OMG - not another Glock VS Colt thread ...

Lazerus2000

BANNED
BANNED
BANNED
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
114   0   0
WAyyyyy way back, in the 80s and 90s, I used to be a Professional gunsmith specialising in building PRACTICAL pistols. I was also a serious IPSC competitor. During that time I personally owned about a hundred examples of the Colt Govt pistol, in various styles, from short barreled Detonics Combat Master, to 6" comped .45 Super. With years of experience at competition shooting and at building PRACTICAL pistols, I thought I knew a little bit about this and that.

Way back then, PRACTICAL meant basically COLT style 1911 pistols, with a few Browning HiPowers. Life was simple, life was good.

Then along came the new upstart, the TUPPERWARE Glock 17, and it was NOT good. It was ugly! It was made of plastic!! And worst of all, it didn't need a gunsmith to make it reliable ... or accurate ... or durable.

Of course I hated the damn things.

But then one day, while out at the range, a lady cop shooting beside me offered to sell me her Glock 17 for $ 250 ...
the tupperware gun was a bit too big for her very small hands.

OK fine.
I bought the ugly plastic gun ...
cause I could always sell it for a tidy profit to some aesthetically challenged barbarian, who could not afford my custom work any how.

Then a funny thing happenned.

I shot the ugly plastic gun ...
and lo and behold ... it shot well.
It fit my hand perfectly, pointed instinctively where it should ....
and it didn't EVER jam.
And it didn't require any fussing, or tweaking.
And unlike the Colt type pistols of my experience, parts did not break or fall off with regularity.

So, later on, when I went back to school for several years, and didn't have time to play with guns, it was really quite astonishing to me that the one PRACTICAL handgun I kept "just in case", turned out to be a Glock, rather than one of my expensive, hand built Custom Govt models.

Fast forward way too many years.
I am now ready to retire, with more time on my hands for fun and games. So I thought I'd get back into "practical" pistol again.

I just picked up a .45 ACP BUL M5, which in my humble opinion, is one of the best bangs for the buck in a Govt style pistol. The BUL came stock with a SS RAMPED/CONED barrel, which I always liked best in the Govt model type pistols. It also came with most of the parts I would have replaced as part of a tweak up for reliability. When I took it apart to work some voodoo magic on it, I found only a very few things I could improve on [ peened the barrel link pin, hammer pin, dimple the slide stop, change to heavier recoil spring, etc. ]. All in all, for a "standard" class pistol, it came already with most of what I wanted.

So this weekend, I went to a "FUN" practical pistol match. I shot the match with my totally PRACTICAL Glock 19, with exactly the same gear I would use if I was exercising my right to concealed carry. It was a hoot. I was also quite pleased that after 15 years without practice, shooting unclassified, I managed a 50 % score. [ as you get older, your expectations get .... older too ]

My Glock never let me down, and every miss was MY FAULT, not the guns. I didn't need better equipment, what I really needed was MORE PRACTICE.

Just for fun, I brought out the BUL, and tried a few fun passes with it, to see how it felt. It was glaringly obvious that the BUL was a MUCH better gun for the fun and games. Infinitely better trigger, better sights, good balance, etc.
And for my fun and games gun, I suspect the BUL will be what I shoot the most. It is a genuine pleasure to shoot.

But, for my PRACTICAL pistol, it will still be a Glock.

And, there is a possibility that sometime in the future,
you may see an add in the GN exchange ....
Wanted .45 ACP Glock 21SF for trade for Bul M5.

This is my story.
My name is Lazerus200,
and I am a Glockaholic.
[;{)
LAZ 1
 
Funny, you say you worked on Hi-Powers back in the day. My Hi-Power never jammed once, never broke any parts or required a trip to the gunsmith. And guns like Sig P220, HK P9S, and Beretta 92 are just as reliable as the Glock, if not more so (and without sacrificing chamber support). And these guns came out at least a decade before Glock. While I have nothing against Glock pistols (other than the fact that they look like something that should be floating in the toilet rather than sitting in your hand), I find it amusing when "Glockaholics" try to pretend that Gaston invented the first reliable semi-auto pistol.

