What's so great about Glock?

[Tango-Alpha]

I'm sure this thread will generate a lot of opinions and debate, but to be honest with you I've never really understood all the hype and attention that Glock has received over the years. For starters let me begin by saying that I recognize that Gaston Glock's innovative (30 years ago) polymer gun design and safe trigger mechanism absolutely redefined handgun designs as we known them today. In short his contribution to the world of handguns was on par with such notables as Mikhail Kalashnikov's AK-47 or Eugene Stoner's AR-15 revolutionary rifle designs.

That said, while I appreciate Glock's for what the are and the history behind them, they've never appealed to me very much. I get the simple design concept, the safe trigger mechanism and the lightweight materials used in manufacturing. I've shot plenty of Glock's in my lifetime, but I've never owned own. In general, I like the sights, but I don't prefer them to those found on Sigs or HK's, etc. As for as ergonomics, I find them to be kinda...meh. They just have never appealed to me.

I guess you could say, I was one of those guys who swore he'd never buy a polymer gun.....ever! Well that all changed for me probably 10 years ago when Smith and Wesson introduced their M&P 40. By that point, polymer guns had already been around for 20 years and Glock was no longer the only manufacturer selling them. I did rather like the HK USP design with available decocking lever, tactical rails, etc. However, upon walking in to Fowler Gun Room (Orange, CA) one fine Saturday afternoon, I happened across Omar & Ken who were up to their usual shenanigans who introduced me to their S&W Rep who happened to be in the store promoting the brand.

Long story short, S&W's were on sale and they convinced me to give a polymer gun a try. So I bought an M&P40, along with a 357PD (scandium frame) and they threw in a couple S&W ball caps. I've used both guns ever since and I do enjoy shooting the M&P; I find the ability to change the grips to fit my hands to be a very useful feature and I consider the sights to be excellent. Other manufacturers offer adjustable grips as well and I find it surprising that Glock hasn't followed suit. The Gen 4's had finger grooves which I thought was a huge upgrade on their original brick bar soap handgrip design, however with their current Gen 5 models, they've gone back to their original grip design.

So what gives? What is it that Glock fans find to be so unique, different or better than offerings from S&W, HK, Springfield, etc?

[OCEquestrian]

I'm sure this thread will generate a lot of opinions and debate, but to be honest with you I've never really understood all the hype and attention that Glock has received over the years. For starters let me begin by saying that I recognize that Gaston Glock's innovative (30 years ago) polymer gun design and safe trigger mechanism absolutely redefined handgun designs as we known them today. In short his contribution to the world of handguns was on par with such notables as Mikhail Kalashnikov's AK-47 or Eugene Stoner's AR-15 revolutionary rifle designs.

That said, while I appreciate Glock's for what the are and the history behind them, they've never appealed to me very much. I get the simple design concept, the safe trigger mechanism and the lightweight materials used in manufacturing. I've shot plenty of Glock's in my lifetime, but I've never owned own. In general, I like the sights, but I don't prefer them to those found on Sigs or HK's, etc. As for as ergonomics, I find them to be kinda...meh. They just have never appealed to me.

I guess you could say, I was one of those guys who swore he'd never buy a polymer gun.....ever! Well that all changed for me probably 10 years ago when Smith and Wesson introduced their M&P 40. By that point, polymer guns had already been around for 20 years and Glock was no longer the only manufacturer selling them. I did rather like the HK USP design with available decocking lever, tactical rails, etc. However, upon walking in to Fowler Gun Room (Orange, CA) one fine Saturday afternoon, I happened across Omar & Ken who were up to their usual shenanigans who introduced me to their S&W Rep who happened to be in the store promoting the brand.

Long story short, S&W's were on sale and they convinced me to give a polymer gun a try. So I bought an M&P40, along with a 357PD (scandium frame) and they threw in a couple S&W ball caps. I do enjoy shooting the M&P and I find the ability to change the grips to be a very useful feature. Some other manufacturers offer this feature as well and I find it surprising that Glock hasn't followed suit. The Gen 4's had finger grooves which I thought was a huge upgrade on their original brick bar soap handgrip design, however with their current Gen 5 models, they've gone back to their original grip design.

