What I Don't Like About Glock...

Status
Not open for further replies.
The are trigger even more unsafe than Glocks. My Ruger LC9S is one of them. As Hickcock45 said about some of the new Light triggers,' some of them are so light for instance the LC9S which is almost like a target pistol.'
I no longer carry my LC9S. Moved on to a much better trigger and double action.

As I posted before, a good friend of mine, Retired Military Armorer, range master, and huge enthusiast of the Glocks recently shot himself with his Glock getting into the car. Horrible wound. The Hollow Point entered his hip, traveled all the way down his leg just missing the femoral artery.
"No, he told me. I will be moving on to a double action. No more Glocks"

People are always trying to convince others that this gun is safe and other light crisp triggers on carry guns. Not for me. Besides, I have actually became so fond of the double action and actually shoot it better than I did with all my striker fired guns.
And bought a little peace of mind along the way.
 
From the reducerecoil article:
"This is the Glock 17 Generation 1 and it expanded in 1988 to include the Glock 17L (competition pistol) and the Glock G19 compact. The Glock G22 & Glock G23 Glock’s followed in 1990 The Glock G20 (10mm) & the Glock G21(.45 auto) in 1991."​
The first sentence is correct, however there were only a handful of Glock 19 Gen 1 guns and they were made from modified Glock 17s. The introduction of the Glock 19 was the end of Gen 1 except for those 20 or so pistols made by shortening some G17 grip frames. There were no production Gen 1 Glock 19s.

The second sentence is correct, but it does not relate to Gen 1 pistols. After 1988, there were no more Gen 1 guns made.
This was the end of the Generation one with the introduction of the Glock “upgrade kit”. The upgrade kit included 6 parts.​
As mentioned, the Gen 1 ended years before the G22, G23, G21 or G20 were introduced. This can be verified without too much trouble.

The 6 part upgrade took place in 1992 and was either the result of the Suffolk ADs or the DEA frisbee testing, both of which took place in 1992. <<The Suffolk ADs took place in Jan 1992, the DEA Frisbee testing took place in 1991. The 6 part upgrade was announced in 1992 but Glock was already selling upgraded guns by November of 1991--before the Suffolk incident.>> Years after the introduction of the Gen 2 guns.

Frankly, the reducerecoil article has a lot of questionable information.

Glock was not a "knife company" although one of the several products they made was a knife.

In spite of having spent a good deal of time reading about Glocks and how they came to be. I've never before seen the claim that Glock got a grant from the Austrian Army to develop a pistol. I've tried to find other sources to corroborate the claim by "Gunmuse" but have been unable to do so. I would be interested to follow up on this if anyone else knows of any information along those lines.

The claim later in the article that there are differing length rails in the Gen 1 guns is false. There are differing length rails in the Gen 2 guns as the result of the remedy for the DEA Frisbee test failures.

The comment about how the various rails cause different problems including "short stroking" from the longest rails and "falling apart and lots of ADs" from the short rails is somewhat mystifying. There are literally tens of thousands of long, medium and short rail Gen 2 guns out there with none of these problems being reported.

I'm sure that Johnny Rowland would be interested to find that his .45 upgrade cartridge is the .450, not the .460 Rowland.

In the second paragraph of the article, the author states that he wrote an article about Glocks in 1999 and after that the Gen 3 guns came out. Gen 3 Glocks were introduced in 1998.

All in all, I would say that "Gunmuse", whoever he (or she) is, at least based on this article, is far less focused on getting facts right than he should be. It looks to me like the author gleaned some information on the parts upgrade from an article on the (now defunct) website called The GunZone and made up a lot of the rest.
 
Last edited:
Someone shooting himself with a pistol doesn't confirm that a pistol is unsafe. If someone chooses to carry another pistol that is certainly his or her perogative.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Someone shooting himself with a pistol doesn't confirm that a pistol is unsafe.
uh, no, pretty sure it does. For him, at the very least. :rolleyes:

Wake up and smell the coffee, as they say, hello!!! (taps on your head...) its a LOADED GUN, its not SAFE!!

Nor, is it supposed to be!

Some designs are more resistant to accidental discharge than others, but please, don't think for an instant that loaded guns are safe. They aren't, and that's the point.
 
uh, no, pretty sure it does. For him, at the very least. :rolleyes:



Wake up and smell the coffee, as they say, hello!!! (taps on your head...) its a LOADED GUN, its not SAFE!!



Nor, is it supposed to be!



Some designs are more resistant to accidental discharge than others, but please, don't think for an instant that loaded guns are safe. They aren't, and that's the point.
Yeah I'm pretty aware of firearm safety (cute patronizing comments aside), but if you want to interpret what I said that way have fun.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Someone shooting himself with a pistol doesn't confirm that a pistol is unsafe. If someone chooses to carry another pistol that is certainly his or her perogative.

