It came to my attention that E doesn't like Glocks. Given his predilection for the mediocre (Leupold scopes), that he doesn't like Glocks doesn't surprise me in the least.
What interests me is his twisted reasoning...or that of anyone else who doesn't like Glocks.
I'll step up. I have no use for Glocks. I've tried to warm up to 'em on several occasions and can't. The ergos don't work for me at all.
For duty work I'll keep my Sig, thank you. For personal use, nothing beats the 1911 IMHO.
George
The ergonomics are perfect for me and I can get a 6" slide and 6" barrel for Hog hunting (which I did). I also installed a Tyvek custom trigger group (aluminum, not plastic) on both of my Model 20s (10mm). Now there is little perceptible trigger creep, and no over-travel. The striker releases at 3 lb every time now. The polymer frame (which many pistols have now) soak up a tremendous amount of recoil. I did a side-by-side test with my Glock 20 and a Colt Delta Elite in 10mm. The Colt's steel frame transferred a much sharper recoil impulse than the Glock's polymer frame.
I've never had a pistol that felt so good in my hand as the Glock, and my natural point of aim is dead on with the Glock.
It'll feed empty brass...it's an amazing pistol.
Oh c'mon man...this is
fun!
I've never had a pistol that felt so good in my hand as the Glock, and my natural point of aim is dead on with the Glock.
That's the rub, though. It just doesn't work for me. Two of my guys are the same and they came to me via agencies that issues Glocks. Both are much happier with the Sig 229. The Sig, to me, is like an extension of my hand. It is what it is...
George
The only Glock that fits me well is the G20. I have one, and dote on it heavily.
The rest, don't fit me for schit.
Which is EXACTLY why there are so many handgun options.
A handgun, esp. a carry weapon, is about the most personal firearms choice a person can make. To each their own.
Pretty hard to argue against the 1911, it's definitely proven its worth, but I do find my 45 XD easier to shoot.
Oh c'mon man...this is
fun!
No, it's stupid.
I've never had a pistol that felt so good in my hand as the Glock, and my natural point of aim is dead on with the Glock.
The Sig, to me, is like an extension of my hand. It is what it is...
George
I couldnt agree more, i dont have a problem with either fitting my hand, and do carry a G33. Only because Sihas noting comparable. Anything bigger than sub compact and its my 229 or 226. Heck, I even carried a 245 until the G33 replaced it. Cant go wrong with a Sig, ever.
Oh c'mon man...this is
fun!
No, it's stupid.
Thanks.
No problem here....I have 3 of them..... 17, 19, 20...use 'em all....but world's finest?....that would be the S&W Model 19.
You might have screwed the pooch as far as the Glock is concerned when you stated combat handgun. There are too many concessions in the design for elite status. Maybe the Glock is a good home defense or police handgun, but the Hi-Power or 1911 get the nod for any true combat scenario.
A six cylinder Chevy isn't NASCAR material just because it starts all the time.
Only one I like is the all ceramic one they used on...what was that damn movie?
Yup that's the only one.
Glocks are decent guns. They are like holding a turd, different grip angle than almost everything on the market.
They are tough dependable and after carrying one for sneaking up on 20 years. It shoots very well for me and goes bang every time i have pulled the trigger. The only malfunctions I have had (G-22) was when I had a bad magazine.
They are easy to train people to use and with no external safety to switch off they are fast. Not always a great thing for some people who carry. But for a Combat/Police gun pretty decent.
I think nothing will replace the 1911 as the best combat pistol though. Too easy to customize and make extremely accurate. Reliable unless it is a compact and you can't say the platform hasn't been tested.
If you are comfortable and practice with it, its hard say a bad thing about a GOOD 1911.
I don't like the GLOCK's either. Never shot one or even held one.
Just don't like 'em.
Other than that ... I believe they ARE great pistols - and that they're EVERYTHING their FANS say they are.
'Cept good lookin'.
I agree.
PS "Each" is singular, while "their" is plural. They don't match. You either need to change it to "To
all their own," or "To each
his own."
You might have screwed the pooch as far as the Glock is concerned when you stated combat handgun. There are too many concessions in the design for elite status. Maybe the Glock is a good home defense or police handgun, but the Hi-Power or 1911 get the nod for any true combat scenario.
A six cylinder Chevy isn't NASCAR material just because it starts all the time.
Very well said, and true.
Glocks are great pistols,I know alot of cops that carry them and love them.
I'm old school though,I prefer revolvers,and if I can't have that it's Sig or a 1911.
I don't dislike them,but I wouldn't buy one either.
"best" and "favorite" are 2 completely different things.
What's wrong with the World's Finest Combat Handgun?
Nothing is wrong with the 1911, why?
I carried a Colt MK IV on duty for 5 years. It's a fine weapon, and the trigger can be adjusted and tuned by a gunsmith to a finely honed pull. I just didn't like the occasional malfunction that kept occurring. The 1911 platform was meant to rattle when you shook it (battlefield mud, sand, dirt, etc couldn't cause it to seize up, and it was designed to fire FMJ rounds. Everything else is adding to the original design, and in my view, was a malfunction waiting to happen. I could and still can clear a malfunction lickity-split. My agency sent me to a 2-week wheel-gun to auto transition course. We fired approximately 1500 rounds. We had to clear malfunctions that occurred on their own, but, even more difficult, we had to clear malfunctions set up by the instructors. They had us clearing malfunction blindfolded, reloading with one hand tied to your belt to simulate a wound, and on and on. We were ALL sick of shooting and mending cuts and abrasions to our hands (cops don't do much manual labor - our skin was soft...at the start). Afterward I had calluses on my hands that frequent shooters should have.
The bottom line for me was I wanted a firearm that would go BANG when I pulled the trigger. I lost confidence in my Colt. It had many trips to the gunsmith, but I just couldn't get all the bugs worked out.
So, I bought a Glock 20 and attended a neighboring department's transition course (MUCH shorter than the one my department sent me to - 500 rounds in 3 days). Their department was transitioning to Glock 22s. I attended the course and never looked back. I've had that same pistol now for almost 16 years, and every single time I pulled the trigger (except for sadistic instructor-induced malfunctions) my Glock 20 has gone BANG. Add that to the ergonomics I described earlier, and what else could I ask for? I still have my Colt, and shoot it on occasion...but I prefer my Glock.
There are several valid reasons for not liking Glocks, nothing twisted about it.
First, the plastic frame flexes with every shot. This flexing absorbs some recoil, but it does so at the expense of accuracy.
Second, with the possible exception of the G36, Glocks are stocky guns. Their width prevents many with short fingers from achieving a good finger purchase on the trigger.
Third, the grip angle is impossible for many to become accustomed to. Speaking personally, the grip angle transfers the bulk of recoil into the lower 1/2" of my hand, thus INCREASING rather than decreasing felt recoil.
Fourth, the Glock cannot be modified to become more ergonomic to the user-it either fits, or you deal with it.
Glock is an excellent example of what ingenious marketing can do. They set out to win police contracts, and from there to lead civilians to believe that theirs was THE pistol to have.
Brilliant. A friend of mine met Mr. Glock, and what he took away from the conversation was that the cost of manufacture of Glock pistols is literally pennies on the dollar, a fact which has made Mr. Glock very rich. It is a mistake to believe that ingenious business strategy = the best pistol in the world.
Glocks are reliable, but so is every other form of pistol. I find it interesting that so little press is made of Glock malfunctions, yet they do certainly occur.
Another friend of mine trusts their life to the Colt government model. This gun has rust, is filthy, and only gets cleaned via the dunk method, yet it feeds and fires everything in the magazine, and out shoots every plastic pistol its up against.
When we leave the hype and the advertising behind, we are left with the fact that the Glock is a reliable pistol, moderately accurate, with high magazine capacity. Its one size fits all, so if it fits you you can be happy, but if it doesn't, then you choose a better gun.
I'll step up. I have no use for Glocks. I've tried to warm up to 'em on several occasions and can't. The ergos don't work for me at all.
For duty work I'll keep my Sig, thank you. For personal use, nothing beats the 1911 IMHO.
George
All's it would take would be a little rubber on the grips, that would seal the deal for me.
There are several valid reasons for not liking Glocks, nothing twisted about it.
First, the plastic frame flexes with every shot. This flexing absorbs some recoil, but it does so at the expense of accuracy.
Amazing; yet another poor soul worried about the accuracy of a weapon that will be deployed at the maximum of 30 feet. ALL the major defensive pistol and revolvers are capable of hitting a man-size target in center mass at that distance. You�re confusing bench rest competition with defensive pistol craft.
Second, with the possible exception of the G36, Glocks are stocky guns. Their width prevents many with short fingers from achieving a good finger purchase on the trigger.
That's incorrect. In fact, many, if not all of the models come with a choice of a slimmer grip now: such as a Model 20 or a Model 20S.
Third, the grip angle is impossible for many to become accustomed to. Speaking personally, the grip angle transfers the bulk of recoil into the lower 1/2" of my hand, thus INCREASING rather than decreasing felt recoil.
The grip transfers the large majority of the recoil straight back into the web between my thumb and trigger finger and the TOP half of my palm. You're the first person to ever tell me Glock's design caused more felt recoil. That polymer frame soaks up a tremendous amount of recoil.
Fourth, the Glock cannot be modified to become more ergonomic to the user-it either fits, or you deal with it.
That�s not correct. If you get on the web, and go to Glock Talk (just one example), you can find several companies that will modify the grip to better fit your hand.
Glock is an excellent example of what ingenious marketing can do. They set out to win police contracts, and from there to lead civilians to believe that theirs was THE pistol to have.
Brilliant. A friend of mine met Mr. Glock, and what he took away from the conversation was that the cost of manufacture of Glock pistols is literally pennies on the dollar, a fact which has made Mr. Glock very rich. It is a mistake to believe that ingenious business strategy = the best pistol in the world.
What would you have them do? Set out to fail? Here Mr. Police Officer, I made a pistol, but I don't think you'll like it. If you feel like it can you adopt it for your department? Please, be realistic.
Glocks are reliable, but so is every other form of pistol. I find it interesting that so little press is made of Glock malfunctions, yet they do certainly occur.
Gaston Glock must control the media.
When we leave the hype and the advertising behind, we are left with the fact that the Glock is a reliable pistol, moderately accurate, with high magazine capacity. Its one size fits all, so if it fits you you can be happy, but if it doesn't, then you choose a better gun.
You can make it fit you and there is no better hand gun.
You might have screwed the pooch as far as the Glock is concerned when you stated combat handgun. There are too many concessions in the design for elite status. Maybe the Glock is a good home defense or police handgun, but the Hi-Power or 1911 get the nod for any true combat scenario.
A six cylinder Chevy isn't NASCAR material just because it starts all the time.
What concessions?
You might have screwed the pooch as far as the Glock is concerned when you stated combat handgun. There are too many concessions in the design for elite status. Maybe the Glock is a good home defense or police handgun, but the Hi-Power or 1911 get the nod for any true combat scenario.
A six cylinder Chevy isn't NASCAR material just because it starts all the time.
That's really an Apples and Oranges comparison, but we can make do. What is the most important thing in any weapon being used for self-defense, police work or combat? I submit that the primary concern in any of the three uses I mentioned is reliability; that the firearm discharges a projectile when you pull the trigger...each and every time you pull the trigger. Your six-cylinder metaphor doesn't fit because for the most part, all the pistols and revolvers shoot the same ammo - the horsepower of the weapons are equal. There aren't any six-cylinders; they're all V-8s.
Just can't get warmed up about the look of the Glock. Don't know why, I've seen worse looking pistols.
Glock has certainly revolutionized the handgun world. Just look at how many of them are out there. I have only handled a few and just didn't care for them. 3 lb.DA? One thing I liked about the concept is the DA only. 3 lb would cancel that out?
Like a lot of other shallow types, the biggest drawback for me is that it looks like it came from E Germany. The utilitarian aspect appeals to tons of people and they are practical. I think the S & W M&P feels better.
Anyway... Ford or Chevy? John Deere or Case?
Bill
Glock has certainly revolutionized the handgun world. Just look at how many of them are out there. I have only handled a few and just didn't care for them. 3 lb.DA? One thing I liked about the concept is the DA only.
Yep, that Tyvek Fulcrum Trigger groups is a marvel in engineering. It should be...it cost enough...but it makes the Glock feel like a completely different firearm.
There are so many custom options available for the Glock it'll make your head spin. My $535.00 pistols are now $900.00 and $1300.00 (long slide and barrel) pistols, and I could easily invest more in customizing the grips. There's just so many after-market options available it's hard to choose without just buying them all.
Glock is a decent bullet launcher and is as reliable AS ANY OTHER WELL DESIGNED AND MANUFACTURED HANDGUN. No more - no less - period. Glock handguns do malfunction and occasionally suffer parts breakage like anything else on the market. The Glock design is very simple and very easy to maintain by simply plugging in new parts when others fail, so that is a plus. They do not fit everybody universally, but neither does any other semi-auto design. Personally I rate them right alongside other modern design semi-auto handguns. No better, no worse�
I've owned a lot of Glocks, but am down to one at the moment - a G19. It's the only Glock that really fits me. Glocks are what they are - a basic combat pistol that's near 100% reliable.
The downsides? The ergo's suck for alot of people and Glocks have no soul.
How about the staple gun trigger?
Amazing; yet another poor soul worried about the accuracy of a weapon that will be deployed at the maximum of 30 feet. ALL the major defensive pistol and revolvers are capable of hitting a man-size target in center mass at that distance. You�re confusing bench rest competition with defensive pistol craft.
Are we discussing defensive or combat pistols?
If it's the latter, I'm not planning for being attacked by a B-27 silhouette target. I'm planning for taking the shot that presents itself - a foot sticking out behind a tree, an elbow, or half a face peeking through a second floor window. You tell me, for those shots do you want a Glock or a 1911?
Concessions: The Glock trigger (to safety), the oversize chamber and firing out of battery (to reliability).
If you have a 16-year old Glock, the frame has been revised at least twice to address problems and a number of internals have been changed.
About the time you switched to the G20, Kimber started the 1911 revolution. Most of the complaints you seem to have with production 1911's are really old news.
I have a half dozen or so 1911s, and I'd put any of them up against any Glock for reliability. Cannot say whether or not that would be true if I weren't allowed to lube them properly, or clean them after five hundred or so rounds, since I've never tried, but allowing lube and periodic cleaning, I have complete confidence in my 1911s.
The Glock claim to fame is its ability to shoot dry and dirty, but that's due to an intentional sloppiness in design which has drawbacks of its own.
I don't like Glocks due to problems with reloading for them. That simple.
guess I'm one of the lucky ones, I've had and used both.
cut my teeth on 1911's, still my very favoritest handgun.
also Rem 870 that I bought brand spankin new for $150
never liked the Glocks, till I bought one for the wife
then it was "hey, this ain't no 1911 but it's a serviceable firearm"
so end results, my faves are still the 1911 and my 870
but have had more Glocks and Mossbergs
why? I dote on my faves, the others are like BIC lighters to me, handy to have, inexpensive and they work.
plus if one of them got stolen or damaged, I'd never think twice about it, it'd wreck my day if my 870 or 1911 ended up missing or damaged.
as far as accuracy, buncha hooey for my "personal experience"
I can make shotgun boxes dance with either, it just doesn't seem that big a deal to me to adapt to the different ergonomics of each.
but I look cooler doing it with the 1911, cause well it's purty
the Glock looks like the girl no one wanted to date, but she knows she's ugly too, so she does try harder when she gets a turn.
they ain't cool, they ain't pretty, but they work and work well ime.
what's not to like
cain't everyone be the prom queen or a 1911
Spill your guts time? My only Glock is a G20, 10mm with an extra 9x25 Dillon barrel. I love that Glock. It fits my hand good. My three defense autos are a Steyr M9A1, a Chas Daly 1911 Compac .45, and a KelTec PA3T. I used to hate the Glock 17 and the Beretta 92. I have warmed up to a Glock 17, but it does not fit me near as well as the Steyr. I still believe that the Beretta 92 is not even close to the same level of the CZ 75, either in accuracy or dependability.
So...1ak, what's your choice for the World's Finest Combat Handgun?
I actually like Glocks too, they have a place in the scheme of things. I'm hung up on this threads title. If it was the World's Finest Combat Rifle I wouldn't nominate the Rem M760, although that would do in most cases.
there ain't a choice JOG at least not for the World's Finest Combat Handgun
it's the 1911 hands down
there's only one prom queen, all the rest are just second place, or miss congeniality etc.
why you ask questions you already know the answer to?
if the Chit ever hits the fan, I'll be toting a couple of 1911's as a backup to either my 870 or SP101
the Glocks will be distributed to those I choose to arm.
I am an American you know.
the Glocks will be distributed to those I choose to arm.
I am an American you know.
When I had Glocks, that was my plan too.
If I don't chime in, someone's bound to call me on it...
...I also installed a Tyvek custom trigger group (aluminum, not plastic) on both of my Model 20s (10mm). Now there is little perceptible trigger creep, and no over-travel. The striker releases at 3 lb every time now.
What happened to "Glock perfection"? Wasn't that good enough?
The polymer frame (which many pistols have now) soak up a tremendous amount of recoil.
I think this is just so much bunk. Even IF the plastic absorbs recoil, the reduced weight also must increase felt recoil. We used to hear that marketspeak about plastic rifle stocks too, and I'm here to tell ya it just doesn't translate to lower felt recoil for a given stock shape. Any actual reduction of felt recoil has more to do with mechanical design, leverage, and grip angle than anything else. My Kahr K9 has less felt recoil than a Glock 26. If the K9 was a double-stack, the difference would likely be even greater.
I did a side-by-side test with my Glock 20 and a Colt Delta Elite in 10mm. The Colt's steel frame transferred a much sharper recoil impulse than the Glock's polymer frame.
I don't know about 10mm, but maybe you can explain to me why a box-stock Hi-Power feels much more pleasant in recoil to me than any Glock. I haven't shot a 9mmm 1911, so I can't attest to that. Someone has been advertising an aluminum frame conversion for Glocks.
That's a recoil comparison I'd like to see. OBTW - my box-stock Hi-Power (which I foolishly sold and will replace someday) was 100% reliable, even with crappy reloads.
I've never had a pistol that felt so good in my hand as the Glock, and my natural point of aim is dead on with the Glock.
I invite you to make an effort to see what you can do with custom grips - on guns that will accept them. Glocks need not apply.
Obviously, I don't care for Glocks. I don't particularly enjoy shooting them. They don't fit my hand well (and making one fit is an expensive proposition). I hate staple-gun triggers. I prefer a heavier material for handguns that will be carried in a holster. I like the ability to custom fit with inexpensive grip changes. I could go on, but I won't.
The Glock is a good service pistol that works as well as anything. It ain't perfect (
you proved that point) and it ain't the best for everybody. It has many good points that would be a plus if I could stand to use one, and if I were required to use one I wouldn't cry about it - especially if I were allowed some of the many available modifications. But it certainly ain't at the top of
my list.
That's about it.
But it certainly ain't at the top of my list.
Sooo, which handgun is?
But it certainly ain't at the top of my list.
Sooo, which handgun is?
That's rhetorical question, isn't it?
Well.......I guess it's a three-way tie. Depending on what kind of hair day I'm having, it's either a 1911, a Hi-Power, or a 4"-5" DA revolver. Any of these three would be the
handgun I would prefer to be carrying when I really need one.
Okay, okay.....you noticed I listed the 1911 first, eh?
I have a Glock 21 and I like it fine� I have a HK USP in 45 and I like it much better� for a number of reasons� I have a Sig P220 and I like it best� for carry.
For carry in a field or a car or Hunting or being cool or just shooting I still pick my 1911. But for everything else I want I want the safety of a double action.
For real carry Well� that�s a different story all together
So, just so I am straight on your original post: since "E" doesn't agree with your opinion of a handgun his affinity for Leupold rifle scopes somehow proves that they are mediocre and everyone not agreeing with you has twisted logic. Got it.
So, just so I am straight on your original post: since "E" doesn't agree with your opinion of a handgun his affinity for Leupold rifle scopes somehow proves that they are mediocre and everyone not agreeing with you has twisted logic. Got it.
No no...I should have made this clear originally; Leupold scopes are mediocre regardless of E's idolatry of them.
With regard to the twisted logic; yes.
Jog,
Since you've made the biggest ruckus over the title containing the word combat, are you former or current military?
Have you been in combat?
No.
No doubt, my lack of military experience puts certain limits on my opinions. I am a former competitive shooter (about 30-years worth), so I try to approach things from the standpoint of total 'shootability' of the platform.
Ruckus? I don't think so. To me there's a big difference between defensive and combat weapons. The latter connotes an offensive and more intense scenario.
That's why they make vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry
Leupold scopes are mediocre? HA!
Ah, Dood. Are you really interested in what I think or are you just trying to start a fight ? Looks to me like all you want to do is fight.
Just how much street time, and in how many fights did you use your Glock ? Sure doesn't sound like much. If you had any, you'd already know some of the things I'd say about them. E
I'll step up. I have no use for Glocks. I've tried to warm up to 'em on several occasions and can't. The ergos don't work for me at all.
For duty work I'll keep my Sig, thank you. For personal use, nothing beats the 1911 IMHO.
George
Even though I was on a somewhat small department(28 uniformed), none of our guys liked the ergo's on the Glock as well. We were doing a switch from S&W 686's at the time and most agreed that the Sig 226 was the nicer of the weapons we had on hand for testing. The second choice of the crew was a S&W Sigma 40 cal which was pretty nice as well. Me, I'm a Beretta guy. I'm sure the Glock is a well proven gun, but if it doesn't fit your hand correctly, it's not of much use from my POV.
If handguns matter, in a military sense, usually something has gone horribly wrong.
Bill
If handguns matter, in a military sense, usually something has gone horribly wrong.
Bill
Which happens from time to time.
Ah, Dood. Are you really interested in what I think or are you just trying to start a fight ? Looks to me like all you want to do is fight.
Just how much street time, and in how many fights did you use your Glock ? Sure doesn't sound like much. If you had any, you'd already know some of the things I'd say about them. E
Seventeen street years altogether E, and 9 of them with the Glock 20. Contrary to popular belief, use of lethal force by the police is a relatively rare occurrence. Thank God I never had to shoot anyone.
How many years have you served on a police force or a Sheriff's department?
And what are your gripes about Glocks?
Ruckus? I don't think so. To me there's a big difference between defensive and combat weapons. The latter connotes an offensive and more intense scenario.
Really? While I've never shot at anyone I have been shot at twice, cut three times with a knife and been in countless scuffles arresting people. I can tell you from experience, your sphincter pucker factor would be the same regardless of which situation (defensive vs. combat) put you in mortal danger. That is a fact. And you would use your pistol the same way; shoot for center mass of the largest portion of the offender's/combatants body that is available. That is a fact too.
I own a G19 and a G21SF. I think the ergos on the Glock 19 are great! the G21SF... maybe I need to get used to it, maybe I need more practice, maybe the recoil transfer is different, I don't know... I'm not as accurate with it. Both wear a Hogue grip sleeve and "feel" pretty good in my hand when not firing.
If handguns matter, in a military sense, usually something has gone horribly wrong.
Bill
I did not serve, but all the deputies that trained me and I worked with were Viet Nam vets who all saw extensive combat. To a person they would agree with the above statement. If you're down to just a handgun something has gone horribly awry. You're totally defensive. I'm sure there are exceptions, but you don't see our troops patrolling in Afghanistan and Iraq with pistols at low-ready; they have their ARs slung UP and ready.
And you would use your pistol the same way; shoot for center mass of the largest portion of the offender's/combatants body that is available. That is a fact too.
Where we seem to be disagreeing is on the size and distance of the target the bad guys offers. You mentioned a man-sized target at a maximum of 30-feet. I
hope that's true, but I will be preparing for a lot tougher target than that.
Actually, for police work I found the 1911 superior to the Glock. There are times when you have your gun out, but can't justify shooting, and a smack on the head with a 1911 will drop a suspect like a rock.
I have a friend,former HS teacher that survived Chosin because of 1911's.
threw his M1 carbine away and double gunned them while the MG crew reloaded.
What's wrong with the World's Finest Combat Handgun?
You do mean the 1911 don't you?
MM
What's wrong with the World's Finest Combat Handgun?
You do mean the 1911 don't you?
MM
What else?
Still waiting for E's credentials that make him qualified to make judgments about defensive weapons. You asked me E, now I'm asking you, how many gun fights have you been in with the Glock? Additionally, if you're a veteran, thank you for your service; I most sincerely appreciate it.
Oh bother. Now it's descended into a credentials war. (rolleyes)
You know what I really hate about yer "World's Finest Combat Handgun"? It's the hyperbole that is associated with it by guys like you. It's just another handgun that works as good as can be expected, and it fits some peoples' needs but not others. It wasn't designed by God and neither was the 1911. Lots of guys are absolutely loyal to the 1911 but I don't see them insisting that anyone who isn't is twisted (much). But there's one of you Glock guys chanting that line every month, it seems - and then when anyone begs to differ, you insist on comparing cred. It gets old.
Well, it sounds as if you've seen this before, and this is my first foray into the handgun forum, so you've got me at an advantage.
That said, there is one thing that puzzles me. If you see this type of thread once a month from some Glock user, and they're all the same, why waste your time reading this one and posting on it?
Hmmmmmm...?
It is evident that you assume factors that actually bear no relation to reality. Your thirty foot rule is absurd, and your opinion of how recoil is registered on my hand is immaterial.
I stand behind my original statement regarding the lack of suitable modifications to improve the ergonomics of the Glock, and my critique of the grip angle.
If you choose to be fanatically dedicated to Glocks, so be it. I have already tried a bevy of them. They are good pistols, with mediocre accuracy. If thats all you need then thats all you need. They are neither the best, nor the worst.
I recommend you save your breath, and your typing fingers. Nothing you post will overrule my experience, and my resultant opinion.
Well, it sounds as if you've seen this before, and this is my first foray into the handgun forum, so you've got me at an advantage.
That said, there is one thing that puzzles me. If you see this type of thread once a month from some Glock user, and they're all the same, why waste your time reading this one and posting on it?
Hmmmmmm...?
I think I can answer that for FreeMe
I've not participated in this debate before
he probably tuned in to see if I had anything intelligent or relative to add
sorry to disappoint once again FreeMe
bottom line is what's best for me, may not be best for you.
you may like blondes, I'm partial to brunettes
you may feel you are best armed with a Glock
I may feel best armed with a 1911
somebody else may feel best armed with a wheelgun
nobody is wrong in that scenario, it's the weapon that gives them the most confidence to ensure a positive outcome.
no more, no less
It is evident that you assume factors that actually bear no relation to reality. Your thirty foot rule is absurd
Talk to your local prosecutor's office regarding a rule of thumb for when you can really consider yourself in imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death. Get back to me. Oh, since I asked others, are you LE or military? I would stress that neither is a prerequisite for firearms proficiency. But, when you're exposed to mortal danger on a fairly regular basis, some of the pie-in-the-sky notions about guns fights and armed encounters fly out the window.
I stand behind my original statement regarding the lack of suitable modifications to improve the ergonomics of the Glock, and my critique of the grip angle.
If you choose to be fanatically dedicated to Glocks, so be it. I have already tried a bevy of them. They are good pistols, with mediocre accuracy. If thats all you need then thats all you need. They are neither the best, nor the worst.
I recommend you save your breath, and your typing fingers. Nothing you post will overrule my experience, and my resultant opinion.
So? Why the concentration on accuracy from a defensive firearm that is likely to be employed within 6 to 10 feet of your assailant? Accuracy is definitely not the first priority I consider in a hand gun. Reliability is first, second and third. Then, of course ergonomics and the ability to follow up your initial shot(s). Then, as long as it will shoot a 2 or 3 inch group at 15 yards, it's adequate.
bottom line is what's best for me, may not be best for you.
you may like blondes, I'm partial to brunettes
you may feel you are best armed with a Glock
I may feel best armed with a 1911
somebody else may feel best armed with a wheelgun
nobody is wrong in that scenario, it's the weapon that gives them the most confidence to ensure a positive outcome.
no more, no less
I actually feel better armed with a
reliable 1911. If the "Kimber Revolution" has addressed past problems, then I need to reassess my hand gun priorities.
Oh bother. Now it's descended into a credentials war. (rolleyes)
You know what I really hate about yer "World's Finest Combat Handgun"? It's the hyperbole that is associated with it by guys like you. It's just another handgun that works as good as can be expected, and it fits some peoples' needs but not others. It wasn't designed by God and neither was the 1911. Lots of guys are absolutely loyal to the 1911 but I don't see them insisting that anyone who isn't is twisted (much). But there's one of you Glock guys chanting that line every month, it seems - and then when anyone begs to differ, you insist on comparing cred. It gets old.
Since you're painting with an awful broad brush, please point out anything I've posted, save the title, that was hyperbole.
again like women, each firearm is a story unto itself
one of the ones I'd pack for the CHTF scenario is a Kimber, external extractor and all
it's proven itself along with the colt 70 series that would be it's companion, don't know what to do with the Para 13, as it's good to go too
isn't it TRH that has a Ed Brown or some other custom that's a turd?
(forgive me if I'm wrong TRH, I'm into the whikky)
anyhoo one man's misery is another's treasure.
Reliability is first, second and third. Then, of course ergonomics and the ability to follow up your initial shot(s). Then, as long as it will shoot a 2 or 3 inch group at 15 yards, it's adequate.
So, by your own definition the Sig is every bit as good as the Glock? Besides the run of "specials" that was put together for NHSP I've never run into one that malfed. We've tried to get ours to sputter and can't.
Yeah, you might want to rethink the 1911 as well. Have several and no issues there either.
George
Well, it sounds as if you've seen this before, and this is my first foray into the handgun forum, so you've got me at an advantage.
That said, there is one thing that puzzles me. If you see this type of thread once a month from some Glock user, and they're all the same, why waste your time reading this one and posting on it?
Hmmmmmm...?
Why do you care? And where have you been doing all your trolling before now? First foray into the handgun forum, huh....Nice entry. I bet your a hoot at parties.
Oh bother. Now it's descended into a credentials war. (rolleyes)
You know what I really hate about yer "World's Finest Combat Handgun"? It's the hyperbole that is associated with it by guys like you. It's just another handgun that works as good as can be expected, and it fits some peoples' needs but not others. It wasn't designed by God and neither was the 1911. Lots of guys are absolutely loyal to the 1911 but I don't see them insisting that anyone who isn't is twisted (much). But there's one of you Glock guys chanting that line every month, it seems - and then when anyone begs to differ, you insist on comparing cred. It gets old.
Since you're painting with an awful broad brush, please point out anything I've posted, save the title, that was hyperbole.
Ok, Idunno....how 'bout:
What interests me is his twisted reasoning...or that of anyone else who doesn't like Glocks.
...and then:
The polymer frame (which many pistols have now) soak up a tremendous amount of recoil.
...and here:
It'll feed empty brass...it's an amazing pistol.
BTW, you don't need a Glock to do that.
...oops! There it is again:
That polymer frame soaks up a tremendous amount of recoil.
This one is interesting because it first ignores the cost of what might require a major frame mod, and then...well:
You can make it fit you and there is no better hand gun.
This one is cute, because the hyperbole sets on something other than Glock, and then tacitly admits that the Glock ain't perfect after all:
Yep, that Tyvek Fulcrum Trigger groups is a marvel in engineering. It should be...it cost enough...but it makes the Glock feel like a completely different firearm.
Oh - while we're at it...let's touch on how the Glock is best because you can spend tons of money on your WFCH:
My $535.00 pistols are now $900.00 and $1300.00 (long slide and barrel) pistols, and I could easily invest more in customizing the grips. There's just so many after-market options available it's hard to choose without just buying them all.
So...hyperbole words and phrases:
"twisted reasoning"
"tremendous"
"amazing"
"tremendous" (again)
"no better handgun"
"marvel in engineering"
...and that's all before I entered this thread.
I don't need to justify to you why I read or post anything, and you could say the same to me. But it shure looks like you're looking for an argument - and when you got one, you seem to have taken it personally.
Very trollish.
It came to my attention that E doesn't like Glocks. Given his predilection for the mediocre (Leupold scopes), that he doesn't like Glocks doesn't surprise me in the least.
What interests me is his twisted reasoning...or that of anyone else who doesn't like Glocks.
In the future, the best way to ask a question is to ASK THE QUESTION, rather than wasting the two preceding sentences sucker-punching Emericus. Whether or not you agree with his view of Leupy scopes has zilch to do with Glocks.
So what does Emericus prefer in scopes?
it shure looks like you're looking for an argument - and when you got one, you seem to have taken it personally.
Very trollish.
