WHY GLOCK????

Status
Not open for further replies.
i didn't say they weren't very different firearms. one is nearly $4000!!! I am just saying that their is a different mindset when making a gun for ultimate accuracy, and building a gun to run reliably under stress.

I was simply saying that I agree when people use the motto "accurate enough" for a glock, because that's exactly what it was built for. and because it's "accurate enough" instead of "match accurate" it runs like a train. and I also don't think most people will be able to notice if the glock did have a match barrel, they would still say "accurate enough" because they can't shoot a glock "as-is" as accurate as it is made. man....I sure said "accurate" alot
 
I wonder where all of these people shoot these groups at 25 yards. I go to shoot at a pistol range about once a week on average. I would say that there are an average of 15 other people shooting while I am there. The range will support 44. In the last 2 years, I have seen 1 shooter capable of staying on paper for an entire magazine consistently at 25 yards. That shooter was NOT me. This dude shoots a 1911 of some kind, off hand, not from a rest. Do the rest of us handgun shooters of this area suck? Would it be unreasonable to expect that kind of performance from a Glock 21 or 41 from a shooter with the same skill level?
 
The accurate (enough) just means that the handgun hits where you point it at. It might not take the wings off a gnat at 100 yards--then again, it might just--but that isn't the point. Glocks excel at being tools. They do what the tool handgun is supposed to do, and they do it well. If you expect pinpoint accuracy, put an optic on something with a longer barrel that is fired with two hands. For what handguns are used for, accurate (enough) is pretty much all you need them to be.

And, to be fair, accuracy of just about any production firearm these days far exceeds that of most shooters. A friend of mine is always going on and on about how light his bike his, and then slyly adds that if he wanted to drop more than a few ounces off of the ride, he grips his love handles and says that he should start 'here', shaking said handles. Point is that the weakest link isn't the gear, it is the user. Any of the major manufacturer's offerings are plenty accurate--read more accurate than most humans--and to improve groupings takes time, ammo, and training, not necessarily a barrel with tolerances tight enough to ride the space shuttle.
 
In response to the OP. I don't think mine are ugly. They fit my hand and I like the balance.

I have fired dozens of other handguns including SIG's and 1911s. I own a 1911. I prefer all my Glocks.

So for me it isn't ugly and is just a great weapon! Dependable as all get out. Thousands of rounds and not one jam. My 1911 has jammed a number of times.

My KHAR is another of my favorites and it has jammed as well. I still like all my semiautomatic handguns, but my Glocks are my go to guns.

Mel
 
I shoot 25yard for at least a few minutes when I go to the range. I can keep them on the paper, not always n the ring though. I do much better with a revolver in s/a then I do with my semi. no measureable groups though. I would say a least 16" groups, I am no professional marksmen with a pistol. I do it just so I know I can if ever needed, I can't see why it would ever be needed, but....
 
Why Glock?

"...I cannot for the life of me see what's ugly about a glock... glocks are proportional and sleek.... and have a kind of beauty through simplicity about them."

Yes to this.Their form follows their function.That's beautiful! Also,reliable,easy
to maintain, and relatively inexpensive.
 
Last edited:
Because a drunk monkey with an internet connection, a flat heat screwdriver, and a 3/16 punch can basically do what any "certified glock armorer" can do. No reason whatsoever to send them back to Smyrna.
 
I wonder where all of these people shoot these groups at 25 yards. I go to shoot at a pistol range about once a week on average. I would say that there are an average of 15 other people shooting while I am there. The range will support 44. In the last 2 years, I have seen 1 shooter capable of staying on paper for an entire magazine consistently at 25 yards. That shooter was NOT me. This dude shoots a 1911 of some kind, off hand, not from a rest. Do the rest of us handgun shooters of this area suck? Would it be unreasonable to expect that kind of performance from a Glock 21 or 41 from a shooter with the same skill level?
Click to expand...

Depends on how big the paper is. I'd say I can hold 8" at 25 yds offhand if I go medium paced, and I don't consider myself very good. Probably the best I have ever done is 4-5" or so offhand at 25 yds (shooting 9mm). My astigmatism plus pistols with pretty thick front sights means I am pretty happy with that, but I have seen some really impressive folks that can blow be out of the water.