The bottom line is that Glock became popular for much the same reason Wal-Mart became the largest retail operation in the world (flame suit on).
 
Last edited:
Okay, here we go again.

A gun is a gun is a gun. You find a good gun, you keep it and you use it. It does not matter what make it is, but how good that particular gun is.

I have seen every type of gun malfunction. Beleive it or not I have seen more Glocks crap out than any other, why? Because I see more Glocks than any other. It has NOTHING to do with the fact it is a Glock. I personally own a TRP Operator (a 1911A1) and a Sig P229R, guess what, I have had so little trouble with these guns that I would trust my life to thier use. The last IDPA shoot I was at I witnessed three stoppages between two Glocks on one stage. At a course I took, I saw two stoppages (1 FTF, 1 FTRB) and two outright failures (1 launched frontsight...twice, 1 shell casing split in the chamber) of Glocks. Do I think that Glocks are crap becasue of this? Hell no. There were three Glocks for every non-Glock on the course. You want to use a Glock, use a Glock, you don't want to use a Glock, then don't. Just know how to use whatever you use.
 
Okay, here we go again.

A gun is a gun is a gun. You find a good gun, you keep it and you use it. It does not matter what make it is, but how good that particular gun is.

I have seen every type of gun malfunction. Beleive it or not I have seen more Glocks crap out than any other, why? Because I see more Glocks than any other. It has NOTHING to do with the fact it is a Glock. I personally own a TRP Operator (a 1911A1) and a Sig P229R, guess what, I have had so little trouble with these guns that I would trust my life to thier use. The last IDPA shoot I was at I witnessed three stoppages between two Glocks on one stage. At a course I took, I saw two stoppages (1 FTF, 1 FTRB) and two outright failures (1 launched frontsight...twice, 1 shell casing split in the chamber) of Glocks. Do I think that Glocks are crap becasue of this? Hell no. There were three Glocks for every non-Glock on the course. You want to use a Glock, use a Glock, you don't want to use a Glock, then don't. Just know how to use whatever you use.

I get the impression you only read the thread subject and not the post.
 
Capp,
I am an ex-Canuck trained Infantry officer, so I have a few rounds down range through the Browning Hipower, and the Canuck issue Inglis Clones. I've owned a few of these pistols, and they are good ...
they are usually reliable as they are issued ...
but they can be made better with a bit of gunsmiting.

Most of my Browning work was trigger jobs and sights, cause they DO usually need trigger jobs and sights. However, n my last Hipower, I went whole hog, and built the first bi-###ual Browning Hipower in Canada. It was built on a brand new 9 MM Browning "combat" model, that already had ambi safeties, decent hi profile sights, and a decent trigger [ once you turfed the mag disconnect ].

I fitted a SS .41 Action Express barrel from SGW, which was not yet commercially available ... I picked it up at the factory on a visit to buy other stuff. The BIG advantage of .41 AE, was that you could use a 9 MM slide, and often use 9 MM mags. This was so new, that when I registered it as BI [ .41 AE and 9 MM ] the RCMP asked me to send a few .41 AE brass to them, as they didn't have any.

The 41 AE was quite snappy in the Browning. This concerned me because the frame on this brand new late model Browning was so soft, that when I stippled it with my teensy tiny hammer, I had to go lightly so I didn't push the stippling punch all the way through. I electroless nickled the frame, and it ended up as one of my favorite pistols ... till the next favorite pistol came along.

As for the Beretta, I've owned a Beretta 92 ...
I took it in on trade, and got rid of it as fast as I could.
The Beretta 92 is one of the least ergonomically friendly pistols I've personally owned, and mine was certainly not accurate.

