What makes glocks so popular????

jawsman said:
As a firm non-glock person I've never understood just why everyone loves them so much. Now that I'm seriously starting to look for a 10mm pitol, one of the few options I have in the price range I'm willing to pay, is a glock.

Can someone please try to explain to me what the appeal is?
Click to expand...

Beats the hell out of me, buddy. I've had two of them, and I gotta tell ya they just didn't impress me at all: in fact, the weird wrist angle necessary to line up the sights properly just pissed me off to no end.

If they corrected that flaw, I'd consider keeping one.
 
Soli said:
Beats the hell out of me, buddy. I've had two of them, and I gotta tell ya they just didn't impress me at all: in fact, the weird wrist angle necessary to line up the sights properly just pissed me off to no end.

If they corrected that flaw, I'd consider keeping one.
Click to expand...

Corrected the flaw?????? How many millions of pistols has Glock sold??? I'd have to say the flaw may be with your "weird wrist"!! :p
 
OK TDC, so every time I say sugar you're gonna say sh*t - whatever gets you there, you've done it before. As easily as you can claim that accuracy is a function of the shooter (I don't care who said it first, that comment is highly debateable) I could say that reliability is a function of the cleaning/maintenance program. Both comments are equally correct, and incorrect.
 
Austen said:
Corrected the flaw?????? How many millions of pistols has Glock sold??? I'd have to say the flaw may be with your "weird wrist"!! :p
Click to expand...

You're f*ckin' kidding me, right? Quantity sold has nothing to do with the completely unnatural wrist push required to line up the sights as intended by Glock. Do yourself a favor and actually compare different pistol grips and you'll notice pretty quickly that Glock is practically the only one which requires your wrist to be pushed down/forward in order to be gripped properly.

It's just stupid. I bet they'd be a lot more popular if the angle was more in line with traditional pistols.
 
reliability, simplicity, parts supply and a lower bore axis that delivers decent accuracy for a duty pistol
 
redleg said:
Glocks break, more than some big names, less than others. They do fail, but are among the most reliable guns out there. They don't fit everyone, they are resonably accurate, and the triggers are acceptable.
I like the fact that parts are cheap and easy to find. I dislike the mythology that surrounds them. I have a collection of cracked slides and failed frames here, just to remind people that all things mechanical fail.
Click to expand...

I don't have near your experience with the Glock, and appreciate you helping me to keep a proper perspective.
I guess in my original comment I should have added that it seems to me Glocks are very accurate and they don't break or jam, etc. Maybe I have fallen into the mythology around them too. I see what you say, especially about how anything mechanical fails. If anyone knows that it's me!
 
Soli said:
You're f*ckin' kidding me, right? Quantity sold has nothing to do with the completely unnatural wrist push required to line up the sights as intended by Glock. Do yourself a favor and actually compare different pistol grips and you'll notice pretty quickly that Glock is practically the only one which requires your wrist to be pushed down/forward in order to be gripped properly.

It's just stupid. I bet they'd be a lot more popular if the angle was more in line with traditional pistols.
Click to expand...

Well I'll confess I have never read anywhere, that Glock designed their pistol to have an required unnatural wrist push to line up the sights. I guess that is pure genius!! Because it worked, they have 70% of the American LE market and that’s a lot of coin just there!! And just think of the extra training costs alone required to re-teach the cops how to shoot all over again??? Gaston is a GENIUS!!!
But alas...it turns out I have a weird wrist, I tried as hard as I could, and my damn wrist kept lining up the same damn way for each of my pistols! Dammit! Why do I have to be so different????
 
TDC said:
How can the firearm or ammunition be the cause of poor results? Answer: The shooter is the cause, not the gear. Do professional athletes/teams win games because of superior gear or superior skill?
Click to expand...

Both. Skill is a determining factor, but I wouldn't discount equipment altogether. Put two world-class pole-vaulters side by side, give one a bamboo pole, and the other a fiberglass pole, see what happens.

curtmg said:
I reload for my glock 21sf, I love it. I don't get what the big deal with the unsupported chamber is.
Click to expand...

