What's the most overrated handgun in your opinion?

Status
Not open for further replies.
44 AMP said:
What were you running it on, that jammed so badly??
Click to expand...


It didn't jam "so badly." Like most 1911s........it jammed enough.

Various brands.

Even the exciting new Supervel that Lee Jurras had recently put on the market.

Nothing helped.

At that time I lacked the cash to have a gunsmith work on it.

There were no Glocks available back then (darn) so I traded for a revolver.

:)
 
I remember vaguely the story of the legendary Walter Walsh going into one of his first gunfights and he chose to have a 1911 in his right hand and a .357 Magnum in his left hand........and that's the way he chose to roll for all his gunfights.

Just not QUITE trusting the 1911 to function with "Perfection."

That's the dilemma we all face.

Wearing suspenders AND a belt.

Or you can just use a Glock.

;)
 
“Circa 1971”
45 ACP AMMO other than ball more than likely had lead exposed on the tips, JHP or SP in 71. There are guns today that wouldn’t feed that stuff.
 
OK, thanks, I got it....Your gun jammed "enough", which is rather vague, you had money for various brands of ammo, but none to have the gun checked by a gunsmith (and probably fixed), and then you traded it to someone, knowing it didn't work correctly.....

why screw around when you can have a Glock that always goes bang and holds 14 instead of eight?
Click to expand...

Because I'm not you, my standards are not your standards and Glock doesn't have the features I want, and the ones it does have, I don't like.

For me, its just that simple.
 
44 AMP said:
OK, thanks, I got it....Your gun jammed "enough", which is rather vague, you had money for various brands of ammo, but none to have the gun checked by a gunsmith (and probably fixed), and then you traded it to someone, knowing it didn't work correctly.....
Click to expand...

OK, thanks.......you don't "got it."

Jamming "enough" means I wouldn't bet my life on it.

It worked "correctly"...........for a 1911.

:D
 
I really like Glocks. I own multiple, carry them regularly, have used them in tens of shooting courses, and have tens of thousands of rounds fired through them. Sadly some of the fans of Glocks embarrass themselves and other Glock owners through their behavior.
 
It’s a Ford/Chevy question. Everyone has their own preferences.

But Glock is a fantastic marketing company that does make guns. Not the best guns, but the best marketing company. That’s how free enterprise capitalism works. Supply what people will buy.
 
One of my carry guns is a Glock and my nightstand gun is a Glock. I've competed with them and taken classes with them.

They're solid, durable guns, they tend to be reliable right out of the box and are sufficiently accurate to outshoot most shooters. They're easy to work on. They are reasonably priced. There is a remarkable amount of aftermarket support in terms of accessories and parts. Glock customer support tends to be quite good. There are guns out there that are better than Glock in some of these categories, but getting all of that in one package is not so simple.

They're over-rated, IMO, but a lot of that is because they've been over-hyped.

They aren't my favorite brand. My favorite handgun is not a Glock. In fact, you'd have to go down the list quite a way if you started with my favorite handgun and worked down from there. There's another maker who is more heavily represented in my handgun inventory and I own handguns made by 10 other manufacturers besides Glock.

Some things to keep in mind for this kind of discussion.

You are not a gun. When someone says something negative about a gun you happen to own or like, they aren't talking about you. Don't respond like it's a personal insult.

You are (almost certainly) not a handgun manufacturer. When someone says something negative about a manufacturer that makes a gun you own or like, they aren't talking about you. Don't respond like it's a personal insult.

The utility/value/capability of your gun is not lessened because someone says negative things about it. It will still work just as well as it did before, it will have all the same features and will be worth the same. Negative comments about a gun you own won't harm you or anything you own.

The utility/value/capability of your gun will not change because of what you say about it. It will still work just the same whether you praise it or pan it. You haven't benefited yourself or any of your possessions by saying good things about your gun.
 
SIG got the military contract over Glock with a ridiculously low bid and tests that favored SIG (was there some favoritism?).
Click to expand...

All the information I've found said that Glock didn't get the contract, because the pistol(s) Glock submitted did not meet the contract requirements.

Also, the link provided has nothing to do with the military contract, other than a brief mention, its all about lawsuits against SIG over the issues with the 320 pistol.
 
