Why Marswolf hates Glocks

[Guest Steelharp]

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.

Actually, other than the reload part, I believe those others are part of the standard rules of firearm safety. Do you frequently walk around caressing your trigger? You never double check to make sure your gun is empty before you clean it? If you're that careless, should you be moderating a firearm forum?

[The Rabbi]

Actually, other than the reload part, I believe those others are part of the standard rules of firearm safety. Do you frequently walk around caressing your trigger? You never double check to make sure your gun is empty before you clean it?

"Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire."

"Unload gun before cleaning."

These appear in almost every book or manual on gun safety I've ever seen. Nothing here particular to Glocks. Yes, Glocks will be less forgiving if you don't follow these simple rules. But those are basic rules.

[GhostDog]

Handguns are defensive weapons; In other words, reactive survival tools. No matter who you are, police or not, you could very well finding yourself having to react rather than act. Granted, in a perfect world, you would see trouble coming and avoid it. Unfortunately, that may not turn out to be the case; you may have to react. A quick draw and ACCURATE, FAST defensive fire is exactly what is needed in a handgun. Thus the popularity of the 1911 pistol... and the Glock.

The only legit argument against the Glock is the chambers in the older 40S&W guns. The rest is just personal opinion.

I have noticed that the HK P7 is immune to these claims even though some of the same knocks could be made on it. Could it be because it's an HK? The reason the P7 never became more popular is the unique squeeze cocker and high price, not any other qualities of the gun (which were great IMHO).

[Marswolf]

"Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire."

"Unload gun before cleaning."

Yeah, people are SUPPOSED to do those things, but the reality is that they don't always follow the rules. I'm good about following the rules when I'm in the mood , but others apparently aren't from the reports we get. And other gun designs are less fussy about the user following those rules. Even in SA mode, many guns could have their triggers "caressed" forever without a ND.

I only have one gun that will fire if mindlessly disassembled with a round in the chamber or that requires dry firing to field strip. It's a little Saturday night special Sterling 25. Hasn't even been made since 1987. I keep it as a novelty and don't carry it. I also keep it as a show and tell example of bad gun design.

[Marswolf]

The only legit argument against the Glock is the chambers in the older 40S&W guns.

The 40 S&W Glocks were improved but not fixed. The M&P, for example, has what may reasonably be called a fully supported chamber. The Glock still does not. I spent some time several weeks ago confirming that the chamber support problem still exists, looking at current design Glocks. I see no excuse for Glock not fixing the problem unless their reliability requires the sloppy and dangerous chamber design.

Two of my four carry guns are H&Ks. The others are Beretta and Kel-Tec. I'm not wedded to any gun brand, nor will I dismiss a brand out of hand. To me, it's strictly a matter of design and function. I see no reason to say nice things about outdated or poor gun designs. The fact is that some guns are actually better than others and I think those should be held up as good examples, just as others should properly be denigrated for their poor design.

But you are probably right GhostDog. We may never agree. I see pluses and minuses in the decades old Glock design. I think Glocks are a decent, but not best, design for LE. And I think it is a poor choice for the average public self-protection carrier for reasons I've explained time and time again.

[GhostDog]

You have a right to your opinion just like anyone else. I just don't see how a man can carry a Kel-Tec and then rag on Glocks. But... then again, it's your butt on the line not mine.

Some of your opinions are logical but I always get the sneaking feeling that there's some subconscious gun snobbery at the bottom of it all.

[creeky]

I never game them much of a thought till this past weekend. First real chance

I've had to spend with them and shoot different sizes and calibers. Can't really

say I see much wornng with them myself. The Glock 22 I picked up I had

never fired before, and was amazed at how well I could knock the pins over.

Just as quick as my HK Compact that I practice with.

I see them as "Semi-Auto" revolvers... if that makes any sense.

Am I off to sell my HK? Nope. Will I ever own a Glock?

Probably a used one some day I'm sure. Would I try and

talk someone out of buying one? Naw... but I would restate

not to shoot lead or reloads through the thing. Other

than that... enjoy.

[Marswolf]

You have a right to your opinion just like anyone else. I just don't see how a man can carry a Kel-Tec and then rag on Glocks. But... then again, it's your butt on the line not mine.

Some of your opinions are logical but I always get the sneaking feeling that there's some subconscious gun snobbery at the bottom of it all.

Ghosty, I seldom give an opinion. I do state my conclusions on the other hand.

An opinion would be that black guns are prettier than green ones, or that Budweiser is better tasting than Old Milwaukee. A conclusion would be that Bud costs more than Old Milwaukee or that Glocks are an antiquated and a poor design by today's standards.

And how can you say in the same post that I am odd for packing a cheap Kel-Tec and then turn around and suggest that I'm a gun snob for carrying a H&K?

It's design and function, my friend.

