I don't understand the "Glock Advantage"...

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mini15

Regular
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Location
Toronto, ON
Okay so before the #### fest starts I OWN a Glock 17, and this is simply to questions Glocks ####ty marketing and not any type of actual function.


So Glock markets not having a traditional external safety as an "Advantage".

I am of the mindset that the only safety that matters is the one in between both shoulders. Thus making external safeties trivial.

I am also of the mindset that an external safety is so that if by chance a branch or something got caught in the trigger guard your gun doesn't go off. An external safety would prevent this.

Plenty of guns however never had external safeties (Revolver) and did just fine.


So with proper care an external safety is trivial and not really needed but an external safety could still in theory save your ass.


So how is the lack of a feature considered an advantage? Questioning the marketing principle here.

You don't see companies who offer guns with safeties calling them the Colt, S&W, Xwhatever "Advantage".


TT33.jpg


They beat Glock to the no safety game way back when.
 
When shooting under severe pressure (like on a two way range), not having a manual safety to disengage is a significant bonus. You simply aim and pull the trigger. Otherwise, I agree with keep_clear. Glocks suck.


Mark
 
Ok, take a Tokarev, load a round in the chamber and drop it on the ground, hammer first, hard. Did you hear that sound?

Do the same with a Glock and you would hear a gun hitting the ground.
 
Trinimon said:
Well this ought to get interesting in a hurry... :)
Click to expand...

It usually does when the G word gets brought up.
I would think the 'Advantage' bit probably dates back to when Glock was the only game in town for poly safety trigger guns. Other than nifty marketing, Glock makes a reliable product, but is there really that much of an advantage over my M+P? Or a 1911 with a grip safety? Let the arguements begin.
 
bollox said:
Ok, take a Tokarev, load a round in the chamber and drop it on the ground, hammer first, hard. Did you hear that sound?

Do the same with a Glock and you would hear a gun hitting the ground.
Click to expand...


Your letting the fanboy get the best of you, I never said a Torkarev is better. I'm not talking about the "internal" safeties, those are useful.
 Plenty of manufactures include those now, I'm talking about the external safety and how it's lack of one is considered an "advantage" not if they should include one just why they consider it an advantage. Using that logic I could say that if I stuck a branch in the trigger guard of my Glock and pulled it would go off, now try that in something with an external safety.

kennymo said:
Other than nifty marketing, Glock makes a reliable product, but is there really that much of an advantage over my M+P? Or a 1911 with a grip safety? Let the arguements begin.
Click to expand...


Yea isn't a 1911 Grip safety a "Glock Advantage".
 
mmattockx said:
When shooting under severe pressure (like on a two way range), not having a manual safety to disengage is a significant bonus. You simply aim and pull the trigger. Otherwise, I agree with keep_clear. Glocks suck.


Mark
Click to expand...

I think I just agree with you now because of your avatar. Glocks are for jocks.
 
I could mention the cross-bolt lever gun 'disadvanage', but I won't. I won't mention how many nice deer lived another day because of them either. The absence of external safeties makes a firearm a simple point and click device in a demanding situation. Glock does not own this concept. $0.02.
 
woodlotowner said:
I could mention the cross-bolt lever gun 'disadvanage', but I won't. I won't mention how many nice deer lived another day because of them either. The absence of external safeties makes a firearm a simple point and click device in a demanding situation. Glock does not own this concept. $0.02.
Click to expand...

I have never missed a shot because of my safety because I practice with my guns. The lack of an external safety is stupid.
 
Less is more.

Pretend a glock had a external safety for a sec......useless waste of time. The simplicity is the advantage!
 
I also own a Glock and it's just a silly marketing scheme. That being said, not having an external safety to worry about disengaging when in a hurry especially if you are not extremely proficient with your duty sidearm (as in qualifying once a year) is not a bad idea.

Just front sight and squeeze (dead simple) - let the gun do the rest,
 
The true "Advantage" of a Glock is that it will eat anything - and you only have to clean it once a year (whether it needs it or not;)). Seriously tho - I have never felt the need for an external safety on my 17, but I'm not sure the lack of one needs to be a selling point.
 
Well I think the 1911 is an unsafe gun. There's plenty of examples of 1911s that have gone off accidentally and they have the grip safety and a lever safety and decock etc. All those "safeties" give you a false sense of security, because in the end you STILL have to make sure that nothing gets inside the trigger guard. So if you still have to worry about nothing getting inside the trigger, then is there any real use having all those other safeties?

Any time I'm holding a handgun - ANY handgun, the number one safety thing that is on my mind is the trigger. There's just no advantage to me having other safeties, because regardless of what I use, the trigger is #1 on my mind. Unlike single action triggers though, a double action trigger will not go off by me resting my finger on the trigger - I have to purposely squeeze the trigger. I don't like the 1-2lb featherweight single action 1911. That to me is dangerous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom