I was at my the local range today, a facility that lets newbs off the street buy ammo and try shooting guns, when I heard a conversation between two RSO's and a few customers about GLOCKS.
The RSO's contended that GLOCKs aren't all they're cracked up to be - citing the fact that their range GLOCKs frames generally crack within 6 months and need to be replaced and that the hype behind them is all a big advertising blitz.
That got me thinking, since the person that got me into handgun shooting told me that GLOCK, for it's simplicity, reliability, and durability was the best choice of gun for a new shooter, him personally citing hundreds of thousands of rounds fired through his G17. Since then, I've heard stories of GLOCKs with upwards of a few millions rounds fired through them without a problem.
I myself have had my GLOCK for a few years now and put between 10000 - 15000 rounds through it and besides some of the springs feeling a bit broken in, it shoots fine.
Then it hit me, the GLOCK does have one major fatal design flaw - new shooters.
The slide on the GLOCK is much heavier than the frame and there are only 4 major points of contact connecting the slide to the frame (the 4 metal rails, embedded into it, two around the front of the trigger, two towards the rear of the gun).
I have no doubt that a GLOCK will survive extreme climates, submersion in water, or it's action jammed with sand or flour - but when you consider the design, the biggest weakness the GLOCK has is constant use by people who don't know how to shoot handguns.
I theorize that because the slide is so heavy compared to the frame, because the slide doesn't form a perfectly tight seal with the rails (I don't think any gun does), and because the points of contact are small, that limp wristing causes the slide to vibrate vertically, up and down, in a fashion that the gun was not designed for. With enough of this vibration, over time, the points of the frame (where the rails are attached) weaken and eventually crack.
I think this might explain why public ranges that use GLOCKs have them break so often, but also why competent operators are able to get great longevity out of them. We all limp wrist from time to time, but I think experienced shooters do it more rarely. New shooters almost ALWAYS limp wrist.
The analogy I'm thinking of is like driving standard. You can drive in first gear everywhere you go, but it won't take long before your transmission fails. I think GLOCKs in the hands of limpwristing newbies are the same way. This might be a problem if you're constantly lending your gun out to inexperienced folks, but if you know how to shoot, I think you should be fine.
I assume this is an inherent flaw with all semi-automatics and justifiably other guns hold up better than others - but I think the GLOCK bashing that goes around sometimes is ignorant and uncalled for, as the problem itself lies with the shooter, not the gun.
Thoughts?
The RSO's contended that GLOCKs aren't all they're cracked up to be - citing the fact that their range GLOCKs frames generally crack within 6 months and need to be replaced and that the hype behind them is all a big advertising blitz.
That got me thinking, since the person that got me into handgun shooting told me that GLOCK, for it's simplicity, reliability, and durability was the best choice of gun for a new shooter, him personally citing hundreds of thousands of rounds fired through his G17. Since then, I've heard stories of GLOCKs with upwards of a few millions rounds fired through them without a problem.
I myself have had my GLOCK for a few years now and put between 10000 - 15000 rounds through it and besides some of the springs feeling a bit broken in, it shoots fine.
Then it hit me, the GLOCK does have one major fatal design flaw - new shooters.
The slide on the GLOCK is much heavier than the frame and there are only 4 major points of contact connecting the slide to the frame (the 4 metal rails, embedded into it, two around the front of the trigger, two towards the rear of the gun).
I have no doubt that a GLOCK will survive extreme climates, submersion in water, or it's action jammed with sand or flour - but when you consider the design, the biggest weakness the GLOCK has is constant use by people who don't know how to shoot handguns.
I theorize that because the slide is so heavy compared to the frame, because the slide doesn't form a perfectly tight seal with the rails (I don't think any gun does), and because the points of contact are small, that limp wristing causes the slide to vibrate vertically, up and down, in a fashion that the gun was not designed for. With enough of this vibration, over time, the points of the frame (where the rails are attached) weaken and eventually crack.
I think this might explain why public ranges that use GLOCKs have them break so often, but also why competent operators are able to get great longevity out of them. We all limp wrist from time to time, but I think experienced shooters do it more rarely. New shooters almost ALWAYS limp wrist.
The analogy I'm thinking of is like driving standard. You can drive in first gear everywhere you go, but it won't take long before your transmission fails. I think GLOCKs in the hands of limpwristing newbies are the same way. This might be a problem if you're constantly lending your gun out to inexperienced folks, but if you know how to shoot, I think you should be fine.
I assume this is an inherent flaw with all semi-automatics and justifiably other guns hold up better than others - but I think the GLOCK bashing that goes around sometimes is ignorant and uncalled for, as the problem itself lies with the shooter, not the gun.
Thoughts?
