What I Don't Like About Glock...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dean Speirs GunZone did go out of business and the domain name sold. It was the only place that I know of that collected and followed articles on Glock with a critical eye. it was valuable for that if occasionally over the top in some claims.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying I fact-checked everything on his website, but in my experience, his information was good. He was obviously concerned with getting the details right. Some people really got bent out of shape over some of his coverage--he never pulled punches and that irritated some people.

His website content can still be found on the web archive.
On the original question: Did Glock have any UD's having to do with it's mechanical safeties and failures of that and the answer is yes. Upgrades were done to the trigger system which corrected this. Glock did not issue a recall and performed the upgrade over a number of years in the 1990s. The Gen 2 guns were introduced before the upgrades.

Gun Tests magazine, and others made the link between Suffolk Co. and the firing pin upgrades. I quoted these above.

Upgrades to the frame were made following the DEA testing.
Click to expand...
The first upgrades related to unintentional discharges were announced in 1992.

Based on additional research, it seems extremely unlikely that the Suffolk ADs are what caused Glock to design the upgrade parts although it may have been what prompted them to make the public announcement.

Earlier, I stated that the DEA "Frisbee" testing took place in 1992. That was incorrect, it took place in 1991. By the time the Suffolk ADs took place in January of 1992, Glock already had hundreds of the upgrade parts on hand and had been selling new pistols with upgraded parts since November 1991, as indicated in the upgrade announcement you quoted:
"This new firing pin safety system has been installed in all production Glock pistols since November, 1991."​
Here is some information from TheGunZone:
"The DEA "Frisbee Test"
While Suffolk County P.D.'s "AD heard 'round the world" certainly lent impetus to Glock's "going public" with its upgrade, clearly this is something that had been in the works for a considerable period of time, and well before October 1991.

Documents first provided by a source professing to be knowledgeable about the situation, and buttressed by other documents released under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, indicate that failure during the "Frisbee" portion of the 1991 test protocols (DEA-91-R-0023), led to the Austrian pistols being "rated as unacceptable" for broader adoption by the Federal law enforcement agency. (Whereas Glocks had been one of several DEA-approved handguns, subsequent to the tests, the agency selected the SIG P228 as their "official" handgun and removed Glock as an option. No existing Glocks were removed from service, however, and Glock's Walter stated at the time that "Glock is not going to protest the test results, since we feel they were fair and equitable.")"​
 
Carl the Floor Walker said:
If the tread bothers you then move on. If you want to post a thread titled "why I hate Sigs, then do so." I love the internet, some guy hates the thread and then just keeps posting. Some things never change.
Click to expand...
It doesn't bother me, and hate? Hate a really big word..I am very satisfied with my gun choices. Discussion group, discussing..Not angry, more amused than upset. 'Which gun is 'better', with something so subjective, is always amusing. I think a person can only 'hate' a gun if it's really unreliable..

Like I said, I've been in the bicycle business for a long time and I see the same gig with Rapha and Campagnolo(fans of both, along with Glock)..Also, mention 'Iphone or 'Apple'..same thing.

No Sig anything for me, BTW..and I don't 'hate' them, just don't 'fit' me like my Glocks do...Plus the hammer/safety/decocker gig..not a fan.
 
Last edited:
Carl the Floor Walker said:
Again, for those that did not care so much for the Glock, especially the lack of a safety. the New Mossberg may be a huge hit. And many will like the Crossbolt safety. A crossbolt, while not my favorite on a shotgun, might just be very easy to use on a Pistol.
I won't buy a Glock, but I really want to try out the Mossberg. And Mossberg is really telling their vendors to focus on the Better Accuracy which they tested against the Glock 43.

I think the Mossberg is going to bust Glock in the.
Click to expand...
Why? Do you hate them?:) We'll see if the Mossberg busts anything with regards to Glock..I'm thinking Glock will be just fine('few' more offerings than Mossberg, handgun wise)..Now M&P Shield, particularly with Sig 965 and Glock 43x..I'd be concerned if I was 'Mr M&P'...

PLUS, a well designed striker pistol..it has many safeties if designed well. An external one will make some more comfy..and some won't buy it because of that. Ruger's LC9S 'Pro(no safety), outsells the one with a safety, many times over.
 
Last edited:
I like HK.
HK is my favorite manufacturer.
I carry a Glock.
It fits my needs and I run them, yes, run. For defensive purposes. Better than I do my HKs.

So I carry a Glock.

I don't look too into it. The people who carry them. The Gucci gang that drops $4,500 into one. Or anyone else.

I don't dismiss and or have an irrational hatred towards them for those reasons or any other reasons either. One of my best friends does. It's sad.

If you don't like it or don't want to try it, don't. People keep recommending them? Ignore it? I'm not speaking like a know it all..But don't give in to anyone and let them trigger you over a piece of plastic and metal that they "love". Which is the other side of it. I get it...It's a bit much at times, but that's how misinformation spreads.

Like "HK hAs ThE wOrSt CuStOmEr SeRvIcE"....No....It doesn't. In fact my other best friend was denied a spare part from Glock because of a $0.25 trigger job. So we all have experiences differing from one another.

