Glock pro's cons ?'s

[tuna quesadilla]

i gave you the info i had from 10 years ago home slice. it was a glock .22.

the barrel was horizontally split in half, the top of the rail was peeled up like a sardine can, the right side of the frame was cracked, my dads palm was bleeding and he lost his new sights.


will all glocks kaboom? no, but id rather risk a FTE than a KB

For the barrel to rupture like that, it was almost certainly a double-charge. User (loader) error. Sorry.

[roll2li]

i dont see how no external safety is a good thing, when you can have an easy to work external safety.

Shooters who don't want external safeties on their handguns (I'm one of them) usually follow this train of thought:

A handgun is a close range, reactive, personal defense weapon. 90% of the NYPD's police involved shooting incidents happen at 15 feet or less, and at that distance every (mili)second counts.

I have no doubt that a competent operator of any handgun with an external safety can train to release their weapon's safety and fire in the similar speed that one could have without a safety. I guarantee that you and a lot of 1911 shooters (I've seen a bunch) can do it faster than I can. However, when I'm in mortal danger, my heart rate is at 150 bpm and I have the fine motor skills of a Neanderthal I don't want that extra step no matter how many times I've practiced. On an additional note, since I have smaller hands, with large frame auto pistols releasing the safety with my thumb causes me to break/adjust my grip which is definitely something I don't want when I'm trying to throw that first hot rock downrange and I'm operating at 50% of my potential.

I think handgun safeties had a valid point with SA pistols, however, with DAO pistols I tend to view them a lot like DA revolvers. A DAO pistol is essentially at mechanical rest even with a round in the chamber and the only way it's going to go bang is if you get your finger on the trigger and pull it unless you're mishandling it - feeding back to our weapon handling safety rules.

Back to the OP (I own a Gen 3 Glock 19):

Pros:
Reliable shooter of factory ammunition
Reliable under extreme conditions (lack of cleaning/lubrication, dust)
Very high grip (reduces moment forces on your wrist for faster followup shots)
Lots of after market support

Cons:
Trigger Safety (personally to me it feels stagey with that first indent and then the rest of the pull)
Grip Width (I used to own a Glock 21, which to me was like trying to palm a 2X4)
Aesthetics (my mother didn't want me to buy her a Glock 26, she wanted the SW MP9. At least I could get her to own a gun Now that I think of it her exact words were that the Glock looked "soulless" and she liked the guns with polished steel frames)

Glock has indeed addressed a lot of main concerns people bring up, there's plenty of after market trigger kits and the .45 Glocks come in slim frame configurations, but it's really hard to thin out a pistol designed to hold a double stack mag.

Final thought, I really think if one isn't comparing the Glock trigger to another DAO pistol or striker fired pistol it isn't fair. Of course a 1911, or SA revolver is going to have a lighter, crisper trigger with a cleaner break, the trigger is only performing one mechanical action. It's apple and oranges at that point.

[dirtykoala]

Shooters who don't want external safeties on their handguns (I'm one of them) usually follow this train of thought:

A handgun is a close range, reactive, personal defense weapon. 90% of the NYPD's police involved shooting incidents happen at 15 feet or less, and at that distance every (mili)second counts.

I have no doubt that a competent operator of any handgun with an external safety can train to release their weapon's safety and fire in the similar speed that one could have without a safety. I guarantee that you and a lot of 1911 shooters (I've seen a bunch) can do it faster than I can. However, when I'm in mortal danger, my heart rate is at 150 bpm and I have the fine motor skills of a Neanderthal I don't want that extra step no matter how many times I've practiced. On an additional note, since I have smaller hands, with large frame auto pistols releasing the safety with my thumb causes me to break/adjust my grip which is definitely something I don't want when I'm trying to throw that first hot rock downrange and I'm operating at 50% of my potential.

I think handgun safeties had a valid point with SA pistols, however, with DAO pistols I tend to view them a lot like DA revolvers. A DAO pistol is essentially at mechanical rest even with a round in the chamber and the only way it's going to go bang is if you get your finger on the trigger and pull it unless you're mishandling it - feeding back to our weapon handling safety rules.

do you realize that to defeat the safety of a 1911 all you have to do is hold it naturally? and that most people with smallish hands love the 1911? its single stacked and thin framed. also, you like most people would probably find that your NPOA on a glock is high, so you have to adjust your natural grip to aim at the target, maybe a step you dont want to worry about in the heat of the moment?

