More shameless Glock advocacy.
- Thread starter Big Bad
- Start date
you're reply... Do yourself a favour and have a Doctor test for early onset Alzheimers.
You know the Hi Point is a plastic gun right? Clearly not even in the same province as a Glock.
Not sure how to double bubble reply. My point stands above.
Last edited:
hovering the ignore option.
When having a conversation with one of the guys at my local gun shop he mentioned to me that his first pistol was a Glock 17 he picked up used for a good price. Then told me that he isn't quick to recommend them to people anymore because they're up to $1000. They've priced themselves out of their own market.
Waynetheman
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver.
Ok let's take this reaaaal slow.
YOU say they are level. Plinker said above as in the pic he posted above is proof that not all polymer pistols are level.
You say it's a glock is not better or worse than any other polymer pisto.
Plinker posts pic of arguably the worst polymer pistolPlease see above...not "level".
YOU say they are level. Plinker said above as in the pic he posted above is proof that not all polymer pistols are level.
Here he says the hi point is not on the same level as glock
Here you say the exact same thing he does then say you don't understand his point, yet I'm being argumentative and contributing nothing?
So let's try again shall we?
Seems to be a Canada phenomenon. I guess there's no real pressure to be competitive in such a small market. Definitely, my 17 cost a lot less seven years ago that it is now. I have bought new HK's this year for less than new Glocks are going for. CZ is the same, too. Being so popular in IPSC has really bumped the prices.
Yep. My first Glock was $500 cdn years ago, used off the EE but with out a single mark. First Shadow was $700. Canadian prices have exploded over the past few years.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Okay, so I bought a G-19 this summer, just so I had a solid position to badmouth it from, but then I got a couple of surprises. The trigger pull was better than I expected, much better. It is certainly better than the early Glocks I had an opportunity to shoot, and hated as a result. But the trigger reset is much longer than seems necessary, and this results in more time being needed to fire subsequent shots for someone used to a 1911, a 226, or a P-35. An after market trigger solves the problem, if it bugs you enough, but that's an expensive fix for a muscle memory problem, and the Glocks big selling point is that of an out of the box gun ready to go to work.
The factory sights are excellent, and I wouldn't change them. Everyone seems to be caught up with the idea of night sights, but I don't want tritium dots or bars on my rear sight, that pulls my focus from the front sight. If its dark enough to need night sights, mount a Surefire or a Fenix light on the gun, or become practiced in the tactical use of a handheld flashlight while shooting a pistol in your other hand.
The Glock shoots, and doesn't appear to require a 500 round break-in to ensure reliability like a 1911. That's certainly a selling point, and would matter to us more if we had the opportunity for CCW in this country.
The light weight of the Glock is more of a disadvantage IMHO, but then I'm accustomed to heavy handguns. The issue isn't related so much to weight as it is to balance. When the Glock has a full magazine, the bulk of the weight is in your hand, but as the magazine empties, the balance shifts to muzzle heavy, and its noticeable. Given an all steel gun, the difference is less extreme.
The grip angle works for me, the magazines seem to be very well made, and magazine swaps are for the most part smooth and quick. I found that the magazine release is small, relative to a 1911, and the light weight of the magazine means that you might have to pull it out of the gun, rather than have it drop free.
The gun shoots well, and the nonsense I've read on here about how a Glock is more demanding to shoot well didn't stand up to my scrutiny. On my first outing with the gun, my slow fire group was as good as my slow fire 1911 group, so I'm pretty much of the opinion that either you can shoot a pistol, or you can't. My weak hand slow fire and my two hand rapid fire with a mag change need a bit of work, but I haven't done much auto pistol shooting lately, so its not surprising. My strong hand slow fire group was as tight as my two handed slow fire group, but by then I was gaining a comfort level with the gun.
There is one thing that I really dislike about this pistol, and it might be something as simple as everyone's hands are different, and maybe its just related to the challenge of attempting to design a gun for universal use. Perhaps its due to the fact that I chose a compact rather than a full size gun, I'm not sure, but to me you don't need a big gun to shoot 9mm. Anyway, my issue is the trigger guard. It seems to crowd the bottom of the trigger, and it wasn't long before the edge of my trigger finger tip was tender and sore, next time out, or the next time I take on an extended bout of dry firing, I'll tape it.
So its time for me to concede that the Glock pistol is a good, practical, well designed gun. Does it make the 1911 obsolete? Not at all. But the Glock is a better choice, if you need to purchase a gun for a modest price, and holster it for for daily carry the day you get it, without having to be concerned with reliability issues.
The factory sights are excellent, and I wouldn't change them. Everyone seems to be caught up with the idea of night sights, but I don't want tritium dots or bars on my rear sight, that pulls my focus from the front sight. If its dark enough to need night sights, mount a Surefire or a Fenix light on the gun, or become practiced in the tactical use of a handheld flashlight while shooting a pistol in your other hand.
The Glock shoots, and doesn't appear to require a 500 round break-in to ensure reliability like a 1911. That's certainly a selling point, and would matter to us more if we had the opportunity for CCW in this country.
