What's with Glock?

[RickB]

NO ONE is willing to do anything that may make an advertiser angry, like write a bad review of the product.

EVERYONE will alter the results of a shooting test to make a big advertisers gun look good.

I know a guy who's been a gunwriter for thirty years, and he will not write a bad review, but not for misrepresenting the gun; poorly performing guns are returned, and the manufacturer given a chance to fix them.
If the gun is fixed, either through repair or further development, and performs well, the need for repair is disclosed in the subsequent article.
So, yeah, you're unlikely to see a bad review in print, but not because the writer is lying about the gun's performance.

 

[Mike38]

Glock pistols just don't work for some people. A Glock just doesn't fit them well. I'm one of those people. I fell into the Glock hype about 25 years ago. Bought a M17. It worked, it went bang each and every time the trigger got pressed. 100% reliable. But I couldn't hit the side of a barn from the inside. Still not giving up, I bought a M19. For what ever reason I could shoot it better, a little better, but still nothing to brag about. I then tried a Beretta 92FS. Bingo! I even amazed myself how good I could shoot that Beretta. Sold both Glocks, still have the Beretta. Nothing wrong with the Glock pistols I had, they just didn't work for me.

 

[TBM900]

On a good day shooting my Gen 2 Glock 19 with Federal American Eagle 124/147 I can put 15 rounds within a 5 inch group at 25 yards without a rest.

On a good day, during the middle of a timed scenario, the slide of my duty G19 launched itself downrange

Glock would never have been selected...

Lowest bidder

why would they be some of the most purchased, most used, and most recommended pistols on the market for over 30 years?

Marketing, price, groupthink

If there was something significantly better at any reasonable price, people would have switched.

People have been switching for years and at ever increasing rates
Glock has been steadily losing market share for years

Give me $1K or less and tell me to find a reliable and accurate handgun for general use, and I'll probably find a Glock 19 or 43x for you, and give you $400 back.

I'll find an L9-A1 and give you $600 back
Or one of numerous other pistols that are equal or better than a glock at a similar price

 

[raimius]

TBM, there are plenty of fine pistols out there. Glocks are of that class. They may not be the best at any particular thing, but they are reliable, reasonably accurate, mid-priced, and ubiquitous (which means easy parts and accessories availability). If you don't like them, that is fine, but there is a massive difference between dislike of a product and a poor product.

For example, I don't care for the M9, but even with my gripes, it is not a bad pistol.

 

[Fishbed77]

When a Glock is loaded and on the firing line, it goes downhill fast.

I don’t care for the looks, feel, or trigger of most Glocks.

I still shoot them better than almost every other centerfire pistol.

Go figure. If a product in a crowded market stills sells in the millions after 30 years in that market, there must be more than just hype propelling its success.

 

[Destructo6]

Look up the testing criteria for the recent CBP 9mm pistol contract, which Glock won.

Price was not a consideration during the testing, which included reliability, accuracy, and durability, among others. If the pistol didn't pass, they weren't considered for the next phase.

Not likely my particular preference, but Glock did perform very well.

 

[cslinger]

Yeah. All my Glocks do the same thing at 25-30 yards. IT’S TOTALLY THE GUNS. HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ME OR MY SKILL....YES SIR CRAPPY GUNS IS THE OBVIOUS PROBLEM.

 

[larryf1952]

I've been buying, collecting and shooting handguns since the early 70's. For the longest time, I bought into the Glock hate. I thought they were ugly. A friend had an early G21. It only reinforced my ideas. Didn't like the way it felt, spongy trigger.

My collection has grown over the years, and about 3 years ago, I took another look at Glock. I bought a Gen 3 G19. That gun actually felt good in my hand. I liked the trigger. To my surprise, it was easy for me to tear up the bull at 10 yards. So easy, I bought a Gen 4 G23. Same story.

When I take a gun out of the safe to shoot, I run 600 or 700 rounds through it, without cleaning, before I put it up and go on to something else. The Glocks have never failed from round 1. I dig my 1911's, but count me impressed with the Glocks.

 

[Double K]

I really like the 19 and 23 models, I don't like them for competition nearly as well as a 1911 however.
There a little blocky for a concealed carry gun but still work, the reliability and magazine capacity is outstanding.
I put a trigger kit, slightly oversize slide release, adjustable sights and magazine well on my Lew Horton gen4 19, those are subtle improvements but makes the Glock shooting experience much better.
With practice I can keep all my hits on a steel target this size out to 50yds shooting quickly, good enough IMO for a self defense gun. Put a 32rd magazine in it and it's a good home defense pistol.
https://ads.midwayusa.com/product/1...b615dbb4cad0d06d88ca69&utm_term=1101131606248

 

[Metric]

Finally, at around 325,000 rounds, the trigger pin broke, causing a stoppage. It was quickly replaced and shooting resumed. Then, after another hundred rounds, the firing pin tail chipped, but the gun continued to function. The trigger pull weight changed, however, indicating that something had happened. So the gun was once again field-stripped and examined, disclosing the chipped part. Since then, no further failures have been experienced.

The verdict? The net result of 29 years of carrying the Glock 17, dry-practicing with it, immersing it in water, mud, sand, dust and even cow manure, and shooting it in extreme heat, extreme cold, rain and blowing dust has only produced some insignificant actual wear and tear. From a Ransom Rest, the test G17 still clusters any kind of decent ammunition into an inch or better at 15 meters. The only visibly detectable wear has been with the finish, which has understandably become bit thin, especially where various parts contact the holster and shooting hand, and the magazine well shows some battering from tens of thousands of speed and tactical reloads. No other handgun of which I am aware can equal this kind of toughness. I’m confident in that.

