One stupid question (Glocks related)

It is common knowledge amoung people who are wll {sic}informed and well read that the early Glock .45 had magazines that did not work.
Click to expand...

We got some of the first ones for sale in the state. The one I took home to run through the wringer worked fine and I can't recollect any coming back with feed complaints.

I guess it's not common knowledge with us common folks who are uninformed and illiterate. ;)

And yes, I'm familiar with the early NFML G17 mags. I printed out some of your posts on the topic for us to read about at the gunshop. We flung a couple of older "buttonless" ones against the wall for kicks.

Our gunsmith was wondering, exactly what were we supposed to look for the magazine to do, other than hit the ground?

(Some of these threads get printed and stuck in with Gunsmith Kinks for shop reading material reading on rainy afternoons)
 
The vibration statement is just bizare. One of the things about polymer frames that has most impressed me has been the reduction in felt recoil for a given weight pistol. Obviously a polymer 9mm of a given size will weigh less than a steel 9mm of the same size-- compare a G17 to a Browning High Power-- but ounce for ounce, the polymer transmits less shock, in my opinion. [/QUOTE

I believe you just answered your own question. The plastic pistols by their very weight alone will kick a hell of alot more than a heavy framed steel pistol. Even if we agree with you that there is no virbaration (there is ) the lighter weight pistol will be much more uncomfortable to shoot.

One of the most pleasant pistols in 9mm i have ever fired is the Star model 30. Why? It weighs more than even a Colt 1911.

Common sense tells you the heavier pistol recoils less even if you do not believe anything about the vibration.

I suggest to the unprejudiced people out there that next time you are at the range ask to borrow a Full size Glock (to be fair) and fire it and then fire an all steel pistol in the same caliber like a Browning High Power Or Star 30 or Cz75. You will not fail to notice the tremendous difference in both recoil and vibration. W.R.
Click to expand...
 
Did you ever stop to think that there are people on this board who actually own these things and shoot them on a regular basis?

I just got back from shooting my compact 10mm G29, my Springfield V-10 and my roommate's Springfield stainless loaded 1911A1.

The Glock kicked no worse than either of the other two, even when comparing mild American Eagle ball in the .45's and Hornady 180gr XTP's and CCI 200gr ball in the 10mm.

My .45 Glock 30 is as mild as my all-steel, ported 1911 Officer's model.

Your observations just don't match my experiences...



(PS For those who are wondering, lendringser's Performance Center Model 13 got shot for the first time today, too. Yow!)
 
By the way if you really want to experience vibration. Fire the Walther p99. I have a 9mm that is super accurate for an out of the box blaster but talk about vibration. I hate to say it but the glock is a cream puff next to this pistol. The narrow grips on the gun really vibrate like hell and it is by far the most unpleasant kicking plastic gun I have ever fired. And in .40 S&W it is 10 times worse in recoil and vibration. W.R.
 
Did you ever stop to think that there are people on this board who actually own these things and shoot them on a regular basis?
Click to expand...

Yes and if they evaluate the pistols fairly and without prejudice I cannot see how they would not fail to agree with me.

Tamara you are actually going agains the laws of physics. Less weight means more recoil no matter how you argue about it or look at it.W.R.
 
And you're leaving out many of the things that contribute to "percieved recoil", like backstrap area, height of bore axis, strength of recoil spring, mass of slide, etcetera, etcetera... ;)

And If you think the 9mm P99 kicks unpleasantly, we obviously are not sharing any common frame of reference... :rolleyes:
 
W.R. wrote- "Yes and if they evaluate the pistols fairly and without prejudice I cannot see how they would not fail to agree with me."

Ummm, I don't think anyone has not failed to agree with you.

It must be nice to have all that absolutely true information from reading all those magazines. I mean, without all that "knowledge" I am so uninformed that I don't know how absolutely terrible my flawlessly performing Glocks really are.

Good thing I haven't read all that accurate information in Gun Week magazine and learned as much as you! I'd have all kinds of trouble with my 100% reliable, zero failure Glocks if I was informed by a gun writer that I was supposed to have these problems. I ain't readin' any more gun mags! (except SWAT of course) :rolleyes:

If we "face the truth now" as you suggested we will realize that the experience of all us Glock owners does not coincide with the vast knowledge that you have gained by reading Gun Week.

Geez, cut your losses here and save some face!

R6
 
Wild Romanian - In all honesty, I don't understand what you mean by "vibration" in connection with firing a pistol. To me, vibration means a rhythmic movement back and forth. What is the definition of that word as you intend it?
 
OH NO!!!

I actually agree with something Tamara said. ;)

Well, I take that back. I agree with her on most everything except her love of Ruger. She is living up near my farm in Tn now. Glad she decided to move up there.

WR,
I believe the key here is PERCEIVED recoil. The engineering of the pistol so that the perceived recoil is lessened includes the components mentioned by Tamara and others. Refer to your physics textbooks and work out the vector analysis.

As for vibration...There is a mild vibration AFTER pulling the trigger of a Glock. I agree with you there. Some models are more pronounced than others. Does it affect accuracy? This is a combat handgun so as long as it doesn't make the groups larger than 4 inches I don't care. I detect the vibration when firing from sandbags. Offhand I do not notice.
 
Dropping loaded Berettas that go off, acid cleaners leaping from the engine rebuild area to disintegrate Glock frames, box lots of detonating P-38's, whole batches of M-1 carbines that can't fire two consecutive shots without a jam, the only
Click to expand...

For those of you who would like to see who is really telling the truth I suggest you go to the rifle forum where I have posted threads in the last couple of days on the M1 carbine. There you will see thatI never stated that I had a carbine that jamed every other shot .

I also suggest you read what I posted about the Walther P5. A man needed information about this pistol and no one responed with any of their own experiences with this pistol. After I told him of mine the only response he got from other people was criticism of my real life experiences. The critics offered no other critique of the weapon because they had no experience with it. Because they seldom have any useful information to add to the forum they spend all their time criticizing those who do.

W.R.
More kooky mishaps with firearms (coincidentally, only the ones you hate) happen to you guys than any twelve dozen people I've known in all my years in the gun business.
Click to expand...

From some of your comments I would have never guessed you had any experience in the gun industry at all. By the way I have been in the gun buisness for 25 years.

Tamara, did you forget about all the CZ's he's tried that had "gritty" triggers? Or did you simply get tired of typing his BS encounters before you got to that one


Any one who ever fired a stock Cz75 and knows anything at all about what constitutes a good hangun trigger would be ashamed to even make such a ludicrous statement. It is quite obvious that you never owned a first class target pistol in your life.

AS far as Tamara's statement about pictures. I do not have a digetal camera. But if you look at some of the color pictures in one of the back issue of Shooting Times magazine you will see both a Smith & Wesson Model 39 and a Walther P38 and the results of the tests they ran on them. It graphically shows gauling and damage to their aluminum frames as well as loss of accuracy to these pistols that were used in the test. This is old information but it is obvious that you read very little about handguns and their performance in endurance tests.
Click to expand...
 
With regard to the "lifetime" of the polymer frame.. Does anyone have any data on how long that type of polymer/plastic/nylon should last before it becomes brittle?
Click to expand...

Contrary to popular belief plastics that become contaminated with oil and chemicals do become brittle. I once repaired a marlin .22 auto rifle for a client. When I disassembled the rifle the cheap plastic buffer had become oil and age hardned and had cracked. Plastics are not the indestructable materiels that we have all been led to believe.

In industry we once replaced steel bearings in an overhead conveyor system with solid plastic ones. We were guarenteed they would last for decades. They lasted one year. The previous steel bearings hand lasted 25 years.

The Glock has not been on the market for all that long and I really wonder what age will due to the plastic frame in the long run. The problem with plastic is that once something does go wrong with it there is nothing you can due to fix it. It must be replaced and if the company that made it is out of buisness or has discontinued the model you have no recourse other than to take your expensive toy and throw it in the trash. W.R.
 
H
Moderator

Registered: 03-20-1999
Location: Northern VA, USA
Posts: 4295
Wild Romanian - In all honesty, I don't understand what you mean by "vibration" in connection with firing a pistol. To me, vibration means a rhythmic movement back and forth. What is the definition of that word as you intend it?

Thank you for an intelligent question. Now I think we are getting somewhere. I will try and explain this as best I can.

I have fired many types of pistols in my life. Small ones with steel frames, with aluminum frames, large ones, and medium size ones.
I am very familiar with most types of recoil.

Now comes my first experience with a plastic pistol, the Glock 17.
When firing the very first clip out of it with relatively mild handloads I experienced an intensely strong motion in the palm of my hand. I am not speaking of a sudden sharp recoil. That was also present because of the gun's light weight. What I am speaking of is a totally seperate and unpleasant sensation. I can only describe it as vibration.

I have never experienced this same sensation when firing alumium or steel frame handguns. It is totally different and totally seperate from the recoil of the handgun. Again I can only describe it with the use of the word vibration. Maybe that is not truly what it is. I am no physicist but the feeling and resulting rapid fatigue from shooting these weapons is definetly there. W.R.
 
I have been following this one from the begining and I can't believe that all this came from being destructive to expensive pistols (or at least expensive to me.)

I was going to list the names of all the guys who seemingly are trying to get a date from Tamara, but have decided to give my feeble opinion on the subject instead.

I don't totally discount that a Glock mag could come a part, because I have seen some strange things happen to guns, mainly in competitions. However W.R. can't produce evidence for his argument and Tamara can't create evidence of this that would support it. My experience (gained from actually shooting) has always been that when a pistol breaks its usually, lets say 95% of the time, the fault of the shooter. Misuse of the gun as stated in the owner's manual under, "not covered in the lifetime warranty". You know, things like burning guns or taking knives to them. :rolleyes:

Now it seems this thread has evolved to be a subject dealing with the recoil aspects of plastic pistols vs the metal monsters of old. Don't take that wrong, I like some of the metal monsters, but plastic is just cool :cool:. Now being blatently biased let me try to expand on the recoil issue. W.R. what you are referring to is the fact that a Glock and many other plastic pistols, will recoil into the center of the palm. Where as, the metal mosters tend to have more muzzle flip because the bore resides above the hand.

That being said, here is my best example. It will undoubtedly set me up for a great deal of scrutiny, but this is fun or we wouldn't all be here, so.........

My Sig P 228 when fired flips. The muzzle raises higher into the air than does my Steyr or any Glock I've ever owned.

My Glock 34 recoils back into my hand leaving a red mark (not because of excessive recoil, but because I'm exploding a projectile in my hand a 1000 + fps) just below the web of my thumb and index finger (the web is between your thumb and index finger). This type of recoil, that is much lower in the hand, is produced because the plastic pistols bore is almost inline with that part of your hand. Vibration you say, yes I guess the fact that more energy is being distributed into the hand than with a high bore pistol, it could be perceived at vibration.

Well, there are my thoughts on this issue. Yall can let me have it now.
 
It is quite obvious that you never owned a first class target pistol in your life.
Click to expand...

So one needs to have owned a first rate target pistol to know the characteristics of a "good" trigger pull? Hmmm. I guess those slick custom trigger jobs by gunsmiths on revolvers I've owned don't qualify me. I mean, they weren't really "target" pistols. :rolleyes:

As for having 25 years in the gun industry, time means nothing. I have known cops who have been "in it" for at least that long and still make an a$$ out of just about every call they go on.

FWIW, all I have seen W.R. do is toot his own horn and spew "gun reviews" based on nothing other than questionable, unconfirmable "experiences" and Gun Week magazine articles. I mean, I've never owned a first rate target pistol so I'm really not qualified to comment ( :rolleyes: ) but I do know what my experience has been with some of the guns he declares to be nothing but junk!

I'm done with this thread. It's going nowhere fast!. :barf:

R6
 
For a guy that's been in the business for 25 years....

I can't believe he still refers to a magazine as a "CLIP"!!!!:rolleyes:
 
For a guy that's been in the business for 25 years....
Click to expand...
For a guy that's been in the business for 25 years....
I can't believe he still refers to a magazine as a "CLIP"!!!!

I gues if you what to play silly games I can to.

Although you are correct about the definitions of a magazine versus a clip. If you were in the gun industry you would already be well aware that 99 per cent of the people who come in to buy a spare magazine call it a clip not a magazine.

Times change and just as the word ain't was at one time not in the dictionary now it is. Please move into the 21st century. W.R.
 
Wow, 25 years in the gun business...

I didn't know Wal-Mart would keep you behind the sporting goods counter for that long after transferring you from Housewares. ;)

90% of people buying magazines refer to them as such; just take a seat and witness the scene in our local gun shop any given day of the week. (You're welcome to sit in, by the way...it's always an interesting way to spend time and hang out with fellow "gun people".) But even if that were the case, we don't adjust the spelling or the definition of our vocabulary based on the ignorance of a large enough number of people.

If 90% of people called a horse a zebra, it'd still be a horse, and we wouldn't rush to change the dictionaries. 90% of Californians call a semi-auto rifle with a pistol grip an "assault rifle", does that mean they're right by virtue of numbers? A magazine is not the same as a clip, no matter how many folks interchange the words. Insisting on proper technial terminology is only "snobbery" to the lazy and the uneducated. I am sure you don't count yourself as a member of either group, so use the proper term if you don't want others to lump you in with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top