Okay guys, someone help me with this.

Why does Glock have these followers who think the Glock is the end all everything? What is it about a Glock that makes someone think it�s the ultimate, and that there could be no wrong coming from Glock? Why is it that Glock lovers chose to completely ignore any evidence that might signal that a Glock is just like any other pistol?

Why is it you can have someone talk about a trip to the range where he sees 10 1911�s fail, but when someone says he saw 10 Glocks fail, all hell breaks loose? What is it about a Glock that makes it sacred from all common sense?

For every feat of the amazing, you can find a tale that tells quite the opposite story; yet the Glock-o-holics will only believe the former and never the latter. (to be fair, for every tale of the amazing, you can find a tale of failure for just about any firearm; it�s the nature of firearms�they�re not perfect)

So Glock-o-holics�What makes the Glock so special, that you�re willing to automatically dis-believe anything negative, and only believe the positive? What magic does the Glock have that makes one do that?

I like Glock pistols but I like all guns. Glcok is not the be all end all in pistols but I think its very close. I seen hundreds (maybe thousands) of glock pistols fired over the years. I have seen a Glcok malfunction maybe six to ten times in probaly 500,000 rounds fired maybe more. Could those 6 to 10 malunfuctions been with ammo that was out of spec? I think some of them could have been.

I have probaly seen 100 to 200 1911's in action. Of those I have seen several fail. I would really hate to guess but I bet its more than 25% of those pistols quit running at some point. I know where there is a springfield right now that won't run a magazine with out some type of malfunction.

I had two 1911's that were 100% but I really did not put that many rounds throuh them and the rounds I did shoot were always quality factory stuff. I have seen 1911's fail and it was always in the back of my mind that they would. I have shot stuff through a glock that I would not have tried with any other pistol and they just kept chugging right along. I found some ammo that was left outside at the range the other day from our last qual in OCT. I loaded it up and the glock shot it like it was new stuff.

It finally boiled down to when something went bump in the night I was never going to grab a 1911 with a glock laying there.

I am sure there are some bad glock pistols out there I have just never seen one.

Dink

There you have it. A 0.0012% failure rate for Glocks, and a 25% failure rate for 1911s. Kevin, how could you ask such a silly question?

R. Lee Emery!!


Uhrah! Nuff said. Semper Fi!

(I'm not really a big Glock fan--just wanted to feed the thread!)

for it's intended purpose the glock pistol in my opinion is the best there is.

out of the box reliable, user friendly, light, comfortable, dependable, accurate, simple, and ease of repair.

the glock does not need to be enhanced to be reliable ( unlike 1911 style pistols ).

i abused mine during firearms instructor couse putting more than 1000 rounds through it during a 2 week course. i never cleaned it and had zero malfunctions.

the only problems iv'e ever had with any of my glocks ( and iv'e had a bunch ) is i knock the front sight off of one and a block pin broke. gun would still fire 1-3 rounds before the slide would lock back.

i shoot my glocks and carry them daily. they do not get pampered and they work everytime.

when it's my azz on the line and the whole world is going south i want a glock in my hand.

p.s. i've owned a ton a pistols in my time and none equal the glock as a duty or defensive handgun imo.

This is the guy who looks like R. Lee Ermey, only rougher!

Pretty much describes the vast majority of pistols available today.

Except to the Glock jihad. Therein lies the rub.

I would have to reply, "Why do so many say that Glocks are a plastic POS". I only have one Glock, but I like it. To me, it seems like on this forum that there are more Glock haters than lovers.

A low failure rate is truly a large factor..

It's just a friggin' pistol guys - nothing more, nothing less. It has its pros and cons just like any other design. Because it's a mechanical device invented by a human being, it can't be perfect.

But I can tell you one thing, within the design parameters for which it was intended, there's a whole lot more right with it than there is wrong with it.

Having said that, I've never understood why people feel compelled to either love it or hate it. Can't we all just get along? ;^)

Personally, I happen to really like most Glocks for a reason completely overlooked and irrelevant to most shooters. Glocks have a feature that pretty much sets them apart from every other pistol out there. Anyone care to guess what it is?

Hint: The answer is NOT polymer.

Says who? Where do you get this?
The M1911 served in US military service in �non-enhanced� condition for over 65 years. How do you defend such a statement?

I've never had a part FALL OFF any of my pistols, regardless of maker. Yet, you're okay with this?

Then a pin broke and you're impressed that the gun still worked for 3 rounds. Call me cranky, but I'd be pissed something broke. I certainly don't excuse parts breakage on my guns unless those guns have seen a tremendous amount of duty (eventually anything will break).

Easy to answer, Time proven and Tested,what's not to like??? My glock 10mm's are the best handling 10mm's I have ever owned.

Durable
Dependable
accurate
simple
Proven over and over

I would protect my family every time with a glock over a 1911

Also more rounds on board than a 1911.A very good advantage.Tough to argue with Perfection. Many 1911's need work to be reliable. Hardly any glocks need any work period.

While it's true that there are those who do say that, I find it rather rare. But finding those who are lovers of Glock to the point of being irrational seems to be common place, which is why I started the thread. Honestly, I really don't have anything against Glock... Some Glock owners are a bit off kilter, but I like the guns.

See, that's how a Glock owner (or any other pistol) ought to be; it's just a pistol.

As to the "feature" you're talking about, I have no idea. Many consider the fact that a Glock has no external manual safety to be a plus, but something tells me you're hinting at something else.

KevinGibson: You are a poor pathetic fool!
You are attempting to deride a wonderful firearm by ineffectively trying to attack its users?
That is simply stupid.
If you have a case against the Glock pistol then man-up and state it - don't attack its proponents who actually have used and admire the arm!
If there is something negative about the Glocks then post it and stand by your contention with experiences and facts!
I am guessing you have next to NO experience with the Glock line of pistols - otherwise you would not be posting such stupid and unsubstantiated blather!
For some time now my health (life!), welfare and the safety of others has been dependant on me and my armaments!
I chose to use the Glock over those years and situations and I have yet to be disappointed in any way, shape or form.
For the money and for my own well being I use the Glock - not one bit of your immature blather leads me to doubt my decision in any way shape or form.
Not one.
Go ahead and try to decry those that are proponents of the Glock - such blather is obviously ineffective and unsubstantiated.
Sheesh.
Long live the Glock line of pistols.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Perhaps another hint: It's an innovative design feature that makes every other manufacturer green with logistical envy.

65 years shooting "ball" ammo.

Hollow-point ammo can be a hit and miss proposition on a standard "G-I" 1911. Almost every "reliabilty package" for a 1911 involves polising the feed ramp, throating the barrel, adjusting the extractor--and sometimes--tuning the magazines.

This is not the case with Glock.

And, I am in no way implying that Glock wears a cape.

Man ain�t that the truth!!

No sir�hold no contempt for the Glock whatsoever�wish I had a Glock 19. I just think some of the Glock owners are a bit strange and irrational.

Glock�s have some negatives, but then so do every last other firearm. But again, I�m not taking issue with the Glock, it�s a great pistol. Just trying to understand why some Glock owners are irrational.

I�ll bet I have more experience with Glocks than most. I�ll bet I�ve picked up pieces of Glock more times than most (and still hold the pistol in high regard). I�ll bet I�ve carried one in foreign lands in defense of mine and the lives of others more than most. I can detail strip one probably blind folded. I know the manual of arms better than most strong devotees. I�ve shot a chit load of ammo through them and I LIKE THEM.

Drug dealer or gun runner?? (just kidding)

Again, you�re 100% off the mark as to the reason of my post. I think your choice of a Glock is a good choice.

I have no problem with Glocks or Glock owners that are NORMAL. I take issue with those who think the Glock wears a cape and can leap tall buildings in a single bound (everyone knows the only gun that can do that is an M1 Carbine ;))

Glocks are nice� but they are not all that special.

You can same the same about HK, Sig� and yes even my Gold Cup�
I have had it since 1978 and it would never occur to me to worry about a failure when needed.

Granted for the last few years I have shot my Sig almost exclusively so any firsthand experience is becoming limited.

My son�s duty weapon is also a Sig and he has never had a problem and the Sig is always one the best performers in the academy class or when he speaks with the Fire Arms instructors.

All that said, I know that all guns have �rabid� believers, including the Cult of the 1911.

I say; if a handgun will fire a .45 cal bullet accurately every time� that�s the ticket!

Let me state for the record that I have found Kevin to be one of the more fair minded posters on this site.

GB

Well you�re still teasing. There�s only one thing the Glock has that�s is actually patented (that I know of), and that�s the �trigger safety� or "Safe Action", is that what you�re referring to? If not, let me off the hook and just tell me already.

See, that�s how one ought to be. Hey, there�s probably no one more �loony� for Browning Hi Powers than I, but you�ll never hear me call them �perfection� or ascribe any such super-gun status, even though I have found a Hi Power to be more reliable than most any other pistol in the world (including a Glock), easier to hit with than most, very durable and of course it has one of the greatest military service records of any pistol ever made. It�s truly a great pistol. Still, it�s just a pistol and it has its share of flaws. When you hint that the Glock has flaws, there are those who get their nose all bent out of shape, like you just said their favorite daughter was ugly. I just don�t get that. If my personal sidearm has flaws (and they ALL do), I sure the hell want to know about them.

Thanks GB, that was very kind of you. And for the record, I really do like Glocks. One of these days I�m going to break down and buy a model 19 just like the one I setup for a friend. I got him an OD green frame 19 and installed (can�t remember the maker) fiber optic sights that also had tritium; pretty slick setup. He�s toting that in a Milt Sparks Versa Max II�hard to beat that combo.

I dont think hes attacking the gun, I think he's simply stating that Glock owners freak out at the slightest hint that you may say there gun is not the best.
While Im a huge Sig fan and dont care for Glocks that much, I dont start threads like "Why is the Sig simply the best gun ever made" and the like. Glock owners take it one step further and call everything else inferior to the Glock.

If I hear most widely used gun in LE as a testament of how godd Glock is, I laugh. Glock put together a good gun and a great price, its that simple, it has nothing to do with being better than the rest....its the cheapest. I wonder how many PD's would give up Glocks if money wasnt a concern.

Price point is part of the genius of Glock. When pressed to the wall, their design allows them to drop the price basically to a point where no one else can compete and still make money. Gaston did well, there�s no doubt about that. If price were no concern, I�m sure there would be less �Glock Shops� in American law enforcement; but then again, I�m sure that Glock would win their fair share even if price wasn�t an issue.

If someone told me that I could only have 1 handgun to last me the remainder of my life, I probably would go out and buy a Glock 17 or 19. I think they are that reliable and durable, and those would be the most important factors if given that limitation. I think a lot of other firearms are just as reliable but maybe not as durable. There also are some safety features (or lack thereof) that I strongly dislike about the Glock, and I do not shoot them as well as others, which are reasons why I do not carry them as long as I am not limited to a single handgun.

I shot a few IDPA matches in the late 90's. Glocks malfunctioned as much as anything else. I am sure the problems were mostly shooter error, but it was funny watching the Kool-Aid drinkers freak out when their perfect pistol malfed.

This is what really makes Glock different from all the rest;

I can take fifty (or a hundred, or two hundred, etc) Glock 21�s apart and separate the various parts into thirty something separate buckets. I can shake the buckets and re-assemble the various parts into 50 complete pistols again and 99.9999% of the time � every one of them will function just fine.

But the kicker to all that is this; I can do that with nothing for tools but a finishing nail and I can do it in low light conditions. But it gets better. With the exception of the major components (frame, slide & barrel) I can carry a complete maintenance parts kits in my pocket that will allow me to keep the run gun running virtually forever �. for less than $50.00!

From a logistical standpoint - ain't nothin even close to it on the same planet! (You'd think the military would be all over that .... but those reports about $640 toilet seats just spoils that I guess.)

To put that in some perspective � the wonderfully crisp 3 lb trigger on my 1911 may only last about 15k rounds or so and then it�s off to the gunsmith for a re-work that cost well over a hundred bucks! That doesn�t take into account the hassle and costs of shipping and doing without the gun for weeks at a time.

Is the Glock perfect? Hardly, but compared to some platforms I think it is practically perfect for it's designed purpose. But the bottom line is this - most people don't shoot well enough or often enough for any of this to matter. It's just fodder for another mindless argument. No offense to anyone intended.

All I know is that when I go handle a Glock at the store I start to get little specks of foam on my mouth. When the clerk asks for it back, I growl...




grrrrrrr

Now that was a good answer for why you like the Glock. Still doesn�t answer my original question as to why people become irrational about the Glock, but I enjoyed reading your answer and your perspective.

Yeah, military armorers would love a switch to the Glock�well, some of them. At the higher levels the armorers would probably hate the limitations of the plastic frame, but the average unit level armorers would essentially have the easiest job in the Army.

The VAST majority of Glocks I�ve encountered that had issues were those that had been messed with. This trigger, or trigger spring, or that �improvement� or whatever. I�ve been left with the impression that Gaston pretty much got it right the first time. If you don�t mess with a Glock, and maintain it well, then they�re pretty good machines. The remainder of guns that have had issues exhibited signs of poor maintenance (someone who obviously didn�t know how to read the manual), or used non spec ammunition (meaning, reloads that were poorly assembled). I�ve seen Glocks fall victim to the same things as most other pistols, taking them out of action. But I�ve also seen them go through hell and back with a smile just humming along.

I�ve seen Glocks fail under a number of circumstances right alongside other high quality pistols. But I will admit, a Glock is EASY to get back into service once broke.

The beauty of the Glock is simplicity; buy it, load it, carry it; done. Don�t get tricky and try to customize a Glock, you�re just asking for headaches, and you�re defeating the greatest aspect of a Glock�it�s ready to go right out of the box.

It�s really a good pistol, some would say it�s even a great pistol. No doubt about it, Gaston Glock changed the game, and the Glock is the most significant advancement in defensive handguns since the Walther PP or the Browning Hi Power; it really was a game changer. I don�t think it�s best, but it sure the hell is good. There are some things about it that make my skin crawl, but I�ve carried one or two when the chips were down, and I didn�t exactly lose sleep because I was carrying a Glock.

The Glock Kool-Aid drinkers ARE irrational, and to have such faith in a mechanical thing isn�t healthy. For those who rationally consider the options and come up with the Glock as their choice, I can certainly respect that; more power to you.

Again, good answer 41.

Kevin do you carry a pistol everyday? When I say all day I am talking from the time you get dressed to time you go to bed.

My duty pistol has been bounced off cars,walls,pavement and who knows what else. It has been hung on fences, brush and stair rails while being holstered.

I don't believe a 1911 would ever take the abuse with out alot of upkeep.

Dink

All grab-assin' aside let�s get real here for a minute folks. All of us like various things for totally subjective reasons whether it�s cars, guns, girls or pizza. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right? But some truths are not based on subjective criteria.

The hard reality is this; Gaston Glock wasn�t the first guy on the block with a polymer pistol (Heckler & Koch unsuccessfully stabbed at that almost 40 years ago with the VP70) � he was just the first one on the block to offer a polymer pistol with a LOT of practical features at a reasonable price. It�s called innovation � and everyone else has been playing 2nd fiddle.

I like the Smith & Wesson M&P and the Springfield XP�s, but neither would have EVER been conceived if it weren�t for Mr. Glock. Gaston�s design is the first real practical, innovative pistol design to come along in 100 years! You don�t have to like that fact for it to be true � it just is what it is.

As a side note, not all Glocks are equally reliable. We�ve all heard of Glocks �blowing up� and some models just aren�t as reliable as the �original� Model 17. I certainly don�t claim to be the last word on this, but I�ve personally witnessed two Glock �explosions� �. both were .40 caliber and both were ammunition related. All of the other�s I�m aware of but didn�t witness were also .40 caliber. The slim little Mod 36 has had lots of problems as have other early generation models.

Some years ago there was a rental gun at a range in southern CA that had over 700k documented rounds shot through it without major component failure. The gun still shot military spec groups at 25 yards.

Now if you don't like Glocks that's fine, but if that ain�t "reliable" in your world � and you can't provide me with a better example - you're gonna have to gimme some of whatever that is your smoking!

Kevin,
These kinds of arguments take place between the Harley Davidson riders and the Honda Wing Dingers. People are guilty of painting with a broad brush when it comes to generalizations about all Glocks or all Gold Wings, etc.
I have a Colt 1911 Series 70 Government Model that I brought with me to the NRA Law Enforcewment Gunsmith course at Trinidad Colorado a few years ago. I gave it a "duty weapon" tuneup and it is as reliable as the ammunition that is loaded into it.
At the same time I have been to bowling pin matches where amatuer gunsmiths have messed with their pistols trying to accurize them and loused them up pretty bad.
I feel the same way about my stock Harley Davidson motorcycle compared to one that was souped up by some shadetree mechanic.
Some mechanics are better than others, just like gunsmiths!
Any time somebody says always or never I get a little skeptical.
whelennut

Id love to see that....and the "documentation"

Just curious, could you fix those two guns with $50 in parts?

And how have you determined that other guns don't have parts interchangeability? And what are the extra parts beyond your $50 that other designs need other than springs and maybe a firing pin to keep running?

I'm not hearing anything that other guns don't do as well.

Well, we are nearly at the point of having a complete generation of veterans (30 yrs of service) who never served while the .45ACP and Colt was king.
Since the mid '80's, it has been the Beretta in 9MM.
So, comparisons between the M9 and Glocks are probably the most honest comparison we can discuss.
I think Glock's pricepoint and ease of operation when compared to the M9 makes it such a leader.
There are just so many more of them out there being used daily.
That says a lot.

I love Glocks,I love guns period,but I liked 'em better when they didn't cost like they do now.

.
.
.
I kept waiting for the punch line.......................
.
.
.
Boy you really told dumb ol Kevin!!!!!!
Prolly gonna cry hisself to sleep tonight!!!!!!!!!
.
.
The Glock is a good gun.
.
The small block Chevy is a good engine.
.

.
Kevin;
.
The more a person rants and rants, the more he is trying to convince HIMSELF he is made the right choise.
.
Some people give reasons why they like Glocks. And make sense.
.
Some rant.............
.
You don't seem to rant that much Kevin. Are you a secure personand in the choises you make? Seem to be...........
.
A person doesn't learn anything when they are talking.
.
I'll try to finish reading this thread.

Ummm...Glocks go Bang until the magazine goes dry in my experience?

There is no function I value more in the handguns I have carried nearly every day on- and off-duty...since I got over my fear of fugly but functional in '95.

Here is a rather remarkable collection of Glock incidents...

http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/gindex2.html

For me, I did own a M22 some years ago - even handloaded for it . I never could get used to the lack of a manual safety, and eventually got rid of it. It was reliable, but not particularly accurate.

How 'bouts the XD .... or as I have often seen referred to as the Glock's Glock ....

Very well stated. We can't even carry 1911's off duty, because the Range Master has seen so many issues with them, he won't let us qualify with one.

The Springfield XD's are very nice weapons.

Glock's don't turn my crank. But I do respect them AND the folk's that own and cherish them.

BUT, to Attempt to elevate a good practical 'Glock' pistol unto 'Weapon-Of-The-Gods' status is nauseating ... IMO.

I'm not real big on S&W Revolver's either ... (Which are seemingly 'Sacrosanct' here on this Forum.) ... But the ONE S&W Revolver I do own - A little hammerless, S&W Air-weight, .32 H&R, Snubby ... "IS TO DIE FOR!"

I did see a PINK~Duracoat Glock in the Gunstore ...

THAT must be for Glock~Lovers.

Kev, you're in deep doo-doo! lols!

I must admit that I've had three Glocks, and they were all perfectly reliable. Got rid of them because I can't shoot them nearly as well as a 1911, and therefore couldn't justify carrying them.

PS I once met a Glock nut who had his gun, and was carrying and shooting it regularly, for many months. I asked him if he liked the easy take down characteristics, and his reply was that he had yet to take it down or clean it in any way, and didn't think you had to ever clean a Glock. I guess that's part of the mystique with Glock. So reliable, you never need to clean them other than wipe off the exterior, and that only to keep from making your clothes and hands filthy.

Let me guess,,,,mall cop?

Their not rabid .... 10 replies in 2 hours .... 30+ in four hours.

No ... not rabid.

I just love the polarization and brand loyalty.
Like another said about a Harley vs Honda debate.

Another example of ancient long time brand loyalty vs technological and material superiority.

It is comparing apples to oranges. Or maybe more like comparing Granny Smiths to Golden delicious.

Each has their own place and use.

A few weeks ago an engineer ( chemical scientist not mechanical eng.) here at work found out the i "shoot".
And he had some teenaged vandals around his home.
He said he wanted to buy a gun. His first ever gun.
And he asked for my advice. With no expereince ( and NO desire to learn ) I recomended a revolver. He said "No, I want one that goes 'bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.. you know every time you pull the trigger"
Oh I said, semi automatic? " Yeah like the cops have"
Get a Glock 9mm .. and some instruction. was my recomendation.
I should go and see if he ever did.

back to the rabid debate!

I love it when people get hooked on an image instead of whats really best for them. People ask me the same thing and I give them the same response....get a revolver. If its just some random joe from work I'll tell him to get a glock, I tell my friends and family to get a Sig.

I ain't rabid, but I don't have any of my guns tricked out. My Colt Combat Commander bought new when the retail wuz 200 bucks, my sixguns and my Glock 20 ALL came accurate and dependable right outta the box. Powerful, accurate and dependable without having to send them away to trick them out.

You crack me up...

By the way, is your screen name from "Man on Fire?" (awesome movie)

Who cares?

And, no, I own more 1911s and revovlers than Glocks...

Dink,

Not anymore thank goodness. Your points are very valid; pistols that are carried all day every day have a rough life. When I did carry a gun professionally (for a 10 year stretch), I carried a hard chromed, very customized Browning Hi Power. When things get serious, I tend to �run home to momma� and start looking for a Hi Power. Not only is the Hi Power the most feed reliable pistol I�ve ever encountered, they also have an outstanding reputation for not breaking parts. And since I�ve worked on well over 10,000 Hi Powers, I�m intimately familiar with the design, and I know every last weakness and how to contend with those weaknesses.

I typically don�t like silver guns for defensive purposes, but in that decade I carried the Hi Power I learned exactly how tough Hard Chrome really is; impressive stuff. After a decade of carry, there were some internal parts with rust pitting, but the outside of the gun looked nearly new; that�s pretty cool. In that decade of carry, my Hi Power saw it all and it served with tremendous distinction; I�m still pissed I sold the damn thing (I can really be dumb sometimes).

FWIW, I also carried a Satin Nickle S&W 442 which didn�t hold up nearly as well as the Hi Power. The 442 never failed me, but the satin nickel finish looked like crap at the end of the decade, and internal parts all had rust pitting. Still, through all its ugliness, it worked and worked perfectly.

The Glock does make a good daily carry gun. The plastic frame is not only impervious to the elements, it�s extremely forgiving of bumps and dents. The Tenifer finish is truly remarkable stuff, almost as resistant of rust as hard chrome or electroless nickel. Glock, like every other pistol out there still has internal parts that are subject to the elements, but at that point you just need to properly maintain your gun.

I also would have recommended a Glock.

Well obviously I do. But your point is well taken.

As a writer, I feel it�s my God given calling to educate. Having such blind faith in something (anything), isn�t healthy. Since the nature of the Glock is a defensive pistol, the consequences of misplaced faith can have horrendous results. Just trying to open some eyes�It�s what I do; I can�t help myself.

No problem, but from here it looks like the anti Glock crowd is at least as rabid as the Glock crowd...carry on...grin

Yeah, not a bad choice, but one must keep in mind that the ultra light weight frame of the Glock (and others like it), lends itself to limp wrist malfunctions for those who don't properly hold the gun. And for someone with no experience and no desire to learn, you can assume they won't do what's necessary to ensure they don't limp wrist their gun. In such a case, I always point such people to a revolver, which is rarely ever a bad choice; even for the experts.

Even pistols with aluminum frames can be subject to the limp wrist phenominon.

Couple of years ago, at the range we have a very wide variety of pistols and we decided to see which ones were more susceptible to this phenomenon, and the results were a touch surprising. Most every pistol was susceptible to the limp wrist phenomenon, but especially those with light frames and heavy springs (duh!!). The Glock was perhaps the most susceptible, but I found that my personal S&W M1911PD could be induced to short stroke quite easily also. The one gun we could not get to malfunction under any circumstances was a WWII GI (Ithaca I think) M1911 with standard 16.5lb mainspring. It just shucked shells all day long. I did notice that many times the slide was very slow in closing. Each of us were expecting the gun to eventually fail to close all the way, but it never happened.

A Sig 229 seemed to be pretty close to �perfect� on that day, only failing to function twice from limp wristing. Oh and by the way, when I say limp wristing, I mean REALLY limp wristing. Generally, when trying to induce this sort of failure, I hold the gun with two fingers half way down the grip�I�m amazed that ANY gun functions under such circumstances.

But once you straightened up and began to shoot right, both the Glock�s and my M1911PD returned to perfect running, as did most everything else.

Like most have said - they're a tool; and quite a reliable tool. I just don't care for the aesthetics.. They look like a brick.. For external carry (ala LEOs or similar) they're just fine.. I think I'd have a harder time concealing one compared to my Kahrs..

Yeah, those 1911s have been around for decades.. But as another poster said above: He's right.. Some, like Kimber, less than others.. But most can be finicky..



That could be me - holdin' a M70 Super Grade in my paws..

Wow---worked on over 10,000!! Please elaborate on that, I'm curious, did you work for Browning, a custom shop, as a LE armorer??? What kind of alterations did you do to them??

Gmoats-
I have a web based magazine called ShootersJournal.net. If you drop by there, you can read more about my Hi Power experience: http://shootersjournal.net/random-thoughts-on-the-browning-hi-power/

In short, I worked for a small arms importer back in the �80�s and we imported over 10k Hi Powers from China that were Inglis Hi Powers left over from WWII. Along with that experience, I�ve always specialized in Hi Powers when working as a gunsmith, something I no longer do as a vocation. The Hi Power remains my �first love� where auto pistol are concerned, and perhaps the one pistol I know best.

Glocks are a tool. Some people like good, sharp blades and don't care if the handle fits all that well, as long as the meat gets cut and the fingers don't.

Some people won't own a knife unless it appeals aesthetically as well as keeps an edge. I'd bet - but cannot prove - that the cutting experience is just a bit more satisfying with a stag handled hunting knife that's been blood stained over the years and carries with it the memories of a long life of service. After all, knife work should be more than just slicing and dicing.

Shooting is more than just sending bullets down range. Or, at least it should be as is evidenced by the dismal performances of the average police officer both on the range and in front of the patrol dash-cams! For all the Glock myth, despite the thousands of police forces armed with them, one still needs to be a shooter to make them perform.

Some time back, I attended an NRA Law Enforcement Handgun Instructor's course. About 50 cops from all over the country were in attendance because their departments wanted them to be instructors. Probably 90% of the guns in attendance were Glocks, with one or two revolvers and my Springer XD.

Not 1 in 10 there were what I'd call "shooters" though I'm sure they would have disagreed. Not one in 30 would even consider practicing at any range beyond 15 yards. I was the only one in attendance who'd ever had to qualify at a target beyond 25 yards and none of them had ever tried to hit a man-sized target at 50 yards and I don't believe any of them even believed it was possible to do it every time deliberately until I showed them!

I did a query (because I was writing the school up for Handguns Magazine) and only five owned .22 handguns and this number included the two instructors and myself.

So, I'm making a general statement, but one fairly based on experience, that "MOST" Glock lovers had little practical shooting experience prior to being exposed to Glocks. Note I don't say all. Yes, there are exceptions. But most is a safe bet considering the sheer number of police agencies who recruit people who have never owned a gun and many who believe only police should have that right in the first place. There was a day when most people gravitated to law enforcement because it was a profession of arms and they were shooters. It's not like that now.

Regards

Dan

...thanks, interesting background...when and where were you a gunsmith?? 10,000 Hi Powers---wow!

I have 3 glocks, and two 1911's.

I'd be in deep crap if I had to hit a man in the head with only one shot with any of my glocks at 25 yards, not so with the 1911's.

I shoot IDPA, so I shoot a lot at various ranges out to 30 yards.

Glocks go bang everytime, but they have huge unsupported chambers that can lead to Kabooms for guys that like to reload. The bulge on the web of the case after firing in a Glock can scare you at times.

I begrudge no one their affection for any sidearm, rationally or empirically derived. As an old high-volume 1911 IPSC shooter from the 70's and early 80's, I just have a hard time getting a Glock to point lower than the Aurora Borealis without alot of conscious manipulation. The grip angle just isn't "natural" for me.

Sacramento, CA in the 1980's.

Dittoes and Amens. I tried to like a Glock 19, I really tried, but I couldn't make the transition from 1911, P-35, CZ-75, which actually FIT human hands, to the Glocks, which do not, IMHO, fit human hands. It was reliable enough, that 19, but it didn't shoot nearly as well as the P-35s and CZ-75s, and didn't feel nearly as good in the hands.

I don't "hate" Glocks, but I find that I "like" stuff that fits my hands. Glocks lose that part of the fight, for sure. The XD fits human hands pretty well, too, although I've never shot one, I'd expect that I'd shoot one pretty well. I never could shoot that Glock very well.
Glocks just don't send me into spasms of ecstasy, like they do some folks.

Excuse me, Dink, but I've seen 1911's take all of that and more. Alot more. Yes, I've "lived with" a gun on my person as you describe.
One example. One of my working partners was off duty at a nightclub. Had a guy pick a fight with him. Didn't realize the guy had a 5 inch Buck, sheath knife in the small of his back and was picking fight so he could kill my friend during it. When my buddy realized this, as he was grapling with the guy, he drew his Colt Series 70 and used it to club the guy into submission. I had to show him how to disasemble the pistol so he could get the blood and hair off and out of it.
Another good friend says he's seen, not "heard of" three Glock pistols that were ripped apart, the frame and slide separated, when so used. The guns were not repairable.
Don't bother telling me that such uses of a gun are too rare to mean anything. I've so used one like this several times as have many with whom I've worked. E

E.......[bleep] really. Some guy is going to carve your buddy and he beats him a pistol...I don't buy it. If he had time to pull that pistol he should have been firing shots. I know your going to counter with the bar was full of people and he could not shoot. I still don't buy it.

Where did you work that allowed the 1911 for duty use? What years were they allowed to be carried?

There is only one guy on this forum that I know that packed a 1911 for duty use. When he posted pics of it looked like it had been drug behind a truck.

Can you post a link were the slides were pulled off those pistols? I think that is possible but I am not sure it can be done by us mere mortals. I think if you hit a guy in the with a pistol hard enough to knock the slide from the frame you should have been shooting not hitting because its all the same level of force at that point.

Dink

I think I failed to address this part�

For knocks and bumps, I find it interesting that you think the Glock would have a leg up on the 1911 in this department. The Glock�s plastic frame (and other polymer guns) would have a serious disadvantage to the steel framed guns here. Let�s not forget the infamous failure of the Glock in the DHS�s �Frisbee� test, where the frames broke and slides popped off of the guns rendering them inoperable.

Your statement �I don�t believe a 1911 would ever take the abuse again seems to dismiss nearly a century of military service where 1911�s (and many other similar service pistols) have been subjected to horrendous abuse, and continued to operate.

If there is one category where I�m 100% confident the 1911 �wins� over the Glock (didn�t mean to turn this into a Glock vs. 1911 thread, it just sort of happened), it�s in the category of taking physical blows, knocks etc. Dropped pistols, ran over by vehicles, pistols used as bludgeoning devices, etc. The polymer pistols are at a very obvious disadvantage in such departments.

There is a certain reserve cop on our local PD who packs a 1911, I saw him packing it during a recent X-mas parade. The reserve cop was watching the parade while standing next to the chief (both were in uniform). I should've snapped a picture for ya!

MtnHtr

MtnHtr there are still alot of places that allow to pack a 1911. My department allows one to be packed off duty and so do many others around me.

E stated before he was cop in Cali and carried a revolver and a full size Browning hi-power. I am just wondering where he saw all this 1911 use.

Dink

Dink,

I�m not sure what world you live in, or why you�re so rabidly anti-1911 (someone shoot your dog with one?). There are MANY law enforcement agencies that carry 1911�s T O D A Y ! ! Hell, my home town city cops carry stainless Springfield �Loaded� 1911�s that they bought after they had repeated problems with their Glocks. The Tacoma, WA police department carries Kimber 4� 1911�s to replace their Beretta�s; the Kimbers were chosen over Glock. In fact, there are OODLES of LE agencies that either issue or allow the carry of 1911�s. And 1911�s are used extensively in SWAT teams around the nation. Where do you get this notion that the 1911 isn�t used in law enforcement? Just because YOUR department doesn�t issue them or allow them, doesn�t mean that no one else uses them.

LE sales are kept somewhat confidential, in that most purchasing contracts have a clause that states the maker is not allowed to advertise that they supply guns to the department in question for marketing purposes. But about 4 years ago, I toured the manufacturing facilities of a major 1911 maker and on one of the walls, they had patches from the departments who carry that particular 1911 and there were literally HUNDREDS of patches on that wall�and that was ONE 1911 maker.

I did a quick google and came up with this:
The first is a �List of 362 Agencies that allow 1911 carry: http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=268453
http://www.10-8forums.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=89088&page=1 Here�s three pages of a forum listing departments that allow 1911�s or issue 1911�s.

I still laugh when I see that Bill Ruger had to re-design a perfectly good, sucsessful pistol so that the the grip angle would match a .45!

Kevin not every time my glock hits up against something causes a scratch/dent like it would on a steel frame 1911. Some of our guy's guns will have paint, marks, chips out of the bottom of a magazine after several years on duty. A 1911 would have busted wood gips, deep scratches and dents into the frame in my opinion. The few older guys that did carry 1911 early in there careers their guns look really rough.

I have never been in the military but the guys I know that were have told me that alot of those guns are not carried or shot very often. Very few guys carried a pistol everyday in the military. Alot of those guns had a long military record but was that because they were good guns or because they sat in a armory? The military also have buckets of parts and how many times does a gun go in for repair and sit there before its back on duty?

Dink

I'm from California, and I'm aware of many agencies in CA that carry or allow one to carry a 1911. Take a drive through the bay area some day and you'll see a wide variety of pistols in cops holsters, and it seems like a good 1/3 of them are 1911's. Dozens and dozens of small departments all over the bay area...You could drive 10 miles down one street and cross 4-5 districts. (South SF, San Bruno, Millbrae, Burlingame, San Mateo, etc. that's within about 7 miles along the 101)

I had a friend who was searching for someone with his Glock in his hand when the suspect jumped out of the bushes at close range. My friend's instantaneous reaction was to thunk the guy with his Glock. The slide somehow jumped the rail but did not come off the rail entirely. The gun could not be cleared on the spot, and armorers had to go to some effort to clear it. My understanding was that it would not have fired had the trigger been pulled. I saw a picture of the gun but it was about 8 years ago and I cannot recall it with sharp detail. (Another friend experienced no problem with his Beretta when he did the same thing.) To me, this is not really a reason to disparage Glocks, just something to keep in mind, and it also supports the case for carrying backups.

Yeah, for minor bumps and dings, the polymer guns weather the wear much better than steel; I can agree with that. But for heavy abuse, the polymer guns are at a decided disadvantage. Still, one would hope you could take good enough care of your gun regardless of make, that it isn't taken out by being dropped or ran over.

