Originally Posted by Xanatos
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.
If you are switching between shooting an M&P one day, a Sig another day, a 1911 a third day and a Glock a fourth day, then you will have some issues shooting the Glock. Sure, I've got no argument with that. My belief is that I'm going to stick with one platform for my serious handgun work. If I throw a different handgun platform in the mix occasionally that's for pure enjoyment. Overall though, the vast majority of handgun shooting I do tends to be with one platform at a time. Due to this fact, adjusting for elevation has become second nature and I don't consciously notice I do it. I will also add that a Grip Force Adapter has to a large extent taken grip angle issues out of the platform for me.
I think the teenage girl comment was directed at the fact that since teenage girls can shoot Glocks so can grown men. My fiance is not a teenage girl, but she has no problem getting good hits at speed with a Glock. She's not an experienced shooter by any means. If ergos were as bad and as important as many claim, I'd imagine she wouldn't do as well with a Glock. I'll agree that this is a case study of one, but she shoots well with a Glock and has yet to complain about the blockiness of the frame.
I find it interesting that in the same post you allude to the fact a low bore axis is important and then claim bore axis height is of no consequence to the average shooter. Further you mention changing out spring weights to achieve more of an effect than low bore axis. Seems like the average shooter wouldn't even begin to mess around with spring weights. I'm surely not going to mess around with spring weights on a serious use gun anyway.
Now, I'm not saying the Glock is the end all be all of handguns, but the Glock's supposed shortcomings I think are really overblown.