Glocks not so great anymore?????

mlehtovaara said:
In the first 2 videos I wasn't paying too much attention but it seems that the recoil of the larger rounds helps with the slide cycling fully, where the G17 is 9mm and does not have as much recoil(energy to push the slide as hard)
Click to expand...

The Glock does not have anyting to do with recoil. It is the cartridge igniting that does and given the same ammo and same length of barrel the recoil enregy produced will be the same for all. The Glock's problem is the slide is heavy and requires more resistance to the rearward movement to operate sucessfully. Each design have their pluses and minuses. You trade off one feature to gain another. Glocks are great pistols for what they are designed for and if they meet your needs then they are the guns to buy. If they don't then move on to another design. There are lots out there and in today's gun market there is something for everybody.

Take Care

Bob
 
Grizz Axxemann said:
Reliability doesn't just lie with the gun. It lies with the shooter too. I'd rather take my Delta Elite or my CZ because I know I can reliably put bullets on target, just because of better ergonomics.

An S&W Model 10 is as mechanically balls reliable as it gets too, but I still can't shoot them with enough accuracy for one to be my go-to gun voluntarily. One was my go-to gun for two years, but that was mandated by my former employers. Given the choice, I would have taken a CZ or 1911, with preference to the 1911.

My 1911 hasn't been cleaned since 2008, has had over 1000 rounds through it since it last was, and still ran like a top as of my last range trip. I'm sure that if I had enough 9mm ammo piled up, I could expect the same from the CZ.
Click to expand...

Well, I definitely agree that if you are deficient with one of your guns, it's not the one to take.

But if you can't make hits with one of your guns, that means that either a) your gun is broken, or b) you're not sufficiently trained on it.

There is no "ergonomic" reason any person with a basically functional upper body can't make hits with a glock. It is just a question of what amount of practise time you have in on the gun. Yes, an individual shooter might be better with another gun...if that's what they train with. But the same amount of training time on a different gun might produce a better result...

At any rate, if 1000 rounds between cleaning and malfunctions seems noteworthy to you then you are definitely not spending time with glocks.

If you said, "I haven't cleaned gun X in 15,000 rounds and haven't had a malfunction" I'd be interested, assuming you'd been carefully documenting the process. Not that that would be out of line for some of the guns I can think of...but at least it would be a good "this gun is a very reliable gun" benchmark.

1000 rounds is the bare minimum for any gun to go between stoppages. If it can't do a thousand rounds between malfunctions, it's not reliable enough to be anything but a range toy. Which is fine, if that's how you view it...I have a 1911 right now that is a project gun and I can't get more than about 100 rounds between stoppages. But I would never take it into anything but a plinking session.
 
Truth be told the single biggest factor in my opinion regarding the reliability of ANY firearm is the ammunition. poor loads with a dirty powder will quickly gunk up a chamber and lead to reliablity issues in feeding and extraction. One of the things constantly pounded into the head of a solider is "keep your weapon clean".
 
only time i ever had trouble with mine g17 9mm was crap ammo...reloads
its an old one...wanted to get somethin different but the simplicity of it...cant beat it.
and my hand too small for it, got crap trigger and i still kicked ass with it in competition anyway.
its a good gun. get one if you like it. as long as feels good to you.
 
Canuck44 said:
The Glock does not have anyting to do with recoil. It is the cartridge igniting that does and given the same ammo and same length of barrel the recoil enregy produced will be the same for all. The Glock's problem is the slide is heavy and requires more resistance to the rearward movement to operate sucessfully. Each design have their pluses and minuses. You trade off one feature to gain another. Glocks are great pistols for what they are designed for and if they meet your needs then they are the guns to buy. If they don't then move on to another design. There are lots out there and in today's gun market there is something for everybody.

Take Care

Bob
Click to expand...

Wow you totally missed what I meant! I was referring to the videos of the limpwristing where the G17 failed to eject several cases more than the other pistols, which INCLUDED A G21! I was saying that the only way to compare the limpwrist test would be using the same caliber guns which I don't think they did. If the G17 FTE more rounds than a G21 it would only make sense that it has something to do with the round fired, and recoil as the guns are practically identical. You are arguing against your own point now!
 
TIM_COX said:
I laugh at all these guys with alloy framed guns raving about "real steeL".... just keep on believing.
Click to expand...

it is a little bizarre these days...20 years ago it made sense, I guess. Even 15 years ago I remember guys talking like that and being taken semi-seriously, for sure.

Now it just seems...yeah, bizarre. It's a throwback for sure.

I can appreciate a steel gun as much as anyone, but when guys start pretending the respective track records are not what they are, I just draw my conclusions about the various players and go on shooting my guns.
 
TIM_COX said:
I laugh at all these guys with alloy framed guns raving about "real steeL".... just keep on believing.
Click to expand...
Aluminium was the old plastic. Maybe some day in the distance future, guns will be made of biological/organic materials, and people will be reminiscing about plastic and rubber. :p
 
I think some guys got the wrong point about the helicopter comment. It was not intended as a marketing ploy. In fact, it was a LEA that did that, to find it's breaking point...... They didn't find it. No one is gonna freeze their gun, or pour sand in it then shoot, but a LEO might have to shoot a perp after falling through the ice, or rolling around in the sand. Is that when you want to find out the hard way that the gun you were issued was not the one that passed that particular test? That is why the tests are absurd. To ENSURE that under real-world situations, the sand or cold is not an issue.

Personally, I think Glocks are great looking guns. I also like square/angular sportscars. Always have.... To each their own.
 
I got my first Glock (17), in 1992. I have endured a lot of abuse in those early years with my "tupperware" gun. Over time the synics grew quite and the Glock numbers rapidly grew. Never had a days trouble with that gun.
 
pizdets17 said:
when I grow up I want to learn to take pictures like that. I am so bad with a camera its scary.
Click to expand...

when i started photography, all my pics sucked (except the few portraits of my gf at the time). it wasn't until i read http://www.kenrockwell.com that the images started to drastically change - they are no longer technically based, but turned into colours, boldness, and impact. i still do some good portraits, though!
 
BP7 said:
just for fun, here's a pic or two from my R1. no photoshop, straight from camera.

4603_115957330411_615445411_3221975.jpg


4879_121030370411_615445411_3318310.jpg


6772_154966250411_615445411_3930301.jpg
Click to expand...


Dang those are great shots!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom