What's the most overrated handgun in your opinion?
- Thread starter Tool
- Start date
- Status
It very well might. However, you'll notice that my initial post did not make any mention of either Glocks or striker-fired pistols. That is another fact.
Your statement that striker-fired semi-autos are not the same as DA revolvers is true. It just doesn't contradict anything I said.
micromontenegro
New member
Amen!
I also prefer to carry inside the waistband. Fine for going to town, but not so fine working outdoors. Outside the waistband, and it catches on other objects, inside and the main problem is sweat. Have you experienced any holster that protects your gun better than others from sweat? If the polymer guns would have a manual safety that would go a long way to helping.
The Verminator
Moderator
I change guns for yard work on warm summer days.
I carry a Smith Model 60 stainless .38 Special in a regular holster.
I wear a large shirt with cut off sleeves to cover it while staying cool.
I agree. I have no love for the 9mm. I shot my first 1911 when I was 9 so yeah I'm a 1911 fanboi. I don't like striker fired guns, I don't like plastic guns, I don't like guns without hammers, I don't like guns that are DA and yes you can point shoot a 1911. I do like guns that aren't 1911's but they're mostly SA revolvers.
The Verminator
Moderator
The topic is handguns--not calibers.
So start a new thread if you want to go off about calibers.
I think that 9mm thing has been done before, though.
While I have not seen anyone go so far as to claim we shouldn't be allowed to have one, I have seen people claim that we shouldn't have one, BECAUSE it "complicates things" and people can "forget to take it off"....
To be clear, my comment was not about the presence or absence of a safety on a pistol, I have dozens of pistols that don't have safeties. Revolvers, both DA and SA, single shot pistols (Contenders) and even some semi auto pistols (Sig P220s).
My comment was aimed at the idea that one should not have a safety, because you might forget to use it properly. The implication that we are not competent enough (or smart enough) is what I found disrespectful.
There is merit in keeping things simple, no question about that. I just find the idea that we must keep things simple because we are not competent to operate something more complex to be offensive.
Yes, there are people who are not competent enough to do that. What bothers me is the assumption on the part of the "no safety because you might forget it" advocates putting us all in that group.
And, I still think Glock is the most overrated handgun, ever. NO ONE else I know of has ever claimed their pistol to be "perfection". That alone puts it at the top of my most overrated list.
The Verminator
Moderator
Of course, we must not forget that the 1911 has been around........oh, since about.........1911 and law enforcement agencies agencies have overwhelmingly REJECTED it because it's too complicated and has too many safeties for the average cop to cope with.
Revolvers absolutely DOMINATED.......until double action autos came along.
Of course.........some of them had safeties and decockers and some confusion still existed.
Then.........along came Glock!
With NO safety.
Just pull the trigger. Could that be simple enough for the average cop???
Turns out the answer is yes.
Now Glock dominates.
Might not be perfect--just close enough to perfectly dominate the market.
Try as we might, as disgruntled and out of touch and stubborn as we may be.......we can't defeat it.
Revolvers absolutely DOMINATED.......until double action autos came along.
Of course.........some of them had safeties and decockers and some confusion still existed.
Then.........along came Glock!
With NO safety.
Just pull the trigger. Could that be simple enough for the average cop???
Turns out the answer is yes.
Now Glock dominates.
Might not be perfect--just close enough to perfectly dominate the market.
Try as we might, as disgruntled and out of touch and stubborn as we may be.......we can't defeat it.
I don’t think people are attempting to suggest that a person isn’t smart enough. I think the idea is that under stress a person will not have the wherewithal to remember to disengage that safety. That’s not a function of a person’s intelligence. It’s more a function of a person’s natural ability to handle stress and how that ability may have been augmented by training.
I have seen people who in conversation and in typical range practice seem very intelligent and/or competent with their firearms and then some of those people perform notably worse in force on force or other attempts to simulate high stress events. Does that mean it will happen to everyone? It does not.
"Revolvers absolutely DOMINATED.......until double action autos came along."
Really.....
How about,
P-38,
PP series,
S&W 39,59
Beretta 92
Sig 220,225
I'm sure there are others I overlooked.
I believe all of these were around, some for quite a while before DA semi autos took hold.
I'm not so sure ammunition development didn't have more to do with the switch to autos by increasing their reliability with available ammo other than FMJ. Some of those exposed lead soft point, hollow point bullets would clog up the best pistols today.
Really.....
How about,
P-38,
PP series,
S&W 39,59
Beretta 92
Sig 220,225
I'm sure there are others I overlooked.
I believe all of these were around, some for quite a while before DA semi autos took hold.
I'm not so sure ammunition development didn't have more to do with the switch to autos by increasing their reliability with available ammo other than FMJ. Some of those exposed lead soft point, hollow point bullets would clog up the best pistols today.
