What I Don't Like About Glock...

[Carl the Floor Walker]

Originally Posted by ritepath

Mostly my beef is with their owners being arrogant and more often than not insisting only glock makes a reliable gun.

"they shoot themselves"
"cops use them"
"I can buy parts in a vending machine"
"they only have 3 moving parts"
"glock glock glock glock glock"


As for me I'd come closer voting D than owning a glock. (unless it was a g20sf or G40)

Agree with your statement. I think this is where the Glock haters originate. I have never been a Glock fan. Found out a long time ago they have as many failures as any other gun, are not that accurate and etc. But none of that bothered me. I really could care less about them, just no interest.
What I hated about them was the arrogance and annoying way they would take any other gun down, mention they knew someone that had that particular gun and it had a failure and then go on to tell how their Glock is perfect.

What I believe to be true is that Glock Popularity has been waining over the past 5 years or so. I remember going to Gun Shows and the tables full of the Black Guns. Big crowds around them.
Now, I see the same large tables hundreds of the Black guns, but very few people viewing them. They have ridden the Crest of the wave, and seem to be on a downhill.
Amazing how time can change anything.
Now, any time a Glock owner tries to put another person's gun down now, it just does not hold any weight. Owners of other guns now, just laugh.
And Now the Mossberg MC1 is coming out of the Gate STONG. More features, better Price. Hello Mossberg, Goodby Glock.

[sigarms228]

Originally Posted by amd6547

I keep hearing about arrogant Glock owners poluting pistol threads online...
But all I see are absurd threads like this one insulting Glocks and those who happen to like them,

IMO there is a lot of truth to what you say. Anti Glock haters are just as bad if not worse than Glock fan boys and there are "other brand" fan boys just as bad if not worse than Glock fan boys.

I own ONE Glock, a Gen 2 Glock 19 that I bought new in the early 90s and has served me very well. Many times on a forum (not this one) when someone asks "what do you carry" I list my Gen2 Glock 19 as a pistol I CCW frequently and oh boy do more than a few take exception with that in a not so friendly fashion pointing out the superior options like the ones they use with better grips, better trigger, better ergos, better reliability, etc and why would I stay with such an inferior relic. I don't feed them and just reply it works very well for me and my needs, I like the trigger, and it has never let me down.

IMHO there a lot of wonderful choices in pistols these days and Glock is still among the best but as always one should try out whatever they are considering and go with what works best for them realizing what works best for them may not be the case for someone else.

[osbornk]

Due to advertising, I think Glock has become the generic term for a handgun, like Coke is generic for a soft drink, Xerox is generic for a copy machine and Frigidaire is generic for a refrigerator. When someone talks about a Glock, it may be a handgun of another brand.

[44 AMP]

You just cannot get over the fact that the Glock, as designed is safe.

It's a GUN!!! It's NEVER "safe" unless verified unloaded, and disassembled.

[tipoc]

Have there been cases where a Glock fired a round because the internal safeties failed

Yes there has been and those problems resulted in the appearance of the Gen 2 guns. Where the particular issues were corrected.

In 1992 Glock issued a product upgrade notice (recall basically) on parts for the firing pin safety.

From teh April 1992 Gun Tests magazine:

Glock Changes Firing Pins
Glock Inc. executives claim there is no
basis to the reports that all of the
company's pistols are being formally
recalled. Nevertheless, they say that, as of
last September, they have instituted a
running change in the design of the firing
pin safety mechanism. All of the pistols that
were assembled after the middle of October
include the redesigned parts.

The reports are apparently based on a pair
of unintentional discharges experienced by
a Suffolk County, New York, lawenforcement
agency. Glock says one of the
two pistols may have been altered outside
of the factory. We understand, however, the
department is steadfastly denying that
claim. The second pistol was not examined
by Glock.

What happened in Suffolk Co. is that a Glock pistols issued to the Dept. fired when the slide was dropped without a finger being anywhere near the trigger in clean and lubricated guns. Glock only inspected one of the two guns that did this and denied it was a big issue. Never the less they redesigned the parts and issued a "product upgrade warning"

The second incident was more important for Glock and that was the DEA in the early 1990s used it's "Frisbee test" on Glocks. The test was meant to represent what might happen in the event a gun was dropped while an officer was running.

