In Glock we trust?

[Once A Marine]

My current pistol is the DA/SA HK USP compact so I would primarily carry that with one in the chamber but de-cocked, safety off. Also I'm not really nervous about the carry or the conflict, but more about my finger placement in a tense situation. Even if I did do CCW I would rarely carry unless I was knowingly going into a bad area.

Carrying DA with safety off is really no different than carrying a Glock. Besides, if the safety is off, what purpose does it serve anyway? It's just something you could forget, or that is something that can be "snagged" accidently when holstering or drawing that can ruin your day. If you really need a firearm that is going to be safe and ready when you need it, the Glock really sounds like your better bet.

[Miltiades]

Its all in your head

When you handle a knife you keep the sharp edge away from your skin. When you handle a handgun you keep your finger and anything else away from the trigger, until you are ready to shoot. This rule must be learned and followed if you use a Glock with one in the chamber. You also have to pay attention to what you are doing while holstering the gun, to avoid the chance of snagging the trigger accidentally.

If you do these things you can probably go your whole lifetime handling loaded Glocks without a problem.

[VictorFranko]

I think that's what the OP was talking about. With a gun that has a "Safety" lever on safe, it is possible to accidentally pull the trigger whilst unholstering the gun. With a GLOCK, you potentially run the risk of pulling the trigger when you remove it from the holster.

The real danger with the Glock is when you re-holster the weapon, especially from the CC. If you are careless and get your cover caught up, there is a possibility of the cover pulling the trigger, slim, but it is a possibility.
I believe I have heard of this being suspected in a couple ND in IDPA matches.
In short, keep your finger where it belongs and keep your shirt out of the holster.

[r32bjj]

I carry both, a 1911 and a Glock, with one in the chamber. The 1911 is prettier, reliable, accurate, but I cannot carry everywhere, and that is when my Glock 26 kicks in. Each gun has its use and purpose for me. The 1911 is my EDC with the exception when I am wearing shorts, running, going to the gym, then my G26 takes on. I am now on the market for a 10mm for when I go to the woods. I've been struggling between a 1911 or a Glock 20. The final decision is close to the G20 than to the 1911. I figure I need a gun to carry with me when I am on the wild, rainning, mud,... whatever. I don't trust too much a 1911 will work well under these conditions, and I don't want to expose a $1400+ gun to that.

[jaq]

I work with military and LEO's who, almost without exception use Glocks when they have the choice. There is nothing religious about it. Not any more than the religion surrounding the Ford F150. It is a rock solid reliable workhorse

One LEO I know pretty well conceal carries his G30. He explained to me that he put an 8lb aftermarket trigger in it. This is common for those who conceal carry Glocks. The stock trigger is 4 1/2 lbs. I am sure you can understand the potential advantage of increasing the weight of the trigger pull w/o any further explanation.

[Call_me_Tom]

Ahh, I see. But the Glocks are single action, even if it's a very safe one, no?
The "Safe Action" is Glock's marketing lingo for a single action mechanism with many redundant safeties that are deactivated on the trigger. What worries me (slightly) is not really snagging the trigger or dropping the gun, but inadvertently depressing the trigger while drawing or holstering the weapon.
Of course discipline and technique need to be applied and become natural but for some reason I still feel hesitant. I'm not sure I'll get comfortable with the idea until I actually own the gun and handle it enough to trust it.

Keep your finger straight and off of the trigger until you are ready to fire.


I don't own a Glock but I'd like too one of these days. I've fired a few and the one thing that I do not like is the recoil. This isn't specifically a Glock issue as I'm sure any "light" pistol will have harder recoil then a heavier weapon but I found that my follow on shots are adversely effected by it. I'm sure with practice I'd easily over come that issue.

[ZombieTactics]

Glocks are great weapons of war, IMHO. The lack of a secondary safety is a non-issue in that context, or where there is a high-risk, high-likelihood-of-use environment.

I tend to think they are less than ideal for IWB concealed carry, as the safe-action trigger system just isn't enough from my perspective. I give a nod to the LEO with the 8lb aftermarket trigger ... somebody has their head bolted on straight there if you ask me.

