OT/ Glock .45?

I like my Glock 17L a lot.

Here it is in my Zombie kit with my lefty Stag:

HPIM0699.jpg


The Glock is simple, accurate, and works every time.

The big mag gives it 33 rd. capacity.

But for some reason, my 1911's and HK's remain more dear to me.
 
M67 said:
Ahh.......denial.........
Click to expand...

Denial ? I think simple, accurate, and works every time sums it up quite well.....

They are easy to work on, even if someone isn't a gunsmith.
They are more accurate than probably 90% or better, of the people that shoot them.
They work... Most FTF's are shooter induced, and the few that have blown up, are because someone was to stupid or careless to know what they were feeding them..
 
338375 said:
Denial ? I think simple, accurate, and works every time sums it up quite well.....

They are easy to work on, even if someone isn't a gunsmith.
They are more accurate than probably 90% or better, of the people that shoot them.
They work... Most FTF's are shooter induced, and the few that have blown up, are because someone was to stupid or careless to know what they were feeding them..
Click to expand...

Define "accurate". Group size? Distance? Factory sights or swapping them for adjustables?

Easy to work on- are you referring to just field stripping or detailed stripping? MANY handguns out there are simple. If you're refering to field stripping, hell, you can take the slide off a Beretta 92 with it pointing at you. Sigs are easy, M&Ps, XD/XMDs, hell even Browning 1903 copies with rotating barrels are easy. So what are we talking about when you say work on?

How do you explain light strikes?

Another word that describes Glock............unergonomic
 
Haters, connoisseur, opinionated......


All the same damn thing







:D




Just got back from a distributor show in NC, handled a CZ 97 where they took the wood grips off and swapped them for aluminum, felt pretty good.
 
M67 said:
Define "accurate". Group size? Distance? Factory sights or swapping them for adjustables?

Easy to work on- are you referring to just field stripping or detailed stripping? MANY handguns out there are simple. If you're refering to field stripping, hell, you can take the slide off a Beretta 92 with it pointing at you. Sigs are easy, M&Ps, XD/XMDs, hell even Browning 1903 copies with rotating barrels are easy. So what are we talking about when you say work on?

How do you explain light strikes?

Another word that describes Glock............unergonomic
Click to expand...

I don't have any Glocks or 1911's with adjustable sights. I don't like them on a carry gun. My Glocks all have the factory nite sights. They aren't the best on the market, but they work just fine...
I have had the 17,19,21 and currently carry the 36. It isn't difficult to get 3 inch groups at 25 yards, with any of them.
If I take my time and really focus, I have done better. I don't worry about grouping past 25 yards.
I'm sure if I used a rest, the groups would be smaller, but for a defensive pistol, that is more than adequate...

When I say easy to work on, I am talking about detail stripping. If I can't work on a particular gun, and fix anything that needs fixed, or modified if I get the urge, I won't own one.

Light strikes ? I have put thousands of rounds through each of the Glocks, and never had an issue with light strikes...
Much like the 36 that is supposedly very unreliable, I have never had a FTF with mine.

Unergonomic ? It is no secret Glocks don't fit everyone, but then again, that is true with any gun.

Glocks are a tool. I like the fact that they aren't sensitive to being dirty, and they don't rust . Do I like them as much as I do 1911's? No. Do I worry about them not having an external safety? No
Do I think they are unsafe because they have no external safety, and don't have a DA/SA trigger? No. I dispise pistols with a DA/SA trigger.

You aren't the first person that doesn't like Glocks, and refuse to accept them for what they are. I don't have a problem with that. We are all different, and don't always like the same things. It doesn't however mean that because some people don't like them, they are no good.
 
I have a 2 Kimbers and a Glock 21SF. I will say the short frame made a huge difference in how comfortable it was compared to the standard models I have shot. From shooting both guns my self and having my brother and father also shoot it, both of whom own 1911s I will say that Glocks are much more forgiving in terms of accuracy. The Glock will shoot the same group as the 1911s with much less effort but if you concentrate and try to shoot your best group you will get a better group out of the 1911.
 
