Glock yes/no

[whodat2710]

Glock makes a fine pistol. I personally am not a fan, because when I point the gun at a target, it is aimed a little low, due to grip angle. Not good for close range emergency point shooting.
I do have a problem with some Glock owners, they are like Budweisre drinkers, and Harley davidson riders, " if you don't own a Harley, you ain't sh--.

Ditto. When the Coast Guard switched to Glock I could not stand it. This had nothing to do with price, features etc. They said "here's what you're carrying now" and you have no say in the matter. You can't use any extra's (mag extensions, grip sleeves etc.) and it might be a fine weapon if these things make it point shoot like most other well made guns do. Out of the box, you can keep it. There are plenty of other reliable guns out there without joining the Glock cult.

 

[wolf_fire]

Link Removed Originally Posted by Capt. Frank Link Removed

Glock makes a fine pistol. I personally am not a fan, because when I point the gun at a target, it is aimed a little low, due to grip angle. Not good for close range emergency point shooting.
I do have a problem with some Glock owners, they are like Budweisre drinkers, and Harley davidson riders, " if you don't own a Harley, you ain't sh--.

Ditto. When the Coast Guard switched to Glock I could not stand it. This had nothing to do with price, features etc. They said "here's what you're carrying now" and you have no say in the matter. You can't use any extra's (mag extensions, grip sleeves etc.) and it might be a fine weapon if these things make it point shoot like most other well made guns do. Out of the box, you can keep it. There are plenty of other reliable guns out there without joining the Glock cult.

Could you please explain the troubles you two specifically have had with point shooting? I've trained with a Glock (was told I had no choice in the matter either) and have not had the troubles either of you are saying you had. I'm also a Glock Armorer and any info I have where people are having trouble with a Glock is important to help those in my division.

Capt Frank... why do you think you were hitting low when point shooting... I'm a bit confused when you say it is due to grip angle?

 

[whodat2710]

Could you please explain the troubles you two specifically have had with point shooting? I've trained with a Glock (was told I had no choice in the matter either) and have not had the troubles either of you are saying you had. I'm also a Glock Armorer and any info I have where people are having trouble with a Glock is important to help those in my division.

Capt Frank... why do you think you were hitting low when point shooting... I'm a bit confused when you say it is due to grip angle?

Most guns with short grips are not as "blocky", and comfortably placing your extra finger that doesn't fit is easier. For me it is just an uncomfortable gun. I know they are high quality, well made etc. but if they aren't comfortable in your hand it is tough to get past that.

 

[Capt. Frank]

Whodat, I was Also a Coastie, thank for your service.
Wolf, when I grip the Glock, and point it, it is pointed slightly downward, not so with a 1911, M&P, Springfield XDM, or many other pistols I have shot. I believe that grip angle is the culprit.

 

[snatale42]

Has anyone had a Glock and didn't like the feel of the wide grip but got used to it after a while?

Eh, Kinda. You really can't debate Glocks proven reliability and great track record...BUT. Ugliness aside, There chunky, overly wide, uncomfortable guns to hold, and shoot. They make you hold them at an angle that's just unnatural which I'm not a fan of. I've have a 19, and 26 and a 36. I will admit, I liked the 36 it's thinner than any other Glock including the SF series, the angle is still a little weird but very doable. I just can't rationalize having one when I can have an M&P that is VERY ergonomic and shoots just as good and just as reliable. Again, not bashing Glocks, I'm not saying I'd never own one again, but they really need to work on the ergo's a little.

You'll here all that "Comforting not Comfortable" crap, as it's just that, crap! Buy a gun you shoot well, that's comfortable in the hand, and reliable.

 

[JLeòdhas]

I have three Glocks, shot alot rounds through them and never had a problem of any kind. My CC is a Glock 30.

 

[JaegerMann]

I had previously posted a good article on the difference Here is a nice article talking about it Glocks, Grip Angles, and Picking Handguns for Combat & Self-Defense | The Daily Caller

Basically it comes down to your natural "punch" if you are naturally a 2 finger puncher Glocks will work well, if you are a 5 finger puncher like myself they will not fit you, and you will have a tendency to limp grip which will cause the failure to cycle Glocks are often troubled by.

