Originally Posted by DWARREN123
I don't see where they are any better than S&W, Beretta, Sig Sauer, etc. I own a 26. For me it is a nice shooting gun, but I prefer my Beretta PX4 as the grip is more comfortable. My wife shot the 26 and didn't like it
Okay so you just described my Sigs and my H&K perfectly -- as well as many other top tier handguns.
Originally Posted by DWARREN123
Don't own a Glock and won't own a Glock.
WHY? Because I find them very uncomfortable to hold and shoot and as a result do not shoot very well with them.
To each his own.
Do not understand why the Glockenspeilers feel that the Glock is the next best thing to cartridge ammo. It isn't.
Its a very fine weapon and if it works for you then great -- but just because it works for you doesn't make it work for anybody else.
The BEST weapon in the world is the ONE that works best for you!
I'm with you,nobody has given me a good reason to like them in 26 years.I find there are more flaws in the design than good points.
Originally Posted by Tip
Best bang for your buck in my opinion. I don't think they look bad either. Never a malfunction with mine.
what has Glock done lately?
Originally Posted by Map9690
Glock introduced the poly gun and it was ground breaking.
What contribution has Glock made recently?
I own a M&P shield single stack poly gun which is molded to fit my hand like a glove.
My Shield is thin accurate 100% reliable with all ammo.
Map, it is my opinion Glock introduced one heck of a gun but failed to keep up with the competition with research and development.
Poly guns Like M&P will continue to cut into Glock's market share if they don't start getting innovative.
Re: Why a glock is better then other guns
Originally Posted by Russ
I was going to say that.The reality is the groundbreaking happened 15 years before the Glock.Other than that rediculous little post in the middle of the trigger,nothing about the gun is groundbreaking,innovative,perfection,whatever.All of this comes from marketing propaganda that people believed without question or knowledge.There was already a plastic gun,a poly bore gun,a striker fired gun,a funky grip angle gun,doublestack mags,guns that sights broke,guns that had crappy triggers,guns that blew up,guns that wiped primers,etc,etc.
The only thing I see Glock did nobody else I know did was get more people hit by negligent discharges in such a short time period.The gun was designed for the average Joe,read as gun ignorant people.How did that work out?The need for the NY trigger,and the leg toll still increases years later.As I said before,these guns are for the opposite type of people they were designed for,you wouldn't hand a newbie a GI 1911 condition 0 would you?And yes,the old GI guns could have nasty 7lb or more triggers,so don't blow smoke up my butt about it not being comparable,I've shot Glocks and that little extra pull length is insignificant to a nasty,gritty,sloppy GI trigger.
ok, after all these posts, who's changed their mind about Glocks... one way or the other....? Nobody? I really didn't think so.
This poster said it best with this one sentence. Arguing firearms' biases and opinions is rather ridiculous folks, for the reason this poster stated in the above quote. It's kinda like arguing which underpants are the best or which beer is the best or other similar totally subjective positions... because that's pretty much what it all boils down to; subjective opinions. Granted there are a few absolutes, but those revolve around quality and reliability. Once you have satisfied those fundamental issues, then everything else is personal opinion and that means subjectivity.
Originally Posted by Tip
To say that the Glock is not as good as, say, the Beretta 92 series is pure hogwash. The "not as good" part would be solely based upon personal preference, not issues of quality and reliability. And that is fine and as it should be. The Glock is a proven design but then again, so are a host of other serious combat defensive handguns. The point is, taking a strongly biased position and arguing from that stance is a bit childish, don't you think? Most gun people I know have a variety of guns in their collections because they appreciate the features and values of different firearms. I fall into this category and enjoy what I have accumulated over the years. We should celebrate the fact that we have these choices and take advantage of them... not get worked up over some silly and biased ideas about this gun versus that one.
The "Only-est" Hand Gun That's The "Best-est" "R" One that Shoots Well With Bullets The Chose is Yours ! "Luv My Gram er" L.O.L.
SouthernBoy,I agree with the majority of what you say.I've heard this Glock perfection,best,what-have-you for over 20 years,and had them shoved in my face by cultists.I got sick of it a few years ago and at times I just can't ignore it.I love 1911s and think they are one of the nicest pistols in existance,and know how to make them work if the factory can't.I don't go around doing this crap,buy and use what you want and move on if it doesn't work out for you,no big deal really.If you ask for my opinion,you'll get it,but don't expect it to agree with yours or get your panties in a wad.It's kind of like the church solicitors knocking on your door weekend afternoons or the liberal media spewing their crap over and over,at some point you just had enough and have to say something.I know,ignore it,but sometimes something needs to be said to vent frustration.
I don't really think Glock is better than any other handgun but they aren't worse either. Its mostly matter of opinion. I own and XD and love it. I have put about 1500 rounds down range without a problem and shoot decent with it. Now with that being said I shot a Glock 19 the other day and I was amazed. My grouping were better and I faster follow up shots. So now I am going to buy a Glock simply because it works for me. My buddy shot my XD and loved that better than the Glock and he wants and XD now. So I don't think Glock is better it just matters on the shooter and how well that weapon performs for that shooter.