338375 said:
I don't have any Glocks or 1911's with adjustable sights. I don't like them on a carry gun. My Glocks all have the factory nite sights. They aren't the best on the market, but they work just fine...
I have had the 17,19,21 and currently carry the 36. It isn't difficult to get 3 inch groups at 25 yards, with any of them.
If I take my time and really focus, I have done better. I don't worry about grouping past 25 yards.
I'm sure if I used a rest, the groups would be smaller, but for a defensive pistol, that is more than adequate...

When I say easy to work on, I am talking about detail stripping. If I can't work on a particular gun, and fix anything that needs fixed, or modified if I get the urge, I won't own one.

Light strikes ? I have put thousands of rounds through each of the Glocks, and never had an issue with light strikes...
Much like the 36 that is supposedly very unreliable, I have never had a FTF with mine.

Unergonomic ? It is no secret Glocks don't fit everyone, but then again, that is true with any gun.

Glocks are a tool. I like the fact that they aren't sensitive to being dirty, and they don't rust . Do I like them as much as I do 1911's? No. Do I worry about them not having an external safety? No
Do I think they are unsafe because they have no external safety, and don't have a DA/SA trigger? No. I dispise pistols with a DA/SA trigger.

You aren't the first person that doesn't like Glocks, and refuse to accept them for what they are. I don't have a problem with that. We are all different, and don't always like the same things. It doesn't however mean that because some people don't like them, they are no good.
Click to expand...


You've had MUCH better accuracy out of a Glock than I ever had, of any model I've shot, I'm lucky for 3" at 10 yards.

My friend carries a 26, has about 800 rounds through it, we were shooting one day, just plinking around, then we heard it..........click....I couldn't stop laughing, and the look on his face with a light strike was amazing.

I accept them for what they are, but a lot of people don't. A lot of people say Glocks are tools, I've still yet to find that person who'll throw it 40 yards and not care. They have fairly loose tolerances, over strength springs, and locks tight into battery. It gets a lot of love because of movies, cost, name, and a lot of people get a Glock because they figure hell, police carry them, that makes them good (they fail to realize the real reasons), and the perceived thought that they don't mess up.

I simply say there are better options that are just as effective, and fit a lot better.
 
M67 said:
You've had MUCH better accuracy out of a Glock than I ever had, of any model I've shot, I'm lucky for 3" at 10 yards.

My friend carries a 26, has about 800 rounds through it, we were shooting one day, just plinking around, then we heard it..........click....I couldn't stop laughing, and the look on his face with a light strike was amazing.

I accept them for what they are, but a lot of people don't. A lot of people say Glocks are tools, I've still yet to find that person who'll throw it 40 yards and not care. They have fairly loose tolerances, over strength springs, and locks tight into battery. It gets a lot of love because of movies, cost, name, and a lot of people get a Glock because they figure hell, police carry them, that makes them good (they fail to realize the real reasons), and the perceived thought that they don't mess up.

I simply say there are better options that are just as effective, and fit a lot better.
Click to expand...

If I couldn't get better than 3" at 10 yards, I wouldn't be very enthused about them, or be carrying one either.

As I mentioned earlier, I have put thousands of rounds through each Glock I have owned. When I was still shooting competition, I would shoot 5-6 days a week, and usually put 500+ rounds down range each day. That may have something to do with my being able to get decent accuracy out of them. That and the fact that they actually fit my big hands very well.
That is not true with the compact models though. I've shot all of the compact versions, and I don't get along very well with them. I can shoot them good enough to be effective in a CQC situation, but I know I could never get the same accuracy at 15-25 yards, that I can with the full size frame.

I actually have enough "faith" in Glocks durability, that I would throw one 40 yards, if it was unloaded, and feel confident that it would still function fine. Heck, they have thrown them out of helicopters, and ran them over with pickups, and they still functioned. However, my luck usually isn't very good, and it would probably break into a bunch of pieces :eek:..

I have been a 1911 fanatic for years, and they will always be my absolute favorite pistol. That said, I wouldn't want to throw a 1911 40 yards, because I think there is a very good chance that it would not function. Besides, they are to damn perrty to be throwing around :D.

The Glock tolerances are definitely not what we expect to see in a pistol. When I got my first Glock, I couldn't stop looking at the gap between the frame and slide. I know the reasoning behind this, and it makes sense for certain environments, but it also looks like the pistol is defective :D

I don't want anyone to think that I believe Glocks are perfect, and can never fail. They aren't... Like anything mechanical, they can have failures. It doesn't matter who made it, or how much it cost, things happen.

A few years back, I was at one of the local gun shops looking around. I looked at a Springfield XD. It was very comfortable.
In fact it is probably one of the more comfortable pistols I have held. Much more comfortable than Glocks. However, I prefer the mechanics of the Glocks, so I compromise.

Picking a handgun is a very personal thing. Fortunately there are many great pistols to choose from, and with the exception of the cheap, low quality manufacturers, there are no wrong choices IMHO.
The important thing isn't whose name is on the gun, but that the person buying it, is happy with it.
 
M67 said:
You've had MUCH better accuracy out of a Glock than I ever had, of any model I've shot, I'm lucky for 3" at 10 yards.

My friend carries a 26, has about 800 rounds through it, we were shooting one day, just plinking around, then we heard it..........click....I couldn't stop laughing, and the look on his face with a light strike was amazing.
Click to expand...
I've been a firearms instructor for almost 20 years. I've shot just about every brand, configuration, caliber, etc. you can think of. I would put a Glock up against any normal duty or concealed carry gun out there for accuracy and dependability. As far as dependability, I used to shoot perfect qual scores with my Glock 21 on three different qual courses (different Agencies). Unfortunately, I'm mandated by my current Agency now to carry an DAO H&K P2000. Now THAT is a tough gun to shoot well, but some shoot it perfect, so I blame the shooter; me. Some people can't come to grips that when their accuracy falters, it's their fault. I hear people all the time when I'm instructing scream, "this pistol sucks! I can't hit #$%^ with it!" I usually take the gun from them and prove it can and then hand it back to them. It all falls back to what you can shoot well. For some, it's a glock, for some, it's a Smith and Wesson M&P, for some, it's a dang Taurus. Guns are like shoes; you gotta find the right fit. Glock's looks won't win any contests and it's grip angle takes some getting used to BUT other than that, it's just bias on most peoples part. I've been fortunate to teach hundreds of students and qualify probably in the thousands shooting various pistols. I've seen FTF's from just about every manufacturer (shooter induced and pistol induced), I've seen gun failures ranging from cracked frames to slide separation to at least two full Kabooms (they weren't Glocks). All manufacturers have the occasional issue but in my experience Glock is no worse and in my opinion, Glock has less issues than most. YMMV but this is just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
338375 said:
If I couldn't get better than 3" at 10 yards, I wouldn't be very enthused about them, or be carrying one either.
Click to expand...

You'd be amazed at the people who say that's my go to gun for carry, SUPER accurate, I can get 1 hole groups at 7 yards. With that statement it just makes you do a facepalm, a lot of people don't shoot handguns at distances because they claim it's not logical to practice at 25+ distance because they won't be defending themselves at such distances, totally disregarding the sport and challenge part.

Oh, if it's an older 1911, with loose tolerances, I'd feel comfortable in throwing it John M. Browning over Gaston Glock all day every day in the engineering department any day.

jasonp said:
I've been a firearms instructor for almost 20 years. I've shot just about every brand, configuration, caliber, etc. you can think of. I would put a Glock up against any normal duty or concealed carry gun out there for accuracy and dependability. As far as dependability, I used to shoot perfect qual scores with my Glock 21 on three different qual courses (different Agencies). Unfortunately, I'm mandated by my current Agency now to carry an DAO H&K P2000. Now THAT is a tough gun to shoot well but some shoot if perfect, so I blame the shooter; me. Some people can't come to grips that when their accuracy falters, it's their fault. I hear people all the time when I'm instructing scream, "this pistol sucks! I can't hit #$%^ with it!" I usually take the gun from them and prove it can and then hand it back to them. I tall falls back to what you can shoot well. For some, it's a glock, for some, it's a Smith and Wesson M&P, for some, it's a dang Taurus guns are like shoes; you gotta find the right fit. .
Click to expand...

