take those odds.
I had two 1911's that never malfunctioned but I just could not rely on them having seen so many 1911's fail. It was always in the back of my mind that anytime they would quit working. I have never had that feeling with a glock.
I've seen many Glock malfunctions and had small parts breakages too. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Glock is as good as any other high quality semi-auto handgun. However, Glock is no better than any other high quality semi-auto and despite Glock hyperbole nothing is magic or "perfection." They are all machines and need to be cared for as such and with a mindset that they will puke on you at the most critical time so be ready to counteract that malfunction when it occurs.
People are funny about things... take Dink as an example. Dink had two 1911's that never malfunctioned... but he just couldn't trust them. Dink has two Glock guns that have malfunctioned, yet he carries them with complete trust. Doesn't make much sense really, does it...?
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
MOGC let me put this a different way. I have glocks 17,22,27 and my duty pistol that is a 22. These four guns have been shot somewhere between 40,000 and 50,000 times. With training, instructor classes and quals I have seen glocks fired literally hundreds of thousands of times. In all of those rounds fired I have seen six or so (maybe a few more or less) malfunctions not counting infant boy.
My two 1911's were the springfield loaded pistols and I shot them between 3,000 and 5,000 rounds. The only thing I done to these pistols were to use Wilson seven round mags. I never shot any silver bear or other cheap ammo in them because I did not trust them. I have shot silver bear and other very cheap ammo through a glock with no problem.
I have seen 1911's that will not run a magazine with out stopping. Matter of fact I know where there is a Springfield right now that won't make it a magazine with out stopping shooting quaility hardball I have seen way more glocks in action than 1911's but I have way more 1911's refuse to run.
I know your a 1911 man but I would bet that you have seen more 1911's quit shooting than you have glocks.
We know that any and every pistol will malfunction at some point. I would love to have a huge master data set of all the hundreds of millions of rounds shot every year and the failure percentage for each. I have a hunch Glock would come out on top.
My data set is certainly small and limited to a couple of thousand rounds out of each, but I've never had a problem with a glock or even seen one. I hate them...but I love the reliability and I can trust them.
Dryflyelk: The Glock pistol in 40 S&W with night sights, top notch ammo and high capacity magazines is one of the finest self protection and urban battle arms ever devised! I have been using them professionally for 24 years now. My Glocks have all been Model 22's and 23's. I have fired countless rounds through them and have as yet to encounter a stove-pipe or fail to feed! They are simply wonderful and wonderfully reliable arms. I currently do robbery suppression and body guard work and now carry the Model 23 with 2 extra magazines and the aforementioned night sights. During the course of my professional useage of the Glock 22 many years back, I went into the water to save a human. The Glock came along with me. Back at the station I rounded up the shift officers and we re-dunked the same Glock in the water - this was a "unofficial" function test for the rare possibility one of us officers assigned to the Harbor Unit might need to use a "wet" Glock. I re-dunked the Glock pistol under the surface for 20 more seconds in my left hand - I hid my body behind a telephone pole sized piling and the instant the Glock cleared the water I fired it - three times - quickly. It functioned perfectly and only steamed a little. I threw away the rest of the wet ammo and carefully blew-out, dryed and then cleaned the Glock. I carefully care for my Glocks and I have complete confidence in them. You are right - they have a face only a mother could love and they are not shiney like a Colt Python but they are accurate and reliable and best of all they are as quick a firearm/weapon to put into use as can be carried in a holster! Your heading says it all, and simply - Glocks just work! Hold into the wind VarmintGuy
From reading Clint Smith's articles I gather that he does not care for the Glock's grip angle, but in terms of its functionality as a dependable self-defense tool, I recall him saying something to effect of "buy a Glock and do nothing to it". I've looked at the offerings from Glock, S&W and Springfield (XD) and the Glock 19 is my choice for concealed carry. They all make great handguns, but the G19, for me, was the best combination of size and capability. And Glock's reputation for dependability definitely played a part in its selection.
Expat
"There are no dangerous weapons. There are only dangerous men." - Robert Heinlein
Glocks might be reliable but the grip angle turns me off. That and I would outshoot the Glock 19 shooters at the range with my Colt 1911.
Larry Vickers wrote his findings on some forums that stirred up the Glock fans:
Quote
Originally from 1911forum.com IIRC:
Quote: Larry Vickers
Sand Test Just had a chance to do a harsh sand test on few different handguns. This test was not scientific but was very enlightening.
Pistols tested were; HK USP Tactical Customized 1911 rack grade GI 1911 Glock 21
Test consisted of placing each pistol loaded in a Bianchi GI field holster inside a plastic bag with approx 2 cups of fine/medium grit sand ( North Carolina type). Then the bag was shaken vigorously for 10 seconds while holding onto the pistol butt for safety. The pistol was then taken out and 3 mags were fired through the 1911 and 2 fully loaded mags were fired through the HK and Glock - roughly the same amount of ammo. The sand coverage was very good and uniformly covered the pistols. The pistols were loaded in the mode you would expect in a field environment - condition 3 for the 1911, loaded for the Glock and loaded in DA mode for the USP.A test was done dry and lubed with TW 25B. This test represented EXTREME sand conditions - not normal field use, even in sandy conditions.A brief rundown of the results follow;
1)Carrying your gun dry in this environment is a NO GO despite what some will say. All pistols performed worse dry than lubed.
2)All pistols required some manipulation in order to fire - none would function normally straight out of the holster.
3)Overall the HK USP performed the best - the performance of it dry was roughly the same as the customized 1911 but was definately the best lubed. Overall it performed well.
4)The custom 1911 was second - interestingly enough the trigger track was not a real problem - the sand that went in through the ejection port to the bottom lugs area caused the most problems. Once the sand shifted in this area the pistol functioned better.
5)The rack grade GI 1911 was a distant third - the custom 1911 had an 18 pound recoil spring and that helped with feeding greatly vs the rack grade gun. Swap out the recoil spring and it probably would have done better.
6)The shocker of the day - the Glock 21 FAILED terribly. The big problem was failure of the trigger to reset. Also at times the pistol would not fire due to sand in the trigger mechanism. The dry test could not even be completed with the Glock due to this.This surprised all of us as we expected the Glock to do quite well.
Moral of the story; The 1911, even in its customized mode, can get the job done if you set it up to succeed. Lube it right, carry it in the right holster and in the proper mode, and it won't let you down - just like it hasn't for nearly a 100 years.
The HK USP series are good guns - well designed and well made - for service pistols. The ergonomics hurt the pistol dramatically but for an out of the box service pistol/field gun, they get my endorsement.
The Glock 21 is a dog - always has been. It has the rep of being the worst gun Glock makes. I have a Glock 17 and 19 and like them for what they are - but don't get sucked into the Glock hype - they are not magical guns. Remember what your dad said when you were in 3rd grade; don't believe everything you read.
Hope you guys got something out of this - I did.
Larry Vickers
End of quote
If one can shoot a Glock well then more power to them but don't go posting its somehow superior to other great pistols.
I see the old sand test I was part of years ago has stirred up a hornet's nest over on another forum - I tried to post this thread there but found out I was banned - not sure why that would be so I decided to post this here - in addition it answers several questions I get in nearly every class about Glocks- here goes;
1) IMO the Glock 19 and 17 are the best Glock's made - both are excellent pistols - I own, use, and recommend both
2) I do not recommend the G22, G23, or G21 - based on my experience these pistols have problems (breakage, won't function with rail mounted lights, etc.) and I feel there are better choices in 40 and 45
3) Glocks as a rule are not as accurate as many other service pistols - partly due to the enlarged chamber - this can be fixed with aftermarket barrels
4) I recommend 3 things for a Glock 19 or 17; good sights (Heinie, Novak, 10-8and Warren are my current favorites) , a buttplug to keep debris out of the trigger mech (cheap insurance), and my mag catch made by Tangodown. Optional but highly recommended is frame texturing by Dave Bowie (I like the finger grooves removed also)
5) They are incredibly forgiving in maintenance and lubrication - amazing
6) Incredibly simple to operate - 2 levers/buttons and 1 is optional
7) Always remember the golden rule with a Glock; keep your finger OFF the trigger until you are ready to shoot - if you don't adhere to this expect a loud noise at some point
Bottom line Glocks in 9mm are excellent pistols - they are not my first choice in other calibers however - the S&W M&P has been called a product improved Glock ; this may be true but the verdict is still out as the M&P is a relatively new handgun vs millions of Glock's in service (mostly in 9mm I might add) and S&W has a spotty record in terms of autoloading pistols - time will tell
MtnHtr I have also heard that the glocks 20,21 were less reliable than other glocks but I don't know anyone that has really pounded one.
I have seen a pile of glock 22 and 23 with attached lights go boom every shot with no problems. I don't buy that part of his story.
I also would not pick a smith and wesson anything over a glock when it comes to a self-defense pistol. I can't believe anyone would say that about a pistol that has not been around very long.
Did Vickers have a 1911 or 1911 parts with his name on it at one time? I might have him confused with someone else.
Vickers has a well regarded history with the street cred's to back that up. So do guys like Chuck Taylor and Clint Smith, who also agree that the G17/G19 are by far the most reliable Glock handguns. The breakages and stoppages I personally witnessed were all on G22's and G23 guns. I haven't been around many of the .45 ACP guns. Nothing is perfection, they all need care and attention and then be ready when they stop going bang - for they very well might.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
Gee someone is telling us that GLOCKS are not a Super Star~!!!
Well, how about this for starters my dear sir. How many Glocks are used today by the police force of all the countries in the world? Then you can look up just how many Glocks have been sold world wide and those that are in use as I type this post.
Now how many of those pistols have had a problem with a JAM or Breakage? I'll tell you that statistic, less than 1/2 of 1-percent. Hells Bells, now that is a better record than if you purchased a Rolls Royce Automobile.
Thank Our Veterans! GOD Bless Them All
UNIONS BUILDING AMERICA, SALUTE ALL THE UNION TRADESMAN
Guy named Chuck Taylor was a Glockophile from the get-go. He shot them competitively. Chuck's a guy who's killed some people with handguns. One day he decided to try the Springfield XD. For the first time in his competition life, he shot a perfect score. I've shot them both. The Glock feels funny to me.
Just saying.
I think the Glock most appeals to people who had little practical handgun experience before they were introduced to the Glock.
Dan
"It's a source of great pride, that when I google my name, I find book titles and not mug shots." Daniel C. Chamberlain
Glock was designed by a mainly non gun person. And sold at a great price to LE. He was a great salesman. Cops with Glocks was a brillant move. . 1911s jam. Yup. What brand and has it been reworked. . One poster had seen hundreds of thousands of rounds in training. Nice clean organized training. . OP had Sigs and HKs jam. Any gun made that CAN'T jam. . . If you love Glocks ........fine. Some folks like Polyester Jumpsuits in Colors-Not-Found-In-Nature......fine. . My cousin is in LE and loves his glock. But he never bashed me for liking a 1911 or HP better. Best friend shoots a Glock, loved it from the first shot and is deadly.fine.
. But if the only way to extole a Glock is to deride all others???????? . Who do you think you are fooling?????
. "What is good and what is not good, need we ask this of others?" . . Or perhaps the OP meant "glocks just work" just barely? Just meaning no adjectives used? . Rant over, Mongo sorry.......
My personal duty gun and Glock 27 have both mlfunctioned one time apiece.
Then you say this:
Originally Posted by DINK
I had two 1911's that never malfunctioned but I just could not rely on them having seen so many 1911's fail. It was always in the back of my mind that anytime they would quit working. I have never had that feeling with a glock.
Am I the only one who's scratching his head on Dink's carry choice?
When you see a gun fail, you need to understand, that�s a sampling of ONE, and not an indictment of the entire batch of any given pistol. Now me personally, I�ve seen more Glocks fail than 1911�s, but I�ve seen a bunch of 1911�s fail also. Usually, both the Glocks and 1911�s I see that have failed are ones that someone has �customized� or �improved� in some way or another. So it�s hard to fault the entire line of pistols for one or two that someone has home gunsmithed.
All manufacturers have lemons. If you follow Glocks closely you�d know there are a bunch of departments who have dumped the Glock because of failures. Many of these were factory stock guns, not messed with. Now does that mean a Glock is a bad gun? I certainly don�t think so. To me it means that Glock has a whole lot more guns in service than anyone else and you�re more likely to encounter Glocks with problems.
Roll the clock back 25-30 years ago and S&W was the Law Enforcement whipping boy. There were a lot of LE agencies that dumped S&W revolvers for various failures; the same S&W revolvers that many here on this forum would trust their lives to, and would claim are the highest quality revolvers in the world. Again, when you make a jillion of them and they�re used everywhere in LE service, you�re going to encounter �bad� guns. It�s not the entirety of the gun line, it�s just samplings of one (or two).
So you had a couple of 1911�s that worked flawlessly�The same design that has the best service record of any military pistol ever built. But because you saw someone else�s fail, under some conditions that you�re probably unaware of (as in, you don�t know why they failed), you�re unwilling to trust your life to it.
Yet, despite all the well documented failings of Glocks, along with failures in your personal pistols, you trust your life to the Glock�I don�t get that? Why is it you�re willing to overlook failures in Glocks, but not overlook failures in the 1911? (Are you just unaware of Glock issues?)
Welcome back Kevin; I saw the"1911 never failed and the glock did so I carry a Glock". Some things you don't bother to question. . Its like milk you KNOW is bad. You may smell it once, but you learn to sort. . Like Polyester Jump Suits in Colors-Not-Found-In-Nature and posts from Oprah.............. . Good to see you back.
My personal duty gun and Glock 27 have both mlfunctioned one time apiece.
Then you say this:
Originally Posted by DINK
I had two 1911's that never malfunctioned but I just could not rely on them having seen so many 1911's fail. It was always in the back of my mind that anytime they would quit working. I have never had that feeling with a glock.
Am I the only one who's scratching his head on Dink's carry choice?
When you see a gun fail, you need to understand, that�s a sampling of ONE, and not an indictment of the entire batch of any given pistol. Now me personally, I�ve seen more Glocks fail than 1911�s, but I�ve seen a bunch of 1911�s fail also. Usually, both the Glocks and 1911�s I see that have failed are ones that someone has �customized� or �improved� in some way or another. So it�s hard to fault the entire line of pistols for one or two that someone has home gunsmithed.
All manufacturers have lemons. If you follow Glocks closely you�d know there are a bunch of departments who have dumped the Glock because of failures. Many of these were factory stock guns, not messed with. Now does that mean a Glock is a bad gun? I certainly don�t think so. To me it means that Glock has a whole lot more guns in service than anyone else and you�re more likely to encounter Glocks with problems.
Roll the clock back 25-30 years ago and S&W was the Law Enforcement whipping boy. There were a lot of LE agencies that dumped S&W revolvers for various failures; the same S&W revolvers that many here on this forum would trust their lives to, and would claim are the highest quality revolvers in the world. Again, when you make a jillion of them and they�re used everywhere in LE service, you�re going to encounter �bad� guns. It�s not the entirety of the gun line, it�s just samplings of one (or two).
So you had a couple of 1911�s that worked flawlessly�The same design that has the best service record of any military pistol ever built. But because you saw someone else�s fail, under some conditions that you�re probably unaware of (as in, you don�t know why they failed), you�re unwilling to trust your life to it.
Yet, despite all the well documented failings of Glocks, along with failures in your personal pistols, you trust your life to the Glock�I don�t get that? Why is it you�re willing to overlook failures in Glocks, but not overlook failures in the 1911? (Are you just unaware of Glock issues?)
Well said Kevin. I'd simply add that anyone who thinks any handgun is going to be 100% reliable under field comnditions doesn't have as much experience with handguns under much in the way of field conditions as he thinks he does. I've seen lots of handguns used under some pretty rough field conditions. I've never seen one that would hold up under all of them. What you need to understand is what to look for and avoid or how to deal with these problems if they come up. For example, don't drop your favorite DA revolver on a concrete sidewalk and expect it to work when you pick it. Half the time, they don't. Don't use your Glock as a club. If you want that option, go with a 1911 or a Browning HP. Don't use casually reloaded, lead SWC handloads in your 1911 for those kinds of shooting where reliability is paramount. Last of all, learn how to clear jams from your favorite while in a hurry. E
I bet a lot of the perception that Glocks are more reliable than 1911s comes as a result of the fact that more 1911s get tinkered with (whether they need it or not) than Glocks.
I can understand DINK's reluctance though. If most of his brothers are using Glocks with good results but the ones who used 1911s had problems, he may question his own 1911 experience as nothing more than good luck. I perceive him as one who has little faith in luck and more in statistics (that he is privy to). I think he could work past that by learning more about the mechanics of the gun, but he isn't interested.
FreeMe - Yeah, it does look like he's taking the statistical route. I was trying to point out that if he's taking the statistical route, he apparently doesn't know what the REAL statistics are. Still, there's nothing wrong with a Glock, it's a good gun. I see nothing wrong with his destination; i just question the route he took to get there.
E - Very good point, they're all boud to fail at some point. Makes sense to understand what makes yours fail, and even more importantly (as you so wisely point out) how to get it back into service in a hurry.
I bet a lot of the perception that Glocks are more reliable than 1911s comes as a result of the fact that more 1911s get tinkered with (whether they need it or not) than Glocks.
Not only that. A Glock is a Glock is a Glock. All made by the same folks. Mags made by the same folks who make the guns. All parts made and fitted in-house. That cannot be said about "the 1911," but when you find a 1911 that works right (among the many dozens of makers) charged with mags of the right make and design for it, all the parts correctly selected and properly fitted, then you have a handgun that works about as well as any Glock. This is not because the Glock design is that much more reliable, if at all, but because Glock is a 100% in-house operation, producing one product (in various calibers and proportions), with all the parts made by that one company, while "a 1911" refers to a general design that's made by dozens of companies using dozens of different mags and dozens of different parts makers.
You make a good point, but following that logic, the best 1911 would be a Taurus, since they're the only 1911 maker that makes 100% of their 1911's in-house.
It�s the design of the Glock that lends itself to the reliability it gets, not that it�s all 100% made by Glock (although that certainly doesn�t hurt). The Glock is a very slick design that lends itself to simple yet very precise manufacture; that�s one of the geniuses of the design. The 1911 on the other hand usually benefits greatly from hand fitting; a limitation of the age in which it was designed. Still, modern manufacturing has actually compensated quite well for the limitations of the 1911 design (manufacturing speaking of course), and most of the mass produced 1911�s are pretty darned good pistols. While I may have made some subtle changes to my S&W M1911PD, I haven�t done anything to it functionally, and for the past 7 years it has remained flawless, not one malfunction.
Are you suggesting that Baer forges his own frames? Machines them to final spec. Forges and finish machines all the internal parts, makes his own springs, pins, etc?
Taurus is the only firearm manufcature of 1911's that I'm aware of that actually makes 100% of the gun in house. Most makers of 1911's don't make a single part in house, but rather assemble parts that are out-sourced to a jobber to their specification. Nothing wrong with that at all.
My personal duty gun and Glock 27 have both mlfunctioned one time apiece.
Then you say this:
Originally Posted by DINK
I had two 1911's that never malfunctioned but I just could not rely on them having seen so many 1911's fail. It was always in the back of my mind that anytime they would quit working. I have never had that feeling with a glock.
Am I the only one who's scratching his head on Dink's carry choice?
When you see a gun fail, you need to understand, that�s a sampling of ONE, and not an indictment of the entire batch of any given pistol. Now me personally, I�ve seen more Glocks fail than 1911�s, but I�ve seen a bunch of 1911�s fail also. Usually, both the Glocks and 1911�s I see that have failed are ones that someone has �customized� or �improved� in some way or another. So it�s hard to fault the entire line of pistols for one or two that someone has home gunsmithed.
All manufacturers have lemons. If you follow Glocks closely you�d know there are a bunch of departments who have dumped the Glock because of failures. Many of these were factory stock guns, not messed with. Now does that mean a Glock is a bad gun? I certainly don�t think so. To me it means that Glock has a whole lot more guns in service than anyone else and you�re more likely to encounter Glocks with problems.
Roll the clock back 25-30 years ago and S&W was the Law Enforcement whipping boy. There were a lot of LE agencies that dumped S&W revolvers for various failures; the same S&W revolvers that many here on this forum would trust their lives to, and would claim are the highest quality revolvers in the world. Again, when you make a jillion of them and they�re used everywhere in LE service, you�re going to encounter �bad� guns. It�s not the entirety of the gun line, it�s just samplings of one (or two).
So you had a couple of 1911�s that worked flawlessly�The same design that has the best service record of any military pistol ever built. But because you saw someone else�s fail, under some conditions that you�re probably unaware of (as in, you don�t know why they failed), you�re unwilling to trust your life to it.
Yet, despite all the well documented failings of Glocks, along with failures in your personal pistols, you trust your life to the Glock�I don�t get that? Why is it you�re willing to overlook failures in Glocks, but not overlook failures in the 1911? (Are you just unaware of Glock issues?)
Kevin,
It has to do with the number of rounds I have personally put through a glock and seen put through a glock. If I would have shot a 1911 40,000 times do you think I would have seen it fail? I do. I have also only seen a glock malfunction one time and then carry on. I have seen 1911's start jamming and refuse to stop until they were taken apart and cleaned/lubed. I have not seen anywhere near as many 1911's shot but have seen alot more of them stop working.
About 15 of us were shooting a couple months ago and there were six or eight 1911's there. Every 1911 malfunctioned at some point. Stove pipe, failure to feed, double feeds, etc. The brands represented were rock island, springield (both GI's and Loaded) and colt. I am sure some of the failures were cleaning and magazine related but surely not all. There was one glock that jammed also while shooting. Go to a IDPA match and watch and see which pistols stop running. I have and guess what one I have seen quit the most. 1911.
My buddy has a XD in 40 that refused to shoot silver bear ammo. The glocks never malfunctioned with it. I would never even try to run that kind of ammo through a 1911. I don't think it will cycle very long.
The first thing people ask about your 1911 is "have you had it worked on." Why should you buy a pistol that cost around a 1k dollars and have to have it worked on?
I know anyone can put out a bad pistol and I sure glock has too. I have never seen one though. I think very highly of SIG pistols but a friend of mine had one in 357 sig that jammed every other shot. It went back to the fatory three or four times and still jammed every other shot when he traded it.
I do think I was lucky with the two 1911's I owned. They both worked and the only thing I done to them was use wilson mags. It was always in the back of mind though that they would start jamming.
I carry a gun everyday of my life and do not have time to worry if a 1911 is perfectly clean and lubed. I really like the 1911 but just can not depend on it everyday.
You make a good point, but following that logic, the best 1911 would be a Taurus, since they're the only 1911 maker that makes 100% of their 1911's in-house.
