I opening a can I guess, but..

[Smith]

My question has always been, if the great thing about them is they always work and have decent features then what about the myriad of other guns that you could say the same thing about. And what about the ones that do what a Glock does best, plus some things better? Why then the devout following if not mere groupie affection? Not meant as a slight, I just don't understand the devotion to something that is neither stand out or extraordinary in some unique fashion.

A 1911 I can understand. Even though it falls short in some ways to a Glock it has a unique history and unique trigger that I can understand setting it apart. But a Glock? I just don't get the strong attraction, unless it's a cult like draw.

[GhostDog]

I had almost forgotten. You made out OK on my failure w/ the Cougar. Hope you are happy w/ it. It was a great gun, just not my cup of tea.

Nate,

It depends on what you want a gun for. I've had 1911s; some worked, some didn't. They sure are purdy but some won't shoot for crap. If you like to tinker w/ them, they're great (I guess).

If you want a gun to shoot, that's something else. I think (my opinion only, I'm no expert) there are better options.

[Warbird]

while I enjoyed reading this thread I admit there is not much new here.

Seems you either drink the KoolAde or you don't.

It seems to that many of the people here do not in fact drink the "KoolAide", but have a diverse knowledge of many types of firearms and have a pretty fair understanding of a GLock's weaknesses and strengths. Most stated their opinions of those strengths here and weaknesses on another thread. Most have given to you fairly unbiased opinions.

What it seems to me to come down to, is that in your opinion, if you are a Glock fan, then you drink the "Koolade". That is complete and utter nonsense. I'm sure there are some who simply went and bought a gun because they read a lot of hype about any particular firearm, I think that's a minority here. You seem unhappy and mystified that people do not agree with your assertions, with your whole magazine worth of Glock experience to back you up, that a Glcok is an overhyped, overly expensive gun with no real tangible reason for its popularity..

Lastly I will say this, many of the world's best trained and best trainers, people who have been in the field and proven themselves, people who live a life of training and implementation swear by the Glock. Do you think they are all "Koolade" drinkers too. They could buy anything and most have shot everything. Personally it's not my dream gun, but I do own them and have carried them. They have a lot of positives and some negatives and I find a couple of better choices for me.

Iam still not sure what makes one better than the S&W Sigma. About all I have heard is the Sigma trigger sucks. And I disagree with that opinion. They smooth out nicely and it is not an issue.

If you like the Sigma good for you. I'm sure you are not alone, judging by its sales and fan base, you have that in common with at least 10 people out there. The point is if you like it that should be good enough for you, most don't and I happen to think that trigger sucks, designed that way or not, but that is just my opinion. You are the one who needs to like your gun, not me. That's why there are choices out there, no one gun is great for everyone.

I say you all failed in this task. I do not see it worth the extra expense to buy a Glock. Sounds like a decent but over priced firearm. And I still am clueless about their number code.

LOL., failed at what exactly? Convincing you that you are wrong on your assertions. I could care less if you agree with me, the question was asked what we think makes it so popular, that you don't get it. You already had your mind made up. Some of us listed the things that are good and bad about the Glock. That was all I intended to do. Your assumption is if you are a Glcok fan then you just drink the "Kololade" and most are just not enlightened like you are. Yeah right.

If you think the price of a Glock is really high then I am not sure what to say. Compared to what, the Sigma or a another S&W firearm? Sometimes you get what you pay for, sometimes you have to pay more for something because it is popular and demand is high, it all depends. To me a Glock is not an expensive firearm, there are many many that are a lot higher than that. The Glock in the grand scheme of things is pretty affordable. Sure you can buy things for less, but that doesn't mean you are getting a firearm just as good for less money. There are some real values out there, less expensive guns which are probably a better fit for some people and are also as good a gun. But, not always.

A gun has no soul, it is a tool. Some are prettier than others, some are masterful pieces of workmanship, some are not. Some ugly ones work magnificently, some don't. Some styles are great for some while others hate them. Buy and shoot what YOU like, not what someone else does. But, certainly don't cast aspersions on those who like popular guns because you can't see their worth. It doesn't make them koolade drinkers because so many like the same gun. Some people love to have this same argument and become fervent on the 1911, also going overboard on one side or the other. It's a tool, it has no soul it makes no decision, it would work better for some evil people out there who shoot it better than you. Buy them, shoot them, train as much as you can and understand how to use them well.

All in all the thread has been interesting.

Edited May 11, 2008 by Warbird

[Mike.357]

I could care less

Awful long post for someone who cares less.

[Ricochet]

I think sometimes it is frustrating when someone ask for others to give opinions or reasons why they do or don't like something and then they get accused of failing when all they did was exactly what was asked of them. Why bother to ask? I don't think anyone was trying to convince anyone to do what they do, they simply replied as requested. Far be it for me to care one way or the other if someone thinks I drink "the Koolaide". I don't just follow others because, but I do listen to what others may recommend and then I make the choice on what is best for me and that is all anyone should do.

[GhostDog]

If only more folks thought like that.

[Guest Boomhower]

My my. This has been interesting.....and I agree with you Mike, I like my Sigma better too. But come to think of it, I've never even owned a Glock.

