One thing that helps Glocks popularity is because most LEO's carry them. What they don't understand is Glock put in the lowest bid. If Beretta put in the lowest bid that's what LEO's would be carrying and everybody would drop Glock like a hot rock and buy Beretta's. I never liked the looks of Glocks but I bought one once. I grew up shooting single actions and I don't like that long trigger pull. If felt wonky in my hand and point shooting at ten feet it shot about 10 inches high and a couple of inches to the left. Point shooting with a 1911 or a SAA I can hit a doorknob at ten feet point shooting. Sighting in on something I can hit it but the slide was so wide it was like aiming a brick. I got rid of the thing and don't want another one. My wife bought one and sold it after a few months with no derision from me when or after she bought it. I didn't shoot it any better.
What's the most overrated handgun in your opinion?
- Thread starter Tool
- Start date
- Status
The Verminator
Moderator
I don't mind the low price of Glocks either.
As retired military I get an even lower Blue Label price and three mags instead of two.
Happy camper.
(Never liked the Beretta and wouldn't own one even if they gave a discount.)
The Verminator
Moderator
Speaking of low bids.........
Let us not forget that Sig got the latest U.S. military contract by making the low bid.
Let us not forget that Sig got the latest U.S. military contract by making the low bid.
bamaranger
New member
Oh my!
I've got to say, the negativity directed towards Glock in this thread is a great surprise. Not at all what I expected. What did I expect?
The 1911. et al, ie all makes and models. Let me say, right off, so as the 'bama family and I are not banished forever, that I like the 1911, for a the ususal reasons. What other semi design, for that matter, how many other designs of any firearm type are so copied, and still in production? I've owned and shot 5 of them. Still own 3. Carry and hunt 2 of them a good bit. The one remaining pistol is an heirloom and collectible and thus retired (1911 ca. 1917).
I must add that what little shooting I've done with the 1917 gun has proved it perhaps the most reliable of the lot. I have not shot ( and will not) shoot it enough to say it's the most reliable. Therein the first issue. Real Colts have always been comparatively expensive, certainly so today. Even the GI pistols sold by the CMP are now pricey. Not all of us can afford to drive BMW's. Otherwise, one must settle for another manufacturer. Take your pick, all the others have fans and detractors. Price usually gets you quality, but not always.
Next criticism, the 1911 has always been a quirky pistol. Magazine (granted all semi pistols are) dependent and most any 1911 shooter will have a collection of magazines which work or don't, and are to expensive to simply discard. You may well have a collection of recoil springs as well, and likely some recoil buffers to protect the frame. You may have a slide release lever or two tweaked to avoid premature slide lock. The pistol, depending on it's pattern, will likely feed ball ammo the best , and may well ONLY feed ball ammo. (.45) All this is part of the 1911 culture.
Finally, the 1911 and it's manual safety creates a more complicated sequence events in presentation than a striker fired or double/single action. Certainly it can be mastered, but certainly not point and shoot either.
The weight, mag capacity, manual safety "complicated" takedown and high part count matter not a wit to me, but certainly does to others.
Again, I LIKE 1911's, do not light the bonfires for me and mine just yet. I like Glocks too (heck if it shoots, I like it). But the striker fired poly pistols seem to dominate the scene these days and the negative responses regards Glocks on this thread surprise me.
I've got to say, the negativity directed towards Glock in this thread is a great surprise. Not at all what I expected. What did I expect?
The 1911. et al, ie all makes and models. Let me say, right off, so as the 'bama family and I are not banished forever, that I like the 1911, for a the ususal reasons. What other semi design, for that matter, how many other designs of any firearm type are so copied, and still in production? I've owned and shot 5 of them. Still own 3. Carry and hunt 2 of them a good bit. The one remaining pistol is an heirloom and collectible and thus retired (1911 ca. 1917).
I must add that what little shooting I've done with the 1917 gun has proved it perhaps the most reliable of the lot. I have not shot ( and will not) shoot it enough to say it's the most reliable. Therein the first issue. Real Colts have always been comparatively expensive, certainly so today. Even the GI pistols sold by the CMP are now pricey. Not all of us can afford to drive BMW's. Otherwise, one must settle for another manufacturer. Take your pick, all the others have fans and detractors. Price usually gets you quality, but not always.
Next criticism, the 1911 has always been a quirky pistol. Magazine (granted all semi pistols are) dependent and most any 1911 shooter will have a collection of magazines which work or don't, and are to expensive to simply discard. You may well have a collection of recoil springs as well, and likely some recoil buffers to protect the frame. You may have a slide release lever or two tweaked to avoid premature slide lock. The pistol, depending on it's pattern, will likely feed ball ammo the best , and may well ONLY feed ball ammo. (.45) All this is part of the 1911 culture.
Finally, the 1911 and it's manual safety creates a more complicated sequence events in presentation than a striker fired or double/single action. Certainly it can be mastered, but certainly not point and shoot either.
