I agree.I know some that do love them,and some as you said.There has also been quite a few departments getting rid of Glocks over the last few years.

I lost the document and article when my computer crashed so I'm relying on memory.

2-3 years ago a Canadian (I think) police department was getting rid of their Glocks because of problems,I believe one was the normal AD/NDs, and published it in a police newsletter or magazine.Glock got wind of it and threatened to sue them.Lo and behold 2 days later you couldn't find a mention of it anywhere,even the source I discovered it at had deleted everything pertaining to it.I've heard this isn't the first time Glock has tried to sue for slander,and is just another reason I don't think much of the company.

Here's an AD I read about,but not knowing Glock's internals I'm not sure how this happened.A Deputy was getting out of his cruiser and the butt smacked the steering wheel,somehow booting one through the floor,I don't think he took a hit but can't recall.When the armorer looked at it there was a piece of frame broke off,which was a limited problem on a batch,and jambed in there somehow.Their conclusion was that the smack torqued the grip and the way the piece was located it somehow tripped the striker.Glocks response was he pulled the trigger,only way it could go off.How can he do that in a duty holster?Like I said,I don't know Glocks inside,so I don't know if the striker is loaded enough to set off a primer at that spot or how to trip it from there.This one I'm not sure about.

I used to actually like Glocks.

I've owned a 17 and a 19 and a 26.

Until last week I'd traded all of the off for M&P's and XDm's

Why??

Glock had the world by the nose - because of cost, not quality, they swept through the law enforcement community.

I've heard numbers as high a 65% of all law enforcement carried a Glock at one time.

Now not so.

Through all of Glocks Generations .. they did not correct their short comings and stay abreast of the market place..

IMHO they got lazy


Market changes like:

Grip angle
decent backstrap system
decent slide serrations/grippiness.
Full ambidextrous .
Removable backstraps.
Did I mention Grip angle - oh ya I did
Texturing that doesn't rip skin off (the RTF).
Stainless steel slide
Stainless Steel guide rods
Grip Safety
Loaded chamber indicator
Cocked striker indicator
Don't have to pull trigger to take down
and many more

While I or you may not want all of these - some of them are certainly worth having.

The Glock Gen 4 came out and had few of them.

Go look at unbiased 3rd party video's from different business' about polymer guns, and you'll find lot's of negativeness on Glock vs. ???

Glock USA told Glock Austria YEARS ago (when the P99 came out, and the P2000) this should be upgraded on the Glocks as soon as they could.

Glock Austria, insisted they knew better.

After they lost enough $$$$ over the M&P, XDm and other polymer guns which had these features suddenly the Glock Perfection became Glock Perfection version 4.0.

I own a Glock, and have for a dozen years.

That doesn't mean the company always knows what it's doing.

S&W & XDm surpassed them because they gave customers more of what they wanted in a reliable package without costing $700.

That's my opinion .... might not be correct.

By the way I just bought this gun 2 weeks ago.

Glock 34



I've been changing sights, adding extended slide stops, working on the trigger etc. , etc.

I'm going to compete with it this weekend.

We'll see how it goes.

JMHO

purchased a G17 Gen4 3 weeks ago and a used G19 love both and previously purchased, and currently own Sig Sauer P226 9mm and .40, H&K USP COMP .45, Kimber Ultra Carry .45, Colt 1911 .38 Super, Walther PPK/S, Walther P22, Taurus 44 mag. So, I have no problem extending my firing horizions!

Originally Posted by goNYG

Maybe it's just me but I don't detect rampant "hate" towards Glocks.

Then, Sir, you are not paying attnetion.

I was a hater. I was convinced that criminals used GLOCK and that they were a cheap, trash gun. All this without ever having shot one or handled one, mind you. So, when my primary competition gun broke atrigger bar and had to go back to the factory, I needed another gun that I wouldn't get attached to. "Pick one you know you'll hate, then when Bessie gets back you can sell it and not feel bad" I said to myself. I bought a GLOCK 22. I took it to the range the first time, and Holy Shinola was it sweet. accurate, soft shooting, fast follow ups, decent mag drops--the whole package. I switched and made it my primary compeition/carry gun. Fan boy? Yeah, maybe, if your talking about a fan of peformance.

I don't get why people put stickers on their vehicle advertising guns,might as well invite them home to rob you.

It's not hate. It's indifference. I find Glocks about as interesting as a $12 Wal-mart coffee pot. To me they are an appliance for shooting, and not that interesting an appliance at that. That's not saying that they aren't good at their intended purpose. Reliable, practical? Sure. So is that $12 coffee pot.
To each their own.

