In Glock we trust?

[VictorFranko]

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.

As far as a combat weapon, "style" is unimportant and "options" just get in the way and slow you down, no?

[gordyboard02]

Glocks are the ONLY handguns, in the history of all handguns, that are specifically designed for combat.

ok...I realize that glocks are combat handguns (in fact i just posted something along those lines) but this is what gets me about glock fanatics... read up on the history of firearms. they were all created to do one of two things: kill animals, or kill humans. in times of peace the practice of target shooting became popular to maintain skill and promote friendly competition. This spawned an industry of target-tuned firearms but handguns began as and comtinue to be produced for the purpose of self-defense at ranges too close to make a long-gun effective. Glocks perform this function just fine, but they are far from the only, and even farther from the first.

[gorenut]

Most times, I like guns for what they do. Glocks.. I like them for what they Do and DON'T DO. They don't try to be this fancy, flashy gun. They get straight to the point without distractions. It's like the obey at all cost grunt soldier that'll follow orders without any questions. Does everything good, but doesn't have anything completely out of the norm. Just a solid dependable guy.

I as well, started appreciating those qualities as I got more into guns. Initially I really disliked the Glock and could never imagine myself wanting one.

[walter]

i used to be in the same boat as you. when i started handgunning, i hated glocks. one because they were ugly. two because no external safety.

well being in the handgun community you can't help but get curious about the glock. so being the anti-glocker that i was, i got an xd9 =p

well the xd was cool but, it was just too damn heavy with a weird trigger (IMO)

so then i started researching glocks more and found that most glock owners are satisfied with their glocks. so i went out on got one, hoping it had a better trigger than the xd.

keep in mind, this whole time i was looking for my SHTF handgun, for hd, zombies, world destruction, etc.

in this sense, the glock is the PERFECT weapon. it's design for one thing only: TO GO BANG EVERYTIME YOU PULL THE TRIGGER. aka SIMPLE

yes, alot of other pistols are reliable, but do they have the history behind them?

since you mention the usp, lets talk about that. I used to want one, but it was damn near 8-900 bucks. my LGS told me it was the "cadilac" of pistols. well, I dont want a cadilac in this case, i want a honda

there's nothing the usp can do better than the glock in terms of being a tool, absolutely NOTHING.

this is why people LOVE glocks

reliable - you can trust your life with it
simple - less parts to break, easy as crap to strip, and point and shoot

like someone mentioned above, external safety guns are really a liability when it comes to SHTF situations. lets say somebody has a gun pointed at you, do you wanna pull your gun out and shoot, or pull it out, flip off the safety, make sure its off, than shoot?

cheap - relatively cheap but great quality and value

accessories - tons, and also cheap

so to sum it up

pro:
reliable
cheap
great fit and finish
accessories everywhere and cheap
simple
easy to rack slide
low bore axis so easier to shoot
bad *** trigger reset

cons:
can't think of a legitamite one

personal cons:
i hate that damn trigger guard with it was rounded
grip kind big and bulky

thats.... it lol

[Ballistic043]

As far as a combat weapon, "style" is unimportant and "options" just get in the way and slow you down, no?

having 2nd strike capability and a decocker, if thats getting in the way then i guess the other companies are doing it wrong. if having an adjustable front sight and an ambidextrous mag release are 'slowing me down' then call me complicated!

as far as style: i guess you can call that irrelevant too. but some of us take consideration into the grip angle, the shape of the grip, how long the barrel is, the balance of the firearm, the magwell if its flared, the rifling in a barrel. you know, the tid bit stuff that you tend to notice over time that makes a difference between a cheap buy and something you will cherish for years.

i guess to some people that doesnt matter and to those same people a glock and are happy. theres nothing wrong with that either. there is nothing wrong with glock

but im sorry if everyone under the sun doesnt prefer a glock over everything else out there.

i can get a USP compact for about 800 OTD. where can i pick up 3 glocks for the same price?

[BamBam-31]

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.

Style? Subjective.
Options? Sure, but the Glock is popular because of it's simplicity. IOW, people buy it to NOT have V1, V2, V3, etc.
Better performance? Only in your head. Whatever it takes to justify the price tag, eh? Check out your local pistol matches. How many Glocks do you see vs. HK's? And don't even get me started on torture tests.

BTW: You do know that the HK USP's originally came out at the same price point as Glocks, right? Didn't sell worth a damn. Then HK got it in their heads to jack up the price $200+ and market the USP's as "tacticool." Presto! A plastic gun people will cherish for years.