Many of the people who are irrationally rabid about Glocks 100% dismiss the DHS �Frisbee� test which is pretty foolish if you ask me. First off, Glock didn�t dismiss it�they fixed it and the Gen 3 Glocks I�m told will pass that test (haven�t been able to talk any Glock owners into letting me throw their pistol like a Frisbee onto concrete). I became aware of that phenomenon back in the very early �90�s at a pistol match, when a guy with an early Glock 20 took a face plant with his Glock moving to another shooting station. He hit down hands first, slamming his pistol pretty hard on the rocks (gravel), popping the slide right off the gun. Something broke when that happened, because on the next stage, he drew his gun, fired one round, and when the slide returned to battery, it fell off the front of the gun. Still, that was a very EARLY Glock, and like I said, Glock has addressed this.

+1 Some amazing and inexplicable statements coming out of DINK here.

I've noticed, if you ask the Glock Jihad to explain why they believe their Glock is vastly superior to every other design, they almost always default to Glock vs. 1911 mode and pretend every other pistol design does not exist. Just another curious and amusing aspect of the affliction.

That's good, can I use that?

RufusG I think that is because, Sig, HK and few others all build dependable pistols but the majority of people carry a Glock or 1911. I would bet that there are thousands of glocks sold to every sig, hk, etc. that is sold in this part of the country.

Dink

Absolutely

Allahu glockbar!!

I thought you had me on ignore. Hawkeye my opinions are based on years of carrying a pistol everyday. Not just after school like you do.

Everyone wants to talk about what great military pistol the 1911 was but I am not real sure how hard those pistols were used. I can take one of our Glocks and put it in the armory and get it out in 100 years and call it a great pistol but was it? I can get that pistol out on qualification days for the next 100 years but does that make it a great pistol?

I would like to see the service records for 1911's that were used/abused everday. I think the results would surprise alot of people.

The Glock has not made its mark on the world just because it is affordable. If that was the case it would have been replaced by Hi-point. The Glock made its mark on the world because it works every time you pull the trigger. It replaced the 1911 as every cops gun because it works when the 1911 won't.

I still like the 1911 but when push comes to shove and my azz is on the line I will take the Glock everytime.

Dink

My point is that they weren't asked to show why the Glock is superior to the 1911, they were asked to explain why it's superior to everything, because that's the way they were talking to begin with. But they change their tune pronto when push comes to shove.

And I honestly have no idea what the ratio of different manufacturers of handguns per usage might be in MO, but I would be willing to bet it cannot be 1000 to 1 for say Glock vs. Sig or S&W or XD or Ruger if you are talking about civilian sales.

Are you trying to tell me you think the 1911 made it through 65 years of military service in the US with very little hard use? Look, in the 1980�s I worked for a very large small arms importer called Pacific International. We imported surplus arms from all over the world that were mostly WWII leftovers. We imported over 10,000 Browning Hi Powers, all of which went through my hands, and nearly as many GI 1911�s. The 1911�s all showed signs of heavy use. Most had heavily used barrels, many barrels were no longer capable of stabilizing a bullet (one day I�ll tell ya�ll a funny story about that). All appeared to have the original parts and as horrible as they all looked, the vast majority of them were still in working order.

We took these thousands of guns, about 50 at a time, and pulled them completely apart, sorting the parts into bins. All the parts were re-finished and the guns were re-assembled from random parts from the bins, and every last one of those pistols left there in 100% functioning condition. A small number of them had replaced barrels, and a slightly larger number had replaced magazines. Remarkably, most of them left with the original grips. I honestly can�t think of a single 1911 in that bin that went into the smelter because it wasn�t salvageable.

Now I�d like to see a Glock show up in a huge wooden bin of 5,000�after 50 years of military service in two world wars; and still be ready for duty�I wouldn�t bet the farm on that one.

If you question how hard life was on US military 1911�s, then you simply don�t know anything about small arms in military service. Even for nations that typically don�t go to war, small arms go through hell in military service. Brazilian 1911�s have had a hard life�when was the last time you heard of Brazil going to war?

You can rest assured, the 1911 didn�t have an easy life in military service. It's unparallelled service record that is matched by no other firearm since the invention of firearms, was earned the hard way, in every chit filled mud hole the world saw fit to offer battle.

If you disbelieve any of what I said, I�ll put you in contact with my co-workers who can verify that if anything, I�m softening up the story.

now wait a minute, you are going to far when you call people who truely know motorcycles "wingdingers"
that shows your alligence to 50year old technolgy that vibrates you to death. You call always tell when you are on a road harly's went through, my the various parts that fell off and are beside the road and the bikes too for that matter.

It's my habit to put proven jackasses on ignore, so that I can choose when I wish to see their posts, rather than being forced to, i.e., it's for my convenience, not for your protection.About four months of every year I carry concealed from rising till sack time, every day. The remainder of the year that only holds true on weekends. As for the remainder of days, I carry from about 3:30 PM till I hit the sack. Been carrying concealed for about 31 years now. I'll stack my accumulated concealed carry time, if that's an important figure for you, against yours.

Kevin I know nothing about small arms use in the military.

Think about this. Do you really think any pistol can be a duty weapon almost everday for 65 years. I say no way. Those pistols seen alot of down time and sat on shelf. In my opinion those pistols were probaly shot a few times a year and issued and carried a few weeks out of the year.

For a pistol to make it 65 years and two wars it could not have been carried daily and shot often.

I think when glocks are 65 years old and arrive in barrels that a large percent of them will still be ready to go straight from the barrel. Of course alot them will have sat around somewhere and only shot a few times a year also.

I said this before but there are several Glocks that have been documented to have been shot one million times. Is there any 1911 that has been?

Dink

Call me a Jackass....That almost hurt my feeling.

How you getting four months a year off? My wife is a teacher and would really like to know?

Hawkeye I don't think we can count when you only carry your 5 shot 22 mag. Thats not really a fighting handgun. I don't care how many pair of nunchucks, sticks or clubs you carry with it it's still not a fighting handgun.

Hawkeye I have carried a gun a for long time. I have a job that lets me carry a gun everyday. As far as I know you have never worked a single job that you carry a pistol. Carrying one around after school does not carry much weight with me.

Dink

Well, your opinion is wrong. During war time, those guns were typically in the field, every day. Were they fired every day? Hell no! But you can bet they were carried every day, and saw service far worse than any cop would ever subject a pistol to. Talk to a vet who carried a pistol during war time. Every last one I know will tell you their pistol never left their side their entire tour, which depending on the conflict was anywhere from one to five years. And then only the soldier went home, the pistol stayed in service.

Look, you're talking about something you think. I'm talking about something I know. I've been in the military arsenals. I personally SAW and rebuilt those thousands of WWII pistols. I know what kind of life they saw, becuse it was very evident. Hell, every now and again, you'd see one that still had blood on them (saw about 5 or 6 of those, kinda creepy). So you're making suppositions, but I'm telling you, that while SOME pistols certainly had exactly the life you mention, the vast majority did not. The reason is because the US never had enough pistols to go around. In WWI, we supplemented 1911�s with Colt and S&W revolvers. In WWII stateside and reserve units continued to use the Colt and S&W revolvers, while wartime production was divvied up between the US and the UK. After 1945, the US never bought 1911�s again, and just continued to refurbish what they had. So those pistols by and large all had very hard lives, were fired a lot, and were rebuilt several times.

There�s no escaping it, the 1911 has a military service record that is going to be very difficult for any pistol to contend with.

On that, we disagree. I'm not picking on Glock, I just find it hard to believe any polymer pistol will truely hold together for a full 50 years of military service.

You may hae said it before, but I've never heard of such a thing. Do you have anything more concrete than "you said it before" on that one?

I strongly believe that polymer frames are more forgiving of high round counts than steel. But they're not very forgiving of impact, which WILL come to every pistol at some point in military service.

He has nothing "concrete" except that which fills the void between his ears.

Dan

Kevin I have the article at home. If I can find it I will list what issue it was in. I believe it is in one of the Massad Ayoob annuals from a few years ago. Glock issues a certificate to the range with the pistol serial number on it. They were range pistols from a indoor in range in California.

Dink

You got any thing that says they weren't shot that many times dumb chit? Or you just stupid all the time? I can probaly guess the answer.

Dink

Kevin of all the soldiers that are seen on TV over seas how many are seen to be wearing a pistol? I don't know the answer to that but I am sure someone does but I have not seen very many.

Dink

A former coworker of mine was a US Marine Corps tank commander in the first gulf war. He carried a Beretta M9 constantly while there.

I need to stand up and eat a little crow.

Remember the thread I started a few weeks ago about glocks? and how they "just work?"

Well...

I picked up a gen 4 glock 19 yesterday. Man, that thing feels good in my hand. I also bought the new Springfield XDm 9mm compact about a week ago. I'm going to keep the one I like the best.

I've run about 200-250 rounds of cheap UMC ammo through both so far. The XDm has done very well, but has failed to lock the slide back after the last round multiple times. I attribute that to the new spring and weak ammo.

The new glock 19 had 3 malfunctions. Two FTFs and one FTE. After doing some research, it looks like glock has a problem. The gen4 19s have an issue with the spring, and it's not doing things the way it should. It is more picky about ammo and may need a "break in" period. From what I read, glock is recommending that people don't use 115 grain ammo, because it's not powerful enough, and that the new spring was designed for "duty ammo".

Here's a thread that describes what people are seeing better than I can. http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1276554

And here's a vid that's worth watching:
http://vuurwapenblog.com/2010/09/16/glock-19-gen-3-vs-gen-4/

Bottom line: glock has a problem with the new gen 4. They'll fix it, certainly, but these new ones aren't as "perfect" as the gen 3's.

Reminds me of the old saying.......if it aint broke, dont fix it.

I've used both Glocks and 1911's (that's usually what gets compared).

I carried a 1911 - I had a choice to carry one or the other and chose the 1911, in South Texas.

I just can NOT find any compelling reason to carry a Glock OVER another pistol. That doesn't say they are bad - just not BETTER than anything else I've owned. Lotsa rounds through 2 Glocks (shipmate had em) in 9mm and 357 Sig. Completely underwhelming in all respects.

Granted, my data set is small. 4 1911's (2 kimbers, a Colt and a Colt 70 series in 38 Super in the original cardboard box) and I can think of exactly one failure with it.

First shot my wife took with it - classic limp wrist problem. Never happened again - they were not tuned guns in any sense.

You can shoot what you want, I'll shoot what I want but it will not be a Glock - there are better choices out there for me. Easily.

So the range says this Glock has a million rounds through it and Glock says ok, heres a piece of paper? I seriously doubt anyone at the range took the time to go and confirm every round fired through that Glock and that is the only way to "document" such a thing.

I saw a new ad in Combat Handguns with a P30 that fired just under 100k with no major failures.......seems absurd they would make such a paltry claim with a bunch of million round Glocks running around.

Warpig the article said when the gun was rented they had to buy the ammo at the store. So they kept track by the boxes of ammo that was sold when the guns were rented.

I was not there just telling what the article was about.

Dink

so we got rabid Glock owners...

The brotherhood of the 1911...

The fraternal order of the Hi-Power...

The Sig Meisters...

now P7M8's? That's a Cult...

dryflyelk:

FWIW, I have a Generation III 17C. When it was new, it wouldn't reliably function with WW white box 115s. I figured it needed a little breaking in. I also figured I'd shoot 124s in it, and see if that cured the problem.

Boy, did it. Never a failure after that.

My theory, based on a sample of one, is that the 17 was designed for military ammo, and I'd be better off sticking with that weight and velocity range for any serious self defense work. (Speer Gold Dots 124gr. +P for business.)

Shot a bunch of 124gr hardball for practice for a while, without issue. Then tried the Wally World White Box 115s again, and now they seem to work just fine.

All of which doesn't prove a whole lot, except that it works for me.

(My local Wally World had some RWS 124gr hardball last year. See if you can get some of that good stuff. It'll make your 19 sing!)

- Tom

Dood,

I'm really sorry to hear about your pistol. Glock isn't immune to the "new gun" bug and has experienced it before. The early Glock 22's were a nightmare, but Glock ironed out the issues and the G22 is an excellent pistol today.

I'm sure Glock will make it right if you give them the chance.

Glock gets a ton more law enforcement sales than it does military sales. If I had to guess, they're focusing a bit too much on the .40 pistols. When they made the G22, they tried to just soup up a G17 and found that a .40 really needed to be designed as a .40 from the get go, rather than adapting a 9mm to .40. If I had to guess, it seems to me that they're perhaps doing the opposite now; focusing on the .40's since that's their bread and butter, and then adopting the G22 into a G17. This is pure speculation on my part though. I'm sure Glock will work it out.

In the mean time, it seems that the Gen 4 9mm's have a very strong preference for NATO spec or +P 9mm. While that stuff is awfully expensive, I'm betting it will work well in your Gen 4.

Yep.

I guess it's made me ask myself "Should a pistol that's destined to be a defensive sidearm - REQUIRE a break in period to function properly?"

Granted that's got nothing to do with "you should be proficient with your weapon" - we all would agree on that but I can't guarantee I'll not need it before that happens.

Just something I wondered about after reading about this "break in" period.

Actually it kinda was broken. No, the gun worked just fine, but the most recent RFP for a replacement service pistol for the US had the requirement of a "changable grip" or backstrap, like the Walther, S&W, Taurus, etc. Glock found they didn't meet the requirement. So they rushed to get one up and going, and right as they're about to release the new Gen 4, the US cancels the RFP. Still, I'm sure Glock sees that as what will be required in the future and from a marketing standpoint, you really don't want to be caught making the wrong pistol when Uncle Sam goes shopping for a new sidearm again.

I tell you, many would be surprised... but when it comes time for a new service pistol, you won't find me betting against Taurus. They built the OSS for submission to the US and that is one serious pistol. Taurus has manufacturing capability that far exceeds any firearm maker in the world today. If Taurus decides they want it bad enough, they have the know how and resources to be a serious contender. You're laughing at me now, but just remember, you heard it from me first.

"You got any thing that says they weren't shot that many times dumb chit? Or you just stupid all the time?"


You made the claim. If you can't back it up, that identifies the dumb chit.

Still, it took me absolutely 48 seconds to find the reference you are alluding to on the internet. Your memory is fuzzy. There are no "proven" Glocks that have fired 1,000,000 rounds. However, Glock has tested a barrel that has fired 1 million rounds in a torture test. It still works. That's not to say it is still very accurate.

But, after reading your writing, I'll rest assured that your calling me "stupid" will be a badge of honor for me.

Dan

the front site was the factory plastic site known for breaking off. it was an easy fix replaced it wiyh some nite sights.

the polymer pin broke after 8000 rounds.

iv'e owned plenty of 1911s from various makers. my old remington rand 45 feeds ball rounds great, but will not cycle any hollow point ammo iv'e tried. the others shot fine, but if the gun started to get real dirty it would hang up.

don't get me wrong i like alot of different pistols, but for me the glock is the one. light weight, capacity for it's size, reliability, and it just feels good in my hand.

and for a off duty and backup the j frame is about perfect for me.

If you read the Book "We Were Soldiers Ans Young Once" or saw the movie you'll notice that St. Major Plumley only used a 1911 the entire fire fight

i guess while i'm throwing my opinions around, i'll float this one

i think the 40 s/w is a little better defensive cartridge then the 45 acp

How can that possibly be? It's only 40 cal

165 grain speer gold dot.

it mangles like a rapid pitball

255 grain hard cast at 925 FPS when shot with that it removes the finger prints.........NOW THAT'S LOAD

Tell you what dumb chit. I have literally thousands of issues of magazines/books that once were all kept in a spare bedroom. It was my archive room. There are Probaly 15+ years of stuff written about guns, gunfights, sniper shots etc. that I have kept. Since a new baby will be here soon all of it is in storage but as soon as I get the time I will dig the article out and post it for you. I will even give you the page numbers because I know even with the correct issue in hand it would be hard for you to locate it.

I see the reference about the barrel going a million rounds and that was not what this article was about.

Dink

Imagine the arguments that surely took place (double action vs. single) back when double action revolvers were coming into use.

That would have been fun to listen to.

Landrum

Not much of an argument to be made there, since the double action could be fired in either the single or double action mode, and double action favored getting off fast repeat shots.

Maybe not, but you can bet there were arguments.

Landrum

If so, it was likely based on the fact that a skilled single action shooter can get off a round from an uncocked holstered revolver faster than can an equally skilled man with a double action revolver no matter which mode he chose. That's about the only advantage of the single action because it's designed to be manually cocked as it's coming up out of the holster, so it can be fired very fast for that first shot out of the holster.

Can be shot very faster for more than 1 shot


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkViQc1KC-g


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsU5AMxvlKg

I know. I've seen him before. That double shot on the two balloons is a nice trick. He cocks it the first time with his draw hand and the second time with his other hand. After his first two shots, though, this guy here would blow his speed away using a double action revolver.

I need to find the video where Munden shoots all six and it is SUPER FAST

Maybe this one will do


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRXXxQ1OuDc

I'm gonna bet right here that the range in question also sells Glocks - at a pretty good profit.

No doubt about that.

Anybody that sells Glocks will tell you that there is very little profit in sellingthem, the margins a re so small that one shop I know didnt even stock them. This guy had every high end gun you could imagine but no Glocks were to be found. He said there was no point in trying to price match the 10k other gun dealers in the Phoenix area. He says that most shops were selling at 10-15 bucks over cost and it wasnt worth the hassle.

He's the best of the best with a single action, for sure, but comparison to my video demonstrates the superior potential of the double action revolver.

To be fair, Hawkeye, it would be interesting to see the double action guy do that trick with something from the same era (1870s or a little later). Perhaps a Colt 1877 or some other early DA design.

Landrum

I cannot speak for pre-Hand Ejector model S&Ws regarding double action trigger quality, but the Hand Ejector models started coming out just before the turn of the Twentieth Century, and he could do the same with any of them, I'm sure, if it was tuned to his liking.

Those new fangled double actions ain't reliable. Too many fragile parts that put it out of action. Now to be fair, even a Colt can break, but if'n my Colt breaks the hammer spring deep in Commanche territory I can still use a rock to hit it and set off the bullet. Try that with a "hammer blocking" DA.

Colt Single Actions have been putting dicks in the dirt since the 40's. You think the US Army would'a stuck by them for so long if they didn't work? Even after catridges was invented those old Colt Navys kept on goin'. My friend Rooster, who is a US Marshal and knows guns, carries a brace across his saddle horn for when he has to face multiple adversaries.