Agreed, the only thing it confirms is that the person was unsafe.
 
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,
Well, yeah...look at the title..Still looking for that 'why I hate Sig' thread...
 
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.

Could it be that gun makers saw the success of Glock and then went full speed ahead to make 'their own Glock'..polymer striker? I think what you 'see' and think 'may' be anecdotal only..See the thread about how Glock expected to sell a certain number of Glock19x for an entire year and sold that umber in 6 months.

Same thing happened at Apple..Iphone introduced in 1997...now how many 'Iphone' clones, brothers, sisters, outright copies are there?
I think these threads about what's good or bad, then waxing poetic about subjective 'issues' are amusing.

All handguns these days are pretty dern good, pretty good prices. Go to LGS with $600(or less) in yer pocket, come away with a NICE handgun and box(es?) of ammo.
 
Last edited:
As I posted before, a good friend of mine, Retired Military Armorer, range master, and huge enthusiast of the Glocks recently shot himself with his Glock getting into the car. Horrible wound. The Hollow Point entered his hip, traveled all the way down his leg just missing the femoral artery.
"No, he told me. I will be moving on to a double action. No more Glocks"
I guess it's time for that video of the yahoo who shot himself in the leg with a 1911, while drawing it out..Pretty sure that there are MANY handguns where the trigger was snagged, with no safety or safety off, would have shot the guy too. A long first trigger pull is no guarantee. The AD was a user error issue, not a gun design issue, IMHO..
 
But all I see are absurd threads like this one insulting Glocks and those who happen to like them,

I started this thread because a different thread was premised upon the Glock being the perfect pistol, which thread was ultimately closed. I wanted to point out why a Glock is not the perfect pistol for me or for many others. This has nothing to do with those that really like their Glocks. I did not bash Glock, and I noted the gun itself is very rugged and reliable. I do not believe that I insulted Glock owners (or even Glocks if it is possible for a Glock to get insulted) in any way. In fact, I believe that many Glock owners know and understand why there are a lot of folks for whom the Glock platform simply does not work. Don't forget, I too am a Glock owner.
 
It always makes me shake my head when people comment about how ridiculous/absurd a thread is. Here is how it works, feel free to use this technique on any forum, if a thread title makes you roll your eyes, move on and ignore it unless of course someone does in fact have a gun to your head forcing you to read the ridiculous/absurd thread and makes you respond to it, if that is the case, you probably should do it..lol
 
I agree that Glock is not a perfect pistol. I don't think a perfect pistol exists, or can exist, because different people have different needs and different abilities. Some people do get bent out of shape, often because they are of the opinion that a pistol that meets their needs should be the one that everyone buys. That is just myopia.

As far as the word Glock meaning pistol in the same way that Kleenex means tissue: No, I don't think that is true, but if there was a way to poll people who can name only one brand of pistol and learn what brand that is, Glock would have a shot of coming out on top.
 
There are only 2 things I dislike about them.

#1 is that I just can't seem to find one that feels good to me. That is not something I can say bad about the design. It's just me. It has no bearing on anyone else and I tell them so. This is not to say I can't shoot them well. I can, and I do, but I don't enjoy it very much.

#2 is that the chambers are not fully supported, and the aftermarket barrels available for them work as well as the ones Glock makes, so there is no doubt that making them with fully supported chambers would not harm their reliability at all.
I don't shoot factory ammo, so shooting only re-loads this is a vital issue to me and to most avid shooters who are not rolling in money. Those that shoot ammo paid for my the taxpayers also need not worry.

If you don't shoot re-loads the factory chambers are of no concern.
 
From John KSA:

From the reducerecoil article:
"This is the Glock 17 Generation 1 and it expanded in 1988 to include the Glock 17L (competition pistol) and the Glock G19 compact. The Glock G22 & Glock G23 Glock’s followed in 1990 The Glock G20 (10mm) & the Glock G21(.45 auto) in 1991."

The first sentence is correct, however there were only a handful of Glock 19 Gen 1 guns and they were made from modified Glock 17s. The introduction of the Glock 19 was the end of Gen 1 except for those 20 or so pistols made by shortening some G17 grip frames. There were no production Gen 1 Glock 19s.

The second sentence is correct, but it does not relate to Gen 1 pistols. After 1988, there were no more Gen 1 guns made.
This was the end of the Generation one with the introduction of the Glock “upgrade kit”. The upgrade kit included 6 parts.

As mentioned, the Gen 1 ended years before the G22, G23, G21 or G20 were introduced. This can be verified without too much trouble.

The 6 part upgrade took place in 1992 and was either the result of the Suffolk ADs or the DEA frisbee testing, both of which took place in 1992. <<The Suffolk ADs took place in Jan 1992, the DEA Frisbee testing took place in 1991. The 6 part upgrade was announced in 1992 but Glock was already selling upgraded guns by November of 1991--before the Suffolk incident.>> Years after the introduction of the Gen 2 guns.

Frankly, the reducerecoil article has a lot of questionable information.

Glock was not a "knife company" although one of the several products they made was a knife.

In spite of having spent a good deal of time reading about Glocks and how they came to be. I've never before seen the claim that Glock got a grant from the Austrian Army to develop a pistol. I've tried to find other sources to corroborate the claim by "Gunmuse" but have been unable to do so. I would be interested to follow up on this if anyone else knows of any information along those lines.

The claim later in the article that there are differing length rails in the Gen 1 guns is false. There are differing length rails in the Gen 2 guns as the result of the remedy for the DEA Frisbee test failures.

The comment about how the various rails cause different problems including "short stroking" from the longest rails and "falling apart and lots of ADs" from the short rails is somewhat mystifying. There are literally tens of thousands of long, medium and short rail Gen 2 guns out there with none of these problems being reported.

I'm sure that Johnny Rowland would be interested to find that his .45 upgrade cartridge is the .450, not the .460 Rowland.

In the second paragraph of the article, the author states that he wrote an article about Glocks in 1999 and after that the Gen 3 guns came out. Gen 3 Glocks were introduced in 1998.

All in all, I would say that "Gunmuse", whoever he (or she) is, at least based on this article, is far less focused on getting facts right than he should be. It looks to me like the author gleaned some information on the parts upgrade from an article on the (now defunct) website called The GunZone and made up a lot of the rest.

Good critique. I used the Gunmuse article because others that I have which illustrated the upgrades in PDF form I could not post.

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.

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.

tipoc
 
Well I also found this which quotes from the Glock website a few years back, well 12 years now. 2007.



yellowsulphur
10-05-2007, 3:15 AM
I found this on Glocktalk. Hope it helps.

Glock Pistol Upgrades

1990 Upgrade

Glock Model 19, 9mm Luger caliber, requires an upgrade for the following serial numbers:

AN, BP, BR, BV, BW, BX, DL, DM, DN, DP, DR, DS, DT, DV, DW, DX, DY, DZ
These pistols may have the potential of the action to malfunction as follows:
1. The slide locking back on a full magazine.
2. Failure to lock into battery because the barrel lug drags on the slide lock.
3. The magazine follower tips or sticks in the magazine tube.

1992, 6 part Upgrade

GLOCK, INC. Technical Bulletin #920403

April 1, 1992

Glock, Inc. announces a production change of the firing pin safety system. This new firing pin safety system has been installed in all production Glock pistols since November, 1991. A voluntary upgrade is being offered to maintain the Glock tradition of ensuring that all of our pistoils are up to the latest standards in 21st century Glock technology.

Most importantly, the components of the new firing pin safety system are not interchangable with the components of the old systam and Glock will always strive towards maintaining this feature of interchangability while working to ensure future interchangability.

The upgraded firing pin safety system consists of: the firing pin, firing pin safety, the extractor, the spring loaded bearing and the trigger bar. The upgraded system is applicable only to Glock pistols with the following serial number ranges :

Glock 17 - alpha prefix AA - WF
Glock 21 - alpha prefixes through XL
Glock 19 - alpha prefixes through WJ Glock 22 - alpha prefixes through YA
Glock 20 - alpha prefixes thorugh WW Glock 23 - alpha prefixes through SK

The upgraded firing pin safety has a new surface finish making it nearly 100% saltwater corrosion resistant. Also, after rigorous and extensive testing, the new system proves to be more durable and has a longer useful life. Here, as always, Glock is working toward maintaining its standard of perfection.

1993, G19 Upgrade

Glock Model 19, 9mm Luger caliber, requires an upgrade for all pistols.

These pistols have the potential for an UNINTENTIONAL DISCHARGE of a cartridge with the action open.

The Glock model 19 pistol slide has a bottom protrusion, whose function is to push cartridges from the top of the magazine into the chamber. When the pistol is jammed in a double feed situation, the slide protrusion can come in contact with the primer of the jammed cartridge and cause UNINTENTIONAL DISCHARGE while the action is open.

2000, G26/27 Recoil spring upgrade

Glock Model 26, 9mm caliber, serial numbers DGU, DHR DKU.

Glock Model 27, .40S&W caliber, serial numbers DGD, DGV, DHS, DHT, DKV, DKW, DKX.

Mr. Don Bulver, warranty department of Glock, Inc., indicated the recoil springs produced before September 1999 may shear off on some of these pistols due to over hardness of the support tube.

Replacement springs will be distinguished by a vertical mark from the center on the front polymer portion of outer ring of the guide rod assembly, which will appear to be a mold line.

2002 Frame Upgrade – Rear slide rail

The GLOCK Corporation has identified a problem with a very small percentage of GLOCK pistols produced between September of 2001 and May of 2002. The specific problem that has been identified is the potential of breaking a rear frame rail in pistols manufactured during this time period. Within the specific range the breakage rate has been less than 0.0188%. So, while the actual percentage of rails reported broken is within any accepted manufacturing tolerance, it is not an acceptable situation to the GLOCK Corporation. It is also important to note that under most conditions GLOCK pistols will continue to function with three rails. A routine maintenance check after each time the pistol has been taken out and used would immediately indicate if there is a problem.

We are, therefore, concerned that a limited number of customers will not get the product we have promised them and what we have always delivered, the very best pistol on the market, in short, a GLOCK.

For these reasons, we have made the decision that in the interest of customer service, replacement frames will be offered to anyone who has a firearm in this range and decides to take advantage of this offer. The replacement frames will have identical serial numbers to our customer's original firearm except the numeral 1 will be added as a prefix. If you believe your firearm is within this range, please call 1-866-225-4098 to take advantage of the ultimate in customer service.

Nothing less than the best for our customers is acceptable to GLOCK and, as always, we will continue to work towards Perfection.

It appears that only serial numbers starting with "E", "GSSF", or "USA" (American Hero’s Commemoratives) are affected. In general, the chronological serial number set that has the prefix letters of "EKA" through "EVR" inclusive appear to be the affected Glocks, regardless of caliber. Three letters precede three numbers on a plate forward of the trigger guard on the underside of the polymer frame. However, some aberrations to this generalization have been reported by GTers. Reports are that the affected Glocks were manufactured from September 2001 to May 2002. So if you bought (or won a GSSF Glock) an "E" or "USA" series Glock in September of 2001 up until the present day, you might have an affected Glock. Unfortunately, Glock has not published a list. Hope this helps, but again, if you are responsible enough to own a gun and can read this, you are smart enough to check for yourself by calling Glock.

August 8, 2005 - The Glock G36 issue

Glock prides itself in the quality of its pistol and the quality of its manufacturing process. Despite our high standards, however, it has recently come to our attention through our quality testing efforts that a limited number of Glock Model 36 pistols may have an abnormality that could possibly interfere with the operation of the Glock trigger safety. The affected pistols require a simple but necessary modification to ensure the trigger safety operates as intended. IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE SAFE OPERATION OF YOUR GLOCK 36 THAT THIS MODIFICATION BE MADE AT GLOCK'S U.S. HEADQUARTERS IN SMYRNA, GA.

If you possess a Glock Model 36 with a serial number in the ranges below PLEASE IMMEDIATELY UNLOAD THE FIREARM AND CLEAR THE CHAMBER. Deliver the pistol to :
1. A UPS Hub (not a store)
2. The place of business where you purchased the firearm of a dealer in your area with a daily UPS pick up.

***Always have the package boxed and labeled with the preprinted return label attached***
If you have any problems with this UPS shipping procedure, please contact Costumer Service toll free at 1-800-701-1558.

Glock will quickly perform the modification and return your pistol to you at no cost. The serial number of your Glock 36 can be found on the silver serial number plate located on the underside of the frame towards the front of the pistol.

The affected serial number ranges are:
GLM 000-999
GRC 500-999

... If you have any questions or concerns please call Glock, Inc. Customer Service toll free at: 1-866-538-3517

Now I have to point out that all gun companies issue recalls and that from time to time batches of guns malfunction or have defective parts. That's normal. It's also true that actual use in the field reveals weaknesses that were not apparent in the factory development or test protocols.

If you've read Paul Barrett's book on Glocks you are aware that Glock, more than any other gun company, it seems, hates to admit that any aspect of it's products are unsafe. Though all gun companies don't like to admit to it due to potential liability suits. So that is not directly mentioned in the 6 part trigger upgrades of 1992 noted above by Glock. They did do a substantial upgrade of the trigger system. It is quite possible that this was linked to issues that effected larger contracts with law enforcement or the military.

tipoc
 
Ironic. I'm a better shot with my friend's 9mm Glock than with my Sig P228s, Sig P6, CZ 'PCR' (75D) and .380 Russian Makarov.

But I prefer the all-metal (mostly) composition, looks and features of my handguns. That gun club friend states now and then "You will own a Glock".
As rugged/reliable as Glocks are-they are superb-I own three German-proofed Sigs plus these other guns instead.

With the CZ, shooter P228 and for summer carry, the .380 Mak, I don't need a substitute or an additional carry gun.
But If I did (am a lefty), and If **HK USP 9mm Compacts** had a better DA pull, it would be this.

But this isn't what's most critical. It's situational awareness-not so cool to talk about...and this generates far less cash flow for guns and accessories which can resemble those of SEAL Team 6 and GSG-9.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
I think it's very early to make any predictions about how the Mossberg will or won't do.

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