What's with Glock?
- Thread starter Bake
- Start date
- Status
I have owned over a dozen Glocks by now. I've put tens of thousands of rounds through them combined. I have never had a parts breakage in that time and the malfunctions that weren't due to ammo can be counted on one hand.
Now, do I think they are "Perfection"? No. For years I owned Gen 3 and Gen 4 Glocks that had the joyous brass to the face issue. It wasn't constant, but periodically I would get the case off the forehead and noticeably more so than other brands. It annoyed me to the point where I tried the following striker fired pistols as a hope of finding a replacement:
FN FNS9
SIG P320
M&P 1.0, 2.0, and various sizes and calibers
HK VP9
CZ P10
Ruger SR9
Beretta APX
Springfield Armory XD and XDm
Walther P99 and PPQ
All the ones I bolded above were pistols with which I had serious functional problems that required a trip back to the factory. Again, I have never had to send a pistol back to Glock (though I am fully aware that other individuals and entire departments have had to just that).
For some reason despite owning all of the pistols above and despite many of them "feeling" far better in my hand and having what I would consider noticeably better triggers, I continue to shoot Glocks better when factoring in both accuracy and speed. Certainly there the fact that I've shot Glocks for as long as I have and am accustomed to themt. But for many of the pistols listed above I owned multiple of those pistols and puts thousands of rounds through them as well. I tried to give them as honest of a shakedown as I could.
Currently I primarily carry and use Glocks. The Gen 5 MOS models I have now that have a cut next to the breach face that functions as almost a secondary extractor somehow completely solved all the brass to the face issues I had up until now. If someone wants to point out that it's a bit silly that it took Glock decades to resolve that issue, I'm inclined to agree with you. I also continue to wish the undercut of the trigger guards on Glocks was much more generous.
If someone has a gripe with Glock's "Perfection" slogan, or the more recent "Confidence" slogan of today, then I imagine they should also take issue with SIG's "To hell and back reliability", "When it counts", and "Never settle", because those are just as eyeroll inducing. HK's slogan of "No Compromises" was certainly amusing back when I drank the HK Kool-Aid and had to call their customer service and had the worst customer service experience I've ever had.
I have yet to encounter a perfect brand, including Glock. But in the experience I outline above, Glock was better than the rest.
Now, do I think they are "Perfection"? No. For years I owned Gen 3 and Gen 4 Glocks that had the joyous brass to the face issue. It wasn't constant, but periodically I would get the case off the forehead and noticeably more so than other brands. It annoyed me to the point where I tried the following striker fired pistols as a hope of finding a replacement:
FN FNS9
SIG P320
M&P 1.0, 2.0, and various sizes and calibers
HK VP9
CZ P10
Ruger SR9
Beretta APX
Springfield Armory XD and XDm
Walther P99 and PPQ
All the ones I bolded above were pistols with which I had serious functional problems that required a trip back to the factory. Again, I have never had to send a pistol back to Glock (though I am fully aware that other individuals and entire departments have had to just that).
For some reason despite owning all of the pistols above and despite many of them "feeling" far better in my hand and having what I would consider noticeably better triggers, I continue to shoot Glocks better when factoring in both accuracy and speed. Certainly there the fact that I've shot Glocks for as long as I have and am accustomed to themt. But for many of the pistols listed above I owned multiple of those pistols and puts thousands of rounds through them as well. I tried to give them as honest of a shakedown as I could.
Currently I primarily carry and use Glocks. The Gen 5 MOS models I have now that have a cut next to the breach face that functions as almost a secondary extractor somehow completely solved all the brass to the face issues I had up until now. If someone wants to point out that it's a bit silly that it took Glock decades to resolve that issue, I'm inclined to agree with you. I also continue to wish the undercut of the trigger guards on Glocks was much more generous.
If someone has a gripe with Glock's "Perfection" slogan, or the more recent "Confidence" slogan of today, then I imagine they should also take issue with SIG's "To hell and back reliability", "When it counts", and "Never settle", because those are just as eyeroll inducing. HK's slogan of "No Compromises" was certainly amusing back when I drank the HK Kool-Aid and had to call their customer service and had the worst customer service experience I've ever had.
I have yet to encounter a perfect brand, including Glock. But in the experience I outline above, Glock was better than the rest.
peacefulgary
New member
The Glock gun gods hate you without a doubt.
I've owned 12 Glocks over the years and have put 1000's of rounds down range and have NEVER had a failure.
But these have all been stock Glocks with no tweeks or aftermarket parts (except Hogue grips).
I've never had one break or be subject to a recall.
It sounds like you just have bad luck.
Their market share is shrinking is because they have been ripped off my so many gun makers.
When Glock first came out most gun makers "poo pooed" striker fired polymer framed pistols.
Now they all have followed Glock's lead to some degree or another.
Well over a decade of shooting Glocks and other pistols...there's no way you are going to convince me that they are crap or unreliable.
The police, the FBI, the military, and private contractors are not in the business of trying to get their personnel killed, and they would not arm those men and women with Glocks if Glocks sucked.
You just sound very unlucky (if what you say is true).
And very bitter about it.
Last edited:
Back in the 1960's, 70's, 80's and 90's gun magazines were generally much better than they today. The last couple of decades have seen a marked downturn in gun magazine quality. The authors in the past tended to have some actual experience in the world, knew guns, and did not as easily bend to advertisers.
The only magazines I read regularly are Handloader Magazine and Rifle Magazine. I also read American Rifleman to keep up.
tipoc
This may have been mentioned, and if so I'm sorry for the repeat, but polymer framed guns do not always do as well in Ransom Rests as do steel and aluminum framed guns. As Ransom Rests itself explains:
http://pdf.textfiles.com/manuals/FIREARMS/ransom_pistol rest.pdf
I read just recently a piece from a well educated fella (who tells us this each time he writes) who used a ransom rest to compare the accuracy of three 9mm guns one of which was a Glock. He fired 50 rounds from each gun and measured the groups. The Glock did the worst of the three. No where in the article did he mention that polymer framed guns do not always do their best from Ransom Rests. Seems he did not read the manual.
The same author, a few year back, wrote an article criticizing the 9mm cartridge for poor loading and being a slightly tapered round. He proved this by firing a 9mm from a 1911 chambered for the 9mm. He had no 9mm mags for the gun and so fired the 9mm from a magazine built for the 38 Super. He discovered that the 9mm will nosedive and so claimed this was due to the slight taper of the 9mm. The whole article claimed that the 9mm was prone to misfeeds.
Apparently no editors read this article who knew anything about guns and ammo.
tipoc
http://pdf.textfiles.com/manuals/FIREARMS/ransom_pistol rest.pdf
I read just recently a piece from a well educated fella (who tells us this each time he writes) who used a ransom rest to compare the accuracy of three 9mm guns one of which was a Glock. He fired 50 rounds from each gun and measured the groups. The Glock did the worst of the three. No where in the article did he mention that polymer framed guns do not always do their best from Ransom Rests. Seems he did not read the manual.
The same author, a few year back, wrote an article criticizing the 9mm cartridge for poor loading and being a slightly tapered round. He proved this by firing a 9mm from a 1911 chambered for the 9mm. He had no 9mm mags for the gun and so fired the 9mm from a magazine built for the 38 Super. He discovered that the 9mm will nosedive and so claimed this was due to the slight taper of the 9mm. The whole article claimed that the 9mm was prone to misfeeds.
Apparently no editors read this article who knew anything about guns and ammo.
tipoc
I don't think it's been mentioned. I was going to say something about it, but my half-hearted look at the Ransom Rest website didn't turn up the quote you found and so I left it alone.
It's a good point and a very worthwhile bit of information for someone who's thinking of buying one to test polymer-framed pistols.
Average Joe
New member
Everybody wants a Glock, because most cops have them. But....most cops Glock's live in their holsters....not my ideal target gun, more like an ugly tool.