The weight, mag capacity, manual safety "complicated" takedown and high part count matter not a wit to me, but certainly does to others.
Again, I LIKE 1911's, do not light the bonfires for me and mine just yet. I like Glocks too (heck if it shoots, I like it). But the striker fired poly pistols seem to dominate the scene these days and the negative responses regards Glocks on this thread surprise me.
The Verminator
Moderator
It didn't surprise me.
People always find ways to hate the front runner.
And they make excuses for the underdog that they own even when it's obviously inferior.
It's just human nature.
I understand, hearing the truth, and opinions that don't follow the herd can be surprising.
I'm a "low speed, high drag operator," the things that the Glock and similar pistols offer are things I don't need, and they don't offer the things I want.
Neither do ALL of the metal framed guns, for that matter. Some do, and those are the ones I like and own.
For me, there is more to handgunning than CCW and self defense. And what dominates the sales charts isn't my highest priority.
This thread asked about my opinion, and I've given it. You shouldn't be surprised that everyone's opinions differ.
Nor should you be surprised that not everyone worships at the altar of striker fired polymer perfection.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
You say that is if it's a negative.bamaranger said:
Anecdotal, to be sure, but on this site and other sites I have read FAR more reports of accidental/negligent discharges with Glocks due to something engaging the trigger while holstering than I have seen or heard reports of such discharges with 1911s.
The Verminator
Moderator
This is indeed a concern.
This problem was at its worst years ago with cops disarming perps and shoving the perp's Glock into their waistband temporarily--and catching the trigger on clothing.
Normal reholstering with a good holster (by a competent person) is rarely a problem anymore. Caution increased with greater awareness of the problem.
Myself, I use an inside waistband holster and to reholster I always pull the holster out and put the gun in it and then shove the whole works back in the waistband--that way the trigger is covered and protected during the process.
The cop problem has been pretty much solved by addressing it in police training.
Last edited:
I would dearly love to be able to slap some sense into the folks who promoted the idea that having a manual safety on a pistol was some kind of drawback or risk. IT strikes me as disrespectful at the least, the idea that we shouldn't have a safety because we're not smart enough to remember to use it properly.
Or perhaps it is some form of projection, people who fear they are going to forget the safety and there for everyone else is going to, as well...??
The way I see it, there is a parallel to driving a car, particularly a standard (oops, they're not standard anymore... ) a manual transmission.
You learn how to operate the controls, (both hand and foot) and when to use them, and if you learn properly, you don't forget, even under extreme stress.
Even if you only learned an automatic, do you fear you will "forget" which pedal is the gas and which is the brake?? I don't.
Specific to the safety lock on the 1911 design, (and "safety lock" is the correct term and the one used in the military manuals) Browning's original design did not have one. The Army, and specifically the Cavalry required one. The point was that the grip safety alone was not enough to prevent an accidental discharge under certain conditions, but a manual safety that was "locked" on would.
They were right in 1910, they are still right in the 21st century.
My personal preference is that a pistol should have either an exposed hammer or a active manual safety, and I'm happiest when they have both, but one or the other needs to be there, or its a deal breaker, for me.
I don't object to passive safety systems, such as a grip safety, but passive systems alone don't meet my personal requirements.
Also, I refuse to refer to a magazine disconnector as a safety. Its not.
You're welcome to your own opinions, even when I feel you're wrong, I respect your right to have them.
Or perhaps it is some form of projection, people who fear they are going to forget the safety and there for everyone else is going to, as well...??
The way I see it, there is a parallel to driving a car, particularly a standard (oops, they're not standard anymore... ) a manual transmission.
You learn how to operate the controls, (both hand and foot) and when to use them, and if you learn properly, you don't forget, even under extreme stress.
Even if you only learned an automatic, do you fear you will "forget" which pedal is the gas and which is the brake?? I don't.
Specific to the safety lock on the 1911 design, (and "safety lock" is the correct term and the one used in the military manuals) Browning's original design did not have one. The Army, and specifically the Cavalry required one. The point was that the grip safety alone was not enough to prevent an accidental discharge under certain conditions, but a manual safety that was "locked" on would.
They were right in 1910, they are still right in the 21st century.
My personal preference is that a pistol should have either an exposed hammer or a active manual safety, and I'm happiest when they have both, but one or the other needs to be there, or its a deal breaker, for me.
I don't object to passive safety systems, such as a grip safety, but passive systems alone don't meet my personal requirements.
Also, I refuse to refer to a magazine disconnector as a safety. Its not.
You're welcome to your own opinions, even when I feel you're wrong, I respect your right to have them.
The Verminator
Moderator
It's not a matter of "smart."
It's a matter of keeping things simple--which is wise.
Safety or no safety is a trade off........it will work well for some and not so well for others.
The practiced professional will probably do well with a safety.
Many others will forget it in the fog of combat and this includes smart people.
There's no perfect answer, but keeping it simple is a proven method.
