Results 46 to 55 of 55
Thread: Glock 19?
-
18 July 2009, 15:52 #46
Glocks are fantastic firearms. I have a 17 and I had a 27, which I traded in on an XDm 40. The 27 was great too, very reliable and accurate, but it was just a bit too snappy in that small package for me. One thing I can't figure out though, and other Glock owners, please let me know if you have experienced this...I CONSTANTLY have people tell me how passionately they hate Glocks when they find out I own one, as if they feel they have the right to tell me my gun is a p.o.s. I haven't found any other gun that seems to have so much debate around it. I wouldn't trade my 17 for any other handgun at twice the price.
-
18 July 2009, 23:51 #47
My own interest level in Glocks is still fairly low, but I know that many people seem to invest a lot of emotional capital in this question for some reason. Personally, I like them for what they are (cheap, reliable and uncomplicated), and dislike them for what they are not (monolithic, inelegant, blocky and poorly balanced -- at least in relative terms).
I suspect that the backlash against these pistols has much less to do with the G-series itself than it does with the people who have historically tended to go out and buy them. As originally conceived, the Glock was a brutish, simple, polymer-framed working tool that could be made cheaply and counted upon to function under any conditions (in other words, something akin to what the HK VP-70 was supposed to be, but never really was). The simple operation and low price quickly attracted a large following, but many of those who bought these pistols were quite honestly neophytes and know-nothings who read a brochure or a gun rag article, bought a pistol, and then began loudly espousing the virtues of "Glock Perfection."
Admittedly, many traditional shooters didn't care much for polymer to begin with, but from my vantage point, it was the attitudes of those who "loved" anything with a square G on it that really began to divide the camp. It isn't that they were wrong in much of what they were saying, but the debate seemed to be a lot less-focused on the technical merits of Gaston Glock's design than upon folks wanting to feel good about their purchase decisions. Not surprisingly, the debates turned to the subjective and irrational. Even today, some AR-related discussion boards are rife with people who apply the same kind of thinking to carbines.
In the years since all of this foolishness began, we've seen enough fielding in professional circles to recognize that the Glock is indeed a benchmark design that performs as advertised. It isn't pretty, doesn't inspire us with graceful lines, and it doesn't feel the same in the hand as a BHP, 1911 or other traditional automatic. It just gets the job done. What we're left with is a lot of subjective hyperbole based upon preferences and emotions. For this reason, if a fellow shooter tells you that he loathes all-things-Glock, nine times out of 10 I would wager that what he is really telling you is that he is ambivalent about the pistol, but sick-to-death of dealing with Glockophiles.
ACStand your ground; don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here. -- Captain John Parker, Lexington, 1775.
-
19 July 2009, 09:17 #48
Its easy to ask people why, and gauge their responses.
For the people who start out with "Plastic is for....", you know quickly that you are dealing with someone who has very little knowledge about Glocks or modern firearms.
The guys who complain about the feel of the grip, thats a personal issue, there are going to be other weapons that don't fit them well either.
Complaints about the Glock being unreliable, or lacking in durability mean you are talking to a clownfish. You wouldn't waste your time arguing with a fish in a tank, don't waste it with these people either.
Complaints based around "I heard......", or "My buddy told me...." equal more clownfish comments. They won't listen to you regardless of what you say.
Guys that dislike the trigger will often compare the Glock to their 1911, and yes, the 1911 trigger is much nicer. No arguments from anyone in their right mind there. However, the Glock costs less, is more reliable, feeds a broader variety of ammo, holds more rounds, doesn't need to be lubed heavy, and doesn't need the TLC that a 1911 does. Its a balancing act, and the look, feel and trigger of the 1911 are in a class of their own. The bigger question is whether its worth it after all things are weighed equally, and the overall intent of the weapon is factored in.
-
19 July 2009, 10:19 #49
I like the way you put that, Stick.
I am a self-confessed high-end 1911 guy, but I wouldn't pretend that Old Slabsides is the superior weapon in the hands of the average shooter. I appreciate it for what it is, what can be done with it, and the interface it delivers; even so, the 1911 has a learning curve to it that reaches far beyond the manual of arms. Lubrication, tuning and feeding are all mandatory topics, and casual shooters expecting to reap the benefits of the 1911 in a sub-$1,000 configuration are surely going to taste disappointment.
By way of contrast, the Glock avoids all of these pitfalls for a price that is half that of a competent 1911. It doesn't deliver the same experience in the qualitative sense, but the last I checked, the purpose of a defensive handgun was not to delight the operator so much as it was to potentially ventilate an adversary. I've had a G19 on my watch list for a few years, quite honestly, and will surely take the plunge sooner or later.
Different applications, different tools ... but the Glock is unquestionably one heck of a tool.
ACStand your ground; don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here. -- Captain John Parker, Lexington, 1775.
-
19 July 2009, 12:54 #50
I like 'em both....
As an anomalous aside, the two Colt have many more rounds and less failures than the two Glock 19s. Funny how things work like that.
Cameron
-
20 July 2009, 00:13 #51
I've had my G17 since 1985. Serial # starts with "CX" (yeah it's a low number). Carried it on duty for quite awhile until we went to Glock .40's, but now I'm holstering a Springfield 1911.
I have zero complaints about that (Glock) weapon system. It's one of the "house guns" for my wife and she likes it too. I like the "S" trigger springs rather than the NY's, but that's just personal preference.
Regards...cmoore
Currently in service:
Springfield Operator .45, VZ's, Ed Brown mag well, Novak Lo-pro tritium's
Colt M4, 5.56, EoTech 553, Hensoldt-Wetzlar 3.5 magnifyer, Matech rear flip, Quicksilver suppressor
"You get more with a kind word and a gun, than a kind word alone". -AL Capone
-
13 September 2009, 23:05 #52Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Posts
- 5
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
-
14 September 2009, 19:41 #53
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
"With the 2009 fiscal year in the books, handgun manufacturer GLOCK, Inc. has announced a 36% increase in pistol sales over 2008 sales. Coming off of 5 consecutive years of sustained growth, the company that focuses exclusively on semi-automatic handguns for commercial, law enforcement and federal/military sales is preparing for another strong year in FY 2010. "
I would venture to say yes.Matthew 10:28
-
14 September 2009, 22:29 #54Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Posts
- 5
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
-
14 September 2009, 23:27 #55
I've had my G17 since 1985....oh yeah it's old skool....used it on-duty for quite awhile before we swapped to Glock .40's.
I like the 19, but it never fit right in my pudgy hands...LOL...now the 17 is the wife's go-to rig at home, and I'm strapping a 1911 on at work. I'd like to get a new 17 in OD just to have a newer model. As an armorer, they are easy to work on too...cmoore
Currently in service:
Springfield Operator .45, VZ's, Ed Brown mag well, Novak Lo-pro tritium's
Colt M4, 5.56, EoTech 553, Hensoldt-Wetzlar 3.5 magnifyer, Matech rear flip, Quicksilver suppressor
"You get more with a kind word and a gun, than a kind word alone". -AL Capone