Curiosity - polarized opinions on Glocks?
- Thread starter Silver_wlf
- Start date
- Location
- Chatham, Ont-errible
I don't have red hair, Matt. It's brown.
I don't think they're perfect at all...the factory sights blow, and calibers other than 9mm are of varying quality IMO.
They refused to sort out their grip issues for years and they still aren't great.
The trigger is okay, but not ideal.
If this was a discussion of "what is wrong with Glocks" I could say lots of things. But if it's "what's a more reliable, effective 9mm than a G17 or G19" then I think the list is pretty short...
Um, yeah. It always comes down to a discussion of Glocks and 1911s because the SIG owners just shake their heads and say "not THIS again..." and quietly chuckle to themselves.
Oh, and "The Box o' Truth" was AWESOME, field stripping and lubricating a Glock TOTALLY proves what an impressive weapon it is... Decent writing though, for an eleven year old...
Oh, and "The Box o' Truth" was AWESOME, field stripping and lubricating a Glock TOTALLY proves what an impressive weapon it is... Decent writing though, for an eleven year old...
Well now we have part A. out of the way I would ask what is your source for your info. Have you seen the video on youtube regarding how easy it is to jam a Glock by limp wristing? Probably not. You take any modern firearm CZ, SIG, S&W and 1911 and they will be as reliable as your Glock 17. They are very good guns to be sure but no better than a number of other handguns.
Take Care
Bob
In the last couple of weeks i have been able to try 3 glocks from members at our club.A 9mm,.40 and now a .45.I dont like the grip at all.Being used to a sa auto the trigger is horrid,sorta like squeezing a marshmellow.I wont bash the fact that they are considered to be very reliable and well built.Everyone likes what they like.Glock just isn't doing it for me at all.
Reliability wise, my Sig P226 (older W. German made) is more reliable in my opinion than my Glock 17C. And both are more reliable than stock 1911's in a comparable price range. My Glock has had 2 or 3 FTF's with Win White Box 147grBEB's. And it was while letting a new shooter try it. He limp wristed a couple but being a bricklayer from Ireland he was able to correct it quickly. I was scared he might break the gun with his grip! My P226 has never had a FTF I can remember. I must have put at least 20 cases of ammo through it by now. Perfection. I still haven't bought a 1911 yet but plan to.
yep, seen it
Just to take one example out of your list of alternatives, though...I love 1911s and in a sense then can be as reliable as a Glock...but the maintenance schedule to keep them that way is DRASTICALLY more demanding.
According to, say, Hilton Yam (since you were asking about my sources of info - I am going to assume I don't have to establish his credentials or anything here) the extractor on a duty 1911 should be replaced every 3000 rounds or so...recoil springs, same deal, frequent replacement.
And when you replace 1911 parts you don't just buy, insert, and shoot. Practically everything must be hand fitted, carefully, by someone who knows 1911s well.
9mm Glocks have a maintenance schedule similar to that of a rock, and if things go wrong, you drop in a new part.
Other glocks have not been as good as the 9mm ones - I am citing Larry Vickers here - but even they are less finicky than lots of other guns.
There are a few guns that are starting to look like they are on par with glocks in terms of reliability, but like it or not, 9mm glocks are the gold standard of reliable auto pistols and I am having a hard time thinking of a single top flight trainer who says otherwise. I am not saying there isn't one, but when I run down my own mental list of big names I can't think of anybody that would disagree with this.
i'll half-agree. i spent a two or three weeks shooting a Beretta 92 at nearly every range day, and this past wednesday on a lark i decided to shoot a Glock 21 (.45ACP) mainly cuz it's been a while since i shot it AND i'm buying a Glock 22 (.40S&W) so i wanted to start feeling the trigger.
it's actually not bad and not like a marshmallow. the initial pull is a bit "vague" and i didn't feel the distinct point at which things were just about to release, but the follow-up shots were very nice to do (the key being that the trigger wasn't fully released, just a hair to reset it). and from THAT point - second shot onwards - it was a better trigger than the Beretta 92. still not quite as nice as a S&W revolver, but pretty good nonetheless.
I would change books if I were you. Unless they break, which can happen I don't know of to many shooters who routinely change the extractor on a 1911. If any of mine were to break I would just insert another. It would take about a minute of my time.
From your post you would think the pistol ws invented by Glock and everything else came afterwards. Not so grasshopper. The main feature of Glock is they are simple to maintain, cost little, as they should since there realy isn't much to them. They are very good LEO guns. They aren't however the pinacle of pistol design. They come with cheap sights and a lousy heavy trigger. Can they be tweaked, of course but so can the others.
As to the instructors, well tacticool and paonoia sells. The Glock fits the image. The gun is also what is most likely going to be in the hands of their students be they civilians or LEO's.
If you are talking about handgun instructors who specialize in either of the two major shooting sports then Jarett was up untl recently with Para, Leatham is with Springfield, Hobdell is with CZ and Savigny is with Glock. Tyc is CZ. Miculuk is with S&W.