[Oceanbob]

Glock....?...what's a Glock..?

[roll2li]

do you realize that to defeat the safety of a 1911 all you have to do is hold it naturally? and that most people with smallish hands love the 1911? its single stacked and thin framed. also, you like most people would probably find that your NPOA on a glock is high, so you have to adjust your natural grip to aim at the target, maybe a step you dont want to worry about in the heat of the moment?

I think to disengage the grip safety you can hold the weapon naturally, but the thumb safety still requires a downward swipe of your thumb. Depending on your manual of arms when presenting the weapon from holster, one may still be manipulating the safety after establishing a firm, high grip and then breaking it reducing accuracy. I imagine Mr. Cooper and the folks at Gunsite will have a definite answer on that, but having personally experienced an adrenaline dump while handling firearms I wouldn't count on my thumb to be able to act independently of my death grip on a weapon. In fact the only way I could manipulate the charging handle on my rifle at that time was to hit it with a karate chop style motion, I couldn't even make a pincher grip.

I'm sure people with smaller hands like the 1911, however, I think most of the Glock = Brick comparisons come with the 45ACP series. I'd imagine the 40SW and 9 versions are readily adaptable to most hand sizes, otherwise a majority of law enforcement agencies in the States wouldn't be issuing Glocks. I personally don't have a problem with my 19, but that is why I sold my 21.

I don't really know what my NPOA for handguns, before I joined the service I mostly shot 22s. The first pistol I shot extensively (1000 rds a week) was the M9A1 so you could say my NPOA was screwed up then . I can see how that may be an issue with shooters who are extensively trained on a 1911 grip angle and are switching between platforms (hence the release of the Springfield XD series). But I believe with consistent training and focusing on the front sight at close range (7 yds or less) would minimize any inaccuracy caused by switching grip styles.

[osxgp]

I think the only thing I dislike about my Glock is the "hump" on the grip which makes me as well as many, many others point high. It obviously didn't prevent me from owning a Glock.

PRO: Lightweight, basic to operate, proven reliability, affordable

CON: hump on grip

[SIGSHOOTR]

I can only speak about the G19 Gen 3 cuz it's the only Glock I own. It really is perfection IMO-- fits my hand like a glove; very accurate; great to shoot and it goes BANG every time I press the trigger (which is funny cuz I hated my G17-- didn't feel right at all to me). Some say it's ugly-- I say it's beauty lies in its utilitarian simplicity. Perhaps the only con I sometimes will hear about Glocks-- depending on the Gen and model-- the grip is not comfortable. But I just love my G19-- it's like it was made for me!

[Sam]

I think to disengage the grip safety you can hold the weapon naturally, but the thumb safety still requires a downward swipe of your thumb. Depending on your manual of arms when presenting the weapon from holster, one may still be manipulating the safety after establishing a firm, high grip and then breaking it reducing accuracy. I imagine Mr. Cooper and the folks at Gunsite will have a definite answer on that, but having personally experienced an adrenaline dump while handling firearms I wouldn't count on my thumb to be able to act independently of my death grip on a weapon. In fact the only way I could manipulate the charging handle on my rifle at that time was to hit it with a karate chop style motion, I couldn't even make a pincher grip.

I'm sure people with smaller hands like the 1911, however, I think most of the Glock = Brick comparisons come with the 45ACP series. I'd imagine the 40SW and 9 versions are readily adaptable to most hand sizes, otherwise a majority of law enforcement agencies in the States wouldn't be issuing Glocks. I personally don't have a problem with my 19, but that is why I sold my 21.

I don't really know what my NPOA for handguns, before I joined the service I mostly shot 22s. The first pistol I shot extensively (1000 rds a week) was the M9A1 so you could say my NPOA was screwed up then . I can see how that may be an issue with shooters who are extensively trained on a 1911 grip angle and are switching between platforms (hence the release of the Springfield XD series). But I believe with consistent training and focusing on the front sight at close range (7 yds or less) would minimize any inaccuracy caused by switching grip styles.

What grip style do you use? The thumb safety should automatically come off with a high, thumbs forward grip. No extra fine motor skills needed.

I find it funny that not having a safety is sometimes considered a good thing because "it slows down the draw" when nothing could be further from the truth.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[1 SIG fan]

On 1911s with a thumbs forward grip (for me!!!!)
I've found my self riding the safety up a lil and causing a trigger hesitation...

[VictorFranko]

Still working on my gen1 17 now past 10,000 rounds.Still waiting for the damn thing to jam someday!!!!!!

