Old School vs New School

[eb07]

I wasn't sure where to put this. I saw some Glock and or polymer pistol bashing earlier and I wanted to give my opinion without derailing the thread.

Old School vs New School

Both are classics in their own right. They are ground breakers in their respective era's.

What the old school has going for it is a better trigger, it is much better to hunt with due to penetration and energy displacement. Then there is the visual factor. It just looks great.

Both are reliable. very reliable They both shoot very well.

Ballistics wise there is a difference in penetration, velocity, and energy for hunting purposes, but the improvement of modern hollow points as far as self defense is concerned have made all of the calibers penetrate and expand properly when placed where they need to be. So either caliber is acceptable for that purpose. Although some people still refuse to believe that. That is my opinion based upon the data I have seen.

For me, new school wins out all day in terms of capacity. 3X the amount in one sitting.

As well as weight, it is lighter. Conceal-ability too. It is much thinner and the weight helps with this. Making it easier to hid on the body under a simple t-shirt.

As far as open carry, a good holster makes both a pleasure to carry. But old school wins out here on visual aesthetics alone.

There really is no practical reason for me to carry old school for self defense unless I just want that nostalgic feeling.

Old school excels at varmint and predator hunting however.

I like to carry old school in the back country, where I have a self defense rifle close at hand, and I like to carry new school where it matters in the big city for self defense.

Obviously I still carry a 6 shot snub in my rural low crime community. I also carry to my situation, environment and dress. I choose the best tool for the job at hand.

But when it comes to full sized weapons.....
39oz for only 6 rounds in the Model 19 is trumped by the 33 ounces for 18 rounds in the Glock 17 all day every day in my opinion.

I just doesn't look as good doing it's job. Not many handguns can look as good as old school. New school is ugly, but it gets the job done reliably.


I have been a purpose driven firearm owner as of late. If it does not serve a self defense, target shooting, competition, or hunting purpose I have culled it. My collection is refined to useful tools for my hobbies. Collectors please don't jump on me, I salivate at your collections, I just want to use my firearms and collectors pieces would be ruined in my hands.

So both old school and new school serve a purpose for me. I have learned to appreciate both of them for what they are. There is room in my life for both of them to coexist and provide many years of enjoyment. Not to leave out the American classic, throw in a 1911 or two and three is definitely not company. thumb buster fanatics please don't get angered I sold all of mine, but I am looking for a well worn one in 44 special as we speak.

 

[Rustyt1953]

You had me at "hello".

Nice pics.

 

[shouldazagged]

Very thoughtful comparison.

In old age I've gone back to revolvers, and can't afford to replace the autoloaders I let get away years ago; but like you I keep the few guns I have left for specific uses, in my case self- and home defense.

I'm not at all a Glock-hater, as some people here certainly seem to be. They do lack the beauty and long tradition of revolvers and automatics like the 1911 and Luger. People say they "don't have soul". They just damn well work and are very good at what they are designed to do.

I carry a revolver due to physical limitations and belief that there are fewer things that can go wrong with them (I didn't say "none"). But I appreciate both "new school" and "older school" autoloaders. I would dearly love to own a 3913 or a 3rd generation in .45 ACP, and sure wouldn't turn down the gift of a Glock 19 or 17.

 

[Marshwheeling]

Old School:

New School:

Note how this is done without resorting to Glocks of any kind.

 

[Rick_A]

No plastics, but some old and new at the range.
20150601_133218(0) by Slick_Rick77, on Flickr

Lately I've been accumulating ar15's and revolvers. AR's are considered quite modern, though they're a 1950's design.

 

[kaveman]

My personal Glock bashing is simply based on the fact that it's a $200 pistol with a $600 price tag. There's nothing particularly wrong with the pistols themselves. All of the polymer pistols are fine for what they are but I have almost no confidence that they won't end up parted out before they're old enough to order a drink in a bar. 20yrs seems to be the point at which frames start getting changed out and I'm not willing to bet that new frames will still be available 20yrs from now. Still, they do definitely have advantages such as bulletproof reliability and light weight,............so I prefer the 3rd Gen Smith and Wesson autos; specifically the DAO versions which are equal to the modern striker fired pistols in simplicity of operation. They at least seem to be worth the cost and I have faith in their long term viability. A 6946 gives up next to nothing to a G19.

I'm not a hater of the polymer. Probably own 20-some of the things including several Glocks(although the S&W SD is a better pistol at half the price). I will agree that revolvers really are old school and not comparable to a modern autoloader. Way too many shortcomings in comparison and a fictional reliability advantage. Shot for shot I doubt they're as reliable as a good autoloader and I know they're nowhere near as robust,...........but I like them anyway.

 

[A10]

Glocks, and other polymer pistols are reliable. Ugly, plastic, soulless reliability..........



They do make good trading stock though. I've owned a bunch of them, probably own one or two more someday. They are always available.

 

[eb07]

My personal Glock bashing is simply based on the fact that it's a $200 pistol with a $600 price tag. There's nothing particularly wrong with the pistols themselves. All of the polymer pistols are fine for what they are but I have almost no confidence that they won't end up parted out before they're old enough to order a drink in a bar. 20yrs seems to be the point at which frames start getting changed out and I'm not willing to bet that new frames will still be available 20yrs from now. Still, they do definitely have advantages such as bulletproof reliability and light weight,............so I prefer the 3rd Gen Smith and Wesson autos; specifically the DAO versions which are equal to the modern striker fired pistols in simplicity of operation. They at least seem to be worth the cost and I have faith in their long term viability. A 6946 gives up next to nothing to a G19.

I'm not a hater of the polymer. Probably own 20-some of the things including several Glocks(although the S&W SD is a better pistol at half the price). I will agree that revolvers really are old school and not comparable to a modern autoloader. Way too many shortcomings in comparison and a fictional reliability advantage. Shot for shot I doubt they're as reliable as a good autoloader and I know they're nowhere near as robust,...........but I like them anyway.

Every firearm is marked up horribly. It's called capitalism.

 

[Kframerbluvr]

I wasn't sure where to put this. I saw some Glock and or polymer pistol bashing earlier and I wanted to give my opinion without derailing the thread.

Old School vs New School

Both are classics in their own right. They are ground breakers in their respective era's.

What the old school has going for it is a better trigger, it is much better to hunt with due to penetration and energy displacement. Then there is the visual factor. It just looks great.

Both are reliable. very reliable They both shoot very well.

Ballistics wise there is a difference in penetration, velocity, and energy for hunting purposes, but the improvement of modern hollow points as far as self defense is concerned have made all of the calibers penetrate and expand properly when placed where they need to be. So either caliber is acceptable for that purpose. Although some people still refuse to believe that. That is my opinion based upon the data I have seen.

For me, new school wins out all day in terms of capacity. 3X the amount in one sitting.

As well as weight, it is lighter. Conceal-ability too. It is much thinner and the weight helps with this. Making it easier to hid on the body under a simple t-shirt.

As far as open carry, a good holster makes both a pleasure to carry. But old school wins out here on visual aesthetics alone.

There really is no practical reason for me to carry old school for self defense unless I just want that nostalgic feeling.

Old school excels at varmint and predator hunting however.

I like to carry old school in the back country, where I have a self defense rifle close at hand, and I like to carry new school where it matters in the big city for self defense.

Obviously I still carry a 6 shot snub in my rural low crime community. I also carry to my situation, environment and dress. I choose the best tool for the job at hand.

But when it comes to full sized weapons.....
39oz for only 6 rounds in the Model 19 is trumped by the 33 ounces for 18 rounds in the Glock 17 all day every day in my opinion.

I just doesn't look as good doing it's job. Not many handguns can look as good as old school. New school is ugly, but it gets the job done reliably.


