What is so significant to a Glock Pistols

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

The Observer

New member
Two days ago I visited one target range. I did not bring with me my target .45 target pistol, instead I rented a Glock 17 Austrian made.

Before the RO handed to me the Glock, I ask him if it is so safe for target practice, as it reminds me the various events where some glock models were broken during firing, not just from hearsay only but seeing some site in the internet of such incidents.

My point here is, whilst the pistol was striped, and looking intently the polymer frame where some small metal parts were moulded, I said to myself, that, what is so special with this Pistol Glock, it is like a toy because of of it's polymer receiver. Only the slide and the barell that has the looks or a real gun. Also, once the glock is getting older the fittings of the frame and slide is so awkward to see at. I said to myself, why does so many people is trying to compare the Glock to 1911 models like the springfield, colt, and many others. You cannot even blued nor nickel plated the frame. This is how I feel with the glock pistols. This is not to inflame any body but saying my own opinion about the polymer parts of the Glock pistols.

How about you co fellow TFLr's how would you say about the glock.

[This message has been edited by The Observer (edited August 26, 2000).]
 
You love them or hate them. There seems to be no middle ground. And in here, there seems to be always someone who thinks a Glock is the "perfect" answer to whatever issue is being discussed.
 
I like both.

IIRC a Glock 17 will normally last for 10 to 100 TIMES as many rounds as a 1911. Chuck Taylor [not someone I like] even tried to shoot a Glock into the ground with little luck.

The Glock is a more refined design, fewer parts easier to field strip. Tougher. Standard glock is less likely to rust than most other guns.

Reason why the glocks get compared to 1911 is that both have a "light" trigger pull. Though a 1911's trigger can be tuned much better than a Glocks.

I plan to add a G 34 and Springfield 1911 to my collection eventually to go with my magnums and CCW handguns.

Oh, the Glocks are also a LOT lighter than 1911 types.
 
How would I say about the glock?

There is, simply, no better pistol design, nor execution, on the planet.

They are lightweight, utterly reliable, extremely durable, easily maintained, and better than any reproduced antique design, from 1911, ever cobbled together, regardless of it's sticker price.

In two words.... Glock Perfection!

No flame intended, just answering the question. :D

------------------
Make mine lean, mean, and 9x19!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 9x19:
They are lightweight, utterly reliable, extremely durable, easily maintained, and better than any reproduced antique design, from 1911, ever cobbled together, regardless of it's sticker price.

In two words.... Glock Perfection!

No flame intended
[/quote]

<gags>

The "antique design" is the basis for many of today's "modern guns". It's antique design that has gone through all the major wars. It's an antique design that is the majority's choice in IDPA, ISPC and Bullseye shooting.

If you want to rant about your perfect Glock, do so without sounding so anal please? That's how all these damn flame arguments start.
 
ArmySon,

Sorry to have ruffled your feathers...

The originator invited comment on the Glock pistols (while comparing them to the 1911), and I answered. It's how I feel, both about the 1911, whose only design characteristic (tho' not it's execution) carried over into the (better) Glock is the locked breach/delayed opening system.

That the (1911) antique design can be reproduced into a very capable games piece is not disputed by me. Yet, for other uses as well as users, the fact remains that there are better (note I do not say just as good) pistols in production, and, for me, the Glock is The Best.

I will note that your post was entirely unrelated to the subject of this thread. I'd submit that such off topic rebuffs, to another's on topic post, does more to instigate flame wars than "sounding...anal".




------------------
Make mine lean, mean, and 9x19!
 
What's so significant about glock? You said it yourself, it's made of plastic er I mean polymer. ;)

vega
 
To my mind, I am not really convinced that the glock can surpass the quality nor the durability of a standard 1911. Some said it is more fast to execute the first fire, to this point any pistol or revolver can be drawn and fire immediately as fast as the rest depending on how someone is used to do it. Okay, all pistols can be carried on condition 1. All expert user don't think any AD, for all AD's are only ignorance and carelessness on the handling of their piece.

