Can anyone tell me why, if Glocks are so good...

[Shay]

These threads always go so well.

 

[shooter521]

These threads always go so well.

Hey, I can see the drain from here!

 

[Scutter01]

Hey, I can see the drain from here!

I have a feeling it'll get a bit better now.

 

[wally05]

Omg, guys. Who gives a damn who did it first? Glock had a good design and many other makers have it also and some have tried to "improve" upon it... This isn't glocktalk... let's not get our panties in a bunch over it...

 

[Scutter01]

let's not get our panties in a bunch over it...

As a preventative to bunching, I just don't wear panties.

 

[redneckmedic]

 

[kingnereli]

You're seriously not trying to say that the XD, Sigma and M&P line aren't a copy of the Glock are you?

That's like saying they didn't copy the 1911 design from Colt...

First, I'm saying that there isn't was no feature in particular about the glock that was revolutionary enough about glock to copy. Glock was the first to put the list of features (that is, polymer, striker fired, "safe action, etc.) together and make them work well, but those features are not exclusively glock.

Secondly, I can only speak confidently about the XD. I have no experience with sigma's or M&Ps beyond shooting them a few times. The XD's field strips like a Sig. The grip angle, grip safety and tilting barrel locked breach single action are like the 1911. The features such as polymer, striker fired, etc. that it shares with glock, again, are not exclusively glock. What the XD does owe to the glock is the dual recoil spring set up. Glock really made that system work. In fact, the newfound reliability of three inch 1911's is due to using glock like dual recoil springs and more aggressive barrel tilt angle.

Here is where you are going to role your eyes at me so get ready. The XD is designed so much better that to call it a copy is doing it a disservice. It has present the admirable features that the glock lacks as well as the having absent the features I abhor in a glock. Really, copy or not is a mute point because of the better design. However, mainly, the post you quoted was an attempt to divert the assumption that there is some kind of inherent inferiority due to similar features and a later
birthdate.

 

[redneckmedic]

Here is where you are going to role your eyes at me so get ready. The XD is designed so much better that to call it a copy is doing it a disservice. It has present the admirable features that the glock lacks as well as the having absent the features I abhor in a glock. Really, copy or not is a mute point because of the better design. However, mainly, the post you quoted was an attempt to divert the assumption that there is some kind of inherent inferiority due to similar features and a later
birthdate.

What would you say those features are? Since they are so admirable?

BTW the glock did steal some of its characteristics from other handguns. It has a barrel, mag feed receiver, front and rear sights, and even a trigger! And since you asked for it Cause Glock was the first to get it right, and still the number one LEO service side arm. Just Say'n

 

[shooter521]

 

[wally05]

As a preventative to bunching, I just don't wear panties.

lol... very nice.

 

[Indy317]

And since you asked for it Cause Glock was the first to get it right, and still the number one LEO service side arm. Just Say'n

Glock got it right, with most of their pistols that come off the line. I personally think the G22 relies too much the force of which a human is holding the gun when firing. I have shot two G22s and have had problems with both. One is three or four years old, the other is a year and a half old. I put enough rounds through the gun that I can say the failure chance is 1% of 1%....while shooting at non-moving paper targets that don't shoot back. I don't think a person should have to also concentrate on their grip while shooting a handgun. The failure rate is so low, that it isn't a concern of mine. I don't know how things would fair with an M&P or XDm. As soon as I sell my G22, I am getting an HK USP, a gun in which I never had one failure.

I have also shot a G27 and G17, both of which functioned without any issues.

 

[Joe Williams]

What would you say those features are? Since they are so admirable?

snip

XDs are more reliable, since they are not prone to user induced failures such as "limp wristing." And they don't have a history of turning itself into a hand grenade with .40 cal rounds. All guns have design flaws. These are the Glock's.

 

[redneckmedic]

XDs are more reliable, since they are not prone to user induced failures such as "limp wristing." And they don't have a history of turning itself into a hand grenade with .40 cal rounds. All guns have design flaws. These are the Glock's.

False and False. Neither of these are traits that the glock has to own. Limp Wristing is a user error and explosions come from handloads that are to hot. As with any firearm if you use it properly it works as expected.

 

[Joe Williams]

False and False. Neither of these are traits that the glock has to own. Limp Wristing is a user error and explosions come from handloads that are to hot. As with any firearm if you use it properly it works as expected.

XDs, M&Ps, Tauruses, 1911s, CZs, none of them are nearly as prone to limp wristing. Glocks are, plain and simple, despite the fanboy's cries of horror to the contrary. Same with the myth the fanboys spread about Glocks blowing up only with handloads. Even on this board, with it's relatively small number of users, has a member who's Glock has blown up with factory ammo.

I'd really like for someone to help me understand why Glock fans have so much trouble dealing with the flaws in their gun, with the near maniacal insistence that their guns are perfection personified. I used to think the old farts spouting off about their 1911s were bad when plastic guns started becoming popular

 

[HICKMAN]

First, I'm saying that there isn't was no feature in particular about the glock that was revolutionary enough about glock to copy. Glock was the first to put the list of features (that is, polymer, striker fired, "safe action, etc.) together and make them work well, but those features are not exclusively glock.