I've never had a malfunction with my glocks, a 23, a 29 and a 19. I know that they will work, every time. I can't say that for HK, Kimber, S&W, Sig or FN.
I've seen Glocks malf. I've seen HKs malf. I've seen Sigs malf.
Personally, I hate Glocks. It has nothing to do with reliability or make. They don't fit me. Full stop, end of story in my book.
The Sig 229 that rides my hip daily, however, fits me like a glove. I'm not sure what the round count is but it has never malfunctioned.
Glocks just work, yep. So do Sigs.
George
�Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.�
As far as the Smith M&P goes, Kentucky DF&W is carrying M&P .40s right now, but are switching to Glocks this summer. They are having a LOT of problems with their new! pistols, and are switching to Glocks because of it. I suspect they wish they'd kept their 4566s, though the trend to .40 is clear enough.
Locally, the M&P is getting a bad name. Glocks are distributed here by a local purveyor of cop equipment, and they are excellent salespeople, along with Glock's habit of selling dirt cheap to any new customers currently using Smiths. They flat-out hunt Smith-using departments and cut them a deal they can't refuse.
You can roll a turd in peanuts, dip it in chocolate, and it still ain't no damn Baby Ruth.
As far as the Smith M&P goes, Kentucky DF&W is carrying M&P .40s right now, but are switching to Glocks this summer. They are having a LOT of problems with their new! pistols
Locally, the M&P is getting a bad name.
First I've heard of this. A friend was given two S&W M&P's years ago by S&W, a 4" and a 5". He's put 35K rounds through the 4". He regularly shoots in the 110's on a Rogers' Range and has shot a 123, and usually uses the M&P when he can. He is also an excellent 1911 gunsmith. He really likes the M&P's, mainly because he has yet to have a single malfunction with one. The 35K pistol still has the original trigger and recoil springs.
As for Glocks, the grip does suck, but that can be changed by Robar and Lone Wolf, or you can read the tech article at Brownell's and DIY. I've done two. My G17 and G19 have a 1911 grip angle.
I bet a lot of the perception that Glocks are more reliable than 1911s comes as a result of the fact that more 1911s get tinkered with (whether they need it or not) than Glocks.
I can understand DINK's reluctance though. If most of his brothers are using Glocks with good results but the ones who used 1911s had problems, he may question his own 1911 experience as nothing more than good luck. I perceive him as one who has little faith in luck and more in statistics (that he is privy to). I think he could work past that by learning more about the mechanics of the gun, but he isn't interested.
Freeme I like the 1911. There is nothing wrong with them. I just think the glock is a better carry/duty gun for a variety of reasons. I do believe that a glock will run dirty where a 1911 might or it might not. I have owned and shot a alot of pistol/revovlers and have come to a opinion of what I want in a carry gun.
I had two great 1911's but when something went bump in the night they were not the first thing I grabbed for.
Glocks might be reliable but the grip angle turns me off. That and I would outshoot the Glock 19 shooters at the range with my Colt 1911.
Larry Vickers wrote his findings on some forums that stirred up the Glock fans:
Quote
Originally from 1911forum.com IIRC:
Quote: Larry Vickers
Sand Test Just had a chance to do a harsh sand test on few different handguns. This test was not scientific but was very enlightening.
Pistols tested were; HK USP Tactical Customized 1911 rack grade GI 1911 Glock 21
Test consisted of placing each pistol loaded in a Bianchi GI field holster inside a plastic bag with approx 2 cups of fine/medium grit sand ( North Carolina type). Then the bag was shaken vigorously for 10 seconds while holding onto the pistol butt for safety. The pistol was then taken out and 3 mags were fired through the 1911 and 2 fully loaded mags were fired through the HK and Glock - roughly the same amount of ammo. The sand coverage was very good and uniformly covered the pistols. The pistols were loaded in the mode you would expect in a field environment - condition 3 for the 1911, loaded for the Glock and loaded in DA mode for the USP.A test was done dry and lubed with TW 25B. This test represented EXTREME sand conditions - not normal field use, even in sandy conditions.A brief rundown of the results follow;
1)Carrying your gun dry in this environment is a NO GO despite what some will say. All pistols performed worse dry than lubed.
2)All pistols required some manipulation in order to fire - none would function normally straight out of the holster.
3)Overall the HK USP performed the best - the performance of it dry was roughly the same as the customized 1911 but was definately the best lubed. Overall it performed well.
4)The custom 1911 was second - interestingly enough the trigger track was not a real problem - the sand that went in through the ejection port to the bottom lugs area caused the most problems. Once the sand shifted in this area the pistol functioned better.
5)The rack grade GI 1911 was a distant third - the custom 1911 had an 18 pound recoil spring and that helped with feeding greatly vs the rack grade gun. Swap out the recoil spring and it probably would have done better.
6)The shocker of the day - the Glock 21 FAILED terribly. The big problem was failure of the trigger to reset. Also at times the pistol would not fire due to sand in the trigger mechanism. The dry test could not even be completed with the Glock due to this.This surprised all of us as we expected the Glock to do quite well.
Moral of the story; The 1911, even in its customized mode, can get the job done if you set it up to succeed. Lube it right, carry it in the right holster and in the proper mode, and it won't let you down - just like it hasn't for nearly a 100 years.
The HK USP series are good guns - well designed and well made - for service pistols. The ergonomics hurt the pistol dramatically but for an out of the box service pistol/field gun, they get my endorsement.
The Glock 21 is a dog - always has been. It has the rep of being the worst gun Glock makes. I have a Glock 17 and 19 and like them for what they are - but don't get sucked into the Glock hype - they are not magical guns. Remember what your dad said when you were in 3rd grade; don't believe everything you read.
Hope you guys got something out of this - I did.
Larry Vickers
End of quote
If one can shoot a Glock well then more power to them but don't go posting its somehow superior to other great pistols.
MtnHtr
I didn't. I said I picked the G19 over others. The Glock grip angle apparently turns off Clint Smith too. Me personally, I love 1911s and want get another one but I've experienced too many malfunctions with them to trust them as my primary self-defense arm.
Expat
"There are no dangerous weapons. There are only dangerous men." - Robert Heinlein
I didn't. I said I picked the G19 over others. The Glock grip angle apparently turns off Clint Smith too. Me personally, I love 1911s and want get another one but I've experienced too many malfunctions with them to trust them as my primary self-defense arm.
Expat
There really isn't "a 1911." There are dozens upon dozens of them, and probably thousands. There isn't a 1911 company out there who's the only company making them. You therefore have to take each one and judge it individually. If you have one that works, however, it works. If you don't, then it needs adjustment till it does.
I didn't. I said I picked the G19 over others. The Glock grip angle apparently turns off Clint Smith too. Me personally, I love 1911s and want get another one but I've experienced too many malfunctions with them to trust them as my primary self-defense arm.
Expat
I have 2 full size 1911s and one small Kimber Ultra Carry and all function perfectly and a full sized 1911 is what I have with me at all times. They all run perfectly, I pull the trigger and I hear a bang every time. If a 1911 has a feeding issue they are not difficult to correct so as to not have that problem again ever IME A quality 1911 platform has a track record of excellence
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
I read alot of Clint Smith before he became "famous". If there was ever a 1911 man he was it. Well until XD and Smith & wesson came across with some money. Now it would not suprise me to see him shooting a Hi-Point if they can come up with the money.
"But if the only way to extole a Glock is to deride all others???????? . Who do you think you are fooling?????"
Are you referring to my post? If so point out the derision.
Dan
. . That's my post that just happened to be after yours. I had to find your post to see what you were talking about. Still don't understand. Seemed like you were talking about one shooter ond two brands. . Let me know where I refered to you. May take a while..........I'll wait.........
Glock has a proven track record,and they have been put through some of the most intense torture testing and round totals I am aware of.Hard to talk down a gun that has such a outstanding track record.I would definitely carry a glock before a 1911.
I started out with a G23. It was great, but for some dumb reason I sold it.
Bought a Kahr. It wouldn't feed a whole mag without malfunctioning. They told me it was the "break in period" and it was because it had "such tight tolerances." Ok. I kept shooting it. It kept jamming. I did a little work on it and ended up sending it back. After that it was about 90%.
I then got a Kahr PM9. Same story. Enough with the Kahrs.
I tried several others. I carried a Kimber for a while, and had loads of problems with it, too. Send it back, they say. Forget it. Sold it.
Repeat that cycle for about 6 different handguns. In the middle there I picked up a G29. Never had to worry about break in. Didn't have to worry about anything. It just worked.
I just grabbed a G19. Same boring story. It just works. Every time.
I don't care how they look, those dang glocks go bang when I pull the trigger. I don't have to worry about what I'm feeding it or how I treat it. I learned that through a lot of rounds and some sad experience.
I started out with a G23. It was great, but for some dumb reason I sold it.
Bought a Kahr. It wouldn't feed a whole mag without malfunctioning. They told me it was the "break in period" and it was because it had "such tight tolerances." Ok. I kept shooting it. It kept jamming. I did a little work on it and ended up sending it back. After that it was about 90%.
I then got a Kahr PM9. Same story. Enough with the Kahrs.
I tried several others. I carried a Kimber for a while, and had loads of problems with it, too. Send it back, they say. Forget it. Sold it.
Repeat that cycle for about 6 different handguns. In the middle there I picked up a G29. Never had to worry about break in. Didn't have to worry about anything. It just worked.
I just grabbed a G19. Same boring story. It just works. Every time.
I don't care how they look, those dang glocks go bang when I pull the trigger. I don't have to worry about what I'm feeding it or how I treat it. I learned that through a lot of rounds and some sad experience. I'm back where I started.
You make them sound almost as good as a quality 1911
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Well, we come full circle right back to the fact that every maker makes some good ones and some bad ones. I have a S&W M1911PD that has been flawless out of the box for the past 7 years, I think it was around $1,100 (I paid much less, but that�s not available to everyone) new because mine is the one that comes with CTC laser grips which really drives up the cost. I�ve shot many S&W 1911�s and I�ve yet to have a failure of any kind with any of them. I�ve also had great experiences with Kimber and Para Ordnance.
My local police department issues Springfield �Loaded� Stainless 1911�s and they�re absolutely loving them. The rangemaster has informed me he has yet to encounter a malfunction at the range, and they have been carrying their Springfield�s for over 3 years now. I gave some private instruction to a local officer and got to lay my little grubbies on their issue gun and it�s not how I would set up a 1911, but it�s hard to argue with the results. The woman I was instructing was definitively told that her gun would never malfunction, so I induced a malfunction to show her that any pistol will malfunction under the right circumstances.
My boss at my day job paid $440.00 for his RIA which has yet to produce a single hiccup in over 500 rounds for him; so you don�t necessarily have to spend a fortune.
There are a lot of great 1911�s out there. I hear all this talk of bad 1911�s on the internet, but I don�t see them when I�m out shooting. Yeah, you see malfunctioning 1911�s at pistol matches, because people are constantly experimenting with them, changing springs and what not. But I�ve seen just as many problems with Glocks at those matches, and for pretty much the same reasons, people are changing springs, triggers and whatnot.
Also consider that at shooting ranges, and pistol matches, a lot of shooters are using reloaded ammunition. Reloading for a semi-auto takes someone who knows what the heck they�re doing, so many pistol match malfunctions in most any pistol design can often be attributed to bad ammunition also.
So head to a pistol match armed with the knowledge that people there are shooting reloaded ammunition in guns that could be considered �experimental� because of the level of questionable customization and one shouldn�t be surprised to see guns failing under such conditions.
