now what is the downside

[Guest Grout]

The sights need replacing,the ergonomics suck and I have used the"Modern Technique" for decades and have fired tens of thousands of rds through Glocks of every size and caliber.

[The Rabbi]

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.

It's true that the Glock is not an "heirloom" pistol. It's a serious tool. And has proven to be so over and over.

As for holding its value, I don't think so. Check the depreciation on a Wilson Combat on Gunbroker. New ones appear to be in the 2500 range while no one will pay more than about 1500 for a used one. That's a lot of depreciation.

In any case these are nonsense arguments. It's like arguing that a Smith Model 41 is a better pistol than a Smith Model 642 because it can shoot accurately at 50 yards.

[Mark@Sea]

Even more shocking is the depreciation on a nice series 70 colt, NM colt, or those worn out pieces of junk from, say, 1917. They have to practically give them away.

While not a S&W expert, I do own a couple. Both qualify as antiques, both are very well made, both will no doubt outlast me by a good long stretch. I'm reasonably certain that neither will decrease in value. I think one of them would shoot quite handily at 50 yards, being a target masterpiece model from the late '50's or early '60's.

I will happily pay two thirds of the original MSRP on any pre-1970 S&W wheelgun in 90% or better condition that you might have in the case, though, if it'll make you feel better about the depreciation thing. Heck, I'm such a schmuck I'll pay the full original retail if they are still in the box, used or not. What can I say, I never had much financial sense.

Again, the question was what are possible downsides to the glock. If the original post had asked for recommendations on utilitarian, functional disposapistols*, the glock would be my second or third pick, easy. Okay, third or fourth.

* - if it falls into the swamp, your wallet might ache, but your heart won't.

Edited May 8, 2008 by Mark@Sea

[TGO David]

Yeah, well... you're ugly and your mom dresses you funny.

Seriously, what was this thread about again and why is there an incessant need to discuss the collectible value of the Glock versus any other firearm? I don't buy guns to collect them, while the case may be made that I do have the start of a small collection.

I buy guns to shoot them. I buy guns to carry them; the one of which I may be carrying now depends on the circumstances and attire. I buy guns because I enjoy them, not because I'm looking to provide an heirloom to my grandkids. If I wanted to provide an heirloom to them, I'd buy a tract of land somewhere and tell them "Here's something that will likely never depreciate."

This thread has become absurd. Can we just argue Fords vs. Chevys instead? That might be more entertaining and less divisive.

[Mark@Sea]

Uhh, Tungsten - I have a Plymouth...

[TGO David]

Uhh, Tungsten - I have a Plymouth...

It's going to be OK.

[TGO David]

Guess what gun I'm carrying today?

a. HK P2000

b. Wilson Combat 1911

c. Glock 19

d. None of the above

Answer: (D) None of the above. I'm carrying my J-frame #442. Rabbi and I agreed that we'd switch places and I'd carry a wheel gun today since he's carrying his new butt-toy.

[Mark@Sea]

Thanks, I feel better already

[Guest jackdog]

now that's a great ride.

[Mike.357]

this thread is very entertaining.

Though many posts are flat out DQ'd as off topic. The question at hand is downside to a Glock. More than a couple of posts are flaunting the things. I had another thread for those comments.

Nate pointed out

Polygonal rifling.

what is the purpose of this? What is the downside to it.

Mark made a great post or two in regards to the downside of a Glock. I love the "disposapistols" word. Good terminology.

A lot of people mention as a downside the grip angle. Maybe I am different in this regard but don't all guns have slightly different grip angles? My personal preference is for the angle of a 1851 Colt. Is the Glock grip angle flatter? That would seem awkward.

i have only shot one magazine through a Glock. and to say the leazt it left me rather unimpressed. More of a blah kind of feeling.

I think the comment " Glock has no soul" sums them up fairly well, where as a 1911 is all about some soul.

anyway I enjoyed this thread

[~Emily~]

I hate cliques no matter what the particular focal point is...

And sheep. That's probably why a Glock is far down my handgun wishlist.

I hate hanging around 90% of the Information Technology people out there because there seems to be a driving urge among them to constantly measure each other's e-dicks with the unit of measure being how much you know about the latest bleeding edge tech that still has no applicable use in the business world.

+1 Me, too! I hesitate telling anyone I'm even in IT.

Cliques suck. Pick the firearm that you like the best, shoot the best, and carry the most. Then shoot it and carry it religiously. THAT is the best firearm for YOU.

Yes and don't dismiss or dis anyone's else's choices. Gun choice is like a car choice. Most of the time it's purely personal. And financial. If I had unlimited funds I'd probably have more Berettas, 1911s, Sigs, revolvers, shotguns, XDs, Glocks, and bunches of others. I have shot all the ones I've mentioned but prefer some over the other. Does it make me less because I'll never drink the Kool-aid?

[Smith]

this thread is very entertaining.

Though many posts are flat out DQ'd as off topic. The question at hand is downside to a Glock. More than a couple of posts are flaunting the things. I had another thread for those comments.

Nate pointed out

what is the purpose of this? What is the downside to it.

Mark made a great post or two in regards to the downside of a Glock. I love the "disposapistols" word. Good terminology.

A lot of people mention as a downside the grip angle. Maybe I am different in this regard but don't all guns have slightly different grip angles? My personal preference is for the angle of a 1851 Colt. Is the Glock grip angle flatter? That would seem awkward.

i have only shot one magazine through a Glock. and to say the leazt it left me rather unimpressed. More of a blah kind of feeling.

I think the comment " Glock has no soul" sums them up fairly well, where as a 1911 is all about some soul.

anyway I enjoyed this thread

Polygonal rifling gives better accuracy due to less friction, supposedly. The downside is you can't use lead, which is kinda a moot point in a combat pistol.

Most modern pistols have similar grip angles based on the lines of the 1911. Then the differences are in width, ergonomics, stippling, small differences in radius, etc.

Glocks have a more angled grip which I supposed is based on an aggressive stance as opposed to a more relaxed shooting stance. Think a cop looking over his car door keeping cover as opposed to a traditional competition or target shooter.

[Mike.357]

Polygonal rifling gives better accuracy due to less friction, supposedly. The downside is you can't use lead,

does the polygonal rifling impart spin on the bullet? Why can't the bullet be lead?

[Mark@Sea]

I believe it is because if you use lead, in short order you are shooting a smoothbore. Polygonal rifling does spin the bullet, but doesn't have traditional lands and grooves.

[GhostDog]

It's not just a Glock thing. I believe HK also uses it.

I've never "tested" it myself but it supposedly gives somewhat higher velocities from the same length barrel but it does lead more quickly (don't shoot lead!). At least that's my understanding.

[Warbird]

Polygonal rifling has been used by HK for many many years. It uses peaks and valleys instead of the standard lands and grooves which are the same depth and angle throughout. Glock's polygonal is different from the one used by HK.

Polygonal rifling does a better job of holding gases back behind the bullet. Therefore you generally get a better spin and more accurate weapon than it would have been with a traditional rifling. That kind of barrel also lasts longer with traditional combat ammos. It does gunk quicker with lead though than traditional. It is the best choice for certain types of actions, such as that used by a P7. On other types of actions I don't know that the advantages are worth the effort. It is more expensive to make than a traditional rifling.

[Mike.357]

It is more expensive to make than a traditional rifling.

warbird now you hit on something. This then must be the reason for the higher price of a Glock than a certain knock off Glock.

Is the polygonal rifling a couple of hundred dollars higher in expense to make?

