Curiosity - polarized opinions on Glocks?

[870P]

Here's the problem as I see it, and these criticisms are towards the pistol when it is used in the life saving role. You are free to disagree. The Glock trigger has a long heavy, and in some cases very heavy, initial pull. Then provided you do no loose contact with the trigger, subsequent shots can be made rapidly and accurately with a short light trigger action. In a fight, you are in as stressful a situation as you are likely to ever find yourself in, with the possible exception of finding yourself on #2 between Calgary and Edmonton in summer time traffic, bumper to bumper at 140 after having spent the previous 15 years driving in Churchill Manitoba at 40 without another vehicle in sight. It is possible when under stress, that you will break contact with the trigger. When (not if) you do, you are back to that long heavy pull, which will cause you to be exposed to fire for a longer period of time. On the range you can shoot a decent group with a long heavy pull, but it takes time, and time is not something to be taken for granted in a fight. Now it is possible to simply waste the shot so you can return to the light short pull, but you are morally, ethically and legally responsible for every round you send down range, particularly if that fight is in an urban environment. The greatest danger though is when you do not realize that you have broken contact with the trigger, you expect a short light pull, but instead have a long heavy one. That is when you get killed.

Neither am I fan of DA/SA autos. DA on a pistol serves no purpose, where as on a revolver it cycles the cylinder to a subsequent chamber providing you a fresh round. However, IMHO, the trigger on a DA/SA pistol is leaps and bounds ahead of the Glock trigger because the operator gets to choose whether he will manually #### the hammer or simply pull the trigger. Once the hammer is cocked, nothing changes until the safety is put on and the hammer is dropped to its rest position. DA only is a really bad idea, but at least it is the same every time, regardless of whether you break contact with the trigger or not.

By contrast a conventional SA pistol only works one way. A short amount of take up, a clean break, then release pressure on the trigger to reset the trigger. If you loose contact with the trigger nothing changes, and each subsequent shot is the same as the previous one. In a fight you are free to do whatever it is you need to do, and the pistol will still fire with a clean 4 pound pull.

That being the case the best fighting pistols, again in my opinion, are the 1911, the P-35, and the SA version of the CZ-75. I have fired perhaps 500 rounds through various Glock pistols, and that was enough for me to make an informed opinion. I will say that the pistols I shot shot very accurately, and I never experienced a stoppage. I don't much care about the shape of the grip frame as you can get used to almost anything provided the handle is of a size that allows you to assume the correct grip, but you can determine that at the time of purchase.

If I was mandated to carry a Glock, I would get my head around it and work with it until I had developed some level of comfort with it. The advantage I have over some is that I have used guns in stressful situations, and because I recognize the short comings of the Glock from the outset I might be better prepared then the individual who puts blind faith in his marksmanship and in the drills he has run at static ranges on face on, stationary, single dimensional targets. The remarkable commercial success of the Glock products does indicate that my opinions are in the minority, but I am not about to change them.

I've rarely seen the standard Glock trigger described as long or heavy, maybe it is compared to a good SAO trigger but its far better than you get with the DA first shot on a DA/SA duty pistol, and is still probably better than most thereafter.

Heck, even the Hi Power and many 1911s aren't so great out of the box, with heavier and crunchier pulls than any Glock I've ever tried. Another thing about cocked and locked capable designs is that aside from the 1911, few seem to come with a really positive and easy-to-get-at thumb safety out of the box, which is definately important on a pistol that may need to be carried in that manner.

Messing with an awkward safety will slow you down far more than "falling off" the Glock trigger reset supposedly will!

Anyways the thinking behind DA/SA is that the long heavy first shot pull will make a ND less likely under day to day real world conditions, after the first shot the individual is now probably shooting defensively and has no need of a fudge resistant trigger pull. I'm not saying I agree with it but that's the reasoning behind it.

 

[DANCESWITHEMPTIES]

Hey!

So I have a question.... I am very new to shooting sports and I have been borrowing a G-17 for IDPA. The general comments about it range anywhere from it's "garbage" to "I'd rather throw it at the target".

I'm just wondering why? From things I've read on here they seem to be a reliable choice.

I quite like it and it is the front runner for my first purchase. But like anything else - when there are so many dissenters I start to question why.

Thanks so much!

Did you buy one yet???

 

[Silver_wlf]

Did you buy one yet???

As soon as my paperwork comes in.

