GhostDog

I'll wear an HK hat (if someone can provide one) next month but I'd still like a pic of Mars in a Glock hat! Right now I'm just hoping I can make it.

You bring up an interesting point (about being able to look at the pistol and tell it's condition). When I clear a Glock I always dry fire it before putting it away or doing anything else with it. After being dry fired, the Glock trigger stays in the rearward position (next to the frame) and won't move until it's cocked/loaded. One look and you can tell. I will agree that some other means to take the guns down might be better, but it still doesn't excuse being "a bigger idiot", to quote someone else on the board.

Where's the picture of Mars in the GLOCK hat???

Rabbi, I like the one about the bigger idiot. I'll try to remember that one. Phantom pretty well summed it up. As an ex-cop/POST certified firearms instructor, I have seen the same thing he refers to. Too many cops just don't see it as an INDIVIDUAL responsibility (firearms skills/safety). If the department doesn't pay for it, they just won't do it. I never understood that mentality since it's not their butts on the line, but the officer's. Oh well... I don't really get the other argument either. We can all agree that it would be better if you didn't have to dry fire the gun to take it apart but that only explains a possible ND (into a barrel, corner, or other SAFE DIRECTION). Why in the %$#^*& would you point it at SOMEONE to dry fire it, regardless of why you were doing it!? I never understood that one either. Maybe it's just me.

First we argue about Glocks and now you've started an arms race!

Some guns are so "safe" that they are practically unshootable. If we're not careful about blaming problems on the guns instead of the actual responsible party (ie. the shooter), that is exactly what we will all be saddled with (by the politicians). As to the "fallacy" of the argument about the number of guns vs number of incidents, this is a pretty safe argument for you guys to make. The number of DAK/LEM/ect. will never equal (by a long shot) the number of Glocks in use, so it will be pretty much impossible for anyone to disprove your theory. How comfortable for you! Nothing like putting forth an argument that is impossible to disprove, is there? Let's just bury the hatchet (not in each other) and let this drop.

I was prepared to let this drop. But then I started reading the posts and was overcome w/ a wave of common sense. Sorry about that. At this point, I'm done. Maybe we can move on to other topics (that we can agree on).

"But when you touch the trigger, the hammer snaps back and your trigger acts like a smooth single action". Isn't this what some folks slam Glocks for? Because the hammer looks like it isn't cocked, does that make it "safer"? This would be funny if you guys didn't actually believe it! Oh well, maybe when people start shooting themselves w/ these wonder weapons, ya'll will see the light. You can't legislate common sense and you can't make an idiot proof pistol. You can, however, make a lot of money if you can convince people that you have. Actually, I doubt there will be an increase in NDs w/ these pistols because I doubt there will be an increase in sales of these pistols. The same people who now have DA/SA SIGs will buy the DAK and those w/ DA/SA HKs will buy the LEM. I don't believe there will be a marked increase in the number of these pistols in use over what currently exists. So... the same guys who have already had NDs w/ cocked DA pistols will have NDs w/ their new and improved system, but it won't constitute an increase.

I just read your last post. After re-reading my post from yesterday, it struck me as being more acidic than I had intended. I apologize, I didn't mean it to sound that way. I want to keep this exchange friendly. Having said that, now I'm gonna poke you in the eye again. That HK trigger system sounds very German. We'll see if it survives "energetic" use. Do you know why the Germans never killed Hitler? Because they let Germans come up w/ the plan. They should have hired a Russian. The Russian would have beat his brains out w/ an ax handle and he would never have survived to 1945.

I think he pretty much summed it up. Mars, We just aren't going to agree (on this anyway:D). I think we just have different priorities in handguns. I don't know why Glock won't change the 40S&Ws, maybe they fear a decline in reliability. I still don't thinks it's a problem w/ quality ammo. Also, I didn't say Glock had no PR problems, what I did say was that they haven't suffered much because of them. I'll never buy the ND excuses. It's a people problem, always has been and always will be. Some guns may be more prone to this w/ poorly trained shooters but the same guns are easier to shoot fast and accurately. Those same shooters are just as likely to shoot themselves w/ a cocked DA pistol. That was the point I was trying (poorly) to make. I guess the only way to settle this like gentlemen is water guns at 10 paces at dawn. Bring a Second and plenty of towels (you'll need them). I plan on taking advantage of you while you're trying to cock your waterpistol.

At least I got you to admit that some of what you say is opinion. There may be hope for you yet. As far as de-cocking is concerned, I just don't know how smart it may be to over complicate what should be kept as simple as possible. I wonder how many NDs occur when folks try to reholster cocked DA pistols. I guess there would be more if there were more of the guns out there in use. There can be no argument that there are more Glocks in use and, in my opinion, that is why there are more reported NDs w/ them. If all pistols in the US were HKs, you would have more reported NDs w/ them. More guns in use=more reported cases. It's a software problem (ie. people), not a hardware problem. The picture of the "Glock shorts" (which is pretty funny) proves my point. Apparently, a lot of the problems are w/ reholstering. What could be the cause of that? I guess it must be the gun's fault, it couldn't possibly be the knucklehead w/ his finger on the trigger while he jams the gun into the holster. Do Glocks have problems? Yes, they do. 40S&W is the poster boy for this. However, if one doesn't want to deal w/ the unsupported chamber, just get a different gun or don't shoot crappy ammo. Remember the Beretta problems in the late 80s/early 90s. There were all sorts of reasons given and Beretta fixed the problem eventually. Even so, they never really recovered from a PR perspective. In my experience, Berettas are great guns, but their sales still lag behind others due to the PR mess way back when. Despite the problems w/ the 40S&W Glocks, Glock does not seem to have suffered from it like Beretta has. I wonder why that is? It might have something to do w/ providing an excellent gun at a much better price. A better analogy might be Mustang vs Porsche. If the Mustang will do everything you need it to do, why waste money on a Porsche?... Unless you just appreciate art and have the extra money. Better to spend the extra money on driving lessons. You just can't beat a good, utilitarian, reliable, rugged pistol that does what you need it to do when you need it. Simple to use and easy to fix in the rare cases that something breaks, these are also hallmarks of the Glock. Try that with an HK, Beretta, or SIG. There's nothing wrong w/ a certain amount of elitism, I guess. Everyone wants to feel special. But... in a jam, a good mule is better than a high strung quarter horse.

I don't believe I have ever said Glocks were the best. What I have said is that they are as good as any of the others that you mention. Glocks are not perfect. The out of battery detonations and unsupported chambers in 40S&W are legitimate problems. No argument here on these. The rest of your argument is opinion, not fact. One can "fix" perceived (by them) problems by, for example, installing an 8-12lb trigger spring. This will not make them idiot-proof any more than making a DA revolver into a DAO will, but if it makes one "feel" better, oh well... As to 1911s, my experience has been that a reliable one should not be fooled with and one that isn't reliable, probably never will be. Some of the "improvements" have turned out to be less than great. The Kimber series II external extractor is a good example of what kind of improvements not to do. By the way, if Colt was so eager to "improve" the pistol, why did it take 70 years for them to "upgrade" to a firing pin block? Speaking of SIGs, I wouldn't give a nickel for a dozen of them. The bore axis is too high, they have too many Germanic levers, and they have a nasty tendency to have horrible DA triggers followed by lighter SA triggers than any factory 1911 ever thought of having. Not a good combination, in my humble opinion. The one good thing about them is that they are very reliable. The difference is that I will concede that most of my complaints about SIGs (other than the DA/SA trigger combo) is just my OPINION. Doesn't make them bad, just not my cup of tea. Once one cocks the hammer on a DA pistol, he probably has a lighter trigger than any Glock. I don't understand how anyone who advocates this can call the Glock trigger unsafe. Pistols that work as advertised are not unsafe, people are. Different pistols have different manuals of arms. Ignore that at your own risk. Doesn't mean they should all be modified to work the same. If I have an HK P7, I had better learn the manual of arms for that pistol. If I shoot myself w/ it, rest assured I won't try to sue HK because I am an idiot. Anyone who presents their opinions as fact, regardless of who agrees w/ them, runs the risk of looking foolish. Unless, of course, they are speaking to an audience that knows no better.

