Why Marswolf hates Glocks

[Marswolf]

Well, it bothers me that some people with Glocks can't verbalize the good things the gun does and also admit the gun's failings. It's like some sort of hero worship. I don't mind that if someone is debating art, but a gun is just a tool. Some tools are better designed than others and many tool designs get better over time.

I think I give Glocks credit where due but also point out the gun's problems. I do the same with my H&Ks, Berettas, Kel-Tecs and other guns I own or have owned. They have good points and they have bad points. I think my assessment of the Glock design is both knowledgeable and fair.

I like the 1911 and have owned several including a couple right now, but it's almost a century old design and it remains a decent gun because it has evolved. It's very venerability is what makes it interesting to me. But it was nicknamed the jam-o-matic for a good reason in wars through at least Vietnam. The M16 is a forty year old design that I like, but it has some problems in modern warfare that I don't ignore.

Glock was innovative when it came out and still works OK for a lot of applications. But there are other Glock-like guns that have evolved from it and IMHO are better that it is. And there are other non-similar designs that are safer and provide more options while retaining the Glock accuracy and reliability. Why is that so hard for some people to admit?

[The Rabbi]

Gee, I carry a gun that was state of the art when it was designed in 1899, and standard Secret Service issue in 1960. It hasnt changed a lot since then nor do I see any reason to. And it works just as well now as then and is just as deadly, maybe more so with today's ammo.

[Guest Steelharp]

Marsvolf... you haf relatifs in Germany, ja?

[Marswolf]

Gee, I carry a gun that was state of the art when it was designed in 1899, and standard Secret Service issue in 1960.

Yeah, but it isn't state of the art now and isn't carried by SS because they have better weapons for their current situation. In 1989, Glock had something that filled a need. But even if the need hasn't changed, there are better weapons available to fill it today.

I think I have a mace around here somewhere that I don't use. Care to buy it for self-defense? It was state of the art in 12,000 BC.

[The Rabbi]

No, they have bought into the fad of thinking they need semi autos for their job. I know of no evidence that says people are better protected by the secret service because they switched from revolvers.

[GhostDog]

Some of your arguments against Glock are well reasoned (40S&W barrels) but most are just opinion. The "Glock leg" jokes and take down are BS IMHO. Give a monkey a hammer and someone is gonna get hurt, but don't blame the hammer.

As a matter of fact, a lot of the knocks you make on Glocks sound familiar. I seem to remember the same thing being said about 1911s back when revolvers ruled. That "light" (in other words shootable) trigger and cocked hammer were just too scary for most folks to be able to handle. Horse hockey!

Also, you yourself advocate COCKING the hammer on a DA pistol if you anticipate trouble. Pistols are reactive weapons; there's a good chance you won't be able to cock it when trouble rears it's ugly head. There is no such thing as a "safe" firearm, only safe users. If we're not careful (as gun owners), we will help our enemies (anit-gun/pro litigators) make our tools so safe that they are unusable.

Some of your points are well made and logical, but most are just opinion and bias.

[saintsfanbrian]

Back when guns only carried 1 or 5 or 6 bullets, shot placement mattered. Now it is spray and pray forget the manufacturer.

[Marswolf]

As I said, Ghostdog....

I saw nothing in your post suggesting that Glocks are anything less than perfect. (Except maybe in 40 S&W. Unfortunately I carry in that caliber)

[GhostDog]

The Glock 17/19 is perfect for ME. That's what I've said on a regular basis. They may not be perfect for everyone, but that doesn't mean they are sub-standard either.

A Glock pistol is basically a S&W M&P revolver with a tuned trigger and a 17/15/13 round cylinder: a perfect self-defense gun for police and others (including many military shooters). It's not the perfect tool for all by any means but neither is it as you choose to describe it. It's simple and it works. And, like a revolver, if the shooter insists on keeping his/her finger on the trigger all the time, eventually that shooter will pay the price.

You can pay more for something else but you won't get more where it counts.

Several guns are as good, but none are better for a general purpose self-defense handgun.

[The Rabbi]

A Glock pistol is basically a S&W M&P revolver with a tuned trigger and a 17/15/13 round cylinder: a perfect self-defense gun for police and others (including many military shooters).

Give me a freakin' break.

Otherwise I agree with the rest of your post.

[GhostDog]

Rabbi, surely I haven't offended your revolver purist soul. Tell me you aren't a gun snob too.

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi, surely I haven't offended your revolver purist soul. Tell me you aren't a gun snob too.

A revolver isn't a gun. It's a work of art.

I hear this stuff about the Glock and its nonsense. I agree that it has a barrel like a revolver, a trigger sort of like a revolver, and it shoots bullets. But that's about the only points of comparison.

The trigger is in no way comparable to a revolver. This accounts for the large number of ADs with the gun compared to the revolver era. It isnt that the Glock isn't safe, it's that it is very unforgiving when people violate basic safety rules.

A revolver will pack more punch into a smaller package than an auto more reliably any day. It will shoot more accurately than many semis because its barrel is pinned/screwed into the frame. It potentially will shoot faster because the shooter controls all the action in the gun. A revolver's ergonomics are worse than a semi and it takes longer to master one.

So they are not really comparable at all. Both great weapons though.

[GhostDog]

I know what you're saying. Of course the guns are very different. The point I was trying to make was that the Glock has filled the niche that the S&W revolver had previously filled, that's all. I didn't mean to insult your revovler "art".

