okiegtrider
Member
Come on guys! I know we can hate on Glocks better than this, I've seen it! Turn it up!
M2.0 Really Challenging Glock?
- Thread starter Horn
- Start date
Arik
Member
Colts are used by the military, yet the company flounders. How is the Glock considered modular? As far as reliability, I've shot Glocks that reps were showing and they jammed! Yeah, there were a lot of excuses, mostly directed to users. As far as holding up, I know of at least one major police agency who had big problems with .40 S&W caliber Glocks. Glock GAVE them 9mm's to keep them quiet. I still think Glocks are outstanding pistols, but perfection? Give me a break (not brake)!
Arik
Member
Colts are used by the military, yet the company flounders. How is the Glock considered modular? As far as reliability, I've shot Glocks that reps were showing and they jammed! Yeah, there were a lot of excuses, mostly directed to users. As far as holding up, I know of at least one major police agency who had big problems with .40 S&W caliber Glocks. Glock GAVE them 9mm's to keep them quiet. I still think Glocks are outstanding pistols, but perfection? Give me a break (not brake)!
Yes they do have military contract and that's enough to keep them from completely sinking. Because while contracts are lucrative the company is still being used for all it's worth. The parent corporation isn't trying to revive it or make it rise above. More like....well it isn't dead so let's keep sucking money out.
Glock isn't modular. The new 19X, which was the model submitted for military testing is supposed to be to. From my understanding he civilian version is slightly different but basically the same gun. Aside from the removal of the safety I'm not sure what else has been omitted.
Perfection was referring to the (for it's time) least complicated, least amount of parts while still functional.
40sw did have issues early on and if adding a light they still do, or at least did up to recently. Glock 34s are typically used in competitions.
When I got my first Glock I had massive amounts of failures. After several attempts to shoot one full mag without having any issues I gave up and went to trade it. The salesman took it to the range and shoot 2 boxes without a problem. I went with him and couldn't get through a mag without failure. I ended up trading that gun but it was me and not the gun.
Departments switching or having problems is something that happens. Pa state police dropped Glock 21s because they kept having mag catch failure. The only department that had this issue! Along with a incident where a trooper killed his pregnant wife when cleaning his gun. The department moved to the new safer Sig P227 and during transition training the instructor accidentally shot and killed a fellow trooper!
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Lonestar57
Member
Come on guys! I know we can hate on Glocks better than this, I've seen it! Turn it up!
Well now, that seems to be the problem on a Thread like this. Instead on focusing on what you brand you simply hate which is easy since we all have our biases. We really need to remain focused on what has worked for you and why. Truth be known, the Shield that I carry pretty much everyday is in reality a direct result of Glocks innovative gun making ability many, many years ago. Yes, I do have a healthy respect for the Glock company and their products; don't consider myself a "Fan Boy" but never the less a fan.
Last edited:
Fan boys are silly. So is brand loyalty and rejecting something because of where it comes from, when it comes to choosing potentially life saving tools. And that's what I view my guns as...tools.
I own Glocks because I feel they are currently the best auto available for personal defense. I choose S&W revolvers for the same reason. I'm not loyal to either and will switch if I determine something else to be better.
I own Glocks because I feel they are currently the best auto available for personal defense. I choose S&W revolvers for the same reason. I'm not loyal to either and will switch if I determine something else to be better.
well for me my cz p01 is superior to the Glock 19 in most every respect...it's beautifully made with superior parts...far better omega trigger decocker or safety which ever you decide all parts included to make change.....aluminum frame..far superior grip comfort....slide inside frame...glock doesn't compare..my .02
I've owned 4 Glocks in the past
I've owned 4 Glocks in the past
Last edited:
Glocks work but as I've said after 5 that's rite 5 generations , what did they do this time remove the finger grooves in the grip. Now that is a joke. M&P listened and on just gen 2 improved their trigger, grip stippling, frame, accuracy basically everything. That is how you do it. Not well this time the put the finger grooves back on. If you carry a glock for your job then I could see obviously using what you know. However set a glock next to almost any other pistol and it's obvious they glock have been left in the dust. By basically all gun manufacturers. Now that glock lost their military contract maybe just maybe they will be forced to use a little innovation. Nothing against glocks . They work but trying to argue your oem glock is superior to really anything is flat out silly.
Rastoff
US Veteran
No hate here. Glock makes as decent a gun as any other medium to low end gun. They're just not the perfect gun their fan boys claim they are.
In 5 years of Glock drops below 50% of the LEO market I will be surprised.
Everybody else is still competing for a fraction of the market.
The reason S&W 'lost' the LEO market was partly taking too long to change and the fact that in the 1970-1980's, before glock's arrival their sales organization did not exist. They had NO sales staff in Washington DC for example.
They like a of American companies were NOT evolved to compete.
Everybody else is still competing for a fraction of the market.
The reason S&W 'lost' the LEO market was partly taking too long to change and the fact that in the 1970-1980's, before glock's arrival their sales organization did not exist. They had NO sales staff in Washington DC for example.
They like a of American companies were NOT evolved to compete.
Note I am not a fan boy and 'want' to love S&W, I have owned more of them than any other brand, in fact I might be S&W fanboy, but the Glock 19 just flat out shoots best for me.
I have tried to love Rugers, Sigs, HKS, S&W, and even Colt's... They are all fun in their own ways, but when it's serious... It's Glock or a S&W revolver.
No other Autos please for me, though I still have them they are range guns. If you tastes are different, viva la difference.
I have tried to love Rugers, Sigs, HKS, S&W, and even Colt's... They are all fun in their own ways, but when it's serious... It's Glock or a S&W revolver.
No other Autos please for me, though I still have them they are range guns. If you tastes are different, viva la difference.
Last edited:
Arik
Member
I've had Glocks since around 2005. Started carrying one around 2007. I've had around 20 of them. Right now I have about a dozen ranging from the early 90s 1st Gen to current production in 9/40/45. Just replacing ammo every month
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Last edited by a moderator:
If I am reading this post correctly, your position is that S&W needs no modifications for their pistols, while a Glock pistol requires multiple modifications . . . ?
I'm not sure exactly what "ton" of replacing you're talking about with a Glock. I am aware of the hundreds/thousands of posts on this forum about the necessity of the various APEX and other replacement parts for S&W pistols, including triggers, various springs, steel guide rods, sights, etc. . .
I'm not sure exactly what "ton" of replacing you're talking about with a Glock. I am aware of the hundreds/thousands of posts on this forum about the necessity of the various APEX and other replacement parts for S&W pistols, including triggers, various springs, steel guide rods, sights, etc. . .
Last edited by a moderator:
wingriderz
Member
Indeed on marketing Harley Davidson rode that train for 100 years..its comeing to a slow crawl for them .
Arik
Member
And you're forgetting about the barrel issues back around 2012 and the chamber issues around 2010 that caused people to buy new barrels or send in for warranty work
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
4506517
Member
Is it a bad time to point out that not only has my agency dumped the M & P, but every other agency in my area has dumped it as well?
We had problems since day !. We went from the full size M & P 45 to the Glock 17. Almost to an individual (I'm sure there are a few people that don't like it) the Glock has been well received.
I for one love it.
You might not.
We had problems since day !. We went from the full size M & P 45 to the Glock 17. Almost to an individual (I'm sure there are a few people that don't like it) the Glock has been well received.
I for one love it.
You might not.
Telecaster
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,794
- Reaction score
- 5,063
I've never fired one, but they are extremely popular and seem to be huge sellers. Like Glock.
I have owned a LOT of other Rugers, though. There's nothing mediocre about them.
Mediocre
1. of only ordinary or moderate quality; neither good nor bad; barely adequate
2. not satisfactory; poor; inferior
Any brand whose reputation includes the phrase "built like a tank" can't also be called "mediocre."
Arik
Member
I've never fired one, but they are extremely popular and seem to be huge sellers. Like Glock.
I have owned a LOT of other Rugers, though. There's nothing mediocre about them.
Mediocre
1. of only ordinary or moderate quality; neither good nor bad; barely adequate
2. not satisfactory; poor; inferior
Any brand whose reputation includes the phrase "built like a tank" can't also be called "mediocre."
Sorry, people buying them is not what I consider popular. People often buy based simply on price or the fact that a salesman recommend it. I have friends and family who buy and own guns. 99% have bought based on price and 99% never shoot. My dad hasn't shot his gun since before 2010. My uncle bought a Shield in the spring and has yet to even chamber a round. The last time he was at the range was 4 years ago. He couldn't remember what ammo he needed and bought 38spl instead of 380. The time before that he was at the range in the mid 90s. And he's not an old forgetful man. He's 52. My friends have guns they shoot once a year or less. And a lot of people are like that. Most won't shoot 500 rounds in a year. So that kind of popularity....just sales figures.. isn't what I base a good gun on.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Telecaster
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,794
- Reaction score
- 5,063
So your justification for calling the SR series mediocre is based on what, exactly? I'm a little lost...
Why would your uncle want .380 for a Shield?
Why would your uncle want .380 for a Shield?
Last edited:
Arik
Member
Based on lack of any real evidence of long term use and problems if any. This is not a Ruger thing it's any gun in that category I'm just using Ruger SR as an example. Guns like Sig legacy series, HK USP/P2000/P30, S&W 3rd gen, Glock, CZ, Beretta 92 etc... All have long track records of testing and heavy use. Of course there are mistakes and no manufacturer is immune from that but those are the guns I consider when making a purchase. Used or new! HK probably sells less USPs then Ruger does SR but from a reliability standpoint the Ruger is no where in the same league.
He hasn't even taken the Shield out of the box. He's had a 380 Beretta since the mid 90s. Shot about a 100 rounds through it total. It's his home defense gun. Last time he took it out was in the mid 90s and had forgotten what ammo it uses. He remembered the numbers "3" and "8" so he bought 38spl
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
CAJUNLAWYER
Member
If the 4473's are supposed to be kept by the individual FFL and not sent it to the ATF to form a nationwide data base, then how does the ATF know how many Glocks, Rugers and S&W's are sold???????
QUICK-TIN FOIL HAT TIME
Last edited:
How many military and police here and around the globe does the SR series see? How many well known and respected defensive shooting instructors who can pick any gun they want do you see carrying it? How about SWAT and Spec Op guys? Now contrast that with Glock.
If none of that matters as I imagine some will say, then what does? If someone is looking to buy their first semi-automatic and they want a proven dependable weapon, what other information would they use to narrow their search?
Last edited:
jhnttrpp
Member
Muss, you need to put a little china in your life. With a good grip uh, handle. BTW does that Titanium keep your coffee warm. What capacity is that mug. Is it the compact or full size. I do have a travel mug. It has plastic out side with a stainless liner. Was that the camping or combat model. China, titanium, plastic, I just can't decide. I think I'll go make some coffee. I'll save you a cup Muss.
okiegtrider
Member
Now we're talkin! Bad, Bad Glocks!
Telecaster
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,794
- Reaction score
- 5,063
Still no objective evaluation of the SR series, only that police (who don't actually shoot guns that often) and military pick other brands. That tells me exactly nothing. I'm done here.
Whispers... There is no .380 Shield. But you already know that. Right?
Arik
Member
So you base your purchase on what? I base on military testing. Yes militaries pick other brands after testing. Some win, some fail and some are not even presented. HK tells us that based on their one testing along with military tests that the P30 can go roughly 90k rounds before needing a rebuild. HK didn't win the contest but there is good evidence of after years of testing their guns are solid and reliable. Glock also didn't win the military contract but they only lost out in price. The submitted Glocks and Sigs were equally matched however, Sig sold their guns at cost, no profit. Thus it was cheaper. Once again there is evidence of tests and there is data. Just because the military chose Sig didn't make the Glock any worse in function.
Only one can win but that doesn't mean all the rest failed in reliability
Once again....the Shield HAS NOT COME OUT OF THE BOX. As in UNFIRED, NEVER TOUCHED. Go re read. I said the Shield was bought this past spring/summer time. That would be about 7 months ago in 2017 The last time at the range was FOUR years ago! That's. F O U R (4) YEARS. Which would make it about 2014. That was when he bought the 38spl for his BERETTA 380....one more time. F O U R. Y E A R S. A G O (4 YEARS, 1460 days ago)
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Telecaster
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,794
- Reaction score
- 5,063
Military testing - not all manufacturers choose to go through all the BS that requires. What about the losers, like Glock? Are they mediocre by definition because they failed to be chosen? Your "proof" of quality is not logical. Shall we discuss the F-35 fighter? 
Just because a product is not tested by the military, that does not prove it's inadequate. This is really simple stuff. Basic rational logic and clear thinking. There's more to life than official government testing and approval.
If all you ever buy are products approved in government contracts, you're really missing out on a lot of good products.
I still don't understand the significance of your Shield comments. Why .380 ammo? Wait, I think I finally made sense of your rambling rant about Shields and Berettas. Not everyone is your uncle.
Just because a product is not tested by the military, that does not prove it's inadequate. This is really simple stuff. Basic rational logic and clear thinking. There's more to life than official government testing and approval.If all you ever buy are products approved in government contracts, you're really missing out on a lot of good products.
I still don't understand the significance of your Shield comments. Why .380 ammo? Wait, I think I finally made sense of your rambling rant about Shields and Berettas. Not everyone is your uncle.
Last edited:
