GhostDog

about being beaten up. I enjoyed the debate too. Besides, I figured Mars would reappear to get the last word.

It got quiet after I left yesterday. Were you guys interested in the thread or just hanging around to take turns beating up on me?

Now I'm going out the door to work. Gotta love 16hr shifts. Talk to you guys later. And thanks for letting me get some sleep.

Now you're treating like Mars does and making me agree w/ you. Believe me, I don't think Gaston is the second coming, I just like his pistols. It may be that the "ideal" criterion was well known before, but it was also well ignored until the Glock pistols came along. You are absolutely right about the feel of the different DAO triggers. They vary quite a bit. All are very user friendly in my opinion. We each have to make our own choices in that area.

Oh yes they are too! And my daddy's bigger than yours!

You obviously know more about the internals than I do and I appreciate the information. But I don't think you're hearing what I'm saying. You used an interesting adverb in your narrative, "technically". That is my point. For the man behind the drawing board all those internal differences are terribly interesting. For the guy behind the trigger, they don't mean spit. The second strike capability is the only difference in operation and it's debatable whether that is of value or not. When these companies started on the DAK/LEM/whatever, they had a specific goal in mind. They had to compete w/ Glock (5-7lb consistent trigger). They chose different routes to get there but the goal was the same, a goal defined by Glock. I don't mean to be a knucklehead and I don't want to sound rude. SIGs, HKs, and Berettas are all fine pistols. They can all be counted on to go bang when you pull the trigger. They are not, however, better than a Glock. As a matter of fact, Glock has set the standard for what is best in a carry trigger (5-7lb consistent). I prefer a Glock, don't like SIGs at all. That doesn't mean I think SIGs are not good pistols, just not for me. To each his own. I think some folks just go through all kinds of mental contortions to run down Glocks. Some of this is just personal preference, some may be elitism. I don't know. I'll take any of those pistols in a pinch and be glad to have them. But... I would much prefer a Glock. Hey Mars, I'm sure you know the other side of the second strike debate. If it don't go bang the second time, you've just been wasting time. And I will give you this: the Glock trigger doesn't feel like any other. You have to get used to it. But I believe that's true of any pistol, even between two pistols of the same type. It's either to your liking or it isn't. But I'm sure you have noticed that the DAK/LEM share the other attributes of the Glock trigger (pull weight/reset), as well as having gotten rid of all those shiny levers.

I believe I have studiously avoided slamming any other guns (except in jest). I'm sure HKs are fine guns. What I am saying is that Glocks are every bit as good as any of them and, in some ways, better. As to the DAO/SA/DA argument, who cares what the guts of the gun look like or how they work. Bottom line, on the working end of things, the LEMs/DAKs ect work exactly as does the Glock. Consistent 5-7lb trigger and won't go bang when dropped. The internals and semantics are about as important as **** on a boar hog.

I agree w/ you on the LE vs Military point of view. One might choose a different tool if they were offensive as opposed to being reactive. However, all weapons are just tools, semantics aside. Any tool that works will do if you have the right guy behind it. I disagree about the DAK/LEM ect. Despite what the guts of the gun look like or how they work, the result is the same. The guns don't do bang when dropped and have a consistent 5-7lb trigger pull. In other words, they are a copy of the Glock action.

I saw (I was there, not just an internet story) a guy shoot a stuck bullet out of a G19 once (it was a squib reload and he didn't do this on purpose). It bulged the barrel but did no other damage. One new barrel later he was ready to go. I think a Glock could handle the SMG ammo but I don't think it's a very good idea for any pistol. If the DAOs are a result of "problems" w/ the Glock, why are they emulating the Glock trigger/action? Working nights, must sleep. I'm SURE we will continue this later.

I wouldn't even shoot those SMG rounds through YOUR Beretta! Also, all people need simple weapons. That's why our "privates" don't come w/ a safety! What you do w/ it is on you, don't blame the gear!

Here you are FORCING me to agree w/ you again! I've heard folks run down gunshop people for recommending revolvers to new shooters. I don't get it! Revolvers are a great choice for beginning shooters because of the very things you bring up, Mars. Not to mention the fact that nothing is better for learning trigger control and discipline than a good revolver. If one's shooting starts to slip or gets sloppy, try shooting a revolver for a while and then go back to the pistol. The results are eye opening. Unfortunately you are right, Mars. People sometimes choose firearms for all the wrong reasons. I have tried many, of all types, and choose the Glock because that's what works best FOR ME. I don't think it's the best thing since sliced bread, it's just what I shoot best and am most comfortable/confident with. Along the same lines, some people treat a firearm like a talisman. Buying it, shooting it once, and sticking it in a drawer or in your belt won't keep you safe. You have to learn to use it and practice. If you lack the commitment to do this, you just might be better off w/ a rabbit's foot. At least the rabbit's foot won't "go off" and hurt you or someone else. I hope that didn't sound "snooty", I didn't mean it that way. I don't know it all but what I do know, I've learned through hard work and my own stupidity (more nicely put: experience).

Do this in this case, that in another? When the rest of the world around you is getting complicated, simple is good. One way, always will carry the day. Levers are levers (more complications when simple is GOOD). SIG, HK, and Beretta are the very manufacturers coming out w/ their "new and improved" DAOs. Something, by the way, that S&W did some time ago and fairly well. The nasty foreign ammo is 99.9% for certain going to be 9mm which will not be a problem in a Glock (unless of course it fearures LEAD bullets). Still love you, Mars, but ain't buying it.

I think we both know that we're not going to change the other's mind. How about a truce? I think we can both agree on this: What really matters is the shooter's determination and skill. As long as he/she has a gun that goes bang every time he/she pulls the trigger, the type isn't all that critical. We would all be better off spending less money on more guns and more money on ammo and shooting what we have.

When you need the pistol, a Glock is exactly what you want!... a pistol that works, is quick and simple, and has a good trigger. What you don't want is a gun with two different trigger pulls (DA/SA), has a dozen levers on the side, or a safety that requires an ape's fingers to use (high on the slide). Why else, but the Glock, are all the rest playing catch-up w/ their DAOs and DAKs?

I'm no expert and I may be wrong. But... I don't believe that most of the people that Mars is describing go in w/ a pistol as their primary weapon. They may have a personal preference in sidearms but I doubt that's their main concern. It's kind of like asking a professional boxer what kind of socks he wears in the ring. He may like one type over another, but in probably ain't gonna be the deciding factor. Just my opinion.

I was a cop and firearms instructor for a long time, so I know what you mean. It always comes down to the commitment of the INDIVIDUAL as far as skill level is concerned. Some are excellent, some are not. But that's true in all things (not just police), isn't it? I don't have the experience to intelligently comment on the things and people you refer to. If I did comment, I would be guilty myself of spreading the BS (something I try hard to avoid). To me, the handgun is a reactive tool which is a product of police experience. That's probably why we disagree (different tools for different tasks). I will say this: Most (not all) that carry a gun into "harms way" don't get to choose. They have to take what they are given. All that matters at the end of the day is that they have; tools that work (Glock/HK/SIG/Beretta/M4/870 to name a few) and the skill and determination to put them to good use. By the way, don't go pulling any more Bill O'Reilly words on me like "hyperbole". And also... I still love my Glocks!