44 AMP said:
All the information I've found said that Glock didn't get the contract, because the pistol(s) Glock submitted did not meet the contract requirements.
Click to expand...

I don’t remember reading that in the GAO report that came out when Glock protested the results.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-414401.pdf

You can see a breakdown of the factors evaluated on Page 6. SIG is listed as and described in the report as having a slight advantage on a technical level, but that the licensing rights for both the pistol itself and the ammunition that was submitted as part of the bid was notably better for SIG. This technical advantage combined with the notably lower price of SIG’s bid makes the decision, per what is described in the report, a logical conclusion. Essentially SIG’s pistol was as good or slightly better, their licensing rights were much better for the ammunition and better for the pistol, and their bid was cheaper. Why wouldn’t the government go with SIG?

I didn’t read anything in the report, however, that said Glock’s bid did not meet the requirements. Interestingly in the report the GAO determined that the licensing rights score for Glock on ammunition was inconsistent with the solicitation, but even if Glock had received a higher score in that factor SIG’s score would still have been higher.
 
I wasn’t going to post here because to me the obvious answer is a Glock, they are a fine pistol but given the criteria of being over rated it seemed a good answer. BUT, I just picked up a new 4.25” Python yesterday and I’m feeling quite let down by the trigger from all the hype it’s been given. In DA it is smooth for sure but too heavy and the serrated trigger just chews up my finger, and in SA it’s just way too heavy. My GP100 and both of my Service Six pistol’s are way better after I worked on them a little. An hours worth of polishing and some springs plus shims and they are so slick the Python isn’t even in the same league. Pretty much all of my Smiths are way better and they are bone stock. The best thing I can say about the Python is the quality of fit and finish is absolutely excellent, the ergos are very nice, and aesthetically it’s the best looking pistol I’ve ever had. It’s definitely a keeper and I’m hoping the trigger will slick up with a lot of use, and luckily I’m a DA kind of guy so it will get shot a lot.
 
I find it interesting that I seem to have just been lucky enough that all of my pistols from 19 different makers made from over a 100+ years ago until last year are reliable enough that I have and do trust my life to them.

And not one is a Glock.
 
Clearly something fishy when the Army simply refused to finish a key part of reliability testing. It seems that gave SIG some help.....reliability being a Glock strength.

I suspect the higher ups had made their decision before the competition and manipulated the competition to favor SIG.

Glock said:
"“By not completing the testing on both proposals on a competitive basis, the Army never determined which pistol would better meet the warfighter's needs,” said Glock’s Vice President Josh Dorsey in a June 7 press release:

“We are confident had the Army completed the testing, the GLOCK 19 would have outperformed the Sig P320, as it had in recent testing conducted by a leading federal law enforcement agency (the FBI) which resulted in GLOCK, Inc. being awarded that contract.

GLOCK pistols have been battle proven by select units of the U.S. military forces for the past 10 years. GLOCK, Inc. stands with the men and women serving in the Armed Forces and will continue to give them its full support.”

It seems to me that the Army was obsessed with the superior "modular" capabilities of the SIG and had already made their choice based on that criteria.

Time will tell if this was a huge mistake. SIG already facing numerous lawsuits over the problems with the 320.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/the-keefe-report-in-your-eyes-glock-mhs-protest-rejected/
 
The Verminator said:
It seems to me that the Army was obsessed with the superior "modular" capabilities of the SIG and had already made their choice based on that criteria.
Click to expand...

Or you could actually read the reason given in the GAO report. If the response to that is, "Well the government is biased", I'm not sure they're more biased than the contractor that lost.
 
TunnelRat said:
Or you could actually read the reason given in the GAO report. If the response to that is, "Well the government is biased", I'm not sure they're more biased than the contractor that lost.
Click to expand...

I've read it and, of course, everybody is biased, but........

The response is that the government was biased in giving undue weight to the importance of modularity.

Somebody high up had a wild modularity hair up his behind that dominated the whole process.

I'm retired military and I've seen this warped decision-making all too often.

Time will tell how much they've screwed the pooch this time.

Will modularity prove to be more important than other factors?

We shall see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top