Quoted: Quoted: Glocks tend to be polarizing, you either love them or hate them.  I fall into the "hate" camp.  I hate the grip, I hate the sights, I don't want my gun exploding on me and I don't want a .45 with +P ammo to weigh less than 30oz, and I don't want a gun without an external hammer.  Also, Glock fans are always trying to make every other make of hangun out to be extremely unreliable, like the poster above who claimed to have 2 new SA 1911s jam every 4 or 5 rounds.  That is pure BS, plain and simple.  No gun commercially sold can get away with such poor QC and be a successful product.   Actually, I can believe that SA could have an issue with reliability with some of their 1911s, their extractors are sucko, usually are not tensioned properly, their mags are hit and miss, and I've personally owned NIB one's that the main recoil spring went south on in just a few mags. [someone probably did not heat treat them correctly].

But two NEW guns that jam every 4 rounds?  I agree that SA is not up to par as far as 1911s go, I learned that the hard way.  I purchased the Black Stainless target model and had 5 malfunctions in 350 rounds, always the last round of the magazine.  It turned out the extractor was not tensioned right from the factory.  I will steer clear of of "1911s" with Brazilian frames from now on.  But I'm not buying two brand new ones that jam every 4 rounds.  No fucking way.  I bought my best friend a SA WWII GI clone for his birthday back in '05 and he has put about 1000 rounds through that gun with ZERO problems.

Quoted: like the poster above who claimed to have 2 new SA 1911s jam every 4 or 5 rounds. That is pure BS, plain and simple I was the original poster with the Springfields and you can believe what you will but it is absolutely true.  I have no vested interest in one handgun being praised over another, I simply told a true story to illustrate how I became a fan of the Glock 21.

For the record, I totally believe it.  I've seen absolutely terrible 1911s, that couldn't make it though a single mag without a failure.

Just a note, my dept is reaching the end of a testing process for a new issued handgun.  Been at it for about a year now.  (We've always been individual purchase)

We do our own testing and anyone that wanted to shoot the test samples could come down to the range and try them all.  (As long as you wrote an evaluation and picked one )

The choices were, Springfield XD, S&W MP and Glock.  All in .40. ( Standardizing caliber too)



Want to know which is the  leading choice of the officers that try them so far? (1800 man dept)

S&W MP.

Want to guess second place? (Hint, it does not start with a "G". )

Quoted: Quoted: ... I recall once I bought two identical "loaded" Spingfields, one for me -- one for my brother.  We went shooting and BOTH guns would stovepipe about every third or fourth round -- no matter what ammo we tried.   ... I will never understand why people think it's appropriate to compare a factory-correct Glock to an after-market 1911 clone.    Apples to oranges. A properly manufactured 1911 or 1911A1 is a superbly reliable firearm.  If comparing to an original factory Glock, the appropriate comparison would seem to be something like a 1911A1 built by Colt, Remington Rand, Ithaca or whatever.  Comparing an original factory Glock to some after-maket clone made by "Springfield Armory" or whoever doesn't seem like a fair comparison. After all, if some Chinese company started making cheap "Grock 21" clones, would you think it was fair for me to criticize the design of an original Glock 21 because my cheap "Grock" keeps having reliablity problems, and parts keep breaking? I have NEVER had a reliability problem with my WW2 1911A1, and it is a very accurate shooter.  The fact that TONS of manufacturers (some of the using cappy parts, some of them tweaked "race guns", some of the modified in subtle ways, some of them not to spec, etc.) are now making 1911 variations doesn't change anything about the design and reliability of a correctly manufacture 1911 to original specs.

So, by this logic, there is only one model, made by one manufacturer, of 1911's that can be trusted?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ... I recall once I bought two identical "loaded" Spingfields, one for me -- one for my brother.  We went shooting and BOTH guns would stovepipe about every third or fourth round -- no matter what ammo we tried.   ... I will never understand why people think it's appropriate to compare a factory-correct Glock to an after-market 1911 clone.    Apples to oranges. A properly manufactured 1911 or 1911A1 is a superbly reliable firearm.  If comparing to an original factory Glock, the appropriate comparison would seem to be something like a 1911A1 built by Colt, Remington Rand, Ithaca or whatever.  Comparing an original factory Glock to some after-maket clone made by "Springfield Armory" or whoever doesn't seem like a fair comparison. After all, if some Chinese company started making cheap "Grock 21" clones, would you think it was fair for me to criticize the design of an original Glock 21 because my cheap "Grock" keeps having reliablity problems, and parts keep breaking? I have NEVER had a reliability problem with my WW2 1911A1, and it is a very accurate shooter.  The fact that TONS of manufacturers (some of the using cappy parts, some of them tweaked "race guns", some of the modified in subtle ways, some of them not to spec, etc.) are now making 1911 variations doesn't change anything about the design and reliability of a correctly manufacture 1911 to original specs. So, by this logic, there is only one model, made by one manufacturer, of 1911's that can be trusted?

I think he was aiming at putting down SA, AO, Norinco, etc.

WELL,they got to recycle all those old ashtrays and toilet seats into something!

height=8

After all, if some Chinese company started making cheap "Grock 21" clones, would you think it was fair for me to criticize the design of an original Glock 21 because my cheap "Grock" keeps having reliablity problems, and parts keep breaking?

Well, I don't know about the Chinese, but every other company started making polymer pistols pretty damn quick.  Look at the S&W Sigma, for example.  The reason that no one criticizes the Glock knockoffs is that they work great too.

(In before the "Polymer frames but different lock-up and firing system" folks.)

Quoted: Just a note, my dept is reaching the end of a testing process for a new issued handgun.  Been at it for about a year now.  (We've always been individual purchase) We do our own testing and anyone that wanted to shoot the test samples could come down to the range and try them all.  (As long as you wrote an evaluation and picked one ) The choices were, Springfield XD, S&W MP and Glock.  All in .40. ( Standardizing caliber too) Want to know which is the  leading choice of the officers that try them so far? (1800 man dept) S&W MP. Want to guess second place? (Hint, it does not start with a "G". )

The Glock 40 is the jam-o-matic!! Funny, the only real consistent Glock issues we have in training is with the 40. Add a rail mounted light and they are doomed! Those that have the 40 always migrate to a 9 or 45.

One thing the 40 glock guys hate is taking any tactical or unusual positions class..... the first thing they need to learn real well is clearing a malfunction... I guess they become masters in it!!

If you like them, then fine. If you don't like them, fine.
But don't say one is actually better than the other just because you "heard" that a Glock will kb, or you "heard" that the Sig 1911 is dangerous, or whatever dumbass excuses reasons everyone has. If you don't like a certain brand, then just don't use it. Some of us use both Glock and 1911's. If you pick up a pistol, it shouldn't matter what brand it is, or the grip angle, or the sight radius, or whatever, for you to be able to get lead on target. "Oooooh, my grip angle isn't right, I might not be able to shoot the bad-guy." A well-trained operator should be able to run any weapon, regardless of features on it.  Any decent-made firearm that has been properly tuned should be completely reliable, no matter whether it is a Glock, a Beretta, Sig, HK or almost any good quality 1911.

I don't like Ford trucks, but guess what, I don't run around telling everyone to stay away from Ford. I just don't buy them myself. I prefer a Dodge, so that's what I buy. I use Glock, Beretta, and 1911 pistols, but I don't run the others in the ground. I personally cannot stand a Sig or an XD, but I can pick up either one and accurately put rounds on target without worrying about the "grip-angle" and I don't climb the tallest building around and yell to the people that if they buy an XD or Sig, then the country is going to fall into chaos. I just don't buy the brands that aren't for me.

Just my .02


ETA...since when does Beretta M9 NOT have a hump on the back-strap ?

I used to own nothing but Sigs - and was a serious Sig snob. I have a Glock 19 now and am perfectly happy with it.Its not as pretty or heavy - but it goes bang every time. Going bang plus hitting the target is all that matters. I like the one consistent trigger pull. And I shoot it better then I ever shot my Sigs. A lot of it is personal preference - but Glocks are perfectly fine as long as you use some COMMON SENSE. Common sense doesn't exist among all gun owners as we all know.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ... I recall once I bought two identical "loaded" Spingfields, one for me -- one for my brother.  We went shooting and BOTH guns would stovepipe about every third or fourth round -- no matter what ammo we tried.   ... I will never understand why people think it's appropriate to compare a factory-correct Glock to an after-market 1911 clone.    Apples to oranges. A properly manufactured 1911 or 1911A1 is a superbly reliable firearm.  If comparing to an original factory Glock, the appropriate comparison would seem to be something like a 1911A1 built by Colt, Remington Rand, Ithaca or whatever.  Comparing an original factory Glock to some after-maket clone made by "Springfield Armory" or whoever doesn't seem like a fair comparison. After all, if some Chinese company started making cheap "Grock 21" clones, would you think it was fair for me to criticize the design of an original Glock 21 because my cheap "Grock" keeps having reliablity problems, and parts keep breaking? I have NEVER had a reliability problem with my WW2 1911A1, and it is a very accurate shooter.  The fact that TONS of manufacturers (some of the using cappy parts, some of them tweaked "race guns", some of the modified in subtle ways, some of them not to spec, etc.) are now making 1911 variations doesn't change anything about the design and reliability of a correctly manufacture 1911 to original specs. So, by this logic, there is only one model, made by one manufacturer, of 1911's that can be trusted? you missed the point. the proper comaprison would be glock to 1911 in a milspec configuration using proper parts. glock has ONE design they use for everything. you can find 1000 variations on off the shelf 1911's ranging in price form 300-3000.00. compareing the reliability of a glock to an charles daley will yield one result. comparing it to a bear or wilson will be another thing entirely.

Thank you.

He didn't just miss the point, he apparently didn't READ my post.

I listed TWO models of 1911 (the original 1911 and the later 1911A1 variant), and I listed multiple manufacturers - as well as pointing out that the comparison of a factory Glock needed to be to a "correctly manufactured 1911 to original specs"

Nowhere did I specify (or imply) a single model, and certainly not a single manufacturer.

Quoted: Quoted: Just a note, my dept is reaching the end of a testing process for a new issued handgun.  Been at it for about a year now.  (We've always been individual purchase) We do our own testing and anyone that wanted to shoot the test samples could come down to the range and try them all.  (As long as you wrote an evaluation and picked one ) The choices were, Springfield XD, S&W MP and Glock.  All in .40. ( Standardizing caliber too) Want to know which is the  leading choice of the officers that try them so far? (1800 man dept) S&W MP. Want to guess second place? (Hint, it does not start with a "G". ) The Glock 40 is the jam-o-matic!! Funny, the only real consistent Glock issues we have in training is with the 40. Add a rail mounted light and they are doomed! Those that have the 40 always migrate to a 9 or 45. One thing the 40 glock guys hate is taking any tactical or unusual positions class..... the first thing they need to learn real well is clearing a malfunction... I guess they become masters in it!!

That's interesting, I carry a personally owned Glock 22 with a TLR-2 hanging off it every day, and it is completely reliable. It has seen hundreds of rounds (about 1600)both with and without the light, and the only FTFeed was because of a bent feed lip on a range mag. The only work this weapon has had is an interior polish job on all bearing surfaces.

Anybody posted about:

The slide rail fiasco?

The guide rod debacle?

The earth shattering kabooms?

I had a glock 20 that was on their list for a possably weak slide guide.  This was several years ago and I had to call glock and give them the serial numbers to my glocks to see if any had a potential problem.

As I recall the police got their stuff replaced if they had a glock in the range of questionable numbers.

I was told mine would get fixed for free if it broke or I could pay for a new frame and shipping and what not.

While I might own several handguns I put some thought into what happens if I only have one handgun and it winds up on such a list?

Since the glock to me is an ok handgun with a soso trigger and nothing special I have sold off most of my glocks and within 12 months I expect the last one to be sold or traded off as well.

As far as what handgun would I pick up, show me a revolver that takes moon clips and I will take it.

I pretty much trust a glock to go bang, but since I have never had to risk my life on 2 handguns I found sitting on a table I go with what I choose to spend my money on and practice with.

I try not to knock glocks, they worked fine for me.

But I did not get a happy feeling when talking to the company back when they had slide guide failures causing a lot of discussion on the net.

Overall I have slowly started to learn that a lot of folks who think one brand is far superior to another should spend some time learning and training instead of running their mouth so much.

This has applied to car brand name wars and many of the gun and ammo arguments that show up on this site.

If you like the glock keep on using it and ignore those who knock it since you can spend your time learning and training on what works for you.

Quoted: I don't want my gun exploding on me...

I appreciate the OP posting this.  I wanted to ask the same thing since my first day but didn't want to put up with the attitudes.

I've wondered a lot about all the comments like the one above.  Mainly is this one of those legends where everyone insists their best friend that would never lie saw it happen, but no one has had it happen to them?

Not trying to argue, really just curious.

Quoted:

w00t for my picture

What annoys me about Glock lovers is simple. Every single thread posted asking about any OTHER pistol you can bet your last dollar that some dork will post "Get a Glock" "Should have got a glock" " Glock is the best"


we get it you like glocks...

Quoted: ...the proper comaprison would be glock to 1911 in a milspec configuration using proper parts...

Well that (sort of) IS the point. Who makes a properly out-the-box 'Mil Spec' these days? Maybe Armscor? Kimber puts the Series II crap on their entry level. Springfield has the ILS. Taurus has some manner of FPB. Unless a person does a TON of reading prior to their 1911 purchase, chances are they are buying something other than a proper M1911A1; they'll be getting lawyer devices and firing pin blocks and whatnot.

Don't care for Glocks. I've seen first hand and heard of some really awful failures; slides flying off the frame, rounds wedged in the ejection port so badly the armorer had to repair them, etc. Not to mention that the ergonomics don't work for me personally. Much rather shoot a Sig or 1911.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Just a note, my dept is reaching the end of a testing process for a new issued handgun.  Been at it for about a year now.  (We've always been individual purchase) We do our own testing and anyone that wanted to shoot the test samples could come down to the range and try them all.  (As long as you wrote an evaluation and picked one ) The choices were, Springfield XD, S&W MP and Glock.  All in .40. ( Standardizing caliber too) Want to know which is the  leading choice of the officers that try them so far? (1800 man dept) S&W MP. Want to guess second place? (Hint, it does not start with a "G". ) The Glock 40 is the jam-o-matic!! Funny, the only real consistent Glock issues we have in training is with the 40. Add a rail mounted light and they are doomed! Those that have the 40 always migrate to a 9 or 45. One thing the 40 glock guys hate is taking any tactical or unusual positions class..... the first thing they need to learn real well is clearing a malfunction... I guess they become masters in it!! That's interesting, I carry a personally owned Glock 22 with a TLR-2 hanging off it every day, and it is completely reliable. It has seen hundreds of rounds (about 1600)both with and without the light, and the only FTFeed was because of a bent feed lip on a range mag. The only work this weapon has had is an interior polish job on all bearing surfaces. there have been a LOT of reported issues with certain model glocks and rail attached lights.

Not saying they're perfect, just saying that I have had nothing but good fortune with Grock, and even w/light attached. But I do go through ALL my sidearms with a fine tooth comb, to check for inferior parts, then they get a polish job on all moving parts, so that I don't have any reliability problems. (Doesn't matter if it's a $500 Glock or a $1200 kimber) That is one problem in itself. People depend too much on everything being made perfect right out of the gate. Not everything is going to work right all the time. If someone bought some weapon that didn't walk on water right out of the box, "ALL of them must be a POS" is the common mentality today. Just because Joe Blow had something that doesn't work, that doesn't mean that mine or yours won't work. It just means that he was unfortunate enough to get one that needs a little tuning. Tune the thing up, and go shoot.

Why the Glock hate?

Because there is nothing Americans hate more than to see someone else succeed, especially a business. There is even a National Support Group for those afflicted with the hate - we call it the Democratic Party.

If you have a G19 and hate it, call me...

I hate them too, but I really want to help you out.

Danny

Quoted: ..."Grock 21"...

I swear Engrish never gets old.

The 1911 in a class I took jammed constantly.

The Glock's didn't, except for a G23 that was converted to 9mm.
And there were a LOT of Glocks.

'Nuff said.  

Quoted: Quoted: Grip angle. +1 That is really my only gripe with Glock.  I always had to push front site down to get on target.  With my Kimber and XD, I punch the gun out and the sites are almost dead on.

+2 Exactly my experience with owning a G22.

whats a glock?

sounds like the name of a cheese