The light weight of the Glock is more of a disadvantage IMHO, but then I'm accustomed to heavy handguns. The issue isn't related so much to weight as it is to balance. When the Glock has a full magazine, the bulk of the weight is in your hand, but as the magazine empties, the balance shifts to muzzle heavy, and its noticeable. Given an all steel gun, the difference is less extreme.
The grip angle works for me, the magazines seem to be very well made, and magazine swaps are for the most part smooth and quick. I found that the magazine release is small, relative to a 1911, and the light weight of the magazine means that you might have to pull it out of the gun, rather than have it drop free.
The gun shoots well, and the nonsense I've read on here about how a Glock is more demanding to shoot well didn't stand up to my scrutiny. On my first outing with the gun, my slow fire group was as good as my slow fire 1911 group, so I'm pretty much of the opinion that either you can shoot a pistol, or you can't. My weak hand slow fire and my two hand rapid fire with a mag change need a bit of work, but I haven't done much auto pistol shooting lately, so its not surprising. My strong hand slow fire group was as tight as my two handed slow fire group, but by then I was gaining a comfort level with the gun.
There is one thing that I really dislike about this pistol, and it might be something as simple as everyone's hands are different, and maybe its just related to the challenge of attempting to design a gun for universal use. Perhaps its due to the fact that I chose a compact rather than a full size gun, I'm not sure, but to me you don't need a big gun to shoot 9mm. Anyway, my issue is the trigger guard. It seems to crowd the bottom of the trigger, and it wasn't long before the edge of my trigger finger tip was tender and sore, next time out, or the next time I take on an extended bout of dry firing, I'll tape it.
So its time for me to concede that the Glock pistol is a good, practical, well designed gun. Does it make the 1911 obsolete? Not at all. But the Glock is a better choice, if you need to purchase a gun for a modest price, and holster it for for daily carry the day you get it, without having to be concerned with reliability issues.
Still alive
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Rainy mosquito infested part of BC
Well done, how did you accomplish this copy paste function in one template?
That's why he's WayneTHEMAN!!
You should see what he does with wheels!
He seems to struggle with spelling and sentence structure though. Sentences seem to lose their meaning when you leave out words.
Just saying. :>)
Take Care
Bob
OK I will wade in. I have my fire extinguisher handy.
Don't own a Glock. Tried them, don't like them. Don't in general like polymer frame guns but tried the Sig P320 and in my view it is better than the Glock in pretty much every way and significantly cheaper. Fit, finish, trigger (so much better) and shootability.
Glock's are a good, reliable, out of the box defensive weapon. Takes some time to get used to the grip angle but the grip angle is pretty similar to my Pardini so in itself not an issue. Did I say how much the trigger sucks, yes you can upgrade it by why should you have too. I put it in the same class as my TT33, bad. Short of a crappy Russian trigger the worst I have used. All of my, non Russian, handguns have better triggers and every poly frame gun I have tried has a better trigger. Biggest problem with Glock's that I see is that lots of other manufacturers have caught up with just as good and cheaper products.
If the Glock is the only gun you have and you practice with it it is a good workmanlike firearm that is real world accurate and reliable. Nothing wrong with that and a lot of positive but there are a lot of guns at least as good and many that are better. Personally I prefer a bit more finese and certainly a better trigger. To me a 1911 is classic while a Glock is ugly. The trigger on Sig is better, my Ruger's are better, my CZ and Pardini are way better and as you can't carry in Canada the light weight is a non issue.
Don't own a Glock. Tried them, don't like them. Don't in general like polymer frame guns but tried the Sig P320 and in my view it is better than the Glock in pretty much every way and significantly cheaper. Fit, finish, trigger (so much better) and shootability.
Glock's are a good, reliable, out of the box defensive weapon. Takes some time to get used to the grip angle but the grip angle is pretty similar to my Pardini so in itself not an issue. Did I say how much the trigger sucks, yes you can upgrade it by why should you have too. I put it in the same class as my TT33, bad. Short of a crappy Russian trigger the worst I have used. All of my, non Russian, handguns have better triggers and every poly frame gun I have tried has a better trigger. Biggest problem with Glock's that I see is that lots of other manufacturers have caught up with just as good and cheaper products.
If the Glock is the only gun you have and you practice with it it is a good workmanlike firearm that is real world accurate and reliable. Nothing wrong with that and a lot of positive but there are a lot of guns at least as good and many that are better. Personally I prefer a bit more finese and certainly a better trigger. To me a 1911 is classic while a Glock is ugly. The trigger on Sig is better, my Ruger's are better, my CZ and Pardini are way better and as you can't carry in Canada the light weight is a non issue.
You cant beat Glock for simplicity and function. its not supposed to be pretty or have a match trigger. they just work and they work well. Ive had lots of polymer guns (to keep it fair) and the only polymer gun I kept was the gen4 Glock 17.
I actually prefer my G21 gen 3 to my G17 gen 4. The grip angle works better for me on the gen 3 v gen 4.
Waynetheman
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver.
It's the little quote+ button next to reply with quote.
Typing on a phone does have its downsides. Autocorrect will do what it likes.
I keep reading here an elsewhere that Glocks are chosen because they are the cheaper option. Well, the FBI have of course chosen the G 19 as their standard sidearm and now the word is that with the modifications the FBI is demanding, those are costing them US$2900 per pistol. Better, but not cheaper and certainly not the cheapest option.
