Why Marswolf hates Glocks

[dcloudy777]

The P7 has the funky 110-degree grip angle only when uncocked. When the grip is squeezed and the gun ready to fire, the grip feels way more like my 1911 than a glock or a luger.

DanO

And by the way, the snippiness seemed to be started by one of Gaston's disciple's this time....

[Guest Eddie]

I apologize for my outburst.

I am always looking for suggestions/improvements, but after stating the obvious, speculation doesn't digest well with me.

I do feel that Glock makes a good carry firearm. After all, I bought one. They are light, cycle correctly, and there is a vast array of holsters available. I hope that everyone who owns a Glock hits their target every single time. Firearm ownership is very important to me, and I want every owner to find satisfaction in our pastime. However, they do not work for me as well as my other firearms. My last count was 13 non-Glocks, including a couple of antique, well worn H&R's, which by the way, do not shoot low. This also includes a couple of Kel Tec's, which will never win an award for a smooth trigger.

Perhaps, I too am outdated. If "poor trigger control" is the conclusion reached, based on the results of 1 gun versus 13 others, I'll remain old school.

[molonlabetn]

Glocks simply handle poorly (point high, shoot low) for those who are accustomed to other designs, initially, because they are trying to compensate for the universally acknowledged sub-standard ergonomics of the Glock grip-frame. For shooting, the Glock trigger is just fine... better than average, I'd say... but it's ergonomics and functionality compare with an AK. Robust yet awkward. They are not refined tools, and it is impossible to argue that they are. But it's equally impossible to argue that they do not function adequately for a broad range of uses, at a low cost.

[GhostDog]

"Universally acknowledged sub-standard ergonomics"... Hummm. Gonna have to call BS on that one. It's a tool, it works well. Everything else depends on the monkey behind the tool. Sounds like more opinion than fact. The proof is in the results.

[The Rabbi]

Yes, even though everybody's hand is different, somehow the Glock manages to deliver substandard ergonomics to everyone. Even the people who swear by them.

Nah, no BS there...

[Guest DonRickles]

Sh!**y ergonnomics or not I bet Gaston is laughing all the way to the bank. The 1911 may well be the most popular "type" of handgun. But Glock has gotta be in the running for the most popular, best selling maker of handguns of all time. I have heard many people compare them to AK's that is quite a compliment. As the saying goes 100 million peasants can't be wrong......I was wondering if we should get Tungsten to make a Glock Haters/Lovers section of TGO(as opposed to the whole site) so that we could always go there whenever we felt the need to bash or praise Glocks. That way we could spend more time debating new and intellectually stimulating subjects like concealed or open carry?...............

[GhostDog]

Speaking of the AK, maybe one of you rifle guys can explain the difference to me between this new 6.8 whatever round and a 7.62X39. If a man thinks that .223 is so bad, why can't he just admit the Russian round is the answer? Why reinvent the wheel? Sounds like salesmanship rather than an honest search for something better. But, then again, I could be wrong.

[Marswolf]

Actually, I think marketing and salesmanship is the answer to a lot of questions.

One question is why Glocks sell so many guns.

I think we Americans buy 1911s because of tradition. I've owned, or own, a bunch of them, but I've never ever carried one.

AKs have their place, just as ARs have their place. Just like in handguns, you have to look at the pluses and minuses of each weapons system in each of its available calibers and the situation you find yourself in.

[Guest Verbal Kint]

Speaking of the AK, maybe one of you rifle guys can explain the difference to me between this new 6.8 whatever round and a 7.62X39. If a man thinks that .223 is so bad, why can't he just admit the Russian round is the answer? Why reinvent the wheel? Sounds like salesmanship rather than an honest search for something better. But, then again, I could be wrong.

Here's the video that Discovery Channel's "Future Weapons" did on the 5.56/7.62/6.8SPC comparison. It was showcasing the Barret M468 rifle, but explains and shows the difference between the rounds.

[ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=fmX6DNUlq-M[/ame]

[dralarms]

I gotta get me one of those.

[Guest Verbal Kint]

I gotta get me one of those.

Yeah, it's on my list as well. Maybe after tax season. First, I have to buy the wife a handgun as she's been bitten by the bug. I foresee a lot more toys in the house now.

[GhostDog]

I guess that makes it a little clearer. Then again, I'm not really a rifle guy.