I have been a purpose driven firearm owner as of late. If it does not serve a self defense, target shooting, competition, or hunting purpose I have culled it. My collection is refined to useful tools for my hobbies. Collectors please don't jump on me, I salivate at your collections, I just want to use my firearms and collectors pieces would be ruined in my hands.

So both old school and new school serve a purpose for me. I have learned to appreciate both of them for what they are. There is room in my life for both of them to coexist and provide many years of enjoyment. Not to leave out the American classic, throw in a 1911 or two and three is definitely not company. thumb buster fanatics please don't get angered I sold all of mine, but I am looking for a well worn one in 44 special as we speak.

They both have their place. Ninety percent of my carry needs are done with combat Tupperware (AKA Glock). There are times where a J-Frame in a pocket or a thirty ounce M10 sixgun on the belt hides and carries better. My tuxedo gun is a RB M10 4" standard barreled model carried in an old Bianchi #6 holster. The round butt hides much easier than any Glock, even my G27. I will most likely carry the old girl today, since I have a function to attend that requires a suit.

 

[BAM-BAM]

I tried Glocks in the early/mid. 90s....... a 19 and two 26s.

Nothing wrong with them..... didn't feel as good in the hand as my 3913 or 6906......... closer to the 469 I'd had and traded for my first 6906.

As a looooong time revolver shooter I found I prefered the long double action first shot for "safety"/decision making........

In the end I didn't think for me that it was an upgrade/improvement to switch from 3rd gen to striker fired,slightly lighter but thicker/blockier Glocks.

I still prefer a revolver for woods carry.... for many of the reasons stated by the OP....... a 3 or 4 inch 66 or 686 is my prefered Mountain gun..... with a 3 inch 60-10 close behind

Too each their own I say................

If I was going into combat with a group..... I wouldn't feel bad with a Glock 17 or 19 as a "tool of the trade" but......... "in the wilds of the burbs of the burgh"..... I've stuck with my "old school" 3913 and a spare mag.

 

[Cocked & Locked]

Old School

New School

 

[jack the toad]

Glocks (includes other polymer wonder guns), 1911's, DA revolvers and SA revolvers all have their places. I appreciate them for what they are and do. Isn't diversity wonderful?

 

[Arik]

I have no heard of any frame problems after 20 years. There have been issues with certain calibers and lights attached and of course people either torturing the hell out of them or trying to do their own gunsmithing. But from regular use....? My daily carry is getting to 20 years old and another that's way past. And the few P70s that o do see seem to be holding up just fine for a 40 year old gun.

The material is not a factor to me. It can be made of paper as long as it proves to be durable and reliable.

Emotions also don't have a role in gun buying. Like picking out tires or replacement light bulbs.

If you compare the price of how much it cost to build something vs how much it's sold for then you'd find that just about everything is overpriced. And I'd like to know how you came up with $200.

 

[KSDeputy]

I don't hate Glocks, I just don't like them. I own and carry DA/SA pistols because that is what I was trained on. All of my pistols function in this way. I carried revolvers prior to the semi-autos. First we carried .38 special, then .357. Then we moved to 645, later 4506. Then I retired. Now the Sheriff Office carries Glock .40 caliber. Yes I like S&W above all else, and Walther. I own and shoot older style firearms, I feel comfortable with them, and I scored 96% at the last range in April. What I cannot stand is DAO.

 

[colin1230]

I can certainly appreciate the OP. Over the years I have not been a fanboy to any specific brand. I like them all, if they are quality. Colt, Barretta, S&W, Ruger and Glock. I own a number of each and enjoy each for what it is. Old School or New School doesn't matter to me, I love shooting them all! What do I carry? A Glock at four o'clock or a j-frame in the pocket.

 

[kaveman]

If you compare the price of how much it cost to build something vs how much it's sold for then you'd find that just about everything is overpriced. And I'd like to know how you came up with $200.