Secondly, I can only speak confidently about the XD. I have no experience with sigma's or M&Ps beyond shooting them a few times. The XD's field strips like a Sig. The grip angle, grip safety and tilting barrel locked breach single action are like the 1911. The features such as polymer, striker fired, etc. that it shares with glock, again, are not exclusively glock. What the XD does owe to the glock is the dual recoil spring set up. Glock really made that system work. In fact, the newfound reliability of three inch 1911's is due to using glock like dual recoil springs and more aggressive barrel tilt angle.

Here is where you are going to role your eyes at me so get ready. The XD is designed so much better that to call it a copy is doing it a disservice. It has present the admirable features that the glock lacks as well as the having absent the features I abhor in a glock. Really, copy or not is a mute point because of the better design. However, mainly, the post you quoted was an attempt to divert the assumption that there is some kind of inherent inferiority due to similar features and a later
birthdate.

You have a great post here King and I agree with most of it. I wouldn't necessarily call it a copy either, mostly an upgrade. SA and S&W both were able to study Glock's successes and failures and improve on it.

I can't speak much to the XD, but the XD(m) and new M&P are great examples of taking something that work and making it better. I was all over the XDm last year when I first started hunting for a new handgun. The match barrel, Rob Leatham videos, changeable grips, sweet look, I was all over it. I had the XDm screensaver and background on my PC while I was saving up for it.

Then I went and picked one up at a gun shop and couldn't get over the extra tall frame.

Didn't really care for the M&P triggers at the time, so I went back to what I knew. But that's just me. Took my dad shopping recently and he ended up with a .40 M&P, because that's what felt good to him.

I'd still like to go shoot a .40 XDm one of these days, but I know and love my Glocks inside and out, it's just me. But I won't hesitate to tell someone to buy something else if it's not for them, ask SavageEagle.

 

[Joe Williams]

snip

I can't speak much to the XD, but the XD(m) and new M&P are great examples of taking something that work and making it better. I was all over the XDm last year when I first started hunting for a new handgun. The match barrel, Rob Leatham videos, changeable grips, sweet look, I was all over it. I had the XDm screensaver and background on my PC while I was saving up for it.

Then I went and picked one up at a gun shop and couldn't get over the extra tall frame.
snip

You've hit on why I don't really care a bunch for the XDm. Cathy and I, already being fans of the XD after her ownership experience with her XD9 Tactical, were really excited about the XDm coming out. Then we got a gander at the price tag, for one thing, and worse the way it felt in our hands. It just feels ungainly, to both of us. We both like the XDs better, to be honest, though I don't know if the XDm is a better shooter. Doesn't matter, really, because I'd rather have another XD9 Tactical to go along with my subcompact. Not to mention, that way I can use the 16 rnd mags in both guns.

 

[kingnereli]

You have a great post here King and I agree with most of it. I wouldn't necessarily call it a copy either, mostly an upgrade. SA and S&W both were able to study Glock's successes and failures and improve on it.

I can't speak much to the XD, but the XD(m) and new M&P are great examples of taking something that work and making it better. I was all over the XDm last year when I first started hunting for a new handgun. The match barrel, Rob Leatham videos, changeable grips, sweet look, I was all over it. I had the XDm screensaver and background on my PC while I was saving up for it.

Then I went and picked one up at a gun shop and couldn't get over the extra tall frame.

Didn't really care for the M&P triggers at the time, so I went back to what I knew. But that's just me. Took my dad shopping recently and he ended up with a .40 M&P, because that's what felt good to him.

I'd still like to go shoot a .40 XDm one of these days, but I know and love my Glocks inside and out, it's just me. But I won't hesitate to tell someone to buy something else if it's not for them, ask SavageEagle.

You see? I can be reasonable. Don't get used to it.

 

[coletrane811]

Limp wrist?? Why is this an issue even being discussed? If you are a man, you should be able to shoot a gun without limp wristing it, so problem is nullified. Hell, even if you're a woman, it shouldn't be an issue w/ pistol loads. It's not a .50 cal or even a .44!

 

[kingnereli]

Limp wrist?? Why is this an issue even being discussed? If you are a man, you should be able to shoot a gun without limp wristing it, so problem is nullified. Hell, even if you're a woman, it shouldn't be an issue w/ pistol loads. It's not a .50 cal or even a .44!

Injured? Shooting at odd angles? There are several plausible scenarios in which a MAN can limp wrist a pistol that wouldn't when leisurely shooting at paper. Regardless, it is a point of discussion that the glock design in more susceptible to a limp wrist malfunction when many others are not.

Techres posted a youtube video of a limp wrist test a while back. I'll see if I can find it.

 

[kingnereli]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh9JhCyFFxA[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsewsolPyBU[/ame]