Glock Perfection?????????????

Status
Not open for further replies.
Upon introduction to the U.S. market in the 80's, Glock's had to pass several, well documented test; of which a failure of any of them would have forbidden the importation
of these quality handguns into this country.:) The tested
model passed all test's in flying colors.:D My personal
opinion is that some people don't want to change with the
times; including me to some extent.:rolleyes: The advent
(or use of) Polymer 2 has sucessfully been incorporated
into world class firearms; mainly Glock's.:eek: As I see it,
Glock's are an innovative firearm of quality construction; and combined with the world-famous Tennifer process, make it
one of the most desirable firearms on earth!!!:D:)

Take it from an old Sig-aholic, Glock's are here to stay.
The bottom line is, "the user must keep his/her finger
off the trigger, until the proper target has been acquired"; which is true of ANY handgun. In conclusion,
I recently changed my primary CCW from my beloved Sig's, to
my .40S&W caliber Glock 27. I do not feel that my safety has
been compromised at all.:D:)

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, Life Member N.R.A.

PS: My choice of leather for the G-27 is a belt-slide, thumb
break made by Galco. It covers the trigger guard; a most important feature.:):D
 
Everyone, listen up!

The majority of you have been in disagreement with the creator of this thread. That's fine. Disagreement is just as acceptable as agreement. Disagreement in no uncertain terms, loud disagreement, fervent disagreement - all acceptable. However, all of you know how we feel about member bashing and ad hominem arguments. Calling any member a "moron", an "idiot", etc., will not be tolerated. Capiche?

As you were.
 
I agree with RWK on most Glock attributes. They are quality pistols, reliable, COMBAT accurate, durable, SOMEWHAT well designed, and well manufactured (except for their mags). They are no better or worse than any other quality pistol on the market today. The Glock line of pistols have their own unique "manual of arms". If you like it, can accept it, then fine, you'll have a pistol that will serve you well. But as a previous owner of three Glock's, please don't try to tell me that Glock's are for everybody....NON-Glock owners are not idiots....we just don't care for it's unique "manual of arms". Best Regards, J. Parker
 
Ya know...

I have owned and carried Glock handguns since they first became available in the US. Hundreds of thousands of rounds have been fired, and the same amount of presentations have been made to and from my inside the waistband holster.

I have not had an accidental discharge, nor have I had a negligent discharge. I have not had a malfunction of any kind. Nor have I ever experienced a 'kaboom'.

I suppose this is due to the fact that I have more brain matter than your garden variety 'police officer' or the ever present 'armchair commandos' that seem to frequent these online gun related discussion sites.

I know to keep my finger of the trigger until I am ready to shoot. It is a simple rule to follow, unless you're dim-witted.

And that's what the gist of this thread is all about. If you are dim-witted, Glock handguns aren't for you.




This is for Tamara:

Glock's new slogan, "Glock. Handguns for smart people." (tm)

*high fives Tamara*

[Edited by dvc on 01-25-2001 at 10:56 AM]
 
So why the civilian and police loyalty to such a seemingly flawed, unpredictable, and embattled sidearm?

Because it works, and works well. On another note I saw many accidental discharges while in the military. Does that mean the M-9 or M-16 are unsafe. No, it means the operators needed better training or that perhaps those people were not concientious enough that they should be handling firearms, with or without an external safety. I suspect the cause of the AD's you sited had a lot more to do with the operator than the glock. As for the "second-rate quality" of Glocks I think the absurdity of that statement is so rediculous as to be amusing.

Congratulations Weasel it takes an awful lot for me to actually write a post.
 
Mal H
You are right and I apologize to all for resorting to name calling. I should have been above that no matter how ignorant the post was and how strongly I dissagree. I went back and removed the comment from my first post.
 
Snubnose

Since you choose to not publish your email address, I will say this publicly. Apparently you either missed my warning or you are choosing to ignore it. I strongly suggest that you edit your reply. (3 posts above yours)

Matrixwolf - thank you.
 
I neither like, nor dislike, the Glock series.

I do note, however, that every popular pistol has been accused of accidental discharges. Anyone else here heard of the infamous ".45 butt"? Seems enough people shot themselves in the tuckuss while holstering the Government Model 1911A1, that the condition developed a name.

"Racing stripes" were here before Gaston Glock started getting goofy ideas while cleaning his wife's Tupperware. Seems a bunch of detectives in California during the 1970's were perforating the old love handles while holstering their snub revolvers in vertical shoulder holsters.

"Castration carry" may have been amusing, but there was more than a grain of truth in it, and I heard the term waaa-aaay before Glock hit the US.

Do there seem to be more "accidental"(negligent) discharges with the Plastic Fantastic? Well, yes, but there seems to be a lot more Glocks in service than other weapons.

I'm sure that if the revolver were to be as popular and widespread as the Glock, people would be saying the same thing about those weapons.

On a business note: Keep. It. Civil.

LawDog
 
LawDog; "I neither like nor dislike the Glock series". Could you be a little more NEUTRAL please? If Glock's take the high road then I'll take the low road.:)J. Parker
 
We can find fault with anything; I recall some departments making their revolvers DAO.
A liberal demoncrat (sic) could ban Glocks as unsafe for LEOs.
Ban DA/SA from agencies--unsafe transition.
Ban SA cocked and locked--cops too untrained for that.
DAO...someting could go wrong--heavy trigger causes collateral damage to civilians; ban those too.
OK no guns for LEOs.
Civilians...no way they can have guns if they are not safe for LEOs.
Military...well under revised rules of engagement they will not carry any ammo.
OK are we safe yet?
Does this sound familiar?
Coming to a movie house near you!
 
First and foremost; moderators I apologize.

My intention was to create a constructive and spirited debate about the issues, which currently surround the Glock line of firearms, but what I received, while not very productive was indeed spirited to say the least.

And I was accused of wasting band width!!!:rolleyes:

I read the posts by all but one or two folks and question why we can have a constructive debate about the issues that surround other handguns from a $200.00 Kel-Tec to $5,000.00 Les Baur Whiz Bang Gold plated special. But somehow, when the Glock is tossed into the mix the gloves come off and it turns into a spitting contest.:confused:

A fine example of this is Glock Talk and numerous threads even here at The Firing Line.

If you read completely my post I have lined it with facts I have gathered from various sources across the net, mostly from news sites. If you question the validity of these facts don’t accuse me of being an agent of some liberal anti-gun agenda. Do your own inquiry and rebut them, if I am indeed making this up then it should be rather uncomplicated for most of you to substantiate this.

I do not work for nor have a monetary interest in Smith and Wesson, as I was accused.
I am not an agent of the Federal Government, as I was accused.
I am not a left wing anti-gun nut, as I was accused.
I have not threatened to kill anyone as one such post implies towards me.
I am not an alien here to take over the world.
And I am not a mouse, as I was accused…:D

My question to you who posted coarse and imprudent comments instead of productive and appreciable remarks, why?

TFW
 
A quote from a Moderator from handgun-general forum

The main "Why?" that Tamara asked...
...was why can grown men not civilly disagree as to which brands of guns they like, causing me to have to lock threads?
__________________
MOLON LABE!
"..but never ever Fear. Fear is for the enemy. Fear and Bullets."
10mm: Everything you love about 20mm, and only half the recoil!
"...maybe the people in Texas were attacked because of child abuse. But, if child abuse was the issue, why didn't Janet Reno tear-gas Woody Allen?" -PJ O'Rourke
 
I will attempt to rebut the original posting, with a(pseudo)scientific slant. I am not a statistician by trade, but have had recent schooling in empirical methods in pursuit of my MPA.

There are two phenomenon that occurred concurrently with the wide-spread fielding of the Glock; unfortunately, without extensive access to original source data and research, they might be impossible to "control" for.

The first is the wide-spread adoption of the semi-automatic pistol by numerous jurisdictions across the country. Glocks entry into the market largely coincided with this "wave". Yes, some cut their teeth on Sigs or Berettas, but when the crescendo was reached, there was Glock, with a functionality in use (pull the trigger, it goes bang) similar to the revolver that had long been in use. It was often selected just for that ease of mental transition. Consequently, it was the first semi-auto many departments, and police officers, were exposed to. Based on (admittedly) casual observation, I believe that more have transitioned from the revolver to the Glock then from Sigs/Berettas. External safety devices, under these circumstances, could be more of a detraction to duty-use than most of us would perceive. I think many AD/UDs that resulted from Glocks were a by-product of years of sloppy gun-handling by experienced LEOs, who had heretofor gotten away with it because of the long/heavy trigger pull of the revolvers they were use to.

Secondly, in the last several years, "Glock-mania" has occurred during a time when fewer people have turned to a career in Law Enforcement, yet demand was simultaneously high, due to the state of the economy and various initiatives to hire more police offices (100,000 more Cops on the street, ad nauseum). Working in the Personnel department of the City of Phoenix, I can personally testify to the great difficulty we have had recruiting new police officers. Fewer and fewer are the "professionals", guys who's dad and uncles and brothers were cops, who grew up dreaming of being a cop someday. Forgive me as I indulge in stereotypes, but such people tend to be a part of the "culture" of force, and thus have above-average exposure to firearms; particluarly handguns. They are increasingly a minority. Now the average "joe", probably a good-guy at heart, but with little exposure to firearms, is the typical applicant, because of economic circumstances. In their hands, the Glock is probably not the ideal weapon from a safety issue. It is however, simple to operate (pull the trigger, it goes bang). With all due respect to LEOs past and present, we have more of a personnel/training issue, in the present day, than a firearm issue, in my opinion.

These are not trivial variables; they are real, widespread, and numerous. Without accounting for these variables, any declaration of inherent safety defects of the Glock cannot be considered with authority. As has been noted in this thread, other firearms have had their day in the limelight of controversy. This, coupled with the media's tendency to villianize any firearm, leads me to take the quoted sources/articles with a whole can of Morton Salt.

Keep your finger off the trigger, until you are ready to destroy your target.
 
Yo Fed,
Put the crack pipe down, and listen to what I'm tell'in ya. Glocks just don't "go off". If that were the case, then the ATF (remember them???) would not let them into the country. Especially the KLINTON ATF!!!! :eek:
 
I agree that alot of LEO's shouldnt be carrying glocks. Some shouldnt even be LEO's. Remember that female officer (on TLC) who's gun wouldnt fire during qualifying so she holstered it up and said "Oh well...maybe next time" and went back out to finish her shift? Its LEO's like that who shoot innocent people and themselves. Think about it, If we cant train our peace officers to use glocks, maybe we should be asking for higher standards in our departments.

I think each LEO should have choice over several firearms and choose the one they are most effective and safe with. Im glad NYC has a rediculously heavy trigger pull. If I had a cop with a gun to my head in NYC i would hope it had a 20LB trigger pull. Because anyone who lives in NYC cant possibly be smart enuff to keep thier finger off the trigger before firing to begin with. Yeah i know that sounds like a generalization. But I have and always will think that alot of LEO's are undertrained to use any firearm, muchless a Glock. I say any officer that refuses to take a week-long training course at thunder ranch or similar course should be forced back to using a revolver and pepper spray.


Tim :)
 
Hmmm not to start a bunch of flames, I expect this thread might get locked soon anyway the way some are acting, but..

as an example:
glock 5lb or so trigger no trigger blocking safety

Colt 1911 5lb or so trigger..but would you carry it cocked and not locked? Stock ones I've seen to have some slack although not as much as a Glock. Should be safe to carry unlocked righttt??? I mean it has a firing pin safety (good ones) so it will only go off if the trigger is pulled rightttt???

;)

Just an example to think about.

did anyone follow that thread I posted on the first page?

with respect and love for all

:) Shiro :)
 
Original intent was to carry the 1911 into battle cocked w/safety off.

(That's what the grip safety is for.)


I stick by my first post. Guns are dangerous, and anyone who thinks otherwise IS a moron.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top