As for the SIG, I've owned a Sig .45 [ Browning BDA ], and it was a delight. Very accurate, very reliable, but difficult to get spare parts for ... let alone extra mags. As for a SIG in 9 mm, I lost interest in aquiring one of these, when a shooting buddy, who was an RCMP SWAT trainer, told me that on one of his courses, they issued the Sig and an ammo case of IVI Ball. After the course was over, they issued everyone NEW SIG 9 MM pistols, because most of the SIG frames would be cracked. Admittedly 9 MM IVI Ball is HOT, but cracked frames after one ammo box full??

The next contender would be the CZ 75, and I like these a lot ...
but not as much as the Glocks. I built the first [ or one of the first ] CZ match guns in Canada. It was single action only, with an Armolloy finish, adjustable sights melted DEEP into the slide. This was a great pistol, and it only cost the client about a Grand or so more than a Glock.

Could he shoot that custom CZ better than he could a a glock?
YES, he coulkd.

Could he shoot that custom CZ better than i could shoot a Glock?
No he could not.

As for the HK Cocksqeezer ... welllll .... I've seen one guy who shot these well, but he was Greek.

I wasn't saying that Gaston invented the first "reliable" semi auto pistol. But he sure did a good job of making one that was DURABLE, and had great ergonomics as well.

I don't think Glocks are popular because they are "cheap". Not everyone who buys a gun see's it as a new "friend", an object of affection, nay we say it, even LUST! Some gun buyers [probably the VAST majority ] see a gun only as a "tool". And as a tool, the Glock does the job efficiently, and economically.

People like Glocks primarily because they do the JOB.
AND then, of course,
also because they are cheap.
[;{)
LAZ 1
 
As for the SIG, I've owned a Sig .45 [ Browning BDA ], and it was a delight. Very accurate, very reliable, but difficult to get spare parts for ... let alone extra mags. As for a SIG in 9 mm, I lost interest in aquiring one of these, when a shooting buddy, who was an RCMP SWAT trainer, told me that on one of his courses, they issued the Sig and an ammo case of IVI Ball. After the course was over, they issued everyone NEW SIG 9 MM pistols, because most of the SIG frames would be cracked. Admittedly 9 MM IVI Ball is HOT, but cracked frames after one ammo box full??


[;{)
LAZ 1

Your friend was prone to exageration. Early SIGs were prone to frame failure, but the problem was corrected long ago, and was never as bad as indicated. If it were, why would the RCMP ERT have kept the guns? In fact some of these original guns are still carried today by ex ERT members. US Navy SEALs seem to be happy with them too.
 
Capp,
I am an ex-Canuck trained Infantry officer, so I have a few rounds down range through the Browning Hipower, and the Canuck issue Inglis Clones. I've owned a few of these pistols, and they are good ...
they are usually reliable as they are issued ...
but they can be made better with a bit of gunsmiting.

Most of my Browning work was trigger jobs and sights, cause they DO usually need trigger jobs and sights. However, n my last Hipower, I went whole hog, and built the first bi-###ual Browning Hipower in Canada. It was built on a brand new 9 MM Browning "combat" model, that already had ambi safeties, decent hi profile sights, and a decent trigger [ once you turfed the mag disconnect ].

I fitted a SS .41 Action Express barrel from SGW, which was not yet commercially available ... I picked it up at the factory on a visit to buy other stuff. The BIG advantage of .41 AE, was that you could use a 9 MM slide, and often use 9 MM mags. This was so new, that when I registered it as BI [ .41 AE and 9 MM ] the RCMP asked me to send a few .41 AE brass to them, as they didn't have any.

The 41 AE was quite snappy in the Browning. This concerned me because the frame on this brand new late model Browning was so soft, that when I stippled it with my teensy tiny hammer, I had to go lightly so I didn't push the stippling punch all the way through. I electroless nickled the frame, and it ended up as one of my favorite pistols ... till the next favorite pistol came along.
Yeah, no wonder it was snappy. That's what happens when you take a perfectly good gun and try to turn into something it was never meant to be. Have you ever seen what .40 BHP looks like? The slide is about twice as thick (literally) and the barrel has three lugs instead of two. Putting a .41AE barrel in a 9mm BHP along with a heavier spring just doesn't cut it.

