WHY GLOCK????
- Thread starter LC9
- Start date
- Status
I certainly appreciate all your responses, all appreciated.........
my main concern with GLOCK is the trigger thingy........
my thoughts on this are......if you're in a struggle, for instance, like ZIMMERMAN was with TRAVON MARTIN trying to grab ZIMMERMAN's gun, there's a real possibility that light SA trigger can be pulled during the struggle.
That's why I think I really prefer a real "safety"............
just my old ARMY days kicking in, I guess!
my main concern with GLOCK is the trigger thingy........
my thoughts on this are......if you're in a struggle, for instance, like ZIMMERMAN was with TRAVON MARTIN trying to grab ZIMMERMAN's gun, there's a real possibility that light SA trigger can be pulled during the struggle.
That's why I think I really prefer a real "safety"............
just my old ARMY days kicking in, I guess!
Why Not! If you like one buy one.If not there are many other options out there.
I've never understood the love it or hate it attitude towards Glock.
Are they perfection No.Are the ugly ? Its in the eye of the beholder.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle of both ends of the argument.
I've never understood the love it or hate it attitude towards Glock.
Are they perfection No.Are the ugly ? Its in the eye of the beholder.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle of both ends of the argument.
When I can find nice pre owned G17 for under $400, its hard not to recomend them to someone on a tight budget. I am not even anGlock fan but that's ALOT of gun for $400.00 out the door price. That's why I carry one in my ATV's and boat and never worry about what happens to them. FYI, I recomend the Shield the most in my CCW class but for a high capacity night stand/house gun for $400 the G17 or G23 is easy money.
Last edited:
Mastrogiacomo
New member
Because you can find mags nearly everywhere without breaking the bank to pay for them. Can't say that for my Sig, which is why I only have one, in addition to three Glocks.....Glocks are also lightweight, functional and I'm accurate with them. It's a win win situation....
Laura
Laura
noonesshowmonkey
New member
Glock does just about everything right that can be done right with a handgun.
They are nearly indestructible.
They have high capacity.
They have a slim profile.
They are light weight.
They are accurate (enough).
They have almost zero snags.
They have a smooth, reliable trigger pull.
They have a simple manual of arms (no extra levers or buttons besides the trigger, magazine release, and take down).
They go bang whenever you pull the trigger.
They are incredibly well supported by the industry (holsters, etc.).
They have inexpensive, interchangeable parts.
They have common, inexpensive magazines that can be shared across models in the same caliber.
They have an extremely low cost of entry (relative to most competitors).
In short, they do just about everything that any other handgun does, often better, and for less.
As someone else was asking, the question in a way is, "why NOT?"
They are nearly indestructible.
They have high capacity.
They have a slim profile.
They are light weight.
They are accurate (enough).
They have almost zero snags.
They have a smooth, reliable trigger pull.
They have a simple manual of arms (no extra levers or buttons besides the trigger, magazine release, and take down).
They go bang whenever you pull the trigger.
They are incredibly well supported by the industry (holsters, etc.).
They have inexpensive, interchangeable parts.
They have common, inexpensive magazines that can be shared across models in the same caliber.
They have an extremely low cost of entry (relative to most competitors).
In short, they do just about everything that any other handgun does, often better, and for less.
As someone else was asking, the question in a way is, "why NOT?"
I have to say, Glocks are one of the few pistols where I see this brought up almost without fail on this forum. Not just this one post or thread, but repeatedly over time. The idea that Glocks aren't overly accurate, but they'll do. Frankly I think they're just as accurate as any other modern service semiauto. I would say I find I shoot M&Ps, XDs, PPQ, etc. a little better, but honestly for me it's that I just like the triggers on those other options more and those other pistols fit my hands better and those factors allow me to as the user to perform better.