Originally Posted by Overkill0084

It's not hate. It's indifference. I find Glocks about as interesting as a $12 Wal-mart coffee pot.

That's a perfect analogy.

I have nothing against glocks, xd's or any polymer gun for that matter. I respect glocks for what they are and what they are capable of doing. That being said I simply don't like striker fired guns and I don't like the grip angle on glocks. I tend to prefer hammer fired guns with an all metal body

When Glock first hit the market years ago they changed the way people looked at handguns. From the materials used in the frame to the trigger it went against everything that everyone knew in regards to firearms.

Yep in the beginning there were ND's in many departments however upon researching the incidents they found there was absolutely nothing wrong with the guns but it came down to a training issue. The following was taken from the book Glock: The Rise of America's Gun. (Paraphrased)

The Washington D.C Metro P.D. switched to the Glock in 1989 and was supported by officers and their FOP.

Almost immediately they began to shoot themselves and each other. In the decade after adopting the pistol there were more than 120 accidental discharges which resulted in 19 serious officer injuries. Police mistakenly wounded nine DC citizens and killed one. This resulted in city government paying out millions in damages however they did not blame the guns. After investigating the incidents they found it related back to three factors.

The department, responding to turnover and rising crime, hired 1500 new officers in just 18 months. It then failed to train many of the rookies. In many cases the rookies only received three days range time instead of the normal ten. They simply rushed them through to meet the numbers they needed. The final factor is that they issued the easy to fire Glock in the hands of every one of the untrained officers without further thought.
The pistol is an excellent first gun as it is simple and light, but without the training to go with it a new shooter is probably more likely to make a dangerous mistake with it as compared to other firearms.

It comes down to you simply have to know what you are doing. The Glock is a great gun but it is not as forgiving as other types. There is no safety to disengage, no hammer to look at to see if it is cocked it is a fighting pistol, point and shoot and may not be for everyone or anyone who does not want to train with it.

When I am home I ride my Harley's. I cannot tell you how many times I have been out somewhere and am approached by them and have them say "Yeah I have been riding dirt bikes, scooters, midsize bikes or whatever" and then state they are going to get of have bought an 850 pound touring bike but don't understand why they have trouble with riding slowly. You simply can't hop on that size of bike and expect to be able to handle it without knowing what you are doing.

Everyone must remember the gun is a tool and you are the craftsman that makes it work. A particular quote comes to mind from Col. Cooper "Just because you own a guitar does not make you a musician". I have been carrying a gun professionally in one way shape or form for over 30 years and in the last six years I have been carrying a variety of firearms in the war zones of the world where I am employed so I am basing my next comment on that experience. Glocks work when other weapons won't.
Many people like the looks of a gun and that is why they bought it. The Glock is not a thing of beauty unless you are looking at it from a purely fighting aspect then it is beautiful.

They are simple, direct and to the point. Insert a mag, chamber a round, holster and leave the damn thing alone until you need to shoot something. It is simple as that. There are very, very few ND/AD's due to mechanical failure of a firearm unless someone has attempted to be a home gunsmith and modify the gun from it's original version.
In regards to the post about the officer and the ND with his Glock I am not sure if this is the same one but this type of situation was also addressed in the book.

In November 1990 and officer with the Port Huron MI. PD was in his patrol car when her removed the gun from its holster. (Goes back to leave the damn thing alone until you are ready to use it but anyway...) as he did so the gun discharged shooting him in the foot. The following year he sued the gunmaker alleging the unusual "trigger safety" was inherently dangerous.

I have never heard of a Glock discharging while in the holster so if anyone has a link to something I would appreciate it.

There is another reason some do not like the Glock. For years people became frustrated with the fact there was simply nothing you could do to them. Can't change grip panels, the trigger was fine for the job intended and except for changing out the sights, which I agree stock Glock sights, the adjustable ones anyway, suck and need to be changed there was not a lot you could do. Only in the last couple of years have people began Duracoating, stippling grips, cutting frames and so on but by nature we want to change things to fit our personal taste. Keep in mind though I said personal it has nothing to do with function.

The majority of SF troopers I am attached to carry a Glock 19. It is light, good ammo capacity, shoots well and most of all it will function when they need it to. There are well made 1911's here but they are not carried. They can be finicky and don't carry a lot of ammo for there size. Other guns such as the Ruger, Bersa, CZ's and so on while fine for concealed carry and the amount of shooting most folks do they simply do not hold up to the type of abuse that handguns are subjected to.

For those that state they prefer the M&P's, XD's or other polymer framed striker fired pistols. Where do you think they came from? One of the first attempts by S&W to enter the polymer market was the original Sigma's. It turned into an absolute marketing disaster. If you had one that worked great cherish it as most did not. They were sold to officers at rock bottom prices simply to get into the market. Thankfully changes came about and I guess they are decent guns nowadays but I have not shot them in years. I own several M&P's and they also are great guns but they are all the same basic concept that Glock brought to the market years ago with simply things added to them.

Finally comments have been made that well I can get this cheaper and it has this or that and agencies go with the lowest bidder and so on. Many don't realize but Glock has two major divisions. Law Enforcement and Commercial. Commercial prices for a Glock are $550 to $650 range. LE prices for a standard gun have not changed in years, $398.20. Anyone who is a LE Officer, EMT, Fireman, Military (Active or Retired), National Guard or can show that they can meet the criteria of being a first responder can purchase at these prices from LE distributors. No other company can or will match that.

I currently carry a Glock 19 with an Olive Drab frame with an M-3 light attached. It is the exact same setup that I have a home and train with, the only difference being the gun that I have here is not stippled. Again I look at a firearm as a tool not a piece of art and main criteria being that it works every single time when I need it and none of them have ever let me down.

Originally Posted by dondavis3

Grip angle-I like it
decent backstrap system-fits my hand fine as is
decent slide serrations/grippiness. I can rack my slide just fine
Full ambidextrous .I'm right handed
Removable backstraps.-fits my hand fine as is
Did I mention Grip angle - oh ya I did-I like it
Texturing that doesn't rip skin off (the RTF).the texturing doesn't slip or rip for me
Stainless steel slide-my slide shows no signs of corrosion
Stainless Steel guide rods-my guide rod works just fine
Grip Safety-a worthless feature that just adds more parts that can fail in my opinion
Loaded chamber indicator-a worthless feature that just adds more parts that can fail in my opinion
Cocked striker indicator-a worthless feature that just adds more parts that can fail in my opinion
Don't have to pull trigger to take down-not sure why that's a problem for those that can clear their weapon properly
and many more-uh, ok

My hammer doesn't need to be pretty or have fancy features as long as I can swing it well and it will reliably drive a nail. If Glock keeps chasing the market, I will never own a Glock newer than my Gen 3. I prefer a company that builds tools that appeal to professionals, not the general population.

SMann. I agree. The Gen 3 fits me fine. Down the road I may try a Gen 4 just for fun but the changing backstrap issue is not a big deal to me. Decent sights, some stippling and lots of mags and I am good to go.

Tacman

The officer I mentioned was in lower Canada as I recall.Looked like an official report and said the gun smacked the steering wheel and went off,they found a piece of rail inside somewhere and torquing the grip caused it.All info of this disappeared within days of me seeing it,and my copy is sitting inside a toasted computer.Sounds out there,but I don't have a Glock to tear into to see what could or couldn't be.The few 9s I shot flexed more than my HK 45 though.

"When Glock first hit the market years ago they changed the way people looked at handguns. From the materials used in the frame to the trigger it went against everything that everyone knew in regards to firearms."

I disagree on this other than marketing and timing were what changed the way people saw it.Everything about the Glock had been done previously by at least 15 years,except the trigger.This is the flaw to me.As you said,there isn't a safety,so what's the reason for putting a useless bar in the trigger?While there is a long pull,it isn't that long and it's light,it ain't no revolver with a decent trigger job.I've never heard of more NDs out of any gun throughout it's life,there ia a flaw.I agree 100% with you about training,but I can't believe everyone all of a sudden got stupid in 1986 or whatever.I wouldn't have a big problem carrying that type trigger,but I think HK has a better setup.

Just my view on them,but nobody has changed my view much on them since they hit the market here.

Thank you for saying it's not a beginner's gun basically,I always said it was intended for the opposite of original intent.The NDs cover a wide range of people's training and familiarity with it,not a gun for a newb.

Rex who made a polymer framed, striker fired pistol 15 years before Glock? I have not been able to find any. Please let me know.

In the 80's and before LE had transitioned from revolvers to DA Autos with their long DA first shot and hammer drop safeties then to Glocks that did not have a long heavy trigger pull and no external safety. There are safeties on Glock handguns they are simply not manually operated safeties except for the trigger bar.

Without training no gun is a beginners gun it is just some or more forgiving to mistakes. HK's variant 7 or whatever it is has a DAO trigger, safety and an extra strength rubber band to keep it from being fired but it would be difficult for a beginner to shoot it well simply because of the trigger. Glocks do exactly what they are supposed to do, point at target, pull the trigger the thing people have to realize is that they cannot be handled as casually as other firearms.

HK was the first to make a polymer framed pistol 15 years before the Glock,the VP70.They also made the P7 series which were a better designed striker system,but striker guns were already out before that.The only thing Glock did was put the 2 previous designs together.Beretta did the same with a revolver's DA and a semi auto design,2 different systems were incorporated into 1.I say Beretta because they''re the first DA/SA that I recall,but they may not have been the first to do it.

I understand what you're saying about the safeties,we think alike there.All guns have some sort of disconnect safety to prevent burst fire and firing out of battery,and the firing pin safety only comes into play for dropping the gun,everything on top of that is what is seen as a user safety.Why put that safety in the trigger is completely beyond me,it makes it null and void.A child finds the gun,the safety is useless,touch the trigger the safety is useless,catch the edge of a collapsed holster the the safety is useless.The collapsed holster happened to a member of 1911Forum a few years ago reholstering his Glock,and he posted pictures and I believe the new drainhole in his floorboard.

I agree entirely with you on the training,some people just don't train the trigger finger the way it should be and that is the cause of the majority of NDs.Glock designed the gun for the masses,meaning the untrained and idiots.We both agree the gun is not great for that market.Where I think Glock failed is going with too short a stroke and too light on the trigger,that's the exact reason for the new phenomena of Glock leg.I'm sure it's happening with M&Ps and XDs but Glock gets the most attention for it since they came up with the design.This is a gun designed for people that know how to handle a gun.I've had the safety knocked off on my 1911s at times over the years,I didn't freak,it's basically now a Glock with a nicer trigger.What can happen?Nothing if you don't touch the damn trigger.There's something about the Glock that causes a false sense of security that get people in trouble,maybe the term safe action,I don't know.While I agree 99% of the blame falls on the operator,Glock is partly responsible for pushing (marketing) a gun that goes bang so easily into the hands of inexperienced people.When they came out I said this is going to be dangerous in alot of people's hands,and I'll be damned if it didn't happen.Then there was the NY trigger to cure idiots from endangering everyone.That was pure brilliance because these guys have a hard time hitting a target as is,now lets crank up the trigger weight.Why alot of cops don't learn the one tool that will keep them alive at the worst moment in your life is beyond me.

HK's DAO is rude,like alot of others,but the LEM eliminates that old style system and works just like the Glock in principle.The hammer is 2 pieces,the internal stays cocked and the external follows the slide.When you pull the trigger you're only cocking the external under light spring pressure and moving the FPB out of the way.If something happens you have second strike capability at the harder DAO pull.Tactically you clear on a dud,but in the unlikely event something happens to the sear,spring,or hammer hook,or what would be equivolent to trapping a striker,you can still use the gun.The reset is more than a Glock,but it's a pretty good high 4lb trigger.I may set mine up with one,but I've always carried C&L so I'm in no hurry when I have more important things to worry about.

I'm not ragging you or anything like that because there's just too many things I don't like about the design,but I won't say they aren't a good gun if you like the design.I forgot to say it earlier,thank you for your service and stay safe man.

Oops,it double posted.

Ah yes you are correct. I owned a VP70 for a very short time, god what a trigger, and also had the P7. If I remember right once the squeeze cocker was depressed the factory trigger pull was like 2.5 pounds or something way to light but it shot very well. It did get hot around the gas piston though.
The P7 though had the same "generally speaking" design as the Glock in that unless the squeeze cocker was depressed fully the gun would not fire. Same principal with the Glock unless the trigger bar is depressed the gun will not fire.

I don't think you are ragging at all some like one gun some like others. The simplicity of a weapon like this, Glock, M&P, XD, or whatever can be a blessing and a curse. Under a stress type situation you want simple but you have to train for that situation. Yep folks have had ND/AD's while drawing/reholstering with Glocks, 1911's and several others the first thing most did was blame the holster or the gun. Serpa holsters are the main ones. Holster design has changed a lot over the years with more rigid kydex being used instead of nylon or soft leather.

I also found that the installation of a New York trigger on the Glock gave a more consistent "revolver like" trigger pull which could/would lead to less incidents of mistakes. On the Glock 18 we ran the standard trigger would lead to uncontrollable bursts of 4 or 5 rounds but after installing the NY trigger you could easily fire1-2-3 round bursts at will.

I have owned and shot several HK long guns but have only shot a few of their handguns, and owned even less. Our local SO had the DAO variant that I spoke of and except for a keylock or combination code to get the gun to fire I don't know how they could have made a more non user friendly gun but to each his own. They make great products they simply just never flipped my cookie.

Originally Posted by rex

A child finds the gun,the safety is useless,touch the trigger the safety is useless,catch the edge of a collapsed holster the the safety is useless.The collapsed holster happened to a member of 1911Forum a few years ago reholstering his Glock,and he posted pictures and I believe the new drainhole in his floorboard.

While I agree 99% of the blame falls on the operator,Glock is partly responsible for pushing (marketing) a gun that goes bang so easily into the hands of inexperienced people.

HK's DAO is rude,like alot of others,but the LEM eliminates that old style system and works just like the Glock in principle.

Rex,

You cannot really expect the design of a firearm to take into account basic safety, storage and safe gun handling skills concerns anymore than you can expect them to protect you from using a faulty, worn out holster. You must run the gun, not the other way around.

H&K's are great guns. My last duty gun was a P2000 and I am an H&K armorer. I had 15,000 rounds through my H&K, not one failure of any kind. I shoot a Glock better, it holds one more round, it is smaller, lighter and I can actually get parts if I need any.

The rational that the LEM in principal operates like a Glock means it operates like a double action revolver too.

Because, for me, Glocks are ugly and don't fit the hand as comfortably as many other hanguns. Don't believe anyone said Glocks don't shoot properly. They do.

Originally Posted by rex

I agree entirely with you on the training, some people just don't train the trigger finger the way it should be and that is the cause of the majority of NDs.

I read that line and immediately thought of my mother's husband. Hand the guy a gun and his finger goes right to the trigger, like Rosie O'Donnell towards an all-you-can-eat buffet. And then he will sweep you a few times for good measure. A Glock decidedly would NOT be the gun for him!

That was funny Todd,but ain't it the truth.With the handgun frenzy over the last years,the mall ninjas and idiots have multiplied like rabbits.

Nanuk,yes,technically both the Glock and HK LEM are a modified DA like a revolver.I see them as a crappy SA but they really are DA.I see what you're saying about the safety,etc,and agree.What gets me is that Glock made and marketed this for the uneducated masses,shall we say.As Todd gives a fine example of,putting a safety in the trigger is just stupid and a useless part.I see no situation it could prove useful,a collapsed holster defeated it,so a finger,stick,anything makes it null and void.I'm thinking that block gives people a false sense of security,they see it there but don't realize just how easy it is to override.If they just left it off I think it may be a little different,but who's to say.The P7 was cool,pull that trigger all you want,unless you deliberately squeeze the grip it's safe.It wasn't anything that you had to struggle with,but you had to intentionally use a firing grip to operate it.Just my view on it.

I am of the camp that training overcomes any perceived lack of safety.

When Tex shot himself and proclaimed it on you-tube it was blamed on the Serpa holster, not the 1911 when in reality it was his lack of training.

When a guy with a worn out leather holster shoots the gun while fidgeting with it, it is blamed on the Glock.

A gun does no go bang without hitting the bang switch. If your gear is unserviceable or you lack the proper attention to safely holster the gun, it is not the fault of the gun. How many safeties are needed on a handgun?

What gets me is that Glock made and marketed this for the uneducated masses,shall we say

Gunny & Glock - Wrong Diner - Extended Version - YouTube

The P7 was actually an inferior design if you intended to do any high volume shooting, due to the gas being vented into the frame of the gun.

Ya I guess they do.

It wasn't an inferior design,it was well thought out for it's purpose,LE.I;ve known people to shoot them in matches and do very well with them,but you need time between stages because 50 rounds are about it at one time.I agree with you guys on the training deal,but the fact remains that no gun I know of in the last century has had so many NDs in such a short timeframe.Yes,it's keeping the finger off the trigger,but how many DA revolvers go off?It's a design flaw,the original 1911 design would be in the same boat if it wasn't changed,plain and simple.While the 1911 has a shorter takeup,I've seen nastier pulls than a Glock's.Using that comparison which puts the 2 triggers in a similar situation for a discharge,would you carry a 1911 condition 0?I have,but the gun doesn't live in that mode.

The original 1911 design did not have a thumb safety, JMB thought it unnecessary, the Army wanted it.

My bad it was the grip safety.

Well, I saw something today at qualifications. A Glock 27 RSA broke and rendered the gun inoperable.

Who da thunk it?