Originally Posted by Sam
After giving myself a real chance to like Glocks this is what I've discovered. The fact that its shaped like a brick and feels like one is a non issue when actually shooting the gun. I will admit that something about the angled backstrap may push some people to initially shoot high, but once again, after a little time this is easily compensated for and is a non issue. I wish I could say that the smaller backstrap on the Gen 4 Glocks really make a difference to me but I just end up putting a Grip Force Adapter on all of mine that the frame ends up being approximately the same size as the earlier versions. Although it is nice that I can have a beavertail along with a standard sized frame.
And when only ONE make requires that much compensation to point properly is where the problem comes in. I don't want to own a gun where I have to consciously think "point lower" if I ever had to draw. It's adding inconsistency into the mix. Sigs, HKs, 1911s, Walthers, S&Ws, and just about everything else out there points naturally within 1-2 inches at 15 yards. The Glock is on average high about 10 inches. That is a huge difference and while I'm sure it's something I could get used to and not even think about anymore, it would also mean all the other guns would start feeling awkward. Given that a Glock offers nothing special except a huge aftermarket of upgrade parts and gear, there is no reason why I should ruin my ability to shoot every other gun just so I can say I can shoot a Glock. From my experience those with huge bear claw hands don't notice much difference with the grip angle, but for the other 70-80% of the population it is a large difference.
And whoever brought up the teenage girl comment... what an idiot thing to say. There are very few teenage girls who even know how to shoot properly much less know whether or not the way the gun sits in their hand promotes efficient rates of fire.
All in all the Glock is very similar to an Apple product with the exception of pricing. Amazing marketing and owned vastly by ignorant idiots who don't understand what they're spending their money on. I could pick another manufacturer and get a better product for around the same cost plus or minus $100.
Looking for lower bore axis? M&P
Looking for great ergos? PPQ
Looking for reliability under the most adverse conditions? FNS
Looking for aesthetics? Pretty much anything else
When the Glock first came out they were amazing for what they were. Reliable, lightweight, accurate, and cheap. But now they're more expensive, there are guns just as reliable, lightweight, and accurate, if not more so.
As for bore axis, felt recoil, and running the gun. Go prove it with an unbiased shooter and a shot timer. When I lived in WA, I timed one of my IPSC friends shooting a practice stage with various guns. With an M&P with an upgraded Apex competition trigger and a HK USP with a LEM trigger he was on average slower by .02 seconds with the USP. In other words, the difference is so small between perceived recoil and the effects of higher vs. lower bore axis that 99% of gun owners won't even have a measureable difference thus pointless to review a firearm based on such metrics.
In fact the more important metrics of measuring felt recoil, feel, and time back on target should be based on unlocking times, recoil spring weight, slight weight, and hammer spring weight. Funny enough, 2 of those 4 can be changed very easily and the other 2 can also be changed with a little effort if the user was so inclined.
So yes, the original review was biased, pertaining little to no important useful facts about the firearms being reviewed, and near worthless for the casual shooter who was the target audience.