To understand the "religious" aspect, I think you sorta had to have been there when Glocks were first introduced. It seems like every gun store commando hated them, and you were definitely going against-the-grain if you bought one then - as I did. The resistance to Glocks was damned near "religious" in some ways.

With the Glock gaining such wide use and respect over time, a lot of people feel vindicated in a sense, as though they've won some kind of grand political or religious squabble. There is a measure of pride in knowing that you were right all along.

[den888]

Reliable, durable, accurate, and easy to get parts for...

[Mntngoat]

i will put my 1911's up against a glock for accuracy. !

ML

[Greg-Dawg]

I can get 3 Glocks for the price of 1 Hk.

As for carrying a round in the chamber with my Glock 27: Keep your finger off the trigger until fully ready to shoot.

[yellowfin]

SA is inherently unsafe - even the military and LE would carry those without a round in the pipe. That was a lot of training in presentation from the holster.

With Browning Hi Powers, yep, but with 1911's nope. The 1911 grip safety plus the thumb safety is plenty safe enough to carry cocked and locked, almost impossible to ND coming out of the holster. Empty chamber carry is almost entirely associated with the BHP, and probably the Tokarev as well.

[gordyboard02]

ok, OP here's a non-glock person's opinion on their popularity: They are a cheap, light, extremely reliable firearm that is widely available. Being in the army I'll say thats all I could want from a combat pistol. However given the choice, I will always pick something that is slightly more tailored to me and has a grip angle that fits my hand better.

[Ballistic043]

I can get 3 Glocks for the price of 1 Hk.

yeah, well i could get 3+ kia rio's for the price of a lexus.

sure they all DRIVE but one obviously does it with more style, better performance and more options.

[Dirtbiker]

I bought my Glock 21 in May of 1993 and polymer framed guns were still a bit of a mystery back then.

I've put 5000+ rounds through mine including carrying it through the police academy. I've done hundreds of (induced) failure drills, dropped mags in the dirt/mud, and shot a full day in the pouring rain. It has never missed a beat.

As far as the safety aspect is concerned I really like the simplicity. I never had the trigger get caught on anything. What would save you from that happening on a standard pistol anyway? I carried a Beretta 92 as a LEO and I never carried it with the safety on. I'd be more worried of leaving the safety on when you need it to fire.

Now carrying a 1911 cocked and locked would make me nervous. The heavy trigger on a DA or a Glock gives me some confidence.

[windrunner]

The essence of a Glock is its safety. It is, hands down, the safest, most reliable firearm ever created. It simply, absolutely will not fire with out the user squeezing the trigger.

You see, here is the thing about Glocks that a lot of people lose sight of. Glocks are the ONLY handguns, in the history of all handguns, that are specifically designed for combat. From the moment the pencil is put to paper, it is purposefully, specifically and ingeniously designed to be utilized in a combat environment. All other handguns have to have a parabellum version for combat use. Glocks are parabellum from the start. Oddly enough, our own military refuses to issue Glocks as a standard sidearm. The college graduates running our military think it's a great idea to issue fixed-barrel handguns like the Bereta and 1911 for combat. I won't ramble on about all of that. That is an entirely whole other conversation regarding the ridiculousness and shadiness of the military procurement and requisitioning program.

A Glock is not a gun designed for discriminatory fire. If you really study the engineering of the weapon, you start to realize that it was designed to be drawn from a holster and fired without the discriminatory process you would use in other situations like say, a cop or armed security might be involved in. Which is why, as much of a fan of Glocks as I am, I don't like to see LE and armed security with Glocks in their holsters. Those are two professions, operating amongst the civilian population, that require tremendous discrimination in the employment of a firearm. Transversely, I think Sigs are excellent handguns for LE and security.

I won't even get into the reliability factor and cost effectiveness of Glocks. Those are points that sell themselves. All I know is, I can buy three Glocks for the price of a Kimber and I get three handguns that will outperform anything out there even on a bad day.

Here is a link that pretty much says it all: http://www.theprepared.com/index.php...ask=view&id=90