Try throwin' a DA like you would a Frisbee pie plate onto some brick lined street like they got in them high falutin' cities and see what happens.

Hmm, what other arguments can I come up with to show there's nothing new under the sun?

Idunno, but it probably won't have anything to do with plastic front sights.

Dink, I knew him quite well and talked at lenth with him about the incident.
He couldn't shoot the guy because he was carrying a new gun in Condition 3, since he didn't have any faith in Conditions 1&2. He didn't know how to break down a Series 70 either. I had to show him how to do that. BTW, I also showed him how to chamber a round one handed if he insisted on carrying it in Condition 3.
They were newly approved as duty weapons back then. He came to me because he knew I had one that I carried as a duty weapon.
I, as have lots of others, have used guns as a club. That might sound strange but, the truth is, nobody shoots anyone in law enforcement if there is any way to avoid it. Particularly in Kalifornia. I've known cops that even refused to return fire. I've known guys that were shot dead when the BG wouldn't drop his gun when so ordered at gun point.
The ability of a duty gun to survive being used as a club in a desparate situation is a fact of life that I can't ignore having been there and done it.
Glocks aren't for me. For that and other reasons. They are excellent guns I feel for those with minimal training and experience. For instance, those that really need to own handgun but who have little interest in them. But to claim that they are somehow always reliable is nonsense. No gun can claim that. E

Pretty much a given that anybody who sells anything will tell me the markup isn't much.

There are two basic schools of profit. 1)Sell the high-end product to a small market at a high margin. 2)Sell the not-so-special product in high numbers at a small margin. Make that three schools...3)Sell at little or no margin and profit on the care and feeding - or the upgrade.

Just sayin' - those shop's that sell Glocks aren't doing it out of some sort of altruism...and marketing colors everything.

I've worked behind the gun counter at two different stores in my life. Mark up on all firearms is very small (Stores make their money on ammo and other gun/hunting related supplies). On the back of the ticket hanging on each gun is a code by which salesmen can know what the store's cost is, all factors considered, on the gun, which is how I know. Next to that was the rock bottom price to accept from a hard dealing customer, which was very little more.

It's surprising to me how polarizing topics like this are because I like 'em both!!

I used to have and shoot two 1911 45s and two Glock 45s and two Glock 9mms. To me, they each had up-sides but I made a conscious decision to consolidate my pistol collection and chose the Glock 9mm G19 and G26. They both shoot well and are cheap enough to shoot that I shoot them a lot more than I would a 1911 45acp or even a Glock 45acp.

That being said, if money wasn't an issue for me, I'd shoot a 1911 45 because I REALLY like the way they feel/shoot and I'd be able to shoot it enough to be proficient with it as well.

...fits school #3. An $800 gun as opposed to an $1100 gun. Both reliable, but one leaves $300 to spend on more profitable items.

I'm not saying that is what's going on here. But it seems a little odd to assume the "million round gun" story is true on it's face, without seriously considering the possibility that the story is...um...enhanced. I don't believe much of what I hear from or in most gun stores (or the 'net) without some tangible proof, because I have a pretty good idea how much BS is flowing there. That goes to the OP's question I think.

Seriously, that's the best reason on this thread to own a [insert handgun of your choice].

He's also shooting a highly modified 8 shot revolver

Not always. Sometimes he's shooting a six shooter. Do you think that fellow's single action revolver hasn't received the tender care of a gunsmith?

I have to rate the hilarity of the irony there. Kudos

Well, no one said I'm normal

I'm pretty sure Jerry Miculek uses stock revolvers with the same action job you can get from Clark Custom for $125. He likes S&W due to their fast trigger rebound.

Jerry Miculek uses a whole bunch of different revolvers. Early on in his IPSC career, he shot an 8 3/8" S&W 27 that had a serrated thin trigger in place of he wide target trigger. Jerry has also used some of the 8 shot 27's and 6 shot 625's in competition as well. The guy is very good at what he does. What I like about Jerry is that he recognizes what's right for him isn't necessarily right for the next guy. At a match one time, I was shooting a 6" S&W 29 and he was shooting a 625 and we started talking about triggers. He told me he liked a serrated trigger because contrary to "common logic" he didn't like his finger slipping around on a DA trigger. I agreed with him, and told him that I have a strong preference for the S&W wide serrated target trigger for DA work even though it was created for single action bullseye shooting. He paid me a very generous complement by saying it seems to be working very well for me. Still, when it's coming from Jerry, you can't help but feel like he's just being kind, 'cause he can handily whip the crap out of most anyone with ease. In my heyday, if I was using an auto and Jerry was using a revolver, I could make it at least LOOK close. But these days, he'd just hand me my arse without even trying.

I dont like Glocks for 1 reason and 1 reason only: They dont shoot where I'm pointing. They shoot high for me when point shooting, the only handgun I have had this problem with. As far as reliability, my Sigs(3) have been 100% reliable, I had some hangups with my old Glock.

I don't know about now, but I recall that Jerry used to install a heavier rebound spring in his guns to insure a positive reset and prevent short stroking.

This thread is why I do not spend much time here on the fire anymore. People start a thread to start an argument.

Is that why you put your .02 in, and bumped it ot the top. If you dont like it, why are you here? You knew what this thread was about and yet you still read it and chimed in. If you dont like the people or the thread....dont read it.

Wild guess here: big Glock fan?

Not rabid here. Just appreciate the function, reliability, and ease of maintenance.


270

Are those the ones that can't handle a 1911........kinda like the kids that need training wheels?

MM

In my opinion, the myth of the Glock began some time in the '90's. I clearly recall then, hearing the most incredible stories about Glocks...That they could be run over by a truck and still work like a timex, that they were impervious to saltwater, that they never suffered a jam, even with el cheapo ammo, and so on.
I have never heard such claims about any other gun, however, I think the Glock was so new, that most people didn't know them, and were ready to believe almost anything.
What is particularly surprising, is that now Glocks are well known, yet the myth continues. I actually think Glocks are good pistols, with a combination of marketing genius, and simple, innovative design-they were in the right place at the right time.
Speaking purely for myself, I find the negative features of Glocks outweigh their positives. What are some of these negatives? Polygonal rifling cannot accept cast bullets. The sights are fragile. The dimensions of the gun makes it unsuitable for a variety of carry options. Anything that can move the trigger will fire the gun. The grip frame is poorly executed. The Damn thing is downright hideous.
Add to this the fact that Glock is hardly a tack driver, and you wind up in reality-hardly the legend some would make it out to be.
No doubt there are some who the Glock fits perfectly. I certainly believe for these folks its a great match. However, I have my own suspicion with the Glock myth, that people try to live up to it because it is so pervasive, and so fanatically defended. They want it to be true so badly that they wave every flag on the block, as if by sheer vehemence, the rest of us will believe it too.

Nice summary.

I don't know a Glock shooter who isn't satisfied with their weapon. Of course, they have a different level of satisfaction than I do.

Dan

There it is. Sheesh, Dan, if you woulda said that earlier you woulda saved everyone a lot of time.

Amen!

I think that might have been true in the 90's but if they could not have lived up to some of the hype they would have never been the success that they are today. Look at Kimber rifles. When they first appeard on the market they were the greatest thing since sliced bread. Now that they have been around for while and put out a bunch of crappy rifles everyone knows if you buy one its a crap shoot.

The glock may not be a tack driver but most people are not good enough pistol shots to tell the difference. I would be that less than 1% of the people are good enough to tell the difference when shooting off hand at 25 yards between a glock and the finest wilson combat.

No one has to believe that a glock pistol is good. Its record will speak for itself.

Dink

its all foolishness anyway. My next will be another Glock 45ACP model 21, these people that have so many things fail on them should just stay home all their lives and hide under their beds.

You keep missing the point/changing the question. It's not about whether they are good or not, no one is contesting that. It's about whether SOME proponents of the design obnoxiously rant about how superior they are to everything else and ignore the readily available evidence that they are not.

Just what are you trying to educate people towards Kevin or is it contained in this multi page topic somewhere? Please let me know what pistol I should buy according to you. Which one really is superior over all the rest?

Yes, this target is only shot at 10 yards, but it's shot with one hand at ten yards unsupported. There's five in this group.

Glock owners, step up. Let's see your 10 yard, one handed, unsupported targets. No cheating now.

Jimmyp: Kevin was being a tad funny. It was mild teasing. That's another thing Glock owners can't take.

Dan

RufusG in my opinion they are superior for the average person for several reasons. No safety, de-cocker, they will run dirty or clean, and they are plenty accurate. When grabbing one from the holster one does not have take a special grip to makes sure the grips safety is depressed far enough down and the thumb can still reach the safety.

When chit hits the fan one only has to worry about the front sight and trigger control. When the fight is over there is no jacking around with trying to make the gun safe. Finger off the trigger and the gun is safe.

The glock does not need throated or polished to run hollow points. It does not need flared ejection ports or tuned extractors. A glock just needs shot.

When purchased they usually do need to be sent to a gunsmith to make a better pistol they are good to go from the box as long as they are fitted with night sights.

They may be ugly and the grip angle may not work for some people but there no denying that they work with a simple pull of the trigger.

Is that better?

Dink

Jimmyp are you really questioning a gun writer? How dare you.......

Dink

it matters not to me, I have had a lot of different pistols and still own a lot of different pistols. The P7M8 is the easiest for me to hit with and yet I worry about using it all the time unless I use it all the time.

The double action then single action auto pistols I got rid of and I have had Sigs and Smith and Wessons never liked the plastic H&K's enough and at one point their combo decocker, safety switch was an mistake, plus I have seen the earlier ones back out of the pistol during firing. The 1911, Smith Revolver, and Glock/Kahr are the ones I have stayed with, except of course I own one P7M8. I just want Kevin to tell me which one of the pistols is truely superior so I will know which one to buy next.

Do you ever worry about the p7 when drawing it from a holster? I always wanted one but for some reason it bothers me to grip it in a holster. I know that with the safety depressed it would be just about like a glock but for some reason it bothers me.

Dink

Jimmy

I mentioned the NRA Instructor's course in an earlier post. I didn't mention that one of the attendants had the front sight of his Glock pop off during a shooting exercise. Now...I know that other guns can have sights come loose, but the thought that Gaston Glock would initially put a plastic sight on his pistol and expect it to be durable...and then to expect shooting enthusiasts would embrace that is a bit laughable. That so many have...makes me wonder about said enthusiasts common sense.

Yes...Glocks "work." Well, hammers work too, but thank God, they're made of steel.

Dan

No, it's not and the point continues to escape you.

Read this slowly, as many times as you have to for it to sink in.

There are other (many) guns with no safety or decocker (though how a decocker makes a gun too complicated escapes me; how about having to pull the trigger to disassemble?).

There are other (many) guns that will run dirty or clean.

There are other (many) guns that are "plenty accurate".

There are other (many) guns that do not need throated or polished to run hollow points.

There are other (many) guns that do not need to be sent to a gunsmith.

Few guns have a grip safety.

You do not get to cherry pick the design you are comparing your gun to.

Is absolutely any of this registering?

NONE! Thats his whole point! None are superior to the other, NONE! He wants to know why Glock people constantly make that claim.

Now there's a post that makes some sense in light of the original question, thank you for your well considered post.
It does seem that a certain mystique has been created. I remember that Glocks were looked upon with a lot of suspicion until Chuck Taylor wrote his famous article on his experiences with the Glock. That prompted a lot of people to give the Glock a serious hard look, and the brand seemed to take off from there. High round �endurance� testing became popular because people, mostly in their ignorance, thought that was some sort of legitimate end all test, when in reality it is but one of several tests a pistol must pass to be on its way to greatness. But those articles created a lot of buzz, and sold a lot of magazines. I think since Glock was the one pistol to come along in more than a generation that truly was different, coupled with the fact that it was a good gun, and gun writers used it to introduce, or popularize the �endurance� tests, all combined to create a mystique around the gun the remains today.

Glock capitalized by focused law enforcement sales and an outstanding marketing campaign; one of the best the industry has ever seen. Since Glock missed out on the US handgun trials that ended up with the Beretta, Glock did the next best thing to establish itself as a �benchmark� pistol; conquer the law enforcement market. They did so with outstanding marketing and great customer service to law enforcement. They were also very much helped along by S&W�s lack of focus in the �80�s where they were trying to be everything to everyone. With S&W�s �gun of the month� club, S&W didn�t really know which gun they should be running in the new market that was now only interested in auto�s (and if you ask me, they still seem to be lost in the woods, look how quickly they created an alternative to the M&P). With S&W�s lack of a focused direction, and Glock�s very effective focus, they easily swept the LE market. Glock had some serious quality control issues when they made the jump to .40 S&W (the sad part is, S&W by then had an outstanding .40 in the .4006). The early Glock 22�s were a disaster, I saw them having a ton of problems early on, mostly failures to fire in the striker mechanism. But Glock recovered that debacle better than any maker I�ve ever seen. It could have been a total disaster, yet they fixed the gun and the Glock 22 is THE benchmark standard in law enforcement handguns today.

So with the law enforcement market wrapped up, all the hoopla over the magazine torture tests, Glock found they had earned an excellent reputation. I think the internet played a role in the Glock hysteria. Internet gurus not only believed all the hype, they began adding to it. Then from all the buzz in the internet, people started believing that the Glock really was some sort of super-pistol. And people being people, when evidence of Glocks being less than �perfect� came out, these internet guru�s had too much of their ego wrapped up in their choice of pistol, and just refused (and still do) to accept any evidence that the Glock was anything but �perfect�. Writer Dean Spier started documenting catastrophic failures in Glock pistols in the early �90�s and his persistent documentation of such failures eventually cost him his career as Glock would no longer advertize in any magazine that carried his byline. Spier tried a few aliases but eventually they were found out and the editors were forced to not use Spier.

Now Spier is a rather Narcissistic and cantankerous fellow who really doesn�t suffer fools well (something him and I have in common � the suffering fools part). But this I can say, I never once caught him in the act of lying or not reporting truthfully the actual facts of anything. Yes Glock�s have some issues. No they�re not perfect. I find it weird that some people refuse to acknowledge ANY flaw in the Glock; to me that defies logic. Most every other pistol in the world has their followers. Most of those people who are seriously into XYZ pistol will quickly tell you what the flaws are of their favorite pistol; they�re proud they know the design that well. But with Glock owners, the guys who are really into the Glock distinguish themselves by having some good argument as to why some known issue isn�t an issue. It�s a strange phenomenon that�s really about ego, and for some reason the Glock people tie a bit of their identity to their choice in pistol. I�ve always been perplexed by it, it�s a strange phenomenon.

My Sig 229 DAK, has no safety, no decocker, runs dirty or clean, requires no gunsmithing,throating, polishing, no grip safety, is as accurate(if not more). So tell me how the Glock is superior for the "average person" and this Sig is not?

Yep.

Jimmy,

This thread isn�t about that. I�m trying to understand why people ascribe super-status to the Glock, that�s it, nothing more. Now if you have no interest in the subject, then that�s fine. I didn�t create this thread to be a bitching contest. There are some people who will say things about a Glock that are irrational. I don�t see that going on about any other pistol out there, so I�m trying to understand why people are so passionate about a Glock that they will say irrational things. It�s a weird phenomenon, just trying to understand it.

As a writer I�m not here to TELL anyone what they should buy, my job is to inform people about what�s out there, the strengths and weakness of each.

Average person can not manage the 12lb DAO trigger pull. Set a target at 25 yards and have a few people shoot groups with it.

I tested one of the sig DAO and most of the people in my department could not shoot one.

Dink

Well said, Kevin. In my life, I've owned three Glocks. The first two I bought in fairly rapid succession very soon after their introduction into the market, i.e., a 19 and a 22. Never liked the way they felt in my hand or pointed. Never have been able to work the trigger well, which to me felt rather like a staple gun, and I had cut my teeth on fine S&W double action revolvers and crisp 1911 single actions, so that was unacceptable. Didn't like the way they felt when carried IWB, rather like trying to carry a brick in your waistband. Sold those two, even though they proved completely reliable with anything I fed them. Then, years later, I kept reading such wonderful press on the model I succumbed and bought another one, at which point I was reminded why I got rid of the first two, so sold it. Just cannot warm up to the Glock. Doesn't hold a candle to either a K-Frame S&W revolver or a proven reliable 1911, IMO, but mileage varies, I guess. I do agree with you, however, that a lot of what makes people so loyal is that they fell for the hype, backed it up to the hilt, and then became immune to any facts to the contrary. Lots of their supporters probably even started with the Glock, and didn't first cut their teeth on better earlier designs, thinking them old fashioned, so have no reference point.

List the guns you are refering to? None will have as good a service record as the glock in the striker fired pistols.

Lets see I have heard bad things about the S&W Mp and have personally seen one in 9mm that would not run. Very few police departments are using these so no one knows about there durability over the long haul.

I don't know of any departments using the Ruger or Kahr. I also do not see many of these at the range so who knows about durability.

The XD has a grip safety and I believe is available with a safety.

Any Sig or S&W in DAO will have a trigger pull that most people can't shoot.

Please list your pistols.

Dink

Jimmy,

That�s kind of the point, there is no one pistol that is superior to all others, yet some Glock owners will tell you that the Glock is so obviously superior that anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. The truly SUPERIOR pistol is the one that:

Functions flawlessly with the ammunition you intend to use
Is accurate enough that you can hit what you shoot at
Fits your hand
Is comfortable to shoot
Is of a size and weight that fits the individuals needs
Is pleasing to the eye of the beholder
Is enjoyable for the shooter to shoot

Of all those things I listed (and one could add to that list), all but the first one are subjective; that�s the point. The perfect pistol is subjective, and changes from shooter to shooter. There is no one size fits all, for every situation and every shooter. There is no one pistol that functions better than any other pistol in existence under any and all circumstances. There is no pistol that will pass every test and be number one every last time.

Good thing I said DAK and not DAO.

