Can't believe how simple glocks are....

bsand

bsand

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
56   0   2
Location
FREE STATE OF FLORIDA
I had purchased a gen 2.5 glock 26 that was on consignment at a LGS in Washington. The pistol has major holster wear, but the internals were like new but 20 years old (gun made in 1996). So It was suggested I swap out all the springs. I ordered everything for about 40$ USD shipped, expensivest part was the new metal recoil spring.

I had taken the gun apart for the first time (watched a youtube video while doing it) and had everything taken apart and put back together in less than 30 minutes....

I'm blown away at how little trouble I had, and just how damn easily it goes together and comes apart. I can't believe I didn't like glocks before haha :redface:
 
bsand said:
I had purchased a gen 2.5 glock 26 that was on consignment at a LGS in Washington. The pistol has major holster wear, but the internals were like new but 20 years old (gun made in 1996). So It was suggested I swap out all the springs. I ordered everything for about 40$ USD shipped, expensivest part was the new metal recoil spring.

I had taken the gun apart for the first time (watched a youtube video while doing it) and had everything taken apart and put back together in less than 30 minutes....

I'm blown away at how little trouble I had, and just how damn easily it goes together and comes apart. I can't believe I didn't like glocks before haha :redface:
Click to expand...

ugly girls are the easiest to pick up at a bar..... dosnt mean you should though.

*the M&P fabboy steps in with a hard right to the chin!*

annnnnnnnd begin!
 
wayupnorth said:
ugly girls are the easiest to pick up at a bar..... dosnt mean you should though.

*the M&P fabboy steps in with a hard right to the chin!*

annnnnnnnd begin!
Click to expand...

You mean Smith and Wesson's second or third attempt to copy a Glock, the first of which they were sued for due to patent infringement. The same M&P that failed the FBI trials and was asked to leave the US Army modular handgun trials. The same M&P that has a nearly unserviceable stock trigger that nearly everyone changes. Maybe you're talking about the M&P that has 14 more parts than a Glock, weighs 2.5 oz more than a Glock 17, is slightly thicker, has a heavier trigger, a shorter non hammer forged or polygonal rifled barrel, and near non existent tactile trigger reset. ;)

andrew3081 said:
There are many handguns out there that are simple.
Click to expand...

There is no simpler gun on the planet by parts count. Beretta 92- 67 parts. 1911-52 parts. M&P-48 parts. SIG 226-55 parts. Springfield XD-55 parts. CZ Shadow-63 parts. Browning HiPower-52 parts. Hk USP-52 parts. Walther PPQ-34 parts(magazine counts as one whereas Glock includes all five parts of the magazine in their count) Walther P99-38 parts(magazine counted as one part). Ruger SR9-61 parts(magazine counted as one part). Glock- 34 parts including 5 parts of the magazine. It will function safely on 29 parts.
 
Kidd X said:
You mean Smith and Wesson's second or third attempt to copy a Glock, the first of which they were sued for due to patent infringement. The same M&P that failed the FBI trials and was asked to leave the US Army modular handgun trials. The same M&P that has a nearly unserviceable stock trigger that nearly everyone changes. Maybe you're talking about the M&P that has 14 more parts than a Glock, weighs 2.5 oz more than a Glock 17, is slightly thicker, has a heavier trigger, a shorter non hammer forged or polygonal rifled barrel, and near non existent tactile trigger reset. ;)



There is no simpler gun on the planet by parts count. Beretta 92- 67 parts. 1911-52 parts. M&P-48 parts. SIG 226-55 parts. Springfield XD-55 parts. CZ Shadow-63 parts. Browning HiPower-52 parts. Hk USP-52 parts. Walther PPQ-34 parts(magazine counts as one whereas Glock includes all five parts of the magazine in their count) Walther P99-38 parts(magazine counted as one part). Ruger SR9-61 parts(magazine counted as one part). Glock- 34 parts including 5 parts of the magazine. It will function safely on 29 parts.
Click to expand...

Sling shot 3 parts. ;) Simpler is usually more reliable but not necessarily more accurate.
 
I can completely strip and glock and put it together again in less than 10 mins... They are great guns to work on, very straightforward
 
It is a beautifull thing... JP.

DSC00011_zpsleh2onx2.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]
 
Kidd X said:
You mean Smith and Wesson's second or third attempt to copy a Glock, the first of which they were sued for due to patent infringement. The same M&P that failed the FBI trials and was asked to leave the US Army modular handgun trials. The same M&P that has a nearly unserviceable stock trigger that nearly everyone changes. Maybe you're talking about the M&P that has 14 more parts than a Glock, weighs 2.5 oz more than a Glock 17, is slightly thicker, has a heavier trigger, a shorter non hammer forged or polygonal rifled barrel, and near non existent tactile trigger reset. ;)



There is no simpler gun on the planet by parts count. Beretta 92- 67 parts. 1911-52 parts. M&P-48 parts. SIG 226-55 parts. Springfield XD-55 parts. CZ Shadow-63 parts. Browning HiPower-52 parts. Hk USP-52 parts. Walther PPQ-34 parts(magazine counts as one whereas Glock includes all five parts of the magazine in their count) Walther P99-38 parts(magazine counted as one part). Ruger SR9-61 parts(magazine counted as one part). Glock- 34 parts including 5 parts of the magazine. It will function safely on 29 parts.
Click to expand...

Just because a gun have less parts does not make it a simple gun.

At least the M&P does not have the BTF issue like the Glock. Or the crappy Glock ergonomics.
Both good guns though.
 
andrew3081 said:
Just because a gun have less parts does not make it a simple gun.

At least the M&P does not have the BTF issue like the Glock. Or the crappy Glock ergonomics.
Both good guns though.
Click to expand...

Fewer parts means less to fail and means a simpler design. The ergonomics are actually perfectly designed for a leading thumbs grip and a locked wrist. The angle of the grip is derived from the Luger pistol which also was designed based on ergonomic principles(toss in the HK P7 too). The angle of other pistols like the 1911 is derived off of a boxing grip/wrist position and is not natural. The difference is small at 3 degrees(depending on who's angle values you use) which shouldn't make any difference if you're consistent with your shooting skills. For those that say the 3 degrees is an issue then there's the videos below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4qCa9dtj48
This is a video done by another person but contains the original footage from the US Army training film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT2DdFSuMi8
Here's the history behind the Glock design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom