GhostDog

that the only opinion we've come up with is the "numbers" argument. Does that mean then, that we accept that a certain percentage of gun handlers are more likely to shoot themselves (and that this percentage is relatively constant)? Is this a gun "problem"? Is the solution to saddle ALL shooters with less "shootable" guns in a life and death confrontation, all in the hope that this will somehow make this percentage more "safe"? I will make another observation (for your consideration). We are talking about the dreaded "Glock leg" problem here for the most part. Why are we not discussing a problem with suspects being accidentally shot while being held at gunpoint? This has not changed and it doesn't matter what type of guns are involved. Could it be that people are being better trained for these high stress situations? What does that say about the "Glock leg" problem? Gun problem or training problem?

I too am a Glock fan. I prefer them because I shoot them best. Doesn't mean I think everything else is junk. But, back to the point. I have no doubt it has happed before. I dare say it happened even before Glocks and XDs were even invented. What I don't "get" is that some claim it has increased recently. Either: A)This is just plain not the case, It is true and always has been. It was just the best kept secret on the planet, or C) It is true (increased recently). If "C" is correct, why is that? THAT'S THE REAL QUESTION. You do make a very good point, it does seem to happen most often to LEOs. I guess that would be part 2 of my question; Why is it the trained professionals who are shooting themselves? Is it suddenly the guns, is it the officers, or is it the "training" the officers are getting?

I'm seeking serious opinions from you guys. Some folks on the forum insist that there are "better" guns out there than the striker fired guns in spite of the obvious success of these guns (Glock and XD in particular). One of the arguments they use to try to support their supposition is the dreaded "Glock leg/butt" (folks shooting themselves while holstering the pistol). My question is: Why has this become a problem now? Glocks have been in use for 20+ years but this "problem" has only surfaced in the last few. If it's a gun problem, why has it only recently appeared? The striker fired guns have many things in common but they also differ. I know this. The point of my question is not why you think one is better than the other. I would rather this not turn into another "mine is best" threads. That would be a waste. My point is that the guns are the same now as they were then, so why the "problem" now? What prompted me to start this thread was reading another thread in which one of the guys had an ND (almost lost a toe) with a gun that actually had a HAMMER (a statistical impossibility according to some). With that in mind, please share some opinions about my question. By the way, I'm in no way running the guy down. It's not like I've never shot an unarmed baseboard that was minding it's own business.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. You hit it on the head. The emperor has no clothes, the emperor has no clothes!

...that they work (really well), or bottom line, etc etc etc?

I say we just call them "perfection". Come on, Mars, I know you can't leave that one alone. Bring on the Haterade. On a serious note, aren't the Kahr pistols striker fired? I've never had one and was just wondering.

Just the usual Haterade from the usual suspects. Ignore it and press on.

In particular the T-grips.

Pot calling the kettle black?

That didn't look like a Glock.

Resistance is futile!

I've been called a lot of things by a lot of people. Cool was not one of them.

I think (but I could be wrong) most people are some combination of all of the above. There's probably nothing to be gained by all this hair splitting. I said before that the only way to know, is to find out yourself. Other peoples' opinions are fine but they won't necessarily work out the same way for you. Only you can decide if your opinion is "valid", whatever that means. If it works for you, it's obviously "valid". On a different note, for the guys who like the Sigma trigger, you should try a 4th gen S&W DAO (5943/5946/6946). The reset is longer than a Glock but they are VERY smooth and not too heavy. The are also very underrated and you can get one "for a song" right now.

If that's the biggest problem I have in life, I'll be a lucky man! Mark: I can't speak for anyone else, but thin skinned I'm not. No worries there. I agree (believe it or not) w/ you about 1911s. A good 1911 is a thing of beauty and a wonder to shoot. What soured me was that a bad one is a thorn in the side that never goes away. More so if you have a lot of money tied up in the darned thing.

Isn't it funny how some folks are quick to point out any problems w/ any Glocks over the years (even long after the problems have been fixed), but they forget about the problems w/ any other quality firearms? You and I can talk about the Sigma problems w/o bashing the pistols. Strange, huh? For example: Roll pins backing out of slides during firing (SIG classic series) SIG GSR growing pains 1911 pistols (even $2000 guns) that just won't work, no matter what you do or who you send it to Busted slides (Beretta) P7s that won't function w/ certain ammo and not recommended for other ammo (OK for HK but somehow not OK for Glock) The list goes on, but you get the point. Are these bad guns? Absolutely not, and the problems have been fixed. But I think you get the point. Just an observation on my part.