I used to do LE sales for H&K, I'm not sure I understand your concern. When drawing or reholstering, there's no worry unless you have the frontstrap/cocking lever engaged. To re-holster, you just ease your grip a touch and slide it in. During presentation, you can engage the cocking lever pretty much at any point, and as long as your finger is off the trigger, you're fine. Like anything else that's a bit different, it takes a little getting used to, but it doesn't take very long and you're working it like a pro.

Warpig its still a double action only gun with what I consider a long trigger pull. There is also the issue of alot people being able to reach the trigger unless its fitted with a short trigger. I would still bet that the average person will still shoot the 5.5 lb trigger of a glock better than the DAK.

I know the trigger pull is supposed to lighter on these. Have you checked yours to see what it is?

Dink

It would be easy for me to come back with an insulting, point by point (again) refutation of your post, but's it's pretty clear (for a while now, I don't why I wasn't smart enough to leave sooner) it would be a waste of time.

It's also not my obligation to provide any list because everyone here, but you, knows what it is, and you would just ignore it anyway.

The part about "most people" not being able to shoot a Sig or Smith DAO is both amusing and informative. I think I see where you're coming from now.

Your responses on this thread demonstrate the paradox of Kevin's original question: If you asked a rabid dog why he bit you, what would he say?

Have a nice day.

Most can�t shoot a Glock nearly as well as a single action pistol, but that doesn�t preclude the Glock from service. There are hundreds of law enforcement agencies as well as some top level federal agencies that disagree with your assessment. Sig has been the replacement for Glock in a number of cases (I believe that was the case at the FBI).

The transition from DA to SA being some sort of major issue has been bandied about for years, mostly by the gun press (gun writers). While it most certainly IS an issue, I have yet to meet the individual who couldn�t train their way past it, but you have to be willing to do the hard work. If trigger action was THAT important in the selection process for a LE sidearm, everyone would be carrying single action pistols. But the reality is, there are just as many elite units using Sigs, as there are those who use Glock, 1911�s and Hi Powers. Like I�ve been saying, the perfect pistol is not always the same for everyone.

One of the top instructors in the nation, who has done training for the New York police, the FBI Hostage Rescue team, the Italian Carbirineri as well as hundreds of other agencies both in the us and abroad, has carried a DAO pistol for decades as his preferred sidearm, and in all the years I�ve known him, I have never seen him carry a Glock. I saw him carrying a Kahr once, but usually it�s a Sig P229 DAO in .357 Sig.

He has never once said that this trigger or that trigger is �best,� he leaves that up to the individual. But then he trains them how to work with the equipment they have, and the results are very impressive, even for those carrying a traditional DA/SA pistol. Traditional DA/SA has been with us for over 70 years; if the average person is unable to manage the DA/SA trigger, those pistols would have fallen out of favor decades ago.

If his NY training occured recently they were using Glocks.

Really,thats funny, I thought NYPD allows the use of DAO 226's, and smith 5946's, in addition to the Glocks?

So that means you can't come up with any list of pistols.

You have a nice day also.

Dink

No, it means that you are an obvious dimwit and not worth my time.

Since you seem to be the authority on what guns are superior for differetn users.....do tell, what gun is superior for "above average" shooters since the Glock for the average person , according to you.

I don't think the problem is a single action or SA/DA trigger pull. The problem is after the pistol has been used in a defensive situation. How many people will forget to put the safe back on a single action or de-cock a double action? I am going to bet on a bunch.

I think the DAO trigger is fine if you can shoot it. The problem is there are very few people that can shoot it. If you take a glock and put a new york+ trigger in it alot people will not be able to shoot it well.


Dink

The above average user can use what ever they want. They are dedicated to learning about pistols and what makes them work. The above average guy will buy several pistols and shoot a few IDPA or similar shoots. They will find out for themselves what works. They will make rational decisions about safetys, de-cockers, and DAO and wht they will remember use and not use.

There are alot of pistol owners but very few above average pistol owners.

Dink

Yeah - probably about the same number that will forget to make sure nothing gets into the trigger guard when they holster their Glock.



A lot of Kahr and LDA shooters will disagree. So will a lot more revolver shooters.

The dominant sidearm in the NYPD, by far, will be a Glock in a 9MM flavor.

NY State Police will have a Glock model in .45GAP.


Regardless of the make, model or caliber, they are only a tool.

I didn't realize that only striker fired pistols are legitimate for LE use; I disagree.

A sample of one. But since you've seen ONE M&P that didn't work, you postulate that they are junk. So why are you so forgiving of Glock? I've been avoiding this, but I really can�t count how many Glocks I've seen that didn't work. The Glock has been replaced a number of times by many agencies because they didn't work. I didn't mention it because I believe everyone makes a bad pistol from time to time and overall Glock is a quality gun. Glock has always done whatever they could do to make an unhappy department happy, but there have been times where the agency was still unwilling to issue Glocks. Now I could heap every bit of bad press Glock has ever had as evidence that Glock is a �bad� gun; essentially what you�re insinuating about the M&P based on your sample of one. But I honestly don�t believe Glock is a bad gun despite reported problems. When you produce that many guns, you�re bound to have issues from time to time. Back in the days when revolvers were king in LE, S&W M&P K frames had a ton of issues with a number of LE agencies, yet no one today thinks a S&W K frame revolver is junk. It�s because S&W produced oodles of them and sold them to oodles of LE agencies. Like Glock today, S&W worked with the agencies in question, and like Glock today, sometimes those agencies didn�t trust the S&W K frame, and replaced them with something else. The world of LE handguns is a whole lot larger and more complex than you apparently think it is. The S&W M&P pistol is an excellent pistol, despite your experience.

No true, according to this, there are over 330 agencies using the M&P thus far: http://www.bluesheepdog.com/2008/05...ents-latest-worcester-mass-pd-in-45-acp/

that�s a good response, report what you know, not what you think.

That�s your OPINION, but you state it as if it�s fact; this is why you have a credibility problem here.

Well you seem to think it�s only striker fired, trigger cocking pistols that count, but there are LOTS of pistols that are being used in law enforcement with good results:

Any number of S&W�s�M&P, 69 series, 39 series, 40 series, 45 series and lots more
CZ75 is one of the most common pistols in use internationally with numbers very close to Glock
Various Sig models
Various Beretta models
Various Ruger models (Massad Ayoob carries a Ruger 345, used to carry a Ruger P90)
Taurus 92 is extremely well represented in South American military and LE circles (and is an excellent pistol)
Springfield 1911�s and XD�s
Colt�s 1911�s
Browning Hi Power
Makarov
Walther P-38
Walther P5
Various H&K�s

Any number of these pistols can be found in wide spread service all over the world, along with a long list of pistols I failed to mention. You may FEEL that the Glock has a better service record, but there is no way to state that definitively, and if there was a way to make such a definitive statement, you can bet your arse that Glock would be saying it. Even with all Glocks marketing hyperbole, they don�t make such an outlandish claim, but you state it as if it�s some sort of incontrovertible fact, when it most certainly is not. The service record of the Glock can�t even approach that of the Browning Hi Power, yet you don�t see Hi Power nuts saying that the Hi Power is the end all, best pistol in the world and free of any and all faults. Rather, the Hi Power, despite its outstanding service record remains a good solid service pistol with its own share of issues, making it just as mortal as all the rest; even Glock.

Yes that's true, but that doesn't have anything to do with my point, or why I brought him up.

That's simply not true. It's a matter of training, and in training with a particular arm, the use of a decocker or safety is just a part of the manual of arms. After training, and after a shooting event, properly trained people safe their weapon without ever thinking about it; it just happens. If this wasn't true, then there's be some evidence of it, and there would be less of, or no use of DA weapons in military or law enforcement. But the FACT is, there are more DA weapons in service than there are trigger cocking/striker fired weapons in service.

Now we're getting somewhere. YOU can't shoot it, so you extrapolate that to mean that MOST can't shoot it.

YOUR OPINION, but the FACTS don't bear this out.

Most revolvers have DA pulls that are heavier than most DA or DAO autos, yet for generations before the common use of semi-auto's in LE use, officers shot revolvers just fine. What happened?

Sure it does.

You are lightly implying, with your statement, that a credible and experienced instructor does not "believe in" or "trust" a Glock platform because he does not carry one personally.

I'm quite sure this particular instructor accepts and recognizes the Glock as being an adequate tool for self defense, at least at the law enforcement level of service.

Where are you guys getting this stuff?

(Note to self: Future thread to examine relationship between lack of reading comprehension and Glock ownership.)

He's implying nothing of the sort. He's suggesting that there are other perfectly good options, beyond the Glock, which is the whole point of the thread.

You guys are waaay too sensitive. You simply can't see "Lot's of good pistols besides Glocks" as anything but "Glocks suck and so do you".

I could care less about rabid anythings and I think your wasting your time or just baiting people for trying to understand them. How do you understand raw idiocy? I don't visit Glock Talk or AR15.com, don't play the video games and discuss which is better the AK74 or AK47's, don't play air guitar or discuss universal peace. If people want to be queer over their pistols or whatever that is fine I just avoid idiots like that. I have seen a few in love with H&K's that think that the mere fact that they own that particular gun makes a difference in who they are and what they can do. Its too funny. I hope anyone rabid about anything will just fill up a cooler with steaks and beer and bug out to the mountains...

IN the meantime I trust a 9mm model 17 or 19 to perform where a fine Kimber 1911 might fail. That is based on my personal experience. Of course you could always go "akimbo style" with your 1911.....

In gaming, to dual wield is to hold a weapon in each hand. Dual wield may be called akimbo style, though it has little resemblance to the human position of that name. This most commonly refers to matched pairs of handguns but can refer to any other weapon that can be held in one hand such as machine pistols and even melee weapons, although this is more common in role-playing games, where it is usually termed dual wielding

Wrong.
I KNOW that handguns are but a tool. Certain tools fit people and applications differently and that can be quite subjective.
I like them all. Some I will prefer over others. It's really that simple.

If one brings up the fact (which is not in question) that a leading instructor does not personally carry a particular handgun BY BRAND NAME without stating they continue with the ability to successfully train others on that platform, they are leaving out some details.

I guess it's escaped you that the training he provided could have easily been generic to ANY platform the students were using.

I do not know your level of experience or acumen, but there are specifics which are required of an instructor regarding the platform being used.
I'm quite sure this instructor met those requirements, as he was approved by the NYPD Training Division. If the OP is refering to training provided to the NYSP, then their Training Division approved the program for their Troopers.
I highly doubt he openly disparaged the platform predominately used by his students. His subjective personal choice to carry a different platform can not be interpreted as a dislike for the Glock by any means.

This has been great reading, boys. Great fun.

Carry on.

Landrum

Trouble maker.

All I'm suggesting is that if he was teaching a class on "Threat Assessment" or "Weapon Retention" it wouldn't really matter if he had ever seen a Glock before, let alone liked or disliked or recommended or made fun of it.

And my acumen level was pretty high last checkup, but the doc gave me something for it.

I fully agree.
And, the flip side is also true. In no way can it be assumed by anyone that this instructor's personal choice of a different platform or variant does not mean he has no trust in and does not recommend the use of a Glock.

If the doc can give something to improve or raise MY acumen level, please let me know. I'll set an appointment immediately!

I agree as well.

And I'm pretty sure they can only make it go down, not up.

I don't understand, WTM, why it escapes you that Kevin is just sayin' that this instructor doesn't believe the Glock is "be all or end all", and he prefers another gun. It goes directly in hand with the subject of this thread. Yep - you're being too sensitive and looking for a truncated argument.

Incorrect.
I'm not arguing anything. It's only a discussion.

Your premise here can be used to state the instructor does not believe the Beretta, Smith, Springfield, Sig, HK, Colt or any other make and brand of handgun that is not DAO is the "be all or end all" either. This thread happens to have the Glock at it's focus. Because someone chooses something different can not be automatically interpreted as a complete rejection of suitability.

Sounds like the instructor prefers a specific mode of operation (DAO) not a particular name brand.

Okay, so how do you interpret the instructor's choice to carry a Kahr or Sig?

My answer: The instructor considers the Kahr and Sig equal or superior to any other choice. According to Dink the instructor is wrong.

Those happen to be two builders who make DAO type platforms.
If he has only used DAO for years, then a Smith was probably in his leather at one time or another as well.

An experienced person at the instructor level can most likely perform well with any handgun available.

I agree, but according to Dink, that isn't correct.

Are you using 'DAO' to differentiate Glock from Kahr or Sig?

Yes.
DAO is not a Glock.

Ummm, yes it is.

Umm, no it is not.
The Glock "Safe Action" is not a true DAO.
The action of the slide and the striker leaves the pistol in a half-cock state, and the trigger does the other half of the work. It will not allow for a second strike either. That very well may be the only reason the instructor does not carry one. We would have to ask him/her directly.

http://members.cox.net/guntraining/glocks.htm

______________________________________________________

Offered by Keith Manne
NRA Certified Pistol Instructor


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Main Training Page
Pre-course information
Directions to Classroom



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Glocks are NOT Double Action

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem:
Glock claims their guns are "Double Action Only". They are in fact striker-fire, SINGLE action, no matter what Glock and the box says. This misunderstanding has annoying operational implications, and possibly dangerous defensive implications.

Some Definitions:
Single Action: Pulling the trigger does ONE thing : if the hammer has been cocked, it will release the hammer. Trigger pull is light, short, and consistant between first and subsequent shots. Example: Star Firestar Plus.

Double Action: Pulling the trigger does TWO things : it will first cock the hammer if it hasn't been cocked, and then it will release the hammer. DA Trigger pull is longer and heavier than SA, but the user can cock the hammer first if they want to fire in "Single Action Mode." If the gun is semi-automatic, the first shot is DA, subsequent shots are SA due to the slide cocking the hammer for you, resulting in differing trigger feel as described above. Example : Beretta 8045, Hoekler and Koch USP series, etc.

Double Action ONLY: Any DA gun which does not allow pre-cocking the hammer because the hammer won't stay cocked, and is often bobbed or hidden. No decock is ever needed, and trigger pull is consistent between first and subsequent shots. Example: AMT Backup

Striker Fire: Rather than a hammer, an internal striker is cocked and released to fire. The striker is cocked by the first motion of the slide, and there is no way to decock other than squeezing the trigger.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So why aren't Glocks DA as claimed?

Any "true" double action gun will cock the hammer by squeezing the trigger, which means you don't HAVE to cock the hammer manually before the first shot as with a single action. In contrast, a Single Action gun you have to cock the hammer before you squeeze the trigger.

Glock claims to be "double action only" because :

1) You can't cock the hammer from a "hammer spur" externally, normally a sign that the gun is DAO.
2) In normal practice, pulling the trigger makes it go off, suggesting (falsely) that the trigger is cocking the hammer like a DA.
3) Trigger pull feels consistant between shots, suggesting DAO.

All three are wrong because :

1) Glock can be (and is) cocked externally for the first shot, but its done by the slide motion involved with loading the first round into the chamber rather than an overt hammer. This is true of any other semi-auto gun -- unless it really IS a DAO gun, any semi-auto can be cocked by racking the slide if you wanted).

2) The gun IS in fact cocked for the first shot before the trigger is pulled, and stays that way once cocked until fired, just like any other SINGLE ACTION. The second shot is cocked by the first, etc.

3) Just as with any other NON-DAO semi-auto, Glock counts on the process of chambering a round to cock the gun for you between shots. Since you always fire in single action mode, the trigger always feels the same.

Therefore, in practice, when you pull the trigger and it goes off, Glock wants you to think it's a DA, and not a SA which in fact is rarely loaded and still not cocked. If you were wondering why there isn't a decock lever on Glocks even though it's a wildly popular safety feature on any other good gun, it's because if you COULD decock the gun without it going off, you'd find that your gun is as good as a large paperweight at that point. You could simply bump the slide to recock the gun, but since Glock insisted it was DA, you won't know or think to do this. The bad news is, there IS a way the gun can get into that state, and it will most likely get there at the worst time possible.

How can I prove my Glock is Single Action?

There are a lot of Glock afficianodos who will SWEAR that their Glock is DA, until I have them dry fire twice in a row to similate a misfire. Remember what I said the definition of a DA gun is? DA cocks the hammer for you from the trigger, and will do so every time.

That's all interesting, but why is unexpectedly being SA dangerous?

People often buy DA for it's "panic mode" firing -- in a panic, you don't have to remember to cock it first as with a SA, just squeeze harder the first shot. I said before that Glock's claim to be DAO has gotten people killed. The case in which the gun is decocked unexpectedly is if you get a "misfire" due to a desensitized primer (one which takes more hits or a harder hit to go off). With a DA(O), you can squeeze the trigger again and get a quick second stroke. With a Glock, you only get one hit, because until you move the slide, the gun stays decocked.

Think I'm splitting hairs? If you KNOW how a Glock works, you know to bump the slide backward a little to re-cock it instead of staring at your traitorous gun dumbfounded at a critical time. In Personal Defense, I'd probably tell you to rack the slide fully and get a new round as soon as the one failed to go off, making the above point semi-moot, but then again, maybe it isn't:

I've encountered a LOT of desensitized primers. The most common reason is that cleaning solvent (eg. Hoppes #9) makes primers unreliable. You ask : Why would you clean your gun, reload it, and then fail to shoot it long enough for the primers to get funky? You SHOULD clean your gun before putting it away, and you SHOULD load your gun before you actually need it for defensive usage. Therefore, defensive usage is the most common time to discover this type of ammo failure. The primers aren't usually totally dead, but they often take a second hit before going off just fine if you stored them long in the gun. In an emergency, you aren't going to be looking to save the cost of that stubborn ammo, but you will be trying to save your life, and be too panicked to think clearly enough to tap the slide. It will be instinctive to pull the trigger a second or ninth time before it even registers that the gun didn't go off on the first try. You can marvel at the hard primer later, provided you didn't pull the trigger once with a click and 8 times with silence. That's why a gun advertised as DA should BE a DA gun, and should STAY a DA gun.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what do I do now that I own a Glock?
With a Glock (or my own Steyrs), I would practice "dead round" drills until you are nauseous. Get comfortable with handling a dead round at the beginning/middle of a magazine. I recommend mixing snap caps in with your live ammo when you target shoot so as to surprise you when they occur (this helps with overcoming a flinch as much as handling malfunctions). As I said before, because loading the gun cocks the hammer, you shouldn't NEED to cock the hammer very often, but you might practice (with snap caps) finding how far the slide needs to be moved in order to re-cock the hammer (it actually isn't that much).