With the commercial, that is. It seems that we (Glock guys) are making the adult argument, while you guys are doing the opposite (as if there is really an idiotproof pistol out there). What's really rich, in my opinion, is that we're having this discussion about Glocks. I remember when the same arguments you make were made against 1911 pistols. I'm sure you remember: it will fire if dropped, trigger pull too light, outdated technology/bad design, too tough for the "average" shooter, ect. Now, magically, all those have disappeared. I wonder whatever happened to the people who used to say the same things about 1911s. I imagine they finally realized that they were "peeing up a rope" or public misinformation about the pistol changed so they lost their audience. I'm sure they never acknowledged that they just might be wrong.

I never thought the 40S&W would survive. If anyone finds a way to sell it to LE, it's future will be secured (meaning the 45GAP).

I think #6 pretty well sums up my sentiments exactly! Thanks, Molon.

You know the ones I'm talking about, like the one on an electrical appliance that says "don't use this product in your pool". The sticker on the Glock box could say "If you don't intend to become proficient in the safe use of this product, DON'T BUY IT". Of course, the sticker would then have to be put on every new car!

We may not agree, but I'm glad we've all kept our senses of humor. By the way Molon, nice touch w/ the crack about the polymer finger lock. I think you're right, trigger locks make about as much sense as a finger lock.

I'll be in Nashville for a ceremony w/ my daughter, so I can't make it. I would pay money to see Mars in a Glock cap.

Maybe you could suggest that they (those who like the LEM) try a Glock.

I love your avatar. I convinced my sons to watch "Dr. Strangelove". You gotta love that movie (but you do have to have to right kind of sense of humor to appreciate it!).

Sadly, I don't think he was trying to prove anything. I think it was just a matter of being cheap (didn't want to get two guns). You have probably seen it all, but I am still amazed at some of the things people do when it comes to the permit class. I'm gonna post this in the hope that it might help some of the newer shooters. If you guys have anything to add, please do. Also, if you think it might be better to move it somewhere else (training forum, maybe?), please do so. Here goes: Most permit instructors are more interested in a student being safe (gun handling) and knowing how the firearms functions than they are w/ how well the student shoots. The shooting portion of the permit course is not difficult. If a student knows how to use the sights and doesn't yank the trigger like they are trying to start a chainsaw, they will pass the shooting. It seems that people are too concerned w/ the shooting portion. Students should be safe w/ their firearms and know how it functions (believe it or not, this is often a problem). I would also suggest that students focus more on the state law portion of the course. What do you think, Phantom? After all, you actually teach the course. I just help out as an RO.

Glocks are Austrian. I guess I'm just one of the unwashed masses. Simple and effective are more important to me than style points.

Thought you might like this story: I was acting as an RO at a local permit class. A man and his wife were taking the course and he brought one gun for both of them to shoot (they were shooting on different relays at an indoor range). It was a S&W M29 (44 Mag). She wasn't a regular "shooter" and I could tell that she had had it w/ that gun after about 12 rounds fired (he only brought 44 Mag ammo, no 44 Special). I talked her into finishing w/ a range owned M586 shooting 38 Special ammo. She did great and the hubby never said a word. I think she had a "prayer meeting" w/ him when no one was looking!

Of course, she will have to decide for herself. But... you can't go wrong w/ a K frame S&W. Renting and shooting different guns is a good idea, but it's not quite the same as getting used to shooting the gun (over time). With the revolver, she could learn gun handling and trigger control w/ a simple, user friendly "bullet platform". Besides, she can always sell it later and buy a semi when she feels ready to take that on.

It's just the name of an obscure Forest Whitaker movie that I liked. It has no particular relevance for me. If you get a chance, check out the movie. I thought it was interesting (if somewhat strange).