Now, all of you Glock fans don't send me hate mail, it's just my opinion...
Now, all of you Glock fans don't send me hate mail, it's just my opinion...
Last edited:
dogtown tom
New member
Of course they do. What the military and police issue is a huge influence on the buying public. As are TV and the movies. If a character in the Walking Dead carried a gold plated Hi Point you would see an uptick in sales of gold plated Hi Points.
Glock received tremendous free publicity in the movie Die Hard, while everything about the movie line was completely and totally wrong "Luggage? That punk pulled a Glock 7 on me. You know what that is? It's a porcelain gun made in Germany. It doesn't show up on your airport X-ray machines here and it costs more than what you make in a month!".
There are still people who believe all that to be true. A former neighbor of mine asked if they were still illegal.
I'll bet thats true of most handguns. They by and large live in a box.
FYI....all guns are tools. While I don't lovingly fondle my Glocks like my Colts or Hi Powers, those Colts and HP's don't come anywhere close to the ease of maintenance and simplicity of a Glock.
Well, there's a lot of truth to your statement, I would make a couple of minor changes.
Not everybody wants a Glock. I think there are many people who don't.
Not everybody who wants a Glock wants it because LEOs carry them. I bought my first Glock before they were very popular with LE for reasons that had nothing to do with what LEOs were carrying.
I think that Glock's popularity in LE may have slipped a bit--I'm not sure that most cops carry Glocks these days.
I'm not sure that Glocks are any more ugly than a dedicated target gun. Free pistols and other true target pistols tend to be pretty ungainly looking. That said, Glocks are not near the top of most peoples' lists for being really nice looking guns.
The rest is true.
Glocks are not ideal target guns. They are, at least in my experience, more accurate than most people give them credit for, but they're not "target gun" accurate by any means. And even if they were, they still wouldn't be ideal target guns as their sights and triggers are not really designed for target shooting.
Most cops do not spend a lot of time shooting. Some do, but from what I can tell, most cops view their sidearms as tools. I think many cops aren't especially interested in firearms past the level of what they need to do to get and keep their jobs.
Carl the Floor Walker
Moderator
Claims like this are IMO just BS. Nothing wrong with a Glock, but just never have seen these type of claims to be true. Good gun, but there are just so many that are good guns or better.Well, your "clarification" is no more accurate than your original post.
Glocks are probably the least ammo sensitive handgun in production.
I'm not sure what your point really is.
Where does Glock get all propaganda from? They have won so many Gov. bids that people that have been issued one, and they are by the millions I would guess, will say they are the best gun made, yet so many have never once owned any other gun.
If Glocks were up to all the claims, then myself and many other gun enthusiast would own one, but don't. Or own one, but prefer other guns.
If someone gave me $500 and said buy a pistol. It would not be a Glock. But, that does not mean they are not nice guns, but just not a preference.
As far as accuracy, they are a defensive carry gun, and not target gun. They shoot just fine, but again, about on par with most others in the hands of experience shooters.
I don't remember how long ago it was but I was the first shooting in our USPSA club to buy a Glock for competitions. It was a 17L and had everything one could ask for in a competition gun. Accuracy was great and I could get away with going to the line having one mag in the gun and two on my belt which made enough to get through any stage.
What guys hated most about my Glock was that I never had to reload. Stages back them were a lot simpler than they are these days. I even like the "compensated" barrel.
What guys hated most about my Glock was that I never had to reload. Stages back them were a lot simpler than they are these days. I even like the "compensated" barrel.
dogtown tom
New member
Well then sparky.....provide evidence that I'm wrong.
Huh? If there's nothing wrong.....then the claims are true.
And you really ought to do a few minutes of research looking at what the military already has tested.
Again, huh? "Nothing wrong", "Good gun".......yet you still seem to find fault.
And no one has written that there aren't guns just as good.
If there are "so many that are good guns or better"....then list them.
I didn't buy into the hype about Glocks until ten years ago. I disliked the twenty five year olds recommending a pistol that was their only data point.