Thanks so much everyone!

 

[Stevo]

In our small IDPA group (less than a dozen) almost half of the shooters have started shooting Glock. This includes folks previously using Hi-Powers, M&Ps, Sigs, and 1911s.

No one has stopped shooting their Glock and changed to a "better" pistol.

 

[johNTO]

I've put about 500rnds through my month old G17 now.
The action of the trigger seemed strange during the first couple of mags. It was unlike anything I have tried before. However, after understanding that there is some initial take up with the middle trigger(~1/4") I was putting some good groupings together.
The ergos were also different but I've learned to fit the Glock. My other semi's are the Armco tuned 1911 and a Browning HP. The triggers and ergos of these two are also different and I've also learned to fit these pistols. IMO the G17 trigger action most closely compares with my revolver.
I'm planning on shooting IPDA and out of three semi's I'll probably end up using the Glock.
Simple to use and simple to clean....

 

[crunchiespg]

I've put well over 50,000 rounds through my glock in the last few years. It's carried in all weathers. It looks worn. Has been dropped, soaked and shot over 3000 rounds in one day on many days. I've shot it so much I've worn out firing pins. Recoil springs and a few other bits.

I've never had a single misfire or stoppage.
The trigger is smooth and consistant. Under stress it hits where I'm aiming. To the previous poster who said the first stage is too long and will cost time in a gun fight I call bs. If I go to full trigger pull every shot I can still put the rounds in a single ragged hole. The reset just makes the same possible in less time. But the difference is milliseconds. And accuracy is fine in terms of real life shooting. I would suggest you are just not familiar with it enough to be confident.

Do I like other pistols. Yes. Do I trust my glock to do what I want and protect my life. Yes.
The only reason I'd choose to carry something else would be because glock mags don't always free drop. So stripping them slows down reloads compared to a gun tha the mag springs out.

 

[MrSchultz]

I've put well over 50,000 rounds through my glock in the last few years. It's carried in all weathers. It looks worn. Has been dropped, soaked and shot over 3000 rounds in one day on many days. I've shot it so much I've worn out firing pins. Recoil springs and a few other bits.

I've never had a single misfire or stoppage.
The trigger is smooth and consistant. Under stress it hits where I'm aiming. To the previous poster who said the first stage is too long and will cost time in a gun fight I call bs. If I go to full trigger pull every shot I can still put the rounds in a single ragged hole. The reset just makes the same possible in less time. But the difference is milliseconds. And accuracy is fine in terms of real life shooting. I would suggest you are just not familiar with it enough to be confident.

Do I like other pistols. Yes. Do I trust my glock to do what I want and protect my life. Yes.
The only reason I'd choose to carry something else would be because glock mags don't always free drop. So stripping them slows down reloads compared to a gun tha the mag springs out.

the great words of David chapell "I'M RICH B1111TCH!!"

 

[harbl_the_cat]

I've never had a single misfire or stoppage.

I'm a bit skeptical at this claim, any gun will have stoppages and I find it highly unlikely that anyone could fire 50,000 without limp wristing (the leading cause of most stoppages) at least once. If not, well - good for you.

I agree with all the other claims though.

I have a fair bit of experience with 20-30 brands and makes of semi-auto pistols and I'd say Glocks are the worst for a first time shooter or for someone who doesn't know how to shoot handguns properly (they are more prone to jam when limpwristed than most other semi's). Also, when constantly fired incorrectly (i.e - limpwristed or flinching), their frames fatigue and crack sooner than most.

That said, they are amazingly simple guns to maintain - and if anything, that sensitivity makes them a far superior gun to learn with, in that if you are experiencing a lot of problems shooting a glock, it's almost certainly is because of you (and very, very rarely the gun itself).

Guns are like cars, they all fundamentally do the same thing and if you swear by Chevy over Ford, you'll always say Ford sucks, regardless of the merit of a Ford vehicle.

What it boils down to is personal preference and requirements for the sport you're shooting it in (the only "legal" reason to own a handgun in Canada). My preference - Glock.

That said, Beretta, H&K, S&W, Taurus, Kimber, Sprinfield, Sig- whatever you shoot doesn't matter.

----

I will say though that the biggest advantage I find with the Glock is the very tactile feel of the trigger reset. Shooting IDPA, I find it much easier to get accurate followup shots than with with something like a Sig or Beretta, whose single action trigger pull feels lighter, but the trigger reset is very subtle and barely noticeable.