I settled on the Kel-Tec as a BUG after trying three other guns, some more and some less expensive. I settled on the H&Ks after trying numerous guns for cc and oc, including two Glocks, a 1911, and a SIG. The Beretta is an old friend of a couple of decades of faithful service that still has its use in some parts of the world. It has saved my life on occasion and I still trust its design, workmanship, and flawless reliability.

Design and function....

[The Rabbi]

A conclusion would be that Bud costs more than Old Milwaukee or that Glocks are an antiquated and a poor design by today's standards.

I really don't care what you think about Glocks. Or any other gun for that matter.

The fact is that your monomania for Glock-hating has cost this forum some valuable members and their input. I spoke to two today in fact who mentioned this issue specifically.

Maybe we should poll the members to see how many find your comments valuable and/or insightful. I would set you to ignore but since you're a moderator that isn't possible. Maybe I'll need the virtual ignore feature.

[Marswolf]

Well, I don't think I'm the only one who drives people away, if that happens.

I observe stuff, analyze it. and draw conclusions from those observations.

What kind of talk does someone expect in a topic called Why Marswolf hates Glocks? Guess I could post a barbecue sauce recipe.

But I don't hate Glocks. Yet again, they work OK, but not great, as a duty weapon. But I have personal experience with them, and a bunch of other guns, having used them for business and pleasure for decades. Like any other gun, I can objectively see and comprehend their strengths and weaknesses. Some people don't want to hear anything except praise for their handgun choice. I'd be a lot less vocal if the Glock boosters would tone down their cheerleading and analyze rather than proselytize.

One of the functions of a gun board is for members to share their experience and analysis with other members. If all someone wants is a big pat on the back and attaboy for picking the same kind of gun some other member has, then there are lots of gun boards, like Glock Talk, out there to get their mindless ego fix.

I call them as I see them. I admit my mistakes and hope my stories of error will prevent someone else from making the same mistakes. I learn from other members and hope they learn from me. That's what I want out of online forums. I want to interact with people who think.

[saintsfanbrian]

Now you did it. You mentioned the "T" word.

[Guest Hyaloid]

I really don't care what you think about Glocks. Or any other gun for that matter.

The fact is that your monomania for Glock-hating has cost this forum some valuable members and their input. I spoke to two today in fact who mentioned this issue specifically.

Maybe we should poll the members to see how many find your comments valuable and/or insightful. I would set you to ignore but since you're a moderator that isn't possible. Maybe I'll need the virtual ignore feature.

They need to quit being ninnies.

[Guest Verbal Kint]

They need to quit being ninnies.

+1

[Guest DonRickles]

I'd be a lot less vocal if the Glock boosters would tone down their cheerleading and analyze rather than proselytize.

For every one example of Glock worship on this forum there are 10 examples of anti-Glock rhetoric.

[GhostDog]

There is a lot of anti-Glock BS. I guess that's the price of being on top.

I don't think I'm a "Glock nut", I just can't stand by and let the BS go unanswered. It's a character flaw.

To me, it's all about results. I couldn't care less about the design or manufacture of the gun. If it's reliable, shoots good, and lasts that about does it for me. I've tried and liked many, but none work as well for me as the Glocks (9mm to be specific).

There are many other guns I like, but wouldn't carry them to defend my life unless I had no choice. It's not that they wouldn't do, they would, just not as well as a good G17 or G19.

It's not personal, it's business.

[Marswolf]

Actually, I can understand why someone who carried a Glock professionally for years would want to do so after they retire. I just can't in good faith recommend them for people who are getting into carry for the first time or who want to change their carry gun.

I contend that there are better choices.

As to the ninnies (thank you Hyaloid ):

THE OVERDOERS

by Piet Hein

Truth shall emerge from the interplay

of attitudes freely debated.

Don't be mislead by fanatics who say

that only one truth should be stated:

truth is constructed in such a way

that it can't be exaggerated.

[molonlabetn]

I've yet to see anyone post that Glocks are junk (and I doubt anyone who takes part in these discussions would agree with that statement, either... I wouldn't). But, I've certainly seen it the other way around.

It's not bashing if reasons are presented for the negative opinion.

[TGO David]

This thread has become silly and the topic at hand is just divisive...

My desire is that citizens arm themselves for their own sake and for the protection of those that they love, as well as to exercise their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms.

What a person carries in regard to firearm type, brand, make or model is going to be as unique as they are. We all have our reasons for choosing the firearms that we do, and while others may not ever agree with those reasons, they made sense to us at the time of purchase.

Rather than continue to allow a thread like this to foster contempt among the participants, I am going to close this thread and say this on the subject of how we treat one another:

Let's not get mired down in the differences between us but rather focus on the commonalities that bind us together as supporters of 2nd Amendment issues and as enthusiasts of the shooting sports. We can sit here and argue Glock versus Kimber, Colt versus Smith and Wesson, revolver versus automatic and Ford versus Chevy until Hell freezes over but we will have gained nothing in the process.

There are so many other productive discussions that we can engage in! So let's do that and put this silly, divisive nonsense to bed.

Thanks.