Wrong answer, Mars! In the mid 80s you might have had a point, but these days it's about results. That's why Glock sells so many pistols. Even their well documented mistakes (like the early 40S&W barrels) haven't sunk them. That says something about the results. You don't have to like it, but there it is. I guess we will see how this 6.8SPC does, time will tell.

[Guest DonRickles]

Thank god for people like Ronnie Barrett! While I agree that the 7.62 x 39 has an effective range of 350 meters. The shooting tests he was doing appeared to be at a much shorter distance than that. The shots through the car door didn't even look like 100 yards. The initial reports about the 6.8 from the military are positive. The 6.8 is an interesting round but unless their is a major shift to rifles in that caliber it will remain a niche round. Widespread availability and price are two current deterrents. Besides, if I a civilian have a reason to shoot someone more than 300 meters away then I am gonna use a .308 or larger. I think I will start a rifle calibre comparison thread in the rifles section.

[Guest Len]

Yummy!

I have absolutely no need for a Barret M468, but after watching the video, I must have one anyway!

Here's the video that Discovery Channel's "Future Weapons" did on the 5.56/7.62/6.8SPC comparison. It was showcasing the Barret M468 rifle, but explains and shows the difference between the rounds.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fmX6DNUlq-M

[Guest Verbal Kint]

Yummy!

I have absolutely no need for a Barret M468, but after watching the video, I must have one anyway!

I'm in the same boat... absolutely no need for one... but the desire is there.

However, I'm not going to fork over the price tag Barret is sticking one one. Plenty of other 6.8SPC flavors out there, that are just as good, as Joe at Hero Gear can help point out. I, personally, am eyeing an LMT build in that caliber. Still won't be cheap, but a lot less money that Barret is asking currently.

[Marswolf]

Wrong answer, Mars!

Nah. Law enforcement buys Glocks because they work in their situation, don't have a hammer to scare the public or a safety to get in the way, and are relatively cheap for a reliable duty weapon.

The public buys them because the cops have them and because they see all those glossy ads. They think they are buying prestige. Sort of like BMW owners think they are hot snot stuff, but are looked down upon by people who can afford Ferraris and real cars.

[The Rabbi]

No, some members of the public do that. I have sold them occasionally by pointing out "this is what (or similar to) Metro PD carry."

But a lot of people carry them because they actually like them. They have tried other guns, they have owned and carried other guns. And they like the Glock and all that goes with it.

More power to 'em.

[Mike.357]

They have tried other guns, they have owned and carried other guns. And they like the Glock and all that goes with it.

Just goes to show there is no accounting for taste

[GhostDog]

They (Glocks) work, really well, plain and simple. This is the same thing that keeps your beloved HKs going. They're overcomplicated and overpriced but they do work very well.

[Guest db99wj]

Yummy!

I have absolutely no need for a Barret M468, but after watching the video, I must have one anyway!

Yep! Sure is!

[Marswolf]

I see carrying a Glock for personal protection sort of like having a gambling addiction. You probably start for social reasons, so that others can see that you are one of the crowd. Then your actions turn out to be potentially self destructive. You are only hurting yourself and loved ones by your actions but it isn't a sensible thing to do.

Everything a Glock can do can be done better with other handguns on the market. It was a step forward in 1989. But today's world is full of accurate, highly reliable and safer handguns. Many are also less expensive.

I think it's a perceived status thing. I can't see any logical reason to carry a Glock and I see a lot of reasons to not do so.

[Guest Steelharp]

Everything a Glock can do can be done better with other handguns on the market.

A handgun's job is to put whatever round it fires to an impact zone that you are aiming it toward, reliably and consistently. If it doesn't do that, regardless of cost or manufacturer, it's not a good gun. If it does do it, it's good.

"Better..." Sheesh... that's the realm of subjectivity. Whatever's better for whomever. Blanket, objective statements don't belong there.

[The Rabbi]

I see carrying a Glock for personal protection sort of like having a gambling addiction. You probably start for social reasons, so that others can see that you are one of the crowd. Then your actions turn out to be potentially self destructive. You are only hurting yourself and loved ones by your actions but it isn't a sensible thing to do.

Everything a Glock can do can be done better with other handguns on the market. It was a step forward in 1989. But today's world is full of accurate, highly reliable and safer handguns. Many are also less expensive.

I think it's a perceived status thing. I can't see any logical reason to carry a Glock and I see a lot of reasons to not do so.

Yet another winner of a post demonstrating why some very good folks have stopped posting here. Thanks, Mars.

[Marswolf]

I try to be of service.

[The Rabbi]

I try to be of service.

Don't try so hard.