Glocks excel at being tools. They do what the tool handgun is supposed to do, and they do it well.
Click to expand...

You us the term "tools" a lot. Do you not consider other firearms tools? Isn't the user of the firearm who determines how the firearm is used? Even a match pistol is still a tool, albeit a tool with a different purpose.

And, to be fair, accuracy of just about any production firearm these days far exceeds that of most shooters. A friend of mine is always going on and on about how light his bike his, and then slyly adds that if he wanted to drop more than a few ounces off of the ride, he grips his love handles and says that he should start 'here', shaking said handles. Point is that the weakest link isn't the gear, it is the user. Any of the major manufacturer's offerings are plenty accurate--read more accurate than most humans--and to improve groupings takes time, ammo, and training, not necessarily a barrel with tolerances tight enough to ride the space shuttle.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that most production pistols are more accurate than most shooters. I just find "accurate enough" to be an odd way to describe a firearm.
 
Dragline45 said:
Oh you mean because of the funky grip angle, spongy trigger, and less than stellar accuracy. That'll show him.
Click to expand...

I don't find the grip funky or the accuracy to be less than stellar. I am more accurate with my Glocks than my 1911 or my KAHR. I have qualified in law enforcement with the Barreta 92 and did far better with my off duty Glock.

So to the haters, to each there own.

Oh, don't get me wrong I like my 1911 and KAHR, just for different reasons.

So, until you have fired one, you just don't know if it is for you. If it is, buy it, shoot it and love it regardless of brand. Chevy - Ford thing here!

Mel
 
I don't find the grip funky or the accuracy to be less than stellar. I am more accurate with my Glocks than my 1911 or my KAHR. I have qualified in law enforcement with the Barreta 92 and did far better with my off duty Glock.
Click to expand...

To each their own, I shoot my Beretta 92 far better than all the Glock 19, 17, and 22's I have shot extensively, the just don't point right for me at all.

And when I say funky grip angle, this picture explains what I mean. The grip angle is extreme and unlike the majority of handguns out there.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • pistol-angles.jpg
    pistol-angles.jpg
    97.7 KB · Views: 223
Last edited:
It's easy to find parts for, pretty cheap, reliable, light, and utilitarian enough that I don't give a crap when I scratch it. Not my favorite gun, but I won't get bent out of shape if I lose it to an investigation or whatever.
 
I couldn't have cared less about Glock until I shot my brothers 27. I picked up a 26 and am very happy with it, reliable, accurate, fits my hand and the recoil is well managed. I couldn't ask for more, it is a keeper.
 
It's the only firearm I've ever owned that didn't bring tears to my eyes every time it got a mark on it. It spends some time each day in my truck tool box with hammers, saws, snips, and other tools I won't allow near any other firearm.

As for accuracy, once, I leaned against a tree during an offhand session and my 19 put all three rounds in the same hole, in the X ring, at 30' without any evidence of a cloverleaf pattern. Good enough for me. In the twohand stance, I was patterning around 3", with a few flyers that I attribute solely to myself.:)
 
Not really sure why so many love to hate the Glock.
I have owned pistols from all the major brands, and I loved and carried the HiPower for a couple decades.
But, after shooting the G17 and the G26, I sold my last HiPower.
In 9mm, the Glock is all I want.
 
I have crawled around with a lot of guns and only Glocks and HKs have worked while dirty (compared to others). There are other more accurate guns out there (I carry a Kimberly 1911 when dressed up) but if I need a gun for getting dirty, my glock 21 is the one I grab.
 
Although I don't shoot my Glock 20 anywhere near as good as I do most other handguns I still like it's simplicity and utility function.

It's is UGLY but, it simply works is in large part is why it's so popular.
 
I never did like the looks of Glocks and would not have but one but for the fact my son bought a G21 and really liked it. I thought it was ugly as all get out. Then I shot it. I have a G21,G19,G17 and a G30. They shoot just fine but I still do not like the looks. When I go to the range, I am usually taking a 1911 along. When I am out by myself, usually a G30 or G19.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top