Just a round number guesstimate and I'm not suggesting that it costs $200 to make a Glock,..........that's what it should sell for with a tidy profit included. It costs no more to make a Glock than it costs to make a Hi Point, although there's a huge increase in their marketing budget.

Tear a Glock apart and pile up the parts. What do you have? A square, blocky slide made of quality steel with very little machining. A simple tubular barrel made of quality steel. A couple of simple stamped parts and a handful of spring clippings. Then you have a plastic injection molded receiver around another piece of stamped steel and a few spare plastic bits. It's a marvel of cheap manufacturing(yes, the startup equipment is expensive, but amortized over millions produced?).

Sigmas and SDs sell for $250-$300 retail and they cost just as much to manufacture as Glocks except they don't have anywhere near the worldwide economy of scale.

.

Here's a quick rundown on the genius of Glock,......in my opinion:

Manufacture an indestructible slide. Solid, blocky, square. Make it cheap but make it strong. Think railroad spike.

Manufacture an indestructible barrel. Solid, blocky, square. Make it cheap but make it strong. Think of a hollow railroad spike with the edges turned off.

Everything else you make as simple as possible. Don't even let it be discernible as a firearm part. The closer it is to appearing like scrap and floor sweepings, the better. Everything else you want to be able to replace for the cost of postage.

Now, spend a fortune on marketing,.......product placement,.......freebies to every LEO in existence. Get the things out there! You're making huge profits on these $50 gadgets so make sure everybody wants one. Offer a great service program,...........why not? The basic gun, which is nothing but a slide and barrel, is indestructible. You'll never need to do more than dip those parts. The rest of the parts cost you nothing. Round pins, a few snips of wire, a couple of shaped plastic pieces that can double as Monopoly playing pieces. Hand that stuff out like candy.

Just don't make the same mistake as the 'old line' manufacturers. Don't make a good gun that will last generations. You'll soon be competing with a flood of your own guns on the used market. Pistols are fairly simple tools and they've been doing the same basic job for a hundred years. In fact, most of those hundred year old hammers are still on the job. Even through all the wars and hardships they're still as good as the day they were built. Plan in a little obsolescence,..........it's good for future business.

OK, that was fun. Don't take it too seriously. I'm not really a hater,.......I'm just looking at the BIG picture and that's how I see it.

 

[eb07]

I have no heard of any frame problems after 20 years. There have been issues with certain calibers and lights attached and of course people either torturing the hell out of them or trying to do their own gunsmithing. But from regular use....? My daily carry is getting to 20 years old and another that's way past. And the few P70s that o do see seem to be holding up just fine for a 40 year old gun.

The material is not a factor to me. It can be made of paper as long as it proves to be durable and reliable.

Emotions also don't have a role in gun buying. Like picking out tires or replacement light bulbs.

If you compare the price of how much it cost to build something vs how much it's sold for then you'd find that just about everything is overpriced. And I'd like to know how you came up with $200.

It is just internet lore. The firearms have not been around long enough to know what is going to happen in 50-100 years yet. Yeah some have cracked. Yet some from the 80's are still kicking 30+ years later.

Model 19's crack forcing cones with heavy use of certain grain bullet loads. 442 and 642 are cracking.1911 pin holes stretch on the frames. Revolvers stretch frames, etc etc. I can point out all kinds of regular use failures on firearms over the years.

When you try to bash something, you just focus on one thing with blinders on without opening your eyes and looking at comparable statistics and situations. That's why I made this post.

I won't care if my polymer handguns fail in 50-100 years. They will have served me well and served my purpose as a tool. If I wanted a 50-100 year firearm I would just buy a cold American steel one, lightly oil it and put in in my safe for safekeeping. Keeping a glock for collector value is like passing on corvette and putting a k-car in your garage. I fully suspect my model 19 will fail one day with the way I use it. It is what it is. Tupperware haters keep on keeping on.