You make good arguments for your point of view and I respect that. But, I'm gonna have to call BS on that last comment. You know, the part about "those that know vs those that might have to". Any cop (or anyone else who carries) who doesn't operate under the assumption that he/she WILL someday have to fire his/her weapon will probably never get a shot off when the time comes. Handguns are reactive weapons. What fool would knowingly go to a gunfight w/ a pistol only? If we disagree, that's OK, I can live w/ it. But let's stay out of "ninjaland" w/ our argument, OK? Besides, your arguments are always well made and sensible. You are far above that kind of silliness and you don't need it to make your point. Respectfully, GhostDog

About the frame problem. That's the problem, we never really got the whole story about what caused the original problem. Also, that's why is put recall in quotation marks, it was the "recall" that... wasn't. Glock inc handled the whole thing very badly from start to finish, no defense from me on that one. However, we still disagree about the guns (surprise, surprise!). I don't think they have design problems. What they have is serious "how we deal w/ problems when they crop up" problems. The basic design is very sound or the guns wouldn't sell and work as well as they have. Just because one doesn't like the design, doesn't mean that the design is bad. Of course, that's just my opinion.

If you followed the back-and-forth between Mars and myself in other threads, you know already that I am a Glock fan. There are a few things that folks should know about the Glocks: 1) Glock factory barrels do not like lead bullets, don't use them. 2) Glocks have "generous" (large) chambers. This aids reliability and causes no problems in most calibers. 40S&W is the exception to this. Due to the nature of the caliber (not the most robust brass) and the fact that Glock factory barrels do not fully support the chamber, there have been problems in 40S&W Glock pistols (more than other makes). Mostly these problems were ammo related (especially reloads) but not in all cases. These are the characteristics of the pistols. Choose to use the guns or choose not to, but don't blame the gun if you knowingly ignore these characteristics. Having said that, I will not defend Glock when it comes to some of their customer service problems. For example: 1) The frame "recall"; At first they denied there was a problem blaming the usual suspects (bad ammo). Finally they admitted the problem and did the right thing by replacing the frames but it took a while (a looooong while). It turns out that they changed some of the dimensions of the frame rails (why? only they know) and this led to the problems. They switched back and the problems disappeared. It was poorly handled from the start. 2) NYPD G19 malfunction problem; The usual story w/ Glock. They dragged out the usual suspects and would not admit that there was a gun problem. Eventually they changed some of the feed ramp/magazine follower dimensions and fixed the problems. Took a looooong time. 3) Feeding problems w/ G22 and G27 (a recent development). This is just speculation on my part, but I would guess that this will turn out just like the frame and NYPD problems. Don't know if we'll ever know the whole story, but that's my opinion. It's worth what you paid for it. When it comes to dealing w/ John Q Public, they are great. If you have a problem, send it in and they fix it (usually free). However, when it comes to a problem w/ an agency or a modification (made by Glock) to one of the pistols that causes problems, they stick their heads in the sand and pretend it will go away. Don't know why they do this. It makes no sense, but that's what I have observed. I love the guns. They are extremely reliable, tough, easy to use/maintain, and combat accurate. Like anything else, do your homework before you buy. I wouldn't buy a G22 or G27 right now. I would wait until the current nonsense is resolved. On the other hand, if any of you have a G17 or G19 (regardless of when it was made) that you don't want, send it to me for a good home.

While at the range I shot some training drills (which reminded me of this thread). Triple S makes a good point. Know why you're training and what you want to gain from it. One will learn something from any training but certain training will be of more use to YOU in particular. Which brings something else to mind. I've often heard the argument of "training vs competition". I don't see as an "either/or" situation but as a "both is better". Competition is not a substitute for training, but training alone leaves something to be desired as well. It depends on the shooter (if they know what they hope to gain and how to get there from here). Competition stress is a training aid just as training drills are. This will not apply to the shooter who sees competition shooting the same way he views his golf game. That doesn't mean it has to be the same for all of us. In addition to this, different types of competition are more applicable than others as far as a permit holder is concerned. Shooting 25 targets on a single stage while running around in the open doesn't "do it" for me (take it easy IPSC shooters, don't gang up on me!) but that's not to say that it has no training value. It teaches gun handling, marksmanship, and shooting on the move. Unfortunately, it can also teach standing in the open and not knowing when to advance to the rear! It's up to the shooter to glean the useful and discard the rest. If this is ALL one does (no other type competition or training) then it will probably condition the shooter to bad habits (things that get you hurt) but, again, it's up to the shooter to understand this. On the other hand, if one sets up a competition stage with a specific goal in mind (what you want to teach/learn/condition), then competition can be a very useful form of training. It won't replace training but it will supplement it. For example: A man on man match: on signal both shooters draw and engage, first to knock down last (steel) target wins. Set up: one large steel target at 7yds, one paper at 3yds, and one small steel target at 10-12yds. Shooter must knock down large steel, engage paper with 2 rounds (at least one "5" hit), mandatory reload and knock down small steel. This does the following: 1) Conditions the shooter to gunfire other than his own in close proximity (which will crank up the stress) 2) Teaches shooter to adjust speed of fire (try to shoot the last target at the same speed as the paper and see what happens!) 3) Teaches speed reload under stress 4) Tests fundamentals (draw/presentation/ect.) 5) Shooter must THINK while shooting (gun handling/shooting fundamentals) If the shooter can't operate the pistol like "second nature" then he will get a mental overload when you throw in variables. So... please don't bother telling me that competition has no training value. It depends on the competition. Man, that was longwinded. Sorry guys.

