What I Don't Like About Glock...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Everyone is different and I'm cool if a person doesn't like Glocks. To me, they're the gold standard really. I've had many, and still have some around, as a matter of fact all my pistols are Glocks. Over the years I've dropped them and considering I always carry with one in the chamber, they've never went off. I don't mean lightly dropping them, I mean dropping the on concrete and one time I was running with one on, it came out of the junk holster I was carrying and on the way down my leg hit it and I essentially kicked it across about 20ft of gravel. Scuffed up some, but no discharge. So yes, I completely trust Glock handguns.

The trigger, I think, is good ONCE YOU LEARN IT. Quite frankly a lot of people don't know how to shoot a Glock well and then blame the trigger, but once you get the muscle memory down for the trigger reset, do a lot of dry firing then take that to range with you, you might just find that the trigger isn't bad at all and your groups are MUCH smaller than before.

But again, everyone is different. I've had many other kinds of pistols but I always come back to Glocks because they're simple, reliable, rugged and accurate.
 
Brownstone322 said:
Bingo! I'll assume we all remember the SIG P320 debacle (I'll be so bold as to call it a debacle), and the root cause of the issue was inertial mass that allowed the trigger to keep going when the firearm hit the floor abruptly.



I don't think we want or need a steel trigger tab.
Click to expand...
A lot of aftermarket companies use lightweight aluminum. My guess is machining that, given that they already have the CNC equipment, is cheaper than setting up molds. Plus the metal is considered by many to be more premium and have a better feel. I think metal can work fine, but honestly polymer works great for this purpose too.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
What I don't like about them is:
There to boxy and wide, I don't care for plastic guns, they are not as accurate as my 1911's, No external safety, so 9 x out of 10 its carried with an empty chamber. What I do like about it: Very reliable, magazine capacity, 9mm ammunition is cheap, and my G19 fits its leather holster perfect. I do carry it on hunting trips as a sidearm. Although, not a tack driver, it is accurate enough for its intended purpose.
 
It's primary purpose really isn't to stop the firearm from discharging were a finger negligently pressed against the trigger. What it is is a method to prevent inertia from firing the pistol were the firearm dropped muzzle up and the trigger driven rearward by inertia.
Click to expand...

There is an also the element that an object has to move into the trigger guard from the side and then move almost straight back to activate the trigger. Rigid objects that approach the trigger from a sufficiently oblique angle don't depress the dingus, and objects that approach from a sufficiently acute angle to don't clear the guard. What it doesn't do well is account for soft objects like clothing, floppy holsters, and drawstrings.

It’s not the gun I don’t like, it’s the rigid holsters you must wear to keep things out of the trigger guard.

I prefer a soft leather holster, or even something synthetic like Uncle Mikes type holsters, and since I carry appendix or 4 o’clock, a manual safety is a must for me.
Click to expand...

When I carry a single action with a thumb safety, I want both the thumb safety and the trigger to be covered by the holster. (The specific pistol of mine is a Sig P238.) The length of the trigger throw has to be considered in the safety of your setup.
 
I prefer a soft leather holster, or even something synthetic like Uncle Mikes type holsters, and since I carry appendix or 4 o’clock, a manual safety is a must for me.
Click to expand...

I have nothing against leather. A good leather holster should be somewhat rigid around the trigger guard, at least enough to maintain its shape and not collapse. Stiff objects don't have to have sharp objects that poke you. There are any number of negligent discharges from folks using soft nylon holsters that fold in on themselves. Would this have been stopped by a DA/SA trigger? It seems possible it could. To me though these are, in many cases, junk holsters. They don't do what a holster should really do. To me there are options that are still comfortable that don't have these problems. In my experience many people will dish out $500+ on a new pistols and then spend $20 on a holster. I don't think a holster has to be $100+, but some people are asking for trouble. For me when it comes to holsters I use Safariland as the minimum. It's usually well thought out and decently made.
 
More people have been injured whining and bickering about smooth vs ridged trigger face than the actual trigger safety failing...trust me
 
Mostly my beef is with their owners being arrogant and more often than not insisting only glock makes a reliable gun.

"they shoot themselves"
"cops use them"
"I can buy parts in a vending machine"
"they only have 3 moving parts"
"glock glock glock glock glock"


As for me I'd come closer voting D than owning a glock. (unless it was a g20sf or G40)
 
I keep hearing about arrogant Glock owners poluting pistol threads online...
But all I see are absurd threads like this one insulting Glocks and those who happen to like them,
 
ritepath said:
Mostly my beef is with their owners being arrogant and more often than not insisting only glock makes a reliable gun.

"they shoot themselves"
"cops use them"
"I can buy parts in a vending machine"
"they only have 3 moving parts"
"glock glock glock glock glock"


As for me I'd come closer voting D than owning a glock. (unless it was a g20sf or G40)
Click to expand...
Agree with your statement. I think this is where the Glock haters originate. I have never been a Glock fan. Found out a long time ago they have as many failures as any other gun, are not that accurate and etc. But none of that bothered me. I really could care less about them, just no interest.
What I hated about them was the arrogance and annoying way they would take any other gun down, mention they knew someone that had that particular gun and it had a failure and then go on to tell how their Glock is perfect.

What I believe to be true is that Glock Popularity has been waining over the past 5 years or so. I remember going to Gun Shows and the tables full of the Black Guns. Big crowds around them.
Now, I see the same large tables hundreds of the Black guns, but very few people viewing them. They have ridden the Crest of the wave, and seem to be on a downhill.
Amazing how time can change anything.
Now, any time a Glock owner tries to put another person's gun down now, it just does not hold any weight. Owners of other guns now, just laugh.
And Now the Mossberg MC1 is coming out of the Gate STONG. More features, better Price. Hello Mossberg, Goodby Glock.
 
amd6547 said:
I keep hearing about arrogant Glock owners poluting pistol threads online...
But all I see are absurd threads like this one insulting Glocks and those who happen to like them,
Click to expand...

IMO there is a lot of truth to what you say. Anti Glock haters are just as bad if not worse than Glock fan boys and there are "other brand" fan boys just as bad if not worse than Glock fan boys.

I own ONE Glock, a Gen 2 Glock 19 that I bought new in the early 90s and has served me very well. Many times on a forum (not this one) when someone asks "what do you carry" I list my Gen2 Glock 19 as a pistol I CCW frequently and oh boy do more than a few take exception with that in a not so friendly fashion pointing out the superior options like the ones they use with better grips, better trigger, better ergos, better reliability, etc and why would I stay with such an inferior relic. I don't feed them and just reply it works very well for me and my needs, I like the trigger, and it has never let me down.

IMHO there a lot of wonderful choices in pistols these days and Glock is still among the best but as always one should try out whatever they are considering and go with what works best for them realizing what works best for them may not be the case for someone else.
 
Last edited:
Due to advertising, I think Glock has become the generic term for a handgun, like Coke is generic for a soft drink, Xerox is generic for a copy machine and Frigidaire is generic for a refrigerator. When someone talks about a Glock, it may be a handgun of another brand.
 
Have there been cases where a Glock fired a round because the internal safeties failed
Click to expand...

Yes there has been and those problems resulted in the appearance of the Gen 2 guns. Where the particular issues were corrected.

In 1992 Glock issued a product upgrade notice (recall basically) on parts for the firing pin safety.

From teh April 1992 Gun Tests magazine:

Glock Changes Firing Pins
Glock Inc. executives claim there is no
basis to the reports that all of the
company's pistols are being formally
recalled. Nevertheless, they say that, as of
last September, they have instituted a
running change in the design of the firing
pin safety mechanism. All of the pistols that
were assembled after the middle of October
include the redesigned parts.

The reports are apparently based on a pair
of unintentional discharges experienced by
a Suffolk County, New York, lawenforcement
agency. Glock says one of the
two pistols may have been altered outside
of the factory. We understand, however, the
department is steadfastly denying that
claim. The second pistol was not examined
by Glock.
Click to expand...

What happened in Suffolk Co. is that a Glock pistols issued to the Dept. fired when the slide was dropped without a finger being anywhere near the trigger in clean and lubricated guns. Glock only inspected one of the two guns that did this and denied it was a big issue. Never the less they redesigned the parts and issued a "product upgrade warning"

The second incident was more important for Glock and that was the DEA in the early 1990s used it's "Frisbee test" on Glocks. The test was meant to represent what might happen in the event a gun was dropped while an officer was running.

§L.16.1.b.(2)(c) of the agency's solicitation, Abuse
Testing, required that submitted "weapons, with
magazine inserted, will be thrown six times, three
times in such a way as to land on the right side and
three times in such a way as to land on the left side.
The throw will be for a distance of approximately
fifteen feet, not to exceed a height of approximately
four feet, to land on a floor of quarry tile or concrete."
From the FOIA request documents it was learned that
beneath the Consensus Report heading of
"Weaknesses" the evaluation committee stated:
Click to expand...

Glocks passed the test when empty but with a full magazine;


7/9


§L.16.1.b.(2)(c) of the agency's solicitation, Abuse
Testing, required that submitted "weapons, with
magazine inserted, will be thrown six times, three
times in such a way as to land on the right side and
three times in such a way as to land on the left side.
The throw will be for a distance of approximately
fifteen feet, not to exceed a height of approximately
four feet, to land on a floor of quarry tile or concrete."
From the FOIA request documents it was learned that
beneath the Consensus Report heading of
"Weaknesses" the evaluation committee stated:

Throw test:

Frame 479 (with) slide 318, 1st throw left side the slide came off both rear
rails.
Frame 474 (with) slide 479, 1st throw right side slide came off right rear rails, rear pistol grip under landyard{sic} loop hole cracked and broke the
grip after throw test, pulled the trigger would not fire. Tap, Rack, Bang would result in function of the weapon.
Frame 477 (with) slide 305, slide came off right side rear rails on the first throw.
Frame 318 (with) slide 474, 1st drop rear of pistol grip broken by the landyard{sic} loop hole. Based on the failure of the slides coming off the rear rails it was concluded that the weapons would not be further tested. Therefore no firing of the weapons took place after the throw test….
Click to expand...

Glock did not contest the results of the tests which they considered fair.

7/9
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.")
Click to expand...

These tests did not involve firing all the Glocks, as the report states, after the guns broke there was no point to firing them, except for the one that did not break entirely. But, failure in the tests and the Suffolk incidents led to Glock redesigning significant parts of the gun and led to the Gen 2. Glocks Upgrades to the Gen 1's lasted till 1998. Glock had faced a recall of between 350,000 to 500,000 guns and the loss of significant federal and local contracts. The upgrades and the Gen 2 prevented that from becoming a disaster for them.

Bottom line the Gen was a overall better gun. Internally the Gen three was an improvement as well.

tipoc
 
Due to advertising, I think Glock has become the generic term for a handgun, like Coke is generic for a soft drink, Xerox is generic for a copy machine and Frigidaire is generic for a refrigerator. When someone talks about a Glock, it may be a handgun of another brand.
Click to expand...

No that's not the case anywhere.

tipoc
 
Due to advertising, I think Glock has become the generic term for a handgun, like Coke is generic for a soft drink, Xerox is generic for a copy machine and Frigidaire is generic for a refrigerator. When someone talks about a Glock, it may be a handgun of another brand.
Click to expand...

Ever hear of Colt?
I agree with tipoc. There's never been a Kleenex for hand tissue; Vaseline for petroleum jelly or Jello for powdered gelatin firearm equivalent. Imo, the one that might come closest is "The Gun That Won the West"; everyone knows which one that is but the brand never meant "rifle" like Popsicle means flavored frozen confectionary.
 
Yes there has been and those problems resulted in the appearance of the Gen 2 guns.
Click to expand...
Some good information in your response, but a bit of clarification is in order.

The 6 part "upgrade" that took place in 1992 was not related to the introduction of the Gen 2 guns which began 4 years earlier. So while it is true that there was a problem at one point with the internal safeties that resulted in a parts change, it was not associated with the Gen 2 introduction.

Similarly, the changes to the rail lengths which appear to be related to the DEA Frisbee test failure (the rails are an integral part of the frame) were independent of the Gen 2 introduction--again the Gen 2 guns had been out for several years by the time this testing occurred.

Finally, Glock is pretty careful about their press releases, and both the Suffolk incidents and the DEA testing happened around the same time which means it's not clear if the Suffolk discharges motivated any changes to the guns or if they were only related to passing the DEA tests. <<The timeline makes it pretty much impossible for the Suffolk incident to have been the catalyst for the 6 part upgrade since it was already in place in late 1991 before the Suffolk AD happened in early 1992.>>

However, the gist of your information is accurate. There was a problem with the guns that resulted in Glock announcing an "upgrade" for 6 parts related to the internal safeties and also in changes to the rails in the frame.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top