Magnumdouche's college kid's must be on fall break, so he doesn't have anyone to boss around. So, he's picked a fight with E so he can feel manly again.
Careful there Jamie, Rick doesn't like that type of language.
In the future...I will continue to post as I wish as long as I stay within Rick's guidelines.
You call it hyperbole because you don't agree with it, yet, it's all true.
You call it hyperbole because you don't agree with it, yet, it's all true.
That was a pretty sophomoric attempt at boosting your own ego. I bet it worked. I call it hyperbole because it's hyperbole. You can believe it if you want.
How many times do you wish to go back and forth, with me saying "that's the way it is", and you calling it "hyperbole"?
I vote for two. Your turn.
In the future...I will continue to post as I wish as long as I stay within Rick's guidelines.
No surprise there.......
How many times do you wish to go back and forth, with me saying "that's the way it is", and you calling it "hyperbole"?
I vote for two. Your turn.
Nah...You get one and a half. I'm sure it's enough.
It came to my attention that E doesn't like Glocks. Given his predilection for the mediocre (Leupold scopes), that he doesn't like Glocks doesn't surprise me in the least.
What interests me is his twisted reasoning...or that of anyone else who doesn't like Glocks.
In the future, the best way to ask a question is to ASK THE QUESTION, rather than wasting the two preceding sentences sucker-punching Emericus. Whether or not you agree with his view of Leupy scopes has zilch to do with Glocks.
I agree...100%!
But, given his dogmatic devotion to Leupold scopes, I really wanted to know what problems he has with Glocks. Glocks ain't perfect, but a Glock pistol doesn't have any features or lack of features that would make it unfit as a defensive weapon.
But, given his dogmatic devotion to Leupold scopes, I really wanted to know what problems he has with Glocks. Glocks ain't perfect, but a Glock pistol doesn't have any features or lack of features that would make it unfit as a defensive weapon.
No, it's an adequate weapon, not to mention being very reliable and rugged. I'd MUCH prefer a slicked up K-Frame Smith & Wesson revolver, though. I'd also MUCH prefer a good 1911. These two sidearm platforms are FAR superior to any Glock ever made. If you must have high cap, then a tuned High Power is the way to go. If, however, you are in charge of acquiring all the sidearms for an entire police agency that doesn't have the money to devote to training in the use of better sidearms, then you go with the Glock, because it's simple, cheap, and it works.
I agree with your preferences. The m19 Smith is about perfect.
At the end, your summary was good. I don't care for Glock..but when you can describe anything as "cheap, simple and it works" That's high praise.
Bill
Four years dood. Two shootings. About a dozen fights where a gun was used as a club. No street time with the Glock. But I personally know lots who have had. Few who know and care about guns still carry them.
I have it from an impecible source that if you use a Glock as a club, the gun can shatter and can't be rebuilt.
I was around lots of both shootings by my fellow cops and their use of their guns as clubs.
Actually, the average range of big city shooting is 9-10 ft. according to LAPD. But they do occur at much longer ranges. One of mine was over 30 yds.
Real accuracy can be necessary. Have a friend that ended a hostage situation at about 20 yds. with a brain pan shot from his 2.5 inch .357.
Don't like the lack of safeties on the Glocks either. Had a couple of friends that lost their guns to bad guys. Those that lost DA revolvers, usually had them used against them.
So, there you have my opinions. Poor, "stapler" trigger break. May not fit the hands. Fails the "frizby test" according to the Secret Service. Comes apart when used as a club. Lacks accuracy. Needs adjustable sights. No safeties that can stop an unfamilar user from using it.
That's more than enough for me. E
E, I didn't know that you were on-the-job? How long were you on?
Four years dood. Two shootings.
I'm going to take a wild guess and say he was on the job 4 years.
Shooting yourself doesn't count...
Four years dood. Two shootings. About a dozen fights where a gun was used as a club. No street time with the Glock. But I personally know lots who have had. Few who know and care about guns still carry them.
I have it from an impecible source that if you use a Glock as a club, the gun can shatter and can't be rebuilt.
That's a wild accusation, and I'll just say I don't believe it. When Glock was trying sell their pistol to LE Agencies, they performed a torture test. One of the things they did was go up in a helicopter and drop the pistol about 40 feet onto concrete. It marred the surface, but, it didn't shatter and the pistol kept on shooting.
I was around lots of both shootings by my fellow cops and their use of their guns as clubs.
Actually, the average range of big city shooting is 9-10 ft. according to LAPD. But they do occur at much longer ranges. One of mine was over 30 yds.
Real accuracy can be necessary. Have a friend that ended a hostage situation at about 20 yds. with a brain pan shot from his 2.5 inch .357.
Glocks are accurate. Accurate enough to hit the A-zone at 25 yards. I don't know where the rumor began that Glocks aren't accurate, but all of the ones I've shot are as accurate as any other duty pistol.
Don't like the lack of safeties on the Glocks either. Had a couple of friends that lost their guns to bad guys. Those that lost DA revolvers, usually had them used against them.
I have a particular bias against this mindset. It's like some officers choose level III holsters that require you to rock your firearm in one direction or another to make the holster release the firearm. The logic, of course, is a bad guy who goes for your gun won't be able to remove it from the holster. Never mind you need to draw a minimum of
3K times from that holster to become proficient. By worrying about locking holsters and no safeties, you're planning on failing...you're planning on some bad guy getting your gun. You should be planning on winning.
So, there you have my opinions. Poor, "stapler" trigger break. May not fit the hands. Fails the "frizby test" according to the Secret Service. Comes apart when used as a club. Lacks accuracy. Needs adjustable sights. No safeties that can stop an unfamilar user from using it.
That's more than enough for me. E
I found a remedy for the "stapler trigger break", yet even without it, as per Mackay, Glock remains the choice for professionals. Glock has basically come up with a whole new line of pistols in the "slim grip" that is offered with most, if not all, the full size models. The slim grip alleviates a lot of the problems that people with smaller hands were experiencing when they shot Glock pistols. It doesn't come apart when used as a club; it shouldn't be used as one. You can buy adjustable night sights for every model.
What is the "frizby test"?
In the future...I will continue to post as I wish as long as I stay within Rick's guidelines.
No surprise there.......
223Rem,
I apologize. Your suggestion was a sound one and probably the way I should have done this.
Four years dood. Two shootings. About a dozen fights where a gun was used as a club. No street time with the Glock. But I personally know lots who have had. Few who know and care about guns still carry them...
E
Four years working for which department?
In the future...I will continue to post as I wish as long as I stay within Rick's guidelines.
No surprise there.......
223Rem,
I apologize. Your suggestion was a sound one and probably the way I should have done this.
Apology accepted. I enjoy that certain areas of the Campfire have remained mostly drama-free, and just want to see them stay that way. Carry on.
Don't drop out now E; which department did you work for?
Don't drop out now E; which department did you work for?
Does anybody honestly care and would it make a difference?
George
I like Glocks, out of all the pistols I own the one that sits next to my bed, is a Glock 23. It's not my favorite pistol but it is the one that I know will go boom if I pull the trigger and will do so with little thought even if awakened from a deep sleep.
Having said that, the Glock is not the be all end all. Obviously our military chose what it thought (rightly or wrongly) was a great battlefield pistol and I'm sure somewhere, someone would brag that it is THE pistol and anyone that disagrees is stupid. Course, the M9 doesn't fit MY hand, so the opinion of that person stops right there for what is the best choice for me.
The Glock has it's warts, it has a lot of muzzle flip compared to similar pistols and all the excuses in the world won't change the fact that I can shoot some other pistols accurately, faster than I can the Glock. Some of them might not pass the other tests equally, however, so the G23 sleeps next to me.
I cannot imagine however that a Sig 229, H&K USP Compact or perhaps even the Walther P99 or Beretta PX4 would serve me in a war scenario any less reliably than the Glock. Just my 2 cents, your mileage may vary.
When the Beretta was competing against domestic brands in the 80's there were all kinds of rumors going around that the USA chose it to placate Italy and win favorable conditions for continued bases in that country. I have no idea if the rumors were true or not.
Was thinking a couple of weeks ago if I did the Indiana Jones thing and trotted around the world, what handgun would I choose? (assuming you could carry your handgun to various distant places) It would have to work with minimal care, have some firepower and be able to supply it anywhere. I was thinking right next to the fedora and bullwhip I would toss a Glock 17 9mm.
This thread and especially Mackay Sagebrush's thread have finally given me the courage to come out of the closet about that.
I'll step up. I have no use for Glocks. I've tried to warm up to 'em on several occasions and can't. The ergos don't work for me at all.
For duty work I'll keep my Sig, thank you. For personal use, nothing beats the 1911 IMHO.
George
I thoroughly concur, and I am not even going to go into the ugliness issue! YUK!
For personal use, nothing beats the 1911 IMHO.
George
Well, maybe nothing exactly beats it, but I bet if you took two experts, one with a 1911 and the other with a slicked up K-Frame revolver, and loaded their guns with some sort of paint ball rounds, they'd be pretty even in a stand up fight.
Don't drop out now E; which department did you work for?
Does anybody honestly care and would it make a difference?
George
I wouldn't have asked if I didn't care
George. My reasons are my own. As to it making a difference; does any of this make a difference?
That should have read "for my personal use". I've never been one to attempt to dictate what others want/need.
George
Don't drop out now E; which department did you work for?
Does anybody honestly care and would it make a difference?
George
I wouldn't have asked if I didn't care
George. My reasons are my own. As to it making a difference; does any of this make a difference?
None of it does to me, my check will clear tomorrow regardless of what goes on here. I would think that a 17 year veteran would be above the petty schit. I've been wrong before...
I'm sure you'll be wrong again.
More than likely, but not when it's important. I'm good like that.
If you don't hurt yourself or allow anyone else to be harmed, you can count that as good day.
I have had 1, and I no longer have it. I shoot them high when point shooting, like 6-12 inches high. It really doesnt matter to me how well it shoots with sand in it, or mud, or under water, when I dont shoot under those condtions for self defense, especially if I cant hit what I am pointing at. I like my Sigs, XDs, M&Ps, 1911s and my S&W revolvers. They all shoot to where I am pointing them, and they all work every time I pull the trigger.
It came to my attention that E doesn't like Glocks. Given his predilection for the mediocre (Leupold scopes), that he doesn't like Glocks doesn't surprise me in the least.
What interests me is his twisted reasoning...or that of anyone else who doesn't like Glocks.
I don't like GLocks, they don't fit my hand and in my opinion Leupold's the best scope out there for the money and I own them all. As to the world's finest combat handgun? opinions vary... alot. Still nice trolling topic. jorge
The 1911 platform was meant to rattle when you shook it (battlefield mud, sand, dirt, etc couldn't cause it to seize up, and it was designed to fire FMJ rounds.
THAT is one of the oldest and most erroneous urban myths in the gun culture. Try any of the super 1911s like a Nighthawk, Wilson, Baer or even my standard Commnader Stainless from Colt and they are tight reliable and accurate and they ALL fire any kind of ammo you care to feed it. The Glock is a very reliable pistol and no doubt a great weapon, but the above statement just is not true. Sorry. jorge
The 1911 platform was meant to rattle when you shook it (battlefield mud, sand, dirt, etc couldn't cause it to seize up, and it was designed to fire FMJ rounds.