True, 99% of the time it's the shooter. I've had to shoot roughly 20 handguns this year before we sent them to the factory for accuracy "problems". Smith and Wesson Bodyguard 380s (several), Sigmas (several), Sig 2022, Ruger P95, etc. and 99% of the time it's the shooter. I fired roughly 14,000 rounds last year, and if all hell didn't break loose across the country at gun stores, it would have been over 20k. Most of the rounds were through handguns. In that, I shot a G26, my friends, and very inaccurate, G19, just sighted in a laser for an old guy, did it in th snow, close enough, it worked okay but I hate lasers, and a G22 that at 25, hahaha.

Maybe I can't shoot Glocks, I'll accept that any day of the week, the trigger doesn't bother me and I like the sights, but they're uncomfortable, they rub recoil, and they just don't do it for me (same goes for the S&W Shield).
 
mikeymoto said:
I can't decide between the 30SF and 36 darn it. I like the capacity of the 30 but prefer the hand feel of the 36. Like John mentioned above, I'm honest enough with myself to know that I'm more likely to carry the p3at no matter which one I get. :D I think that means I should go with the 30...
Click to expand...

FYI I got the 30SF. What night sights are good? Need pics
 
jasonp said:
I've been a firearms instructor for almost 20 years. I've shot just about every brand, configuration, caliber, etc. you can think of. I would put a Glock up against any normal duty or concealed carry gun out there for accuracy and dependability. As far as dependability, I used to shoot perfect qual scores with my Glock 21 on three different qual courses (different Agencies). Unfortunately, I'm mandated by my current Agency now to carry an DAO H&K P2000. Now THAT is a tough gun to shoot well but some shoot if perfect, so I blame the shooter; me. Some people can't come to grips that when their accuracy falters, it's their fault. I hear people all the time when I'm instructing scream, "this pistol sucks! I can't hit #$%^ with it!" I usually take the gun from them and prove it can and then hand it back to them. I tall falls back to what you can shoot well. For some, it's a glock, for some, it's a Smith and Wesson M&P, for some, it's a dang Taurus guns are like shoes; you gotta find the right fit. Glock's looks won't win any contests and it's grip angle takes some getting used to BUT other than that, it's just bias on most peoples part. I've been fortunate to teach hundreds of students and qualify probably in the thousands shooting various pistols. I've seen FTF's from just about every manufacturer (shooter induced and pistol induced), I've seen gun failures ranging from cracked frames to slide separation to at least two full Kabooms (they weren't Glocks). All manufacturers have the occasional issue but in my experience Glock is no worse and in my opinion, Glock has less issues than most. YMMV but this is just my opinion.
Click to expand...

M67 said:
You'd be amazed at the people who say that's my go to gun for carry, SUPER accurate, I can get 1 hole groups at 7 yards. With that statement it just makes you do a facepalm, a lot of people don't shoot handguns at distances because they claim it's not logical to practice at 25+ distance because they won't be defending themselves at such distances, totally disregarding the sport and challenge part.

Oh, if it's an older 1911, with loose tolerances, I'd feel comfortable in throwing it John M. Browning over Gaston Glock all day every day in the engineering department any day.



True, 99% of the time it's the shooter. I've had to shoot roughly 20 handguns this year before we sent them to the factory for accuracy "problems". Smith and Wesson Bodyguard 380s (several), Sigmas (several), Sig 2022, Ruger P95, etc. and 99% of the time it's the shooter. I fired roughly 14,000 rounds last year, and if all hell didn't break loose across the country at gun stores, it would have been over 20k. Most of the rounds were through handguns. In that, I shot a G26, my friends, and very inaccurate, G19, just sighted in a laser for an old guy, did it in th snow, close enough, it worked okay but I hate lasers, and a G22 that at 25, hahaha.

Maybe I can't shoot Glocks, I'll accept that any day of the week, the trigger doesn't bother me and I like the sights, but they're uncomfortable, they rub recoil, and they just don't do it for me (same goes for the S&W Shield).
Click to expand...

I've been fortunate/lucky, whatever the case may be, but I have always been able to shoot well, with just about anything I put in my hand....

That changed a few years back... After hearing all the hype about how great the Sigs were, I finally decided to try one out for myself.
I picked up a 220. I got it home, and spent time looking at it, and getting use to it...
I was impressed with the workmanship. I grabbed my ammo bag, and headed to the indoor range I alway shoot at.

I was really excited about shooting it. I didn't expect miracles at first, because I have been shooting 1911's since I started shooting at a very young age, and at the time, I was about 45 years old...

Long story short, I put 300 rounds through it, put it back in the box, and walked into the gun shop section of the range, and traded it for another 1911.
I hated that gun... There was nothing wrong with it, but I couldn't shoot it, and didn't like it. But, at least I tried it, and found out fo rmyself.

I enjoy shooting at distance. A few years back, I took my hunting rifles to the range to get ready for the upcoming season.
I had recently purchased a short barreled 357 Taurus, to have as a whatever, glovebox gun. I took it with me so I could put some rounds through it, while I was there...

I had it on the bench next to me, when they closed the range to we could retrieve targets. As I was sitting there, the range master walked up and said, " You aren't going to shoot that at 100 yards are you ?"...
I hadn't planned on it, why ?.... You will never hit anything at 100 yards with that, because of the short sight radius.

Well, not being one to pass up a challenge, or being one to believe everything that the gun writers spew, I told him " Lets find out "...

They opened up the range, and I had my buddy spot for me at the clean 100 yard targets. I just rested myself on the bench, and put 5 rounds down range...
The RM asked, " Did he hit anything ? " My buddy started chuckling and said, " Yep. All 5 rounds are on target" :D
The RM didn't believe him, so he looked through the spotting scope and said, " If I hadn't sen it fo rmyself, I would have never believed it "..
NOw granted, the 5 rounds weren't what you would call a "group", but they were on target, and it if would have been an F.B.I target, they would have all been in the torso/cm area.

The crappy thing about the Taurus was, everytime I fired it, it blew powder hot back into my face lol...
 
Lycosa said:
The Glock talk and smack Glock talk. lol!
I was sold on an H&K P9s until my Brother let me shoot his G17. I now love the Black Plastic ugly, yet beautiful, pistol. He is now going to get the G30 due to an increase of break-ins where he lives. As you guys know, the .45 is the caliber for close quarter knock down.
Click to expand...

I hate to dispel what you might believe about the .45 ACP having knock down power, but it just ain't so...

There's no such thing as knock down ability in guns, period. Bullets are nothing more than remote stabbing devices, they poke small holes in things and nothing more.

Only a well placed shot that penetrates deep enough to destroy either vitals or central nervous system can have that result.

As far as .45 ACP having better wounding characteristics than smaller pistol calibers, this is also myth.

As far as autopsies go for people who have been killed by firearms, there is very little difference in wound channels between pistol calibers and you'd be hard pressed to try and guess which caliber did what just by looking.

In regards to the Glock platform itself, it is still the most practical pistol to own :

-Fully transferrable lifetime warranty.
-Replacement parts are readily available.
-Huge amount of aftermarket support & products
-Long track record of reliability which is very well documented.
-Very serviceable accuracy in stock form.
 
Last edited:
If the only objection you have to a Glock is the grip, try the gen 4 pistols. Its very personal, but it just fits me better without a backstrap on it at all. Some people have had problems with ejected brass landing on their face with certain gen 4 models, I think it has been fixed and never had a problem myself.

As far as caliber, there is a lot of hype and superstition out there as well as personal preference, you might just hit better with a certain caliber. My favorite to shoot is the .40 G23 (gen 4, after they came out). What does a few extra grains mean if you can't hit the target?

As others have said, go rent as many as you possibly can and research their reliability before you buy.
 
I sing the praises of Glock whenever I get the chance. I carried a 17 for years and shot pretty dammed well with it.... Never had one issue after thousands of rounds. Also have a 26.

I recently went to a generation 4 Glock 21 though and it's an awesome gun. I was always worried about "back on target time" with a 45 but the dual spring in these Gen 4 models really take a lot out of the recoil.

I've seen some very seasoned shooters transition from H&K and other brands to Glock. Quick example:eek:ur team recently purchased some very cheap range ammunition and our guys either carry H&K USPs or 21s. The Glocks never jammed but the H&Ks were getting failures every other round, especially the older guns with broken-in magazine springs. Glocks just shoot.

They are also very easy to clean and maintain for even the novice shooter and even if you don't clean it every time you shoot the thing is still going to function.

The only recommendation I can make is buy the Glock night sights separate. The factory sites aren't really durable and the Glock brand night sights are grest:very bright, have the tennifer finish that won't rust and they're actually cheaper.
 
aaaa_cccc said:
I hate to dispel what you might believe about the .45 ACP having knock down power, but it just ain't so...

There's no such thing as knock down ability in guns, period. Bullets are nothing more than remote stabbing devices, they poke small holes in things and nothing more.

Only a well placed shot that penetrates deep enough to destroy either vitals or central nervous system can have that result.

As far as .45 ACP having better wounding characteristics than smaller pistol calibers, this is also myth.

As far as autopsies go for people who have been killed by firearms, there is very little difference in wound channels between pistol calibers and you'd be hard pressed to try and guess which caliber did what just by looking. .
Click to expand...

I like big bullets, in handguns, and rifles. My favorite rifle calibers are the 338 Win mag & the 375 H&H for Elk.
Are they magical ? No... On the other hand, I also like the 45-70. Is it magical ? No. However, a big, heavy, slower moving bullet WILL get a response out of an animal.
I don't pay attention to ballistics charts. I don't care what the numbers are, the only thing I care about are actual real world results. If you look at the ballistics for 45-70, most people assume it is basically useless. WRONG...

The 45 acp is very similar to the 45-70. A big, heavy, slower moving bullet. The 45 has proven itself for many years.
It works... It even works as a defense gun, with ball ammo. That isn't the case with smaller calibers. Granted there are many options as far as defensive rounds, and this has made the smaller calibers more efffective, but being able to use it effectively with standard, lower cost ammo, says a lot to me about the caliber...

There must be a difference. There have been some L.E agencies, and Spec OPs groups that were getting patheic results with smaller calibers, and they switched back to the 45 acp.

For a defensive round, one that you trust with your life, why not throw the biggest bullet you can ? It certainly isn't going to hurt. The exception would be those that can't shoot a 45. If you can't hit the target, a miss with a bigger bullet, is still a miss...
 
338375 said:
I like big bullets, in handguns, and rifles. My favorite rifle calibers are the 338 Win mag & the 375 H&H for Elk.
Are they magical ? No... On the other hand, I also like the 45-70. Is it magical ? No. However, a big, heavy, slower moving bullet WILL get a response out of an animal.
I don't pay attention to ballistics charts. I don't care what the numbers are, the only thing I care about are actual real world results. If you look at the ballistics for 45-70, most people assume it is basically useless. WRONG...

The 45 acp is very similar to the 45-70. A big, heavy, slower moving bullet. The 45 has proven itself for many years.
It works... It even works as a defense gun, with ball ammo. That isn't the case with smaller calibers. Granted there are many options as far as defensive rounds, and this has made the smaller calibers more efffective, but being able to use it effectively with standard, lower cost ammo, says a lot to me about the caliber...

There must be a difference. There have been some L.E agencies, and Spec OPs groups that were getting patheic results with smaller calibers, and they switched back to the 45 acp.

For a defensive round, one that you trust with your life, why not throw the biggest bullet you can ? It certainly isn't going to hurt. The exception would be those that can't shoot a 45. If you can't hit the target, a miss with a bigger bullet, is still a miss...
Click to expand...

Read that link I posted in my last comment. I think you'll appreciate it! :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top