 

[crunchiespg]

I'm a bit skeptical at this claim, any gun will have stoppages and I find it highly unlikely that anyone could fire 50,000 without limp wristing (the leading cause of most stoppages) at least once.

I agree with all the other claims though.

I have a fair bit of experience with 20-30 brands and makes of semi-auto pistols and I'd say Glocks are the worst for a first time shooter or for someone who doesn't know how to shoot handguns properly (they are more prone to jam when limpwristed than most other semi's). Also, when constantly fired incorrectly (i.e - limpwristed or flinching), their frames fatigue and crack sooner than most.

That said, they are amazingly simple guns to maintain - and if anything, that sensitivity makes them a far superior gun to learn with, in that if you are experiencing a lot of problems shooting a glock, it's almost certainly is because of you (and very, very rarely the gun itself).

Guns are like cars, they all fundamentally do the same thing and if you swear by Chevy over Ford, you'll always say Ford sucks, regardless of the merit of a Ford vehicle.

What it boils down to is personal preference and requirements for the sport you're shooting it in (the only "legal" reason to own a handgun in Canada). My preference - Glock.

That said, Beretta, H&K, S&W, Taurus, Kimber, Sprinfielf - whatever you shoot doesn't matter.

I have never had a stoppage with this Particular gun. Not one. I don't limp wrist it. With correct grip this should never happen to an experienced shooter.
I've shot glocks for years. I was a tactical firearms officer in the uk police using a glock 17. But didn't have the same gun every day so can't comment so well on those.
Here I use my glock 22 and have carried the same pistol for he last few years. And like I said not one single stoppage. (with the exception of making a stoppage using dummy rounds mixed in a mag of live ammo for training)

 

[harbl_the_cat]

I have never had a stoppage with this Particular gun. Not one. I don't limp wrist it. With correct grip this should never happen to an experienced shooter.
I've shot glocks for years. I was a tactical firearms officer in the uk police using a glock 17. But didn't have the same gun every day so can't comment so well on those.
Here I use my glock 22 and have carried the same pistol for he last few years. And like I said not one single stoppage. (with the exception of making a stoppage using dummy rounds mixed in a mag of live ammo for training)

Congratulations, you're likely a far better and more experienced shooter than me and most people on this board - and I do mean that, respectfully.

That said, I have literally seen hundreds of new shooters pick up a well used, poorly maintained Glock and get frustrated as all hell because they have stoppages and misfeeds like it's nobody's business or can't hit a 15x11 target at 5m.

I think we can both agree though that in the hands of an experienced shooter, Glocks are excellent guns - but for an experienced shooter, what matters most is personal preference (as in - an experience handgunner can be put behind any handgun and shoot it well).

That said, not everyone is a great shooter and there's no such thing as a "natural" when it comes to shooting. Most "newbies" don't know how to properly maintain or clean a gun. And even Todd Jarrett limp wrists (albeit it was during his 40,000 round challenge - and I think anyone would limpwrist after shooting that many .45 rounds withing 20 minutes).

Back to the OP's question though, I think a lot of the bad rep that Glocks get comes from people who don't know how to shoot blaming their poor performance on the gun or from newbies who don't maintain their gun and find after a while that serious carbon, copper, and lead fouling destroys there gun's accuracy and reliability.

 

[Boomer]

The problem with the Glocks is not one of accuracy, they are perhaps the most accurate autos I've shot, but accuracy in a fight is if not irrelevant, nearly so. We are talking about the ability to place your shots on a face on target in an area 8" wide by 18" high at a range of 30', and about 3" wide, if the target is side on, neither shot is difficult on the range, where if you can shoot at all, you should be able to shoot a Glock accurately. My groups with the Glock tend to string out a little horizontally, whereas with a revolver, my 1911 or my Smith 469 the groups tend to be rounder. Fights aren't won by firing groups, but on a vertical target, horizontal shot dispersion will result in a greater chance of failure than does vertical or equal dispersion. In a fight, that vertical target you are used to practicing on from static distances moves, changes shape and size, and does not remain vertical. It creates a bigger problem for you to solve at 3' than it does at 25 yards, because you have to identify the threat, identify the target area, and hit it.