Give me factory ammunition, and I�ll put my S&W M1911PD up against a Glock any day of the week�My S&W may win, the Glock may win, either way, I don�t consider one necessarily �better� than the other.
If you want to talk about the design itself (excluding manufacture); then it�s clear the M1911 has an unbeatable service record that the Glock won�t approach for at least another 50-60 years.
Give me factory ammunition, and I�ll put my S&W M1911PD up against a Glock any day of the week�My S&W may win, the Glock may win, either way, I don�t consider one necessarily �better� than the other.
That's been my experience with my S&W 1911 scandium commander as well. My only complaint is that it, like most lightweight commanders in my experience, occasionally spits spent brass right into my face. That's another reason I'm such a fan of the all steel 1911s, with which I've never had brass shot into my face.
When you click on reply to a post, it normally means you are replying to "that" post. It helps people sort out who the remarks are directed at. I know, I ended a sentence with a preposition and it's improper.
Dan
"It's a source of great pride, that when I google my name, I find book titles and not mug shots." Daniel C. Chamberlain
When you click on reply to a post, it normally means you are replying to "that" post. It helps people sort out who the remarks are directed at. I know, I ended a sentence with a preposition and it's improper.
My only complaint is that it, like most lightweight commanders in my experience, occasionally spits spent brass right into my face.
That's nothing a little extractor/ejector tuning won't fix. My first guess would be too much extractor tension. Second guess would be too short an ejector.
Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense. Robert Frost
When you click on reply to a post, it normally means you are replying to "that" post. It helps people sort out who the remarks are directed at. I know, I ended a sentence with a preposition and it's improper.
Dan
"... at whom remarks are directed ..."
I would have said "to whom" but I'm from Wisconsin.
Dan
"It's a source of great pride, that when I google my name, I find book titles and not mug shots." Daniel C. Chamberlain
I didn't. I said I picked the G19 over others. The Glock grip angle apparently turns off Clint Smith too. Me personally, I love 1911s and want get another one but I've experienced too many malfunctions with them to trust them as my primary self-defense arm.
Expat
There really isn't "a 1911." There are dozens upon dozens of them, and probably thousands. There isn't a 1911 company out there who's the only company making them. You therefore have to take each one and judge it individually. If you have one that works, however, it works. If you don't, then it needs adjustment till it does.
Yep. Perhaps the next one.
Expat
"There are no dangerous weapons. There are only dangerous men." - Robert Heinlein
But do you see what I mean? Comparing "The 1911" to a Glock is comparing apples and oranges. One refers to a design pattern used to put together a handgun to different standards by different companies using parts from several different companies each, and the other is an actual product made in house by a company called Glock. You have to narrow down the scope on the 1911 side at least to one company, but even then there are all sorts of mags out there in common use, and even that one company, for the most part, is using different parts from different manufacturers at any given time.
I just grabbed a G19. Same boring story. It just works. Every time.
I don't care how they look, those dang glocks go bang when I pull the trigger. I don't have to worry about what I'm feeding it or how I treat it. I learned that through a lot of rounds and some sad experience.
I'm back where I started.
Honestly, don't fool yourself, you do need to worry about what you feed it and how you treat it. It does make a difference, nothing is perfect and if you don't concern yourself with quality ammo and good maintenance then you are setting yourself up for more sad experiences. BTW, of all the Glock's the G19 would be my pick too. But you can bet I'd keep it clean, lightly lubed, maintain the magazines, and she'd be stoked with good quality defensive ammo that I had assured myself was reliable in the gun and shot to point of aim.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
But do you see what I mean? Comparing "The 1911" to a Glock is comparing apples and oranges. One refers to a design pattern used to put together a handgun to different standards by different companies using parts from several different companies each, and the other is an actual product made in house by a company called Glock.
We need to invent a new term...how about 'SFPP' (Striker-Fired Polymer Pistol)?
Then we can lump everything into one basket like is done for the 1911. Glock, XD, M&P, Hi-Points, and all the rest share one reputation.
"I bought a new SFPP today and it's a piece of junk, therefor all SFPP's are junk."
Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense. Robert Frost
But do you see what I mean? Comparing "The 1911" to a Glock is comparing apples and oranges. One refers to a design pattern used to put together a handgun to different standards by different companies using parts from several different companies each, and the other is an actual product made in house by a company called Glock. You have to narrow down the scope on the 1911 side at least to one company, but even then there are all sorts of mags out there in common use, and even that one company, for the most part, is using different parts from different manufacturers at any given time.
Absolutely. Production of the 1911 is not monolithic like the Glock. I get that. I don't have massive 1911 experience, but as a 40 year shooter (almost 47 years old), you couldn't call it insignificant either. Through my years in the military, as an owner of 1911s, and as a shooter with relatives and friends that own them, I have experience with US Army 1911s, Colt Series 70s and 80s, older Springfields, an AMT, and a few others makers. All these guns were stock.
Also understand that the baseline is that I love the 1911 and the cartridge it fires and want to give it another chance that I might not give a CZ, Glock, or XD. That is why I want another one. I also recognize that I've not much recent experience with the 1911 (last 10 years). Note that I didn't list experience with Kimbers or some of the other current favorites. But until I get one that works consistently with quality factory ammo, I will carry something that has proven to ME that it will.
What I'm looking for in a 1911 is what I feel I've found in the G19, Beretta M9 (don't like that gun but it has always worked and shot well for me), CZ75 9mm, XD 9mm & .357 Sig, and S&W .38 SP amd .357 mag revolvers; a handgun that works out of the box with the magazines that came with it given proper maintenance, lube and quality ammo. I don't want to have to chase reliability through new mags, after market springs, tuning extractors, lowering ejection ports, polishing feed ramps, and throating barrels. It sounds like these guns are available. Here is to hoping I get one. Kimber, Dan Wesson, Para, and Springfield are the likely candidates. Until then and after, I will feel well armed carrying the previously mentioned G19, S&W M15, CZ75 (if I could get a frikkin reasonably priced holster for it) or friends' and relatives' XDs I have extensive experience with.
Expat
"There are no dangerous weapons. There are only dangerous men." - Robert Heinlein
But do you see what I mean? Comparing "The 1911" to a Glock is comparing apples and oranges. One refers to a design pattern used to put together a handgun to different standards by different companies using parts from several different companies each, and the other is an actual product made in house by a company called Glock.
We need to invent a new term...how about 'SFPP' (Striker-Fired Polymer Pistol)?
Then we can lump everything into one basket like is done for the 1911. Glock, XD, M&P, Hi-Points, and all the rest share one reputation.
"I bought a new SFPP today and it's a piece of junk, therefor all SFPP's are junk."
But do you see what I mean? Comparing "The 1911" to a Glock is comparing apples and oranges. One refers to a design pattern used to put together a handgun to different standards by different companies using parts from several different companies each, and the other is an actual product made in house by a company called Glock. You have to narrow down the scope on the 1911 side at least to one company, but even then there are all sorts of mags out there in common use, and even that one company, for the most part, is using different parts from different manufacturers at any given time.
Absolutely. Production of the 1911 is not monolithic like the Glock. I get that. I don't have massive 1911 experience, but as a 40 year shooter (almost 47 years old), you couldn't call it insignificant either. Through my years in the military, as an owner of 1911s, and as a shooter with relatives and friends that own them, I have experience with US Army 1911s, Colt Series 70s and 80s, older Springfields, an AMT, and a few others makers. All these guns were stock.
Also understand that the baseline is that I love the 1911 and the cartridge it fires and want to give it another chance that I might not give a CZ, Glock, or XD. That is why I want another one. I also recognize that I've not much recent experience with the 1911 (last 10 years). Note that I didn't list experience with Kimbers or some of the other current favorites. But until I get one that works consistently with quality factory ammo, I will carry something that has proven to ME that it will.
What I'm looking for in a 1911 is what I feel I've found in the G19, Beretta M9 (don't like that gun but it has always worked and shot well for me), CZ75 9mm, XD 9mm & .357 Sig, and S&W .38 SP amd .357 mag revolvers; a handgun that works out of the box with the magazines that came with it given proper maintenance, lube and quality ammo. I don't want to have to chase reliability through new mags, after market springs, tuning extractors, lowering ejection ports, polishing feed ramps, and throating barrels. It sounds like these guns are available. Here is to hoping I get one. Kimber, Dan Wesson, Para, and Springfield are the likely candidates. Until then and after, I will feel well armed carrying the previously mentioned G19, S&W M15, CZ75 (if I could get a frikkin reasonably priced holster for it) or friends' and relatives' XDs I have extensive experience with.
Expat
Your position is perfectly reasonable. Shoot what you have confidence in.
I am the first person to make light of a Hi-point but in all honesty I have never seen one fail. I have not seen any shot very much though.
I have worked a few shootings/suicides with them and they always work.
Dink
I've never seen one fail either, but I admit to not spending much time watching. Odd to think that there are plenty of Hi-Point owners out there that believe Glock owners spent more money than necessary.
Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense. Robert Frost
Someone mentioned Glocks being "controversial". I don't think there's any significant controversy over the function and reliability of Glock pistols. But there does seem to be a lot of controversy on the part of Glock fans in regards to 1911s - and for some of them, any other pistol than a Glock.
Although I have shot some, I've never owned a Glock (yet) - but the only pistol I've owned that never ever malfunctioned - even with crappy reloads - was a Hi-Power. I'd personally (so far) take a Hi-Power over any Glock. In fact - I consider the Glock inferior to the HP in functionality under ordinary conditions, at least in my hands...and much prettier, to boot.
steelhead didn't the coast guard have to go with the glock for there units in either Texas or Florida? The article I read said it was the only pistol they could get that would go 12 hours with out rusting due to the salt water.
steelhead didn't the coast guard have to go with the glock for there units in either Texas or Florida? The article I read said it was the only pistol they could get that would go 12 hours with out rusting due to the salt water.
Dink
I guess the Navy during WWII had ships full of rusty 1911s.
The few guys I know that were in the navy (the last 15 years or so) and were on ships most of the time did not get to carry or shoot a pistol very much. I don't know how much they packed one in WWII and my guess would be that you don't either.
I was told that when they were in a port in a foreign country during WWII that only one man out of a group (I don't recall the number. one in ten maybe?) would pack a pistol onto land. I don't know how much salt water the old 1911 would have been subjective to during these outings.
I was refering to the coast guards chopper guys. Where ever they are stationed they fly and play in the salt water there entire shifts.
The Gen4 Glocks have a switchable magazine release, and aftermarket releases do the same thing for previous generations. Other than the ejection port there's nothing else to change.
Whenever I've switched a magazine release or safety it screws me up and I end up switching it back.
Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense. Robert Frost
The few guys I know that were in the navy (the last 15 years or so) and were on ships most of the time did not get to carry or shoot a pistol very much. I don't know how much they packed one in WWII and my guess would be that you don't either.
I was told that when they were in a port in a foreign country during WWII that only one man out of a group (I don't recall the number. one in ten maybe?) would pack a pistol onto land. I don't know how much salt water the old 1911 would have been subjective to during these outings.
I was refering to the coast guards chopper guys. Where ever they are stationed they fly and play in the salt water there entire shifts.
Dink
When I was in the Navy in the early 70s, including more time in choppers than I ever desired -- 1911s were still very much in use. Anyone who ever stood quarterdeck watch as petty officer of the watch (and any number of other jobs) was quite familiar with the .45. I don't recall any of them ever being rusty, but then again, that's what we had gunner's mates for.
If you're fixin' to put a hole in something, make it a hole to remember.
The Gen4 Glocks have a switchable magazine release, and aftermarket releases do the same thing for previous generations. Other than the ejection port there's nothing else to change.
Whenever I've switched a magazine release or safety it screws me up and I end up switching it back.
Was looking at a Generation 4 Model 22 the other day and saw that. After dropping magazines (and slide releases on other models) with my left index finger for about 42 years, I wouldn't want to switch either!
Gunnery, gunnery, gunnery. Hit the target, all else is twaddle!
steelhead didn't the coast guard have to go with the glock for there units in either Texas or Florida? The article I read said it was the only pistol they could get that would go 12 hours with out rusting due to the salt water.
Dink
I guess the Navy during WWII had ships full of rusty 1911s.
Another dumb [bleep] comment. I wonder how many boardings in and out of a 20' boat a Navy battleship performs in a day. We are in constant contact with/around water.
All here are opinions. I like my Steyr M9A1, more than my Glock. I feel that the Glocks are more dependable than all the other autos, because they are less sensitive to different mags. The CZ 75 is my 3rd choice.
If one really thinks that his auto handgun model is most dependable, he can borrow against his retirement, and send a check to a group from this forum in the amount of $25,000. The gun of his choice would be purchased NIB along with 10 mags. Telemarketers can be hired to fire all the handguns until they fail one shot. Winner takes all, handguns, mags, money, and all.
FWIW, the only thing that I would bet that much money on, is that if the police stop a Willie Nelson tour bus, they will find pot. Happy New Year.
They might "work" but they sure as heck don't fit my hand near as well as a 1911 does so it may as well not even exist. Doesn't matter if it goes bang every time if I hate shooting the thing.
Well I have several 1911 model pistols and the Sig Sauers as well. However, I can shoot the Glocks without a problem and I can not do so with the other models mentioned.
I will also say, that I have never seen any make of pistol, tested and put through the "ringer" like I have seen the Glock pistol for a fact. Now buried in sand, frozen, thrown into the 2 ft of water, pushed into a bucket of sloppy mud, still all this and the Glock goes BANG BANG BANK!!!
This is something I just don't believe my Kimbers, Colts, Springfieds or Par Ordinance would do in the same type of test. Just for for thought gents and a light turned on for true reality!
Thank Our Veterans! GOD Bless Them All
UNIONS BUILDING AMERICA, SALUTE ALL THE UNION TRADESMAN
This is something I just don't believe my Kimbers, Colts, Springfieds or Par Ordinance would do in the same type of test. Just for for thought gents and a light turned on for true reality!
Why would you even own a gun that you didn't feel is reliable for your purposes? Not including a collectible of course. Do you own a deer rifle that might not fire when that big buck steps out?
If a firearm is going to find a place in my safe it either works, will be made to work, or is gone. It doesn't matter if it's a BB gun or a CCW, I have to have complete faith it will work.
Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense. Robert Frost
This is something I just don't believe my Kimbers, Colts, Springfieds or Par Ordinance would do in the same type of test. Just for for thought gents and a light turned on for true reality!
Why would you even own a gun that you didn't feel is reliable for your purposes? Not including a collectible of course. Do you own a deer rifle that might not fire when that big buck steps out?
If a firearm is going to find a place in my safe it either works, will be made to work, or is gone. It doesn't matter if it's a BB gun or a CCW, I have to have complete faith it will work.
I cut my teeth on a colt 70 series handgunning, it was when I thought of myself as a pistolero. lol
still find the 1911 most comfortable, still have the original I started with and a Kimber to boot in Commander size. Love both of those pistols. If the S(ever) hits the fan, would surprise me none to have 1 or both of those on me.
got a Glock 22 for momma, hmmmmmmmm we're on to something here, simple, fairly reliable, cheap.
I've got one 870 and IIRC 5 Mossbergs in 500 or 590 config.
the Glocks fill the same niche for me that the Mossies do in the shotgun world.
not pretty, but pretty dang reliable, cheap enough
and I have more folks to arm than just myself if the world would turn dicey.
Glocks have their place imo, not at the top of the list for my favorite handgun mind you.
but they have a place in my needs
I'm pretty certain when we sing our anthem and mention the land of the free, the original intent didn't mean cell phones, food stamps and birth control.
Jog now before you start to whipping me with the "Cat Of 9-Tales" It is not about what can take the tests that have been done on the GLOCKS savvy!!! I did some of those tests back in the 70's on my Colt model 70 series pistol 1911. It would NOT fire if I stuck it in a bucket of sloppy mud and I sure was not going to attempt the under water test. It did NOT fire when I buried it in white sand but during the first shot and then JAMMED UP solid.
Now I shoot Glocks because my hand lets me do so and I can not work the safety on the 1911 models period. So I hope this explans my chooing the plastic pistols over the works of art I have gathering in my vault. My Glocks will never shoot 1-inch groups but by CCW weapons really don't need that kind of accuracy understand. Just draw and go BANG with a GLOCK.
Now as far as my big game rifles go, since you choose to bring the subject up, I own some 30 model 70 Winchesters in my vault and half dozen Rugers as well.......all bolt guns. Two Remingtons that were passed down to me, one a .35-Whelen. Also 4 of those Marlin Levers, 4 of the Winchesters (2 are pre-64 models. Various shotguns in O/U, semi-auto and pumpguns too, up the wazzoo! Along with a very nice collection of pistols you betcha. It only took me 55 years to get it done I dare say.
I own 2 of the Browning Bars in .338 & 25/06. Savages for varmint/predator hunting will total at least 6 at the present time in various calibers and one to be brought home on Monday, another model 12 in .223 for the wife. Cheer's!
Thank Our Veterans! GOD Bless Them All
UNIONS BUILDING AMERICA, SALUTE ALL THE UNION TRADESMAN
Tonk, I guess many thousands of war time soldiers, cops, explorers, hunters, citizens, and even the bad guys since 1911 haven't wrung out the 1911 design to suit you, huh?
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
MOGC, just so you know this fact! The 1911 built for the ARMY back then was sooooo loose you are lucky to hit a 12" by 12" square at 30 feet. I know that for a fact being one of those so called soldiers back in the 60's.
They were certainly NO modern day KIMBER, SPRINGFIELD, Par-ORD. STI or COLT of modern day. These pistols are built to very tight tolerences and that is why they shoot so damn good.
The older 1911's were indeed made to fire in the sloppy mud that lay in the trenches of World War 1 and the sand of the South Pacific but NOT the premier pistols of today. Now if you sir doubt my words, anytime you wish to put on an exhibition with a 1911 testing it in the sand, mud, and water, against one of my plastic UGLY GLOCKS, please do let me know and I will set it up my local gun club. The GLOCK is what it is simply put, a damn good CCW weapon that will fire under 98% of the things that will cause a modern 1911 like the Kimber or COLT to lock up or simply JAM.
Thank Our Veterans! GOD Bless Them All
UNIONS BUILDING AMERICA, SALUTE ALL THE UNION TRADESMAN
MOGC, just so you know this fact! The 1911 built for the ARMY back then was sooooo loose you are lucky to hit a 12" by 12" square at 30 feet. I know that for a fact being one of those so called soldiers back in the 60's.
They were certainly NO modern day KIMBER, SPRINGFIELD, Par-ORD. STI or COLT of modern day. These pistols are built to very tight tolerences and that is why they shoot so damn good.
The older 1911's were indeed made to fire in the sloppy mud that lay in the trenches of World War 1 and the sand of the South Pacific but NOT the premier pistols of today. Now if you sir doubt my words, anytime you wish to put on an exhibition with a 1911 testing it in the sand, mud, and water, against one of my plastic UGLY GLOCKS, please do let me know and I will set it up my local gun club. The GLOCK is what it is simply put, a damn good CCW weapon that will fire under 98% of the things that will cause a modern 1911 like the Kimber or COLT to lock up or simply JAM.
The 1911s that passed the Army's tests in 1910 were not nearly as loose or inaccurate as you suggest. After decades of use, they became loose, but even then their mechanical accuracy was well within specs for their intended purpose.
MOGC, just so you know this fact! The 1911 built for the ARMY back then was sooooo loose you are lucky to hit a 12" by 12" square at 30 feet. I know that for a fact being one of those so called soldiers back in the 60's. They were certainly NO modern day KIMBER, SPRINGFIELD, Par-ORD. STI or COLT of modern day. These pistols are built to very tight tolerences and that is why they shoot so damn good.
The older 1911's were indeed made to fire in the sloppy mud that lay in the trenches of World War 1 and the sand of the South Pacific but NOT the premier pistols of today. Now if you sir doubt my words, anytime you wish to put on an exhibition with a 1911 testing it in the sand, mud, and water, against one of my plastic UGLY GLOCKS, please do let me know and I will set it up my local gun club. The GLOCK is what it is simply put, a damn good CCW weapon that will fire under 98% of the things that will cause a modern 1911 like the Kimber or COLT to lock up or simply JAM.
Those military 1911's in the sixties and even before were worn out. They were never that inaccurate when produced
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Well the fact of the matter is that unless a 1911 model is LOOOSE as a Goose it would never fire if put into sloppy mud, sand etc. This much I know for a fact as of running my own tests on a model 70 series that I owned.
All a person has to do is simply look at the U-Tube on the internet and see for yourself how the tortcher tests have played out on the GLOCKS. Now other pistol has been subjected to tests the Glocks have passed with flying colors and I might add the H&K pistols too. You show me a model 1911 that has fired 250,000 rounds without a JAM or HANGUP.....PLEASE DO!!! Now lets not try to make me out as someone who hates the 1911 model, I own several of those pistols but like I said, I bet my life on the GLOCK first and foremost as a CCW weapon of choice.
Thank Our Veterans! GOD Bless Them All
UNIONS BUILDING AMERICA, SALUTE ALL THE UNION TRADESMAN
Chuck Taylor wrote a aricle for Combat Handguns several years ago and he stated that all the militay 1911's were made loose to function. He even tested them from a ransom rest where some shot 2 inches at 25 yards and some shot 12+ inches at 25 yards. He did have one that shot 2 inches at 50 yards even though it had the "rattle" as he called it.
I have never shot a 1911 that old so I have no idea personally so take it for what it is worth.
You show me a model 1911 that has fired 250,000 rounds without a JAM or HANGUP.....PLEASE DO!!!
When the chips are down, and given the option, any person with a lick of sense would toss that Glock in the trash and pick up the ol' Mossberg. Arbitrary measures of reliability don't trump reality.
Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense. Robert Frost
Well the fact of the matter is that unless a 1911 model is LOOOSE as a Goose it would never fire if put into sloppy mud, sand etc....
Wow - this morphed into a "1911s suck" thread just as I expected.
Since we're citing articles without, um, citation - I'll add that I remember reading another article where they did just such a test between three different 1911s, and they did much better than you are claiming, Tonk. I'll see if I can find it...
Chuck Taylor wrote a aricle for Combat Handguns several years ago and he stated that all the militay 1911's were made loose to function. He even tested them from a ransom rest where some shot 2 inches at 25 yards and some shot 12+ inches at 25 yards. He did have one that shot 2 inches at 50 yards even though it had the "rattle" as he called it.
I have never shot a 1911 that old so I have no idea personally so take it for what it is worth.
Dink
Chuck also wrote this...