It is true that the glock can be carried loaded without any cocked and locked but that is more scary being loaded as we cannot determined if there is one bullet loaded for there is no hammer being seen as cocked and locked and the only safety feature is in the trigger unlike the 1911 that is being cocked and locked. For me I carry my 1911 everyday from work to bed being loaded not cocked and locked but the hammer is down carefully - in this mode, that would be the same as to the glock that there is no more manual safety to thumb down when it is about to shoot. The same as to the revolver most user never removed 1 bullet where the firing pin is aligned as advised for safety. So, there is no such special thing to me of the glock as it shoots the same bullets like the rest. You mentioned toughness, and not prone to rust, but would it not be prone to scratch which cannot be filed and reblued? A lot of things that the Glock cannot be compared to the 1911's. That's my own evaluation.
 
Originally posted by Glamdring: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>...a Glock 17 will normally last for 10 to 100 TIMES as many rounds as a 1911. ...[/quote]
This is why your sixth grade teacher told you to look at your math answer when you are finished with the problem, just to see if it makes sense. I just have to run the BS flag up on this one.
 
Glocks?

Generally speaking, they're reliable, durable, and reasonably accurate. I've been arounds many of them, and problems are almost unheard of. If there is a problem, they can be repaired quickly.

The triggers are awkward, but you can get used to them -- and because there is no double action/single action transition -- even effective. One hobby gunsmith I know -- an IDPA 4-gun master -- claims that a Glock trigger *CAN* be made to be as crisp and sharp as a well-tuned 1911. (That's one of the reasons he shot Master in Stock Service Pistol.)

I like them. But like CZs better. Sold my very nice Glock 17 to get a CZ-85 Combat.

Which gun would I want if I could have only one gun, my life depended upon it, and there was no way of getting repairs nearby? A Glock 17, or maybe my SIG P-210.

But that's NOT the situation, for me, today. So I shoot my CZ-85 a lot.

[This message has been edited by Walt Sherrill (edited August 26, 2000).]
 
Originally posted by Glamdring:
I like both.

IIRC a Glock 17 will normally last for 10 to 100 TIMES as many rounds as a 1911.

10 to 100 times is a pretty big spread. In God we trust all others bring data???

Here's some food for thought. It seems like a lot of people panic carrying a 1911 cocked and locked.

Take my oldest gun which is my grandfathers LC Smith double barrel 12 ga. Stuff two shells down the pipes and lock it up and you're cocked and locked. Same goes when duck, rabbit, deer hunting etc. etc.

What ever rifle or shotgun you're using is cocked and locked and you walk around all day don't think a thing about it (unless a hammer type).

But let someone see the hammer cocked on a 1911 and you hear know how dangerous that is.

Turk
Click to expand...
 
Whether you like Glocks or hate them, they're the most significant design in the last 50 years. Not a single pistol since the 1911 has been as influential. Just look at the mad dash by other companies to produce a polymer frame pistol. Some have totally failed like S&W's Sigma and others have been more successfull like the sig pro, but all came about as a result of the Glock.

Glocks resist rust better than other designs. The Tenifer finish, a major step forward it and of itself, is unmatched.

No pistol can be assumed to be unloaded until a visual inspection is undertaken, but a trigger forward on a Glock is a good sign that the pistol might be loaded. I consider this an analog to the cocked hammer. I don't assume it's loaded or unloaded based on trigger position, but it's a good fast indicator.

Peter Kokalis broke the story of the Glock in the US. He's an experienced and extremely knowledgeable small arms writer. Here's what he had to say about the Glock: www.remtek.com/arms/glock/model/9/17/index.htm

Like everything on this earth, Glocks aren't for anyone. If you like them fine, get more and shoot them often. If you like 1911s do the same. For my money, I prefer Glocks.

------------------
"Get yourself a Lorcin and lose that nickel plated sissy pistol."

[This message has been edited by Tecolote (edited August 26, 2000).]
 
For some reason alot of people on these forums tend to take an "all-or-nothing" attitude, either a gun is wonderful (usually the one they own) or a piece of crap (if they don't own it, usually based on a primitive fear of what is "different" or "mysterious").

Glocks are extremely good handguns. *Not* perfect, *not* for everyone, but very good for their intended purpose. Something like 60% of U.S. law enforcement officers use Glocks because... they are extremely good guns. Glocks are mechanically simple, very durable (people have driven CARS over them and they still worked), very reliable (the FBI ran tens of thousands of rounds through several test guns without a failure), virtually impervious to rust (much beter than misnamed "stainless" steel guns). Accuracy varies from just good to exceptional depending on the model. They are also light and have very high capacity magazines (My Glock 20c accomidates 15 10mm rounds). The criticism equating the use of polymers in the Glock with it being a toy is, well, bulls*it. Glocks stand up *better* to tortue testing than more conventional handguns, not worse.

Glocks aren't perfect, however. The stock sights are kinda mediocre. The triggers are "different" and some people dislike them... and they always require breaking in over about 100 rounds to feel good. The .45 and 10mm caliber Glocks have thick grips that feel awkward to some people (but distribute recoil nicely if you can hold it :) ). For squeezing the absolute maximum target-shooting accuracy possible from a handgun, you are better served by something else. And if you can't get by without the crutch of a manual safety lever then avoid a Glock at all costs, because they don't have 'em. And finally, they just plain look and *feel* really different from anything else, so some people just plain can't warm up to them.

Which is OK, but does not mean that Glocks "suck." Neither are they the end-all and be-all of firearms. Which is why I own a Glock 20c AND a Kimber Stainless Target... and luv 'em both. :)

C.B.
 
Steyr! It's more Glock than a Glock! :-)

In reality, the Glock lovers sometimes are a bit too emotional, and the Glock hates don't sometimes see things in perspective. Glock was made to be a combat gun, I think less accurate than a Sig and HK, but it has all the makings of a good combat gun. Durable, Reliable, decent accuracy, minimal parts. It has one of the most important features of a good combat gun, it goes bang everytime you pull the trigger.

So should Gaston be the next president? Well, much better choice than Al Gore! Is it a perfect gun? Far from perfection. It needs a fully supported chamber, some choice of external safety, a little better ergonomics, non-plastic sights, a smoother trigger, and a metal guide rod.

It's it pretty good? Yes.

Albert
 
Actually Glock has addressed many of the so called problems with their guns. They believe their new warnings stamped clearly in the polymer slide will reduce failures. It was determined that many of the failures were due to improper cleaning techniques. All new Glocks will be stamped:

Diswasher safe, on TOP shelf only!

Sorry, I couldn't resist. In truth I do not like them simply because they do feel like a 2"X4" in my hand. However that is purely subjective and does not mean that they are not good guns.
As far as lasting longer than a 1911. I shoot 1911's in the service that had not been touched (worked on) since being built during WWII with thousands of rounds through them that performed flawlessly.

------------------
Gunslinger

I was promised a Shortycicle and I want a Shortycicle!
 
1911 .45's are nice and generally have better triggers than Glocks, but in terms of accuracy the .45 Glocks will outshoot most 1911's. The exception is Kimber, which is about as accurate as the Glock 21. I believe both should have a similar lifespan with a SLIGHT advantage going to Glock. I have found Glocks to be more reliable and in general they typically hold more rounds than 1911's. The Glock is also MUCH easier to disasemble. I too prefer an all steel gun-- but I have to say in many ways .45 Glocks are superior to .45 1911's

[This message has been edited by Quantum Singularity (edited August 26, 2000).]
 
Hey guys I don't think most people realise something here. You can't compare a Glock with a 1911. They are totally diffrent animals. They are both great choices in a defensive pistol. How anyone came to the point of comparing a Glock and a 1911 is beyond me.As for anyone calling the 1911 an antique or obselete that is purely an opinion and not true,look at it like this ,how many here think that Glocks will be around in 89 years?The 1911 is still with us as is the 45acp because they work it's that simple.It doesn't mean that they are better or worse than the next design but they deserve more respect than they get. Thanks,45automan
 
Glocks are great. I can actually only say that about the 17, which is the only one I have experience with. But from what I have read and experienced, Glocks are great.
 
I never cared much for Glocks. I`d tried a 17 and it just didn`t do anything for me. I could shoot my P-97 much better. I shot a friends 19 today though and I must admit the ugly things are growing on me (figuratively ;) ). It handled and shot very well and didn`t seem to point high for me like the 17 did. I still shot better with my CZ-75 and P-97 but it was close. I`m starting to hear the call of a Glock 30. Must....resist..... Glocks...... :D Marcus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top