now what is the downside

[Smith]

come on nsnate02 you know you want to come over to the dark side.

Yeah I know, I start the MNPD in June and will have to carry a G22! At least if i do like it, I can use the excuse that I HAVE to carry it.

One of my friends said when he started they gave him what looked to be like a confiscated G22 that hadn't been cleaned in 10 yrs as his issue weapon. He said he gave it a good CLP bath and brought it back to life.

[Guest Todd@CIS]

delete

Edited May 7, 2008 by Todd@CIS

[dcloudy777]

So... you want one right, Dan?

Actually I have a slightly modified G19.... pretty neat little gun. Amazing how a 1400rpm cyclic rate can change your opinion of something.

DanO

[Mark@Sea]

65 years ago, a young man in Europe was issued a Remington Rand. Two months ago I became its' custodian. 65 years from now, God willing, someone else will be caring for it.

65 years from now, that Glock will be landfill.

[Guest oldbs]

I don't find any downside. Easy to maintain and shoot, probably more accurate than I am capable of, reasonable to buy and upgrade. What more would you want in a functional piece.

[Warbird]

65 years ago, a young man in Europe was issued a Remington Rand. Two months ago I became its' custodian. 65 years from now, God willing, someone else will be caring for it.

65 years from now, that Glock will be landfill.

Why would you make such statements? This seems ludicrous to me. I really don't understand the adulation or the hatred of Glocks. It's purely preposterous.

Your statement for one cannot be supported with even the slightest bit of evidence. How many are in landfills today or were melted down compared to the number of 1911's? Do you have the numbers? For two, there are many many firearms that deserve the rubbish heap from the time they leave the factory and yet you pick one of the toughest of guns to castigate?

I have a 1911 from 1917, it is still doing well and has been in my family since 1917, but I don't shoot it. It is still in decent shape. I have a Glock which I have no reason to suggest will not be around when it is that 1911's age. Grow up. The snide comments are just silly and immature. The 1911 has just as many positives and negatives as the Glock, they are just different.

If you want to make a reasoned comment do so, but that comment just shows unreasoned discrimination. Jeesh, reminds me of what Twain said of keeping one's mouth shut to remove all doubt. That's my opinion for what it's worth.

Edited May 8, 2008 by Warbird

[Smith]

Why would you make such statements? This seems ludicrous to me. I really don't understand the adulation or the hatred of Glocks. It's purely preposterous.

Your statement for one cannot be supported with even the slightest bit of evidence. How many are in landfills today or were melted down compared to the number of 1911's? Do you have the numbers? For two, there are many many firearms that deserve the rubbish heap from the time they leave the factory and yet you pick one of the toughest of guns to castigate?

I have a 1911 from 1917, it is still around and has been in my family since 1917, but I don't shoot it. It is still in decent shape. I have a Glock which I have no reason to suggest will not be around when it is that 1911's age. Grow up. The snide comments are just silly and immature. The 1911 has just as many positives and negatives as the Glock, they are just different.

If you want to make a reasoned comment do so, but that comment just shows unreasoned discrimination. Jeesh, reminds me of what Twain said of keeping one's mouth shut to remove all doubt. That's my opinion for what it's worth.

I would usually use that same Twain quote to respond to this, but you did it so well!

[John Wall]

As a trainer of Armed Professionals and Civilians, I can say there are many downsides to using a Glock as a defensive firearm.

1. It is so reliable, you must set up stoppage reduction drills on purpose.

2. Since it is so popular, there are more accessories for it than for just about any pistol, excepting the 1911. Many goodies for the 1911 are to enhance reliability, or to improve on a deficient design. Goodies for the Glock are to enhance,,,,,, uhhhh, Oh yeah! sights. Like we are going to need precision sights in a gunfight.

3. Since the pistol is so simple, a little training goes a long way. Common sense rules with the Glock. On trigger, off safe. Off trigger, on safe. A novel idea. Darn, no safeties to forget about in a vital moment.

4. The Glock will shoot about ANY factory ammo, even if it was designed for submachine guns. I don't know of any factory ammo loaded with lead bullets. I have to run Premium fuel in my Cadillac. I am happy to do so, considering the level of performance. Same with the Glock.

5. Running a Glock in the dark is a walk in the park. You are not likely to have a gunfight in the daytime. In reduced light training, you do not have an excuse that the pistol was hard to operate.

6. There is only one trigger pull to master, so you have more time to shoot more bullets.

7. The double feed reduction drill is among the fastest for the Glock of any pistol made, so you have less time to fiddle with it.

8. Since the pistol is on the large side, it holds a lot of bullets, which is bad. There are many ways to hold a large firearm with both hands, but Marshall Dillon always shoots one handed, and AFTER the other guy shoots (and misses).

9. The Glock will run with very little maintenence, so you don't have a reason to fondle your new toy.

10. Glocks are not generally available from the factory with a nickle finish.

11. It is hard for a forensic firearms expert to determine WHICH Glock fired any particular bullet of the same caliber.

I am sure there are other downsides to these horrible pistols.

Edited May 8, 2008 by John Wall

[Guest jackdog]

+1 on tungsten's post

[DWARREN123]

Like anything, they fit some not all, some do not like the controls. I have owned and shot quite a few pistols and revolvers and find the GLOCK's are utility guns that work when you want them to.

Go with what you want and like.

KoolAid is okay but I like coffee better!

Edited May 8, 2008 by DWARREN123

[deerslayer]

I haven't drank any Kool Aid in a long time, but my thoughts on what I need from a carry / fighting pistol have evolved slightly over the past two years.

Same here--I used to despise Glocks, but I've come around over the past few years. For my purposes, they simply work better than anything else.

I'm with ya--no manual safety is an asset for me, but a liability for others. It all depends on what you like.

Downside? If you are careless with guns, the Glock is not for you. If you like to pull the trigger before you get it unholstered, go get something with a manual safety and a heavy trigger, perhaps even a Master lock. Also, the sights are an industry worst. I don't care one way or the other, because whatever brand I shoot will have a set of Ameriglo sights on it (narrow tritium front/wide black rear). And when will they ever dovetail the front?

As for the "Glock Nation," no group is as irrational and unreasonable as 1911 owners. Their guns jam and they buy new magazines and tinker with their extractors and change recoil springs and curse when they still jam, but then swear that their guns are unbeatable. The Glock and SIG guys just laugh at them.

[Smith]

As for the "Glock Nation," no group is as irrational and unreasonable as 1911 owners. Their guns jam and they buy new magazines and tinker with their extractors and change recoil springs and curse when they still jam, but then swear that their guns are unbeatable. The Glock and SIG guys just laugh at them.

+1, but they tend to be older military guys who can actually kill you before you see them!

[Guest price g]

[Moped]

I have two Glocks, a 17 and a 19, and a Springfield 1911 and I love all of them and would happily use any of them in a SHTF situation. I love the Glocks for all the reasons mentioned above and I love the 1911 because it was what I was trained on in the Army and a pistol I love to shoot.

[deerslayer]

+1, but they tend to be older military guys who can actually kill you before you see them!

[Mark@Sea]

Hey, Guys, why so defensive? Did I hit a nerve or something?

Look, glocks are made of plastic. Sooper dooper secret formula maybe, but plastic. As such, they are susceptible to many forms of damage that the steel 1911 isn't. Show me the pistol you are bragging on today twenty years from now, I will cheerfully salt and eat my words.

I have yet to find the venue where Glocks are outpricing historically significant 1911's. I don't expect this to change in 60 years, or even next week. Not to say you are wrong, but if you'd share this information I (and my banker) would be grateful.

Personally, I see no need to alter the 1911. JMB was a better gun designer than I'll ever be, and the original design suits just fine. If I thought I was gonna need it, I'd choose a SIG, a 1911, or even (heaven help us) a Beretta - a pistol I despise - before I'd pick a glock.

I don't like the feel of the grip. I don't like the angle of the grip. I don't like the safety system, the trigger itself falls far short of what I'd consider acceptable. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

This opinion may make me a fool... but if so, a fool I'll gladly be - and in my opinion, a better armed fool than some.

[Mark@Sea]

Glocks are pistols designed to the lowest common denominator. If that suits you, well and good. As for the rifling, it may be that you're a presidents' 100 level competitor, and can shoot well enough to determine the inherent differences. Hey, you meet all kinds on the internet. I bow to your superiour, ummm, intellect.