I didn't mean to say that training is bad, quite the opposite. My teacher taught me that you can always learn something no matter what kind of training you are involved in (if you keep your eyes and ears open while keeping your mouth shut). The problem, I think, is that we sometimes spend too much time on advanced skills when we should be working on basic skills. To be honest, I don't know enough about some of this stuff (what Jackdog is referring to) to even know if it's good or bad. I'm an ex Air Force guy and an ex cop so what I know about small unit tactics would fit into a thimble with room to spare. I do, however, know this. If you can't handle the firearm (gun handling skills vs shooting skills) while doing other things (moving, getting to cover, watching the threat, ect.), you probably don't need the super ninja spook class just yet. I'm talking about myself as well as anyone else, so I'm not looking down my nose when I say that. I'm just a dumb ex cop, not an expert.

In my opinion... Too many people want to do the "high speed" stuff to the detriment of the "foundation" stuff. Good tactics is just all the simple stuff done smoothly/well. Like driving a car, one can only respond quickly to changing conditions on the road AFTER learning to operate the car without having to think about every simple action (ie. take foot off gas, apply to brake). Since none of us shoot as much as we drive, this is a constant battle for all of us. A good example is speed vs accuracy. We all know that when the target is farther away we must shoot slower to get good hits. Knowing is not doing. It takes constant practice. It is not so simple when you have to do this while doing several other things (in competition for example). I shoot competition at a small indoor range in Kingston. We have a small group of regular shooters. The shooting is IDPAish but we are not an IDPA club and are not bound by their rules so we have more latitude in the type of matches we set up. The matches are usually short (no 75 round stages) and try to simulate "real" shooting problems as much as possible. These are some of the things we do to help "train" ourselves better: 1) Low light shooting 2) Using different "go" signals (not just buzzer but lights and other signals) 3) At the "go", shooter must move/seek cover BEFORE drawing a firearm 4) Moving off line to the threat before engaging (just to name a few) We do this to try to keep from conditioning ourselves to set responses as well as to train ourselves to manage different problems while using the firearm. This is not "high speed" stuff. It is really simple but hopefully these kinds of simple skills will help us prevail if we ever have to defend ourselves with or without a firearm.

I've owned and used several of their holsters. They have always been top quality (in my humble opinion).

"Never wrestle a pig in the mud. You get dirty and the pig likes it." If hollow point ammo is so evil, why do ALL police departments use it? This is just stupid.

In Kingston (30min west of Knoxville) Frontier Firearms will do it for $25, no problems. I don't understand why some FFLs don't want to do it. I know they would rather that you buy a new gun from them, but it's still easy money. I've never been an FFL holder but I can't see the down side for them. They do a little bit of paperwork and get paid. If the gun is not as advertised, it's not their problem (that's between you and the seller). If I'm missing something, somebody enlighten me. I just don't get it.