As for the SIG, I've owned a Sig .45 [ Browning BDA ], and it was a delight. Very accurate, very reliable, but difficult to get spare parts for ... let alone extra mags. As for a SIG in 9 mm, I lost interest in aquiring one of these, when a shooting buddy, who was an RCMP SWAT trainer, told me that on one of his courses, they issued the Sig and an ammo case of IVI Ball. After the course was over, they issued everyone NEW SIG 9 MM pistols, because most of the SIG frames would be cracked. Admittedly 9 MM IVI Ball is HOT, but cracked frames after one ammo box full??
This sounds like BS to me. As redleg pointed out, some early aluminum-frame Sigs were prone to cracking, but that was after a few thousand rounds, not one box. But that's all history anyways, as the problem was rectified a long time ago. Let's not forget that Glock also had issues with cracking frames back int he early 90's. And I'm not even talking about the now-legendary Glock kabooms...

As for the HK Cocksqeezer ... welllll .... I've seen one guy who shot these well, but he was Greek.
HK P9S is not a "cocksqueezer". As someone who works on guns for a living, you should probably know that.
 
Your friend was prone to exageration. Early SIGs were prone to frame failure, but the problem was corrected long ago, and was never as bad as indicated. If it were, why would the RCMP ERT have kept the guns? In fact some of these original guns are still carried today by ex ERT members. US Navy SEALs seem to be happy with them too.
The SAS seems to be in no rush to trade in their P226s for Glocks either...
 
Its all about feel, use what fits the hand
CZ, Glock, SIG, 1911s ..... All Shoot great, Its up to you to make the rounds hit paper "Not the gun"
 
A "gunsmith" who can't make a "custom" 1911 run better than a Glock is not a gunsmith. Sorry :rolleyes:.

FWIW, I've built 1911's, and I've been to the Glock factory. And I know which I would rather carry. And it definitely ain't plastic.
 
"Have you ever seen what .40 BHP looks like? The slide is about twice as thick (literally) and the barrel has three lugs instead of two. Putting a .41AE barrel in a 9mm BHP along with a heavier spring just doesn't cut it."


A BHP 40 S&W looks like this:
browningmkiii40sw.jpg


Regards,

Richard:)
 
Browning High Powers.....

For comparison's sake, here are two BHP MkIII's.... the top one is 9mm the bottom one .40 S&W.... not really that much thicker.

2004-09-04_000055_BHPs.jpg


And on the discussion of this thread.... I love my 1911's and also my BHP's but my "go to" pistol would be a very trusted Glock 22 .40 cal........

2007-10-28_094025_G22.jpg


Knock 'em if you like but mines got thousands upon thousands of rounds down the pipe with not one issue. No fails to fire, extract, eject, or feed.

:wave:
 
And on the discussion of this thread.... I love my 1911's and also my BHP's but my "go to" pistol would be a very trusted Glock 22 .40 cal........

Knock 'em if you like but mines got thousands upon thousands of rounds down the pipe with not one issue. No fails to fire, extract, eject, or feed.

:wave:

Agreed. I do love my 1911's and Sig's but my 'Doomsday' gun is my G17 with some factory HP's, reliable, accurate enough and it just keeps working...:D
 
For comparison's sake, here are two BHP MkIII's.... the top one is 9mm the bottom one .40 S&W.... not really that much thicker.

2004-09-04_000055_BHPs.jpg

That picture tell you nothing. Take the slides off and compare them side by side. The slide walls on the .40 cal BHP are much thicker.
 
A testament to the Glock's popularity is when it went head to head with S&W wheelguns for the LEO market.

Smith n Wesson made a great gun; .38 special, six-shot capacity, 4 or 6" barrel...

Then Glock came in.

-As reliable
-9 millimeter comparable to the .38 in ballistics if not superior
-Holds many more rounds
-Lighter and smaller to carry
-Porcelain, made in Germany and costs more than you make in a month!!! ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom