now what is the downside

[GhostDog]

I can say this: When I was reloading, I never tried to load "hot" ammo, just plinking/range stuff (45ACP). It seems to me some cartridges are more "sensitive" than others. I think it's a combination of pressure and case design.

40S&W seems to be the "poster boy" for this. I realize you were trying to make a point about Glock chambers (which I won't argue/readily admit you are right) but I honestly believe a lot of the problem w/ reloads is the reloader. As far as brass is concerned, what is OK w/ 45ACP is most certainly NOT w/ 40S&W. All Glocks have big chambers. Combine this w/ the characteristics of the 40 cartridge, and a reloader had better closely check his/her brass. Remember when the 40 was new? I believe it was Federal that had problems with it's ammo (factory new no less). If I remember correctly, that led to a redesign of the interior of the 40 brass, in particular the web area of the brass. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

I also seem to remember reloaders, at that time, talking about only reloading the brass 3-4 times before tossing it.

If you find out what the NSN on those grips stands for, I would be interested to know.

[TGO David]

I think the biggest downside the Glocks is the amount of BS that people get for preferring them over other makes and models.

Sadly that's also the biggest downside that Wilson Combat owners suffer, that XD owners suffer, that Ruger owners suffer, that revolver owners suffer, that automatic owners suffer... etc.

[Mark@Sea]

As I mentioned before, I'm headed home this weekend. If I can remember that long, I'll dig those grips out and write down the NSN, then run it when I get back to the ship.

I never reloaded .40, so don't have any insights. .45ACP has been, for me, very forgiving to reload. I've reloaded some cases at least a half dozen times with no intolerable signs of wear (target loads, though).

Tungsten, the glock v 1911 cage match has been going on since about 15 minutes after the first glock was sold in this country. No doubt 95 years ago it was the 1911 vs the SAA

Neither pistol is perfect, but the glock has had some issues the 1911 has not faced. It is still a fairly new technology, I think, and there are still some areas where manufacturers need to learn a bit more. Still areas where shooters need to learn a bit more. Meanwhile, its' fun pulling Rabbis' chain ....

If I offend anyone, I apologize.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Mark@Sea

[GhostDog]

If that's the biggest problem I have in life, I'll be a lucky man!

Mark: I can't speak for anyone else, but thin skinned I'm not. No worries there. I agree (believe it or not) w/ you about 1911s. A good 1911 is a thing of beauty and a wonder to shoot. What soured me was that a bad one is a thorn in the side that never goes away. More so if you have a lot of money tied up in the darned thing.

[Mark@Sea]

That stinks. So does giving a "gunsmith" a serviceable pistol and getting a paperweight in return. About that time I decided I didn't need gnats-ass accuracy, extended, swept, tuned frippery or superdooper sights, and decided to stick with the original recipe. My groups suffered a little, but for real-world purposes rather than fun and games, they're still fine. It isn't vice-grip tight, but FTF/FTE's only happen when I feed it crappy ammo. Turns out that a well built box stock pistol is reliable, accurate enough for gunfighting distances, and easily maintained. Who'da thunk?

I guess I'm conditioned to like the 1911 trigger and grip angle. The glock IMO is a serviceable pistol that has an unsettling history of catastrophic failures. Steel is sure heavy, but it is also stronger and does a better job of containing a failure in the breech area. There are give and takes to both sides of the issue. No single right answer for every person that carries a pistol, and every make of pistol out there has a wart or two somewhere. Vinyl siding and plastic pistols are, to me, an offense against nature. Others see no point in toting around a heavy chunk of steel, especially when only old fart reactionaries and comicbook reading wannabe's refuse cutting edge technology.

Gotta keep a sense of humor about these things.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Mark@Sea

[Marswolf]

I've been waiting for refreshments and it looks like the Kool-Aid has finally arrived.

[Mike.357]

Mark, try this for you NSN thing

http://lrc3.monmouth.army.mil/nsn/nsndata/index.cfm

[GhostDog]

Resistance is futile!

[Marswolf]

You know, I started a topic some time ago (http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3267) asking people why they pack a Glock. I learned some stuff from that topic and I've learned some stuff from this one.

[Mark@Sea]

Guys, I was rudely interrupted by work in the middle of my last post... go back a page for a chuckle...

[Mike.357]

nothing to chuckle about there, just cold hard truth

[Guest Brian@GunDepot]

lol... nice comic strip there.

[Guest GregRN]

Glock's downside is the price of ammo, since you will shoot more instead of wasting range time clearing malfunctions.

Seriously, I personally saw a Glock malfunction for the first time last week. My wife limp-wristed our Glock 17 twice. I pulled the slide back each time and let it go before pulling the trigger to fire it myself.

As far as polygonal rifling, my new S&W 442 has it as well. It seems a lot of companies are copying Glock these days.

[Marswolf]

As far as polygonal rifling, my new S&W 442 has it as well. It seems a lot of companies are copying Glock these days.

I think polygonal rifling first appeared in the H&K VP70 in 1970. It also had a polymer frame.

Now who is doing the copying?

[TGO David]

As far as polygonal rifling, my new S&W 442 has it as well. It seems a lot of companies are copying Glock these days.

The HK P7 had polygonal rifling long before Gaston had made his first Glock. Sorry.

Edit... Crap, beaten to the punch by Mars.

Edited May 13, 2008 by TGO David
Blah!