IMHO the perfect revolver is a blued S&W K Frame, .357Mag, w/ 2.5-3" barrel. I have a pre-lock M65 w/ 3" barrel and love it (I know, it's not blued but you can't always have everything!). See Mars, I do shoot guns other than Glocks!

The only problem for me w/ other guns is that I shoot the Glocks so much better! I try to stick with what works best for me. Other guns are nice and purdy, but the Glocks work best for me.

[The Rabbi]

I dont know what niche that is. Law enforcement standard?

There's nothing wrong with Glocks and I sell them all the time (did so yesterday in fact to a green-card alien). They are a good safe choice, like a Timex or family station wagon.

But I dont see the comparison to S&W wheel guns.

[molonlabetn]

I think that Glocks are nearly the opposite of S&W revolvers...

Steel vs. Polymer

extreme ammunition capacity differences

DA/SA vs. pseudo-DAO trigger actions

Variety of ammunition which can be fired (.357mag, .38spl, lead bullets, wadcutters, etc... vs. jacketed ammo near nominal power)

No similarities I can see other than there is no safety on either one, and they were both carried by LE agencies (but, S&W revolvers were at one time adopted by the US Military, whereas Glocks were not).

[musicman]

But you can't put these...

on this!

(That's my PC 629.... yea, I'm a wheelgunner and proud!)

[The Rabbi]

Actually you probably could.

That thing isn't mutilated--er ported, is it?

[musicman]

Wouldn't the cylinder get in the way of putting the sights on the side?

The 629 is, yes. Shooting it with the same exact load, back to back with a similar 6" 629 w/o the port, the difference in rise is noticeable. That and I traded two TOTAL beater guns straight up for it. I'm happy, even if it isn't traditional and blued!

Does that help make up for my indiscrestion?

Sorry for the hi-jack! I can turn anything into a way to show off a nice 19!

[fury2neon]

Nah. Law enforcement buys Glocks because they work in their situation,

I thought LE's had Glocks because their departments bought them for them. If the Chief can save a buck or two buying Glocks over something else them he or she can upgrade their cruiser or office...

[Guest gms_77]

well now i'm new to the Glock world i've grown up shooting all kinds of guns revolvers and shotguns and deer rifles...no tactical type equipment at all but after i got my carry permit i looked at different pistols and i wanted somethin purely for defense that's why i went with a glock no hammer to pull no safety to fool with now that is very dangerous but to me any loaded weapon is dangerous. i hope i never have to use mine but if it happens i don't wanna have to pull hammer back and push the safety to fire and also i did have to learn to do some changing in the way i shoot to be accurate with the glock but all in all i'm happy with my glock but someday when the funds allow i hope to ad a 1911 to my collection.......just thought i'd add a lil somethin into this discussion from a newbie...

[Marswolf]

I thought LE's had Glocks because their departments bought them for them. If the Chief can save a buck or two buying Glocks over something else them he or she can upgrade their cruiser or office...

True in many cases. I also said they were, "relatively cheap for a reliable duty weapon." Some smaller departments don't buy the duty weapons for their officers. For officers buying their own weapons, there is less reason to carry a Glock, since they don't get the big department discounts. If I had limited resources, as cops normally do, I'd probably buy an XD or maybe a M&P.

i wanted somethin purely for defense that's why i went with a glock no hammer to pull no safety to fool with now that is very dangerous but to me any loaded weapon is dangerous. i hope i never have to use mine but if it happens i don't wanna have to pull hammer back and push the safety to fire

That's why I like a carry gun with no manual safety that can be fired either SA or DA. I carry normally in de-cocked fireable condition, but I can can easily cock it for SA if the situation looks like it might require a more likely and easier to get off more accurate shot.

To me, a gun that has no manual safety, fires SD/DA, can be easily cocked and de-cocked, can do a double-strike, and that has a well supported chamber is a winning combination. Except for my BUG, the four handguns I use for duty or personal protection carry can do all of those things. I see no reason to compromise.

[Guest drod]

Laws are meant for changing.

That is part of the constitution.

[Mike.357]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike.357

Laws are meant for changing.

That is part of the constitution.

Feeble attempt at humor on my part I guess

[GhostDog]

When life gets complicated, your survival tools shouldn't be. Stick w/ your Glock.

[Marswolf]

When life gets complicated, your survival tools shouldn't be.

Actually GhostDog, for some people (like cops) I agree. Where we disagree is that the Glock is the best tool in that situation. Today there are other choices.

But for the average concealed handgun carrier, IMHO they need a weapon that is not quite so easily fired. They are unlikely to ever need to do a lightning draw and fire, and a gun with a better history of not having NDs, and catastrophic failures if improperly loaded, is probably a good idea.

I keep looking at different scenarios and the best gun for that scenario. For some of them a Glock-like gun (reliable, no safety so always ready, no scary hammer) fits what is needed. But with other choices available, these days Glock never turns out to be the BEST choice. And for most scenarios, a non-Glock-like gun appears to be a better choice.

Glock users seem to like a lot of rules. Never use reloads. Always keep your finger off the trigger unless ready to fire. Always double-check the chamber before dry firing to field strip. Problem is, in the real world these things don't always happen. Why not just carry a handgun with a safer design?