What's so great about a Glock?

[evansvillethompsongunner]

A properly designed gun would have contained the ammo failure. I've had case failures in other guns, and they did not result in the gun spontaneously detail stripping itself. The 23 was based on a 9mm platform, like many other .40s were, but I simply do not think it has ever been properly designed to handle the cartridge. This is one gun that needs the fully supported chamber, a simple change which doesn't hinder function and cures the problem.

Yeah, this clearly wasn't a failure of the case or anything...

Yes, as I've said, the chamber does need more support. No doubt of that.

What are we debating, here?

Mercop lived to tell the tale. Appears that his piece was repairable. No blown-off hand. No eye damage. No round planted through his face. No slide blown off. Is it good? Hell no. I'd send both ammo and piece back to manufacturer. But where are the stories of XD failures? Or, more rarely, 1911 ka-booms?

 

[dschantz]

There are several things that I like about the Glock. They are very rugged and simple. (Just like about everyone else has already said) But more than that, I like it because I don't have to worry about it. I bought my 19 for a home defense/carry weapon. That allowed me to lock up my more valuable handguns in my safe and only leave the Glock out. That is really nice to me.

 

[AverageMidwest]

Glocks are fine pieces according to everyone I know who owns one...I've shot a couple and they seem to work fine, and they're definitely easier to field strip than a 1911. Accurate and reliable, and from what I understand you don't have to fire 500 rounds to "break it in", unlike the advice I've read about a lot of 1911s. That being said, I carry a 1911 when I carry, purely as a matter of personal preference, it seems to point better and feel more natural to me and I haven't had any trouble keeping rounds in groups (until after about the 200th round when my wrists are starting to get tired ;( ). Flip side of THAT coin is that you must must must practice the mechanics of drawing and flipping down the safety on a 1911 so that it becomes ingrained to the point you don't have to think about it if you're going to use it. With a Glock, it's like a wheelgun - point, pull, bang. Of course there is the valid point that Glocks have all the personality of a doorknob, but if personality is the major issue I'll watch a talk show.

 

[kingnereli]

Yeah, this clearly wasn't a failure of the case or anything...

Yes, as I've said, the chamber does need more support. No doubt of that.

What are we debating, here?

Mercop lived to tell the tale. Appears that his piece was repairable. No blown-off hand. No eye damage. No round planted through his face. No slide blown off. Is it good? Hell no. I'd send both ammo and piece back to manufacturer. But where are the stories of XD failures? Or, more rarely, 1911 ka-booms?

Blaming the ammo is simply an excuse. You can't ignore that the case blew out at the 6 O'clock position where it was unsupported. You blame the case and also admit glocks need more chamber support. Which is it?

Yes, mercop's KB was a relatively minor one, but it was still a KB with factory ammo which is inexcusable. And they aren't all this minor, yet even a minor KB can cost you your life if it happens at a time when you actually need the gun to work.

I've been having the KB debate for years. As far as XD and 1911 failures I have repeatedly asked glock defenders to show me any handgun with a fully supported chambers having a kaboom with factory ammo. It hasn't happened yet.

 

[stmoore]

This is maybe one of the best and most well thought out posts I've ever read on this forum.

This man has purpose of direction.
Hats off to you, Sir.

I carry the Glock 26. I decided to join the CCW after reading about a killer shooting up a church training site in Colorado—shooting until he got everyone he wanted because no one there had the ability to stop him, who then went to a church in Colorado Springs (I think) and started shooting up a church service. He was stopped by a woman who was carrying a licensed firearm. These events made me realize that no one at my church activities is prepared for such an event. I decided that I trust myself with a weapon more than I trust anyone else. I also realized that I have the confidence of the people at the groups I attend, so if I am "outed" for CC, the reaction will be more muted because of my reputation.

Once I decided to start carrying, I talked to people I respected who were knowledgeable. I tried the Ruger 101 first, but found the long trigger pull made it very difficult to stay on target. I then tried my son's G26.

The G26 let me do what needed to be done at a pace I could manage. I am 58 yrs of age. I have no military training and never used or owned a pistol until I decided to join the CCW ranks. I needed something I could learn to handle safely in a short amount of time. I could do this with the Glock. With the 26 I found I could hit the target consistently. I learned quickly how to handle the mags, the reloads, the safety features of the trigger, etc. This was essential for me. I learned the basics from my son. I then attended a training program with an excellent, experienced and wise trainer. I learned to do what needed to be done. The Glock made it easy, or manageable, for me.

Since purchasing the Glock, getting my LTCH, and taking the training, I have continued to study about pistols and the CCW world. My other son bought a Taurus 1911. I watched him break it down for cleaning, and smiled as he struggled to master the art of putting it back together. The kid is always giving me grief about not being too old to learn something new, so I enjoyed watching him struggle with mastering the intricacies of the break down of the 1911. I watched him learn to use the additional manual safeties on the 1911. The kid is good! He shoots very well; he learns quickly; he mastered the 1911. But the entire process made me realize I made the right choice in the Glock 26.

I can manage the G26. It does what I need it to do, and I can do it safely with that weapon. It reduces the things I have to master to a minimum. It is simple—draw (finger off the trigger), aim (move finger to trigger), fire. Simple. The trigger pull is easy, fluid and natural for me. The sites work well for me. I do not have to remember to sweep this or flick that. Draw, aim, fire. I can manage that.

Why not use the Springfield XD or other weapon that uses the same safety system? Simple answer, uniformity. I tried my son's XD.40. Nice weapon. Handles the same as the Glock, but the sight angle for the XD is different from the Glock. Springfield advertises that its angle is "more natural" than the Glock. Having tried both, I agree with Springfield—it is more natural.

For example, in the final exercise of my training session with that great instructor (contact him via Tom at H & H Firearms, Ft. Wayne), I put a round on the metal target clamp. The exercise called for picking up the weapon and putting two rounds in the center of mass and one final round in the head as the target was moving toward me. I got the first two in the 9 ring, but the head shot went way too high. (Instructor was not pleased!) Post event reflection help me determine what happened.

In the "high stress" of the exercise I reverted to the natural angle for the weapon, and shot high. This made me realize that the Glock requires me to cock my wrist down to stay on target. I had not realized prior to that event that I had to do this. When I compared the position of my wrist with the Glock to that when using the XD, it was clear that the XD was better, more natural. With the Glock I have to remember to cock the wrist down.

I have practiced that wrist movement for several months. Now I "naturally" make that movement when I bring the Glock on target. If I switch to the XD now, I will probably shoot low because I will make that adjustment naturally.

Therefore, I plan to stay with the Glock. I have learned to use it well and safely. I do not want to complicate things with manual safeties, different firing angles, or complex breakdown/reassembly procedures. I do not "love" Glocks, but I have learned to use them. They are reliable, accurate, economical, and durable. Works for me.

 

[IndyMonkey]

I like glocks.... the lack of a finger saftey and hammer doesnt scare me.

 

[fastwally]

I haven't had many Glocks, but love my G27 almost as much as my Browning High Power. The Glock is so easy to break down and service, and just digests everything you put in it.

 

[1946]

Well, my . Not that anyone on here cares! I've owned two Glocks. A model 26 and a model 30. Just never could shoot them as well as I desired.
I've got large hands. Could this have been a problem? Don't know for sure.
I've got nothing against Glocks, but I got rid of both of them. They just did
not fit/feel right in my hands. Had them for about four years, put lots of rounds thru them. Just couldn't shoot them very well.
I went back to the 1911's and everything I mentioned above went away!.
My conclusion, buy and carry what fits/works best for you. When you find that design you'll know it, and to you that will be the best handgun ever made!
Sure, as said before, they're tools and tools break eventually. Some sooner than others, even from the same manufacturer. It all boils down to what works best for you and what you feel confident in.

 

[mhs]

Mine haven't blown up yet, and are more reliable than other semi-autos I have experience with.

 

[PatMcGroyne]

"Instictive" aiming

This is maybe one of the best and most well thought out posts I've ever read on this forum. This man has purpose of direction.
Hats off to you, Sir.

Agreed, but he needs more of the aiming drill: All the pistols I own have sights. "Instinctive Aim", and "Natural Aim" is B.S. and will get you a manslaughter charge if you claim that it's what caused you to "overshoot" a bad-guy and hit/kill a bystanding victim. USE THE SIGHTS! Front-sight -- rear sight -- squeeze -- repeat as needed. Anyone can do it. Pat.

 

[Ol'Bluesmoke]

I do love the glocks though I don't own one at this time. I have owned a 26 (have shot the 19 and 20) and it was a simple to use, reliable pistol. I personally don't think they are ugly but as far as being affordable well that's a relative perspective....certainly not the most expensive out there.
I own a ruger p95 because it fits my hand well...better than any other pistol and is very friendly to my south paw. The Ruger is also 200 bucks cheaper and in my experience more accurate though thats in my hand and due to many different factors. Anyway this is about the glock and not my ruger. I would trust a glock just as much as I trust my ruger and you can be sure I will have another glock (probably a 19) when I next have the funds.

 

[Trpanther]

I own two glocks 19 and 23. I like both of these guns a lot they both are easy to shoot and dead on out of the box. I have shot 1000,s of rounds in each of them all kinds of ammo steel, fmj,HP, of every brand and glocks will eat any ammo you feed them, no jams of any kind. Glocks love ammo. I love to feed it to them as well. You can abuse a glock and it will still love you, kick it , step on it, put it in the mud, hell run it over with your car, it will still shoot. One of the ranges I shoot at rents Glocks and told me they clean their rentals once a year. I have rented their Glocks before guess what they ate all them ammo I could afford to buy. I have owned ruger, s&w, xd40.I didn't like the extra movements to shoot and found the hand grip safety unnecessarily . I agree with others that stated no reason for the extra safeties, best safety is don't pull your weapon unless you are going to use it at that point you do not need your safety.

 

[MACHINEGUN]

Nothing according to ATM and most INGO members.. you'd think they are Highpoints.. absolute junk.

 

[Bapak2ja]

Agreed, but he needs more of the aiming drill: All the pistols I own have sights. "Instinctive Aim", and "Natural Aim" is B.S. and will get you a manslaughter charge if you claim that it's what caused you to "overshoot" a bad-guy and hit/kill a bystanding victim. USE THE SIGHTS! Front-sight -- rear sight -- squeeze -- repeat as needed. Anyone can do it. Pat.

Well said, Pat. I agree that instinctive and natural are not acceptable. That is why I decided to stay with the Glock. The uniformity makes it easier for me line up the sights. I can do the same thing, practice the same movements to eliminate wasted motion, improve my skill. I continue to practice. Thanks for the advice: Front sight - Rear sight - Squeeze.

 

[Joe Williams]

MACHINEGUN talking about Glocks:

they are Highpoints.. absolute junk.

That looks about right for a new signature line

 

[glockman49]

It's very reliable. It eats every kind of ammo out there except full lead wadcutters. It is very easy to work on and parts are cheap. What more can you ask for?

 

[cbhausen]

My G27, to the best of my recollection, has never had a malfunction of any kind (certainly nothing memorable. It just flat WORKS all the time.

 

[greyhound47]

Is the appeal of the Glock simply the knowledge that it won't fail? Is it the confidence you have in the tool of choice?

I bought and carried many guns and this is the reason the Glock is ALL that survived in my home.

 

[bdj357]

They are the BACON of firearms!

 

[stmoore]

?

They are good guns and I think most would agree to that fact. I do wonder a little when the worship starts, however.

I also think there are better options (as well as worse) depending on the role and purpose of the weapon.

Nothing according to ATM and most INGO members.. you'd think they are Highpoints.. absolute junk.