�If you�ve heard that Old Ugly is on the way out, you�d better look again, for such is simply untrue; quite the opposite. Everything it has had the capacity to do for the last eight and a half decades remains valid. It thus remains King Of The Hill and will likely continue to do so well into the next millennium. To produce a handgun with better or more practical capabilities will be difficult and perhaps impossible. And I, for one, feel that we can look forward to watching the M1911 continue to dominate the handgun world well into the foreseeable future.�
�So, is there really a "best" pistol? Technically, if we eliminate shooter skill from the equation, yes. When interviewed after the tests, all participants agreed that the big Colt Government .45 (SA) had the best all-around combination of power, "user-friendliness," accuracy and functional reliability, while the Glock M-22 .40 S&W ("semi"- DA) and LW Commander .45 (SA) tied for second. The Browning P-35 9mm (SA) was rated fourth and the Smith & Wesson M-39 9mm (DA) last.�
And apparently, the torture test I remember reading is a reprint from Guns & Ammo that was included in The Complete Book of the Model 1911 by Patrick Sweeney. If I haven't thrown that one out, I'll post some of it - but it probably got lost in "the purge". Anyway, some 1911s survived mud buckets and truck tires pretty well, IIRC.
You show me a model 1911 that has fired 250,000 rounds without a JAM or HANGUP.....PLEASE DO!!!
When the chips are down, and given the option, any person with a lick of sense would toss that Glock in the trash and pick up the ol' Mossberg. Arbitrary measures of reliability don't trump reality.
Hopefully anyone with sense would pick up a Remington 870 and leave the mossberg...
You show me a model 1911 that has fired 250,000 rounds without a JAM or HANGUP.....PLEASE DO!!!
When the chips are down, and given the option, any person with a lick of sense would toss that Glock in the trash and pick up the ol' Mossberg. Arbitrary measures of reliability don't trump reality.
Hopefully anyone with sense would pick up a Remington 870 and leave the mossberg...
Dink
If someone would just invent the Glock 12 ga. all other shotguns would be obsolete.
And apparently, the torture test I remember reading is a reprint from Guns & Ammo that was included in The Complete Book of the Model 1911 by Patrick Sweeney. If I haven't thrown that one out, I'll post some of it - but it probably got lost in "the purge". Anyway, some 1911s survived mud buckets and truck tires pretty well, IIRC.
He wrote a book II of that Title. I'm pretty sure I have both.
Hopefully anyone with sense would pick up a Remington 870 and leave the mossberg...
Dink
Have to agree with DINK on this one issue. Well, no. Someone with maximum sense would pick up an Ithaca Model 37 M&P. Best police/security pump shotgun ever made.
When I started in this department there were still a couple of the Ithaca 37's in inventory. I shot them a little and I would still take a 870 any day of the week.
JOG: I have been in many situations where the "chips are down" and UNFORTUNATELY I was never inside my gun vault where I could open up any safe and pick and choose from among many pistols, shotguns and Rifles at these times! When the "chips were down" I was VERY happy to have my concealable, high capacity, night sighted, super reliable, accurate and QUICK to get into action GLOCK with me! I think you are the one without a "lick of sense" - by the way! Hold into the wind VarmintGuy
When I started in this department there were still a couple of the Ithaca 37's in inventory. I shot them a little and I would still take a 870 any day of the week.
Dink
Why? Only one "hole" in the action, and that on the bottom where least likely to have dirt or debris fall in.
And apparently, the torture test I remember reading is a reprint from Guns & Ammo that was included in The Complete Book of the Model 1911 by Patrick Sweeney. If I haven't thrown that one out, I'll post some of it - but it probably got lost in "the purge". Anyway, some 1911s survived mud buckets and truck tires pretty well, IIRC.
Interesting reading in the quote; not surprised the Glock didn't function, as overall, it's a pretty tight gun too.
Overall, I'd guess that dirt/mud conditions that make problems for a 1911, would for the most part make problems for the Glocks as well.
I've got 1911's & Glocks & both serve a purpose & I don't plan on immersing either in a bucket of mud or the bottom of a sand pit, so I won't be losing any sleep over how much dirt it takes to muck up either one.
[bleep] happens but you don't have to wallow in it.
...I don't plan on immersing either in a bucket of mud or the bottom of a sand pit, so I won't be losing any sleep over how much dirt it takes to muck up either one....
When I started in this department there were still a couple of the Ithaca 37's in inventory. I shot them a little and I would still take a 870 any day of the week.
Dink
Why? Only one "hole" in the action, and that on the bottom where least likely to have dirt or debris fall in.
The biggest reason is because when your going somewhere and you taking your shotgun its awful nice to see that round feed from the magazine to the chamber. I never have liked a gun that I could not see if there was one in the chamber.
When I started in this department there were still a couple of the Ithaca 37's in inventory. I shot them a little and I would still take a 870 any day of the week.
Dink
Why? Only one "hole" in the action, and that on the bottom where least likely to have dirt or debris fall in.
The biggest reason is because when your going somewhere and you taking your shotgun its awful nice to see that round feed from the magazine to the chamber. I never have liked a gun that I could not see if there was one in the chamber.
Dink
That seems a reasonable concern, but not outweighed IMO by the anti-debris factor unless you've experienced failures to feed.
It is quite apparent that most of those posting have not been to the U-TUBE to see all those tests put on the GLOCK pistols.
Now big deal in my book, I know what is what and I sure as hell know what I carry regardless of some people just want to walk around blind as a bat.
I do love the .45acp but the 1911 model can NOT hold a candle to the GLOCK, H&K or even the newer XD's........its called technology gentlemen.
Now for some who insist that the pistols being carried by those in the 1960's were simply "wore-out" just don't really have a friggin clue. I was once shown a new issue model 1911 (3 to be exact) that came to our company Sgt. My Sgt refused the offer to carry one of those pistol because they were in fact not very damn accurate.
Now do you think for one friggin minute that the US Army was going to have people qualify with wore out pistols on the range? It strikes me as very ludicrous that the rifles that were being used every day during basic training were sure as hell NOT WORE OUT and those who fired still managed to score "EXPERT" on the range. Now JWP you can stick that BS flag right up your frigging rectum savvy!!!
Thank Our Veterans! GOD Bless Them All
UNIONS BUILDING AMERICA, SALUTE ALL THE UNION TRADESMAN
YOu dumb azz you can stick up yours because that's were it belongs.
I guess that Sgt Alvin Yorks 1911 was so inacurate that the only reason that he killed 7 Germans with when thye charged his position is because he missed them and the inacurate bull missed his aim and killed them 1 shot each
You have just proved that cluelessness knows no bounds
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Now do you think for one friggin minute that the US Army was going to have people qualify with wore out pistols on the range?
Yea I think so. The one my Grandfather brought home form the war had no rifling's in the barrel. That's correct it was smooth as a babies bottom. I've been shooting 1911's for a long time and they are accurate and dependable SAVY
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
I think your the Dumb-ASS PAL! The model 1911 has come a hell of a long way since it's inception. The COLT Gold Cups and model 70 series are just a couple to mention. Plant that BS flag on your lawn.
Thank Our Veterans! GOD Bless Them All
UNIONS BUILDING AMERICA, SALUTE ALL THE UNION TRADESMAN
I think your the Dumb-ASS PAL! The model 1911 has come a hell of a long way since it's inception. The COLT Gold Cups and model 70 series are just a couple to mention. Plant that BS flag on your lawn.
From WWI on the 1911 carved out an enviable reputation for itself.
You are not smart enough to know what you don't know
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Tonk - if you think, as you seem to be saying, that our recent ancestors (1900-era) did not have the ability or desire to mass-produce a semi-auto handgun that is both reliable and accurate (1911 Government), then you are truly clueless.
It doesn't take any high-technology or magic to make an accurate handgun - just some basic engineering. Our steel was quite good circ. 1900. The only real trick is reliability. And if you think a man with the experience of JMB couldn't design in reliability without making the gun inaccurate, you are again clueless.
The only thing "high-tech" about the Glock is the material it's made of. The design elements aren't new.
Seems you have a pretty low opinion of our grandfathers' intellect.
Well I have several 1911 model pistols and the Sig Sauers as well. However, I can shoot the Glocks without a problem and I can not do so with the other models mentioned.
I will also say, that I have never seen any make of pistol, tested and put through the "ringer" like I have seen the Glock pistol for a fact. Now buried in sand, frozen, thrown into the 2 ft of water, pushed into a bucket of sloppy mud, still all this and the Glock goes BANG BANG BANK!!!
This is something I just don't believe my Kimbers, Colts, Springfieds or Par Ordinance would do in the same type of test. Just for for thought gents and a light turned on for true reality!
Quote
Among the areas of success for the Colt was a test at the end of 1910 attended by its designer, John Browning. 6,000 rounds were fired from a single pistol over the course of two days. When the gun began to grow hot, it was simply immersed in water to cool it. The Colt gun passed with no reported malfunctions, while the Savage designs had 37.[4]
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
But we had a new service pistol. The various revolvers and old 1911s were put to rest-or were they? Numerous top units have maintained and deployed with the 1911, often a custom version purchased at personal expense. Delta Force, Marine Recon, and various other units recognize the worth of a good pistol in close quarters combat. To them, good means a .45 auto. No matter what the real worth in combat, the fighting man seems more comfortable with the pistol on his hip. That brings us to an inescapable question: if the pistol isn�t very important, is the Beretta as good as any? It depends on your definition. Is the handgun a badge of office, used to direct troops, or is it a genuine implement of battle?
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
The more I read of Tonk's lousy 1911's, the more I suspect he's had a go at "tuning" 'em.
And - for the record - (lest someone skimming over this gets the wrong idea) - I don't have any real problem with Glocks. They work fine, but I just don't like 'em.
Reliability - I have seen more feed failures on 1911-pattern guns than I have with Glocks (or Smith & Wessons and Berettas, for that matter). My personal 1911's, a Springfield and a Kimber, don't experience feed failures, although the Springfield did have a couple when it was new. At a recent IDPA match, I witnessed a Les Baer Custom and Colt Gold Cup experience failure to feed. The original mil-spec 1911A1 is a very reliable gun when using the mil-spec ammo around which it was designed, and contemporary 1911's which are properly throated and broken in are also extremely reliable. The original 1911's which were issued to the Army were built with very liberal tolerances�you could call them loose�because the Army valued reliability under adverse conditions above pinpoint accuracy. Many of the feed reliability problems with 1911 pistols arise from efforts to tighten up the frame, slide, barrel and bushing in order to achieve "match grade" accuracy. Glocks don't tend to suffer feed failures, but in order to achieve this reliability, they have more of their chambers cut away, leaving more of the case unsupported. This design feature has led to some blown Glock .40 S&W pistols. For more on this, see Dean Speir's Glock KaBoom FAQ. One reliability issue which I've seen more with Glocks than other pistols is their occasional failure to detonate primers.While Glock advocates will say that other pistols have the same problem, I've only seen it happen on Glocks. While Glock true-believers are driven to proclaim their guns as the ultimate in reliability, the NYPD has been experiencing extractor problems and double feeds on their Glock 9mms Durability - I have heard claims that Glocks have launched as many as 300,000 rounds from a single pistol without a failure. I've never seen any documentation which would substantiate these claims, and I remain a bit skeptical about it. I'd like to see the gun, the round, and the test conditions. The FBI tests did document 50,000 rounds through the Glock .40 S&W without a breakdown, and that's an impressive performance. The original Army endurance test for the 1911 was 6,000 rounds. A well-built 1911 can be expected to have a service life of 150,000 rounds, although a part may break here or there during its lifetime. Only time will tell if the first Glocks will still be serviceable seventy five years from now. We know that many of the early 1911's are still functional and greatly desired by collectors.