There are any number of excellent pistols, polymer, alloy and steel all just as reliable as the Glock and all, including the Glock have parts departments.
"And when you replace 1911 parts you don't just buy, insert, and shoot. Practically everything must be hand fitted, carefully, by someone who knows 1911s well"
The hand fitting concept stems from the fact the 1911 is a design not a specific pistol like a Glock, M&P, CZ or SIG. You are comparing apples and oranges. Neither of the other three pistols require hand fitting of parts because they are made solely by one company to one specification. This simply is not the case with the 1911.
Take Care
Bob
ps Can you take your Glock down to the frame without the use of any tools. No? Well you can with a 1911 - only need an empty shell casing to get started, and then only to remove the grips.
Well, you are welcome to do as you see fit, of course.
You definitely do not understand where I am coming from in regards to glocks however...in no way do I think they came first and everything else came after. When I got in to guns, everyone I knew shot 1911s and thought glocks would be a passing fad. Obviously it did not turn out that way.
The majority of my pistol experience is with 1911s, however, because 1911s are what I really enjoy.
The maintenance schedule of extractors comes from people who depend on their 1911s...I am trying to think of any agency which still issues the 1911 and does not replace the extractors at least every 5000 rounds? There are not many outfits left that issue the 1911 at all - especially if you look at the trigger time those people get.
There are many reasons why hand fitting is required to make 1911s run well, and if you think that is simply the result of different manufacturers working to different specs, then I would say it is not me who is confused about the different pistols we're discussing.
I am not sure what the ability to take down 1911s - well, some of them, anyway - without tools has to do with anything.
And I agree that guys sponsored by competitors to glock are unlikely to make a sales pitch for glock.
However, there are a lot of instructors not sponsored by any particular manufacturer. Maybe it would be worth looking at what they carry and recommend.
There is a strong preponderance of glocks in that category in my experience and I am not sure why this is turning into an issue for anyone. This is probably one of the most established realities in the world of defensive handguns today and frankly I have not encountered all that many people unfamiliar with this fact.
The fact is, some handguns can be as reliable as 9mm glocks...but if you take 10,000 pistols from any manufacturer and compare them to 10,000 g17s, you will be hard pressed to find a pistol which is, on average, easier to keep running in bad conditions than the g17s will be. Some recent guns look pretty good, but the glock has decades of history now to examine and discover the pros and cons. There are not a lot of questions left about how anything up to and including Gen 3 will perform.
You definitely do not understand where I am coming from in regards to glocks however...in no way do I think they came first and everything else came after. When I got in to guns, everyone I knew shot 1911s and thought glocks would be a passing fad. Obviously it did not turn out that way.
The majority of my pistol experience is with 1911s, however, because 1911s are what I really enjoy.
The maintenance schedule of extractors comes from people who depend on their 1911s...I am trying to think of any agency which still issues the 1911 and does not replace the extractors at least every 5000 rounds? There are not many outfits left that issue the 1911 at all - especially if you look at the trigger time those people get.
There are many reasons why hand fitting is required to make 1911s run well, and if you think that is simply the result of different manufacturers working to different specs, then I would say it is not me who is confused about the different pistols we're discussing.
I am not sure what the ability to take down 1911s - well, some of them, anyway - without tools has to do with anything.
And I agree that guys sponsored by competitors to glock are unlikely to make a sales pitch for glock.
However, there are a lot of instructors not sponsored by any particular manufacturer. Maybe it would be worth looking at what they carry and recommend.
There is a strong preponderance of glocks in that category in my experience and I am not sure why this is turning into an issue for anyone. This is probably one of the most established realities in the world of defensive handguns today and frankly I have not encountered all that many people unfamiliar with this fact.
The fact is, some handguns can be as reliable as 9mm glocks...but if you take 10,000 pistols from any manufacturer and compare them to 10,000 g17s, you will be hard pressed to find a pistol which is, on average, easier to keep running in bad conditions than the g17s will be. Some recent guns look pretty good, but the glock has decades of history now to examine and discover the pros and cons. There are not a lot of questions left about how anything up to and including Gen 3 will perform.
here's a question for you gents... what makes the Glock so reliable? how do they do it??
There are many other polymer framed handguns out there - HK, SIG, CZ, FN, Taurus, Beretta, Steyr, Walther, Tangfolio, etc etc. What makes the Glock more reliable than any of these other manufacturers? is it only because of the length of time that Glock has been around?
I like all my guns, I never had a hard on for Glocks, but still own one.
There are many other polymer framed handguns out there - HK, SIG, CZ, FN, Taurus, Beretta, Steyr, Walther, Tangfolio, etc etc. What makes the Glock more reliable than any of these other manufacturers? is it only because of the length of time that Glock has been around?
I like all my guns, I never had a hard on for Glocks, but still own one.