My Gen 3 is over 20,000 with one stovepipe, which I know I limp wristed during an IDPA match, felt it when I did it.

[fullspeed1]

1911 and Glocks. Apples and Oranges. Do some research on how many training instructors train with and recommend using either?

Glocks are simple. They are an evolution in firearms design, they are high capacity, lightweight, inexpensive, reliable, easy to field strip, low bore axis, ergonomic, and very low maintenance.

Try a Glock 19, its a good compromise over the 26 with the ability to conceal and use as a primary fighting tool with an accessory rail.

[roll2li]

What grip style do you use? The thumb safety should automatically come off with a high, thumbs forward grip. No extra fine motor skills needed.

I find it funny that not having a safety is sometimes considered a good thing because "it slows down the draw" when nothing could be further from the truth.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I use a very high grip, with my glocks I tend to my have thumbs pointed straight and canted into the thumb rest, but with 1911's I curl my thumb slightly like in Massad's article. I don't like leaving my thumb high like in the picture as I feel it reduces the strength of my grip. With revolvers I curl even more to avoid the powder burn:

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob85.html

Just for my information on your manual of arms with a 1911, when you assume the high grip is your pistol's safety disengaged while the weapon is in the holster? Or does your grip fully form and disengage the safety as the pistol comes into your chest or as you punch out and acquire the sights?

I have no doubt that a competent operator of any handgun with an external safety can train to release their weapon's safety and fire in the similar speed that one could have without a safety. I guarantee that you and a lot of 1911 shooters (I've seen a bunch) can do it faster than I can.

I'll never say disengaging the safety slows down the draw with training, and as noted in Massad's article and like you said disengaging the safety should be part of your grip as you adopt it. However, I want to rely on the least amount of fine motor skills, grip shifting and adjusting in a stressful situation. I understand the basis for comments like, "It's just a quick flick of a thumb," but again when I hope to operate at 50% of my capacity on a good day in a firefight I want all my odds stacked in my favor. Again the reason I don't want a frame safety is not in the sense that, "Oh it's an extra step that takes 0.005 seconds," it's because, "Oh I'm fighting for my life in a reactive situation, just crapped my pants, I have tunnel vision and can't see past a cone of 60 degrees in front of me and now I have to concentrate during my draw on hitting this safety lever so my reactive close range weapon will function." I hope that anyone who has a pistol with an external safety has trained so much the motion is "natural," but I know, and physiologists and combat vets will agree with me nothing is natural when you're in that first "Oh Sh**," stage other than running, screaming and flailing with your extremities in an attempt to hit your enemy; and if it comes between 1 fine motor control skill action and 2, I'm still going to go with 1.

If I chose to own a 1911 or a similar SA semi-auto pistol, it'd be imperative to have a external safety, because I don't believe it'd be safe to carry it in condition 1 otherwise. Then I would train extensively (on the order of 3000-5000 reps minimum) in an attempt to manage that reaction to try to ingrain that muscle memory during grip presentation to disengage all the safeties, but I'm not willing to bet my life or people's lives on it.

[rob474]

I personally like the no external safety just one more thing to worry about in a self defense situation. I know everyone has there own opinion of what they want in a gun so to each there own now as for the ka boom anything is possible but if it was the polymer frame being a problem it surprises me that so many other companies have went to it so i would think they feel it is safe and a good design to change to it!!!! I sold my 1911 and got a glock and have been extremely happy with my choice and I have put over 3000 rd's through it and have had zero problems but I have use factory rounds only I just feel safer with the factory rounds. so this is just my 2 cents for what it is worth

[lawaia]

???

i own a glock and can say from personal experience that they have horrible ergos, that they blow up, that there is no external safety, and they are cheap.

i dont think anyone could argue those points. i think its also fair to say that many people turn into fan boys and think that glocks are the greatest hand guns to own despite their obvious flaws.

I own a couple of Glocks, and I CAN argue those points. I like the ergos. Mine have never blown up. I don't want or need an external safety. Cheap? Define cheap. Obvious flaws? I see none.

I own several other handguns as well (Sig, HK, S&W). I like them all for different reasons.

Your hate of Glock is just as obnoxious as the ever-dying love of the "fan boys".

[Hipster Mike]

I would have bought the Glock had it felt right in my hand. But the XD just felt better for me. My wife liked the Glock and I will be buying her one once my 30 day wait is over.