[Guest Boomhower]

I had almost forgotten. You made out OK on my failure w/ the Cougar. Hope you are happy w/ it. It was a great gun, just not my cup of tea.

Yes, yes. Very well pleased. It's been a great addition for me.

[Guest Glockster27]

I own a Glock 27. It isn't pretty BUT it is accurate, easy to take down, easy to clean, easy to shoot and rugged. It's also a lot easier to conceal than my Sig P229.

[Guest Halfpint]

I don't own a Glock. I've shot one since I was 8, so I have some experience with them, being 22 now. I know that for some, fourteen years is not even long enough to make my voice heard--thankfully none of tho people to whom I refer are on this forum. I'll keep this as brief as possible.

Glocks work. Other manufactures/models work as well, some even better. I carry an H&K or Kimber, as I prefer single-action designs, but it is just that--preference. I like the way Glocks feel in my hand, I just prefer the feel of other guns more.

As for personal experiences, I've put over 15k rounds through a first-gen Glock 19, and it only had four malfunctions--all within the first two hundred rounds when I was "learning" the gun; remember, I was eight. As for my H&K, I've got going on 5k through it without a single manfunction. My Kimber, it's impossible to say exactly because I bought it used, but I personally have put 1k through it. It failed to feed three times--all within my first 50 rounds through the gun, using a cheap magazine I bought separately. I bought a Wilson magazine and haven't had any issues since.

To sum it up, I love my Kimber and my H&K--to be honest, I shoot them more accurately than anything else, but that's because I'm used to them. However, when and if the SHTF, if all I had with which to defend myself was a Glock, I have no doubt that it would work when needed.

They're not great, Perfect , or mystical. They're tools that have been proven to work when needed, just like the majority of other firearms out there. Period.

[deerslayer]

Anyone who excuses the lousy Sigma trigger as "not an issue" is probably not a very serious shooter.

[Guest atomemphis]

Disagree. I shoot this pistol very accurately (Sigma 9VE) when drawing from a holster and putting two or three in the silhouette at up to 30 ft.

I would not enter a bullseye competition with it. Or with a Glock. Or anything but a Bullseye competition handgun.

The trigger isn't lousy. It has a long pull, and it is moderately heavy.

The HK VP70, that had a horrendous trigger. Once you figured it out, it was an interesting gun to shoot.

[deerslayer]

Disagree. I shoot this pistol very accurately (Sigma 9VE) when drawing from a holster and putting two or three in the silhouette at up to 30 ft.

How quickly can you do this?

[Guest atomemphis]

The first 3? Very quickly, the felt recoil is nonexistant and even with just white dot sights, even when its dim, its easy to track it for follow up shots.

The only thing for a shooter to learn is to figure out how much take-up the trigger has before it fires.

My 1911 and 10/22 are no different, once the take up is recognized, the triggers are great (I have tinkered with the 10/22 trigger though, from the factory it did not break clean as I wanted).

Practice makes perfect is my opinion. People were killing people with guns that had far worse triggers long before this style was ever dreamt of.

[GhostDog]

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).

Edited May 12, 2008 by GhostDog

[Guest atomemphis]

Yes QC problems plagued the first Sigma series. Seems to not be an issue from anyone I've talked to regarding the current model (VE).

Wolff makes a spring for the trigger group that lightens it up a lot, but isn't recommended for carry use (for obvious reasons)

[GhostDog]

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.

[Mike.357]

Anyone who excuses the lousy Sigma trigger as "not an issue" is probably not a very serious shooter.

if someone is not a serious shooter is their opinion not valid?

[Guest atomemphis]

And what makes someone a serious shooter?

Do they not smile? Or is it quantifiable? Like X number of rounds down range in Y days/weeks/months/year

[molonlabetn]

A serious shooter is somebody who doesn't just do it for fun.

[Mike.357]

A serious shooter is somebody who doesn't just do it for fun.

again we are back to X number of rounds in Y number of days

I might only shoot ten rounds a week in practice with my carry weapon. Does this make me a serious shooter?

[Guest atomemphis]

Well I suppose you should count me as a serious shooter - only the 10/22 is just for fun. And the Sigma trigger is fine, but makes for a great reason to bash the gun if you like a different manufacturer's offerings better.

[Guest atomemphis]

I'd also like to comment that beyond the number of brass casings you send flying and holes you put in paper, is dry-firing, draw and shoot drills.

That's zero rounds down range, and is for the serious shooter.

[molonlabetn]

again we are back to X number of rounds in Y number of days

I might only shoot ten rounds a week in practice with my carry weapon. Does this make me a serious shooter?

No quantification at all... it's simply a mindset difference.

For some shooters it's recreation (hence 'recreational shooter'), and for others it's intended to be preparation (hence 'serious shooter'), or for competition/hunting (hence 'sport shooter'). That doesn't mean that there won't usually be some recreation in it for the serious guy and the guy who does it as a livelihood...

[Mike.357]

so from what I read I am a serious shooter part of the time and a recreational shooter part of the time.

Then my opinion of a Sigma trigger is valid