So what gives? What is it that Glock fans find to be so unique, different or better than offerings from S&W, HK, Springfield, etc?

The Glock fanboys are going to roast you alive... that is HERESY in this forum.

[dunndeal]

You've been around here for 6 years and haven't figured it out yet?

[redteam22003]

I'm sure this thread will generate a lot of opinions and debate, but to be honest with you I've never really understood all the hype and attention that Glock has received over the years. For starters let me begin by saying that I recognize that Gaston Glock's innovative (30 years ago) polymer gun design and safe trigger mechanism absolutely redefined handgun designs as we known them today. In short his contribution to the world of handguns was on par with such notables as Mikhail Kalashnikov's AK-47 or Eugene Stoner's AR-15 revolutionary rifle designs.

That said, while I appreciate Glock's for what the are and the history behind them, they've never appealed to me very much. I get the simple design concept, the safe trigger mechanism and the lightweight materials used in manufacturing. I've shot plenty of Glock's in my lifetime, but I've never owned own. In general, I like the sights, but I don't prefer them to those found on Sigs or HK's, etc. As for as ergonomics, I find them to be kinda...meh. They just have never appealed to me.

I guess you could say, I was one of those guys who swore he'd never buy a polymer gun.....ever! Well that all changed for me probably 10 years ago when Smith and Wesson introduced their M&P 40. By that point, polymer guns had already been around for 20 years and Glock was no longer the only manufacturer selling them. I did rather like the HK USP design with available decocking lever, tactical rails, etc. However, upon walking in to Fowler Gun Room (Orange, CA) one fine Saturday afternoon, I happened across Omar & Ken who were up to their usual shenanigans who introduced me to their S&W Rep who happened to be in the store promoting the brand.

Long story short, S&W's were on sale and they convinced me to give a polymer gun a try. So I bought an M&P40, along with a 357PD (scandium frame) and they threw in a couple S&W ball caps. I've used both guns ever since and I do enjoy shooting the M&P; I find the ability to change the grips to fit my hands to be a very useful feature and I consider the sights to be excellent. Other manufacturers offer adjustable grips as well and I find it surprising that Glock hasn't followed suit. The Gen 4's had finger grooves which I thought was a huge upgrade on their original brick bar soap handgrip design, however with their current Gen 5 models, they've gone back to their original grip design.

So what gives? What is it that Glock fans find to be so unique, different or better than offerings from S&W, HK, Springfield, etc?

Glock is the Honda civic of the guns world.

Glocks are rice out just like honda civic cars

and just like a honda, fanboies will talk about reliability when losing an argument.

i have a g19 and g26........i like the CZ and 1911 a lot more.....just like i like Toyota and Ford a lot more than Honda.

[Jay-lee]

Speaking from a commiefornia perspective, I think most of the hype comes from availability. New polymer guns aren't on the roster and are hard to come by especially to the average consumer who isn't familiar with intrafamiliar or ppt tansfers.

Glocks have a reputation of working well and while they may not be the best thing ever, it's the best thing we have in CA. I prefer the grip texture of the M&P 2.0, I like the ergos of the VP9, I like the trigger on the PPQ and I like the fact I can throw my P320 at someone and have it fire. However in my county my sherif does not allow off roster pistols on my CCW list. So I carry a glock 19. Not because it's the best gun ever, but because it's what's available to me and I trust my life to it.

[Bullets&Whitewalls]

You kind of answered your own question on a few points. I like them because they are function over flash. That’s it. And for as blocky and ugly as they are I shoot mine well. I have been wanting to try and M&P though.

[Citadelgrad87]

They go bang exceptionally regularly.

They are ugly.

I won one in a raffle and I like it enough to carry it.

[BennyAdeline]

I’m mostly in to fuddy guns and milsurps.