_____________________________________________

Neither will the Kahr handguns..

The striker is only partially cocked by the slide, which is why the ATF (and IDPA) classifies the Glock as DAO.

By contrast, the Springfield XD is totally cocked by the slide and considered SA.

True.
That's why is is all but impossible to make any conclusions regarding this instructor's choice in handguns as being a preference only for Kahr, only for DAO or if he outright rejects Glock as a personal carry weapon.
He simply does not carry one.

The above average user can use what ever they want. They are dedicated to learning about pistols and what makes them work. The above average guy will buy several pistols and shoot a few IDPA or similar shoots. They will find out for themselves what works. They will make rational decisions about safetys, de-cockers, and DAO and wht they will remember use and not use.

There are alot of pistol owners but very few above average pistol owners.

Dink [/quote]


I guess that makes sense.

WTM -

Sorry, that was not what I was implying at all. I was saying that dispite the fact that a Glock has a better trigger, a very competent and very well informed individual chooses something other than a Glock. I don�t know what his reasons are for not choosing a Glock, but you can bet it�s not because he doesn�t �trust� one. The most common reason I see for people not liking Glocks is the grip angle, and if I had to bet, that would probably be his reason. But more to the point I was making, I was trying to get across that this guy who is very competent and well informed, doesn�t make much of an issue of trigger action. His personal choice typically doesn�t have as good an action as a Glock, but that issue doesn�t hold sway with him.

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.

Understood.

It is an interesting topic of discussion.
I'd think that at any given time in recent history (past 100yrs or so) the topic has been chewed on to great extent around campfires all over the world.

[quote=WTM45Wrong.
I KNOW that handguns are but a tool. Certain tools fit people and applications differently and that can be quite subjective.
I like them all. Some I will prefer over others. It's really that simple.

If one brings up the fact (which is not in question) that a leading instructor does not personally carry a particular handgun BY BRAND NAME without stating they continue with the ability to successfully train others on that platform, they are leaving out some details. [/quote]I'm sorry sir, but I wasn't implying anything, nor was I "leaving anything out". I'm not anti-Glock, not at all. Like I said, I'd like to have a G19 myself. I have never said Glock was a bad gun, never, not once; I think they're great pistols. I'm not trying to disuade anyone from owning a Glock, nor am I trying to say that a Glock is a bad choice, quite the opposite; I think the Glock is an excellent choice. I'm simply trying to understand why some people ascribe super status or ascribe super-feats to a Glock.

While he would pick on a gun that is trash, I don�t see him trashing the Glock. And actually he trained NYPD just before they went to the Glock. It was at a time when the NYPD had a very poor record in gunfights and they called him in as a consultant because they were considering a change to a 9mm with a 10 round magazine. He basically told them they were applying a hardware solution to a software problem. The NYPD was issued S&W model 10�s with 158gr RNL ammunition, because the NY lawyers wouldn�t allow expanding ammunition for their cops (I honestly don�t know if that ever changed, I think it did, but I don�t know for a fact). After his re-training of the NYPD, they went 3 or 4 years without losing a gunfight; pretty impressive record. After that, the NYPD approved the Glock for duty, which I believe was a very good choice. The NYPD is something like the 8th largest standing army in the world; and without a doubt Glock�s biggest customer. Glock has great customer service to their LE agencies, but I�m betting NYPD enjoys OUTSTANDING customer service.

Kevin the discussion between me and Rufus was about pistols that did not have a safety or de-cocking lever. While your list of pistols is nice all them have saftey's, de-cockers or long heavy double action trigger pulls. That would have eliminated them from our discussion.

Anyone that shoots a 12 lb double action trigger pull will shoot better with a 5.5 lb trigger pull gun. Anyone that shoots a 5.5 lb trigger pull gun will shoot better with a 1 lb trigger pull. It a matter of having to put that much pressure on the trigger of 35 ounce pistol. Since you are a gun writer this should be very easy for you to test. Get five or six buddies and let them shoot a DAO gun with a 10 or pound trigger pull then let them shoot something with a 5 pound trigger in it. Measure the targets. The lighter weight trigger pull will win.

It is no secret that alot of the MP's are having problems. Being a writer don't you get out talk with agencies that are carrying and using these pistols? I have only seen one that would not run. I never said they were junk but something is up with them.

Don't think that when agencies get rid of a glock (or any pistol) it is because what they were issuing was a bad pistol. There is a very large agency here that just switched from the glock to the sig a couple years ago. There reasoning. A muni in the area had went to the sig so they thought that they would too. No other reason than keeping up with the "jones". The glock was on bid for about $325 and the sig was $750 but since someone else had them they did not want to be left out of the loop.

Dink

That was my observation. DAO or a Glock type action works especially well with his training methods. Regardless, at the time I was there, the top 5 shooters carried:

1 - Browning Hi Power
2 - Glock 17(a guy from Italy who had never even fired a handgun before the class; he was awesome)
3 - Browning Hi Power (my room mate from SEAL team 6)
4 - Taurus 92
5 - 1911

When I was at the class, the instructor was carrying an experimental (because Beretta never marketed it commercially) Beretta 92 compact in DAO. This was in 1991, so we're talking a long time ago.

I think some Glocks have performed very well. So have many other makes.
I have no idea why some attribute "super status" to any firearm.

Well, the Sig P210 is pretty amazing!:)

No doubt NYPD saw improvements with the conversion to Glocks coupled with the Speer Gold Dot loading.

Hey now! That seems only like yesterday!:)

And where is your evidence for this? Stuff you're hearing on the internet? Again, the LE handgun market is much more complex than you think. Glock has been swapped out several times because the pistols didn't work and the agency lost confidence (LAPD is the most famous one.) In supplying LE agencies, things like this happen. And sometimes Glock loses out just like you said. Sometimes it's money, sometimes it's just because it's what the chief wants.

In the instance of the M&P, the story is very much the same as with the Glock. Sometimes a LE agency gets a bad batch of guns. Sometimes that agency's guns are bad because they specifically ask for changes in the design to accomodate their needs (most famous example of that is the FBI's 1076's). Sometimes it comes down to a bad batch of parts from a sub-contractor. Like I said, the LE gun business is complex; it's not a simple as you make it out to be.

Is that what they're carrying? Good call, Gold Dot is a good bullet, one of my favorites. Any idea which load specifically? 115, 124, 147?? Standard pressure, or +p?

I'm pretty confident it was and is the 124 +P loading.
At least it was when I last spoke with a NYPD officer I know. I'd have to ask again to verify if that is current.

That's a pretty good choice.
Still, if I were doing law enforcement as my day job, I think I�d want a bit more penetration. Cops often have to shoot through intermediate barriers to get to their intended target. One of the reasons the 180 grain .40 is so well received in law enforcement, it expands well and drives very deep. I think my choice would be the Black Hills 147 grain load in 9mm, which also expands very well (usually .50 or better), and penetrates very deep. But NYPD generally doesn�t do something without a plan, so I�m betting they think the 124 GDHP is exactly the blend of penetration and expansion they want.

This thread could just as easily been titled, "Rabid 1911 Owners-Please explain ???" or " Rabid Sig owners-Please explain" or "Rabid (fill in the blank) owners-Please explain".

We all have our favorites. Except maybe me, cuz they all have their place,and I like most of them.

O

I wont argue that you may be right. However, if I was a betting man, id put my money on it being a 147gr standard pressure. I have no basis for this assumption other than gut instinct given the NYPD's "less than brilliant" ammo selections of the past.

We do all have our favorites....but we dont go off the deep end if someone tells us our gun is not the best gun ever. WE're not even calling Glocks junk or garbage........simply imply to a "Rabid Glock owner" that other guns are just as good or better and a sh*t storm ensues.

FWIW....im a rabid sig owner, but my Sigs are really the best gun made

Yeah, that's it.
My favorite (like it's any secret) is the Browning Hi Power.

The only pistol in the world that can come close to its service record is the 1911. The Hi Power is BY FAR the most widely issued military pistol ever, since the creation of the pistol. No other handgun in the world has been used by more militaries, more law enforcement agencies, or more elite units. It served with distinction across the entire globe, and was on both sides during WWII, highly prized by anyone lucky enough to have one. Even ole Saddam Hussein can be seen in videos and pictures with a Hi Power because the Hi Power is a status symbol in the Middle East. It�s such an awesome pistol, eminently reliable, accurate and one of the most inherently �shootable� pistols in existence; meaning, it�s just easy to be proficient with. They are laughably simple to maintain�I can�t count how many times I�ve seen someone laugh when I show them how tough it is to take one down. The grip is nearly ergonomic perfection. I could just go on and on.

But at the same time, I�ll freely admit to its flaws. To ME (opinion, not fact) it is the finest 9mm pistol in existence. But it was designed and built in an age before the advent of NATO pressure 9mm ammo. The Hi Power�s slide is extremely thin and light, which makes for unparalleled handling qualities, but shoot it enough and you will crack a slide. Shoot enough NATO pressure ammo, and you will set back the locking cam in the frame and ruin the frame. Still, even with its inability to handle large quantities of NATO pressure ammo, most militaries continue to use the Hi Power rather than replace it because they still feel it�s the best 9mm out there.

The Hi Power is an outstanding pistol. It is my opinion that it�s the best 9mm out there. But even though I can point to a service record that is unparalleled, I�m not foolish enough to say it is empirically THE best pistol in the world. That�s because you can�t make that statement definitively; that�s my point.

Dink is trying to state empirically that the Glock is THE best, bar none. He claims the Glock has no flaws, and has the best service record of any pistol in the world.
I can say one thing; Dink is empirically wrong in his assertion.

The Glock is a great gun, no doubt about it. But it�s shoulder to shoulder with a bunch of other great guns, not above.

They are great...wouldn't mind having a 229 or a 238.

There is no denying the history of the Hi-Power.

But if I was standing at the table, loading up for a foray into "Indian Country" I'd select a Glock 17 over it.
And, I'd select a P226 DAK over the Glock 17.

That's after taking as much rifle ammo as I can carry...

No, no, no, according to Dink those darn rifles have safety buttons and levers and are too complicated. Plus, none of them will fire a million rounds or reliably function after being thrown off a cliff.

BTW, if limited to 9mm I'd go with a Hi-Power first also, but I love the P226 DAK choice.

JOG all my guys carry AR's. We qualify twice a year. A full 50% can't remember how to load a AR between quals.

Keep in my mind they have to do a 40 hour course on the AR before they are even allowed to carry one and they still can't get one loaded.

Dink

Kevin I do believe the Glock is the best fighting pistol for most. I never said that it did not have it flaws or that it has the best service record. It does have a time proven record for going boom when one needs it.

If the 1911, sig or Smith autos would have been the be all end all the glock would have never ended up in some many holsters.

The 1911 and the Hi power had the 50's, 60's, 70, and 80's to prove themselves the finest automatic handguns yet most people that carried a gun for living during this time carried a revolver. There had to reason for that.

Dink

Back in 1974 I qualified with the handgun. At the beginning of the class the instructor took a cocked and locked 1911 and threw it all the way across the classroom to prove that the safety worked properly. I was impressed. The women in the class who could not qualify with the .45 acp were allowed to use a 38 special revolver. I never thought that was a good thing.
It seems obvious to me that the police never should have started using the 9mm, but the 40 S&W did not exist back then.
I will always remember my partner telling me to "Leave your pistol in the holster, until you run out of shells for the shotgun!"
whelennut

Sounds like a problem with the hiring process.

I think you're wrong with that statement. Glocks won the police contracts by price alone, and nothing more. Our local cops were happy as heck with their S&W 6906s, that they carried for many years, but when the duty life of the guns was nearing it's end (they DO wear out, after all) Glock was in the market in a big, BIG way. We have a police supply house nearby, (a Glock distributor) and they offered up a straight trade, all those 'worn-out Smiths' for brand-new .40s, (which the local dept. had decided to trade up to). I don't think there was any cash money handed over, except for spare parts and incidentals, some extra magazines, etc.
Glock bought their way into Louisville PD, pure and simple. They did that all over the country, too, not just Louisville. Marketing, and dealmaking their way into holsters across the country. Price, only, bought their way into holsters nationwide.

The dealer DID make out like a bandit on holsters, ammo, etc. The cops had a 500 round transition class, among other things, but the guns were basically free, at least, the first batch.

And once the civilian market saw the Glocks in all the police holsters they just had to have one too.

Over 250,000 copies had been shipped to the US by 1992.
Those were not all in LE duty belts and holsters.
Many people already knew of the G17 and its success in various military trials and evaluations.

I'd bet it's a salary issue.

You know there is more to the world of arms than American law enforcement. Most guys in America carried revolvers. Law enforcement for the rest of the world carried auto pistols, so you're wrong yet again. You have a very small world and seem quite incapable of thinking outside your world. Nothing wrong with that, except you keep trying to apply your small world to the rest of the world.

Which military trials were those?

"And once the civilian market saw the Glocks in all the police holsters they just had to have one too."

Don't forget all the Glocks that showed up in every movie.

Dan

Outside the US.

Could you elaborate on the successful military trials outside the US? Did certain nations do extensive testing of the Glock?

I'm quite sure you are aware of the extensive testing Austria put the G17 through.

I'm not trying to "preach to the choir" as I know you are a gun writer and historian.
I'm not attempting anything like that here. Honestly.

I think its just a sign of times.

I walked in on several guys the other day and they were talking about the video game Grand Torino (I think). They were talking about setting up steering wheels and racing laps. Some of these guys were in there forties talking about a damn video game.

Just as I have no interest in video games those guys have no interest in guns. They all like guns but they are just items they carry or own like a flashlight is to me.

I bet more than a third of the guys that go to the academy these days have never fired a pistol.

At least when something goes wrong with my computer though those guys can figure it out.

Dink

The reason gun authorities who were lawmen didn't favor the 1911 and the Browning High Power for police work in the old days (the 1920s through the 1960s) was that back then they were designed only to shoot FMJ. They hadn't yet perfected more effective bullet shapes for them that would work reliably, nor had the feed ramp configurations been altered for any other bullet design back then. Also, the concern was that these weapons were less safe (though this is not actually the case) since they were designed to be carried cocked and locked. This required a bit more training to be safe and effective. Extra training required more money, and most departments were strapped for cash. Therefore, the first autos that got widespread acceptance for police work were the traditional double action autos (the so called wonder nines) of the 1980s, which could be carried with the hammer down, which design departments assumed was safer and required less training, and these came from the factory ready for use with JHP bullets.

In the USAF Security Forces we had maybe an 8 hour initial course and 2 hr refreshers every qualification (every 6 months). Never heard of anyone not remembering how to load M-16 and we had some dunderheads. Makes me wonder about the hiring process also.

An awful lot of military 1911s would not make it through a full mag without a jam.

I'm afraid that's BS

Actually, that statement of DINK's is exactly right. If the preceding pistol designs were the "be all - end all", why would Glocks have even been considered? And it also follows that there have been new handguns designed and produced and bought since the Glock was introduced, and the introduction of the Glock did not halt sales of the preceding designs - so it isn't the "be all - end all" either.

Amazing.

Crickets are chirping. Still waiting on the million round Glock proof.

Dan

??? Can you prove a Million round Anything?
Seen Remington nylons shoot in the thousands...

I can�t agree with this. Remember, in the 1980�s I had a unique opportunity (didn�t seem that way then, just looked like a chit load of work) to go through thousands of 1911�s left over from WWII, all of which saw a lot of hard use and very poor maintenance. These were imported from China, and the Chinese really didn�t maintain things well. Then when the war was over, they coated some in cosmoline and some not, so when they arrived they were pretty rough looking. I�d say that a good 50% or more would function perfectly just as they were (the one�s that weren�t covered in cosmoline), and if you cleaned them, well over 95% of those guns would function just fine. I have to tell you, I was honestly quite amazed. Okay, so now for a funny story�

In this warehouse we worked in, security was pretty tight because it was a massive warehouse full of small arms, including class 3 stuff and lots of it. We had pallets stacked from floor to ceiling with Mauser rifles from all over the world. It took us a full decade to get all the way though them, there were that many.

Anyhow, a friend of mine who was a very talented gunsmith was in need of a pistol and wanted one of the 1911�s to carry around the warehouse. But he was a lazy sort, and didn�t want to build one up or anything like that, nor did he want to bother throating it for hollow points, because it was what he considered a throw away gun, something he would only wear and carry around the warehouse. So every day, he would grab 2-3, and take them over to the solvent tank and do a quick clean up of the cosmoline, so the guns would fire. He had picked out a very nice WWI two tone magazine, so each day he loaded up that magazine and used it in his sample guns. He�d take the guns over to where we did test firing (we had a 10 yard �range� setup in the warehouse) and run a couple of rounds through each gun. Each gun would function just fine, and most would drop rounds right into the X ring. After watching him do this for about 3 days and reject a bunch of pistols that worked just fine, and put rounds into a tight cluster, I went and asked him what was wrong with the guns he was looking at (I was suspecting he really just couldn�t afford to buy one, and was stalling). He said he was looking for something specific, and he�d know when he saw it. This continued for another couple of days.

Finally, he finds a gun that�s in pretty nice condition, good enough that he wouldn�t refinish it, but the barrel was pretty much shot out, hardly any trace that there was once rifling in there. He loads it up and it drops every round into about the 9 ring, but about half of them keyholed. �That�s it� he proclaims and buys it on the spot. He was specifically looking for a gun that would keyhole each round. I laughed at him, and he says��Hey, who can afford hollow point ammunition? But how bad would it hurt to have a 230 grain FMJ going through you sideways?� I get a kick out of that story every time I tell it, 20 some odd years later.

