If the majority of Police use Glocks...Arent they good enough for us ??

Vyper,

Glocks are fine semiautomatics. So are Sigs, H&Ks, Springfields, Kimbers, and several others. The relevant questions are: (a) What's right for you (feel, accuracy, cost, etc.)? and (b) What's right for your intended use?

A recent thread re the Glock 23 provides a fairly representative range of opinions (please see http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=57761). This thread suggests that Glock quality, reliability and durability is excellent, but some of us believe their accuracy is not as good as other first-rate autoloaders.
 
I've never heard that the Marines carried the G21. Carlos Hathcock carried a G21, as his personal firearm, as a matter of choice. Probably, just be cause Glock was low bidder. :)

For the uninitiated. Glocks aren't DAO. That's a misnomer.
 
Hello, Iam new here. I never liked the feel of the Glocks until it tried the Glock 36. It fits my hands fine and shoots strait. I love the 1911 but carry the Glock.

Phil
 
I wouldn't base anything I bought on what a government agency buys. The points already mentioned are valid as is the concept of kickbacks and government corruption. Another point is keeping up with the Jones'. If "that agency" uses Glocks then we should use Glocks. I work for a public safety government agency and they certainly don't always buy the best there is. I think that the simplicity of the Glock goes a long way in training rookies that have never handled a gun before and probably don't want to now. I also think that the simplicity of the Glock would be an asset in a life or death situation for someone that doesn't practice much so that they can just point and pull the trigger. Finally I think that government agencies buy into the idea that large magazine capacities are good; quantity over quality meaning that more rounds are better than one or two accurate aimed shots. All that being said, I own a Glock and would probably seriously consider carrying it if I was a LEO and had that option. I really like mine and consider it fully as good as anything else I own.
 
I find it humorous that agencies that would have blown a gasket at their officers carrying single action autos with a 5.5 lb. trigger and a frame mounted mechanical safety have embraced the Glock, which in its stock configuration has a 5.5 lb. trigger and no frame mounted mechanical safety unless you include the little insert in the trigger. Part of the reason is that ATF classified the unique trigger mechanism as "double action," which allowed the unions and other high capacity advocates to go to their administrations with the argument that the Glock was just as safe as a revolver but held more ammo. I agree that the Glock is easier to shoot than a revolver or a traditional DA/SA or DAO semi-auto, but that doesn't necessarily make it better. There are a whole range of factors, some of which are general for the agency (such as training issues, cost, trades of existing firearms, politics) and some of which are specific to the characeristics and tastes of individual officers. After a great deal of experimentation I have found other firearms that work better for me. Don't get me wrong, if someone told me that I had to carry a Glock, I would do it without hesitation, but to say that police agencies use them does not mean that everyone else need not look any further.
 
First, Glocks are carried by the vast majority of American police agencies, federal law enforcement agencies, special forces groups, and elite forces. Many cop detectives cherish the Glock 27/26 for its small package but 10 round capacity plus one in the tube.

Most FBI, DEA, SS, DOE, EPA, IRS, ATF, Treasury agents including their elite forces carry and use Glocks. One of my best buds is a brick wall of a DEA agent who knocks down most doors without a ram, and his entry teams carry Glock 30s.

While some elite teams like the FBI HRT maybe going for the Springfield 1911 and the Seals may still use the Sig P226, Glocks are their mainstay.

Second, most purchasing depts for the government buy based upon "value" not price alone. For a gun with only 34 parts that is under $500 and known to be accurate and has survived incredible torture tests, what other gun COULD you spend taxpayer dollars on?

Third, for most shooters' needs well beyond self defense/killing zone ranges, there are no finer tanks built than Glocks. Sure a finely tuned Kimber can outshoot a Glock at 45 yards, but experienced shooters will tell you that out to 25 yards they are equally accurate.

Fourth, I've had springs and levers break, slides rust, slide come off when the BG grabbed it, magazines eject in battle, etc in my Kimbers, Sigs, Colts, Berettas, and the like. But never in a Glock. It just broke the part but kept on firing.

Fifth, during the Desert Storm campaign, tons of Glock 21's were shipped to the Middle East for our folks in the armed forces. Nobody else's guns made the must have list. And that is with a Buy American initative imposed on all federal procurements of that size.

Sixth, if you really want to know what the boys in blue want, its an HK MP5 not a pistol. Great for riot control, dynamic entries, and chicks really really dig those guns. Pulse fire baby!

Sure, Glocks may not be the prettiest guns BUT I'd rather survive a gunfight with an ugly gun than die with a nickel-plated pimp gun in my cold dead hand.

I've owned all type of semi-autos, revolvers, .32 acp up to 454 Causall, and if I can only have one gun, it's going to be a Glock!

That doesn't mean that I don't love my HKP7 or my AR-15 though!
 
As to training issues, we all know that cops these days are not shooting enthusiasts. Those folks end up be range officers or firearms training instyructors for the agency.

The majority shoot enough to qualify -- that's it.

The majority of the cops are better off with a simple manual of arms holding onto all of the safety rules we all know. Keep your finger off of the trigger.

That's also why Glocks are in the game bigtime. Simple to train on.
 
Some very good points JT...

Youre right...They say most Policeman are not gun enthusiasts but they use their weapon as just a tool...BTW guys...I like all the major brands of guns....not just Glocks...I'm just saying that Glock has proved time and time again that it is a very reliable and durable pistol...
 
I could afford other models and brands like for example a custom .45, but I choose Glocks. I like them. Its my opinion. They are simple and rugged. 'Nuff said.
 
I had a S&W mod 66 that was simple, reliable, rugged, durable, yadda, yadda, yadda. Had it for years. Went everywhere with me. Was exposed to all sorts of conditions. Never skipped a beat. I'd say it was equal or better than ANY Glock ever made. So guys, come back down to earth okay?:)
 
I honestly don't understand the point of the question that if most police use Glocks, aren't they good enough for us?

What is the relevance of what the police decide to me and my purchasing decision? Why is it relevant that most police use Glocks to my decision?
 
Double...

you'd be surprised how many people buy the guns their State Police are using...People know that the guns must pass certain tests...
 
I've read to many articles about police departments getting their Glocks free by trading in the old guns currently in use.Are they functional sure, but free is the most important consideration in my opinion.Its a ploy used by Glock to make everyone think their guns are superior.I'll pass!
 
Double; It's not relevent to me at all. The Glock line of pistols don't fit my mode of carry or my lifestyle. A Glock is supposed to be a holstered pistol. That doesn't work for me. LE doesn't dictate what's best for me. Their needs can certainly be different than mine. Look at the California Highway Patrol. When they chose the S&W 4006 as their issue pistol I didn't rush out and get one. I've owned three Glock's. Two were LEMONS. Just because a department choses a certain pistol doesn't necessarily mean it was a wise decision. Just my thoughts, J. Parker
 
The reason civilians follow police gun purchases is because both parties need reliable guns is for SELF DEFENSE AND THE DEFENSE OF INNOCENTS.

As to the HS2000, I havent' shot one but inspected one. No thanks, the fit and finish are just about the same as the Intratec CAT-9 or a HiPoint Compact 9mm. The sights reminded me of those off of an EAA Witness. I don't know much about the company either.

For $350, I'd rather save another $150 a get a Glock, Sig, HK, or the like. I'm worth the extra $150.
 
one big thing to keep in mind,glock was designed as a duty weapon,they say they have three safties but packing a loaded glock is like packing a 1911 cocked and unlocked.i would truely consider this,i am not bashing glocks,i own two,i have heard of many pds that had their officers accidently discharged their glock in the holster and shot theirself but other than that glock is a fine weapon happy shooting
 
For LEO, Glocks only cost between $300-400. The hi-cap mags that people spend $100 on, only cost them $17. Now compare to HK's, HK's LEO prices are pretty much the same as civilian prices, a mag still cost $40. It makes sense if you are on a limited budget to go with Glocks.
 
If the majority of Police use Glocks...Arent they good enough for us

Just curious, why are you content on settling for "good enough"? :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top