What is the appeal of Glock handguns?

[liv4spd]

Sounds like Glock is like Toyota in the car world. Affordable, reliable, and get the work done.

[Mosin44az]

Toyota is EXACTLY the car brand I think of when comparing Glocks to cars.

The Glock 19 has long been the standard of comparison for an all around carry gun, used by police agencies and militaries worldwide and even US Special Forces.

It has been the target of most of the major gun companies for years, and in recent years some have matched its reliability and durability, and even beaten it on price (at least to civilian consumers) and in having better triggers.

Smith & Wesson M & Ps come to mind , both full size and compact.

Springfield’s new Echelon looks very competitive. Walther PDP, HK VP9, CZP10, and Canik TP9 and Mete have nicer triggers, etc. Shadow MR920, Beretta APX , IWI Masada also worthy of consideration.

[44 AMP]

What is the appeal of Glock handguns?

For me, there is no appeal. And, again, for me, there are no endearing qualities.

They are a soulless mechanism made by people so egotistical and arrogant they consider their product to be "perfection" and seem insulted when anyone doesn't immediately agree.

They don't have the features I want on a pistol, have features and traits I DO NOT WANT, and just don't appeal to me in any way. And yes, I HAVE used them, and they were less than the claimed perfection.

Their price point, and the ease of operation and training have made them an appealing choice to organizations which issue pistols.

Since I am not issued a pistol, and get to make my own choices about what pistol(s) I own and use, I don't choose Glocks.

[Webleymkv]

Honestly? I think their popularity comes down primarily to price point and brand loyalty. Glock really got their foothold in the U.S. market due to their popularity with police agencies. While Glock pistols are probably the most common gun to see on a police officer's hip, this wasn't always the case. Prior to Glock's popularity, there was a bit for variety in Cops' holsters but the most common were probably various metal-frame, hammer-fired DA/SA "wonder nines" like Beretta 92 variants, Sig 220 series, and S&W 2nd and 3rd Generation semi-autos which, by the mid-90's, had largely supplanted revolvers as the go-to Cop's gun. Glock was able to replace many of these because they could sell their guns at a significantly lower price point than a more traditional metal-frame, hammer-fired gun. A small-town Sheriff's Deputy that I knew back then was able to purchase a brand-new Glock 21 for $300, cheap enough that he was able to sell the Colt Commander he'd been carrying for the previous 10 years for substantially more. While there were some early attempts by other makers to get into the polymer frame market, and thus Glocks price point, like the Ruger P95 or S&W Sigma series, they were never as well received as the Glocks. As is often the case with firearms, those used by the military or police often become popular with the rest of the market and such was the case with Glock.

Fast forward a few years to the late 2000's and 2010's and there are a lot of good, well-regarded polymer-frame striker guns out there like the Springfield XD Series, S&W M&P Series, and Sig 320 series. From a reliability, capacity, and accuracy standpoint, there really isn't much Glock can offer that isn't available from any number of other makers. However, Glock was the first and is the most well-known within that market so they remain popular. Also, due in large part to institutional momentum, they remain popular with police because, while they may not offer any great advantage over other guns of the type, they offer no significant disadvantage either. One advantage that Glock does offer, though it diminishes the longer time goes on, is that because of their longstanding popularity there is a wide variety of magazines, holsters, sights, and other parts and accessories available for typically reasonable prices (though some of their competitors are catching up in this regard).

Unfortunately, Glock seems to be one of those guns that attracts "fanboys" for lack of a better term. These people seem to make it their life's mission to convince everyone who will listen (and some who won't) that a Glock is the greatest gun ever devised and that Gaston Glock was inspired by the almighty. These people seem to be emotionally invested in their belief that a Glock is the be-all end-all of pistols and take offense when anyone criticizes one or prefers something else. Frankly, I think that a lot of the acrimony towards Glock pistols stems from how irritating the "fanboys" can sometimes be.

If you've never tried a Glock pistol, it might be worth shooting one to see if it appeals to you as they are accurate, reliable, high-quality handguns. If, however, you find that they don't appeal to you or something else is a better fit for you wants/needs, that's perfectly fine too and you aren't necessarily choosing an inferior pistol if you go with something other than a Glock. Personally, I've shot a few Glocks and they were OK, but I find other pistols which fit my hands better and have features that I prefer which aren't available from Glock. I have no issue with someone who likes Glock so long as they aren't obnoxious about it and/or critical of me for choosing something else.

[Tactical Jackalope]

They're just good pistols. I think people get in a bind about that because there's nothing inherently special about them. I've been around long enough to see that there is no convincing anyone anything otherwise unless they are truly open to seeing it for themselves.

What I have seen first-hand is that people have a disdain toward things that the crowd seems to like. Especially when they don't see what the crowd sees. Which leaves a bad taste in their mouth.

A good friend of mine, like me, was an HK fanatic. Never really saw the allure for the Glock handguns. You'd unknowingly plant seeds. And he's smart enough to pick up on things on his own, I don't claim any credit toward his "awakening". Part availability, ease of use, ease of servicing, low maintenance, part availability, inexpensive parts, customization with minimal to no fitting required, and so much more. Now his main pistol is a Glock 19 with a Holosun red dot sight. Mine is a Glock with an RMR or AimPoint Acro P2.

Modern holsters also play a huge role for me, personally. Since 2020 I've become accustomed to modern sidecar-style holsters with wedges, cuts in the right places, deeper on the magazine portion to carry an OEM extended magazine without the print, foam wedges, etc. I cannot for the life of me find that same setup for my USP or classic SIG P-Series pistols. And when I carry in an old Don Hume or kydex holster back from when the kydex holster industry first took off, it's not remotely the same.

So there are many reasons. One thing I forgot to mention that can be off-putting are fans boys of any brand. They place fantasy-like cult followings behind what they've chosen. So, I get that.. But if that's the case, I have bad news for you... lol

[TunnelRat]

I’ve owned a number of Glocks. I have also owned polymer-framed, striker-fired pistols from makers like Beretta, CZ, FN, HK, Ruger, S&W, SIG Sauer Inc., and Walther and probably something I am forgetting. My experience is that if we’re talking about current production handguns, there are actually a lot of reliable handguns. I’ve owned a number of pistols that fed, fired, extracted, and ejected cartridges just as well as my Glocks, assuming all of them are using factory ammunition or a decent quality ammunition. While my Glocks are reliable, I have pistols just as reliable from other manufacturers. In some cases those others were more reliable. I’ve found Glocks to be susceptible to feed issues when being shot in VTAC barricade ports or when shot by someone with a less than ideal grip, or at least more susceptible than other designs.

On the positive side, I think of the pistols I have owned Glock has had one of the most consistent production processes that I have encountered. They may not produce a pistol you like for a number of reasons, but in dozens of handguns now I have seen far more issues related to QC with other manufacturers than Glock. Ergonomically I actually like S&W M&Ps more, but the QC in the pistols I have purchased from S&W has been poor by comparison.

I think Glock still tends to do very well in capacity/capability for the size/weight. There are no shortage of Glock 19 competitors out there, but many of them end up being heavier/taller/longer without being easier to shoot (admittedly that can be subjective). I’ve owned a number of pistols that I really liked, and still kept and found myself shooting Glocks.l in part because the size tends to fit me well.

I also agree with others that in terms of accessories, if a company is introducing a product they almost always have a Glock variant of that product (unless their product is specifically for a competitor of Glock). That may or may not matter to you. Jackalope mentioned and I’ll agree that if/when you find a style or maker of holster that you really like and then can’t find that for another pistol you want to use, that can be disappointing and even make you not want that pistol.

I don’t know that I would call Glock the “best” at any one feature of a pistol. But for an overall choice I still think they are “good”. I will say again, however, that frankly there are a lot of “good” designs out there in 2024 in my experience. If you like something else better that’s not “wrong”.

[Henry400]

The first time I saw a Glock (a G21), I thought they were butt-ugly. And then I shot it. It was still butt ugly, but I couldn't deny that it was an easy shoot for a .45 ACP. The first Glock I bought was a G30SF. I now have 3 Glocks, as I added a 19X and the 'civilian' counterpart, the G45. The G45 is what I carry when I go into the nearby large metropolitan area. It's what I carry when I serve church security detail. Why? Because I've put thousands of rounds downrange with it, so it's proven its reliability to me. It's more accurate than I am out to the distances I would need to shoot (~50 yards), It's got probably the best stock trigger of any Glock I've shot, it's well-balanced, and, for a 17 round gun with a 4" barrel, it's remarkably concealable. I choose to carry it over either Dan Wesson Vigil for those reasons. But also because, for the same size and weight, it has twice the round count on tap.

[Jack19]

Reliability/Manufacturer and aftermarket support > Good looks

[wild cat mccane]

The Glock "Safe Action System" is unique in the sea of fully strung SA strikers

[jmr40]

Boring just like a Toyota Tacoma or Camry. They just work. I can honestly say I don't particularly like them, but a Glock pistol would be the 1st of my many handguns I'd reach for if I heard a bump in the night.

They are different and older shooters who grew up with other designs took a lot longer to adapt to them. But every LE agency who switched to them found their overall scores improve afterwards. New shooters just shoot them more accurately than other guns.