The problem with the Glock trigger is lag time. When under stress you can loose contact with the trigger and instead of firing with a compressed break in a half second it takes a second and a half to get the shot off, because you are expecting the light pull and when the gun doesn't fire you have to diagnose the problem, do I have a failure to feed? Do I have a dead primer? Oh right, I lost contact with the trigger and have to press the trigger harder. If you are exposed to fire for a second and a half, the other guy has every opportunity to hit you, and only luck will prevent that. As for luck, you are wet and cold, you are in a fight, and you have a gun problem . . . so much for luck. If you have never experienced a failure with your pistol, should it happen when it matters I don't envy you. A failure might not be a gun problem at all, it could be an ammo problem. Having confidence in your carry gun is important, having blind confidence in it is dangerous. Just so we know what we are talking about, I am not referring to the simulated stress used on the range by coaches who enforce tight time constraints, difficult problem solving, and people yelling at you, that does not take the place of shooting for blood when you might die. If you think its the same, there isn't much to discuss. But the more realistic your training is, the better your chances become.

Back to the pistol, one example of the Glock I used had an initial pull of perhaps 20 pounds, maybe more and that of course is not normal, but I also doubt that a 5 pound initial pull is normal. Perhaps we can reasonably expect a 3-5 pound pull from the trigger in the set position and perhaps 10-15 pound for the initial pull. Certainly had that pistol been mine I would have fixed that initial pull. If you are involved in a fight on a warm summer day that is one thing, but if you are in a fight, things have already gone terribly wrong, so you can probably expect to be wet and cold, a situation where just feeling the trigger is not guaranteed, never mind being sure if you have not broken contact with it. One trick I learned was to press my finger against the side of the trigger so I could feel it, of course with the Glock that results in breaking contact and loosing the set trigger position, as it does when after your shot, you cover down on the target, and extend your finger straight along the frame as soon as your front sight comes off target.

Anyone who suggests that the trigger pull weight is analogous to a firm handshake needs to go back to marksmanship 101. You hold the pistol in a firm handshake grip, but your trigger finger must act independently of the rest of your hand and press the trigger straight back. It takes a strong hand to apply 20 pounds of pressure with the finger tip without causing shake. This is an unnatural movement since from the time we are born, we instinctively grasp with our whole hand any object presented to us. A new born baby will grasp you finger, squeezing equally with all digits, in a surprisingly strong grip. That is why it presents the wrong message to the beginner when we chant, "squeeze the trigger" when we mean press it.

 

[crunchiespg]

I don't agree with most of what you are saying. It seems you have difficulty shooting a glock which is your issue. Not the guns. I've never seen anyone else have particular horizontal grouping problems with a glock that were the fault ofthe gun. That is a symptom of your style of shooting. And for you the glock highlights that.
I find no matter how quick I shoot the groups don't go horizontal.

As to the trigger being 20 lbs. I don't know which glocks you have used but the whole point of the trigger is that it is consistant.

As I've already said I can shoot just as well from full trigger as I can from reset. I've shot in many force on force scnarios using sims, blanks etc and have never failed to hit the reset when I wanted to. It's called practice and familiarity. I personally would love to carry a sig. But because I carry a glock I rarely shoot anything else because I want the glock to be the most normal feeling for me.

As for taking a second longer for full trigger pull. Again ou need to use glocks more. I can have hands on my chest. React to a beep. Draw from a level 3 holster and fire two accurate rounds in 1 second. This is timed by a PAC timer. And the first tigger pull compared to the second is 1000's of a second difference. I just don't find them that different. Just one is a bit longer. But he weight is the same every time regardless. I have measured it.
And haveing confidence is the gun is not a bad thing. But I agree I should be rady for stoppages. That's why we train by mixig dummy rounds in each others mags. Or even empty cases. To cause jams at random which then have to be fixed.
And if you have ever used sim rounds in a simulated firefight whee you get stoppages all the time you learn to fix the problems quick cos the person shootig back with sims or rubber bullets etc ####ing hurt. So it's as realistic as can be made short of using live rounds at each other.

The problem with the Glocks is not one of accuracy, they are perhaps the most accurate autos I've shot, but accuracy in a fight is if not irrelevant, nearly so. We are talking about the ability to place your shots on a face on target in an area 8" wide by 18" high at a range of 30', and about 3" wide, if the target is side on, neither shot is difficult on the range, where if you can shoot at all, you should be able to shoot a Glock accurately. My groups with the Glock tend to string out a little horizontally, whereas with a revolver, my 1911 or my Smith 469 the groups tend to be rounder. Fights aren't won by firing groups, but on a vertical target, horizontal shot dispersion will result in a greater chance of failure than does vertical or equal dispersion. In a fight, that vertical target you are used to practicing on from static distances moves, changes shape and size, and does not remain vertical. It creates a bigger problem for you to solve at 3' than it does at 25 yards, because you have to identify the threat, identify the target area, and hit it.

The problem with the Glock trigger is lag time. When under stress you can loose contact with the trigger and instead of firing with a compressed break in a half second it takes a second and a half to get the shot off, because you are expecting the light pull and when the gun doesn't fire you have to diagnose the problem, do I have a failure to feed? Do I have a dead primer? Oh right, I lost contact with the trigger and have to press the trigger harder. If you are exposed to fire for a second and a half, the other guy has every opportunity to hit you, and only luck will prevent that. As for luck, you are wet and cold, you are in a fight, and you have a gun problem . . . so much for luck. If you have never experienced a failure with your pistol, should it happen when it matters I don't envy you. A failure might not be a gun problem at all, it could be an ammo problem. Having confidence in your carry gun is important, having blind confidence in it is dangerous. Just so we know what we are talking about, I am not referring to the simulated stress used on the range by coaches who enforce tight time constraints, difficult problem solving, and people yelling at you, that does not take the place of shooting for blood when you might die. If you think its the same, there isn't much to discuss. But the more realistic your training is, the better your chances become.

Back to the pistol, one example of the Glock I used had an initial pull of perhaps 20 pounds, maybe more and that of course is not normal, but I also doubt that a 5 pound initial pull is normal. Perhaps we can reasonably expect a 3-5 pound pull from the trigger in the set position and perhaps 10-15 pound for the initial pull. Certainly had that pistol been mine I would have fixed that initial pull. If you are involved in a fight on a warm summer day that is one thing, but if you are in a fight, things have already gone terribly wrong, so you can probably expect to be wet and cold, a situation where just feeling the trigger is not guaranteed, never mind being sure if you have not broken contact with it. One trick I learned was to press my finger against the side of the trigger so I could feel it, of course with the Glock that results in breaking contact and loosing the set trigger position, as it does when after your shot, you cover down on the target, and extend your finger straight along the frame as soon as your front sight comes off target.

Anyone who suggests that the trigger pull weight is analogous to a firm handshake needs to go back to marksmanship 101. You hold the pistol in a firm handshake grip, but your trigger finger must act independently of the rest of your hand and press the trigger straight back. It takes a strong hand to apply 20 pounds of pressure with the finger tip without causing shake. This is an unnatural movement since from the time we are born, we instinctively grasp with our whole hand any object presented to us. A new born baby will grasp you finger, squeezing equally with all digits, in a surprisingly strong grip. That is why it presents the wrong message to the beginner when we chant, "squeeze the trigger" when we mean press it.

 

[crunchiespg]

Oh and for ammo problems. Every one of my daily carry rounds has been weighed to check for consitancy and full load of powder. And inspected for any problems. So I'm as confident as I can be. Plus it's high quality ammo which has 100's of rounds tested from each new batch befor issue. And should I get a stoppage it's second nature for me to fix it. In fact it's a drill I practice every day when I load my pistol.

 

[Anthrax]

OK... Sliver_Wlf,

Look at it like this...

The Glock is the the Trek of the Firearms world... The Hollywood Effect is the Glock Equivalent to Trek's Lance Effect.

Does Trek make a good bike? Yup and if a Trek works well for you then that's the bike you should ride.

It sounds like Glocks work the same way.

Don't worry about what people say, just shoot what you like.

(and let me shoot it once and a while too)

 

[bollox]

OK... Sliver_Wlf,

Look at it like this...

The Glock is the the Trek of the Firearms world... The Hollywood Effect is the Glock Equivalent to Trek's Lance Effect.

Does Trek make a good bike? Yup and if a Trek works well for you then that's the bike you should ride.

It sounds like Glocks work the same way.

Don't worry about what people say, just shoot what you like.

(and let me shoot it once and a while too)

Holy is that ever an anorak response! "The Trek of the firearms world"??? I know they make bicycles..that's about it...

