I like researching firearms and when I talk to newbies (it's been awhile) I try to draw a distinction between what I've read, what I've heard from actual owners, and popular sentiments. Even the popular sentiments can be useful if you see patterns forming. Still, I'm a firm believer in hands-on experience when I can get it, especially with firearms. When I had someone offer to bring their Glock 17 to the range I jumped on the chance to shoot it. Here were my impressions based on some common criticisms of the Glock. (For the Glock fanboys I believe this was a Gen 2) The grip size/angle I routinely shoot a CZ-75 derivative pistol so I understand what a "natural pointer" is. The Glock 17 is clearly not a natural pointer but like other handguns I've fired I don't think it makes that much of a difference. I didn't have a problem with the angle or the grip. I do possess freakishly long mutant fingers so the size is not a problem for me but if it was there is always the Glock 19. It's not the most ergonomic grip out there but I found it adequate. The trigger When I first started shooting my shots were all over the place. It was just really bad. In theory I understood the two-stage trigger but somehow that knowledge did not translate to action at first. Once I adjusted my pulls I was much better, though the owner was placing MUCH tighter groups than I was. By comparison, I think I did much better with the S&W Shield for a DAO weapon. The Shield was actually the first DAO trigger I had ever used and took much less adjustment. Still, the Glock design has been around a long time and that has given their competition plenty of time to come up with copies or refinements. I never did achieve what I considered good accuracy with the Glock. Despite all the hype around simplicity and ease of use I can't honestly say it doesn't take less practice. With more time and rounds through the barrel I think I could achieve what I would consider proficiency but I shoot much better with my Jericho. For stopping an attacker my shot placement would have been fine, but I shoot for proficiency so that maybe some day I can claim to be a good handgunner. The looks Yes, Glocks are ugly. I own a Ruger P89. That's ugly. I'm very much in the Lockheed camp of aesthetics that said (in reference to the SR-71) is that just because something has to be functional doesn't mean the design cannot be compelling (my paraphrase). So yes, handguns can look good and be functional. The Glock is functional, but a brick. In the end though, so what? To me, guns cost too much for me to pay for looks. What I did get out of shooting it was a reinforcement of my overall impressions. Good, solid, dependable workhorse guns. Maybe oversold by some of its fans but decent weapons that I have always recommended and feel better about recommending now that I've handled one myself. Not my personal favorite by any means but I look forward to trying some other models from the rental counter in the future.