Sorry for the ramble.
 
USNRet93 said:
Now M&P Shield, particularly with Sig 965 and Glock 43x..I'd be concerned if I was 'Mr M&P'...
Click to expand...

A lot of people have preferences for different brands of guns, but that is not always the deciding factor. I own more Sigs than any other brand, but found the P365 felt too small in my hand.

And many more people are price-conscious. 'Mr M&P' is probably not too concerned with Shields priced at half of a comparable Sig or Glock.
 
USNRet93 - you said
Ruger's LC9S 'Pro(no safety), outsells the one with a safety, many times over.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity, why then did Ruger discontinue the safetyless LC9S Pro?
 
Laz said:
USNRet93 - you said
Just out of curiosity, why then did Ruger discontinue the safetyless LC9S Pro?
Click to expand...
Did they?..they are on Ruger website..the one at top of page is indeed the 'Pro' model
Safety features include integrated trigger safety, manual safety, magazine disconnect and an inspection port that allows for visual confirmation of a loaded or empty chamber. Pro Models come without manual safety and magazine disconnect.
Click to expand...

https://www.ruger.com/products/lc9s/models.html
 
I guess a follow up observation and question would be why has Ruger not offered a “pro” version of the EC9S that seems to be replacing the LC9S. I can understand the EC9S. It lowers the price and goes after the more budget-conscious end of a very lucrative market but that is also a very crowded market. I would think a safety-less EC9S would be a big seller IF your hypothesis is correct. You may yet prove right, though, and perhaps an EC9S “Pro” will be coming.
 
Not sure the EC is going to replace the LC but the fact remains, some buy a striker because of an external safety and some won’t buy it because it HAS an external safety. I maintain(and I am no armorer in any way) that a properly designed striker, with internal safeties and not a fully cocked external hammer, doesn’t need an external safety. But some disagree..I carry my glocks with one in the chamber all the time, ymmv and all that. If Glock suddenly offered a G43/19/43x/42 with an external safety, I doubt any present Glock carriers would buy it cuz of that. I wouldn’t.
 
I maintain(and I am no armorer in any way) that a properly designed striker, with internal safeties and not a fully cocked external hammer, doesn’t need an external safety.
Click to expand...

One can also maintain that no firearm needs an external safety.

Personally, I find a safety to generally be a useful and desirable thing. I require either a manual safety (safety lock) or an external hammer or I'm not interested in the pistol. I don't mind if it has both.

I don't understand people who avoid guns with safeties, I think it like avoiding a certain car because it has an emergency brake. However, beyond firing an adequate cartridge, accurately and dependably, its not about what one needs, its about what one wants. If you want or don't want certain design features on your pistol, there has never been more variety available than there is today.

I don't own a Glock, or similar pistol. I don't have a need for them that I can see, and I don't want them. I have used several, and don't care for the combination of qualities it has, and doesn't have. The package simply doesn't appeal to me. If you think they are God's gift to shooting, by all means, enjoy! I walk a different path.
 
Personally, I find a safety to generally be a useful and desirable thing. I require either a manual safety (safety lock) or an external hammer or I'm not interested in the pistol. I don't mind if it has both.
Click to expand...

I'm of the very same opinion. I don't expect others to necessarily share my viewpoint(s) nor am I critical of anyone else's convictions. Lots of different things in life that people have different likes and dislikes about without one opinion being better or worse than another. Who's to say?
 
I guess this heroic gentleman, up for one of the top UK medals, seems to be ok with carrying a Glock. I wonder if he can't shoot it because of the grip angle.
Click to expand...

What's that got to do with anything? It's about what you're comfortable with. If I had grown up shooting Glocks instead of 1911's I'd probably think everything else felt weird. For me a Glock naturally points about a foot high at 10 feet. Add to that they're fat and have an extremely long trigger pull plus I just like hammers. If you like Glocks then fine, I don't.
 
Any competent handgun user unless you have some type of hand problem should be able to shoot a Glock, 1911 or SW 686 effectively. That’s why I am amused by the I can’t shoot a XYZ comments to be silly.
 
Hardly silly, Yes, I can shoot any gun made, but that in NO WAY means it is the best fit. A Glock DOES NOT FIT MY HAND. IT NATURALLY POINTS LOW. I HAVE TO ACTUALLY MENTALLY RAISE THE GUN WITH EACH SHOT.


No gun is a perfect fit for all, no matter what the Glock CNN crowd tell you. For God sake get out and shoot other guns and make your own decision instead of being lead around like a bunch of mindless Sheep!
 
Last edited:
For God sake get out and shoot other guns and make your own decision instead of being lead around like a bunch of mindless Sheep!
Click to expand...

Whoa, Nelly! We're talking about guns here; not where we're going to go after we die. Nothing about this discussion is nearly as important as you seem to think it is. Catch your breath and slow down a bit (just my admittedly unsolicited advice :cool:).
 
If a Glock points low for you, most pistols should point even lower...usually it's the other way around.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top