I don't understand the "Glock Advantage"...
- Thread starter mini15
- Start date
- Status
Advantage or Disadvantage is based on your perception and how you view it, based on your experiences. If you shared my experiences with it, you may well have my same viewpoint. Its a rugged simple machine that eats ammo and puts it on target without much drama. At the end of the day, it strips down in seconds and is super easy to clean. All safety's are automatic and happen as the trigger is pulled which I feel is pure genius! Its a clean gun, snag free and has a generic look to it which I feel are all advantages.
I was picking up a few live rounds that our local detachment left at the range and a buddy said, "I would never shoot that in my gun". I told him "I WOULD"! My glock will eat anything, even ammo that been frozen under snow, of different types and makes, nickel or brass, hollow point, lead round nose, FMJ or truncated cone, it eats them all and never complains even when mixed in the magazine............even if you abuse it with sub machine gun loads, it never fails, well at least mine never has
Its been a lot of years since I had to trust my life to that Glock, and I have lots of other pistols, if I had to go back into that line of work, where I worked, I would pick up my 27 year old Glock 17 and put it in a holster without hesitation. It took a lot of years to earn that kind of trust...........It really is that good! Verified by Police all over the globe and other manufacturers that have copied the design features
I was picking up a few live rounds that our local detachment left at the range and a buddy said, "I would never shoot that in my gun". I told him "I WOULD"! My glock will eat anything, even ammo that been frozen under snow, of different types and makes, nickel or brass, hollow point, lead round nose, FMJ or truncated cone, it eats them all and never complains even when mixed in the magazine............even if you abuse it with sub machine gun loads, it never fails, well at least mine never has
Its been a lot of years since I had to trust my life to that Glock, and I have lots of other pistols, if I had to go back into that line of work, where I worked, I would pick up my 27 year old Glock 17 and put it in a holster without hesitation. It took a lot of years to earn that kind of trust...........It really is that good! Verified by Police all over the globe and other manufacturers that have copied the design features
- Location
- Vancouver BC
Oh, and I almost forgot, another advantage....................Glock Girls
For the win!
If you're concerned that Glock's don't have and external safety.....get a Smith to install one.
Personally, I like my Glocks safety features just the way they are. But then again I mostly shoot revolvers (so similar safety mechanics) and I don't depend on my HG's to protect my life or anyone else's.
There are more advantages to a Glock than their lack of external safeties....IMO
Personally, I like my Glocks safety features just the way they are. But then again I mostly shoot revolvers (so similar safety mechanics) and I don't depend on my HG's to protect my life or anyone else's.
There are more advantages to a Glock than their lack of external safeties....IMO
Last edited:
BCshooterFMJ
Regular
- Location
- British Columbia
Haha, "Glock girls" ... So its the official chick gun? Whats next, your gonna claim Dodge neons are an advantage too?
I shot one, I hated it flat out, hated how it felt and looked, it had been worked on and had a great trigger pull though. I will gladly stick with my CZ 85 combat. I would never personally bad mouth them in a general sense and say they are bad guns as they have a great track record that would be hard to ignore, they are just not for me. I dont think I'd ever own a plastic gun unless I had to carry it all day, since I live in Canada, that most likely wont ever happen.
...And even if I could carry, I think I would still stick the CZ lol.
Whats next, your gonna claim Dodge neons are an advantage too? I shot one, I hated it flat out, hated how it felt and looked, it had been worked on and had a great trigger pull though. I will gladly stick with my CZ 85 combat. I would never personally bad mouth them in a general sense and say they are bad guns as they have a great track record that would be hard to ignore, they are just not for me. I dont think I'd ever own a plastic gun unless I had to carry it all day, since I live in Canada, that most likely wont ever happen.
...And even if I could carry, I think I would still stick the CZ lol.
The way I see it, the Glock advantage is that it does not hold your hand. Think of it not as a missing feature but as a removed variable. An external safety, or even a revolving cylinder, is a weak point for those who are facing chaotic circumstances where there is a very real chance that someone else is trying to grab their gun.
Imagine a police officer gets jumped and some guy's grabbing their gun with his finger holding the safety down while his other hand is trying to gouge out their eyes with a sharpened spoon. If that safety is stuck on, the officer needs to wrestle the guy off the gun, and then disengage the safety, and then make ready to shoot.
On the other hand, with a glock, the only external part that needs to move to fire is the trigger. Even if someone's holding the slide immobile as long as it's still in battery it will fire. That is the glock advantage, one less thing to go wrong.
The only time it's not beneficial is if the other person has the gun and you are the one trying to take it away from them, and yes many police officers are shot with their own firearm. That's why some departments have insisted on features such as magazine release safeties, but at the same time there are many anecdotes of magazines falling out of guns and not being able to shoot at all due to the placement of button releases and the release safety. It's a constant tradeoff.
On the civilian side of it maybe it's just me, but I dislike anything that lets people carelessly wave around guns with their fingers on the trigger because "The safety's on." That person is trusting my life to a spring and 1/8" of metal.
Imagine a police officer gets jumped and some guy's grabbing their gun with his finger holding the safety down while his other hand is trying to gouge out their eyes with a sharpened spoon. If that safety is stuck on, the officer needs to wrestle the guy off the gun, and then disengage the safety, and then make ready to shoot.