There are a lot of guns that aren't as magical as their fanboys would have us believe. The 1911 is a contender for the "most over-rated" title due primarily to the hyperbole of its fans, but I will have to admit that a 1911 does seem to be a particularly easy pistol to shoot well and I've known a few died-in-the-wool fans of other designs be converted after trying a 1911. No, I have to agree with others here that I think Glocks are the most over-rated. Not to say that a Glock is a bad gun, but it isn't the be-all, end-all that some of its fanboys seem to believe that it is, for that matter it isn't even any better than several of its competitors.
A Glock is an accurate, reliable, reasonably-priced handgun; no more and no less. The notion that they are the pinnacle of firearm reliability is, in my experience, exaggeration at best and myth at worst. They have their shortcomings like any other firearm, but Glock fanboys seem to be more willing that most to either ignore these shortcomings or try to shift the blame for them. Glocks have a relatively short, light trigger and no active manual safety. While we can repeat things like "safety between your ears" until the cows come home, the fact of the matter is that, in the real world, trigger finger discipline sometimes isn't what it should be. While having your finger on the trigger when it shouldn't be is always dangerous, Glocks are among the least forgiving pistols in this regard. For all the talk about Glocks being superior because they're used by law enforcement, the fanboys like to ignore the fact that one of Glock's biggest users, the NYPD, saw fit to put extra heavy triggers in their pistols, methinks this was done for a reason.
We also see a lot made of what is or is not a "proper" or "well designed" holster and some of the "requirements" such as a completely covered trigger guard became requirements largely because of pistols like Glocks. Holsters with features like exposed trigger guards, retention straps, and thumb breaks were in use for many decades and were not considered unsafe. Of course, the pistols used in such holsters had features like external hammers, manual safeties, or true DA triggers. The fact of the matter is that Glocks and pistols like it require certain types of holsters to be safely carried that aren't required for other handgun designs. This doesn't make a holster with an open trigger guard or flexible thumb break a "bad" design, just one for which a Glock or similar pistol isn't suited. The Glock fanboys, however, want to deride such holster designs as substandard rather than acknowledge that their chosen pistol is simply more sensitive to holster design than others.
Similarly, Glocks are less suitable to certain methods of carry that other pistols. I routinely pocket carry a small pistol or revolver in a Desantis Nemesis pocket holster, but I would never consider carrying a Glock or similar pistol in a pocket at all, much less in a "soft" holster like the Desantis. Likewise, I think that appendix carry wouldn't be so controversial if people were primarily doing it with guns that are hammer-fired and/or have manual safeties. While a manual safety or DA trigger might not be an adequate substitute for trigger finger discipline, they absolutely can prevent an ugly accident if a foreign object like a retention strap, shirt tail, or jacket zipper finds its way into your trigger guard while you're holstering your pistol, especially when that gun and holster are pointed at your crotch and femoral arteries.
Finally, a lot of hay has been made about Glocks grip shape and angle. The fanboys like to dismiss this as a "training issue" and say that with enough practice it can be overcome. While it may be true that one can become accustomed to a Glock's grip, the fact of the matter is that, for some people, it will never be as comfortable as another pistol would be. I for one don't find a Glock's grip to be a particularly good fit for my hand and while I'm sure I could learn to shoot one well enough, I don't see any reason to when there are plenty of other pistols out there that give up nothing to Glock in features, reliability, accuracy, or price which are much more comfortable in my hand to begin with. Why introduce a "training issue" if I can avoid it all together in the first place?
A Glock is an accurate, reliable, reasonably-priced handgun; no more and no less. The notion that they are the pinnacle of firearm reliability is, in my experience, exaggeration at best and myth at worst. They have their shortcomings like any other firearm, but Glock fanboys seem to be more willing that most to either ignore these shortcomings or try to shift the blame for them. Glocks have a relatively short, light trigger and no active manual safety. While we can repeat things like "safety between your ears" until the cows come home, the fact of the matter is that, in the real world, trigger finger discipline sometimes isn't what it should be. While having your finger on the trigger when it shouldn't be is always dangerous, Glocks are among the least forgiving pistols in this regard. For all the talk about Glocks being superior because they're used by law enforcement, the fanboys like to ignore the fact that one of Glock's biggest users, the NYPD, saw fit to put extra heavy triggers in their pistols, methinks this was done for a reason.
We also see a lot made of what is or is not a "proper" or "well designed" holster and some of the "requirements" such as a completely covered trigger guard became requirements largely because of pistols like Glocks. Holsters with features like exposed trigger guards, retention straps, and thumb breaks were in use for many decades and were not considered unsafe. Of course, the pistols used in such holsters had features like external hammers, manual safeties, or true DA triggers. The fact of the matter is that Glocks and pistols like it require certain types of holsters to be safely carried that aren't required for other handgun designs. This doesn't make a holster with an open trigger guard or flexible thumb break a "bad" design, just one for which a Glock or similar pistol isn't suited. The Glock fanboys, however, want to deride such holster designs as substandard rather than acknowledge that their chosen pistol is simply more sensitive to holster design than others.