[BamBam-31]

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

ML

Only if they're semi-customs (w/ factory accuracy guarantees). I've found that most off-the-shelf 1911's (sub-$1,000) are on a par w/ Glocks in terms of accuracy. Glocks are far more accurate than they're usually given credit for ("combat accurate"), maybe perhaps because the ergos aren't for everyone. Put a stock Glock in a good shooter's hands, and you'll be surprised. They're not bullseye guns, certainly not in the same league as my Sig X5 or LB PII Supertac, but they're pretty damn accurate.

[dustoff31]

OK, what's the big deal with Glocks? More than any other manufacturer Glock seems to engender an almost religious following. I get that they're reliable, lightweight, accurate and affordable.

Yep. That's it. That's all they are.

I don't love them or hate them, I own Glocks. I'm a Glock certified armorer. But they are just guns. And like any other gun, they have advantages and disadvantages depending on one's point of view.

[Ballistic043]

Style? Subjective.
Options? Sure, but the Glock is popular because of it's simplicity.
Better performance? Only in your head. Whatever it takes to justify the price tag, eh?

HK's cost more to produce. this increases their sale price. it does not matter if XXX years ago it was the same price as glocks because price and demand both fluctuate. but at the very least, HK's hold their resale value VERY well anyways.

some of us feel smart enough to handle something thats not "the simplest pistol" out there. personally when i buy an HK, i know i wont have problems justifying keeping it; because its what i wanted. just as you justified buying a glock. but that doesnt give us a license to be ignorant, and judge people based on their opinion, also a simple fact, that not all guns are created equal. some are better in some areas.

[ZombieTactics]

... 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 disagree a bit about the "safest ever" comments elsewhere in your post, but it's nice to see someone else offer the type of comments I quoted here. I've been harping on this for years amongst my gun buddies. The scenario(s) determines tactics, which in turn determines choice of equipment. Glocks are ideal weapons of war, but not necessarily "perfection" for other types of scenarios. I hope you don't mind me stealing your "discriminatory fire" verbage, as I think it describes the difference quite well.

[ojisan]

QUOTE=windrunner;3752157]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.
Same as most guns...no pull trigger, no bang.
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. Many other guns were designed for combat, the addition of external hammers, manual safety, type of magazine catch, etc is at the demands of the military board that approves them. Study the history of the Germans and the development of the P38 for an overview of a designed for war use gun. 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. Both the 1911 and Beretta have moving barrels, same as a Glock. The Glock 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. True, the adoption of the Beretta was just throwing a bone to the Italians as a NATO ally.

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.
This.
[/QUOTE]

IMHO, a Glock with a round in the chamber is the same as a 1911 with a round in the chamber and the safety off.
"Cocked and unlocked".
Yup, safe if you don't pull the trigger.

Yes, the true safety is keeping your finger off the trigger until ready to fire. This works best for those experienced with firearms.
Hand any gun to a beginner and you will see the index finger goes right to the trigger.
Most LE sees the gun as just a tool that is part of the job, not something to be studied and practiced with endlessly.
So, we have armed "novices" with an "expert's" gun.

[Sublime_AC]

Never been a glock fan, not saying they aren't great guns, they have been proven performers for years.. Accurate, reliable and cheap.. It really doesn't get any better.. I just don't like the grip angle. My HK's, Sigs, Kimbers and Les Baer all fit my hand much better than the glock. Shooting them is more natural...

If I were in a life and death situation I would trust a Glock without question.. Maybe some day I will own one or two, or ten of 'em But for now I find myself in 1911 land.

[jaymz]

One word: MARKETING.

That's it. No magic, no pixie dust, no unicorns. Just marketing. Glock makes a decent product and they have a fantastic marketing department. The rest is history.

[windrunner]

ok...I realize that glocks are combat handguns (in fact i just posted something along those lines) but this is what gets me about glock fanatics... read up on the history of firearms. they were all created to do one of two things: kill animals, or kill humans. in times of peace the practice of target shooting became popular to maintain skill and promote friendly competition. This spawned an industry of target-tuned firearms but handguns began as and comtinue to be produced for the purpose of self-defense at ranges too close to make a long-gun effective. Glocks perform this function just fine, but they are far from the only, and even farther from the first.

What constitutes a parabellum firearm is not that it simply can fire a projectile and kill someone. It has to meet certain requirements, certain standards. There is a reason why something is mil spec'd or military standard.

Gaston Glock specifically designed his handgun to replace the standard sidearm for the Austrian army. The gun did not exist beforehand. Unlike a lot of our rifles over the years, I can't think of a single handgun that was specifically created for combat use. Combat sidearms always constituted a product that already existed and then had to be requisitioned by the military and then produced to military specs. Glocks are already created for combat. Hence the reason they were such a drastic change from conventional design. Gaston Glock didn't design a single aspect of a his firearm with civilian consumption in mind.

[Ballistic043]

what do you have to say about the mark 23? id like to hear your argument