WHY GLOCK????

Status
Not open for further replies.
Glenn E. Meyer said:
This is getting boring. If you don't like it - don't use it.

If you think grip angle is the end all and be all of shooting skills - that's nice.

Close to a closure as we are starting to bicker.

A competent handgun user should be able to shoot most modern guns and obtain good hits. I grant you that hand size is an issue for some.

But if your hand fits a Glock (not an angle rant), Sig, 1911, etc. then you should be able to use it.
Click to expand...

First off I never said grip angle is the end all be all of shooting skills, but don't act like it doesn't have any bearing. Any competent handgunner should know how well a gun fits your hand and points for you is an important aspect in choosing a defensive firearm. My issue is that Glock's don't fit my hand as well as other guns, or point as naturally for me as other guns do. That was my stated reason as to why I don't like Glock's. My issue is when someone comes along and tells me that it is not a legitimate complaint and I should force myself to adapt to the pistol. Why in the world would I force a pistol on myself when there are plenty of pistols out there that do fit my hand and point naturally for me. I shoot Glock's well enough, I shoot other guns better, plain and simple. If anyone cant recognize that as a legitimate complaint, they are blatantly biased towards Glock's which is the usual case with Glock fanboys.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand the gripe about the grip angle. I've never noticed it as a problem. I can go to the range, and shoot all sorts of different guns. Different styles, triggers, sights, etc. I adapt. I own a Honda and a Lincoln. I drive 4-5 different trucks at work. I adapt. Why are some shooters so unwilling to adapt to something as simple as a grip angle?
Click to expand...

Why should I have to "Adapt" to a Glock? You see if Glock was the ultimate answer to handguns for everyone the others would all disappear. But there are dozens, if not hundreds, of handgun choices and if someone likes something else better why shouldn't they just buy that instead of having to adapt to something they don't like as much?

Frankly, those of you that like Glocks, buy Glocks, shoot Glocks, LOVE Glocks, I won't try to change your mind. But you are all like the Borg from Star Trek and feel everyone must be of one mind and LOVE Glocks as much as you. Sorry, I don't like the way they fit my hand. You can disagree all you want, but it is kind of hypocritical in the long run. Whenever someone comes on a gun forum and asks "What should I buy my wife for a defensive handgun," what is the first thing that they are told? Take your wife to a range that rents pistols and let her pick one she likes. Why? If Glock is the total answer why not just go pick her up one and be done with it?

I won't try to convince you to buy and shoot what I do because I really don't care what you buy or shoot. I care what I buy and shoot. It is that simple.
 
I see this all the time, I wonder how manly less parts there are in a Glock compared with other handguns.
Click to expand...
Depends on the firearm. There are actually some handguns out there with fewer parts, notably the Makarov pistols. Guns with similar construction to the Glock and with similar designs will likely have roughly similar parts counts.

When Glocks first came out, they were pretty unusual and so the low parts count got a lot of press. They still have a low count compared to the average handgun, but there are probably more handguns out there now with low parts counts than there were when Glocks first hit the market.
 
I would say one reason they are so popular is their marketing. Even someone with little knowledge of firearms will know what a Glock is, similar to Hover JCB etc.
 
Have you taken a 1911 apart?

They don't have that many moving parts.

Most people don't include the striker mechanism in the simplicity of the Glock.
 
Heres a random few to give you an idea.

Parts diagrams for the following list the parts counts as such....

Series 80 Colt Government Model 1911.......54 parts.

Glock 17......34 parts.

SIG P226......77 parts

S&W M&P 40.....30 parts

Springfield XD9.....47 parts

Browning High Power....61 parts
 
Heres a random few to give you an idea.

Parts diagrams for the following list the parts counts as such....
Click to expand...
So the low parts count on Glock/s that is often quoted is not only in glock and basically meaningless. More good marketing from Glock. Anyway though preferable for different reasons cost for example less parts doesn't necessarily mean better reliability.
 
My SIG P226's and P229's were just as reliable as my Glocks. So were my HK's, Colt 1911's, etc. If you buy quality guns, built to spec for the model, I doubt youre going to have much trouble.

I suppose simplicity is an advantage, as there is less to go wrong. That doesnt mean nothing will. I had an early Gen 1 17 that had recurring problems that they didnt seem to be able to fix, so I got rid of it. The 19's I had then were fine. The various Glock models I have now, have also all been fine.

If you buy enough of them, sooner or later, youre likely going to find trouble at some point, and some offer more of that than others. I had 17 SIG's of various models, and only ever had issue with one, a P238, which to be fair, really wanst a true P series, just another poorly executed 1911 copy. Still, 1 out of 17 wasnt bad.

That one Gen 1 17 was the only Glock I had troubles with, and thats out of 18 that Ive owned. About the same percentage as the SIG's problem wise.

Springfield 1911's were just the opposite. Out of the 12 or so Ive owned, only 3 ever worked without issue. I guess I was still in denial here, and still trying to justify the 1911 as a whole when I was going through this. The issues I had here, and with Kimber, and a couple of others, and changes that even Colt was doing at the time, finally got me to realize it was time to leave that platform, and move on. Over the years, Ive owned more 1911's than any other type (right around 40 or so), and only the Colts, GI guns, and two very early Springfields were reliable enough to trust your life to. Thats only 10 out of 40.

You really cant base everything on what one gun tells you. If it starts becoming a habit, then its probably best to move on to something else. Some understand this, some dont. If youre around this stuff long enough, and pay your dues, you start to figure things out, and that applies to everything.
 
So the low parts count on Glock/s that is often quoted is not only in glock and basically meaningless.
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair, at the time it was being touted by Glock as a big advantage of the design, it was fairly unique.

