M2.0 Really Challenging Glock?

[Mister X]

Timothy Stansbury and Akai Gurley unavailable for comment.

What's your point? They were both shot by police officers who had their weapons drawn with their fingers on the trigger. Even if their guns had been equipped with manual safeties, they would not have been engaged.

 

[dabull1463]

OMG...are we going off topic or what!!!!

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Walkingwolf]

What's your point? They were both shot by police officers who had their weapons drawn with their fingers on the trigger. Even if their guns had been equipped with manual safeties, they would not have been engaged.

It's been a habit of mine since a teenager. On a SA revolver I do not cock the firearm until it is pointed at the target I intend to shoot. I use the same reason with a 1911, the safety is not taken off until I have the gun pointed at the target. I have never been comfortable with cocking a gun on the draw, or taking off the safety. It does not take that much time to take either off when the gun is lined up. BUT I don't draw unless I intend to shoot, which in the case of a Glock would make it no different than the 1911, or SA revolver.

The problem is some people do draw their gun when they do not intend to shoot. And they might take the safety off when they draw. A lot of trainers advocate taking the safety off on the draw. It's fine as long as the person does not screw up, or is perfect.

 

[FloridaS&W]

What's your point? They were both shot by police officers who had their weapons drawn with their fingers on the trigger. Even if their guns had been equipped with manual safeties, they would not have been engaged.

Um yeah, and you see the results. So maybe the agencies need to reconsider how they’re training and using their weapons—and I believe the “point” of the article is, the last thing we need is a firearm with no option of an external safety. A finger is not a safety, this is one reason many people won’t own a Glock. The author is suggesting that maybe if they were using and training differently with safety’s more people would be alive, including Officer Jared Forsyth who was also shot and killed by a Glock without a safety and that wasn’t even a stressful situation.

Multiply this out into all those global foreign government agencies you've been touting and this becomes even more of an embarrassment for Glock. Glock is busy churning out guns around the world with no option of an external safety; in many cases the agent is told to use these europoean dinosaurs; and meanwhile the LE and civilian bodies are stacking up from accidental discharges. I think that’s the point of the article, since you asked.

The good news is, gun owners CAN choose the M&P, a superior firearm WITH an external safety.

"a significant percentage of law enforcement officers — some experts say as high as 20% — put their finger on the trigger of their weapons when under stress. According to firearms trainers, most officers are completely unaware of their tendency to do this and have a hard time believing it, even when they're shown video evidence from training exercises."

 

[Arik]

Um yeah, and you see the results. So maybe the agencies need to reconsider how they’re training and using their weapons—and I believe the “point” of the article is, the last thing we need is a firearm with no option of an external safety. A finger is not a safety, this is one reason many people won’t own a Glock. The author is suggesting that maybe if they were using and training differently with safety’s more people would be alive, including Officer Jared Forsyth who was also shot and killed by a Glock without a safety and that wasn’t even a stressful situation.

Multiply this out into all those global foreign government agencies you've been touting and this becomes even more of an embarrassment for Glock. Glock is busy churning out guns around the world with no option of an external safety; in many cases the agent is told to use these europoean dinosaurs; and meanwhile the LE and civilian bodies are stacking up from accidental discharges. I think that’s the point of the article, since you asked.

The good news is, gun owners CAN choose the M&P, a superior firearm WITH an external safety.

"a significant percentage of law enforcement officers — some experts say as high as 20% — put their finger on the trigger of their weapons when under stress. According to firearms trainers, most officers are completely unaware of their tendency to do this and have a hard time believing it, even when they're shown video evidence from training exercises."

A lot of people don't own 1911 because they're afraid of the cocked and locked despite two safeties. Their logic and how it functions are two different things.

Finger is safety. Don't know officer Jared but a PA state trooper was shot and killed by an instructor who was showing how much safer the new Sig DA trigger was compared to their old Glocks. Quite safe... clearly! Finger on trigger!



Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[Walkingwolf]

There is a reason God created blue guns...

 

[kbm6893]

The Glock 19 is the perfect compromise between small size for concealed carry and large enough to be comfortable and easy to shoot/manipulate. The original M&P fell on either side of that. The full size was/is a great gun, but many found it larger than they wanted when carrying. The compact was/is an easy gun to conceal, but not as easy to manipulate for regular shooting.

S&W made a smart move when they came out with the M&P Compact 2.0. It is almost exactly the same size as the G19. I also see it as a superior design. Of course that is open to debate if you want to start another thread.

However, what's really challenging Glock is not the 2.0, but the Shield. The Shield has taken the handgun world by storm. I don't know of any small/tiny gun that is a direct competitor. All the others on the market either have terrible triggers or serious reliability problems.

Glock still commands a large part of the market and has a serious cult following. That cult following can't sustain them alone. They have recently bowed to the market by offering interchangeable back straps and the MOS. If they don't continue to innovate, they will fall behind. I don't think they're stupid. They will innovate, but so far, what they've put out is lack luster.

I've owned 2 Shields, and still have one. Nice guns. But the Ruger LC9-S is smaller, lighter, and has a WAY better trigger. I've never felt a superior trigger on any out of the box gun.

 

[Watchdog]

Equal? You seem to think Glocks are "equal" with or better than the M&P, but I think the M&P is far superior.

The operative words there are "I think". Which means it's your opinion. And you know what they say, opinions are like...well, you know. Everybody's got one.

The Shield 45 is relatively new and has a few things to iron out with the mags...

That's a problem. A manufacturer introduces a new handgun, something the consumer or law enforcement might depend on to save his or her life...it ought to be ready to go right out of the box. I'm personally tired of hearing this "few things to iron out" rigamarole. Anything needed ironing out should've been done in the R&D and testing phases. You do a search on just this forum alone, you'll find a litany of complaints about the Shield, especially the .45 Shield. Lots of complaints about magazines. We shouldn't have to keep making the few-things-to-iron-out excuses.

but as for Shields, they're already leading the pack for personal carry guns...

I guess that depends on which survey, gun writer, or gun blog you take at face value.

It sounds like you love them and I think that's cool, but to me they are dinosaurs, and that's probably why millions of gun owners have moved past the Glock age.

What's your source for this undocumented statement?

Oh, and dinosaurs are extinct. Glocks are not.

 

[dabull1463]

I've owned 2 Shields, and still have one. Nice guns. But the Ruger LC9-S is smaller, lighter, and has a WAY better trigger. I've never felt a superior trigger on any out of the box gun.

Try the m&p m2.0 compact. You will be gladly surprised [emoji6]

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[kbm6893]

What's your point? They were both shot by police officers who had their weapons drawn with their fingers on the trigger. Even if their guns had been equipped with manual safeties, they would not have been engaged.

I doubt it. I knew the officer who shot Stansbury. The NYPD never taught finger on trigger. It is totally automatic for me to put finger on trigger guard when holding a weapon. But the move from on trigger guard to on trigger, especially when startled, as both cops were, especially the Stansbury cop, is automatic.

MILLIONS of interactions a year between cops with guns out and civilians. a TINY percentage end in gunfire, and most of those were good shootings. Less than 1/10 of 1% (about 35 cops out of 35,000).

Try doing a vertical patrol in a crime ridden housing project as BOTH of those cases were (and Stansbury happened when there were nearly 2000 murders a year in NYC as opposed to the 400 when Gurley happened).

 

[kbm6893]

Try the m&p m2.0 compact. You will be gladly surprised [emoji6]

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

I have dry fired one. Not even close to the LC9-S.

 

[JJEH]

... I'm personally tired of hearing this "few things to iron out" rigamarole...

Isn't that a Sig thing?

Seriously, why are we talking about this? Mr. Gaston is an engineer, he did a risky move back in the late 70's, early 80's and it paid off.

Why do so many le agencies carry Gee Locks you ask? Money. But that's just my opinion. I assume their prices are hard to beat once an agency puts out a bid.

Anyway, I don't think the pistols challenge each other. What's perfect for one might be terrible for another (i.e. grip, trigger, sights, etc). Really no point in arguing about.

I think we as shooter (should?) challenge each other. A good shot will outshoot me with a terrible gun, period. So.... it's not the gun. It's talent, skills, years of consistent practice and real life experience!

 

[Mister X]

I doubt it. I knew the officer who shot Stansbury. The NYPD never taught finger on trigger. It is totally automatic for me to put finger on trigger guard when holding a weapon. But the move from on trigger guard to on trigger, especially when startled, as both cops were, especially the Stansbury cop, is automatic.

MILLIONS of interactions a year between cops with guns out and civilians. a TINY percentage end in gunfire, and most of those were good shootings. Less than 1/10 of 1% (about 35 cops out of 35,000).

Try doing a vertical patrol in a crime ridden housing project as BOTH of those cases were (and Stansbury happened when there were nearly 2000 murders a year in NYC as opposed to the 400 when Gurley happened).

I think you misunderstood my post. My assertion is that even if their guns would have had manual safeties, the officers involved most likely would have flipped them to the off position based on the description of the events.

 

[FloridaS&W]

The operative words there are "I think". Which means it's your opinion. And you know what they say, opinions are like...well, you know. Everybody's got one.

Good gosh, we're way past that — I upgraded that to "definitely" in post 160, please keep up!

 

[kbm6893]

I think you misunderstood my post. My assertion is that even if their guns would have had manual safeties, the officers involved most likely would have flipped them to the off position based on the description of the events.

I agree a safety wouldn’t have mattered. Just saying I doubt the cops had guns drawn with fingers on trigger. I was a total newbie to guns when I came in the job and training wasn’t that intense, but finger off trigger until firing was drilled into us and still stays with me to this day. I have my finger on the trigger guard on my sons nerf guns until I decide to fire.

 

[Arik]

Isn't that a Sig thing?

Seriously, why are we talking about this? Mr. Gaston is an engineer, he did a risky move back in the late 70's, early 80's and it paid off.

Why do so many le agencies carry Gee Locks you ask? Money. But that's just my opinion. I assume their prices are hard to beat once an agency puts out a bid.

Anyway, I don't think the pistols challenge each other. What's perfect for one might be terrible for another (i.e. grip, trigger, sights, etc). Really no point in arguing about.

I think we as shooter (should?) challenge each other. A good shot will outshoot me with a terrible gun, period. So.... it's not the gun. It's talent, skills, years of consistent practice and real life experience!

Money? Sure! Money is always a factor. But do you think anyone would switch from "Gee Lock" if Jennings came along and offered a cheaper price?

It always seems that people revert back to "money" when it's a gun they don't care for. No one seems to look at it from a performance standpoint. As if agencies just grab the cheapest junk off the shelf and roll with that. If I'm given a good performing tool AND it's cheaper than XYZ then why not?

My police department of 20 some cops switched from Sig Pro 40sw to G22 a few years ago. They get their guns from the local gun store, not the factory. All their Sig's ended up for sale at the LGS, which they used as trade ins. Now I'm sure they still got a good deal considering the trades and police discount that Glock offers. Why did they change? Simple.....same caliber and same size handgun but the Glock offered a few more rounds. Sig 12 vs G22 15. Not much but add 2 more mags and that makes another 9 rounds. Still.... around here that's not a big deal considering the almost none existent crime in this area. The biggest reason why they changed was consistency. Officers shot faster and better with the Glocks 5lb trigger than the Sig 10lb DA trigger. First shots were more accurate and faster.

Training would have helped I'm sure but who's going to allocate that much money for ammo. It takes A LOT to train and A LOT to keep that level of training to master a DA trigger and stay proficient

 

[Mister X]

Why do so many le agencies carry Gee Locks you ask? Money

Money is a factor as it is in everything else, but it is by no means the only one. If I was buying a car solely on it's ability to go 0-60 as quickly as possible, it would probably make a lot more sense to buy a Dodge Challenger Demon over a slower Ferrari or Lamborghini that costs 10 times as much. Less expensive doesn't always equal inferior performance.

And what about all the successful, high profile instructors who carry them? The majority carry Glocks exclusively or at least a good part of the time. Are they all just miserly fanboys carrying an inferior weapon?

I don't like to waste money, but can afford any gun I want. I choose Glock because I think it's the best tool for the very important task of self-defense no matter what it costs.

 

[JJEH]

Arik, Mister X,

I'm not saying Glock isn't good. Of course they are reliable guns and have advantages to traditional DA/SA guns. But I think money is the main factor, long term speaking.

Less expensive to purchase, less expensive to repair/maintain, less expensive on armorer's course, everyone makes accessories for it, etc.

Sure, as long as people are paying $2k+ for a Salient Glock then the price argument is invalid. But I'm talking about agencies that purchase guns in the hundreds, not the private citizen.

My county lets me carry whatever I want to qualify with. Saves them A LOT of money, incl. repair. If it's broken I can't just turn in in and get another one, I have to fix it out of my own pocket.

So yeah, Glock isn't superior to any other major manufacturer in that segment. But GG's big risk paid off and they sure did their homework from then on. My hat's off to him, he produced a gun in the 80's that Americans couldn't. I mean of course we can, we just came too late to the party.

 

[stavey]

Wow its the same people living on this thread. Just because you paid too much for a pistol that is manufactured to be so cheap that they won't even install steel sights. Not even on gen 5 ???? That's probably why there are glocks for sale everywhere. People can't unload them fast enough. I should know I did the same.
Truthfully some of you should head over to glocktalk.com where you marvel at the cheapness of the glock with others who feel the same. Sort of like AA.

 

[Arik]

Wow its the same people living on this thread. Just because you paid too much for a pistol that is manufactured to be so cheap that they won't even install steel sights. Not even on gen 5 ???? That's probably why there are glocks for sale everywhere. People can't unload them fast enough. I should know I did the same.
Truthfully some of you should head over to glocktalk.com where you marvel at the cheapness of the glock with others who feel the same. Sort of like AA.

Yes because your M&P the sights on the M&P is what makes or breaks the quality! And they do come with steel sights.

I know every gun I install metal sights automatically goes up by 10 reliability points.

Walk into my LGS and there's M&P for sale all over the place. Along with Sig's, 1911s, Glocks, Walthers. Only thing that says is people trade guns a lot.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk