Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Handguns > General Handgun Discussion > Glock. Its a love/hate thing... Why?!

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-28-2013, 03:42 AM   #61
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 73
Liked 12 Times on 8 Posts

Default

I love most firearms. While I don't hate glocks, I will never own another one.

I had a glock 36 that was a pile of crap. Unreliable. FTE the second to last round. Tried 10 different mags, including ones that shot fine from a friend that had the same model.

Sold it and carried a Kahr 45 for a few years. Never had an problem with it.

Once I have a bad experience with a brand....it will take a lot to give them another try.

__________________
simpkinst is offline  
 
Old 04-28-2013, 03:45 AM   #62
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BeyondTheBox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,604
Liked 284 Times on 246 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by simpkinst View Post
I love most firearms. While I don't hate glocks, I will never own another one.

I had a glock 36 that was a pile of crap. Unreliable. FTE the second to last round. Tried 10 different mags, including ones that shot fine from a friend that had the same model.

Sold it and carried a Kahr 45 for a few years. Never had an problem with it.

Once I have a bad experience with a brand....it will take a lot to give them another try.
I'm the exact same, with products, places and people!

Personal experience trumps all others'!
__________________
BeyondTheBox is offline  
 
Old 04-28-2013, 04:04 AM   #63
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 188
Liked 70 Times on 44 Posts
Likes Given: 49

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cattledog View Post
If we're going there anyway, I'll add this: layers of protection, multiple safeties CAN (not always) create complacency and a false sense of security. There is no greater safety than vigilance, in any case....ever.

I agree that safe handling is the only true safety I just feel that extra layers of safety are a good thing. To each there own everyone has their opinions.
__________________
MTHunter is offline  
 
Old 04-28-2013, 04:42 AM   #64
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
customammo72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Kansas
Posts: 193
Liked 49 Times on 34 Posts
Likes Given: 80

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTHunter View Post
Complete lack of a safety is what I can not stand about them. I prefer to carry "cocked and locked" with a Glock that personally sounds like a good way to shoot yourself in the leg.
That's not just GLOCKS, that is many guns out there on the market. They actually DO have a safety, it's just built into the trigger. I carry a S&W M&P .40, again only safety is on the trigger and it's an LEO version so it has the mag safety too. My only needed safety is my trigger finger Even if I am carrying a gun that has an external safety I have NEVER used one. I always carry hot and ready to roll, draw and squeeze..... Never had any issues... But as always, this is just my opinion, like everyone elses...... But, if that is your issue with GLOCKS then you can't just pick on them, there are TONS of other guns out there you must also include if that is your reason for not liking them. Plus like a previous poster already stated, LEO's and tons of others carry these guns hot and ready to rock all the time and don't have any issues with shooting yourself in the leg. I guess it is all just personal preference in the end.
__________________
customammo72 is offline  
 
Old 04-28-2013, 05:00 AM   #65
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 188
Liked 70 Times on 44 Posts
Likes Given: 49

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by customammo72 View Post
That's not just GLOCKS, that is many guns out there on the market. They actually DO have a safety, it's just built into the trigger. I carry a S&W M&P .40, again only safety is on the trigger and it's an LEO version so it has the mag safety too. My only needed safety is my trigger finger Even if I am carrying a gun that has an external safety I have NEVER used one. I always carry hot and ready to roll, draw and squeeze..... Never had any issues... But as always, this is just my opinion, like everyone elses...... But, if that is your issue with GLOCKS then you can't just pick on them, there are TONS of other guns out there you must also include if that is your reason for not liking them. Plus like a previous poster already stated, LEO's and tons of others carry these guns hot and ready to rock all the time and don't have any issues with shooting yourself in the leg. I guess it is all just personal preference in the end.
The shoot yourself in the leg part was merely my way of stating the extra risk involved with the lack of a mechanical safety. I will not own a gun whether it is a Glock or any other brand if the gun does not have a mechanical safety. I did 3 years in the Army as an Infantryman so I know about weapons safety. But like I said before to each their own. Opinions are like *******s everyone's got one.
__________________
MTHunter is offline  
 
Old 04-28-2013, 05:16 AM   #66
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
customammo72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Kansas
Posts: 193
Liked 49 Times on 34 Posts
Likes Given: 80

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTHunter View Post
The shoot yourself in the leg part was merely my way of stating the extra risk involved with the lack of a mechanical safety. I will not own a gun whether it is a Glock or any other brand if the gun does not have a mechanical safety. I did 3 years in the Army as an Infantryman so I know about weapons safety. But like I said before to each their own. Opinions are like *******s everyone's got one.
Ha ha, you are right about opinions! Most have it engrained to train like you fight, so if you trained using safeties then it is engrained into you to use them in the fight of course, that is how the Army rolls, I remember it.
__________________
customammo72 is offline  
 
Old 04-28-2013, 05:50 AM   #67
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,528
Liked 954 Times on 536 Posts
Likes Given: 393

Default

So, with all the obvious Glock-hate, I'll state why I prefer a Glock over a 1911 as a carry pistol.

I own a Glock 17 Gen 4 (9MM, obviously) and a Colt 1911 Series 70 Government Model (.45 ACP) and shoot both regularly.

Glock 17 Gen 4:

- All safety mechanisms are internal or integral to the normal function of the pistol and it is drop safe

- 17 round magazines, comes with 3 magazines

- Loaded weight 32 OZ

- With hand tools, I was able to convert the pistol to use tritium sights

- Mounts a SureFire X300 directly to the rail interface

- Pistol cost $525

- 9MM ammunition costs $20 per 100 round box at local Wal-Mart

Colt 1911:

- 2 external safety mechanisms required to actuated before firing, but it is not drop safe

- 7 round magazines, comes with 2 magazines

- Unloaded weight 38 OZ

- Requires some minor gunsmithing to remove the staked front sight to install tritium sights

- Requires a $100+ part from SureFire to mount a SureFire X300

- Pistol cost $1,100

- .45 ACP ammunition costs $35 per 100 round box at local Wal-Mart

The following could be categorized as "intangible", but it has meaning to me. Replacement parts for the Colt, actual Colt parts versus aftermarket parts, are not easy to acquire. I managed to acquire a small stock of replacements parts, but actual Colt replacement parts aren't available everywhere. Obtaining factory Glock replacement parts was easier to accomplish and I was able to shop around for the best prices.

Here are my thoughts on carry pistols, take them for what they're worth from an anonymous guy you never met on the internet.

Any pistol you bet your life on should be as simplistic as possible and have an absolute minimum of external controls to operate to make the pistol function. Your pistol should have an absolute minimum of components, especially operating components. All components in the pistol should have been proven to function correctly and have a predictable design life expectancy. Apart from faulty, worn, or damaged components, replacement of factory components with aftermarket components should not be necessary and I wouldn't recommend it if there was not an overriding carry-related reason to do so. In fact, if the factory couldn't produce a pistol with components that met the aforementioned design criteria I wouldn't carry it.

This is one of the primary reasons I prefer the Glock to the 1911. It's possible to produce a 1911 that functions just as reliably and consistently as a 1911, it's just that 1911 pistols that meet that criteria cost about 5 times more than a Glock.

External safeties are a great idea, in theory, and unfortunately theory never quite meshes with reality.

I had, on a number of occasions, accidentally de-activated the safety of my 1911 while seated in a vehicle after the seatbelt made contact with the safety lever. My daily routine includes driving around and that's probably the case for most people who carry pistols. I do not feel "safe" or "unsafe" with the "safety" lever of my 1911 on or off, but the "feature" is pretty superfluous if a seatbelt can easily de-activate it. I don't think an external safety lever is necessary or desirable for a tool that you may have to use with little warning, especially for people with a lesser standard of training.

The design of the Glock seems to prevent snagging on clothing whereas the 1911 seems to have an affinity for my polo shirts.

The Glock's capacity and light loaded weight make it easier to carry than the 1911. Having more ammunition in a gunfight is a good thing, no matter how many shots are fired.

The Glock's lower caliber ammunition make recoil control easier for faster follow-up shots. Yes, if you train enough you can be just as fast with a .45. How many people actually do that?

Instead of pointing out that you're the exception to the rule because you can shoot the balls of a gnat at 25 yards with a .45, how about we admit that lighter, lower recoil pistols with fewer controls are easier to use for the majority of lesser trained and experienced shooters?

Most of the 7 yard pistol targets I see at the local ranges look like shotgun targets at 25 yards, no matter the caliber or manufacturer of the pistol. Giving the average pistol shooter a more expensive pistol with higher recoil, more expensive ammunition, and greater maintenance requirements isn't going to help them.

I can and do practice more with the 9MM pistol because it is more economical to do so. When .45 ammo was $20 a box at Wal-Mart I could purchase 3-5 boxes every weekend for practice. Unfortunately costs have gone up, way up.

While we're at it, let's be realistic about what a civilian gunfight would look like. Two guys are gonna draw down on each other at very close range, both will be moving, sight alignment and body position will be sub-optimal for shooting, and if either guy can hit a pie plate at 7 yards, somebody is gonna get shot. Do you need a higher recoil, more expensive, more powerful pistol for that? Will it help so much more to hit the target with a .45 that the 9MM will be totally ineffective by way of comparison? If you can hit someone three times with a 9MM in the same time it takes to fire two .45 rounds, which would you consider to be more desirable?

The 1911 was a good design, for its time. That was 100 years ago. Modern materials and manufacturing methods, favor the Glock design over the 1911. You can't make a $500 1911 equal to a $500 Glock if you're not using slave labor.

In a day and age where individual marksmanship is relatively poor, handing someone a heavy, large, high recoil, low-capacity pistol with expensive ammunition is not going to help them with practice or training.

The 1911 was designed for military users who had general firearms knowledge and marksmanship proficiency and it was made by skilled craftsmen at a time when labor was cheap and materials were expensive. The design does not lend itself to modern CNC manufacturing because of the limitations of mass manufacturing processes. All major parts are hand-fitted or poorly fitted, tolerances are relatively high, and routine maintenance from knowledgable users is a requirement.

The Glock was designed for military and police users who have little or no firearms knowledge and little time or money for marksmanship proficiency. The pistol is made using CNC machinery and the manufacturing process and the materials used in manufacturing were designed to be as cost efficient as possible for the intended design purpose based on computer design models and exhaustive testing. Labor costs are kept at a minimum because skilled labor in Europe is prohibitively expensive whereas materials are relatively inexpensive by way of comparison. Parts tolerances were intentionally kept low to permit parts interchange and to keep the pistol functioning in conditions that would cause finely machined and fitted components to seize up. The general knowledge level and maintenance requirements to keep the pistol functioning are relatively low.

The Glock is a modern day Tokarev. It may not be pretty, but it is functional and economical. I want function and economy from a working machine tool. The aesthetics and craftsmanship of the pistol in question didn't figure too heavily in my decision making process.

__________________
kbd512 is offline  
3
People Like This 
Old 04-28-2013, 05:57 AM   #68
FAA licensed bugsmasher
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
ScottA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Davenport,IA
Posts: 6,635
Liked 2008 Times on 1090 Posts
Likes Given: 724

Default

This has pretty well degraded into the same old "Glocks are Great!" "Glocks Suck" thread. Say goodnight Gracie.

__________________

Scott

Quote:
If you're not representing Jesus in a way that makes people want to hang out with you, you're doing it wrong.
Quote:
Those who refuse to participate in politics shall be governed by their inferiors. -Plato
Regent Holdings What you need to know about silver, gold, and the economy.

Join the NRA
ScottA is offline  
2
People Like This 
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Marlin model 60 love or hate bwalka .22 Rifle/Rimfire Discussion 23 02-09-2012 02:33 AM
Glock haters gonna hate Seven Glock Forum 6 01-31-2012 04:43 PM
Love my Glock 34!!! washabra Glock Forum 8 03-24-2011 02:13 AM
I am in love with my $300 Glock knockoff jps37033 Semi-Auto Handguns 11 11-21-2009 01:55 AM