THAT is one of the oldest and most erroneous urban myths in the gun culture. Try any of the super 1911s like a Nighthawk, Wilson, Baer or even my standard Commnader Stainless from Colt and they are tight reliable and accurate and they ALL fire any kind of ammo you care to feed it. The Glock is a very reliable pistol and no doubt a great weapon, but the above statement just is not true. Sorry. jorge
Well
Jorge, you'll count as 1 vet against about a dozen I worked with that agree with what I posted.
This is ridiculous. Shoot what works for you and don't worry about what others like.
As I sit here thinking, I cant believe I wasted the last 15 minutes reading these posts. I just recently joined 24hourcampfire.com and I hope this is not an example of normal behavior here. No need to waste your time replying to me, I won't engage in this rediculous activity, just hoping some people decide to calm down and not feed on "aggressive discussion". I'm not sure but, I dont think this forum was designed for hostile conversation.........just a thought.
That should have read "for my personal use". I've never been one to attempt to dictate what others want/need.
George
I'm with you on that one George and I also dislike those who pretend to be something they're not.
I've been told by a firearms manufacturer that 1911s have tended to get tighter over the years but that doesn't make them inherently better. From what he stated whether there is some play in the slide to frame for example doesn't make much if any difference at all. I don't know if that plays into the previous statements about it's design for combat, to "rattle" and allow use in dirty environments, but I sort of took that to be what he was saying, that the somewhat looser fit was not inherently bad (the firearms manufacturer I know).
Edited to add (to stay on topic), that I've never really liked the feel of the Glocks. I've shot a number of fine pistols/revolvers and the Glock never felt right in my hand. I will say I didn't like the 1911 the first time I picked one up, but after shooting one it's now my primary carry gun in town.
Why dood ? So you can continue to argue and fight ? Just as I thought.
What standards others wish to apply to determine what's the best is up to them. I respect the opinions of guys like MS and a few others here. They can teach me something.
But this kind of "discussion" with you is a waste of my time. E
Eremicus, I just asked you a simple question about your LE work cause you said something to the effect of working with "fellow officer/cops...) and I didn't know that you were on a department. If you don't care to discuss it, that's fine with me as I was not trying to be intrusive or personal. I was on a rather small department here in NJ (28 uniforms, small detective bureau), traffic division, one K9 and two DARE officers for 20 years, so it's not like I'm claiming to have been some big shot city cop with vast street battles/hand to hand combat, although I have been stabbed twice during DV incidents and have several Mexican standoff's with crack heads and other EDP' throughout the years. And yes, I have the scars to prove it as well. Most of our work was with DV, EDP's, burglary investigations (many), aided cases, MVA's, drug investigations (not on large scales) several homicides and robberies. Like I said, wasn't trying to get personal.
I'd also like your take on needing adjustable sights on duty type weapons (handguns that is) and why the need for good accuracy on a gun that will likely never be used at any kind of distance. If I'm not mistaken, the FBI used to have figures based on distances that are typically recorded in street altercations which tend to happen very quickly. I seem to recall a figure at one time that was less than 10ft. Usually at those distance you are most concerned with just avoiding death. Not saying that fixed don't have any place what-so ever, it just kinda low on the wish list. In short, all I'm saying is that want a gun that fits the hand well, dead reliable and hit what it's pointed at, again for reasons of fit.
Why dood ? So you can continue to argue and fight ? Just as I thought.
What standards others wish to apply to determine what's the best is up to them. I respect the opinions of guys like MS and a few others here. They can teach me something.
But this kind of "discussion" with you is a waste of my time. E
Asking you what department you served on is wanting a fight?
Feeling a little paranoid?
spehling- welcome to the sight. Don't judge us all by this thread. Some folks just have a need.......aw F -it , you know what I mean. You are dead right about this forum. It is supposed to be a campfire for buddies, not a schoolyard for bullies. Glad to have you on board.
wow- didn't take you for an art lover. Gotta think a mellow concerto would do you some good. Good for you dood. Take a breath and reflect.
I'd also like your take on needing adjustable sights on duty type weapons (handguns that is) and why the need for good accuracy on a gun that will likely never be used at any kind of distance. If I'm not mistaken, the FBI used to have figures based on distances that are typically recorded in street altercations which tend to happen very quickly. I seem to recall a figure at one time that was less than 10ft. Usually at those distance you are most concerned with just avoiding death. Not saying that fixed don't have any place what-so ever, it just kinda low on the wish list. In short, all I'm saying is that want a gun that fits the hand well, dead reliable and hit what it's pointed at, again for reasons of fit.
I don't see adjustable sights as being important on a CCW. Just more to snag on clothing, and/or more parts to potentially break. On a hunting handgun, sure. I've never appreciated them on a CCW, however.
As I sit here thinking, I cant believe I wasted the last 15 minutes reading these posts. I just recently joined 24hourcampfire.com and I hope this is not an example of normal behavior here. No need to waste your time replying to me, I won't engage in this rediculous activity, just hoping some people decide to calm down and not feed on "aggressive discussion". I'm not sure but, I dont think this forum was designed for hostile conversation.........just a thought.
Welcome aboard Spehling, the 'fire is usually a rather friendly place, but it does have its warts as you've seen. There is a way to put the trolls on ignore, I'll bet you can figure out a couple who are worthy of that feature already.
Welcome aboard Spehling, the 'fire is usually a rather friendly place, but it does have its warts as you've seen. There is a way to put the trolls on ignore, I'll bet you can figure out a couple who are worthy of that feature already.
Just imagine if Hunter1960 were still here? What would Spehling think of us then?
Thanks for the welcome, I look forward to future "good" conversation.
Thanks for the tip on the ignore feature.
Now that is a COOL signature line!
wow- didn't take you for an art lover. Gotta think a mellow concerto would do you some good. Good for you dood. Take a breath and reflect.
Weak, man, weak.
As I sit here thinking, I cant believe I wasted the last 15 minutes reading these posts. I just recently joined 24hourcampfire.com and I hope this is not an example of normal behavior here. No need to waste your time replying to me, I won't engage in this rediculous activity, just hoping some people decide to calm down and not feed on "aggressive discussion". I'm not sure but, I dont think this forum was designed for hostile conversation.........just a thought.
You know...I was an azzhole to you, and I want to apologize. This is a silly thread, but I'm enjoying parts of it, so I continue to post. I regret alienating you as I did and I regret that you felt this was an aggressive discussion. Most threads are not like this one. Many threads have valuable information on them and the folks are friendly too. Again, my apologies, and I hope you find the rest of the camp fire to your liking.
G-lock is a fine weapon for those who like it. I don't because of the ergonmics.....it just does not fit my hand.
I don't because of the ergonmics.....it just does not fit my hand.
All the difference, right there. Which is the same reason I can't like the Glocks in 9x19, or .40sS&W/.357Sig, but dote HEAVILY on the G20 10mm. Oh, and I can't stand the XDs for the ergo reason stated.
If it don't fit, you must acquit.
XD and Glock feal identical to me...
As I sit here thinking, I cant believe I wasted the last 15 minutes reading these posts. I just recently joined 24hourcampfire.com and I hope this is not an example of normal behavior here. No need to waste your time replying to me, I won't engage in this rediculous activity, just hoping some people decide to calm down and not feed on "aggressive discussion". I'm not sure but, I dont think this forum was designed for hostile conversation.........just a thought.
You know...I was an azzhole to you, and I want to apologize. This is a silly thread, but I'm enjoying parts of it, so I continue to post. I regret alienating you as I did and I regret that you felt this was an aggressive discussion. Most threads are not like this one. Many threads have valuable information on them and the folks are friendly too. Again, my apologies, and I hope you find the rest of the camp fire to your liking.
Magnumdood -that was a class apology. Glad to see you wanting to put an end to the silliness. Have a good one.
Autoloaders are a Flash-In-The-Pan . . . . . . .
![[Linked Image]](http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj222/bmt4tax/Clint35.jpg)
The Perfect backup . . . . .
![[Linked Image]](http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj222/bmt4tax/SW150222_large.jpg)
The Perfect backup . . . . .
Nearly every minute of my work as a bodyguard (with the exception of when I was on foreign soil - they wouldn't let me take it on the plane), a S&W model 442 was my constant backup gun; carried in a coat pocket, front pocket of my pants, or on rare occasions, in an ankle holster.
Keven, did you pin the useless grip safety down on yours?
442 doesn't have a grip safety.
442 doesn't have a grip safety.
I bought one of the recent remakes of the "lemon squeezer," and it does have one. I hate the thing (the safety, that is, not the gun). It could be an awesome gun, except for the confidence killing grip safety. If I could neutralize it, it would be one of my favorite little guns for coat pocket carry. If you have to draw and fire a gun quickly to save your life, there is no way to be certain you are going to have a perfect grip on it when you pull the trigger. I bet most gun smiths, though, wouldn't touch the job of neutralizing that safety with a ten foot pole, for fear of litigation. What do you think?
You could just sell the Model 40 and get a new production no-lock 442 or 642. Then you wouldn't have to worry about the safety or the lock.
Her nickname is "Always"...
![[Linked Image]](http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk220/jds44/642-2.jpg)
Others might get to go, attire permitting, but she always does.
You could just sell the Model 40 and get a new production no-lock 442 or 642. Then you wouldn't have to worry about the safety or the lock.
I didn't know they made them without locks. Where do you get one?
I think the last ones I picked up were from Top Gun Supply. They make a run or two of them every once in a while. 642's and 442's were the last two runs that I know of.
I think the last ones I picked up were from Top Gun Supply. They make a run or two of them every once in a while. 642's and 442's were the last two runs that I know of.
So it's no longer available?
They're still out there, you just have to do some looking for them. I really can't tell you which vendors have them in stock as I haven't been looking for them since I got the ones I have. Approx 4000 of the 642's were made not sure how many 442's.
A basic search of that vendor's site shows no-lock 642 "in stock"
http://www.topgunsupply.com/smith-wesson-model-642-centennial-38spl_p-without-internal-lock.html
Thank you for the source, but you know why I'm not rushing out to buy one? I already own two original Bodyguards from way back when. If you have an original bodyguard (or two), it's hard to justify going out and getting a 642 also. I really shouldn't have bought the lemon squeezer, but it just looked so nice.
Thank you for the source, but you know why I'm not rushing out to buy one? I already own two original Bodyguards from way back when. If you have an original bodyguard (or two), it's hard to justify going out and getting a 642 also. I really shouldn't have bought the lemon squeezer, but it just looked so nice.
Hey Hawk,
It's man-law. You never have to justify the purchase, much less the ownership, of a gun. All we have to do is want one. That's reason enough. Man-law.
Two whole bodyguards... That's not particularly impressive
. Go buy at least one of those 642's as you definitely need more.