I currently own around forty center fire semiautomatic handguns that are not Glocks. Among them Colt Governments and Commanders, Beretta Cougars, two dozen Hi Powers at last count. Then there's the .380's....Remington 51's, Stars, Browning BDA, Mauser and several FN 1910/55 and 1922's.
So yeah, my handgun exposure is limited.
Not necessarily. A Beretta 92 is a fine handgun....but I dislike guns with slide mounted safeties. Thats why I'll never own one. (and yes I know about the DAO versions)
Thats fine. I dearly love my Hi Powers....finest handgun ever made. But if my life depends on a handgun I'll choose a Glock 17. It ain't pretty, but is a tool.
Don't take this the wrong way.......but no one should really gives two hoots what you prefer. Thats the concept behind personal preference.
But if you named what pistol is your personal preference, others are certainly free to express why we dislike your choice.
I have a customer that has sent his "custom" (brand redacted) 1911 back to the manufacturer at least three times....he poo poos Glock btw. His $2000+ 1911 may be minute of Gnat at 50yds, yet requires constant care, is so picky about ammunition that the manufacturer gives him a list of the ammo he should use.....yeah, thats quality right there. IMHO, its a shiny paperweight.
Well, they shoot just as accurately for inexperienced shooters as well. Bullseye competition? NRA slow fire with your hand in your back pocket?
An accurized 1911 is great for that, but those are games. And you'll spend faaaaar more than $500 working on the 1911 to get it right.
IMO the beauty of a Glock is in its simplicity, reliability, durability and function. I can count the number of Glocks I've had to ship back to Glock for repair on two fingers. Given the number of Glocks I transfer vs other brands its an amazing statistic. 1911's or Taurus? I need a roomful of fingers.
Carl the Floor Walker
Moderator
Lol:, "Well "Sparky"? no need for a Snowflake meltdown or loss of your control. You are right, no one may care about my opinion or preferences. That is what makes the world go around.
But for sure not everyone agrees with yours. May God help them if they do not. You made the statement, not up to me to prove anything. You back up your own statement.roll eyes:
And by the way, get over the bit about "Your customers", no one cares. Just curious, do you go on the attack with your "Customers" if they disagree with you? Scary, especially since you operate out of your home. At the very least unprofessional, even if done on the internet.
But for sure not everyone agrees with yours. May God help them if they do not. You made the statement, not up to me to prove anything. You back up your own statement.roll eyes:
And by the way, get over the bit about "Your customers", no one cares. Just curious, do you go on the attack with your "Customers" if they disagree with you? Scary, especially since you operate out of your home. At the very least unprofessional, even if done on the internet.
Last edited:
Owning three Glocks currently and having previously owned two others, I have to say...
Glocks are boring...boringly reliable.
The Browning HiPower was my pistol for a couple decades. Then I got a G17 in a trade. Loved its light weight. Looked for, and found a deal on a G26. Found I shot the G26 as well as, or better than the HiPower, and switched right then.
One thing I really appreciate about the Glock is it’s ease of complete detail stripping disassembly, something it shares with the 1911, and not much else.
Glocks are boring...boringly reliable.
The Browning HiPower was my pistol for a couple decades. Then I got a G17 in a trade. Loved its light weight. Looked for, and found a deal on a G26. Found I shot the G26 as well as, or better than the HiPower, and switched right then.
One thing I really appreciate about the Glock is it’s ease of complete detail stripping disassembly, something it shares with the 1911, and not much else.
I have noticed that there a lot of Glock fanboys and Glock haters, Same with the 1911. I am not a Glock fanboy, but I do like them for what they are. I do own several of them but I also own several 1911's and yes I can shoot the 1911's better at long range or even short range, but the Glocks of the last several years are pretty accurate, hampered by a sorry trigger pull but the trigger pull can be adapted to fairly well with practice, and if one will up grade to a lighter trigger, they can be be shot pretty good. When I say they, I mean in my own experience, Glock 17's 19's and 22's. I don't care for the others as well, myself.
