Why are Glocks so prone to failures if limp Wristed?
- Thread starter GunGuy34
- Start date
So buy a real gun like a Colt 1911A1 in 45.Plastic guns suck.
IMAT
Yep anyone that shoots a Glock is limp wristed cause Glock's suck...
The material they are made of (a polyamide...actually, not much different from nylon spatulas) flexes considerably. Thus, the slide can bind in the rails, when the frame flexes, if the weapon isn't held firm. This is a curse and a blessing, as nylon is much more fatigue resistant (since it flexes) than steel, or especially aluminum. And you can drop a polymer pistol without damage.
people missed the last video obviously. failing to eject while "limp wrist" shooting is a serious problem for members of the armed forces and law enforcement agency's. If a soldier is shot and pulls his sidearm with one hand and this happens, there is a good chance he is done for, Same with a peace officer, shot on duty, doesn't have full proper form or a weak grip due to injuries, pulls the trigger and the gun jams.. is in big trouble.
Nah, I own both a USP and Glock(s)
Save your money and go Glock. Just as good of a gun.
Hey everyone, if you don't want a "limp-wrist gun" get a wheel gun, a real gun, son...
RememberTheSomme
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nova Scotia
Master-G pretty much sums up the physics of the light frame versus the heavy recoil spring.
I've been shooting pistol for a little for over 30 years, and a big difference from back when I started, is the prominent use of the Isosceles stance for Autos. We reserved this stance for revolvers, to allow the controlled double action pull through on fast follow up shots. I know with the right grip and forearm extension, faster follow up, or controlled pairs, can be made, and you've got a wider arc of fire. We usually engaged one target only at a time, old school remember.
That said , the modified weaver, which I still prefer, even in inexperienced hands/wrists, will usually cycle any Automatic, even a Glock.
Remember, I'm not advocating modified weaver is the answer, I do like the results with more modern stances, but back in the day, an experienced pistolero with a good set of forearms shooting a 9mm Combat style, made it look like it was a .22,... lot's of brass flying, not a lot of recoil evident.
Seems to me the modern idea of Isosceles for autos, combined with bent, rather than old time elbow lock DA revolver style, combined with trying to allow the pistol front sight to flip up and fall back after recoil, the heavy recoil spring/ light frame, and we got a malfunction. Yes even on Perfection like my Glock.
Just my 2 cents worth...
I've been shooting pistol for a little for over 30 years, and a big difference from back when I started, is the prominent use of the Isosceles stance for Autos. We reserved this stance for revolvers, to allow the controlled double action pull through on fast follow up shots. I know with the right grip and forearm extension, faster follow up, or controlled pairs, can be made, and you've got a wider arc of fire. We usually engaged one target only at a time, old school remember.
That said , the modified weaver, which I still prefer, even in inexperienced hands/wrists, will usually cycle any Automatic, even a Glock.
Remember, I'm not advocating modified weaver is the answer, I do like the results with more modern stances, but back in the day, an experienced pistolero with a good set of forearms shooting a 9mm Combat style, made it look like it was a .22,... lot's of brass flying, not a lot of recoil evident.
Seems to me the modern idea of Isosceles for autos, combined with bent, rather than old time elbow lock DA revolver style, combined with trying to allow the pistol front sight to flip up and fall back after recoil, the heavy recoil spring/ light frame, and we got a malfunction. Yes even on Perfection like my Glock.
Just my 2 cents worth...