I just came to the dark side 2 years ago. I had a G19 when they first came out. Nice gun, my agency would not allow it for on or off duty so I sold the Glock ( carried a 357 revolver for another 6 or 8 years). We were issued a Beretta 96D, biggest chunk of crap to ever grace my holster. After 3000 rounds the frame cracked so I started carrying my H&K USP/c 40 LEM. After a couple of years the P2000 came out and I was issued one. Carried it on/off duty for about 8 years firing about 15,000 rounds through it both on duty and off duty IDPA events.
The H&K's run flawless, have no aftermarket support, limited factory support. I am a H&K armorer, they are a well deigned, robust gun.
Enter Gen 4 Glock. They run flawlessly, smaller, lighter, more ammo on board, aftermarket is phenomenal parts and accessories are everywhere. Parts if you need them are everywhere and cheap. The first time I shot the Glock in a match I shot better than I had ever shot the H&K. I guess there is a reason none of the championship shooters use H&K's.
You should agree with everything I wrote (heh, heh).
Originally Posted by rex
Seriously, there are so many really fine handguns out there that to limit oneself to just one brand seems to me to be a little juvenile. I like Glocks and I own a number of them. Several of them are in my carry stable. But I also like S&W M&P's, some Kahr's, Ruger revolvers and Mark series, Kimber and Springfield 1911's, and Browning Hi-Powers to name a few. Each of these guns has their own particular special features which I both enjoy and respect. I am not about to limit my selections to one or two brands simply because of brand loyalty. Glocks are fine handguns for their designed purpose. The same can be said for a bunch of other handguns, too.
Too many choices... not enough time or money.
I know what you mean,I've owned Dan Wesson,Smith,Colt,Taurus (the good early ones) and Ruger revolvers and Smith,Auto Ordnance (oops),Sig,Colt,SA,HK,Beretta autos,and probably something else I forgot.The only bad one was one of the SA 1911s,even the AO worked but I upgraded to an SA a few months later.I remember when I picked up my Beretta everyone was freaking over the slide failures,it was just a bad batch of slides,nothing more.Then locking blocks break,so buy a spare since you know it may happen later.It's a good gun and won't part with it,but now I've pretty much weeded down to Colt and HK.I would have no problem straying from them on another purchase,but life has curbed my finances for guns compared to a decade ago.I really need another bigbore revolver though,at the moment I don't have any revolvers.
If I had no choice but to use a Glock I would,I can shoot them well.I don't hate them,just really don't like them or the company itself.Similar to GM,I've owned them and drive one now because I got it for basically nothing,but it's about the last brand I consider when I'm shopping for wheels and I have to get it very cheap.Like giving $100 for a new Glock.Different strokes for different folks and all.
Later man,we're off topic really.
H&K made the first polymer gun.
Why has Glock not been more innovative someone asked? Why change a good thing?
As for a SD carry gun, the Glock is right up there at the top of the heap with a few others. Their beauty lies in their simplicity and thus nearly utter reliability. And that, my friends, is what a carry gun is all about.
Originally Posted by onalandline
S&W with the M&P9 and Ruger with the SR9 seem to have innovated the design for the better. These two both are superior to the glock in the ergonomic and looks department. They both come from the USA.
here is a link comparing all three of these guns.
Handgun Database - Compare Handguns
I own Glocks (2) now and S&W M&P's (3) and XDm's (2).
I like them all
But I do not believe that Glock have kept pace with the marketplace.
Here's what I mean:
Poor Grip angle
Decent back strap system
Has plastic sights - needs Metal sights - adjustable
Decent slide serrations/grippiness.
Removable back straps. (not til Gen 4)
Grip angle. (oh I said that )
Texturing that doesn't rip skin off
Stainless steel slide
Loaded chamber indicator or hole
Cocked striker indicator
Stainless steel sub-chassis
Beefed up spring box (what Glock calls a guide ring)
Robust MIM extractor
Frame rails incorporated into the steel sear housing & locking blocks
Revolver-like trigger shape
Second spring in the striker assembly (striker return spring, like is used in the 99 series)
Stainless steel guide rod
Replaceable grip inserts that allow adjustment of both the backstrap and the palm swell dimension
Now I wouldn't want all of those - but some are very nice indeed.
Glock USA told Glock Austria YEARS ago (when the Walther P99 came out, and the HK P2000) this should be upgraded on the Glocks as soon as they could.
Glock Austria insisted they knew better, i.e what we make is perfect.
They have now lost enough $$$$ over the M&P and XDm & other polymer guns which had these features suddenly the Glock Perfection became Glock Perfection version 4.0.
Glock Perfection version 4.0 solved very few of the problems.
I own 2 Glocks, and have for a dozen years.
Doesn't mean the company always knows what it's doing.
IMHO M&P and XDm surpassed them because it gave customers what they wanted in a reliable package without costing $700.
Just my opinion.
Search tags for this page
are glocks beter than revolvers?
better than glock
ccw other than glock
glock vs other handguns
handgun better than glock
is there a handgun better than glock
what is better than a glock
whats better than a glock
why a glock
why glock is superior
why is glock better
why the glock is better than the 1911
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» Springfield Armory
» HGF Sponsors