I have a stock Glock 22 with a Ghost Trigger, which is a little lighter then stock, (well, I forgot it does have a better set of aftermarket nightsights on it, too) with with I can hit a man shaped IDPA gong set up 90 yards from my yard fence. I will hit it a high percentage of the time. The 1911's are a little easier, and a 6 Inch Smith and Wesson L frame .357 will hardly ever miss at all if I do my part.
That's no brag, just fact, and lot of other people can do the same.
The Glocks are just tools to me, but they are accurate enough for my uses and easy to replace if one was to get lost or stolen, and the models I mentioned are normally quite reliable.
I have a stock Glock 22 with a Ghost Trigger, which is a little lighter then stock, (well, I forgot it does have a better set of aftermarket nightsights on it, too) with with I can hit a man shaped IDPA gong set up 90 yards from my yard fence. I will hit it a high percentage of the time. The 1911's are a little easier, and a 6 Inch Smith and Wesson L frame .357 will hardly ever miss at all if I do my part.
That's no brag, just fact, and lot of other people can do the same.
The Glocks are just tools to me, but they are accurate enough for my uses and easy to replace if one was to get lost or stolen, and the models I mentioned are normally quite reliable.
Last edited:
At the moment, I own pistols made by more than a dozen different manufacturers.
The Glocks I own are not my favorite pistols, but they do spend more time doing self-defense/carry duty than any of the other guns I own.
They work well, they're easy to use, sufficiently accurate and durable. Magazines are cheap, nearly every handgun accessory maker sells products for them and working on them is very simple. So if there are things you don't like about them, it's easy to make changes from a wide variety of quality options--usually at minimal expense. I don't do much to my carry Glocks other than to replace the sights.
I don't know why people get so wound up about Glocks, but that just seems to be the way it is and the way it's always going to be as long as Glocks are around.
There are some guns out there that I don't like. I've found a perfect solution for that problem. I don't buy them. So far it's worked for me. And probably most people don't even know what guns I don't care for--because I rarely bother posting about them.
The Glocks I own are not my favorite pistols, but they do spend more time doing self-defense/carry duty than any of the other guns I own.
They work well, they're easy to use, sufficiently accurate and durable. Magazines are cheap, nearly every handgun accessory maker sells products for them and working on them is very simple. So if there are things you don't like about them, it's easy to make changes from a wide variety of quality options--usually at minimal expense. I don't do much to my carry Glocks other than to replace the sights.
I don't know why people get so wound up about Glocks, but that just seems to be the way it is and the way it's always going to be as long as Glocks are around.
There are some guns out there that I don't like. I've found a perfect solution for that problem. I don't buy them. So far it's worked for me. And probably most people don't even know what guns I don't care for--because I rarely bother posting about them.
Carl the Floor Walker
Moderator
I have not met many actual Glock haters. But have met many that just have a ambivalence to them. Just prefer other Pistols for what ever reason and there are many. But obviously if you do not love the Glock, then they label you as a Glock hater.
I certainly do not hate them, in fact I actually like the way they look. And every year, I always take a Glock out to shoot thinking I will change my mind. Usually will shoot one of my favorites against the Glock to see if lighting will strike me and and I see the light.
This year I took the 43x out. Nice gun, no failures, but just did nothing for me. Really did not like how it handled.
But that is just me, others love the gun. Next year I will try again.
I'm trying, Ringo. I'm trying real hard to be the good shepherd."
PS The dang 43X gave me a good blister on my trigger finger
I certainly do not hate them, in fact I actually like the way they look. And every year, I always take a Glock out to shoot thinking I will change my mind. Usually will shoot one of my favorites against the Glock to see if lighting will strike me and and I see the light.
This year I took the 43x out. Nice gun, no failures, but just did nothing for me. Really did not like how it handled.
But that is just me, others love the gun. Next year I will try again.
I'm trying, Ringo. I'm trying real hard to be the good shepherd."
PS The dang 43X gave me a good blister on my trigger finger
Last edited:
- Status