But for a fight I run a G19 with RMR and weaponlight. Why? Because it runs and I can hit with it very fast and where I want. It’s not fussy about ammo, spare parts are cheap, it’s easy to work on, and glock customer service is top notch.

My current carry/hd gun hasn’t had a malfunction with 6k through it, mostly cheap steelcased Wolf.

[Tango-Alpha]

The Glock fanboys are going to roast you alive... that is HERESY in this forum.

I know...I know. But it's a serious question. Really. HK makes a fantastic handgun as does Springfield, Smith and Wesson and several others. When you lay them all out, they all look more or less the same. There are some differences in features as I mentioned earlier. The HK is the only poly gun with a decocker that I'm aware of, the S&W & Springfield have adjustable grips (different sizes). I'm sure the Glock guys will argue they point, aim and shoot naturally and are very accurate. That's probably true and I don't dispute that, but then again, which of the aforementioned guns do not? See my point? There's a certain appeal with Glock's that I don't understand.

I brought this subject up, because I'm considering buying another poly gun in 45. The first one that popped in to my mind right away was the HK USP and of course I checked out the other offerings as well, along with Glock. Still don't get it though. Maybe somebody can explain it to me.

[SteveHamn]

I agree with you and have the same question. I'll be following this thread to see what other say. Maybe I'm spoiled. I want a compact pistol so I rented a compact Glock at the range the other day. I love the compactness of the gun and aesthetically it looks awesome, but when I went to actually shoot it I hated it.

[808@515]

They go bang when you want/need them to. They don’t cost a lot of money. They don’t require a lot of care and are easy to maintain. They are not for everyone.

Why is that so hard to understand? Or are you just trolling?

[Fishslayer]

When they first got here they got a massive blitz of free advertising. The MSM was full of reports of "A PLASTIC GUN THAT CAN'T BE DETECTED AT AIRPORTS!" EVERYBODY knew what a Glock was. Name recognition is key.

Then they offered LEO deep discounts on their firearms. Anybody who thinks LEO always use "the best" of things is naive.

[heidad01]

You've been around here for 6 years and haven't figured it out yet?

Really. Good question.

Anywho, better than S&Ws, HKs, Springfields they are not.

The whole lot of polymer guns are popular because of advertising, cheap cost of production, and allegedly better safety because of that gizmo protruding from the center of trigger pad. Which by the way, does not prevent many including trained LEO's from shooting themselves in the leg.
I have more than a few. They are cheap guns with worse than crappy triggers and nothing special to write home about.

[003]

First and foremost, Glock is the original, and they set the standard. While there are many good/great pistols on the market, Glock was the first mass produced polymer striker fired pistol. As noted above, they are fairly priced, and they work as advertised. From a form follows function perspective, Glocks are in fact perfect.

For those too young to remember, prior to Glock, semi-automatic pistols were considered marginally reliable at best. It was typical for those purchasing new 1911’s and many other pistols prior to firing them to take them to a local gunsmith for the standard “reliability package”.

No question, we have come a long way as it relates to quality pistol availability.

[Tere_Hanges]

So what gives? What is it that Glock fans find to be so unique, different or better than offerings from S&W, HK, Springfield, etc?

They simply get the job done at a very reasonable price point, $450-$550 and can even be found used for under $400. Oh yeah, and they are on the roster.

I really like the M&P as well but alas it is no longer on the roster and I wont pay the CA sucker markup for a polymer framed striker fired pistol.

People that dont like Glocks use the strawman argument that people who simply appreciate them for what they are, while recognizing what they arent, are somehow all fanatical fanboys. Thats simply not the case. But hey you can keep trying to make the argument however delusional it is. It says more about you than it does about Glock users.

I own many types of pistols, Sigs, HKs, 1911s, etc. But for me Glock is the "cheapest" pure tool that I use to get a job done. Sure, there is FMK, Hipoint, and XD although Im sure XDs are very good guns. But as far as performance and price, a Glock will perform just as well as a much more expensive gun.