What I Don't Like About Glock...

[Nanuk]

I took the firing pin safety out, put an inspection plate on the back, loaded a primed 9mm and pushed down the cruciform with a punch. It fired.

Thanks. I agree. I used an old trigger housing and replaced it after the test. I’m pretty sure I bent it down some.

So..... You removed a critical safety, physically manipulated parts in a manner inconsistent with normal operation to the point that you damaged said parts all to prove your point that the gun is unsafe?

WOW.

I could do that with any firearm.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Carl the Floor Walker

What do you want. A gun that shoots Gamma Ray's? Something that George Jetson would be shooting? How does a over crowded market actually affect you? Sure doesn't me. Glad to see new designs all the time. And obviously we are seeing that. Love the way the striker can be removed on the New Mossberg. A over crowed market, means more innovation and they are coming down the road. Just pay attention.

Wow you went a bit overboard there. Let me get you a life jacket.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[TxFlyFish]

Oh how times have changed if only we reacted this way when the Sigma was announced...#sigmastillthebestglock

[armednfree]

Here's the thing many people don't know about the Glock. It was originally designed to be an economically made piece for the military. Effective, inexpensive and virtually disposable.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Danoobie

I guess the thing I like the least about glock is how many other major manufacturers are
mindlessly cash-whoring, by copying the glock design,in order to grab a piece of the glock
market, instead of making a better, newer design pistol of their own.

Kinda like Apple and their iphone/ipad..speaks volumes tho..Glock, they are accurate, reliable, easy to shoot and lots easy to carry..not sure what else it's suposed to be, a gun.

And for right above, 'virtually disposable'..ooops..lotsa of decade old Glocks out there that still work famously...

[Nanuk]

Effective, inexpensive and virtually disposable.

Why I carry Glocks.... They are inexpensive, they work and if something happens to it nobody cares.

[armednfree]

The Sigma. We had a sales rep tell us for every 5 we sold he would give us one. I told him I didn't want one.

[Elliottsdad]

There's a lot to like about Glock!! Reliable, simple, tough as nails, good triggers, reasonably accurate. Mags and holsters can be found everywhere.
However, plastic cup and ball sights on an overpriced polymer pistol (with an awkward grip angle) is why all of my Glocks are now M&Ps.
But like I said, there is a LOT to like about Glock.

[Drm50]

I don't like plastic pistols at all. The only new one I ever bought was a SiG. I have had a couple dozen Glocks, M&Ps, Shields, Kaltecs and others on trade. None were beaters they
were low round count guns. I wouldn't take a plastic pistol on trade unless it was in hi condition. Having said that there are none of them that I am afraid to carry. ADs are always operator error. Whether it's a trigger finger or careless carry its not the guns fault. This may
not be true for the low end ones, I've never had one and won't take one on trade if it was NIB. I have been out of bussiness since 92. I sold a lot of pistols to the small town PDs in
my area. This was just about the time PDs started switching to auto loaders. Small town PDs don't have the funds for extensive training and practice range time. I still think that the average small town cop is better off with a DA revolver. The Chiefs at most of these PDs gave officers a choice of revolver or auto. Most officers took the revolvers. Now same depts
are all auto and have been through 2 or 3 different pistols.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I just don't know how I can be 6 points down in a 5 stage, 40 target IDPA match with a Glock. It must be the grip angle. But that can't be as I can be the same points down with a 1911.

Until Wayne LaP's socialist wave arrives, the free market will decide what gun works for what people.

I did like the grip angle on the old DeSoto transmission levers.

[44 AMP]

I did like the grip angle on the old DeSoto transmission levers.

My DeSoto was pushbutton automatic!! (1960 Fireflite - last production year)

(and, there was no "park" button )

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

My DeSoto was pushbutton automatic!! (1960 Fireflite - last production year)



(and, there was no "park" button )

Since we're on a tangent, I have yet to have someone explain to me why a button is so much better than a lever for the parking break. How can I do handbrake turns?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[USNRet93]

Until Wayne LaP's socialist wave arrives, the free market will decide what gun works for what people.

Gotta explain that one to this FNG please..Not a fan of LaP, just don't know about the above.

[tipoc]

November 2018 cover of the AR "Your vote is all that prevents the Socialist Wave on 11/6" as well as numerous editorials and mailings from Wayne announcing the threat of socialism unless I donate more money.

tipoc

[dgludwig]

It seems somebody always has to shoehorn political animus into a discussion about guns. If people don't like Mr. LaPierre's political (or otherwise) positions and opinions it would seem there are more appropriate venues to express their views. Or maybe I've just always been misinterpreting the Firing Line's Forum rules.