That was before Glock went to MIM parts, and started recommending recoil spring replacements every 3k rounds.

 

[TunnelRat]

That was before Glock went to MIM parts, and started recommending recoil spring replacements every 3k rounds.

I have Glocks with MIM parts that have gone 8k+ rounds without stoppages, much less a broken part. Now that is admittedly not 300k rounds (member AK103 can sound off on the 100k+ rounds), but MIM in itself is not the devil people make it out to be if it is done properly. Heck even the Teutonic HK uses MIM for hammers on their hammer fired pistols. I ran the gamut of Gen 3 and Gen 4 Glocks when they were having the joyous brass to the face ejection issues and people blamed the MIM extractors. I tried replacing the extractors with Apex parts that were milled and had the same issue. The Gen 5s I own and the ones I’ve owned have all had far better ejection and they still use a MIM extractor. Even the older Gen 3s I had with cast extractors didn’t have what I’d call great ejection.

As for recoil springs, just because something is recommended doesn’t mean it has to be done. Unless the pistol quoted was Gen 2 or earlier even the Gen 3 pistols had the same recommended replacement schedule for recoil springs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Double K]

My only issue with either my 19 or 23 is they don't work well with a suppressor but that may be my particular suppressor or the Lone Wolf barrels.

 

[JDBerg]

I have Glocks with MIM parts that have gone 8k+ rounds without stoppages, much less a broken part. Now that is admittedly not 300k rounds (member AK103 can sound off on that), but MIM in itself is not the devil people make it out to be if it is done properly. Heck even the Teutonic HK uses MIM for hammers on their hammer fired pistols. As for recoil springs, just because something is recommended doesn’t mean it has to be done. Unless the pistol quoted was Gen 2 or earlier even the Gen 3 pistols had the same recommended replacement schedule for recoil springs.

Having worked in subcontracting in the aerospace / defense industry for most of my life at this point, MIM parts technology has most definitely improved over the years, I’ll argue that point with anybody. And I’ve bought MIM parts In the past from euro market suppliers including the Germans, who have state of the art manufacturing. The MIM processes for piece part procurements I’ve handled have been controlled / monitored / inspected for many years.

 

[Nanuk]

Not my experience, I can ring steel @ 100 yards 13 out of 15 with my Glocks.

 

[Metric]

I'm just joking about the MIM parts and springs. Of course the new models are fine. The spring replacement recommendation is absurd -- how did any gun survive before the revelation that we had to replace springs every 3k cycles of the slide?

 

[TunnelRat]

I'm just joking about the MIM parts and springs. Of course the new models are fine. The spring replacement recommendation is absurd -- how did any gun survive before the revelation that we had to replace springs every 3k cycles of the slide?

That I don’t know. The dual spring recoil assemblies in the Gen 4 and Gen 5 are 5k to 10k rounds for replacement, at least when I spoke to someone at Glock in GA. I’ve gone to the end of that 10k and been fine. Compared to the cost of shooting 5k-10k rounds of ammunition, a $20 spring assembly doesn’t bother me too much. That said you could always not replace it and go further. If you do I’d be curious when it actually fails.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rangerrich99]

I'm not a Glock fan, but I do own one (glock 19 gen 4), which is bone stock except the sights and I have no trouble producing decent groups with it.

As for reliability, it has been perfectly reliable with over 5,000 rounds through it now, even with steel-cased Tula and Wolf bargain basement ammo. The only ammo it has had trouble with has been my own reloads, and even then we're only talking every once in a while like once every few hundred rounds at most.

P.S. over 5,000 rounds and nothing wrong with the recoil spring either.

 

[JohnKSa]

The spring replacement recommendation is absurd -- how did any gun survive before the revelation that we had to replace springs every 3k cycles of the slide?

To be fair, the low round count recommendation is primarily for either the very compact models, or the non-9mm (e.g. 40S&W, .357SIG) models--especially those without the compound recoil springs.

In the 9mm full-sized pistols, the recoil springs last a very long time.

If you know of an outdoor GSSF match near you, go visit it with your UNLOADED Glock and visit the match armorer. You can get a free checkup on your Glock and wear parts (like recoil springs) will usually be replaced at no cost if necessary.

 

[TBM900]

TBM, there are plenty of fine pistols out there. Glocks are of that class. They may not be the best at any particular thing, but they are reliable, reasonably accurate, mid-priced, and ubiquitous (which means easy parts and accessories availability). If you don't like them, that is fine, but there is a massive difference between dislike of a product and a poor product.

I didn't say a word about a simple "dislike" of Glock.
The only pistol I've ever had break in my hand was a Glock, not once but three times with three separate pistols.
Then let's look at their long history of failures, including brand new pistols directly from the factory.
Countless police departments have had failures including one I worked for as well as several surrounding.
Don't forget year after year after year of recalls.... but "Glock Perfection"

You would think that after nearly four decades they could produce a product that doesn't break right from the factory, or that isn't continually subject to recall. As I said previously, there is a reason their market share has been rapidly shrinking and that they are continually re-gimmicking to try and stay relevant.

Just one more thing as I can already hear the excuses, rationalizations, and deflections being readied to cast, and its a positive for Glock!

They do bring new products to market, and at least Glock stays consistent...

See I can give credit where its due

 

[laytonj1]

By TMB900 Just one more thing as I can already hear the excuses, rationalizations, and deflections being readied to cast, and its a positive for Glock!

If everybody quit buying guns from every manufacturer that folks complained about because of a bad example, bad customer service or just plain bad luck with that brand, there would be nothing left to buy.

That, and some folks just like to complain.

Jim