§L.16.1.b.(2)(c) of the agency's solicitation, Abuse
Testing, required that submitted "weapons, with
magazine inserted, will be thrown six times, three
times in such a way as to land on the right side and
three times in such a way as to land on the left side.
The throw will be for a distance of approximately
fifteen feet, not to exceed a height of approximately
four feet, to land on a floor of quarry tile or concrete."
From the FOIA request documents it was learned that
beneath the Consensus Report heading of
"Weaknesses" the evaluation committee stated:

Glocks passed the test when empty but with a full magazine;

7/9


§L.16.1.b.(2)(c) of the agency's solicitation, Abuse
Testing, required that submitted "weapons, with
magazine inserted, will be thrown six times, three
times in such a way as to land on the right side and
three times in such a way as to land on the left side.
The throw will be for a distance of approximately
fifteen feet, not to exceed a height of approximately
four feet, to land on a floor of quarry tile or concrete."
From the FOIA request documents it was learned that
beneath the Consensus Report heading of
"Weaknesses" the evaluation committee stated:

Throw test:

Frame 479 (with) slide 318, 1st throw left side the slide came off both rear
rails.
Frame 474 (with) slide 479, 1st throw right side slide came off right rear rails, rear pistol grip under landyard{sic} loop hole cracked and broke the
grip after throw test, pulled the trigger would not fire. Tap, Rack, Bang would result in function of the weapon.
Frame 477 (with) slide 305, slide came off right side rear rails on the first throw.
Frame 318 (with) slide 474, 1st drop rear of pistol grip broken by the landyard{sic} loop hole. Based on the failure of the slides coming off the rear rails it was concluded that the weapons would not be further tested. Therefore no firing of the weapons took place after the throw test….

Glock did not contest the results of the tests which they considered fair.

7/9
Act (FOIA) request, indicate that failure during the
"Frisbee" portion of the 1991 test protocols (DEA-91-
R-0023), led to the Austrian pistols being "rated as
unacceptable" for broader adoption by the Federal law
enforcement agency. (Whereas Glocks had been one
of several DEA-approved handguns, subsequent to the
tests, the agency selected the SIG P228 as their
"official" handgun and removed Glock as an option. No
existing Glocks were removed from service, however,
and Glock's Walter stated at the time that "Glock is
not going to protest the test results, since we feel
they were fair and equitable.")

These tests did not involve firing all the Glocks, as the report states, after the guns broke there was no point to firing them, except for the one that did not break entirely. But, failure in the tests and the Suffolk incidents led to Glock redesigning significant parts of the gun and led to the Gen 2. Glocks Upgrades to the Gen 1's lasted till 1998. Glock had faced a recall of between 350,000 to 500,000 guns and the loss of significant federal and local contracts. The upgrades and the Gen 2 prevented that from becoming a disaster for them.

Bottom line the Gen was a overall better gun. Internally the Gen three was an improvement as well.

tipoc

[Carl the Floor Walker]

Glock Leg has become a Universal term for anything unsafe. A BB gun "Don't shoot your eye out kid".

[tipoc]

Due to advertising, I think Glock has become the generic term for a handgun, like Coke is generic for a soft drink, Xerox is generic for a copy machine and Frigidaire is generic for a refrigerator. When someone talks about a Glock, it may be a handgun of another brand.

No that's not the case anywhere.

tipoc

[dgludwig]

Due to advertising, I think Glock has become the generic term for a handgun, like Coke is generic for a soft drink, Xerox is generic for a copy machine and Frigidaire is generic for a refrigerator. When someone talks about a Glock, it may be a handgun of another brand.

Ever hear of Colt?
I agree with tipoc. There's never been a Kleenex for hand tissue; Vaseline for petroleum jelly or Jello for powdered gelatin firearm equivalent. Imo, the one that might come closest is "The Gun That Won the West"; everyone knows which one that is but the brand never meant "rifle" like Popsicle means flavored frozen confectionary.

[JohnKSa]

Yes there has been and those problems resulted in the appearance of the Gen 2 guns.

Some good information in your response, but a bit of clarification is in order.

The 6 part "upgrade" that took place in 1992 was not related to the introduction of the Gen 2 guns which began 4 years earlier. So while it is true that there was a problem at one point with the internal safeties that resulted in a parts change, it was not associated with the Gen 2 introduction.

Similarly, the changes to the rail lengths which appear to be related to the DEA Frisbee test failure (the rails are an integral part of the frame) were independent of the Gen 2 introduction--again the Gen 2 guns had been out for several years by the time this testing occurred.

Finally, Glock is pretty careful about their press releases, and both the Suffolk incidents and the DEA testing happened around the same time which means it's not clear if the Suffolk discharges motivated any changes to the guns or if they were only related to passing the DEA tests. <<The timeline makes it pretty much impossible for the Suffolk incident to have been the catalyst for the 6 part upgrade since it was already in place in late 1991 before the Suffolk AD happened in early 1992.>>

However, the gist of your information is accurate. There was a problem with the guns that resulted in Glock announcing an "upgrade" for 6 parts related to the internal safeties and also in changes to the rails in the frame.

[tipoc]

I agree that my sequence may be off, I'm no expert. So here are a couple of links to articles where folks can review this issue as well as the evolution of the Glock trigger and it's upgrades.

https://reducerecoil.com/2015/03/dif...n3-glock-gen4/

https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/glock-trigger/



Glock triggers are safe.

tipoc

[Carl the Floor Walker]

The are trigger even more unsafe than Glocks. My Ruger LC9S is one of them. As Hickcock45 said about some of the new Light triggers,' some of them are so light for instance the LC9S which is almost like a target pistol.'
I no longer carry my LC9S. Moved on to a much better trigger and double action.

As I posted before, a good friend of mine, Retired Military Armorer, range master, and huge enthusiast of the Glocks recently shot himself with his Glock getting into the car. Horrible wound. The Hollow Point entered his hip, traveled all the way down his leg just missing the femoral artery.
"No, he told me. I will be moving on to a double action. No more Glocks"

People are always trying to convince others that this gun is safe and other light crisp triggers on carry guns. Not for me. Besides, I have actually became so fond of the double action and actually shoot it better than I did with all my striker fired guns.
And bought a little peace of mind along the way.

[JohnKSa]

From the reducerecoil article:

"This is the Glock 17 Generation 1 and it expanded in 1988 to include the Glock 17L (competition pistol) and the Glock G19 compact. The Glock G22 & Glock G23 Glock’s followed in 1990 The Glock G20 (10mm) & the Glock G21(.45 auto) in 1991."

The first sentence is correct, however there were only a handful of Glock 19 Gen 1 guns and they were made from modified Glock 17s. The introduction of the Glock 19 was the end of Gen 1 except for those 20 or so pistols made by shortening some G17 grip frames. There were no production Gen 1 Glock 19s.

The second sentence is correct, but it does not relate to Gen 1 pistols. After 1988, there were no more Gen 1 guns made.

This was the end of the Generation one with the introduction of the Glock “upgrade kit”. The upgrade kit included 6 parts.

As mentioned, the Gen 1 ended years before the G22, G23, G21 or G20 were introduced. This can be verified without too much trouble.

The 6 part upgrade took place in 1992 and was either the result of the Suffolk ADs or the DEA frisbee testing, both of which took place in 1992. <<The Suffolk ADs took place in Jan 1992, the DEA Frisbee testing took place in 1991. The 6 part upgrade was announced in 1992 but Glock was already selling upgraded guns by November of 1991--before the Suffolk incident.>> Years after the introduction of the Gen 2 guns.

Frankly, the reducerecoil article has a lot of questionable information.

Glock was not a "knife company" although one of the several products they made was a knife.

In spite of having spent a good deal of time reading about Glocks and how they came to be. I've never before seen the claim that Glock got a grant from the Austrian Army to develop a pistol. I've tried to find other sources to corroborate the claim by "Gunmuse" but have been unable to do so. I would be interested to follow up on this if anyone else knows of any information along those lines.

The claim later in the article that there are differing length rails in the Gen 1 guns is false. There are differing length rails in the Gen 2 guns as the result of the remedy for the DEA Frisbee test failures.

The comment about how the various rails cause different problems including "short stroking" from the longest rails and "falling apart and lots of ADs" from the short rails is somewhat mystifying. There are literally tens of thousands of long, medium and short rail Gen 2 guns out there with none of these problems being reported.

I'm sure that Johnny Rowland would be interested to find that his .45 upgrade cartridge is the .450, not the .460 Rowland.

In the second paragraph of the article, the author states that he wrote an article about Glocks in 1999 and after that the Gen 3 guns came out. Gen 3 Glocks were introduced in 1998.

All in all, I would say that "Gunmuse", whoever he (or she) is, at least based on this article, is far less focused on getting facts right than he should be. It looks to me like the author gleaned some information on the parts upgrade from an article on the (now defunct) website called The GunZone and made up a lot of the rest.

[TunnelRat]

Someone shooting himself with a pistol doesn't confirm that a pistol is unsafe. If someone chooses to carry another pistol that is certainly his or her perogative.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[44 AMP]

Someone shooting himself with a pistol doesn't confirm that a pistol is unsafe.

uh, no, pretty sure it does. For him, at the very least.

Wake up and smell the coffee, as they say, hello!!! (taps on your head...) its a LOADED GUN, its not SAFE!!

Nor, is it supposed to be!

Some designs are more resistant to accidental discharge than others, but please, don't think for an instant that loaded guns are safe. They aren't, and that's the point.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

uh, no, pretty sure it does. For him, at the very least.



Wake up and smell the coffee, as they say, hello!!! (taps on your head...) its a LOADED GUN, its not SAFE!!



Nor, is it supposed to be!



Some designs are more resistant to accidental discharge than others, but please, don't think for an instant that loaded guns are safe. They aren't, and that's the point.

Yeah I'm pretty aware of firearm safety (cute patronizing comments aside), but if you want to interpret what I said that way have fun.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Targa]

Someone shooting himself with a pistol doesn't confirm that a pistol is unsafe. If someone chooses to carry another pistol that is certainly his or her perogative.

Agreed, the only thing it confirms is that the person was unsafe.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by amd6547

I keep hearing about arrogant Glock owners poluting pistol threads online...
But all I see are absurd threads like this one insulting Glocks and those who happen to like them,

Well, yeah...look at the title..Still looking for that 'why I hate Sig' thread...

[USNRet93]

What I believe to be true is that Glock Popularity has been waining over the past 5 years or so. I remember going to Gun Shows and the tables full of the Black Guns. Big crowds around them.
Now, I see the same large tables hundreds of the Black guns, but very few people viewing them. They have ridden the Crest of the wave, and seem to be on a downhill.
Amazing how time can change anything.

Could it be that gun makers saw the success of Glock and then went full speed ahead to make 'their own Glock'..polymer striker? I think what you 'see' and think 'may' be anecdotal only..See the thread about how Glock expected to sell a certain number of Glock19x for an entire year and sold that umber in 6 months.

Same thing happened at Apple..Iphone introduced in 1997...now how many 'Iphone' clones, brothers, sisters, outright copies are there?
I think these threads about what's good or bad, then waxing poetic about subjective 'issues' are amusing.

All handguns these days are pretty dern good, pretty good prices. Go to LGS with $600(or less) in yer pocket, come away with a NICE handgun and box(es?) of ammo.

[USNRet93]

As I posted before, a good friend of mine, Retired Military Armorer, range master, and huge enthusiast of the Glocks recently shot himself with his Glock getting into the car. Horrible wound. The Hollow Point entered his hip, traveled all the way down his leg just missing the femoral artery.
"No, he told me. I will be moving on to a double action. No more Glocks"

I guess it's time for that video of the yahoo who shot himself in the leg with a 1911, while drawing it out..Pretty sure that there are MANY handguns where the trigger was snagged, with no safety or safety off, would have shot the guy too. A long first trigger pull is no guarantee. The AD was a user error issue, not a gun design issue, IMHO..

[Skans]

But all I see are absurd threads like this one insulting Glocks and those who happen to like them,

I started this thread because a different thread was premised upon the Glock being the perfect pistol, which thread was ultimately closed. I wanted to point out why a Glock is not the perfect pistol for me or for many others. This has nothing to do with those that really like their Glocks. I did not bash Glock, and I noted the gun itself is very rugged and reliable. I do not believe that I insulted Glock owners (or even Glocks if it is possible for a Glock to get insulted) in any way. In fact, I believe that many Glock owners know and understand why there are a lot of folks for whom the Glock platform simply does not work. Don't forget, I too am a Glock owner.

[Targa]

It always makes me shake my head when people comment about how ridiculous/absurd a thread is. Here is how it works, feel free to use this technique on any forum, if a thread title makes you roll your eyes, move on and ignore it unless of course someone does in fact have a gun to your head forcing you to read the ridiculous/absurd thread and makes you respond to it, if that is the case, you probably should do it..lol

[Carl the Floor Walker]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Well, yeah...look at the title..Still looking for that 'why I hate Sig' thread...

If the tread bothers you then move on. If you want to post a thread titled "why I hate Sigs, then do so." I love the internet, some guy hates the thread and then just keeps posting. Some things never change.

[TailGator]

I agree that Glock is not a perfect pistol. I don't think a perfect pistol exists, or can exist, because different people have different needs and different abilities. Some people do get bent out of shape, often because they are of the opinion that a pistol that meets their needs should be the one that everyone buys. That is just myopia.

As far as the word Glock meaning pistol in the same way that Kleenex means tissue: No, I don't think that is true, but if there was a way to poll people who can name only one brand of pistol and learn what brand that is, Glock would have a shot of coming out on top.

[Wyosmith]

There are only 2 things I dislike about them.

#1 is that I just can't seem to find one that feels good to me. That is not something I can say bad about the design. It's just me. It has no bearing on anyone else and I tell them so. This is not to say I can't shoot them well. I can, and I do, but I don't enjoy it very much.

#2 is that the chambers are not fully supported, and the aftermarket barrels available for them work as well as the ones Glock makes, so there is no doubt that making them with fully supported chambers would not harm their reliability at all.
I don't shoot factory ammo, so shooting only re-loads this is a vital issue to me and to most avid shooters who are not rolling in money. Those that shoot ammo paid for my the taxpayers also need not worry.

If you don't shoot re-loads the factory chambers are of no concern.

[tipoc]

From John KSA:

From the reducerecoil article:
"This is the Glock 17 Generation 1 and it expanded in 1988 to include the Glock 17L (competition pistol) and the Glock G19 compact. The Glock G22 & Glock G23 Glock’s followed in 1990 The Glock G20 (10mm) & the Glock G21(.45 auto) in 1991."

The first sentence is correct, however there were only a handful of Glock 19 Gen 1 guns and they were made from modified Glock 17s. The introduction of the Glock 19 was the end of Gen 1 except for those 20 or so pistols made by shortening some G17 grip frames. There were no production Gen 1 Glock 19s.

The second sentence is correct, but it does not relate to Gen 1 pistols. After 1988, there were no more Gen 1 guns made.
This was the end of the Generation one with the introduction of the Glock “upgrade kit”. The upgrade kit included 6 parts.

As mentioned, the Gen 1 ended years before the G22, G23, G21 or G20 were introduced. This can be verified without too much trouble.

The 6 part upgrade took place in 1992 and was either the result of the Suffolk ADs or the DEA frisbee testing, both of which took place in 1992. <<The Suffolk ADs took place in Jan 1992, the DEA Frisbee testing took place in 1991. The 6 part upgrade was announced in 1992 but Glock was already selling upgraded guns by November of 1991--before the Suffolk incident.>> Years after the introduction of the Gen 2 guns.

Frankly, the reducerecoil article has a lot of questionable information.

Glock was not a "knife company" although one of the several products they made was a knife.

In spite of having spent a good deal of time reading about Glocks and how they came to be. I've never before seen the claim that Glock got a grant from the Austrian Army to develop a pistol. I've tried to find other sources to corroborate the claim by "Gunmuse" but have been unable to do so. I would be interested to follow up on this if anyone else knows of any information along those lines.

The claim later in the article that there are differing length rails in the Gen 1 guns is false. There are differing length rails in the Gen 2 guns as the result of the remedy for the DEA Frisbee test failures.

The comment about how the various rails cause different problems including "short stroking" from the longest rails and "falling apart and lots of ADs" from the short rails is somewhat mystifying. There are literally tens of thousands of long, medium and short rail Gen 2 guns out there with none of these problems being reported.

I'm sure that Johnny Rowland would be interested to find that his .45 upgrade cartridge is the .450, not the .460 Rowland.

In the second paragraph of the article, the author states that he wrote an article about Glocks in 1999 and after that the Gen 3 guns came out. Gen 3 Glocks were introduced in 1998.

All in all, I would say that "Gunmuse", whoever he (or she) is, at least based on this article, is far less focused on getting facts right than he should be. It looks to me like the author gleaned some information on the parts upgrade from an article on the (now defunct) website called The GunZone and made up a lot of the rest.

Good critique. I used the Gunmuse article because others that I have which illustrated the upgrades in PDF form I could not post.

On the original question: Did Glock have any UD's having to do with it's mechanical safeties and failures of that and the answer is yes. Upgrades were done to the trigger system which corrected this. Glock did not issue a recall and performed the upgrade over a number of years in the 1990s. The Gen 2 guns were introduced before the upgrades.

Gun Tests magazine, and others made the link between Suffolk Co. and the firing pin upgrades. I quoted these above.

Upgrades to the frame were made following the DEA testing.

Dean Speirs GunZone did go out of business and the domain name sold. It was the only place that I know of that collected and followed articles on Glock with a critical eye. it was valuable for that if occasionally over the top in some claims.

tipoc