In all the time he owned that gun, I don�t think I ever saw it jam, and as best we could tell, it had all the original parts in it, including springs.

I�d have a hard time believing such a thing, even if the range in question had the paperwork to back it up. I just don�t see one million rounds as possible for any handgun, the barrel, even if polygonal, would wear out long before you hit the million round mark.

Now if HP White did the testing, and said something went a million rounds; then I�ll believe it. Shy of that, such a thing just doesn�t sound credible. Just think through the metallurgy of such a thing and if you know anything about metallurgy, you�ll find a million rounds through a pistol very hard to swallow. You have to remember that the US military considers a weapon to be worn out well under 100k rounds. You�re talking about a number 10x that. Sorry, but even if Gaston Glock came up to me and said he had a pistol that went 1 million rounds, I would not believe it until it has been done by a credible, independent source.

I don't have to prove anything. I didn't make the statement. In case you didn't know, the difference between thousands and a million is considerable.

Dan

Giving honesty the benefit of the doubt, I can see how a guy thinks a pistol has fired a million rounds. I read where a range Glock had had hundreds of thousands of round through it and it had only been back to the factory twice, once for an extractor and once for a firing pin.

Sounds impressive and it is, except as a matter of routine Glock replaces every part that is suspect when a pistol comes in for service. For all we know the pistol has been completely rebuilt twice including all the major components.

The flaw in the story, IMO, is a working gun range that would return a pistol for a broken firing pin, etc. It would take more time to box up the pistol for shipping than to just fix it.

I agree.
One of the beautiful things about a Glock is the simplicity of repair.

Well a gunwriter wrote it so it has to be true....Right?

Dink

Pretty darn good.. 265 and counting...

Hat's off to ya Kevin...

I've got an old Colt Government Model imported from Brazil that hardly has rifling and key holes every round too. Never thought of it as an advantage before, but it makes sense.

I've written a number of feature articles for Handguns Magazine. I don't recall ever lying in one of them.

Dan

Dan what years did you write for Handguns?

While looking for the million round glock article I found something interesting. In Glock annaul 2001 page 48 Walt Rauch wrote. "The DEA and FBI did use the frisbee test-requiring guns to be tossed a specific distance and land on concrete muzzle down, muzzle up and on their sides. Both agencies had additional protocols that included extensive firing with an eye to when and if the guns broke. Glock was the winner in all these test."

Dink

Is that why the FBI keeps buying 1911 style handguns?

jwp475 all the FBI agents I know and have met none carried a 1911.

I know there HRT team carries a 1911 but I don't think there are very many of those guys compared to field agents.

Dink

Dink

I was a freelancer. I didn't write "for" Handguns Magazine. I sold them some feature articles, the first of which was in 2001. Sold one to Guns & Ammo as well.

Quit gun writing in in 2007 to work on novels.

Dan

The HRT is an Elite Unit and that would surely choose what they consider to be the best fighting pistol for there purposes. Notice it is a 1911 and not a Glock

Glocks are good for those with limited handgun skills. I use a 1911 daily and have for nearly 35 years and have never been let down and do not expect to be.

Don't feel bad, it takes a twisted mind to think of that as an advantage; but he's one twisted individual...a lot of fun.

Jumping into the fray here.....

Own and have owned other glocks. Also own Brownings, colts, S&W Ruger, semis, revolvers, yada, yada, yada. By no stretch of the imagination and expert. Just like to shoot different things. I will say that Glocks seem to work every time. That being said, if the experts all say you can run a glock hundreds of thousands or even a million rounds without a malfunction, then why do police agencies bother training with glocks on how to clear a malfunction? Being a little facetious here, but hope you get the point.

Beside the obvious reasons of the gun failing there are many reasons. In gunfights chit happens. People will not always get a good grip on the pistol causing them to limp writst them. If shooting around cover and the slide comes into contact with cover (like walls, bumbers, car doors) it will not go into battery. If shooting someone at contact distance and the turd grabs the slide it will not function. If shooting someone from a retention postition and the slide comes into contact with the officer or the officers vest. People have been known to get excited and hit the mag release.

Thats just a few of many things that can wrong.

Dink

Those things can happen to a Glock also

Jwp475 if you were talking about what I posted I was talking about a glock but it could happen to any pistol.

Dink

One has to admire the quick and easy way they disassemble.

Dan

Is that a statement excluding professionals and advanced operators?

Dan_Chamberlin: What is the explanation behind that exploded Glock?
You are NOT fool enough to think that picture you posted is the norm are you?
Just read today where Glocks are STILL extremely popular here in the United States after having attained 25 full years of use here!
And by the way they do dis-assemble quickly and easily for cleaning - and the ease of which they re-assemble is also a plus!
Glocks are wonderful and reliable arms - PERIOD!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Take it however you want. The fact is there is no external safety to manipulate on a Glock as is on the 1911 and other semi auto's

The fact there is no need to operate a manual safety makes it good only for those with "limited handgun skills?"
Glocks are not good for professionals and the experienced?
If they are good for those with "limited handgun skills" what can an experienced operator do with one?

Are you stating an external safety is a requirement for a pistol suitable for professionals?

No I am saying that a manuel safety requires more

formularizing with the handgun, a professional can use anything

Are you naturaly this obtuse or do with work at it?

I am naturally obtuse myself. Despite being such a piece of chitt, there sure are a lot of those sorry pistols out there these days. Only the elite members of our gun society (who also always hold their pinky up when drinking tea or snorting snuff) will bother to shoot you or perhaps at you with a custom 1911! Me I am just not a pistol racist as some are. In closing my brother actually had to get the rabies shots due to a fox bite, but I stay away from rabid or suspected rabid, or suspected poisonous and yet non rabid animals, usually 9mm's or .357's of an inch away...sometimes as much as 0.45 inch away from them. Interesting topic this is, I have enjoyed the multivariate and synovative approach we have taken here.

Just wanted to know if you understood that simple truth.

This thread followed a pretty predictable pattern.

The OP asks why many Glock fans insist, irrationally, that all other handguns are inferior. A handfull of posts try to answer that, but the Glock fans do the usual "this is why Glocks are better" routine (with the usual lack of citation and repeating of mythstory), as if to discredit the question with intent to render it unanswerable.

Makes for fun reading anyway...



Gotta admit ignorance on this. Who is HP White?

Varmintguy

Certainly, you're not stupid enough not to have seen the humor both in the photo and the comment, are you? It was funny, to everyone except a rabid Glock owner.

Dan

About HP White




HP White

Ah...thanks, jwp!

Yes, Dan, he IS stupid enough not to see the humor.

Ease of manitenance, reliability, ease of take down, durability. With all that said I am a recent XD convert as it has all these attributes and the added safety measures.

Sounjds like you are describing a 1911. I also like the XD, it does indeed have the added safety features

Yeah, if I were a cop and I had to carry one of the trigger cocking polymer pistols, I'd prefer either the M&P or XD with the external thumb safety. I like that extra degree of safety when holstering and unholstering. Also, Massad Ayoob has reported on how many times just the presence of an external safety has saved cops from being shot with their own gun. A bad guy gets hold of the cops gun, points and pulls the trigger. In the seconds that the guy is confused as to why the gun isn't going bang, often the cop can pull a backup weapon, or proceed to beat the ever loving crap out of the guy who took his gun. I think external safeties are a good idea.

I think the lack of an external safety makes for a potentially unsafes weapon

I agree.

Considering that holstering is supposed to be done one handed and while looking downrange, I cringe at the thought of reholstering with a gun that does not have either a manual thumb safety to engage before holstering or an exposed hammer that can be felt to be sure nothing is going wrong during the reholstering process. I notice that there has been a move toward rotating hood holsters (instead of over the top thumb breaks) when Glocks are employed, but that doesn't mean nothing else can get caught in the trigger guard unbeknownst to the owner.

Similar problems can arise in other contexts, such as running after the gun is out.

I have a friend who was saved because he flicked on the safety on his Beretta before losing his gun. That fact alone does not dissuade me from carrying a Sig 229R DAK.

A Glock's ease of use is a benefit and a detriment at the same time. It can help "least common denominator" types shoot, but it also can get them in trouble. It is incomprehensible to me that administrators who thought a cocked and locked semi-auto with a 5-1/2 pound trigger was dangerous or an "experts only" gun wholeheartedly jumped to allowing their people to carry what to me is a cocked and unlocked semi-auto with a 5-1/2 pound trigger.

Spot on +1........

That's because Glock had the forethought to title their's a "Safe Action" trigger...i feel safer already. When in reality a Glock is absolutely no safer or less safe than any other pistol, including single actions. There have been a LOT of accidents with Glocks; assuredly more than any other auto pistol out there. But you have to consider, there are more Glocks out there so the odds are stacked against them in that category to begin with.

I think the most common Glock accident is the take down. The fact that you have to pull the trigger on a Glock to take it down, is an undesirable feature in my book, and many a cop has a hole in their hand from not ensuring the gun was empty before putting their hand in front of the muzzle and pulling the trigger to take their gun down. S&W's work around works, but it's not all that eloquent. The Taurus seems to have not only the best trigger action of the trigger cockers, but by far the easiest and safest takedown.

Boom!

Dan

Better throw away all my S&W and Colt revolvers, then.

Classic video.

I cant think of anything more embarassing than havin your head up your a$$, and shooting yourself in the leg while teaching others how its done, cause your so damned profesional and all.

It's not the Glock's fault.It did exactly what it was designed to do

The Caption should read"
Stupid Negro Officer"

The hammer is a safety - hold it forward. The cylinder is a passive safety since it has to rotate to fire. A cocked revolver is, well, just like a Glock.

De-cockers, DAO variants, external safety levers, grip safety, passive safeties, magazine drop safety feature, hammer blocks...
the list goes on and on.

It is all good stuff.
A person has multiple choices in platforms, multiple choices in modes of operation and multiple calibers to choose from.
Some may find a specific mode to be "best," and others might argue is is not "best" for them personally.
It's totally up to each individual to get the training and experience necessary to become proficient in using their choice as intended. That includes clearing and malfunction drills, retention and muzzle discipline, regardless of the chosen platform.

Glocks work. SigSauer works. Colt works. HK works. Beretta works. Taurus works. Rugers work.
It's what's between the operator's ears that is most important.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAmQ-N-NlXY&feature=related

couple minutes in you have a malfuncion

OK, that makes me happy. Good points of distinction, too.

Wow! And FMJ no less.

Kevin, Glock's not the only one that has the same take-down procedure.. Several others do too. Just did a S&W Sigma yesterday.. Same thing..

But of course the slide should ALWAYS be opened to ensure an empty chamber before takedown... Those that fail to do that basic safety maneuver are almost certain to have an AD at some point..

Yeah you're right, Glock isn't the only one with that takedown, but they're the first, other are just imitators.

Does his thumb hit the slide realease button during recoil? It looks like it might but I can't tell for sure.

Dink

As he was shooting, I noticed his thumb moving closer and closer to the slide stop. I think he bumped the slide stop up during recoil; shooter's fault, not the guns fault. Second jam, the slide stop clearly looks to be in the up position. I think that just isn't the gun for him.

Holy crap!!! Dink and I agree on something. Awwww, there goes the neighborhood

My cocked S-W revolver probably has around a 2-3# crisp trigger pull and zero take-up. A stock Glock has around 5.5# with some serious travel and take-up before it goes off.
I would agree that those who have a problem keeping their finger off the trigger until they're on target and ready to fire the gun should get another style gun, perhaps with a manual safety if needed. For those that can control their trigger finger the Glock works just fine.

270

Meaning the Professional also doesn't need the lack of external safeties either, but not all police persons are professional with weapons

Exactly....

There are other things besides your finger that can get into a trigger guard. No one is suggesting that it is a good idea to holster a cocked revolver. The point was that the revolver (or any external hammer DAO pistol, FTM) has the safety advantage over the Glock when holstering, because you hold the hammer forward with your thumb in the process. With the Glock, there is no such option. Better exercise more care to be sure nothing gets into the trigger guard of that Gock.

Glock AD's

---------------------------------------------------------------



Armed and Unready
City Pays for Failure to Train Officers With Sophisticated Weapon


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jeff Leen and Sari Horwitz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, Nov. 18, 1998; Page A1

A decade ago, the District's Metropolitan Police Department placed one of the most advanced pistols in the world into the hands of hundreds of ill-prepared, undertrained police recruits.

The results have been unfortunate, according to police reports and internal department records examined by The Washington Post.

In the 10 years since D.C. police adopted the Glock 9mm to combat the growing firepower of drug dealers, there have been more than 120 accidental discharges of the handgun. Police officers have killed at least one citizen they didn't intend to kill and have wounded at least nine citizens they didn't intend to wound. Nineteen officers have shot themselves or other officers accidentally. At least eight victims or surviving relatives have sued the District alleging injuries from accidental discharges.

A mechanical safety ( no matter if it's the trigger or some other block ) is just mechanical device.
And they can and do fail.
NO safety can ever replace safe gun handling.

Comparing a trigger pull on a Glock to a revolver's is comparing apples to grapes.
Totally different. And they will never be close.

One trigger moves a few tenths oh an inch, the other much further to accomplish the deed.

FAIL.

No - not the Glock. The failure was all on Tactical Tim. That was not a "failure to feed", it was Tim's thumb actuating the slide stop. He gets a break if the gun doesn't fit him, but the mis-diagnosis is a FAIL.

FreeMe, you are spot on

A Lafayette city ploice man was shot in the leg by a Glock in the glove compartment when a pencil got inside the trigger guard. A loaded Glock is like walking around with a load 1911. shotgun or rifle with the safety off at all times

Not for me. I can manipulate a safety plenty fast enough

I think I'm the only one who notices this, because I'm a super expert and very observant, but that guy's thumb contacting the slide stop is what caused that failure.

We all know that. But the point was made that the revolver is easier to holster safely - not that the Glock can't be holstered safely.

You gonna stick with that statement?

Are Glocks Safe?


In my opinion, the Glock carries in Condition Zero, that is, hammer cocked with no real external safety applied. I don't acknowledge the trigger flange to be a fully functional external safety, and the number of accidental discharges reported on the Glocks tends to bear this out.

Are Glocks Safe?


So, as an exercise, just watch the news for items about accidental discharges of police officers' handguns. They don't happen too often, but when they do you'll notice a trend. Odds are it will have involved a Glock.

God made the Glock and that is what he carries and if it is good enough for him then it is good enough for me.

Glocks Are They Safe


The no-frills, lightweight polymer-frame semiautomatic pistol forces the user to handle the gun with extreme caution. The Glock will fire if the trigger is moved less than a half an inch, compared to twice that distance for most other police guns.

And some Glocks will shoot with as little as 3 1/2 pounds of pressure on the trigger � light enough for a 5-year-old to fire the gun. Glock started offering optional trigger pulls of up to 12 pounds in the mid-1990s after the New York City Police Department � plagued by a string of police shootings � demanded a heavier trigger.

The gun has no manual safety to prevent it from firing if the trigger is accidentally pulled. In fact, the gun�s safety features � extremely effective in preventing discharges if the gun is dropped or hit � automatically are turned off every time the trigger is depressed.

In addition, most Glocks have no indicator that shows the guns are loaded and no magazine safety to prevent them from firing when the ammunition clip is removed. And unlike many other guns, the Glock is always semicocked and ready to shoot. This inner tension in its firing mechanism increases the likelihood of discharge if the trigger is accidentally moved, some gun experts say.

"What you have is a gun that is almost too eager to fire," said Carter Lord, a national firearms and ballistics consultant. "I think it may be an appropriate weapon for highly trained paramilitary officers in a SWAT team, but not for most police officers and certainly not for civilians."

Why would God carry a Glock? Why would God even need a pistol? Di God also create the "Plague" and is that also good enough for you?

+1..................as can any genuinely experienced shooter. The safety, either putting it on or taking it off, on a 1911 is just automatic for me & doesn't require any real conscious effort.



Wow, thought I was the only one who thought that.................in fact, there's a lot more that are not than are.

MM

yes, i could care less about what he created

I'm not so sure about that. God is perfect. A Glock aint. Besides, no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God. [Grin]

Well, of course a single action auto needs a manual safety.

Some bottom feeders simply don't.

"+1..................as can any genuinely experienced shooter. The safety, either putting it on or taking it off, on a 1911 is just automatic for me & doesn't require any real conscious effort."

Montana

I'm a 1911 man and I have to say, it should take conscious effort! The safety shouldn't come off until the trigger finger is ready to press on the target. I know two officers who swept the safety off too quickly with their fingers on the trigger and one shot himself in the azz! But he was an idiot.

Too many people sweep the safety off as they draw or even before they acquire the target. Even clearing a house or presenting the weapon during an armed encounter, the safety shouldn't come off until the moment one decides that deadly force is immanent.

Dan

HOLY CRAP!!!
Okay, I've always been of the opinion that the trigger cocking pistols with no external safety (like Glock) were not "safe action" at all and that they are actually less safe (my opinion); but I had no idea the issue was anywhere near this bad. Now, I really don't blame this on the design of the gun, the department is responsible for vetting firearms and their suitability for field service. Well I'm here to tell you those results indicate a training regimine that is completely deficient bordering on gross negligence.

And while I believe the Glock and pistols with similar actions are some of the least "safe" pistols out there, this issue is not a "Glock issue" per-se; but rather a failure to properly train their officers.

This brings me to the issue I have with "safeties" or terms like "safe action". I have always said that what's missing is the words "complete lack of" before the word "safe, safety, or safe action". As soon as you say the word "safe" some idiot disengages brain and begins to handle a firearm in a different manner because it's "safe".

And the DC government says it's not safe for the PEOPLE to have guns.

+1

I think there are a number of agencies that went to the Glock based purely on economics. The gun costs less than the competition (for the most part) and their marketing of their "safe action" implies training will be less and cost less because there are no gadgets on the gun. When in my opinion, training should be more (not longer, but more frequent refresher, and a much tighter gun handling discipliine), than a traditional DA with a decocker.