[TailGator]

Re push-button automatics. I had too goofy friends, one of which, D, owned a Plymouth with a push-button transmission. I got a call from D one day, saying that the other one, W, had called him. "D, I got good news and bad news. The good news is I won the demolition derby. The bad news is I used your car." Not sure I ever laughed any harder in my life. W very generously gave D the prize money. Being around those two was like being in a slapstick comedy.

[dgludwig]

I had a '58 Dodge "Sierra" wagon that had the "TorqueFlite" tranny buttons. The transmission on that forgettable stinker was about the only thing on it that did work right.

[Sgt127]

Originally Posted by Nanuk

So..... You removed a critical safety, physically manipulated parts in a manner inconsistent with normal operation to the point that you damaged said parts all to prove your point that the gun is unsafe?

WOW.

I could do that with any firearm.

No. You can’t.

Show me how to fire a S&W Model 10, at rest, without you adding the energy to fire it. (By cocking the hammer). That’s the way you would carry it. Not cocked, that would be unsafe. You can take out the hammer block, file down the block on the trigger rebound slide and, it still won’t fire. There’s no stored energy to fire the gun.

And, I never said glocks were unsafe.

I proved, to myself anyway, that a Glock has enough stored energy to fire in the carry condition.

“Safe Action” was a genius marketing campaign.

I won’t carry a cocked pistol (or one with enough stored energy to fire) pointed at my femoral artery and rely on mechanical devices to prevent it from firing.

It’s not exclusive to Glocks. I wouldn’t carry a cocked and locked 1911 appendix. The difference is, you can see a 1911 is cocked.

It’s really no big deal if others are OK with it. But, they should be aware.

[Nanuk]

Show me how to fire a S&W Model 10, at rest, without you adding the energy to fire it. (By cocking the hammer). That’s the way you would carry it. Not cocked, that would be unsafe. You can take out the hammer block, file down the block on the trigger rebound slide and, it still won’t fire. There’s no stored energy to fire the gun.

The hammer block was added after several people were killed by dropped or mishandled revolvers. You removed the striker block, you invalidated any safety test.

[Sgt127]

When it was dropped. Adding the energy to fire it.

It was not a safety test. It was to dispel the theory, that I too believed, that a Glock was partially cocked. And, the action of pulling the trigger added the necessary energy to ignite a primer. It does add energy. But, there’s enough stored to fire it pretty regularly, without that last 1/8” or so of movement.

That is, by definition, a cocked pistol.

All of the safety devices in the current crop of striker fired guns and cocked and locked pistols have to work to prevent the gun from firing.

I prefer a handgun where I have to provide the energy to fire it for appendix carry.

I carried a Glock for 15 years. And a 1911 for over 20 years. Still do. I have no problem with them.... Carried on my right hip.

[JohnKSa]

Show me how to fire a S&W Model 10, at rest, without you adding the energy to fire it. (By cocking the hammer). That’s the way you would carry it. Not cocked, that would be unsafe. You can take out the hammer block, file down the block on the trigger rebound slide and, it still won’t fire. There’s no stored energy to fire the gun.

To be fair, a comparable test would be trying to see if various other guns would fire from the half-cock position if the various safeties that prevent it were deactivated.

Glock doesn't claim there's no energy in the striker spring or that it's completely uncocked in the trigger forward position, just that it's not fully cocked until the trigger is pulled nearly all the way to the rear.

...I too believed, that a Glock was partially cocked.

It IS partially cocked. About 50% of the striker spring compression by distance is performed by the trigger pull. About 75% of the striker spring energy is generated by the trigger pull. Regardless of whether there's enough energy stored to fire some types of ammunition when the gun is placed into a configuration that could never be realistically achieved in the real world, the gun is still only partially cocked in the trigger forward position.

Let's say you found out that a particular revolver had enough mainspring energy to fire from the half-cocked position. Would you then say that the half-cocked position is now the fully cocked position? Of course not. Partially cocked is partially cocked regardless of how much energy is stored in the main spring/striker spring.

But, there’s enough stored to fire it pretty regularly, without that last 1/8” or so of movement.

In a 17 or 19 sized Glock the trigger pulls the striker back by about a fifth of an inch--about half the overall amount.

Adding the energy to fire it.

If you want to be technical about it, the energy was added when the gun was picked up. Raising the gun up creates potential energy. Dropping it just converts the potential energy created by picking it up to kinetic energy as it falls.

[Sgt127]

What other guns are carried half cocked safely?

Both a 1911 and a Colt SAA, it is considered dangerous to carry half cocked.

Only since the striker fired “Glock” era, has this been the norm.

[JohnKSa]

What other guns are carried half cocked safely?

There are a few--the CZ75 with a decocker, for one. However, that's not really relevant to whether a partially cocked gun is partially cocked or fully cocked.

You can't redefine half cock/partially cocked/full cocked based on whether the gun will fire from those positions.

A partially cocked gun is partially cocked. A fully cocked gun is fully cocked.

A gun that will fire from the partially cocked position is still partially cocked when it's partially cocked and fully cocked only when it is fully cocked.

If a gun has a weak mainspring or broken firing pin and won't fire even when it's fully cocked, it's still fully cocked when it's fully cocked even though it won't fire. The full-cock position doesn't suddenly become a partially cocked position just because the gun will no longer fire from that position.

Your point about the Glock being able to fire from the partially cocked postion, at least under certain artificial circumstances, is correct.

But trying to take that accurate bit of information and use it to redefine how the Glock system operates doesn't work any more than discovering a particular firearm would fire with the hammer in the half-cock position would redefine that hammer position from half-cock to full cock. The trigger still compresses the striker spring by about 50% of the total compression by distance--about a fifth of an inch. It still adds about 75% of the total compression energy present when the striker is released. The gun is still partially cocked with the trigger in the forward position and only fully cocked when the trigger is pulled nearly all the way to the rear.

[Sgt127]

I don’t disagree with what you said.

But, with a Glock. All the safeties and mechanical devices have to work properly, for the gun NOT to potentially fire.

A true DA, all the parts have to work properly for the gun TO fire.

Fair?

Hence, I (speaking for me) will not carry a gun that MAY fire if there are multiple failures of mechanical devices while it’s pointed at MY femoral artery.

[JohnKSa]

But, with a Glock. All the safeties and mechanical devices have to work properly, for the gun NOT to potentially fire.

You don't need for ALL of the safeties to work to prevent the striker from reaching the primer, you really only need for one or two of them to work--depending on which ones fail.

With 3 passive safeties, there are 9 possible combinations of failures.

There are two possible combinations that could potentially allow the striker to fall and reach the primer.

If the Ramp Safety and Firing Pin Safety BOTH fail, jarring/dropping the gun could potentially allow the trigger bar to release the striker and there would be nothing to prevent the striker from reaching the primer.

Obviously then, if the Ramp Safety and the Firing Pin Safety and the Trigger safety all fail that combination would also allow striker to fall if the gun were jarred or dropped.

It's worth pointing out that the Ramp Safety isn't a moving part, so it is kind of hard for it to "fail" in the sense of not operating properly. It's a solid piece of the trigger housing that would have to be physically damaged somehow to "fail". It can't, for example, jam in the "fire" position because it never moves. It's basically just a solid piece that prevents the trigger bar from releasing the striker until the trigger bar moves far enough to the rear to clear the Ramp Safety. Or, I guess, more accurately, it's two solid parts of the trigger housing--there's one ramp on each side of the trigger housing supporting the trigger bar on both sides.

If the Firing Pin Safety works, the striker can't drop from partially cocked position no matter what other safeties fail. In this case, nearly any other mechanical failure or breakage is nullified by the working firing pin safety.

Similarly, if the Ramp Safety works, the striker can't drop from the partially cocked position even if both the other safeties fail. With only the Ramp Safety intact however, striker breakage or trigger bar breakage/damage could potentially allow the striker to fall.

It's also worth pointing out that even if it were possible to disable all the safeties in a partially cocked gun, that, in and of itself, wouldn't cause anything to happen. It would still take something else (dropping or jarring the gun) to cause a problem. Even without the safeties the gun would need some sort of input to drop the striker.

Hence, I (speaking for me) will not carry a gun that MAY fire if there are multiple failures of mechanical devices while it’s pointed at MY femoral artery.

It is fortunate that we live in a time where the variety, not just of carry guns, but also of "operating systems" for carry guns, is tremendous. Even people with unusual requirements can almost certainly find a gun/operating system that works for them.