As has been said before, it isn't a big deal with .45's low pressures.
 
When Glocks first came out, I was a Professional pistolsmith, specialising in Practical pistols. I've built up a few hundred Colt Govt framed pistols [ I've personally owned about 100 of them ]. I also shot these pistols in serious IPSC competition for about a decade.

During that time,
I LITERALLY saw every single part on a Colt govt model type pistol break or fall off.. I also have seen properly set up Colt Govt pistols shoot several thousand rounds with out breakage, or even a failure to feed.

While I have yet to break any parts on any of my Glocks [ I've owned seven of them, all 9mm ] I have managed to induce jams several times. Limp wristing, or even shooting one handed around a barricade, can cause a stoppage. But a Glock is about as reliable as any pistol ever made.

I only have one pistol now ... a Glock 19.
It works, it points instinctively for me, it is accurate enough, the wife can shoot it, and did I mention, it WORKS!!!
Best of all, I don't have the urge to invest dozend of hours and thousands of dollars to "pistolsmith" it.
[;{)
LAZ 1
 
Soli said:
Glock is practically the only one which requires your wrist to be pushed down/forward in order to be gripped properly.

It's just stupid. I bet they'd be a lot more popular if the angle was more in line with traditional pistols.
Click to expand...


I bet you get killer muzzle climb on you other pistols. The grips force you to have a wrist position that reduces recoil.


I love my sig, but i find the glock sights even easyer to line up then my sig. When practising drills to get the next shot into the previous hole, i get much better results with a G17, than my sig. Not that i have a problem with my sig, what i am getting at is that the FIT of you gun is a personal thing.

I'd also be willing to bet that the glock is ALOT more popular than you think.... Show me sales stats the prove otherwise.
 
ian_in_vic said:
OK TDC, so every time I say sugar you're gonna say sh*t - whatever gets you there, you've done it before. As easily as you can claim that accuracy is a function of the shooter (I don't care who said it first, that comment is highly debateable) I could say that reliability is a function of the cleaning/maintenance program. Both comments are equally correct, and incorrect.
Click to expand...

Again, I put out the question. Why is it so many who shoot Glocks have zero issues with regards to "accuracy". Then there's the other crowd who proclaims that Glocks are "inaccurate". The only variable changed is the shooter. Which leads one to believe(if you understand and accept scientific principles) that the fixed variable(the Glock) is not the cause of poor marksmanship. In fact, it is the shooter. I can shoot Glocks, and I can shoot SIG's. I can shoot pretty much any pistol quite well. Its not the gear, its the operator. Target adjustable sights, compensators, tuned triggers, laser sights, weighted mags or grip plugs are all gimmicks sold to those who believe they hold some mystical ability to enhance your skills.

I've posted this before. Why is it that Ernest Langdon(well known competitive shooter and instructor) Won the 2003 IDPA nationals with a stock SIG P220 in .45ACP. He competed in the custom defensive pistol category. Which is generally dominated by high end 1911's. You could also look at Dave Sevigny who won the IPSC 2003 National production division championship with a stock Glock. Maybe these guys are just lucky. Personally I'd say they know their sh*t and can shoot.

I do agree that reliability is affected by the owner/users maintenance habits. Dirty guns will most likely fail before a clean identical copy. There are other factors that play into reliability. Namely, the overall design. Seeing how a Glock runs a mere 35 parts(including the magazine components) to achieve the same goal as a Beretta(62 parts) a 1911(52 parts) or a SIG(53? parts for the 226) or a S&W model 19 (74 parts). I couldn't possibly see where anyone would get the idea that a Glock is more reliable than other makes. Fewer parts, means fewer pieces to break. Maybe its just the Glock Kool-aid talking but I haven't seen too many threads on this forum or others involving another make or model of pistol being tortured and down right abused to excess with little effect. I don't see too many other posts, threads, or articles in the gun rags proclaiming 300,000 plus rounds on original parts without a failure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsIRd7CF__U&feature=related

http://www.theprepared.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90&Item

The second link is a more in depth look at the torture. If you notice, the owner shot the pistol dirty, very dirty after 15,000 rounds and surprise surprise**shock** The pistol still puts lead where the shooter wants them. I guess "dirty gun" as an excuse for sh*tty skills is out of the question as well.