Really? Need one? Can you make the argument for that? Probably a
little better than a Bodyguard, since there's no place for dust to get into the hammer works, but enough better to justify buying one? Besides, the Bodyguard can be manually cocked for single action fire if that were ever to be needed. That makes them about even.
![[Linked Image]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/S&W_Bodyguard_left.JPG)
![[Linked Image]](http://doctorbulldog.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/smith-wesson-642-airweight.jpg)
You either missed the smileys or you are just looking to argue for some particular reason. Not sure which but do whatever ya like.
He's a very literal person.
You either missed the smileys or you are just looking to argue for some particular reason. Not sure which but do whatever ya like.
Not looking for an "argument" the way you seem to take it. I meant it only in the academic and polemical sense of the word. Sorry for the miscommunication.
Argument doesn't always imply
rancor. I really was interested in hearing reasons (i.e., arguments) that could possibly exist for actually
needing one. Always looking for ways to defeat my personal reasons NOT to buy a new gun.
The 1911 platform was meant to rattle when you shook it (battlefield mud, sand, dirt, etc couldn't cause it to seize up, and it was designed to fire FMJ rounds.
THAT is one of the oldest and most erroneous urban myths in the gun culture. Try any of the super 1911s like a Nighthawk, Wilson, Baer or even my standard Commnader Stainless from Colt and they are tight reliable and accurate and they ALL fire any kind of ammo you care to feed it. The Glock is a very reliable pistol and no doubt a great weapon, but the above statement just is not true. Sorry. jorge
Well
Jorge, you'll count as 1 vet against about a dozen I worked with that agree with what I posted.
I didn't say the military ones didn't rattle after years of combat use and yes the design was originally designed for just ball, but the gun was NOT designed with loose tolerances and they've been made to shoot JHP ammo for years. jorge
Funny thing Jorge, 3 of the guys on my shift carried series 80 Colts. They purchased them brand new around 1980. Those guns would rattle slightly when shook in a twisting/side-to-side motion. Hardly the tight tolerances the manufacturers are producing now.
Funny thing Jorge, 3 of the guys on my shift carried series 80 Colts. They purchased them brand new around 1980. Those guns would rattle slightly when shook in a twisting/side-to-side motion. Hardly the tight tolerances the manufacturers are producing now.
The main thing that needs to be tight for 1911 accuracy is the lock up of the barrel/slide/bushing, not so much the slide to frame.
The Glock 19 fits my hand well, and it has always struck me as one of those designs that just has "it", a remarkable combination of high-capacity, reliability, light weight, corrosion resistance and compact design. Maybe the penultimate Glock.
I recall too Chuck Taylors 100,000 round no-maintenance/maximum abuse torture test of this same model. IIRC he couldn't break it.
But...
Hard to warm up to a design where the
holster is the safety, otherwise how is a Glock with a loaded chamber any different that a single action auto carried safety-off?
Ya, I know about that odd little pivoting mechanical block on the face of the trigger.
No problems I guess when the Glock is carried in a sufficient holster, but what about when its stowed in a pocket or some such? ( met a guy who commonly carried his bone stock baby Glock loose in his front pants pocket
)
The "staple gun trigger" is an apt description
, I had the 8lb trigger springs put on mine trying to make it more like a revolver trigger (given the fact there are no safeties on the gun as most people understand the word). Now it feels even MORE like a staple gun.
As to reliability, no problem. But recently I was disconcerted to note the front sight had fallen off of mine, perhaps from a fall in the safe. I was given to understand that losing the front sight this way is a not uncommon phenomenon on Glocks.
Birdwatcher
You compare the Glock to a revolver more than once.
Where is the safety on a revolver?
You compare the Glock to a revolver more than once.
Where is the safety on a revolver?
Nope only once.
With respect to triggers, you must know the difference between double and single action triggers and the amount and distance of force required to depress them. If you do not, further expounding on my part will be hopeless.
The 5.5 trigger pull on a stock "safe action" (
) Glock trigger does not differ much from the single-action trigger of the
usually accepted 'World's Finest Combat Handgun', other than by being much more vague and having a tad more travel.
This precisely why Glock holsters fit the trigger guard so closely, the holster
IS the safety. This is the only handgun design I know of where this is true.
Meanwhile I wish you would explain exactly how a loaded Glock differs in any practical sense from a cocked and loaded 1911 without a working safety.
The flying-off front site issue appears to be a frequent problem too.
Just answer the points raised if you would, I got absolutely no interest in an internet peeing match.
Birdwatcher
You compare the Glock to a revolver more than once.
Where is the safety on a revolver?
The hammer.
With respect to triggers, you must know the difference between double and single action triggers and the amount and distance of force required to depress them. If you do not, further expounding on my part will be hopeless.
Uh...yeah, I know the difference.
The 5.5 trigger pull on a stock "safe action" (
) Glock trigger does not differ much from the single-action trigger of the
usually accepted 'World's Finest Combat Handgun', other than by being much more vague and having a tad more travel.
With respect to your bolded �usually�, it seems outside of this board that may differ among men who use them on a professional basis.
This precisely why Glock holsters fit the trigger guard so closely, the holster IS the safety. This is the only handgun design I know of where this is true.
Meanwhile I wish you would explain exactly how a loaded Glock differs in any practical sense from a cocked and loaded 1911 without a working safety.
You can�t hang the edge of the trigger or the tip on a Glock and cause it to discharge. With the 1911 you can which is precisely why it has other safeties. And you're technically wrong about the holsters. Many 1911 holster have a thumb-break strap that goes across the back of the pistol and rests between the pistol and the hammer falling.
The flying-off front site issue appears to be a frequent problem too.
Not if you use red lock-tite, or have a gunsmith machine a dove-tail slot on the front to match the one on the back. The red lock-tite poses no problems if you want to remove the sight. Just apply a soldering iron to the screw head and it will quickly reach 300 degrees causing the red lock-tite to release.
For the record, I've fired around 15,000 rounds of full-power 10mm ammunition out of my Glock 20 and never had the front sight "fly" anywhere; it remained on the end of my pistol, right where it is supposed to be.
How is the front sight attached that it is prone to fly off?
It is secured by a small screw from the underside. A simple application of lock-tite to the screw will prevent any problems.
You compare the Glock to a revolver more than once.
Where is the safety on a revolver?
The hammer.
What's to stop someone unfamiliar with firearms from securing your revolver, point it at you at spitting distance, and start pulling the trigger?
The hammer?
With respect to your bolded �usually�, it seems outside of this board that may differ among men who use them on a professional basis.
Really? Must not have got around much yet....
You can�t hang the edge of the trigger or the tip on a Glock and cause it to discharge. With the 1911 you can which is precisely why it has other safeties.
WHAT!!! Are you seriously suggesting that if only Jonathan Browning woulda thought to put a little spring-loaded pivoting doohickey in the middle of the trigger of the 1911 he coulda left off the safeties? And someone with a 1911 design could do the same to their pistol?
Odd that particular modification ain't caught on yet
But you do concede my point by not contesting the obvious; that on the Glock the holster IS the safety.
And on them 1911 holsters with the thumb break strap? I would guess the fact that they are designed to go over the back of the slide is because the 1911 was designed to be carried cocked and locked, and indeed when it IS cocked there is nowhere else as convenient to run a thumb strap over.
Any additional security obtained by the quite incidental blocking of the hammer was just gravy.
Birdwatcher
hmm this thread was worthwhile,
suppose I better back out the screw that holds in the front sight on Mom's 22 and put some red loctite upon it.
wasn't aware of that potential problem thankee gents
in turn (I hope) Birdy if you look up the clipdraw website, I believe they also sell a little plastic doohickey that goes into the trigger guard of the Glock thereby blockin the depression of said trigger.
it's easily popped out with the finger while presenting the weapon on target, thereby eliminating the need to use a holster as a safety device for the Glock. Well at least until you're done shooting, the little bastid ain't so easy to find again. Don't ask me how I know this.
if I buy another I'm going to attach to the trigger guard with a piece of twine, or better yet baling wire and some duct tape, that oughta hold it i'm thinking!
Well hey AK, Sorta like the whole Liberal/Conservative press bias thing, I can imagine the fallout if any OTHER pistol design needed a little add-in plastic piece to be placed in front of the trigger to block it.
I've seen and handled those little doohickeys, and it seemed to me that if one was worried about objects depressing the trigger, the same amount of force could also knock out that insert. Indeed, in the confines of a pocket or loose holster that little plastic thing wedged crosswise might actually
be the thing that presses the trigger (let alone baling twine
).
Unlikely? Hey, in the literally hundreds and hundreds of hours of carrying that concealed carry means for almost everyone, there's time for all sorts of long-odds scenarios to play out.
But.... the fact that the insert is even marketable means that recognition of the no-safety problem is widespread.
As for that little threaded front sight pin, if it is prone to back out, Glock should of course have adressed the problem in the first place, loc-titing it at the factory if need be.
Birdwatcher
You can�t hang the edge of the trigger or the tip on a Glock and cause it to discharge.
Sure you can. I walked my G23 into Glock HQ in Smyrna, GA a few years ago for that very problem. The "safety" was hanging up in the trigger just enough that you could pull the trigger without touching the "safety". Glock fixed it on the spot, even though it was years out of warranty, but I got the feeling it was not something the tech had never seen before.
I put a siderlock on my G23 and it was the best modification I have ever made to any firearm, ever.
You compare the Glock to a revolver more than once.
Where is the safety on a revolver?
The hammer.
What's to stop someone unfamiliar with firearms from securing your revolver, point it at you at spitting distance, and start pulling the trigger?
The hammer?
Ummm...Nothing?
If I screw up
that badly I deserve to get shot. If I considered that possibility I'd carry something less lethal, like maybe a rolled up newspaper.
Anybody that even suggests the Glock is even in the same universe as a Colt 1911 is delusional. But that's just an opinion, take it for what it's worth. jore
Glocks just don't fit my hand well either. Much better with Kahr or the S&W M&P models. Just the way I hold 'em, I guess
I agree with you. But I've also noticed that the world is full of delusional people (maybe just half full).
I put a siderlock on my G23 and it was the best modification I have ever made to any firearm, ever.
So, what the heck is a Siderlock? Google informs me its a very slick lookin' trigger safety. Great tip, Foxbat.
Siderlock ![[Linked Image]](http://www.siderlock.com/images/image_gallery/8.jpg)
As Mackay pointed out on another thread, he keeps 5-shot revolvers stashed around the house. Why would a professional with expertise in handguns carrying many more rounds not stash 1911s or Glocks at strategic points? Because he isn't the only one there; his wife is there, and her level of training limits her to the 5-shot revolver. Pick it up and start pulling the trigger. I carry a Glock where I can for the same reason; I consider it a 15 round revolver. My wife, an ex-LEO, can shoot a revolver, and I have worked with her on malfunction drills on my Glock. I have two Glock 20s here if we need them.
Birdie,
I didn't concede anything about the holster being the safety on a Glock. That's ridiculous. All holsters that are meant for carry cover the trigger and trigger guard. Additionally, the pistol fits in the holster securely (Unless the holster is old, damaged, worn out or cheap).
But.... the fact that the insert is even marketable means that recognition of the no-safety problem is widespread.