 

[eb07]

Just a round number guesstimate and I'm not suggesting that it costs $200 to make a Glock,..........that's what it should sell for with a tidy profit included. It costs no more to make a Glock than it costs to make a Hi Point, although there's a huge increase in their marketing budget.

Tear a Glock apart and pile up the parts. What do you have? A square, blocky slide made of quality steel with very little machining. A simple tubular barrel made of quality steel. A couple of simple stamped parts and a handful of spring clippings. Then you have a plastic injection molded receiver around another piece of stamped steel and a few spare plastic bits. It's a marvel of cheap manufacturing(yes, the startup equipment is expensive, but amortized over millions produced?).

Sigmas and SDs sell for $250-$300 retail and they cost just as much to manufacture as Glocks except they don't have anywhere near the worldwide economy of scale.

.

Here's a quick rundown on the genius of Glock,......in my opinion:

Manufacture an indestructible slide. Solid, blocky, square. Make it cheap but make it strong. Think railroad spike.

Manufacture an indestructible barrel. Solid, blocky, square. Make it cheap but make it strong. Think of a hollow railroad spike with the edges turned off.

Everything else you make as simple as possible. Don't even let it be discernible as a firearm part. The closer it is to appearing like scrap and floor sweepings, the better. Everything else you want to be able to replace for the cost of postage.

Now, spend a fortune on marketing,.......product placement,.......freebies to every LEO in existence. Get the things out there! You're making huge profits on these $50 gadgets so make sure everybody wants one. Offer a great service program,...........why not? The basic gun, which is nothing but a slide and barrel, is indestructible. You'll never need to do more than dip those parts. The rest of the parts cost you nothing. Round pins, a few snips of wire, a couple of shaped plastic pieces that can double as Monopoly playing pieces. Hand that stuff out like candy.

Just don't make the same mistake as the 'old line' manufacturers. Don't make a good gun that will last generations. You'll soon be competing with a flood of your own guns on the used market. Pistols are fairly simple tools and they've been doing the same basic job for a hundred years. In fact, most of those hundred year old hammers are still on the job. Even through all the wars and hardships they're still as good as the day they were built. Plan in a little obsolescence,..........it's good for future business.

OK, that was fun. Don't take it too seriously. I'm not really a hater,.......I'm just looking at the BIG picture and that's how I see it.

I don't want to argue with you about manufacturing costs, but clearly you have no idea how the process works. All of these firearms manufactures are running about 12-15% profit after the fact. Nobody is price gouging except the dealers. But alas, welcome to capitalism. You probably posted this on a smart phone or PC you paid 500+ for that cost about $50 bucks to make using slave labor in china.

 

[kaveman]

That's actually a very good analogy,.......a Glock is very similar to a smart phone or PC you paid 500+ for that cost about $50 bucks to make. I'm really not knocking it. I own some. I own many similarly constructed pistols and prefer them to the Glock, but I don't really trust any of them to outlast me. Maybe that doesn't matter.

I haven't thought about this for some time because I quit shooting my Glocks many years ago, but I'll mention here that my major gripe against the brand is completely unfair and I want to apologize for it. Like many people, I don't mesh with the Glock grip. In my case, due to a previous injury to my right hand, three shots from any Glock is enough for my right hand to go numb. That's not the gun's fault but I guess it has colored my judgment of the gun. All that aside,............I've never hated the Glock,...........I just prefer the competition,............and I don't consider any of them to be more than mediocre pistols built to a price for the masses.

 

[Drm50]

The new School

The new school stuff is only good for it's intended use. To shot
people. I have nothing against this as long as the right people
get shot. In all guns when you go for lighter weight, it's a trade
off weight/ durability. If you are going to carry gun it's the best
way to go. These kind of weapons are what is selling, so every
one is making them. Just make sure you buy a good brand that
is dependable. Having said that, I would rather have my sister
in a bordello than carry a plastic gun. There are a lot of Semi
Automatic pistols that have been around for years. Maybe a tad
heavier, but dependable. Me I'll stick to my wheels.