 

[NAA]

Once upon a time I thought I hated Glocks. Then I got a G22 to shoot circa 1995. In the first year I put several thousand rounds of .40 cal through it without a hitch. I started to develop a pretty healthy respect for this simple yet reliable pistol. Over the years I shot it there were several thousand more rounds put through it. In all that time not one fail to feed, fire, extract or eject. Glocks work. No hate for 'em here.

NAA.

 

[DANCESWITHEMPTIES]

Once upon a time I thought I hated Glocks. Then I got a G22 to shoot circa 1995. In the first year I put several thousand rounds of .40 cal through it without a hitch. I started to develop a pretty healthy respect for this simple yet reliable pistol. Over the years I shot it there were several thousand more rounds put through it. In all that time not one fail to feed, fire, extract or eject. Glocks work. No hate for 'em here.

NAA.

Great I like em too! But I trade ya my 34 for one of those sweet 1911's I know ya got!

 

[phatns2pid]

Two words: square grip. Actually, two more: sharp recoil. I like the aesthetics of them, believe it or not, and I wanted to like Glocks a lot before I actually got to try a couple, but once that was over, I was not a fan.

In our small IDPA group (less than a dozen) almost half of the shooters have started shooting Glock. This includes folks previously using... M&Ps.

Why? Given the M&P basically being a Glock (minus square grip) I'm kind of surprised by this one.

 

[Boomer]

Double Tap!

 

[Boomer]

Oh and for ammo problems. Every one of my daily carry rounds has been weighed to check for consitancy and full load of powder. And inspected for any problems. So I'm as confident as I can be. Plus it's high quality ammo which has 100's of rounds tested from each new batch befor issue. And should I get a stoppage it's second nature for me to fix it. In fact it's a drill I practice every day when I load my pistol.

I'm glad to hear you get good performance from your Glock. Had my experience been positive I might have been a fan as well. It is interesting though that you state a preference for a SIG despite all the Glock shooting you have done, perhaps you've been mandated to carry one and had to develop a measure of comfort with it. SIGs have issues as well, aside from the sticker price, but had I to choose between a Glock and a SIG, the decision would be easy. You are correct that my horizontal groups are a result of not spending enough time with the Glock, but seeing that I'm comfortably into middle age now, I doubt I will live long enough to get a horizontal group with all the holes touching to morf into a round group from a gun with a 20 pound trigger. Although I did say that had that been my gun, I'd have fixed that trigger, probably by throwing the gun into Hudson Bay, and going back to one of my 1911s, or even a revolver.

Getting 2 hits in one second, including reaction time and draw is very fast, as fast as most people's reaction time alone, you are to be commended. Of course you are ready for the signal that you know is coming which is the downfall of any timed drill, whereas on the street what matters is how quickly you can deliver a shot without being forewarned of the need.

I would like to know what you thought you accomplished by weighing your ammo though. A bad primer weighs the same as a good one, and if you have a heavy casing and a heavy bullet that is more than enough to mask a light powder charge in a service pistol cartridge. If it makes you feel better though, carry on. A bad round can occur from any manufacturer, from any batch number, regardless of how much testing is done. The testing that is involved in the quality control of ammunition only tests the round that is being tested, not the next one, or the one that is in your chamber. If you ever experience one, it might be that one in a billion failure, but if that is the round in your chamber when you need it, it doesn't help you. I wonder if you would pull the trigger a second time or rack the slide? I'll bet you'd pull the trigger again, and probably get the same results. With a 1911 you'd be more inclined to rack the slide. I've pointed this out to others who must put absolute faith in their ammo when they engage in their high risk professions, and like them you probably won't consider the possibility relevant to your experience, besides, you're not going to live forever, right?

That fact that you drill to clear a stoppage is far more important than weighing pistol rounds, I hope your drills are not limited to a single type of stoppage. In a real fight, you might not get that magazine securely locked in after a speed reload. The fastest and surest means of dealing with a stoppage is by carrying a backup as you can draw and fire with your weak hand faster than you can diagnose, clear, and reload a stoppage in your primary.

I dislike the simulated gunfight exercises with non-lethal rounds. Aside from the possibility of a lethal round finding its way into a magazine, and that has happened, it messes with your mindset that that thing on your hip is a lethal weapon. I never want to loose that discomfort that must be overcome even in a fight when my front sight covers a live human being. But if that's the way you train its none of my business, at least you get the idea that a human target can shrink in front of your eyes by simply quartering towards you.