As for that little threaded front sight pin, if it is prone to back out, Glock should of course have adressed the problem in the first place, loc-titing it at the factory if need be.
Birdwatcher
Anything to knock the Glock, eh Birdie?
Anybody that even suggests the Glock is even in the same universe as a Colt 1911 is delusional. But that's just an opinion, take it for what it's worth. jore
Wouldn't even buy me a cup of coffee Jorge. The Glock spits bullets, accurately, and holds more than the 1911. You want to carry a 1911, fine, but don't knock Glocks, they're as good a pistol as the 1911...better in my estimation.
Show me where I knocked the Glock? in fact, I said it was a fine weapon. I just don't care for hammerless plastic guns with double stack magazines and I own a Kahr which I think is easier for me to carry. I owned a Glock sub-compact 40 for a while. Most uncomfortable auto I've ever owned. Bad? no! relaible? yes!. I didn't say Glocks were bad, not just in the same league as a 1911. And that's pure opinion, nothing more. jorge
Show me where I knocked the Glock? in fact, I said it was a fine weapon. I just don't care for hammerless plastic guns with double stack magazines and I own a Kahr which I think is easier for me to carry. I owned a Glock sub-compact 40 for a while. Most uncomfortable auto I've ever owned. Bad? no! relaible? yes!. I didn't say Glocks were bad, not just in the same league as a 1911. And that's pure opinion, nothing more. jorge
I agree with everything you've said here. I sold my last Glock earlier this year, and I too much prefer Kahrs and 1911s.
Show me where I knocked the Glock? �jorge
Anybody that even suggests the Glock is even in the same universe as a Colt 1911 is delusional� jore
I didn't concede anything about the holster being the safety on a Glock. That's ridiculous.
As the years fly by I'm discovering that I've been at this handgun thing rather a long time now, long enough to remember the Glock factory recommendations when the design first came out. Yep, the factory holster on a Glock is the safety.
Anyhow, these guys claim to know a lot about Glocks, they feel the same way I do...
[u][color:#FF0000]Only a complete fool would carry a Glock without it being holstered[/color][/u]. Anything to knock the Glock, eh Birdie?
???
Ya asked for opinions, I pointed out two very real design flaws.
Birdwatcher
As the years fly by I'm discovering that I've been at this handgun thing rather a long time now, long enough to remember the Glock factory recommendations when the design first came out. Yep, the factory holster on a Glock is the safety.
Anyhow, these guys claim to know a lot about Glocks, they feel the same way I do...
[color:#FF0000]Only a complete fool would carry a Glock without it being holstered[/color][/u]. Ya asked for opinions, I pointed out two very real design flaws.
Birdwatcher
Design flaw schmesign flaws. You add a little drop of loc-tite to the screw and your sight is good to go. You wouldn�t happen to know how many of the Glock front sights are �jumping� off their pistols would you?
Additionally, I don�t care that Glock said the holster is the safety,
IF they said that. What is undeniable is ALL holsters cover the trigger guard and the trigger. Glock�s holster is no more or less secure than any other quality holster on the market. Furthermore, how do you figure that�s a [u]design flaw, if it�s even true?
I don't think carrying a Glock tucked into your belt in the small of your back is any more hazardous than carrying another type of handgun that way (sans holster).
That's apparent.
Both Uncle Mike's and Fobus have recalled Glock holsters because the retention strap can catch the trigger while holstering and fire the pistol. Your foot is begging you - don't slide a Glock trigger under your belt.
All my CCW hand guns with the exception of the J frames have adjustable sights none have ever broken....
I don't think carrying a Glock tucked into your belt in the small of your back is any more hazardous than carrying another type of handgun that way (sans holster).
You�d better re-think that one friend. NO trigger cocking gun that doesn�t have a positive manual safety (one that�s not located on the trigger) should ever be carried Mexican style; that�s the stuff of natural selection. If you truly are a member of the law enforcement community, you should be aware of the many documented cases of Glocks going off during re-holstering (oh, and it�s not just Glocks, it�s endemic to all the trigger cocking pistols that lack a manual safety). If you have a loose shirt tail, debris or on rare occasion, even a thumb strap can find its way into the trigger guard while someone is pushing the pistol into the holster. It�s happened on more than one occasion. Now, I�m a full believer in the FACT that the vast majority of ND�s with Glocks (and all other handguns) is because someone has put their finger on the trigger and pulled it when they shouldn�t have. But, within the LE community, it is not a secret that one can run into surprises with a Glock (I pick on Glock because it�s really the LE standard, but all should know that this applies to all pistols in that classification).
So, even with a trained law enforcement officer, with proper gunleather; incidents have happened. Now consider the disaster you�re courting when you remove the added safety of a proper holster�that�s playing with too much fire if you ask me.
If you insist on carrying a trigger cocking weapon (Glock, Kahr, XD, Taurus, S&W Sigma or M&P), then do yourself a favor and use proper gunleather. This is the same sound advice that the manufacturers of all of the pistols in question would give you.
And I don�t consider this to necessarily be a design flaw, it�s just an idiosyncrasy of the design. Know Thy Equipment!
Kevin, perhaps you have access to more first hand accounts of AD's than I do presently, so in your estimation, how many cases are there of a mechanical failure using Glocks as opposed to the operator of said weapon not properly trained ie trigger finger enguaged......? In all my LE years I've heard of many, many AD's and practically none were the weapons fault.
I don't think carrying a Glock tucked into your belt in the small of your back is any more hazardous than carrying another type of handgun that way (sans holster).
Dude, that's just plain nuts. The Glock essentially has no safety, and it's ready condition is cocked with a round in the chamber, no safety.
PS Putting the "safety" on the front of the trigger of a semi-auto makes about as much sense as engraving the combination to your gun safe on the dial face.
It's not cocked any more than a double action revolver is cocked when the cylinder is full and the hammer is down. The Glock striker is not under any spring tension until the trigger pull moves the striker rearward, then releases it...just like a DA revolver.
I'm sure people here will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Mr. Glock had no prior experience as a firearm designer before arriving at his now famous pistol.
The use of various safety devices has been widely documented as useful over the decades, and my theory is that Mr. Glock left them all off his pistol for reasons of profit. I was attacked earlier for pointing out that Mr. Glock conceived an ingenious business plan, but that plan does not equate to equal genius in regards to pistol design. I think the lack of override safeties proves this point.
Again, it has been a while, but I recall in the analysis of the striker fire system, the firing pin is "partially" cocked. Glock is, like any manufacturer, subject to a wide array of junk lawsuits, but more than a few seem to be associated with "accidental discharge".
I am searching my memory right now, I believe the last high profile law suit was filed in the midwest, and involved an officer shooting where the officer claimed his Glock just mysteriously "went off".
It is somewhat disingenuous to describe the trigger as a safety, or a pistol without external safeties as "safe action", but then there is always marketing, with its bombastic claims.
Honestly, the Glock is just like any other human engineered design-it has strengths, and weaknesses.
Hopefully, we can all agree that the Glock is a good, reliable weapon if handled and operated correctly. Where we will diverge is at the claim that Glock is the best pistol.
In order to be the best, any one design must excel in the categories of accuracy, cartridge strength, reliability, and ergonomics. The Glock lags in two of the four. This does not cancel it out as a good weapon, but it does prevent it from being the best.
I'll catch you out of context sooner or later. Cheap shot.
It's not cocked any more than a double action revolver is cocked when the cylinder is full and the hammer is down. The Glock striker is not under any spring tension until the trigger pull moves the striker rearward, then releases it...just like a DA revolver.
Might as well be fully cocked when you consider the pounds pressure and distance traveled needed to fire it.
I don't think carrying a Glock tucked into your belt in the small of your back is any more hazardous than carrying another type of handgun that way (sans holster).
You�d better re-think that one friend. NO trigger cocking gun that doesn�t have a positive manual safety (one that�s not located on the trigger) should ever be carried Mexican style; that�s the stuff of natural selection.
Can you say Plaxico Burress?
Show me where I knocked the Glock? �jorge
Anybody that even suggests the Glock is even in the same universe as a Colt 1911 is delusional� jore
That is not knocking the Glock, but I'll put it another way; A Laphroaig 10 year old Single Malt is a fine whisky but it's not in the same universe as the 25 year old Talisker. jorge
I give up Jorge; you win. I drink Bud Light.
He's a tough nut to crack.....................
I've had the misfortune of being present and seeing three NDs in my life. The weapon in all three NDs was a revolver.
I've had the misfortune of being present and seeing three NDs in my life. The weapon in all three NDs was a revolver.
Hard to believe, unless those folks had the poor judgment to cock the hammer on a live round anywhere other than at a range.
I've had the misfortune of being present and seeing three NDs in my life. The weapon in all three NDs was a revolver.
, unless those folks had the poor judgment to cock the hammer on a live round anywhere other than at a range.
Hard to believe as in I'm being less than truthful?
Kevin, perhaps you have access to more first hand accounts of AD's than I do presently, so in your estimation, how many cases are there of a mechanical failure using Glocks as opposed to the operator of said weapon not properly trained ie trigger finger enguaged......? In all my LE years I've heard of many, many AD's and practically none were the weapons fault.
I think you misread what I was getting at. I don't believe at any point I said or even implied that the Glock was at fault for the ND's I was making reference to. I was talking about situations where things have found their way inside the trigger guard when an officer was re-holstering. In such situations, the trigger cocking design that lacks a manual safety sort of sets you up for failure. So this is perhaps an equipment "system" failure, and a big part of that "system" is the user. Still, if you're re-holstering while keeping your eyes on a potential threat, and the thumb strap gets inside the trigger guard, you would have to at least consider your equipment; either pistol or holster. I have seen such alerts that have gone out to LE agencies.
It's not cocked any more than a double action revolver is cocked when the cylinder is full and the hammer is down. The Glock striker is not under any spring tension until the trigger pull moves the striker rearward, then releases it...just like a DA revolver.
That's not true at all, the Glock's striker is about 1/3 of the the way back in a "staged" position to improve trigger pulls; the reason that a Glock has a much lighter trigger pull than the trigger cocking Taurus.
Which brings us up to the second point, the trigger pull on a glock is about 50% shorter and between 30-40% lighter than a revolver. A Glock is not as "inherently safe" as a revolver. The same principles certainly apply, but the two are not the same.
I'll catch you out of context sooner or later. Cheap shot.
Well, apparently you're not catching the hint our esteemed Mr. JOG is trying to give you. Myself and several others have tried to set you straight on several issues, yet your inaccuracies persist. I would suggest you stick to what you truely know, which is quite obviously not defensive pistols.
It seems apparent to me that you choose a Glock for personal defense; bully for you. Some have taken some pot shots at your prefered blaster and you're offended by that (problem #1, you attach ego to your choice in equipment, that's a mistake). So you wade into an arguement with information you wrongly assume is correct (problem 2, you're making the wrong assumptions about the pistol in question, and your general knowledge of the subject), and lastly you're taking shots at those whom are far more qualified to speak on the subject at hand, which is problem #3.