I am gonna google it but does anyone have an illustration of polygonal rifling?

never mind, found a illustration at the first site google brought up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygonal_rifling

[Mike.357]

this from Wiki about lead in a polygonal barrel

Lead bullets and polygonal rifling

The manufacturer Glock advises against using lead bullets (meaning bullets not covered by a copper jacket) in their polygonally rifled barrels, which has led to a widespread belief that polygonal rifling is not compatible with lead bullets. Noted firearms expert and barrel maker, the late Gale McMillan, has also commented that lead bullets and polygonal rifling are not a good mix. However, since neither H&K nor Kahr recommend against lead bullets in their polygonal rifled barrels, it is probable that there is an additional factor involved in Glock's warning. One explanation is that Glock barrels have a fairly sharp transition between the chamber and the rifling, and this area is prone to lead buildup if lead bullets are used. This buildup may result in failures to fully return to battery, allowing the gun to fire with the case not fully supported by the chamber, leading to a potentially dangerous case failure. The other explanation is that Glock's barrels may be more prone than normal to leading, which is the buildup of lead in the bore that happens in nearly all firearms firing high velocity lead bullets. This lead buildup must be cleaned out regularly, or the barrel can become constricted and result in higher than normal pressures.

[Warbird]

this from Wiki about lead in a polygonal barrel

This problem was corrected long ago by Glock, but still lead is not recommended. H&K also does recommend against using lead in some pistols, the P7 for instance because of the polygonal rifling, the gas cylinder and the fluted chamber instrumental in extraction all could be fouled up faster with lead.

I don't use lead anyway so it really makes no difference to me.

[Mark@Sea]

Upon pulling the trigger, the cartridge case would rupture and cause an explosion that would tear apart the gun and sometimes send fragments into the shooter's face.... One can notice a bulge in the fired case ejected from the pistol (even with target loads) to see the result of the unsupported chamber.

Fascinating article

Following a few links led me to this: http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/phase3.html

This explains what I saw at an IDPA event years back. That incident is the primary reason I don't own a glock. One juicy quote:

"This type of malfunction is non-reducible by currently trained methods." Yep, it required a hefty flathead, a hammer, and a 2x4. To be entirely fair, I feel sure they could have used a smaller block of wood, though.

Glock, however, is constantly improving their products.

Several articles concerning product improvements.

Edited May 11, 2008 by Mark@Sea
It just keeps getting better!

[GhostDog]

And they're made of plastic too. Everyone knows that will never work!

Check the date on your info Mark. If it were milk, you could eat it w/ a spoon.

Don't bother w/ a Glock. Just get a big, heavy gun w/ a crappy trigger that's very "safe". Don't buy ammo, put some ivory grips on it and stand around talking while the rest of us are shooting. And, by all means, get a gun w/ a fully supported chamber... like a 1911?!

[Guest Glockster27]

I would say the downside to a Glock is as follows:

a) will not fit everyones hands

NO manual safety (but neither does my Sig)

c) sites are not the best

d) bulky or chunky

Glocks are not for everyone. Which is why there are so many different gun makers around. I like mine and feel comfortable carrying it, shooting it and stake my life on it going Kaboom when I need it.

[Smith]

Here is a comparison of Polygonal (right) vs traditional (left) rifling from the wikipedia article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygonal_rifling

[Guest nraforlife]

No issues with Glocks here. I've had a few and always liked them. Personally, I like my S&W M&P 40c better than a Glock 27 BUT thats just me. If you want to be a snob you can always say that since you can afford a Wilson 1911 that everyone else's is inferior. If you 1) like it ) shoot it well and 3) its reliable, to heck with want anyone else thinks.

[Mark@Sea]

Don't bother w/ a Glock. Just get a big, heavy gun w/ a crappy trigger that's very "safe". Don't buy ammo, put some ivory grips on it and stand around talking while the rest of us are shooting. And, by all means, get a gun w/ a fully supported chamber... like a 1911?!

Ghostdog, thank you for the advice, but I have a 1911 already. I have a set of ivory stocks, too, how'd you guess!?? I don't use them, frankly they're too thick for me to get a comfortable grip. I keep them because they're the only set I've ever seen with an NSN stamped on the back. Colt emblems, too. Can't say for sure, but its' likely they're worth a buck or two. Got them from a retiring USN pistol team shooter, maybe 15 years ago. Clues welcomed if anyone can provide some provenance on these.

Speaking of unsupported chambers, though, I have an honest question that just occurred to me. Does the bulge at the base of the brass make it difficult to reload?