Similarly, Glocks are less suitable to certain methods of carry that other pistols. I routinely pocket carry a small pistol or revolver in a Desantis Nemesis pocket holster, but I would never consider carrying a Glock or similar pistol in a pocket at all, much less in a "soft" holster like the Desantis. Likewise, I think that appendix carry wouldn't be so controversial if people were primarily doing it with guns that are hammer-fired and/or have manual safeties. While a manual safety or DA trigger might not be an adequate substitute for trigger finger discipline, they absolutely can prevent an ugly accident if a foreign object like a retention strap, shirt tail, or jacket zipper finds its way into your trigger guard while you're holstering your pistol, especially when that gun and holster are pointed at your crotch and femoral arteries.
Finally, a lot of hay has been made about Glocks grip shape and angle. The fanboys like to dismiss this as a "training issue" and say that with enough practice it can be overcome. While it may be true that one can become accustomed to a Glock's grip, the fact of the matter is that, for some people, it will never be as comfortable as another pistol would be. I for one don't find a Glock's grip to be a particularly good fit for my hand and while I'm sure I could learn to shoot one well enough, I don't see any reason to when there are plenty of other pistols out there that give up nothing to Glock in features, reliability, accuracy, or price which are much more comfortable in my hand to begin with. Why introduce a "training issue" if I can avoid it all together in the first place?
While there is some truth to this, I think you are adjusting facts to fit your ideas and not taking into account some rather important factors.
Yes, the 1911 was complicated and a bit much for most cops, in 1920....
Not all the soldiers were comfortable with them, either. Patton himself disliked the 1911, because he had an accidental discharge with one, and never trusted them afterwards.
I think one of, if not the primary reason the police resisted semi auto pistols (In general) for so long was simply the cost. And, the cost involves more than just the purchase price of the pistols. You also have to figure in the cost of training your officers on the new weapon.
I don't have the prices from the 30s or 50s, but I do have the MSRP prices from the mid 70s, and in 1974 a S&W Model 10 was $96. A Colt Govt model (1911A1) was $134.50 and a S&W Model 59, (double stack DA 9mm) was $150.
Remember that the guns bought and issued by most police departments was a decision made by the various chiefs of police, or the mayor or some other bureaucrat, NOT the line officers.
Do note that for many, many years police officers were forbidden the use of magnum ammunition (when they had magnum revolvers) and were also forbidden hollow point ammunition.
Generations of cops lived under those restrictions, because the people running the depts demanded it.
Also, if you want to look at things with a broad enough lens, the cops going to DA semi autos didn't happen until the 80s while the DA semi auto service pistol first showed up about 1938. SO, nearly 50 years of cops sticking with revolvers over DA semi autos, and SA semis were first adopted by a couple of states about 1970.
So is it offensive when someone recommends a DA revolver because it's simple to operate?
If a person wants a gun with a manual safety, there are plenty available. Until people are forced to buy handguns without manual safeties, nobody is being told they "must" do anything and since they are not being told they "must" do anything, they also aren't being told why they must do it.
Being offended by the mere existence of a particular variant/type handgun is really working hard to be offended. That said, in my experience, people looking to be offended almost always find a way to succeed.
I don't think there's ever been such a wide variety of handguns on the market as there is today. I always thought that was a good thing, but apparently it's cause for some to complain.
The Verminator
Moderator
The main reason the 1911 didn't make it as a law enforcement gun was that the only logical method of carry was cocked and locked.
Seeing a large pistol with the hammer back carried in a cop's holster terrified both the observant public and the police bosses.
The Smith Model 39 was the first semi auto that had a chance (because cops didn't want some foreign-made pistol) and was adopted in the late 60s and cops liked it a lot.
The later 59 with high mag capacity they liked even better, but the good old six-shot Model 66 in .357 continued to be a popular choice well into the 1990s--especially with State Police. Wheel guns were a tradition and the highway cops felt they needed the power of the .357 (some even carried one with a six-inch barrel).
And many cops still did not trust a semi auto to be reliable.......and, of course, there WERE problems with that.
(Drumroll)
The inevitable Glock takeover, though.......was as certain as the sunrise.
Seeing a large pistol with the hammer back carried in a cop's holster terrified both the observant public and the police bosses.
The Smith Model 39 was the first semi auto that had a chance (because cops didn't want some foreign-made pistol) and was adopted in the late 60s and cops liked it a lot.
The later 59 with high mag capacity they liked even better, but the good old six-shot Model 66 in .357 continued to be a popular choice well into the 1990s--especially with State Police. Wheel guns were a tradition and the highway cops felt they needed the power of the .357 (some even carried one with a six-inch barrel).
And many cops still did not trust a semi auto to be reliable.......and, of course, there WERE problems with that.
(Drumroll)
The inevitable Glock takeover, though.......was as certain as the sunrise.
Last edited:
The Verminator
Moderator
- Status