S&W had serious QC problems w/ the guns. I don't think this was a design problem, I think it was a manufacturer problem. Because of this, I have a personal bias against the guns. I haven't fired the gun but did handle/dry fire one. I didn't like the trigger but that's just me. I have heard that in the last few years the QC problems are no longer the case. Despite my personal bias, I would say that, today, they are good guns. If you like the trigger, it's a good gun at a good price (especially w/ S&W giving away 2 free mags). Not my cup of tea but the guns work as advertised. Probably a good choice for someone who wants a heavier trigger pull (somewhat akin to the NY1 Glock trigger as far as pull weight is concerned).

Without sounding bad (I hope), I really don't care what anyone thinks about what I carry. I have found, all by my lonesome, what works best for me. It's all about results. If you don't put holes it the right places faster than I do, don't bother trying to tell me what's best. I guess I'm just that kind of #^$&*. I've seen what works and what doesn't, and I know what works best for me. It seems to me, at least on this site, that those of us who like Glocks just end up trying to mitigate some of the BS that is said about the guns. They aren't perfect, but they are very good. We (Glock guys) don't spend all day running down other guns. This is an important distinction, I think. Just because I don't like certain guns doesn't mean they're "bad" and I won't say they are. The ONLY reason I even bother is because I know there are new shooters on the site and I don't want them to "buy into" the BS w/o checking it out for themselves. That would be a disservice to them and I think that is wrong. The best way to know anything is to find out for yourself. On another note, have you seen any coverage of Bill Clinton lately? Notice how "well" he responds to being challenged on any particular topic? Some people get so used to being given a pass on anything they say, that they just can't take it when someone has the unmitigated gall to stand up and say "I'm gonna have to call BS on that one". Just something to think about.

I can say this: When I was reloading, I never tried to load "hot" ammo, just plinking/range stuff (45ACP). It seems to me some cartridges are more "sensitive" than others. I think it's a combination of pressure and case design. 40S&W seems to be the "poster boy" for this. I realize you were trying to make a point about Glock chambers (which I won't argue/readily admit you are right) but I honestly believe a lot of the problem w/ reloads is the reloader. As far as brass is concerned, what is OK w/ 45ACP is most certainly NOT w/ 40S&W. All Glocks have big chambers. Combine this w/ the characteristics of the 40 cartridge, and a reloader had better closely check his/her brass. Remember when the 40 was new? I believe it was Federal that had problems with it's ammo (factory new no less). If I remember correctly, that led to a redesign of the interior of the 40 brass, in particular the web area of the brass. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. I also seem to remember reloaders, at that time, talking about only reloading the brass 3-4 times before tossing it. If you find out what the NSN on those grips stands for, I would be interested to know.

And they're made of plastic too. Everyone knows that will never work! Check the date on your info Mark. If it were milk, you could eat it w/ a spoon. Don't bother w/ a Glock. Just get a big, heavy gun w/ a crappy trigger that's very "safe". Don't buy ammo, put some ivory grips on it and stand around talking while the rest of us are shooting. And, by all means, get a gun w/ a fully supported chamber... like a 1911?!

just take Mars' "I'm the only one professional enough" test. If you "pass", you could: either cut off your index finger now and save yourself and the rest of the world a lot of trouble, or apply for the Police Chief's job in Riverdale Utah. That position may be open soon.

I'm sure HIS 9s are somehow "superior".

Tungston said it best, I hope you followed his advice. If not, you may have gotten a purdy gun you don't shoot as well.

If only more folks thought like that.

It's not just a Glock thing. I believe HK also uses it. I've never "tested" it myself but it supposedly gives somewhat higher velocities from the same length barrel but it does lead more quickly (don't shoot lead!). At least that's my understanding.

Spend the money you saved on ammo. Shoot the gun (a lot), learn the gun, and don't take any training or advice from internet ninjas. Then you won't need the butt/leg insurance.