I'm in the process of teaching my 16 year old granddaughter to shoot. I have a variety of guns made by Ruger, Smith, Sig and Glock. I started her with 22's and when she was ready to move up, I let her shoot every handgun I had in 9mm, 45, 10mm and 357 mag. She shoots the 9mm Glock better than any other gun. And I mean by a substantial margin. She had never held a handgun before and had no preconceived biases.

The 1st complaint older shooters comment on is the grip angle. I know I did at first. It is only unnatural if you've spent your whole life shooting guns with a different grip angle. Gaston Glock wasn't a shooter, and he designed the gun with the grip angle that felt most natural to him. Turns out that most new shooters agree with him.

[stagpanther]

It's another deep-state conspiracy.

[blchandl2]

The Glock grip angle is very close to the P08 grip angle.

[Jim Watson]

Also Pardini, Benelli, Laugo, and all the forward magazine .22 and .32 target pistols.

I wonder if the Luger's grip angle is a mechanical consideration or was to follow the European dropped wrist presentation. I figure the later guns are definitely made for that grip and could just as easily have been built with a 1911 angle. Or a 1902 angle, for that matter.

[Pumpkin]

I don't currently own one but my son does.
I did have a 21 and could actually operate the slide with one hand, I really liked it while riding on my tractor.
"The Glock grip angle is very close to the P08 grip angle."
Any similarity to a P08 Luger is cool with me. Personally, I never had an issue with this feature of the gun.

[44 AMP]

I wonder if the Luger's grip angle is a mechanical consideration or was to follow the European dropped wrist presentation.

Well you can ask Georg when you see him, but that won't help the rest of us much.

Consider this, first the Borchardt pistol Luger was redesigning had a very straight up and down grip. Luger's pistole definitely feels better in the hand.

Also, unlike the Browning and most other designs, the Luger has no slide moving back over the hand when it cycles. And, there is very little weight in front of the grip. I feel sure these things played a part in Luger's choice of grip angle, though how much of a part, I can't say.

The grip angle of a GLock never really bothered me, what bothers me worse is my trigger finger getting "slapped" when the trigger resets. Gets to be painful (for me) after a bit, I don't like it, and don't see where it does anything good.

I'm firmly rooted in the past, in that I believe a semi auto pistol should have a positive safety, applied by the user and that stays on, until the user takes it off. aka a "safety lock" (which btw is the terminology used for the 1911 thumb safety in the military manuals) OR an exposed hammer. I prefer guns that have both, but am fine as long as one of those two things is there.

The GLock has neither.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by liv4spd

I'm new to the gun world. It seems like Glock is one of the most popular handgun brands. I can understand it is a very reliable brand. Other than that, what is the appeal of Glock handguns.

I tired a Glock 19 once, and find it to be extremely boring. On the other hand, I'm fascinated with guns made by other brands like Sig Sauer, Walther, Ruger, CZ, etc.

Welcome to the wide, wide world of guns!

Reliability is a huge factor in Glock's appeal. Are they boring? Sure. They go bang, just almost like clockwork. But if we're talking about a defensive gun, boring is exactly what I want. I want the gun to go bang when I pull the trigger, every time, with every ammo, in all conditions. If I'm in a self-defense situation, I already have all of the excitement I really want in my life, and then some.

As a matter of history (and purely my opinion), Glocks had all but cornered the market on extremely reliable polymer pistols about 40 years ago. Since then, many other manufacturers have developed their own designs in that area that have also proven to be very reliable. I'm sure some of those designs were copied from Glock. (Google S&W getting sued by Glock for one example.) Regardless of how they got to these new designs, though, the point is that Glock isn't the only game in town any more. Nonetheless, it appears to continue to dominate the law enforcement market, and there are a ton of gun buyers who buy what the police carry, figuring that "if the police carry it, it must be good."

So there's my 2¢, worth exactly what you paid for it.

[Pumpkin]

Thumb safeties are why I prefer and own 2 S&W 2.0’s and a Shield.

[Ricklin]

The lack of a safety lever was a struggle for me when I purchased my G19 about twenty odd years ago. Good holsters that fully cover the trigger solved that for me. I recently connected with an old friend who is interested in learning to protect herself with a handgun. I will bring several self defense handguns to the range, I will recommend Glock. That recommendation may change, the simplicity appeals.

[Nathan]

Toyota is EXACTLY the car brand I think of when comparing Glocks to cars.

Quit insulting Toyota. Well, they did have that unintended acceleration issue….hmmm

[Nathan]

The lack of a safety lever was a struggle for me when I purchased my G19 about twenty odd years ago. Good holsters that fully cover the trigger solved that for me. I recently connected with an old friend who is interested in learning to protect herself with a handgun. I will bring several self defense handguns to the range, I will recommend Glock. That recommendation may change, the simplicity appeals.

Hopefully she attains the same level of “PERFECTION” that you have. I sincerely hope your “PERFECTION” continues to. The gun demands it.

[bamaranger]

There was a comment earlier that the FBI shot the Miami killers, Platt and Mattix, with "snubnose revolver" and that the felons were drug crazed. Autopsy yielded that neither individual was under the influence of drugs. The snubnose comment is true......partially.

Three agents were armed with S&W M459 9mm semiauto handguns. My understand is that these agents were part of a unit within the FBI issued same. Rank and file agents still carried revolvers, albeit full size 6 shot/4" models.

There were 2" snub .38's present as backup guns for the agents and used in the fight : Agent Hanlon lost his 4" revolver in the collisions and carried on with his snub before being wounded. I am not certain, but I believe that before he was wounded, Hanlon got 2 peripheral hits on killer Platt. A second agent fired one round from his back up .38 after firing a full magazine from his 459. (not certain on this) Two of the three agents killed were armed with the new M459 pistol. Both Platt and Mattix received multiple wounds from multiple weapons,

The Miami shootout did not launch the move to auto pistols, it had already begun. What sprung from the Miami tragedy was the search for a more effective LE cartridge (the 10mm and then the .40) and a partial recognition that patrol carbines are a viable weapon for the patrol officer.

[44 AMP]

I will bring several self defense handguns to the range, I will recommend Glock. That recommendation may change, the simplicity appeals.

Be sure to include a revolver or two, medium frame DA .38 is a good one. Doesn't get simpler, not even a Glock.

Also, I wouldn't recommend anything. Explain /demonstrate the pros and cons of each and let her decide what to learn on. Support her choice, even if you dont think its the best choice. Its more important that she be comfortable with her choice and learn the basics and how to use it. THEN if she changes her mind about what is best for her, she has some experience to base it on.

when people are just starting out shooting, too much gun is worse than about everything else, although too small a gun (physical size) can be as much of a drawback as too big, as well.

[JohnKSa]

The snubnose comment is true......partially.
...

There were 2" snub .38's present as backup guns for the agents and used in the fight : Agent Hanlon lost his 4" revolver in the collisions and carried on with his snub before being wounded. I am not certain, but I believe that before he was wounded, Hanlon got 2 peripheral hits on killer Platt.

Hanlon did, indeed use his snubby (5 shot .38Spl 2"bbl) backup. However, Dr. W. French Anderson's analysis of the autopsy does not credit Hanlon with any of the wounds to Matix or Platt. To be fair, a number of the hits on Platt could not be attributed to any one person categorically, but based on position, they appear to be from Mireles, Orrantia, Dove and Risner. Anderson does say one of Platt's leg wounds could have been from one of four possible agents--including Hanlon as a possibility.

McNeill was carrying a 6 shot .357Mag revolver with a 2" barrel. I suppose it could be called a snubby. He did score hits on Matix early in the encounter but was injured in the hand and was unable to reload his revolver as a result. He was shot by Platt and paralyzed while attempting to reload.

Risner fired nearly all of his shots from a 9mm, but is reported to have fired a single round from a .38Spl revolver, presumably a backup snubby. The hit credited to Risner took place early enough in the encounter that it is unlikely he would have already switched to his snubby.

[Nathan]

The Miami shootout did not launch the move to auto pistols, it had already begun. What sprung from the Miami tragedy was the search for a more effective LE cartridge (the 10mm and then the .40) and a partial recognition that patrol carbines are a viable weapon for the patrol officer.

My reference to the Miami shootout was a much looser reference than folks here are taking it. Basically, in Miami, New York and a few other places the criminals driven by massive cocaine profits were driven to weapons like the Tec-9, MAC-10, Uzi and other 9mm autos with greater firepower. Police were stuck in a slow transition from revolvers. I believe the criminals were also stepping into some PCC’s and rifles where this was not being considered by most police.

I do appreciate the added details. That lesson cannot be forgotten.

[44 AMP]

That lesson cannot be forgotten.

Here's the lesson that should not be forgotten.

The bad guy received a fatal wound from a 9mm round that met or exceeded all the requirements of the time.

But because it was not also an instantly incapacitating wound, the bureaucracy blamed the round, and about everything else except the "hero" agents who were actually the reason the disaster happened the way it did.

the Fed said the 9mm wasn't good enough, began the search for a new caliber, and created new standards to be met. Now, today nearly 40 years later, after having gone through the 10mm and the .40 S&W, the "new" 9mm is again regarded as good enough.

This situation will probably hold until the next time their chosen round fails spectacularly, and then they will start a new witch hunt, and eventually, probably come back to what they condemned before.