Accuracy - In my opinion, an average government model 1911 is likely to be more accurate than the best Glock. In addition to that, 1911's can be tuned for greater accuracy whereas the Glock can't be. Between a really outstanding match grade 1911 and a Glock there is no contest in terms of accuracy. Glocks have acceptable accuracy for their intended mission, that being close range combat, but they are not tack-drivers. I haven't had opportunity to test one of the new long slide Glocks, but my initial impression is that they are an answer in search of a question.
Last edited by jwp475; 01/04/11.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
related to the subject, which is better Estwing or Stanley hammer?
my money is on the carpenter swinging it.
I'm pretty certain when we sing our anthem and mention the land of the free, the original intent didn't mean cell phones, food stamps and birth control.
I think that one of Glocks selling points is the fact that it is a low maintance pistol.
I have several Glocks and every one of them fed/feed and function reliably rigth out of the box.
I am not suggesting that the 1911 design is less reliable, I am only suggesting the 1911 requires one to know more about its design to properly maintain it.
For example, someone a while back (I think it was you jwp475) gave an excellent explaination as to the working of the 1911 mag--or rather--how they should work. The average person--or duty officer would likely not know how to properly tune a 1911 mag. Whereas for the Glock, this is not an issue.
Another area is lubrication. In my limited experiance, the only time I really had issues with 1911's is when not properly lubricated. I've heard several prominate shooters say that the 1911 likes to be run "wet". This is not an issue with Glocks.
These are but simple examples of why I think Glocks require less maintance to keep them reliable.
The thing with Glock, that puts them out of sorts with the more analytical minded, is the advertisement of "perfection". This predisposes such minded individuals to prove that they are not so, and estabilishes a bias againt them from the get-go.
It appears that Glock has proven to be an excellent duty weapon. Perfect? No--nothing is!
I have read about several glock range pistols that have documented one million rounds through them. Are there any 1911's that have been shot a million times?
The accuracy issue I don't think is a fair comparison. The glock was never intended to be a bullseye gun that the 1911 is. Would a bullseye gun run 100% of the time? Would they feed hollow points? Is it fair to compare a $500 pistol to a $3500 to $5000 pistol?
I like the 1911. A matter of fact I was looking at springfield's new range master last night. For a pure fighting pistol for the average guy I think the glock wins in durability, ease of use and accuracy. Its hard enough to get guys to qualify with a glock I can't imagine what would happen if they had a thumb safety to mess with and have to clean thier guns more than once a year.
"The police establishment is now properly devoted to the Glock, and this seems to be a good choice. The Glock is a difficult piece to shoot well, and its safety problem has been solved by issuing it with a trigger that only a gorilla would love, but it has been generally admitted that the police today cannot be trained to shoot well - not so much because of time and ammunition expenditures, but because of motivation. A man will do well only at things he enjoys doing, and today's police departments are reluctant to hire a recruit who enjoys shooting. Thus the Glock's "shootability" is irrelevant. The piece is relatively cheap, it is usually reliable, and the company's service policies are outstanding." - Jeff Cooper, Cooper Commentaries, Volume V, Number 11.
Thing is though....I don't entirely agree with Mr Cooper. I know at least a few guys who shoot Glocks really well (for practical purposes). A couple of them were still in LE when they first started using the Glock, and did well with it from the start. I can get by pretty well with one myself after a little time for familiarization. Admittedly, I'm talking about "gun guys" here. And on that note, there clearly are some "gun guys" in LEO - probably more so in the rural west.
But his overall point is valid, and a little amusing.
...The thing with Glock, that puts them out of sorts with the more analytical mined, is the advertisement of "perfection". This predisposes such mined individuals to prove that they are not so, and estabilishes a bias againt them from the get-go.
That's not it at all. It is the silly ass Glock-o-phile bullsheet that pops up everytime a conversation begins about how superior Glock is to all other handguns for any and all purposes and how depressingly stupid it would be to carry anything less than a Glock. It is quite evident in this very thread how some feel the Glock somehow never needs maintenance, never malfunctions, never breaks, can withstand punishment a 100 pound stainless steel anvil could not, ect. blah, blah. These same people endlessly spout the party line refusing to acknowledge or listen to any other opinion or facts regarding anything that might upset their belief in the infallible Glock. Most of that is based simply upon what they have read or watched on YouTube with no regard to the credibility of the source and/or in which they have no real personal training or experience. They just keep parroting the same rehearsed lines over and over with no conscious thought applied to seeking a sensible medium. IMHO this is what inspires and fuels much of the anti-Glock argument.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
...The accuracy issue I don't think is a fair comparison. The glock was never intended to be a bullseye gun that the 1911 is. Would a bullseye gun run 100% of the time? Would they feed hollow points? Is it fair to compare a $500 pistol to a $3500 to $5000 pistol?...
No, but I think it's fair to compare a basic 1911 with a Glock. On that count, they would probably be about the same - or at least close enough to not be an issue.
But the Glock would probably cost less to produce, all else being equal. And it would be lighter.
I have no idea which gun would survive the most rounds of similar power fired, but I wonder how that plastic will survive time? Suppose there will be many heirloom Glocks in 50 or 60 years? We won't know for a while yet...
"The police establishment is now properly devoted to the Glock, and this seems to be a good choice. The Glock is a difficult piece to shoot well, and its safety problem has been solved by issuing it with a trigger that only a gorilla would love, but it has been generally admitted that the police today cannot be trained to shoot well - not so much because of time and ammunition expenditures, but because of motivation. A man will do well only at things he enjoys doing, and today's police departments are reluctant to hire a recruit who enjoys shooting. Thus the Glock's "shootability" is irrelevant. The piece is relatively cheap, it is usually reliable, and the company's service policies are outstanding." - Jeff Cooper, Cooper Commentaries, Volume V, Number 11.
Thing is though....I don't entirely agree with Mr Cooper. I know at least a few guys who shoot Glocks really well (for practical purposes). A couple of them were still in LE when they first started using the Glock, and did well with it from the start. I can get by pretty well with one myself after a little time for familiarization. Admittedly, I'm talking about "gun guys" here. And on that note, there clearly are some "gun guys" in LEO - probably more so in the rural west.
But his overall point is valid, and a little amusing.
I agree with you 100%, the Glock that I shot was easy to hit with for me, no more so than a 1911 and no worse either
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
... Its hard enough to get guys to qualify with a glock I can't imagine what would happen if they had a thumb safety to mess with and have to clean thier guns more than once a year.
Dink
That is a weapon problem or a people problem? Because of a lack of dedicated training, laziness, and pure economics coupled with aggressive marketing and hyperbole we now have "Weapons for Dummies - the Glock!" BTW, there are quite a few LE agencies that issue 1911's and do quite well with them.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
I don't believe Mr. Cooper's statement to be 100% true. LEO's can be trained to shoot well. It's up to the Admin. of those agencies to insure that they do.
It's called additional range time, teaching marksmenship and combat tactics. Making LEO's responsible for the results of their range time, good, bad or indifferent.
Good shooters can be rewarded, while poor shooters can be disciplined. But you must insure that the poor shooters, have been taught how to be good shooters.
Manytimes it's the upper Admin. who doesn't want to spend the money or who hasn't been on the street in so long, they don't have a flippen clue as to what's happening.
... Its hard enough to get guys to qualify with a glock I can't imagine what would happen if they had a thumb safety to mess with and have to clean thier guns more than once a year.
Dink
That is a weapon problem or a people problem? Because of a lack of dedicated training, laziness, and pure economics coupled with aggressive marketing and hyperbole we now have "Weapons for Dummies - the Glock!" BTW, there are quite a few LE agencies that issue 1911's and do quite well with them.
A good read on the LAPD SWAT unit and the 1911 they use
...The thing with Glock, that puts them out of sorts with the more analytical mined, is the advertisement of "perfection". This predisposes such mined individuals to prove that they are not so, and estabilishes a bias againt them from the get-go.
That's not it at all. It is the silly ass Glock-o-phile bullsheet that pops up everytime a conversation begins about how superior Glock is to all other handguns for any and all purposes and how depressingly stupid it would be to carry anything less than a Glock. It is quite evident in this very thread how some feel the Glock somehow never needs maintenance, never malfunctions, never breaks, can withstand punishment a 100 pound stainless steel anvil could not, ect. blah, blah. These same people endlessly spout the party line refusing to acknowledge or listen to any other opinion or facts regarding anything that might upset their belief in the infallible Glock. Most of that is based simply upon what they have read or watched on YouTube with no regard to the credibility of the source and/or in which they have no real personal training or experience. They just keep parroting the same rehearsed lines over and over with no conscious thought applied to seeking a sensible medium. IMHO this is what inspires and fuels much of the anti-Glock argument.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. Mr Tonk has about the worst case of this I have seen, but I have heard (on YouTube) that there are treatments now that can cure this.
...The thing with Glock, that puts them out of sorts with the more analytical mined, is the advertisement of "perfection". This predisposes such mined individuals to prove that they are not so, and estabilishes a bias againt them from the get-go.
That's not it at all. It is the silly ass Glock-o-phile bullsheet that pops up everytime a conversation begins about how superior Glock is to all other handguns for any and all purposes and how depressingly stupid it would be to carry anything less than a Glock. It is quite evident in this very thread how some feel the Glock somehow never needs maintenance, never malfunctions, never breaks, can withstand punishment a 100 pound stainless steel anvil could not, ect. blah, blah. These same people endlessly spout the party line refusing to acknowledge or listen to any other opinion or facts regarding anything that might upset their belief in the infallible Glock. Most of that is based simply upon what they have read or watched on YouTube with no regard to the credibility of the source and/or in which they have no real personal training or experience. They just keep parroting the same rehearsed lines over and over with no conscious thought applied to seeking a sensible medium. IMHO this is what inspires and fuels much of the anti-Glock argument.
Are the 1911 fans any less ardent? Or the "relvolver" fans? (Though none have shown up in this particular thread).
You make the point. If one takes "perfection" (you use infallibil) out of the conversation on both sides, then a reasonable discussion can occur.
There are just some things that cannot be substanciated--perfect, always, never, the best, ect.
... Its hard enough to get guys to qualify with a glock I can't imagine what would happen if they had a thumb safety to mess with and have to clean thier guns more than once a year.
Dink
That is a weapon problem or a people problem? Because of a lack of dedicated training, laziness, and pure economics coupled with aggressive marketing and hyperbole we now have "Weapons for Dummies - the Glock!" BTW, there are quite a few LE agencies that issue 1911's and do quite well with them.
It is a people problem. Alot of new guys have never fired a gun before entering the academy. My new guy has a four year degree but knows nothing about firearms and has no desire to learn.
There are a few departments that issue the 1911. From what I read they train alot with those guns with some qualifying monthly or every other month. That kind of dedication to firearms training is just not going to fly in most departments. Its to costly.
I got guys that been cops alot longer than I have that forget how to load a shotgun or AR between qualifications. Guns don't interest these guys and never will. I can't imagine with qualifying twice a year trying to get guys to remember to use a thumb safety. I just don't think the majority of police officers will get it.
RufusG.......Well pal I have never been known to not toe the mark or answer the bell, just so you know understand. Now I have owned and shot model 1911 model pistols since the late 1960's and in competition too I might add.
I have never been a fan of the Ugly Plastic pistols and the Bull Crap of me not knowing what I am speaking about is udder BS and I need not wave a flag about that fact. The Glock pistols is what it is, one tuff plastic pistol, that does what the manufacture said it would do......Fire any type ammo and NOT JAM under a broad spectrum of circumstances.