The question posed was what downsides are there to owning a glock. My response fit the question.

[Moped]

I bought my Glock 17 in 1990. It's had probably 4 to 5000 rounds down the tube in that time and other than a scratch or two on the slide it looks just like the day I came home with it. Shoots the same too, very good.

I did a smart thing in 1993. I gave it to my wife who loves shooting it, so I wouldn't be tempted to trade it. I was really bad about doing such nonsense back in those days. There are several trades and sales I wish I'd never done. Live and learn.

[Mark@Sea]

You didn't hear about the Atlanta PD returning all their pistols to glock, did you? UV damage, I think it was. Shoulda used sunblock, I guess. Kind of disconcerting to have your pistol crumble on you, I should think.

Not that I'm trying to knock anybody, but at one point I was shooting about 2000 rounds a month, for a couple years running. The pistol never missed a lick, looks and shoots the same now, nearly 20 years later, and I'd bet the trade in value is higher than a glock.

Don't think of that as a downside to the glock, think of it as an upside to the 1911.

Edited May 8, 2008 by Mark@Sea

[Moped]

Oh, I've had my share of 1911s too and I'll never be without one in my arsenal. I used to shoot both stock 1911a1s and 1911a1 NMs in the Army. I was on the Shooting Team for the Army Reserve for Tennessee and Alabama back in the Mid 90's. I've also owned an Auto-Ordnance (POS) and a Norinco that a SOB got from me when he found me not at home. It was a sweet pistol too! I took the Insurance money and replaced it with a Springfield 1911 in Stainless. It's used. I bought it off a buddy that just had to have something else. It's a tackdriver. I like it a lot!

But I still like my Glocks very much and no, my 17 shows no sign of crumbling anytime soon.

[deerslayer]

You didn't hear about the Atlanta PD returning all their pistols to glock, did you? UV damage, I think it was. Shoulda used sunblock, I guess. Kind of disconcerting to have your pistol crumble on you, I should think.

Not that I'm trying to knock anybody, but at one point I was shooting about 2000 rounds a month, for a couple years running. The pistol never missed a lick, looks and shoots the same now, nearly 20 years later, and I'd bet the trade in value is higher than a glock.

Don't think of that as a downside to the glock, think of it as an upside to the 1911.

Sunburned Glocks? I've heard it all.

[Mark@Sea]

I've heard that AO increased their quality drastically after they were bought out. Don't know personally, though. Gotta agree about the norinco - finish is ugly as homemade sin, but that is a tough son of a gun.

My original point was that the glock isn't gonna be the first choice of heirloom firearm when it comes time to hand it on to the next generation. Nor will it hold its' value like a quality 1911.

The well-known tendency of some glock owners to defend their chosen pistol, though, is hilarious. You ever see the legendary glock fanboy post? It's hilarious... heck, I'll post it below.

"However, in just a few minutes a Glock fanboy will come by and post a link to a test where a Glock was put in a blender filled with Drano, sulfuric acid, Coca-Cola, pirahna, and 2 pounds of industrial diamonds. A CAT D8bulldozer was then dropped on it from 1000 feet. The owner picked up the Glock, chambered a 155mm HE round, hit a post-it note at 917 miles, and then proceeded to run 726,761 rounds of Wolf ammo coated with Gorilla Glue with no failures."

[Moped]

The Norinco was pretty basic. I added a full length guide rod, a set of Wolf Springs, a flat main spring housing and a mag well to it and it ran like a Singer Sewing Machine! I used plink rocks with it at 100 yards over at the Y12 Pistol Range when we were doing unit qualifications for the Army Reserve. 500 rounds in a day was nothing to it!

[Mark@Sea]

I guess its' you and me against the world. I've done a little shooting at 100 yds with a 1911, but tell folks that and they just look at you funny, usually.

Here you go, Deerslayer: http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/g19_cracked.html

Edited May 8, 2008 by Mark@Sea

[GhostDog]

is having to hear all the BS the "non-believers" sling all the time.

Seriously though, I don't think I would want a Glock in 40S&W. On the other hand, I wouldn't want any gun in 40S&W. Also, the factory sights really do stink.