For fairness, I believe training with a Colt/Browning SA system should also be longer than a traditional DA auto with decocker.

The fact is Glocks have more AD's than any other pistol. The DCPD is not unique in reguards to AD's with Glocks.

Also musta had a behind-the-back holster..

What do ya do when you're usin' a revolver?

PEOPLE have AD's and ND's. Not inanimate objects.

Boy, how quickly we forget the problematic history of the single action in law enforcement. It was plagued with folks "ate up with the dumbass" too.

When over 60% of LE uses a Glock, you must expect that over 60% of firearms related issues will involve a Glock.

Use what you like. Disparaging what another chooses is not productive in the least. It all comes down to getting training and quality practice.

I've owned Glocks since 1989. Nope, not a one of them has jumped up and fired without a booger hook pulling the bang switch.
To be fair, none of my Colts, SigSauers, S&W, HK or Berettas have either.

As a 'civilian' the only reason my handgun leaves the holster is when deadly force is imminent. I don't necessarily disagree with your statement. There are too many variables for a one-size fits all approach, but generally I view when my finger goes inside the trigger guard as more critical than when the safety comes off.

All the training in the world doesn't change the fact that a Glock is a rather unsafe design. I would never carry one loaded in my vehicle ( which is legal in my state) a double action is inherently safer and that is the point. All the training in the world is not going to make people mistake free. The relatively light trigger pull coupled with the short trigger pull with no external safety is an inherently unsafe pistol and no amount of spin on your part will change this fact.

We will have to agree to disagree.

The Glock is no more "unsafe" than any other design out there.
Period.

http://defensiveshootinginstructors.com/articles/is-glock-unsafe.pdf


Opinions vary. And that is quite acceptable. That's good for the industry as a whole.

That was my thought on reading that post too. Safety gets swept off as I bring it to aim and is fully swept off just as it's getting there, but the trigger finger stays outside the guard till ready to fire. The sweep off should be "instinctive" (as a result of frequent drills) rather than a conscious effort. Same for the sweep on upon taking it down from aim. That was the Cooper method, at any rate, and that's how I trained with my 1911.

Any gun that will fire on a routine basis if something accidentally gets in the trigger guard is more unsafe and that is a fact.

The numbers show a pattern with the Glocks that no other pistol has shown. Denial is not just a river in Egypt

God, you will hate the DAK. And it is simply fantastic.

Enjoy your switches and levers!

At least I will not get shot in the leg with a pistol in the glove box the way the Lafayette police officer did with a Glock when a pencil found its way in the trigger guard causing the weapon to fire

Now who is being obtuse?

Be safe brother!

You're got to be kidding. Facts are facts

Of course I'm kidding. (Except for the being safe part. I mean that.)
Anytime a LEO gets injured I'm not happy. But there are a handful of things that attributed to that particular injury.
The smallest of them was the fact that the pistol was a Glock.
Could have been any DAO or revolver as well.
Even a single action with a poorly performing safety.

I tire of the discussion, as we have covered many of the pro's and cons already. I'm quite sure, fact being we are even here on a firearms website, that we have much more in common than we do in difference.
And, as I said earlier, be safe!

I serious;y doubt that DAO or revolver would have fired due to the much longer travel arc required to fire them
A poor performing safety can and should be corrected, there is no correction for something that is not there in the first place

An amusing anecdote on gun safety or lack thereof.

A police officer sitting in the passenger side shot the engine of his police car with his service revolver by �dry firing� into the glove compartment. He had opened the cylinder and ejected the rounds into his hand. However, holding the revolver horizontally, the one closest to the frame did not drop out. When he lowered the barrel it slid back into the chamber, he dry fired the revolver until bang!

That was bad enough. A few days later, a different partner in the driver�s seat was kidding him about blowing away a police car and asked him how he did it. The officer told him, �well, I opened the cylinder like this�, (he opened the cylinder), �and ejected the rounds like this�, (he ejected the rounds), �then I closed the cylinder, pointed it into the glove compartment and pulled the trigger.� Which he did, sending another bullet into the engine of a second police car. He had not checked the rounds again and had left one in the cylinder.

Two wounded police cars in a few days. This was told to me by the armorer of the Dania police department in Florida back around 1983 or so.

There is another anecdote about a South Florida police officer removing the magazine of his semi-auto but not knowing enough to clear the chamber. He thought removing the magazine made the gun unloaded. But I won�t tell that one since the outcome was not amusing at all.

You have to be a real idiot to accidentally fire a double action revolver.

And that dude is a prime example of total idiocy... Barney Fife in real life..

Your right of course, but what I mean is that the whole scenario comes together more or less automatically & then the safety comes off...........at least that's how it is for me; it's just an integrated, natural motion to snap the safety down (or up) as the situation requires, not something to forget & all of a sudden, remember to do.

MM

According to Sarah Brady types only the police and military should have handguns in the first place.
whelennut

Yes Kevin, there it is... Glocks are dangerous, more dangerous than double action revolvers and DA/SA pistols, and 1911 pistols, maybe browings as well. They are dangerous as hell in the hands of untrained personnel, much more so than the above mentioned pistols. They are even more dangerous to those who have been deliberately placed in front of the pistol. Don't put your finger on the trigger is the operative thought here, and use a holster that covers the trigger guard is the other thought. If your an idiot that cannot manage to do the two things above you should not own one, if you pee your pants or get the vapors just ruminating over just how dangerous a Glock is then by all means get something else. Leave those "dangerous" pistols to those with at least half a brain in their head.

Judging from your post, you disapprove of fan guards as well. You know just keep your fingers out of them, right. No handrails on walkways is not needed either, just stay away from the edge. guard rails on the highway are needless as well in your view

While I believe that statement could be true, I don't know how you can say it's a fact. It should also be noted that there are more Glock's out there than most other pistols, so the odds are not in favor of Glock just based on numbers.

You are of course right. Clearly it's the people who are doing it. I think the role of Glock is the promotion of their "Safe Action" as being any more "safe" than any other action; which clearly just isn't true (a debatable topic). Pure speculation on my part, but I believe the touting of things such as a "safe action" may give people a false sense of security, and lull them into inadequate training; or at least inadequate training frequency.

It all comes down to muzzle discipline and trigger control.
That applies to all firearms. Basic firearms safety rules cover this.
That's all one has to concern themselves over with a Glock too. The passive safeties are in place and working without need of any additional operator action. They are lifted when the trigger is pulled. It's just that simple.
It will not fire without that step. Period.

That is all Glock is stating in the owners manual.
There is nothing there to promote their trigger as the "safest" or as the only choice out there.
They have simply named it "Safe Action." Gotta call it something, as it was pretty unique and new considering the timeframe of its arrival.
Understanding how it functions, it seems to fit.

Well again I've managed to offend you. Yes, I do believe that the trigger cocking pistols with no external safety are less safe than other pistols, but no where did I even hint at the problem being just the pistol. Like I said before, it's up to the department to vet out the issues of each pistol and design their training regimine to fit. There is no doubt that people can be trained to be completely safe with a Glock or other similar pistol, and you're right; it comes down to the people...I thought I said that, but I just get the impression you don't like me. Or you think I'm on some sort of anti-Glock mission. If you actually READ what I have written, you'd see that I have never once said the Glock was a bad gun. I think some Glock owners don't have their heads screwed on straight, but I have no issues with the Glock.

Where safety is concerned, it's up to the individual to be safe with whatever gun they're using. If you pick a Glock, you'd better know how to handle it safely. One of the things that got single action pistols a bad name in LE was accidental shootings while holding someone at gun point, because of the light trigger. While this is an issue of the gun, and something that makes the single action Colt/Browning "less safe" inherently than some other designs, the onus still falls on the operator of the pistol to be competent with his choice in pistol.

In some ways, Glocks, S&W Sigma's, XD's, 1911's and Hi Powers can be considered "less safe" than some other guns such as the traditional DA with decocker. But with proper training, anyone can be completely competent with any of these pistols on the streets. It's about matching the training to the piece of equipment.

I happen to think Glock's marketing of "safe action" may have set some departments up for failure in their training. Is that the fault of the gun? No, it's a policy flaw, and the foolishness of believing marketing over common sense.

How does Glock market without using common sense? Is it just the use of the two words "Safe Action" in their description that does it?

This is DIRECTLY from the website, and found in the owners manual too..

"Safe and ingeniously simple: Contrary to conventional, the trigger is the only operating element. All three pistol safeties are deactivated when the trigger is pulled -and automatically activated when it is released."

Pretty much focuses one's attention to trigger control. No additional steps to engage or disengage protections.

I was 100% in agreement until we got here. Yes, they had to call it something as it WAS pretty new and unique when it came out. But you have to admit, naming it "Safe Action" paints a certain picture; and the picture it paints is 100% intentional by Glock's marketing department?

They could have called it any number of different things, but they chose "Safe Action". And if you were to talk to a Glock representative, for one minute do you think that representatie will tell you something other than "Glock is the safest pistol in the world?"

I've been to the SHOT show many times. I've been to the Glock booth many times (always entertaining there). And if I had a dime for every time I've heard that particular statement, I'd be a wealthy man. Glock preaches this as Gospel. You and I have the common sense to recognize it as complete BS, nothing but marketing; a slick angle, but marketing hype, nothing else. We both have the common sense to know that you have to have your brain in the game when handling any pistol and there's no such thing as "safe" where handguns are concerned.

I personally believe that some departments have bought into this marketing; that's all I'm saying.

The DA/SA with decock feature can be considered the most "unsafe" of them all.
Re-holstering prior to decocking leads to a much lighter SA trigger pull that has no active or passive safety working at all.
The Glock will have it's three safeties engaged every time the trigger goes forward to reset. First shot to slide lock. Every time.

This would be a great theory if all handguns, and especially Glocks, were only handled by perfectly programmed, infallible robots. But unfortunately, they are handled by human beings who may put their finger on the trigger under stress, or when they are not paying attention.

Since a Glock trigger reguires less force, and less travel, to actuate, in the real world we actually inhabit, rather than the "Perfection" Glock world, they are indeed less safe than other guns in this respect.

And you digging in your heels and refusing to acknowledge this is just setting you up for DINK-dom.

Glock tends to work with a consultative sales model, one that is quite involved in each phase of acquisition and transition by a buyer.
Maybe the training ball is simply being dropped by some consumer/end users as most of them made their transitions long ago and have lost some of the original trainers and subject matter experts to retirements.

With the training I have been priviledged to have participated in, that has not been the case. I see my local LE doing everything they can to insure officers get basic and advanced training coupled with frequent rangetime and qualifications.

I'm not "diggin in" on this.
All I'm doing is sharing different schools of thought and ideas in an open discussion.

As I said earlier, I'll participate in any course of fire at any time with a P226DAK.
Same thing goes with a G17.
Or a HK with the LEM trigger.
Or a Smith revolver.
Or a SA Colt Gold Cup.

It's just a tool.

Putting the finger to the trigger means the same thing to any firearm. 5lbs or 12lbs, it will have a result.
That's a rule of firearm safety violation, not someone making the "wrong" choice in their handgun.

Personally, I like the fact that the pricepoint and availability of Glocks has contributed to the increase in gun ownership and CCW training/issuance.
Of course, that in no way alleviates a Glock owner from obtaining quality instruction and practicing as often as possible.

I refuse to be fearful of an inanimate object. And, making statements of "less safe" or "more dangerous" only fuels the anti crowd.
FIREARMS SAFETY LIES BETWEEN THE EARS.

Amen to that.

No it doesn't. This could not be more crystal clear.

Putting 5 lbs. pressure on a Glock trigger results in a very loud noise.

Putting 5 lbs. pressure om most any DA/SA semi or DA Revolver makes no noise.

What do you gain by refusing to acknowledge that? This in and of itself is not proof of superiority or inferiority of any design. But it speaks to the original point of this thread, some 38 pages ago, that Glock adherents will fanatically resist any and all criticism of their baby's design.

If someone is dumb enough to put 5 pound of pressure on a trigger they are dumb enough to put 12 pounds of pressure on a trigger.

The only safe trigger would be one that no one could pull.

Dink

Right on cue. And completely wrong as usual.

Well Rufus did you see the video of the lady cop that almost shot the subject that was laying on the ground cuffed? She shot that with a Sig I believe. What kind of trigger pull does a sig have?...

Dink

Some prefer lighter trigger pulls than I do on their hunting rifles.
They practice with what they use. It gets them results.
I do the same.
I even have some that will set to three ounces!
Don't wet yourself thinking about that one.

A handgun does not have to have a twelve pound trigger in order for it to be considered a safe and reliable weapon.
Thats a fact.

Put five lbs. of pressure on the trigger of a DA/SA while it is in SA and you will hear some noise. Bet your life on it.

If you want to rank pistols subjectively, then be my guest. That is your choice and right to do so. We all do, whether we admit it or not, by our choices in what we carry.
But don't tell me a Glock is any "less safe" than another mode of operation simply due to the trigger pull weight or the trigger travel distance.
They are equally "safe" in the hands of an experienced and practiced owner.
They are equally "unsafe" in the hands of a buffoon.

Just do a bit of research as I have done, not difficult.

you have not offended me. I respect your opinion, and we both agree that Glock pistols are more dangerous than a DA/SA SIG,Smith, Ruger revolvers etc.

Then I do not disagree with you regards the marketing phrase "safe action" as the Glock pistol is not safe it is dangerous as hell. I do not disagree with you that this phrase may result in deadly misunderstandings.

I do not use the handrails on stairs or at least not yet as I can still walk pretty good. People wipe their snot nose with their hands and then go down the stairs all the time holding the rail so there is that. Please don't stick your appendages into rotational devices with blades on them, as they will cut you but you know this already....

Sorry, cops almost shooting folks is not one of my entertainment interests.

Well we shoot Gocks here at this house and certainly do have some others as well in the vault. I own 2 Sig Sauer pistols and they have over 8 pounds of trigger pull, no big deal for myself understand but the wifes Sig Sauer had to have springs installed so she could pull that trigger back, it now being 5.7 pounds.

The other issue is her having to De-Cock the pistol everytime before holstering the weapon. It can get confusing for a novice shooter for sure and I myself sometimes forget........This is what causes accidents!!! So to eliminate that problem I have put my SIGS in storage period. I personally do not believe GLOCKS are more dangerous, it is lack of training for those accidents or Lax Minds.

I remember some 15 years ago when our county had a couple of accidents with Deputy's that shot themselves with their Glock issue pistols. These men were "old school" revolver cases. They never broke themselves totally from putting that trigger finger on the trigger when holstering or when drawing their weapon. This is what leads to a GLOCK going BANG!!!

I was taught that one never puts their finger on the trigger unless you totally intend to pull that trigger and make the shot. Some people believe that it is A-OK to put your trigger finger on the trigger and take up the slack........this is totally DUMB NONESENCE!!! Now I can understand how a Leo could do this task during a life threatning situation but other pistol shooters out there should simply not be doing this at all with their weapon.

Its was not for entertainment purposes but to learn from. It would not have a made a difference if the trigger would have been 25 pounds. She was excited and if she could have pulled the trigger, no matter what the pull, she was going to. It would not have matttered if it was 5 pounds, 12 pounds or 50 pounds if she had the strength the gun was going to go off.

The sig advertised 10 pound trigger pull and yet there was a accidental discharge does that mean the sig is not safe?

Dink

Of course it doesn't, but you're too dense to understand why. Plus you don't care why. Plus you don't even understand what the question is. All you care is "Glock uber alles!" and hiding from reality. So I have no intention of wasting my time explaining it to you.

One can find an AD with any weapon system, but Glock owners refuse to admit that Glocks are more prone to AD's

I do not believe it is any more prone than anything else. There are probaly more glock pistols owned by people than any other pistol. For that comment to have any bearing one would have to know what percentage of each type of pistol was owned.

If there are 500,000 glocks owned to every 100 1911's there of course would be more AD's with the glock.

Dink

Here you go Dink

"What you have is a gun that is almost too eager to fire," said Carter Lord, a national firearms and ballistics consultant. "I think it may be an appropriate weapon for highly trained paramilitary officers in a SWAT team, but not for most police officers and certainly not for civilians

i guess it is a small wonder i haven't shot myself with the glocks i own since i am a "civilian"
I don't think they have the design features others have like the springfield xd, but one should know the design characteristics of the firearm they are handling
i don't put a revolver with the hammer back in the holster either.

Jwp those are for the most part opinions. How many AD's did D.C. police have the ten years prior to issuing the glock?

There are documented cases of the 1911 when carried in condition one allowing the hammer to come partially or fully forward while being carried. When the safety is dis-engaged this allows those pistols to fire with out pulling the trigger or allows the hammer against the firing pin with a live round in the chamber. Those were probaly series 70 guns (and clones). Does that make all series 70 guns and clones unsafe to carry in condition one?

Dink

Now you are talking about a malfunction which is mot the same thing. If a 1911 is carried with the thumb safety off and the grip safety deactivated, then it is about like carrying a Glock. Not safe

In my opinion that is no more of a malfunction than someone letting a pencil get inside the trigger guard.

When they pulled the defective 1911 from the holster shouldn't they have noticed the hammer not at full cock?

The bottom line is you can't blame the gun for the actions of stupid people. Whether that guns is a glock, 1911, sig or a revolver.

The glock is no more safe or dangerous than any other pistol. Just as one has to know how to work the thumb safety on a 1911 one has to know to keep his finger off the trigger of a glock (or any pistol really) or it will go boom.

Dink

A pencil inside of the trigger guard is an accident, not a malfunction

Dink you are reaching. This is exactly what this thread is about, people that defend the Glock to a point of ridiculousness. The weapon has a relatively easy trigger pull with a short travel and is a more dangerous than other types and that is easy to see unless one refuses to open their eyes

One is supposed to keep their finger out of the trigger guard until ready to shoot any firearm, but mistakes happen and with a Glock their is no other safety feature, no long double action pull, no external safety

I guess that you see a fan guard as useless. If people just keep their hands away, right? The fan without a guard is no more unsafe than a fan with a guard, right?