Has anyone ever locked a Glock in a ransom rest and compared its accuracy to the competition? I don't know about anyone else, but I'd like to start with as much inherent accuracy as possible before I start adding my own operator error into the equation. Until someone shows me that Glocks are lacking in mechanical accuracy, I am going to believe they're on par with most options.
not sure how to put this into practical terms, but a glock's chamber is .010 oversize for the case in 9mm. a Wilson combat barrel guarantees half inch at 25yards, their barrel are .005 oversize and have a .001 tighter bore. as this will likely only increase accuracy from a ransom rest, it would still make you at least that thousandth of a imch more accurate if shooting the exact same way. so, other manufacturers may have tighter tolerances than a glock, and I think we can most agree that the most important thing is the fit to the firearm, which we know glock doesn't seem to take as too much importance. so when people say, glock's are "accurate enough", I think that actually has some merit. they know they are not building 25yard tack drivers, and model the pistol to be more reliable than unrealistically accurate. I have a match barrel on an AR that wont eject the cases fter a hundred rounds or so if I don't scrub it, I would rather give up .25 at 25yards than have a defensive pistol that is too tight to shoot dirty.
I would love to see some professional ransom tests done to a 9mm glock vs a 9mm cz vs bhp and really see if any of this is true. but I think it is. I also don't think 99% of shooters(including myself) are good enough with a pistol to know the difference between one shooting 1" off a ransom or 1.5"
heres a good link to Wilson vs a golck. it shows just how accurate a glock can be when someone knows what they are doing. watch the first video, only a minute.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ll-wilson-carry-pistovs-glock-30-sf-accuracy/
I would love to see some professional ransom tests done to a 9mm glock vs a 9mm cz vs bhp and really see if any of this is true. but I think it is. I also don't think 99% of shooters(including myself) are good enough with a pistol to know the difference between one shooting 1" off a ransom or 1.5"
heres a good link to Wilson vs a golck. it shows just how accurate a glock can be when someone knows what they are doing. watch the first video, only a minute.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ll-wilson-carry-pistovs-glock-30-sf-accuracy/
Last edited:
There's a lot to reply to here!
Why so popular?
IMO, it's a huge combination of many things. And I haven't even read that book recently penned on the subject, but I intend to do that. I say it's popular because they were the first to REALLY wow the market with a polymer framed handgun and when they did blast on to the scene, the darn guns worked and fed and ran and ran and ran and RAN! And that got them stamped early on with "GOOD!" labels, so people flocked to them and law enforcement flocked to them and when LE flocked to them, even -MORE- people flocked to them. Glock also has some interesting pricing schemes that helps sell guns in many ways.
Why do I like my Glock?
That's funny. I really like my Glock. In fact, as guns go, I really love my Glock. But I don't like Glock and my ultimate hope & goal with the perfect ending is that I never EVER buy another beyond this one! Mine runs great for me, carries well and I happen to shoot it very well, so I like it a whole lot. But nothing about it makes me want to chase down other Glock pistols... like ever, at all. YUCK.
So you'd likely ask...
Why did I choose my Glock?
Well, I grew up reading Jeff Cooper. And no, Jeff Cooper would never choose a Glock. But he did have me thoroughly entranced with the 10mm Auto cartridge from a young age and the idea of carrying my S&W 1006 concealed did not appeal to me at all. So I picked the only viable option I could possibly imagine, the Glock 29. And I've said it before, if S&W had made an M&P-10mm or a Springer XD-10mm existed, I'd almost certainly have went either of those directions instead.
What's next?
When I elect to retire my G29 from carry duty, I will move to a tupperware 9mm. I don't have immediate plans so I haven't outlined any goals. But if my G29 got run over by a train tomorrow, I'd probably snag an M&P Compact 9mm while I tried to figure out exactly what I put in that role.
You?
If you're asking me, my answer is pretty simple and firm. If you want a polymer 10mm handgun, you should be looking at a Glock. If you don't seek a polymer 10mm handgun and you've never tried a Glock, meh, skip it.
Knightsofnee
New member
It is my understanding that Glocks are hugely popular among inner city male youths owing to their ease of use while chemically impaired.
WildBill45
New member
The question is not WHY I like my Glock, it is Why you do not!
But these are very different firearms IMO. You're talking about $500 vs what, $3000? You're also talking about a SAO hammer fired metal framed firearm vs a striker fired safe-action pistol with a polymer frame. They also have a different locking system. To me it's like saying a Toyota Yaris isn't as fast as BMW M3. It sort of goes without saying. My questions is, what about a Glock vs. other striker fired pistols, like the M&P, XD, PPQ, etc? I don't see the same qualifier attributed to them, though to be fair there are a lot more Glock owners. What about a Glock vs. say a SIG? I'd be interested.
- Status