On the other hand, with a glock, the only external part that needs to move to fire is the trigger. Even if someone's holding the slide immobile as long as it's still in battery it will fire. That is the glock advantage, one less thing to go wrong.
The only time it's not beneficial is if the other person has the gun and you are the one trying to take it away from them, and yes many police officers are shot with their own firearm. That's why some departments have insisted on features such as magazine release safeties, but at the same time there are many anecdotes of magazines falling out of guns and not being able to shoot at all due to the placement of button releases and the release safety. It's a constant tradeoff.
On the civilian side of it maybe it's just me, but I dislike anything that lets people carelessly wave around guns with their fingers on the trigger because "The safety's on." That person is trusting my life to a spring and 1/8" of metal.
If that's the case then there's no way to make an argument that under the stress of a gunfight you won't shoot yourself on account of the lack of an external safety on the glock. Nor would there be any way to predict your ability to make hits, which is a far more difficult task. If you can't trust yourself to engage the gun with a grip that will take the safety off, you can't trust yourself to do any of the subsequent and more difficult tasks, so give up now.
Besides which, of course, when you shoot a 1911 your thumb should be riding on top of the safety, making it very difficult to get wrong.
Trained drivers perform emergency maneuvers well mid-crash on a fairly regular basis.
Trained pilots do the same.
Repetition and training will allow people to repeat actions under stress that they can perform relaxed. HOWEVER, pilots, who train vastly more than 99.9% of shooters, still do things wrong on occasion. Obviously the things they do wrong tend not to be "grab the stick wrong" which would be the equivalent of grabbing a 1911 so poorly you can't get the safety off, but they do check the wrong gauge or make the wrong correction and crash once in a while.
That is why I like manual safeties. You can train enough to perform the basic tasks correctly every time - tasks like gripping the gun. You can't train enough to know that you will NEVER make a mistake. For this reason I like a bit of a margin of error. Is it manageable to do without? Yes. Would I rather have the option? If I could, yes, I would.
The Advantage part is not that is does'nt have one, but does'nt need one. When glock came out, every handgun on the market where either Double action/single action (revolver, Berreta 92, sig P226 etc) without safety or single action pistol with safety. The glock was a brige betwwen both without needing a safety, That their "marketing advantage"
Phat Eagle
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Fraser Valley, BC
^^^Mayor of Rightville^^^ People need to remember this is a 25 year-old marketing slogan, and things have changed much since then. Duplication is the sincerest form of flattery after all...
If you utilize a high-thumbs grip (mechanically superior to anything else) it will not matter if you have a thumb safety or not, as your thumb will ride on top of it. It is the same grip you would use for a 1911 or a Glock or for pretty much anything else other than revolvers, so the idea of no thumb safety as an advantage is a bit of a reach. However, for a duty gun the Glock is by far the better choice.
If you make mistakes while holding a gun, for your own safety, do not hold one.
It is not about making mistakes, it is about saving time. The less levers to mess with the more time you have for doing other things. You shave milliseconds here and there, in a 10 second gun fight you might have won 1 second overall.
Police do not train in real gun fights, they have training facilities where they simulate threats with real people, they don't even shoot real guns. This is what you learn at Police academy (at least in Canada). If you wanna know more about this go to the regular meetings/introductory meeting Police offer every month to give information to those interested in joining the force. In those meetings they usually show you how they train (among other things).
IDPA is not police oriented, is civilian oriented and it was conceived in USA for those with carry permits. IDPA allows regular mortals to train with their platforms for a 'rainy day', after all you want to know what to do if you are going to carry.
Long story short: How many gun fights have I been in? NONE. Ask a police man that, most of them never been in one either.
Training is done through re-enactment. You gotta re-enact the situation in a fake scenario, there is no way to re-enact the real stress but at least you exercise muscle memory, muzzle control, reloading skills and you get comfortable with your gear and that will eventually make you faster and safer.
Waiting to be in a real gun fight in order to see how you react, is plain silly.
The more training you have with your gear/platform/gun of choice the more proficient you will become. Choose your poison, I like it simple. Less is more.
It is not about making mistakes, it is about saving time. The less levers to mess with the more time you have for doing other things. You shave milliseconds here and there, in a 10 second gun fight you might have won 1 second overall.
Police do not train in real gun fights, they have training facilities where they simulate threats with real people, they don't even shoot real guns. This is what you learn at Police academy (at least in Canada). If you wanna know more about this go to the regular meetings/introductory meeting Police offer every month to give information to those interested in joining the force. In those meetings they usually show you how they train (among other things).
IDPA is not police oriented, is civilian oriented and it was conceived in USA for those with carry permits. IDPA allows regular mortals to train with their platforms for a 'rainy day', after all you want to know what to do if you are going to carry.
Long story short: How many gun fights have I been in? NONE. Ask a police man that, most of them never been in one either.
Training is done through re-enactment. You gotta re-enact the situation in a fake scenario, there is no way to re-enact the real stress but at least you exercise muscle memory, muzzle control, reloading skills and you get comfortable with your gear and that will eventually make you faster and safer.
Waiting to be in a real gun fight in order to see how you react, is plain silly.
The more training you have with your gear/platform/gun of choice the more proficient you will become. Choose your poison, I like it simple. Less is more.
- Status