TDC
 
Austen said:
Well I'll confess I have never read anywhere, that Glock designed their pistol to have an required unnatural wrist push to line up the sights. I guess that is pure genius!!

Google search. Angle complaints are quite common.

Because it worked, they have 70% of the American LE market and that’s a lot of coin just there!! And just think of the extra training costs alone required to re-teach the cops how to shoot all over again??? Gaston is a GENIUS!!!

Lower cost, condition 1 carry and stupidly simple so even the lowest common denominator can use it without having an aneurysm. It's mostly due to their cost and bulk pricing.

But alas...it turns out I have a weird wrist, I tried as hard as I could, and my damn wrist kept lining up the same damn way for each of my pistols! Dammit! Why do I have to be so different????
Click to expand...

You don't have a weird wrist, you just re-trained yourself to shoot that way, which I personally think is dumb when the majority of quality firearms out there shoot from a natural angle. If it's the only firearm you intend to shoot on a regular basis, I suppose it's a choice you can make.

By the way, your attempts at sarcasm really suck. It would help if your position actually made sense, but instead of acknowledging the fact that Glock employs a different grip, you just reveal yourself to be another idiotic fanboy.

Good job.
 
Lookie here, even gunsmiths offer a service to reduce the angle...
laugh.gif


http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.com/smith/glock/pagesmithglock.htm
 
TDC said:
Again, I put out the question. Why is it so many who shoot Glocks have zero issues with regards to "accuracy". Then there's the other crowd who proclaims that Glocks are "inaccurate". The only variable changed is the shooter. Which leads one to believe(if you understand and accept scientific principles) that the fixed variable(the Glock) is not the cause of poor marksmanship. In fact, it is the shooter. I can shoot Glocks, and I can shoot SIG's. I can shoot pretty much any pistol quite well. Its not the gear, its the operator. Target adjustable sights, compensators, tuned triggers, laser sights, weighted mags or grip plugs are all gimmicks sold to those who believe they hold some mystical ability to enhance your skills.

I've posted this before. Why is it that Ernest Langdon(well known competitive shooter and instructor) Won the 2003 IDPA nationals with a stock SIG P220 in .45ACP. He competed in the custom defensive pistol category. Which is generally dominated by high end 1911's. You could also look at Dave Sevigny who won the IPSC 2003 National production division championship with a stock Glock. Maybe these guys are just lucky. Personally I'd say they know their sh*t and can shoot.

I do agree that reliability is affected by the owner/users maintenance habits. Dirty guns will most likely fail before a clean identical copy. There are other factors that play into reliability. Namely, the overall design. Seeing how a Glock runs a mere 35 parts(including the magazine components) to achieve the same goal as a Beretta(62 parts) a 1911(52 parts) or a SIG(53? parts for the 226) or a S&W model 19 (74 parts). I couldn't possibly see where anyone would get the idea that a Glock is more reliable than other makes. Fewer parts, means fewer pieces to break. Maybe its just the Glock Kool-aid talking but I haven't seen too many threads on this forum or others involving another make or model of pistol being tortured and down right abused to excess with little effect. I don't see too many other posts, threads, or articles in the gun rags proclaiming 300,000 plus rounds on original parts without a failure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsIRd7CF__U&feature=related

http://www.theprepared.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90&Item

The second link is a more in depth look at the torture. If you notice, the owner shot the pistol dirty, very dirty after 15,000 rounds and surprise surprise**shock** The pistol still puts lead where the shooter wants them. I guess "dirty gun" as an excuse for sh*tty skills is out of the question as well.

TDC
Click to expand...

First time I've ever been b*tched out for saying a pistol is "decently accurate", regarding durability see Redleg's response - "very durable" - not Kryptonite. The inherent accuracy of a pistol is what the machine is capable of....in a rest....with no shooter induced error....
why bother
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom