People complain too much about Glocks coz they don't own one...

G-27 has multiple cows...

I'm not going to criticize other peoples' guns. I'm just going to relate my experiences with the G22 and the G27.

My previous department's issue firearm was the G22. All the LE staff were plainclothes investigators and the G22s were carried concealed.

My G22 was very accurate and very reliable. Misfeeds had to be artificially induced for training purposes, because the guns never failed to extract or feed on their own. Accuracy at braced barricade at about 60 meters for ME was about 12", which is just about as good as I can shoot. Normal distances were all in the black.

I bought a G27 for off-duty/CCW carry. When it works, it is also very accurate for its size and not that bad to shoot. It has, however, had a really annoying reliability problem since the day I bought it-it misfires a round about every 20-30 rounds. When the round is ejected and examined, the primer contains an off-center firing pin strike which apparently is sufficiently off-center to prevent ignition of the primer. After some asking around, I was told that the firing pin on the Glocks is very susceptible to dirt in the channel in the slide and that if there was dirt in the channel, the firing pin might lock up instead of float free and could possibly push the slide slightly out-of-battery to the point where the firing pin would activate but would hit the primer off-center.

Now-I don't know if that is hooey or not, but I made a distinct practice of disassembling the slide at every cleaning (every range day) and thoroughly cleaning and drying the firing pin and extractor channels in the slide. It hasn't helped. The gun still misfires every 20-30 rounds and did so at our last range qual.

My partner carries a .45 USP off-duty. During the same range qual, one of his magazines disasembled itself after he ejected it from the gun. The mag follower jumped the lips and tied the mag completely up until it could be disassembled and corrected.

Other investigators were shooting Sig 9mm pistols (sorry, I don't know the model). Several of them had significant misfeeds.

The point of the story is that nothing-not Sigs, not USPs and certainly not Glocks-are 100% reliable and sometimes the reliability just stinks. Maybe the gun is a lemon or maybe the moon and tides are out of phase or maybe...???

Anyway, if you want close to 100% reliability, try a high-quality revolver. Otherwise, be prepared to fiddle with your auto (or send it for smithing) until you believe it'll go bang when you tell it to.

Just my observations.
 
I really just don't care for the Glocks. I do own five of them though. I have the models 17,23,24,27,and the 20. I have tried to like them but it just hasn't worked out. I have had the rear sight fly off while shooting them. I had one Kaboom with factory ammo. I dropped one and had the base come off the magazine sending bullets flying everywhere. They are not bad guns but I just haven't grown to like them.
 
I own a Glock 21. It is a decent pistol. HiCap mags. Fair trigger pull. It just doesn't point as well for me as my P220. I can shoot way better groups with my SIG. But the Sig only carries 8 rounds. But it points like it is my index finger and is accurate as hell. FOR ME. I will keep both, but I prefer the SIG. I carry the SIG much more than the Glock. It just feels comfortable. Like well fitting shoes.
 
I do have respect for Glocks and I think Glocks are finely
designed pistols. I shot Glocks, they are O.K. in every respect as the shooting machines. That's it. No excitement,
no attraction, just a plain gizmo for sending bullet in a
specified direction. Glock has no beauty in it, unlike Colt 1911, Browing HP, Mauser C-96, Luger or CZ-75. I would be perfectly O.K. if I'm issued Glock as a personal firearm,
but I do not feel like spending my money for something
which looks as ugly as Glock, even if it's perfectly functional.
 
Glock_Racer; Glock's are not even close to being POS'S. They used to be alot hotter than they are now IMO. Back when Glock, Beretta, and Sig were the heavy players in the late eighties and early nineties they were about the only show in town. In 2001 however the market is competitively saturated with good solid pistols. Nowadays, Glock's are simply one pistol design among many other good designs. I've owned three and believe me, there nothing special. But right here is where we have debates and differences of opinions. You tell a hardcore Glock owner that this or that pistol is better than their's and they go ballistic. If you tell me my Beretta or Sig is a POS well I say you're entitled to your opinion. I don't why it doesn't work the other way around???? Just my thoughts, J, Parker
 
Ugly when compared to what?

I guess that's why they make chocolate & vanilla, right?

I recently picked up my beautiful-sleek-black M20 (10mm) after firing several thousand rounds of 45 through my Para-Limited 1911. I was plesantly suprised, the Glock just points better than any other handgun I've fired.

I attribute this to Glocks lower bore axis.
I measured it at 1/2" lower than my 1911 !!!

Gaston didn't engineer a gun to compete with the existing designs. His thoughts went outside the box. He designed something totally revolutionary from the ground up. Purpose oriented from the get-go. Ugly so be it!

I've decided to put the 1911 away for a spell, while I experience the joy of beating as many 1911'ers as I can at their own game, IPSC/USPSA

I just ordered a couple Taylor-Freelance +4 extended basepads and a "Seattle Slug" to add weight and improve mag insertion times. That gives me 39 rounds with only one mag change!

I believe that if the Glocks trigger was reliably re-designed to promote faster shot-to-shot times, Glocks competetive edge would be be in the black, the beautiful sleek black.
 
To say Glocks are ugly and un-exciting is fine. Just remember that its your opinion and your opinion alone.

Some people prefer looks in a gun,,thats fine. For me though, I dont look at a gun like I would a nice new belt buckle, it is a tool that could someday save myself or a loved one from potential harm. So,,looks are a good plus but not at the expence function.

Also, it seems that some people here chose to generalise all Glock owners as a whole much like the antis that we cant even stomach that chose to see all gun owners as potential nuts that should not have guns. Well, that is a pretty shallow way of thinking if you ask me, I have seen die hards for every brand of gun on the market and to say that it does not go both ways is foolish plain and simple.

Lets stop painting Glock owners like lunatics that cant take criticism,,,I am a Glock owner, I am a Sig owner, a HK owner, Ruger, SKS, AK and can take whatever you chose to throw at me. If you set out with the idea you are going to convince me that my Glocks, Sigs whaever all stink and I should buy this, good luck, but expect me to deffend my thoughts with what I know as being true.

Example: If you make a post saying Glocks KB dont buy one and I reply saying thats not true I have fired thousands and thousands of rounds without a hitch. Are you going to tell me different, or maybe accuse me of being a Glock fanatic that cant except the facts? The fact is it never happened to me so your theory does not add up.

Just let the generalisations rest, its getting old pretty quick.

Jason
 
I like Glocks, and I own one (yes, just one, a G31 in .357). I also think that guns are mainly a matter of taste and that people shouldn't invest all their pride in just one model. I happen to like Rugers even better than Glocks...and, I'll bet I'm the only one on TFL that will say that! But, that's just me. Get what you like best and practice a whole bunch
 
Is the .357 a different round than the .357 Sig or is Glock just afraid of calling it by it true name and giving Sig some publicity?
 
Roger, the .357Sig was developed by Sig-Sauer. The "357" name was used because the cartridge closely approximates the ballistics of the highly touted .357 magnum (125gr at 1400fps).

The .357Sig is basically a bottlenecked.40S&W case necked down to a 9mm bullet.
357sig.gif
 
So it's the same deal as how Ruger refuses to call the .40 S&W by it's true name, intead calling it ".40 Auto"????

It's funny how even Remington amd Winchester call calibers by their real names. A .338 Winchester Magnum is still a .338 Winchester Magnum even in a Remington 700 rifle and Winchester does the smae for Remington calibers.

I'm sure it wouldn't take any business away from Glock to just call it .357 Sig and give credit where credit is due.
 
In my previous post I just typed ".357" because I was too lazy to type ".357 SIG" but, interestingly, I took out my Glock 31 and it only has "357" written on the slide. Maybe they wanted to avoid writing "SIG" on their guns, who knows. I am glad about the fact, however, that my Ruger P94 says "40 Auto" on the side. The gun just wouldn't feel the same if it had "S&W" on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top