Now, you would be well advised to park your ego at the door, sit back and do a whole lot more reading than posting.
I think we are are the same page now and thanks for clearing that up. I actually wasn't trying to say that you said or implied that, rather it just seemed that some on this thread do a whole lot of reading (googling) a little doing as they were jawing all the faults of the Glock design.
With decent leather or kydex, I'd happily work with a Glock, or H&K, or N-Frame, or Beretta, or....
You get the idea. And I may "Mexican holster" a DA in a pinch. But a Glock? I have more appreciation for my "yam-bag" than that....
Travis
If you insist on carrying a trigger cocking weapon (Glock, Kahr, XD, Taurus, S&W Sigma or M&P), then do yourself a favor and use proper gunleather. This is the same sound advice that the manufacturers of all of the pistols in question would give you.
Kevin (or anyone), are you familiar with the Blackhawk Serpa holster? If so, do you consider this inadequate or proper "gunleather" for a trigger cocking weapon? Thanks!
I know many that use, and love, that holster on trigger cocking weapons.
Travis
What reasons do they cite?
If you insist on carrying a trigger cocking weapon (Glock, Kahr, XD, Taurus, S&W Sigma or M&P), then do yourself a favor and use proper gunleather. This is the same sound advice that the manufacturers of all of the pistols in question would give you.
Kevin (or anyone), are you familiar with the Blackhawk Serpa holster? If so, do you consider this inadequate or proper "gunleather" for a trigger cocking weapon? Thanks!
I have no direct experience with that product
I'll catch you out of context sooner or later. Cheap shot.
Not at all, I'm just trying to snap you back to reality in case you actually believe what you're typing. I'm not convinced you're not arguing goofy stuff just for giggles.
So lets stick with simple physics and waistband carry. As you slide the Glock into your waistband friction can pull the trigger. Bang. Less likely, the trigger can be pulled by friction if the pistol starts sliding around.
With a revolver, the hammer can be held forward when you slide the pistol into your waistband. The hammer now acting as the external safety I mentioned earlier when I still didn't think it was necessary to explain the obvious to you. No bang. In addition, for a revolver to fire the cylinder must rotate. It would be quite a trick for the cylinder to overcome the friction in your waistband, as enough pressure is applied to trigger, and while there's enough clearance for the hammer to DA cycle.
It's not cocked any more than a double action revolver is cocked when the cylinder is full and the hammer is down. The Glock striker is not under any spring tension until the trigger pull moves the striker rearward, then releases it...just like a DA revolver.
That's not true at all, the Glock's striker is about 1/3 of the the way back in a "staged" position to improve trigger pulls; the reason that a Glock has a much lighter trigger pull than the trigger cocking Taurus.
Exactly, yet the staged Glock trigger is classified by the ATF as 'double action only' since the striker is not fully cocked - a classification that fools some folks. By comparison, the Springfield XD striker is fully cocked by the slide and classified as 'single action'.
I think we are are the same page now and thanks for clearing that up. I actually wasn't trying to say that you said or implied that, rather it just seemed that some on this thread do a whole lot of reading (googling) a little doing as they were jawing all the faults of the Glock design.
??? Aimed at me I expect.
I've had a Glock 19 for I dunno how long, since well before Texas passed its CHL law.
I know this on account of it sits in the safe for years until time comes for me and my wife to renew (here in Texas, if ya want the option of carrying an auto you have to qualify with an auto). We have both renewed twice since first getting the license IIRC, not sure how many years that adds up to.
All the more surprising then that such a lightly-used pistol would lose the front site. Like the 'smith said, browsing around revealed that it aint that uncommon.
I LIKE the pistol, just cannot reconcile it to the sort of carry we practice. In this warm climate one would have to dress around a belt holster designed to cover that de-facto single action-no safety trigger, a hard trick to pull off when yer in daily contact with in-laws and such.
The 8lb trigger spring helps a little, but mostly I got that installed for the same reason some police agencies do; so it would be less likely to pull the trigger in a time of stress, like when warning off an attacker at gun point.
My OTHER Glock was a 29 (?? Glock 19-sized .45acp) I had the 12 lb trigger set up installed on that one, still didn't turn it into a DA revolver trigger though.
On my Glock 29 my biggest beef was the tall kill switch.... ..er.. ...magazine release sticking out of the side.
This overly tall mag release seems to be a design flaw on many stock Glocks.
I am a lefty, in the brief period I experimented with waist pack carry with it the tall mag release was depressed by contact during carry enough times that I couldn't trust it.
Birdwatcher
What reasons do they cite?
Secure, easy to draw and reholster. The typical things guys dig in a duty rig.
Travis
Hard to believe as in I'm being less than truthful?
No, hard to believe as in if Mother Theresa told me, I'd still find it hard to believe.
Kevin (or anyone), are you familiar with the Blackhawk Serpa holster? If so, do you consider this inadequate or proper "gunleather" for a trigger cocking weapon? Thanks!
Several shooting schools ban the use of the Serpa on their ranges. The reason being the Serpa "trains" you to bend your trigger finger to activate the release and as a result there have been several AD's with guys drawing striker fired guns (like Glocks) with their trigger fingers bent, in motion, and ending up on the trigger prematurely.
Tactical Response Serpa policy Why no Serpa holsters?
An answer from our friend Paul Gomez: Begin Quote �Over the last year, I have developed some serious concerns with the Blackhawk Serpa Active Retention holster design. Various persons have brought these concerns to the attention of Blackhawk on several occasions and Blackhawk has chosen to ignore these very real issues.
The �Serpa Active Retention� design consists of a plastic L-shaped component which functions as the release button [from the outside of the holster] and as the lock [which engages inside the trigger guard]. The short leg of the L-shaped lever pivots inward [toward the pistol], while the locking tab pivots outward to release the pistol from the holster.
According to the Blackhawk website, �The release is made using your normal drawing motion, with the trigger finger beside the holster body. � As your trigger finger naturally comes to rest on the SERPA lock�s release mechanism, simply push the mechanism as you draw the weapon and it releases the gun for a smooth, fast draw.�
While Blackhawk may intend for the end-user to apply inboard pressure with the flat of the index finger, under stress, shooters tend to push the button with the tip of their index finger. After all, this is the manner in which most people have the most repetitions pushing buttons such as keys on a keypad or phone or ringing doorbells. When the finger pushes in on the release button and the user initiates the upward motion of the draw stroke, the finger tends to stay in motion and as the trigger guard clears the holster, the finger enters the trigger guard and contacts the trigger, with possibly tragic results.
I am aware of two instances where trained personnel have shot themselves using this holster in conjunction with Glock pistols. In August of 2004, a situation occurred with a live weapon that resulted in the shooter losing a 10cm piece of her femur. The other occurred with nonlethal training ammunitions in a force-on-force event in April of 2005. The impact of the NLTA was in the same area as the actual gunshot wound previously mentioned.
Following each of these events, Blackhawk was contacted and advised of the problems observed and concerns raised. In the first instance, they claimed that they were unaware of any previous issues with the design and insisted that the design had been �thoroughly tested by law enforcement and military personnel�.
After the second event, they were contacted by at least two people. Again, they stated that they were unaware of any concerns and had heard nothing similar from any sources.� End Quote
We do not allow the BlackHawk CQC SERPA Holster - Active Retention design because it requires the trigger finger to be doing something other than indexing along the frame of the pistol during the draw stroke.
Simply put...the Serpa is a poorly designed but brilliantly marketed holster that causes a user to press in with the finger tip as they draw their pistol. In many cases it ends up with the trigger finger right on the trigger (and pressing inward) prematurely. In other words...long before it would be safe to do so. I am aware of five situations at other schools where this has caused an AD on the range. Twice where it led so a self-inflicted gunshot. And these guys were either highly experienced shooters of seasoned operators. Twice I have personally seen in it force on force. If I allow a holster like that in class, having seen the problems and knowing the problems, and a student shoots themselves...it really would be my fault. As I understand it several other schools disallow these holsters.
Interesting read jds. Makes sense.
Travis
Interesting read jds. Makes sense.
Travis
Surprised me too. Thanks for posting it jds.
Another case of trying to fix with hardware what maybe should be fixed with software?
Hard to believe as in I'm being less than truthful?
No, hard to believe as in if Mother Theresa told me, I'd still find it hard to believe.
Hawkeye, I'd find it hard to believe that Mother Theresa was talking to you too.
Hard to believe as in I'm being less than truthful?
No, hard to believe as in if Mother Theresa told me, I'd still find it hard to believe.
Hawkeye, I'd find it hard to believe that Mother Theresa was talking to you too.
While she was alive, we had many a long discussion on the reliability of revolvers.
Hard to believe as in I'm being less than truthful?
No, hard to believe as in if Mother Theresa told me, I'd still find it hard to believe.
Hawkeye, I'd find it hard to believe that Mother Theresa was talking to you too.
While she was alive, we many a long discussion on the reliability of revolvers.
So are you going to tell us what Mother Theresa packed?
So are you going to tell us what Mother Theresa packed?
I thought everyone knew she packed a "Holy Smoker."
![[Linked Image]](http://www.cimarron-firearms.com/ModelP/Images/HolySmoker.jpg)
So are you going to tell us what Mother Theresa packed?
I thought everyone knew she packed a "Holy Smoker."
That may be, but the Pope would certainly carry a 1911!
George
Ruckus? I don't think so. To me there's a big difference between defensive and combat weapons. The latter connotes an offensive and more intense scenario.
Really? While I've never shot at anyone I have been shot at twice, cut three times with a knife and been in countless scuffles arresting people. I can tell you from experience, your sphincter pucker factor would be the same regardless of which situation (defensive vs. combat) put you in mortal danger. That is a fact. And you would use your pistol the same way; shoot for center mass of the largest portion of the offender's/combatants body that is available. That is a fact too.
That would get you killed if you were in a shoot out(the center mass shot cause they will be wearing vests) so head shots and thigh
shots will bring them down . Think of Ned Kelly!
Bob
There was actually a time in Church history when Catholic Popes donned armor and sword and led armies into battle.
There was actually a time in Church history when Catholic Popes donned armor and sword and led armies into battle.
Yep, the type of Pope that I could ride the river with
. Not that any of the current crop has asked for my approval.
That may be, but the Pope would certainly carry a 1911!
George
HIS Boss carries a 1911 for sure. It would be sacrilegeous to carry anything else!
jorge
So are you going to tell us what Mother Theresa packed?
I thought everyone knew she packed a "Holy Smoker."
That may be, but the Pope would certainly carry a 1911!
George
I see the Pope with more of a ceremonial gold plated engraved Taurus Beretta knockoff. Maybe John Paul II carried a Radom or a Makarov to give the home boys props. Of course he's surrounded by Swiss Guards with Sig 210s so it doesn't matter.
Good info on Mother Theresa though. Her small stature and hunched posture might have been the decisive factor in her many gunfights, making her that much harder to hit. Plus the loose flowing nun garb; you could be thinking you were getting solid hits and all you were doing was shooting straight through her outfit.
![[Linked Image]](http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j127/Magnumdood/Images/boohoo.gif)