If they fit you, or you train to fit them they are fine. If not you may want to look at something else. That is why ice cream has flavors

 

[Rocketgeezer]

I can accept the guys that just don't like the Glocks grip, I did much better after I had modified all of mine, but don't go off and say all Glocks are junk, maybe you don't care for them. I may get a argument on this but I think they may be the most used/popular semi auto pistol in the world outside of US military use, and I would not be suprized if some of our US service men might just rather have a Glock over the Beretta, as far a main carry gun I carry a Glock and a Kimber compact 1911, also I have been shooting for 50+ years and have never seen a brand of semi auto style handgun as reliable as Glock

 

[whodat2710]

I can accept the guys that just don't like the Glocks grip, I did much better after I had modified all of mine, but don't go off and say all Glocks are junk, maybe you don't care for them. I may get a argument on this but I think they may be the most used/popular semi auto pistol in the world outside of US military use, and I would not be suprized if some of our US service men might just rather have a Glock over the Beretta, as far a main carry gun I carry a Glock and a Kimber compact 1911, also I have been shooting for 50+ years and have never seen a brand of semi auto style handgun as reliable as Glock

I don't believe anyone on this thread said they were junk. Quite the opposite, and you have also added to the "glock cult" theory.

 

[wolf_fire]

I don't believe anyone on this thread said they were junk. Quite the opposite, and you have also added to the "glock cult" theory.

How is that when he says he also carries a Kimber compact 1911???

So one who attests to the reliability of a Glock is now a "cult" member?

Geesh.

 

[whodat2710]

How is that when he says he also carries a Kimber compact 1911??? .

I didn't say he proved the theory, just that he seemed to take offense that someone would dare criticize a Glock.

I can accept the guys that just don't like the Glocks grip, I did much better after I had modified all of mine, but don't go off and say all Glocks are junk, maybe you don't care for them. I may get a argument on this but I think they may be the most used/popular semi auto pistol in the world outside of US military use, and I would not be suprized if some of our US service men might just rather have a Glock over the Beretta, as far a main carry gun I carry a Glock and a Kimber compact 1911, also I have been shooting for 50+ years and have never seen a brand of semi auto style handgun as reliable as Glock

As far as I know, most servicemen have rifles unless they are in a MP or LEO position. As far as the Beretta, most I know preferred it to the Glock just because it was easier to complete qualification courses. The military probably shoots less than the average gun owner, and as some have already said the Glock takes getting used to. Since we can't make modifications (like grips) and most only shoot once or twice a year for qualification, it was a worse choice of weapon for our purposes unless you were an armorer maintaining them.
-
The only empirical data I can provide is that I consistently shot "expert" on the qualification courses with the Beretta, but could barely meet qualification standards when we changed to Glock. I was not the only one.

 

[wolf_fire]

I didn't say he proved the theory, just that he seemed to take offense that someone would dare criticize a Glock.


As far as I know, most servicemen have rifles unless they are in a MP or LEO position. As far as the Beretta, most I know preferred it to the Glock just because it was easier to complete qualification courses. The military probably shoots less than the average gun owner, and as some have already said the Glock takes getting used to. Since we can't make modifications (like grips) and most only shoot once or twice a year for qualification, it was a worse choice of weapon for our purposes unless you were an armorer maintaining them.
-
The only empirical data I can provide is that I consistently shot "expert" on the qualification courses with the Beretta, but could barely meet qualification standards when we changed to Glock. I was not the only one.

I'm not sure why you and others could "barely shoot expert" with a Glock. Did you practice with the new tool you were assigned with? If so, how long? Did you work out any deficiencies you had from changing from one weapon system to another? Did you have RSO's working with you to integrate the new weapon system to your group? The majority of LE divisions require the carrying of a Glock and they qualify yearly, sometimes twice a year with them. If the handgun truly was the reason for shooting so poorly, I really doubt it would be used so widely across the country by LE.

I'm a Glock Armorer. I know what limitations the Glocks have. I know when they need to be serviced. I'm not touting they are the "be all and end all" of all handguns. I also know that no single weapon is the "best" for everyone. I enjoy shooting a wide variety of makes and models. In other words, I'm not a Glock nut, in fact I'm far from it and will usually put those that say "Glock is the only hangun worth having" in their place.

But to blame the Glock for poor marksmanship is like saying you got into an accident on the road because you were driving a (fill in blank of model car you don't like here). You practice with what you carry until you are extremely proficient with it. How many of you and your friends balked at having to change from the Beretta and didn't seriously put in the range time to be as proficient with the Glock as you were with the Beretta? I would bet money that if you took any trained group on one weapon system and then had them change, their scores would go down until they became just as proficient with the new handgun.

Trigger pull, weight, shape, these all have factors in your shooting. You changed all of these and as such, needed to practice to the point of muscle memory with the new handgun, in other words you had to "unlearn" the Beretta our of your muscle memory.

 

[9mm in Eugene]

Glocks, Grip Angles, and Picking Handguns for Combat & Self-Defense | The Daily Caller

This is a very interesting article about why a Glock might or might not suit your natural shooting style.

 

[Boston Boy]

I have three Glocks, shot alot rounds through them and never had a problem of any kind. My CC is a Glock 30.

Jason, I see you wave the saltire. Spend any time in the old country? I'm second generation American, and have been visiting Scotland since I was a young man in the 1960's. Can no longer travel due to age and poor health. If you've never been, go, but bring some sandwiches, as the food sucks.

 

[wolf_fire]

Glocks, Grip Angles, and Picking Handguns for Combat & Self-Defense | The Daily Caller

This is a very interesting article about why a Glock might or might not suit your natural shooting style.

9mm in Eugene. This is a great article and one I had never heard. This does give some basis why I have encountered some who don't perform point shooting well. I will keep this in mind and have them go through the exercise the article says and see if they have that "punch" problem so I can get them to "unlearn" it.

 

[9mm in Eugene]

Whodat, I was Also a Coastie, thank for your service.
Wolf, when I grip the Glock, and point it, it is pointed slightly downward, not so with a 1911, M&P, Springfield XDM, or many other pistols I have shot. I believe that grip angle is the culprit.

This is what I don't understand. With the Glock grip angled slightly more back than the other pistols mentioned, then all other things being equal it should point HIGH, not low. There must be something else going on other than just the angle of the grip. I understand that in the Gen 4 Glocks the rake has been reduced to 14 degrees, previously 17 degrees from vertical, as something of a nod to those who prefer less rake.

The Luger P08 (Parabellum) used by the German Army in WW2 (as well as in many other countries and services) has the same 17 degree rake as the Gen 1-3 Glocks. I'm wondering if there's European/American variation in preference, either from the 2-finger vs 4-finger punch as described in the article I linked, or other cultural factors.


I have a Glock 17 and a S&W M&P9 - very similar pistols in most respects, both 9mm, 17 round magazine, polymer frame, etc. So far I just find the Glock more accurate in my hands. I will continue to practise with both, and maybe the differences will even out over time. I'm a believer in practising with a variety of handguns, so than if you're ever in a position where you need to fire a gun that isn't your favorite, you're not fumbling around with it.

 

[whodat2710]

I'm not sure why you and others could "barely shoot expert" with a Glock. Did you practice with the new tool you were assigned with? If so, how long? Did you work out any deficiencies you had from changing from one weapon system to another? Did you have RSO's working with you to integrate the new weapon system to your group? The majority of LE divisions require the carrying of a Glock and they qualify yearly, sometimes twice a year with them. If the handgun truly was the reason for shooting so poorly, I really doubt it would be used so widely across the country by LE.

But to blame the Glock for poor marksmanship is like saying you got into an accident on the road because you were driving a (fill in blank of model car you don't like here). You practice with what you carry until you are extremely proficient with it. How many of you and your friends balked at having to change from the Beretta and didn't seriously put in the range time to be as proficient with the Glock as you were with the Beretta? I would bet money that if you took any trained group on one weapon system and then had them change, their scores would go down until they became just as proficient with the new handgun.

Trigger pull, weight, shape, these all have factors in your shooting. You changed all of these and as such, needed to practice to the point of muscle memory with the new handgun, in other words you had to "unlearn" the Beretta our of your muscle memory.

Have you served in the military? Range time with military weapons isn't something you can count on. You can't just say "let me shoot more..." You can't buy your own ammo and shoot it through their guns just because the military is stingy. If I remember right, you could shoot the course of fire twice for qualification in the same day if needed (about 40rds each time), but if you didn't qualify you had one more day of range time usually a week later. There is no "practice" unless I wanted to go buy the same model gun and my own ammo and shoot elsewhere. Most of us did voluntarily shoot the basic pistol course (100% about marksmanship to qualify for a ribbon but nothing else) to put extra lead downrange. This is where those of us that regularly put most of our holes in the center realized the gun was different. The unfortunate thing was that the basic course was not required prior to the "practical" course unless it had been a few your qualifications were lapsed, but if you shot it and failed to qualify you were forbidden from shooting the practical course (for carrying on duty) Dry fire practice can only take you through form and function, not accuracy.
-
The things you mention about practicing, working out deficiencies etc. never bothered me when we shifted from Colt's to Berettas. The course of fire for "practical" qualification (like a carry permit test) is pass fail, not graded on a curve. the 40 round course included everything, strong hand, weak hand, supported, unsupported, from barricade, and even from the hip at 3 yds. Aiming is only a factor in about 2/3 of the test, the rest is based on instinctual shooting and the gun shooting where you point it at with little time for proper stance and breath control... These were all from the holster and timed (i.e. 3rds 3 seconds, 6rds 12 seconds etc.)
-
I never "blamed" Glock. Glock is like the Volvo of guns "we're boxy but we're reliable!". They may be 100% reliable, but I don't like them. With 17 different guns lined up for me to shoot I will perform better with almost any other manufacturers guns.

 

[9mm in Eugene]

Have you served in the military? Range time with military weapons isn't something you can count on. You can't just say "let me shoot more..." You can't buy your own ammo and shoot it through their guns just because the military is stingy. If I remember right, you could shoot the course of fire twice for qualification in the same day if needed (about 40rds each time), but if you didn't qualify you had one more day of range time usually a week later. There is no "practice" unless I wanted to go buy the same model gun and my own ammo and shoot elsewhere. Most of us did voluntarily shoot the basic pistol course (100% about marksmanship to qualify for a ribbon but nothing else) to put extra lead downrange. This is where those of us that regularly put most of our holes in the center realized the gun was different. The unfortunate thing was that the basic course was not required prior to the "practical" course unless it had been a few your qualifications were lapsed, but if you shot it and failed to qualify you were forbidden from shooting the practical course (for carrying on duty) Dry fire practice can only take you through form and function, not accuracy.
-
The things you mention about practicing, working out deficiencies etc. never bothered me when we shifted from Colt's to Berettas. The course of fire for "practical" qualification (like a carry permit test) is pass fail, not graded on a curve. the 40 round course included everything, strong hand, weak hand, supported, unsupported, from barricade, and even from the hip at 3 yds. Aiming is only a factor in about 2/3 of the test, the rest is based on instinctual shooting and the gun shooting where you point it at with little time for proper stance and breath control... These were all from the holster and timed (i.e. 3rds 3 seconds, 6rds 12 seconds etc.)
-
I never "blamed" Glock. Glock is like the Volvo of guns "we're boxy but we're reliable!". They may be 100% reliable, but I don't like them. With 17 different guns lined up for me to shoot I will perform better with almost any other manufacturers guns.

Thanks for a very interesting and informative post. I don't know anyone in the US military, at least not well enough to ask about this stuff.

It does seem counter-productive to force a new handgun on a serviceman/woman in any branch, but deny them the opportunity to familiarize themselves sufficiently with the weapon to get used to its foibles. We all know that not every gun is going to feel right for every shooter the first time you hold it, but you can adjust, given enough practise time.

It wouldn't seem too difficult to offer a choice of two or three sidearms, if they're all chambered for the same ammunition. Why is this not done?

 

[wolf_fire]

Have you served in the military? Yes, I served in the Air Force and got out in Oct 1992, so I'm sure my time and your time are starkly different. Currently, I am with our training division with our local Sheriff's Reserves serving as one of their Glock Armorers and going through training to become a Range Safety Officer. Range time with military weapons isn't something you can count on. You can't just say "let me shoot more..." You can't buy your own ammo and shoot it through their guns just because the military is stingy. If I remember right, you could shoot the course of fire twice for qualification in the same day if needed (about 40rds each time), but if you didn't qualify you had one more day of range time usually a week later. There is no "practice" unless I wanted to go buy the same model gun and my own ammo and shoot elsewhere. Most of us did voluntarily shoot the basic pistol course (100% about marksmanship to qualify for a ribbon but nothing else) to put extra lead downrange. This is where those of us that regularly put most of our holes in the center realized the gun was different. The unfortunate thing was that the basic course was not required prior to the "practical" course unless it had been a few your qualifications were lapsed, but if you shot it and failed to qualify you were forbidden from shooting the practical course (for carrying on duty) Dry fire practice can only take you through form and function, not accuracy.
-
The things you mention about practicing, working out deficiencies etc. never bothered me when we shifted from Colt's to Berettas. Because they are extremely similar handguns in terms of angle, grip, and balance. The course of fire for "practical" qualification (like a carry permit test) is pass fail, not graded on a curve. the 40 round course included everything, strong hand, weak hand, supported, unsupported, from barricade, and even from the hip at 3 yds. Aiming is only a factor in about 2/3 of the test, the rest is based on instinctual shooting and the gun shooting where you point it at with little time for proper stance and breath control... These were all from the holster and timed (i.e. 3rds 3 seconds, 6rds 12 seconds etc.)
-
I never "blamed" Glock. Glock is like the Volvo of guns "we're boxy but we're reliable!". They may be 100% reliable, but I don't like them. With 17 different guns lined up for me to shoot I will perform better with almost any other manufacturers guns.

I do find it odd that in today's military, if they decide to switch weapons on you that they would not give you the range time necessary to become proficient with that weapon. Our local Sheriff's Reserves make sure that each deputy gets the range time in that is necessary to become proficient... generally it's around 65 hours before going to qualifications (this includes a small amount of hours in the classroom too). I'm really surprised our military does not do this as well. I guess one more thing we can blame budget cut backs for.

 

[gunhandbags]

Just wanted to say that ladies love the Glock 19. I run http://gunhandbags.com and talk to my customers all the time and that's probably in the top 3 of guns owned by my customers. It might be hard to get used to at first but it doesn't take long to adjust. It's easy to use and has little recoil.