Which is best? I don't know of any reliable or proven conclusions.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
"With a good holster" is part of the problem. I'm pretty certain former NFL star Plaxico Burress was carrying a Glock when he shot himself in the leg. Ditto for Aqib Talib, another NFL star who shot himself in the leg. I know Burress wasn't using a holster; I believe the same is true for Talib.The Verminator said:
Several years ago, there was an incident that received a lot of attention at the time in which a man's Glock went off while he was reholstering because his holster was either old or made of soft leather (or both), with the result that when he tried to reholster, part of the holster itself entered the trigger window and pulled the trigger.
I'm happy with my 1911's thumb safety.
The practiced individual will probably do well with a safety.
While the word "professional" is frequently used today to imply competence, it actually only means that you get paid for doing it.
While this is, and always has been a possibility, I question the use of "many" as in the pre-internet days, reports of such things were very, very rare.
Auto accidents where someone mistakenly stepped on the gas instead of the brake made the news, not because of the accident, but because of the rare, and unusual cause.
If there were actually "many" people who forgot their safeties, I would think that by now, we would have lists, articles or studies compiled showing what percentage of people did that, what percent of the time.
We don't have those, as far as I know, which leads me to think the entire issue is overblown and over hyped in order to aid in the marketing of pistols without safeties. "you can't forget it, it doesn't have one!"
Not a selling point, to me.
People do weird things under stress, some of them, anyway, and until it happens there is no valid predictor.
Observation has shown that under stress the majority of trained people will do what they were trained to do, right, or wrong. A percentage of trained people will do something else not covered by their training, and a certain percentage will actually do nothing.
With untrained people the same general pattern hold, the majority will do one thing, (usually nothing, while they try to figure out the right thing to do) and a percentage will so some random act.
I believe if you teach yourself to move the safety off as part of the draw, you won't forget it any more than you will forget to put your car in gear when you want to drive.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Personally, I'm all in favor of punks using Glocks and not being familiar with grip safeties and manual thumb safeties. With any luck, if some punk manages to get his hands on my 1911, he won't be able to shoot me because he won't think to disengage the thumb safety. On the other hand, I've been using 1911s for so long that it's primarily a matter of muscle memory for my thumb to sweep the safety off as the pistol comes into target alignment.
1. Handguns without manual safeties have been around as long as handguns have existed. The modern design concept of a "DAO" autopistol without a manual safety was primarily aimed at the market that had formerly embraced DA revolvers. Do you feel that DA revolvers are disrespectful to the shooting community?
2. No one is telling anyone that they shouldn't have a manual safety or aren't allowed to have one. No one is forced to buy pistols like that. It's just one more option on the market. Those who feel that the lack of a manual safety is undesirable are free to buy any of the many handgun designs that do come with manual safeties. Unfortunately, they will miss out on some shooting enjoyment since nearly all DA revolvers won't satisfy their requirements.
"Handguns without manual safeties have been around as long as handguns have existed. The modern design concept of a "DAO" autopistol without a manual safety was primarily aimed at the market that had formerly embraced DA revolvers. Do you feel that DA revolvers are disrespectful to the shooting community? "
DA revolvers and Striker fired semi autos are not the same.
That is unless you happen to have a revolver that holds the hammer at half cock.
DA revolvers and Striker fired semi autos are not the same.
That is unless you happen to have a revolver that holds the hammer at half cock.
I said nothing about striker-fired pistols and I made no claim that DA revolvers were "the same" as any other handgun.
What I responded to was a comment about the lack of a "manual safety on a pistol" being disrespectful.
The fact is that there have been pistols without manual safeties from the very inception of pistols. Furthermore, at one time, the DA revolver, a pistol design which is only extremely rarely equipped with a manual safety was extremely popular.
The design of "DAO" autopistols (which includes some hammer-fired models--in fact at the beginning they were pretty much all hammer-fired) came about because of a perception that the general operating procedure of DA revolvers (draw and pull the trigger to fire) was desirable. That is, it was really an attempt to roll things back (to some degree) to the days when the DA revolver was king. Rather than being something new or unusual, it was really intended to be a throwback.
People who feel that pistols without manual safeties are "disrepectful" should, if they want to be consistent, eschew DA revolvers since they are very much pistols without manual safeties.
The Verminator
Moderator
Yes, I used the wrong word. "Professional" doesn't work.
Practiced pistolero would have been correct.
As to the confusion that sometimes happens with safeties.......far too many who carry today DON'T practice much at all.
They also fail to stay in a state of readiness and awareness.
So........trouble catches them by surprise and they can be in a state of shock when they actually have to pull that gun. As you say, some don't even pull it.
That's the biggest problem.........the lazy, unprepared and untrained person with a gun.
Keeping it simple has its merits, especially for them. The less they have to remember, the more likely they will survive.
This probably holds true for a few trained people as well.
Many cops (especially the rural folks) go their entire career without ever having to pull that gun on the job.
- Status