As far as it's being meaningless, that's probably a little bit of an overstatement. Simplicity is something all designers strive to attain. I wouldn't say it's meaningless but it's not the whole story either. It's certainly possible to make a handgun with more parts than the Glock uses without compromising reliability or durability, but at some point, additional complexity is likely to have a negative effect on the design.

In other words, it's pointless to argue about whether 30 parts or 40 parts is superior--the difference at that point probably is meaningless. However, once you start talking about two designs where one has double or triple the parts count but isn't significantly superior to the simpler design, then it's probably a cogent point.

For what it's worth, the official parts count numbers are usually fudged a little so it's not so simple to compare the numbers that the various companies put out.

Glocks, for example, have more than the official 34 parts--the real number is closer to 46 (for Gen 2 & 3 guns) and varies slightly based on a number of things.

Note that even in the picture, some of the assemblies haven't been taken apart. The RSA consists of 3 parts. The trigger housing consists of 2 parts. The slide assembly consists of 6 parts. The slide stop consists of 2 parts and the trigger bar assembly is made up of 5 parts.

attachment.php


http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=65677&d=1192738475
 
Glock Perfection. Yeah, I know this is going to caused intense flaming by the haters however, I have had the privilege of seeing Glock Perfection.

Glock perfection is the manufacturing of consistent tolerances in the machining and fit of the barrel and slide lock up. That large square section around the chamber and the way it is milling machine cut to fit into the milling machine cut slide. Just take a look at any old Glock Gen 1, 2 or even 3 with high round counts and you will see that the protective finish coating on the square lock up area of the barrel is still pretty much fully in tact.

I had the privilege of seeing a demonstration where as a Glock 21 was locked down in a vise and fired 200 times until the barrel was so hot that you could not touch it. The bullet impact points at 100 yards away could be covered with a playing card.

The same test was performed with a very expensive pistol ($5,000) from another manufacturer that shall remain nameless, that had been tuned and hand fitted and the point of impact from the bullets at 100 yards could not be covered with a 4'x8' piece of plywood with the same ammunition. It made a believer out of me. YMMV!
 
Heres a random few to give you an idea.

Parts diagrams for the following list the parts counts as such....

Series 80 Colt Government Model 1911.......54 parts.

Glock 17......34 parts.

SIG P226......77 parts

S&W M&P 40.....30 parts

Springfield XD9.....47 parts

Browning High Power....61 parts
Click to expand...

An M&P has less parts? Now I know.

As for the grip angle, I think it can be adapted to. Shoot any platform long enough and you adapt to it. The question becomes if you want to adapt to it. Some people find they don't need to adapt at all and some people start with Glocks so Glocks become the reference. The reality is there are a lot of guns out there that are just as reliable in my experience as the Glock. If you prefer something else rock on. I don't agree with this mentality of "train through it". If that's your only choice, then yea you have to train through it. But for a private owner, you don't. If the Glock grip angle feels weird, don't use one. If someone uses something other than a Glock and you use a Glock, why care what someone else uses? Worry about what's best for you. I don't see why there is an argument.
 
Last edited:
If the Glock grip angle feels weird, don't use one. If someone uses something other than a Glock and you use a Glock, why care what someone else uses? Worry about what's best for you. I don't see why there is an argument.
Click to expand...
This.

From a completely objective standpoint, I don't feel like the grip angle should be all that big of a deal. After all it's closer to the 1911's angle than, say, a Sig (in the other direction), and less pronounced than a Ruger mk.1-3, and yet it seems like people only ever complain about the Glock.
I'd heard it all before I handled my first Glock, and was actually surprised how unnoticeable it was.... for me.

However, clearly it is distracting for some people, and I don't quite understand the insistence from some that it shouldn't be.
I'd imagine we all have things we don't like, or things that just don't feel right for us. We also all have things we do like.
In this age of nearly unlimited choices, why should anyone feel obligated to "train around" a feature of a gun that they don't like?
 
Training around it is a bad idea unless it's the ONLY thing you are allowed to carry. Training is better spent working familiarity with a gun you already shoot well.

I can run a Glock well. I've shot all manner of those things. However, I really do not care for the grip. To me, it's like holding a 2x4. The vertical weight balance is off too. It sits solidly in your hand with a full mag and then sit on top of your hand with an empty mag.

It's just not for me.

If you shoot one well, then by all means continue to shoot it. I'll go play with my other guns.
 
The question asked was "why Glock", and the list of reasons is pretty long. As a quick caveat here, I don't really have any skin in the game: I prefer other handgun designs. I have a serious hammer addiction.

The number of parts / reliability issue is a real one. Glocks are absurdly easy to work on, and the more complicated parts are inexpensive, readily available sub-assemblies that can be dropped in with minimal training and hand tools. The availability and cost of keeping a Glock running is intensely low in time, energy, and raw cash.

The point about "train through it" is that people can, have, and will continue to do just that. Tons of Glocks are issued to law enforcement every day, trained with, qualified with, and carried. If "grip angle" or "pointability" were really that big of an issue, the training cycle for marksmanship would be longer and/or use a different platform. The fact that so many people can, and do, train through it only shows how finite and low rent such a problem is. If you don't want to, then don't. Nobody thinks less of you for it, and if they do, that is their problem.

If you don't like them, then own and carry something else. I couldn't give less of a crap what someone owns or carries. Every handgun is built on a set of assumptions, and is a compromise across a wide range of criteria. Glock just so happens to score extremely well across a rather broad span of those criteria, and especially on those criteria which define a working handgun to be carried and used in harms way. If those criteria aren't yours, then so be it. If you satisfy those same criteria, or others, with another design, good for you.

But the question is Why Glock, and the answer is--for many, many people--"just about anything you could ask for in a handgun, that's why."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top