The Glock pistol, has been subjected to many testing situations, that would put many other type pistols in the "YOU LOOSE" catagory simply put. This testing has been going on for years and many just seem to close their eyes to the reality of true facts!!! These facts have been documented to say the least and are no big secret. To hammer someone who has spent the money to test this pistol and show those negetive people to the GLOCK pistols attributes, is once again a ride down a dead end street people. This pistol has proved all over the world and their is more Glocks in use than anyother type period. So are all these various countries blind I ask? I don't think so. The Glock is well suited for police work and excellent as a CCW pistol, provided it fits your hand. It is also half the price of many of your model 1911 models. I am no stranger to most of those models, since I own several 1911 still to this day. My Glock pistols suit my needs to a big T!
Those test video's don't lie! H&K has one on their to show and market their products too, firing under water etc. So all those who are NA sayers to the abilities of the Glock over other types of pistols, are speaking with their heads in the sand, refusing to identify the true virtures of the GLOCK pistol.
Now I say this to MOGC or any other person, who is light headed concerning the virtues of the Glock pistol, are who refuse to believe the torture tests on a Glock. Now anytime you wish to challenge one of my glock pistols in such a test, please don't be hesitate and do "ring the bell", I'll be waiting to oblige you with open arms and my Glock.
Thank Our Veterans! GOD Bless Them All
UNIONS BUILDING AMERICA, SALUTE ALL THE UNION TRADESMAN
Tough Job: Torture Test a 1911 and Establish a World Record
Just how tough is Para�s PXT 1911? We asked that question of World Speed Shooting Champion Todd Jarrett, and sent him cases of ammunition to find out. Along with Shooting Gallery host, Michael Bane, we came up with the Ultimate Hot Gun Torture Test: to see how fast 1,000 rounds of .45 ACP could be poured non-stop through a Para PXT 1911. To warm up, we put a 1,000 round of 230-grain ball through the pistol. No problems. The next morning after cleaning the pistol, we started the Hot Gun Test. Jarrett chose some hot ammo, International�s Green Elite NT 155-grain frangible flat point round with a muzzle velocity of 1,150 feet per second.
With three people loading magazines, Jarrett started to shoot the new Para PXT 1911 SSP. The more he shot the hotter the pistol got. Barrel temperatures became so hot that the ramped, stainless steel match barrel turned a deep golden color. But the pistol never missed a beat. 10 minutes and 44 seconds after he started, Jarrett had put 1,000 rounds through the pistol establishing a NEW World Record on the range at Blackwater USA.
He let the pistol cool and then, using a Chip McCormick 10-round Power Mag, shot a group on a steel plate at 10 yards with all shots touching.
For the next several hours, the magazine loaders took turns shooting the SSP with both the ICC frangible ammo and standard white box 230-grain ball ammunition until 5,000 rounds had been shot. The tough pistol digested all of the ammo without complaint. We do not recommend that you torture your 1911 for 4,000 rounds without cleaning it. But if your 1911 is a Para PXT, it can take it.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
I was at the range one day with a guy I worked with that had both a glock 19 and a glock 23. Do you know that a glock 23 will run most of a magazine of 9mm. It would have probaly made the whole magazine but I noticed the split casings hitting the bench and thought he should stop.
The Glock pistol, has been subjected to many testing situations, that would put many other type pistols in the "YOU LOOSE" catagory simply put. This testing has been going on for years and many just seem to close their eyes to the reality of true facts!!! These facts have been documented
So show me the documentation. I'll be happy to review it all. Then prove to me that other pistols couldn't do the same.
I'm not going to take your word for it. I want to see the proof.
Yes, but only as a backup--Segal is a leathal weapon.
Wrong... Mel Gibson is the "Lethal Weapon" guy. LOL...
You guys can forget Tonk even acknowledging the possibility of problems with a Glock. He and I have been over this ground elsewhere before and he danced all around the mere thought of a Glock KB never once answering a direct question about it.
Dink, I understand what you are saying, but still that isn't the 1911's problem. That is the dummy behind the grip that needs a foot up his rear to get his act together. Bean counters and lawyers shouldn't be making decisions for street cops safety and equipment. I know that is reality, but that is also the reason the Glock probably has the highest rate of negligent/accidental discharge than any other weapon. Because dumbasses cannot remember a few safety rules like KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER - DON'T POINT THE MUZZLE AT ANYTHING YOU AREN'T WILLING TO DESTROY! And if you cannot remember that then you shouldn't be packing a firearm, you are a danger to yourself and innocent lives.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
It is a people problem. Alot of new guys have never fired a gun before entering the academy. My new guy has a four year degree but knows nothing about firearms and has no desire to learn.
There are a few departments that issue the 1911. From what I read they train alot with those guns with some qualifying monthly or every other month. That kind of dedication to firearms training is just not going to fly in most departments. Its to costly.
I got guys that been cops alot longer than I have that forget how to load a shotgun or AR between qualifications. Guns don't interest these guys and never will. I can't imagine with qualifying twice a year trying to get guys to remember to use a thumb safety. I just don't think the majority of police officers will get it.
Dink
This got me to thinking, I wonder if these are the LEOs who believe that "civilians" shouldn't have guns? Recently a local LEO instructor estimated it at about 50%. OTOH, most cops I have known who are "gun guys" are very comfortable with non-LEOs and guns. One told me that it's something of a generational thing with cops, the younger ones being more inclined to be anti.
Paul
Stupidity has its way, while its cousin, evil, runs rampant.
Paul I can only speak about the guys I work with and know but none of them are anti-gun. All believe people should be able to own and carry guns if they want to do so. The non-gun LEO's look at guns like I look at video games. Video games mean nothing to me and guns really mean nothing to them. I don't care who owns/plays video games there just not for me. Thats how they look at guns for the most part.
It would be really cool if Glock turned out a 1911 pattern pistol. Not for any built in reliability or advantages of polymer construction, but just to watch the conundrum this would produce in both warring camps. (The 1911er�s vs. the Glockenspielers).
I will be waiting on the sidelines with mischievous glee�
Gunnery, gunnery, gunnery. Hit the target, all else is twaddle!
The Glock pistol, has been subjected to many testing situations, that would put many other type pistols in the "YOU LOOSE" catagory simply put. This testing has been going on for years and many just seem to close their eyes to the reality of true facts!!! These facts have been documented to say the least and are no big secret. To hammer someone who has spent the money to test this pistol and show those negetive people to the GLOCK pistols attributes, is once again a ride down a dead end street people. This pistol has proved all over the world and their is more Glocks in use than anyother type period. So are all these various countries blind I ask?
Okay, you apparently are aware of a wide range of �tests� where the Glock comes out on top. What about when the Glock doesn�t come out on top, are you aware of those? My point is simply that Glock has not won every last �test� it has been subjected to. Glock is an excellent pistol, but it�s not a super pistol and it doesn�t wear a cape.
P.S � Why is everyone impressed when a pistol fires under water? When was the last time you heard of a gunfight under water?
Mike Nelson (Lloyd Bridges) was in one on �Sea Hunt�. The bad guy shot at him under water with a .38 revolver. Mike was about 5-6 feet away, put out his hand and stopped those bullets cold.
I saw it on TV, so it must be real.
Robert Whats-his-name, the publisher of Soldier of Fortune magazine, apparently conducted an impromptu test to see if a 1911 .45 would function under water. In his case the test area was the pool of the motel where they were staying for the annual SOF convention, and the impetus for the test was a certain quantity of alcohol. According to reports, it worked.
Gunnery, gunnery, gunnery. Hit the target, all else is twaddle!
Mike Nelson (Lloyd Bridges) was in one on �Sea Hunt�. The bad guy shot at him under water with a .38 revolver. Mike was about 5-6 feet away, put out his hand and stopped those bullets cold.
I saw it on TV, so it must be real.
Robert Whats-his-name, the publisher of Soldier of Fortune magazine, apparently conducted an impromptu test to see if a 1911 .45 would function under water. In his case the test area was the pool of the motel where they were staying for the annual SOF convention, and the impetus for the test was a certain quantity of alcohol. According to reports, it worked.
Why would it not?
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
P.S – Why is everyone impressed when a pistol fires under water? When was the last time you heard of a gunfight under water?
I don't know the answers to your questions but I do know a guy who carries a speargun as one of his truck guns. No, I can't explain that.
We are all on standby while Tonk is as requested compiling all the documented evidence of Glock superiority. I am sure he will be back any minute now listing citations and providing voluminous links.
The Glock pistol, has been subjected to many testing situations, that would put many other type pistols in the "YOU LOOSE" catagory simply put. This testing has been going on for years and many just seem to close their eyes to the reality of true facts!!! These facts have been documented to say the least and are no big secret. To hammer someone who has spent the money to test this pistol and show those negetive people to the GLOCK pistols attributes, is once again a ride down a dead end street people. This pistol has proved all over the world and their is more Glocks in use than anyother type period. So are all these various countries blind I ask?
Okay, you apparently are aware of a wide range of �tests� where the Glock comes out on top. What about when the Glock doesn�t come out on top, are you aware of those? My point is simply that Glock has not won every last �test� it has been subjected to. Glock is an excellent pistol, but it�s not a super pistol and it doesn�t wear a cape.
P.S � Why is everyone impressed when a pistol fires under water? When was the last time you heard of a gunfight under water?
The 1911 design has been tested in real warfare in service to United States Military personnel over nearly a century, and as the primary sidearm of said establishment for over 65 years.
Does anyone have test where the glock did not do well? I don't think I have ever seen one but if they are out there I am sure they don't make the big gun magazines.
I read that alot divers prefer to carry a pistol underwater to use against sharks instead of bang sticks. I read that somewhere so take it for what its worth.
No one has any real idea what caused it. It very well could have been a double charged case. I watched a video yesterday on youtube with a 1911 springfield that shot the barrel out the front of the frame. The poster finally said it was a double charged case.
I don't consider that the gun failing with out knowing all the details.
No one has any real idea what caused it. It very well could have been a double charged case. I watched a video yesterday on youtube with a 1911 springfield that shot the barrel out the front of the frame. The poster finally said it was a double charged case.
I don't consider that the gun failing with out knowing all the details.
Dink
The Glock Ka-BOOMS are fairly well documented. I have a friend that has testified in court as an expert witness in lawsuits regarding the Ka-BOOMS and we are talking Ka-BOOMS with factory ammo In his expert opinion it has to do with the barrel and slide unlocking prematurely
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Does anyone have test where the glock did not do well? I don't think I have ever seen one but if they are out there I am sure they don't make the big gun magazines.
I read that alot divers prefer to carry a pistol underwater to use against sharks instead of bang sticks. I read that somewhere so take it for what its worth.
Dink
Department of Homeland Security trials of 2002, Sig and H&K passed, Glock failed. Department of Defense trials of 2005(only Sig passed). DEA 1991 test, the famous "frisbee" test. (http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/upgrade-faq.html#frisbee)
This is not evidence of Glock being a bad gun, just evidence that Glocks are no better or worse than any other high quality maker of pistols. Glock�s are great pistols, but like I said, they don�t wear a super hero�s cape.
![[Linked Image]](http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii195/TDC57/Projects/IMG_8955.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d62/jwp475/bullshitflag.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d62/jwp475/ROFLMAO-smiley.gif)
![[Linked Image]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/31/Mary_ann_bevan_uggers.jpg)