Military general issues are wedded to a thumb safety because well, 8th and I, less than 48 hours ago.
Sidearms & Scatterguns Glocks Work. Period. End of Story.
- Thread starter Centuriator
- Start date
Military general issues are wedded to a thumb safety because well, 8th and I, less than 48 hours ago.
Yes addressed that earlier..... either you’re 12 or you have autism.... ide offer my apologies for you’re handicap....but you’re a cunt
Funny it’s not until someone is proven wrong that they decide they “ were just trolling” the whole time
Why isn't it more profitable to teach anyone + new gun buyers especially that well.....all guns have points that are advantageous as well as disadvantageous. Finding the correct solution for you is not going to be a one time purchase. It will take multiple runs of trial and error to figure out what works best for YOU.
Buying a new gun every week is not the answer either. Most people do not put enough rounds thru their guns to "own it" in terms of proficiency. They just move onto something else.
I always try to relate this to guys buying guns because that "glock" with the aftermarket slide is "sick as fuck". Until you shoot at least 3k rounds thru that gun, your not going to "own it".
Guys that shoot USPSA etc understand this concept because they shoot very high round counts. Whether a make/model of gun is not their choice, they will be able to explain to you why. This is also a secondary reason we gun owners have so many guns lol !!!
I believe this is also a very good point to advise females on especially.....not that hot pink subcompact she is looking at because her boyfriend is telling her it is small and sexy just like her ass. She will not even realize how much more recoil, harder to hold onto, hand placement, etc factors come into play.
Buying a new gun every week is not the answer either. Most people do not put enough rounds thru their guns to "own it" in terms of proficiency. They just move onto something else.
I always try to relate this to guys buying guns because that "glock" with the aftermarket slide is "sick as fuck". Until you shoot at least 3k rounds thru that gun, your not going to "own it".
Guys that shoot USPSA etc understand this concept because they shoot very high round counts. Whether a make/model of gun is not their choice, they will be able to explain to you why. This is also a secondary reason we gun owners have so many guns lol !!!
I believe this is also a very good point to advise females on especially.....not that hot pink subcompact she is looking at because her boyfriend is telling her it is small and sexy just like her ass. She will not even realize how much more recoil, harder to hold onto, hand placement, etc factors come into play.
Okay I am going to put my 2 cents in and try to get this thread back on the right track:
First off, we gunnies have a hobby, lifestyles and possibly careers based on a certain functional physical object. It is a tool. It gets the job done. It may save your life or the life of a loved one some day. I have seen PLENTY of examples of snobbery when it comes to guns, the denizens of 4Chan being the worst suspects.
But gun snobs are getting ONE thing wrong...Letting closed mindedness take over and all rationality flying out the window. I am a 1911 and wheelgun fan by default. I exhort their designs and workmanship as well as historical significance and sometimes I can get a little carried away when talking about them. However, I am not going to close my senses out to the multitude of other gun designs out there, most of which have made their own impacts on history and society. I have congratulated Sig owners when they posted pictures of their new acquisitions. I have shared the same enthusiasm with AR guys after they finish a successful build. Same with Glock folks, Smith & Wesson folks and Beretta folks. Never would I say "Oh the design of the whatever is better than yours ahaha". Doing so would be counteracting the whole base purpose of being a gun enthusiast. The bottom line is, THE PRODUCTS WORK. That is the most important. The weapons that we see displayed on racks at our favorite gun stores have been engineered, proof-tested, and patented over many steps and cycles to ensure that when the trigger is pulled, it is going to do it's job and send the bullet downrange where it is supposed to go.
Of course, one part of me thinks to put my favorite design on a pedestal and advertise it too. It is a matter of personal opinion and pride. That is why I do builds. I got my Pietta 1858 revolver and the Kirst .45 LC conversion cylinder as two separate items. I machined out a loading channel in the recoil shield and fitted the cylinder all by hand and hand tools. I got .22 LR conversion kits for both the wheelgun and the 1911. In the future I might even build an AR from a receiver blank. Now THAT will be something any handyman would be proud to build.
And this is where we come to the topic of whether some guns "have a soul" or not. If an armed prison escapee is breaking into your house now with the intent of killing you and raping your beloved partner, and all you have is a Glock 17 sitting on the table, you are SURE AS HELL going to pick up that Glock and blast the scumbag twice through the chest and once through the head. That Glock just saved your life, and the lives of your loved ones too. Tell me you aren't going to see this pistol from then on as a most treasured item. No matter what beautiful, traditional blends of wood and steel you are going to see at a gun store in the future, nothing will be as important to you as that Glock that saved your life. Now that is SOUL right there.
We live in a relatively stable country in terms of crime and politics. That is why we have the privilege to pick and choose, and for the worst among us, shit all over other peoples' choices. If we are living in Eastern Europe during the Nazi occupation, I am 100% CERTAIN that no partisan fighter among us would be saying: "Damn that Nagant revolver looks faggy"..."A Martini Henry??? Hell no, I ain't getting caught dead with that clunker...or "Those who shoot straight-pulls are old farts who know nothing about innovation"...................You are going to take whatever FUNCTIONAL weapons you have on hand and use them to KILL Nazi fuckers so you can get your hands on shiny new Mausers and MP-40's.
GLOCK is one of those firearm designer/manufacturers who changed the face of small arms design by offering a budget priced, reliable and EFFECTIVE defensive weapon that the working class citizens of many countries can afford. They are also relatively simple in design, allowing ease of cleaning, repairs and parts replacement. If it didn't work, this product will not have been still selling. It would have gone the way of the GYROJET and the DARDICK. Now I, myself is a TRAD fan who totally believes that guns should be made of nothing but wood and steel. BUT, I am also not blind to innovation. The reason why polymers and plastics have been implemented into so many firearm designs is because these materials are readily available, economical and still GET THE JOB DONE. Lets go back to the murderous predator breaking into your home in my earlier scenario.......Would it matter one bit whether you shoot him with a polymer/steel GLOCK or a wood/steel 1911? The result you want to achieve is the criminal being DEAD so he could not hurt you or your family any longer. Glocks or 1911's. They all have the same capability to get the job done, PROVIDING that the gun had always been kept in functioning condition and looked after.
PS....... @Skookum : Damn buddy, now THAT is a real post. Nice work you put into that list
Awesome. THANK YOU.
And yet, you can't let it go.
If you want to buy glocks, have at it. That's what choice is about. Ugly guns and ugly women both need love.
You got it man
I had to get involved. I had been reading this thread from the beginning and saw today that it was emitting FAR more heat than light.Glocks are excellent pistols for the beginning handgunner or somebody who wants a decent pistol that will work when it is called upon.
I have owned both a Glock 17 and a Hi-Point JHP .45 ACP in the past before. I have not had any FTF's or any other issues with either of them. That is why I discourage gun snobbery. Sure, sometimes I will say the Hi-Point is ugly as fuck but functionality? They kick ass and they are priced so that even those who work 10 hour shifts at gas stations can have a powerful and reliable handgun for protection. Same thing with Glocks. I got my G17 used for a song. It already had 2 previous owners. Now one of my closest friends have it and he says it's a darn fine shooter.
My OP....ironically..was simy a response to the claim Glock is not innovating. And in response to that claim my comments followed.
Glock sure always get some people's emotions going.
I have owned and shot just about every kind of modern Semi-Auto firearm out there:
HK
Steyr
FN
SIG
SW
Walther
I am forgetting some.
I prefer Glocks for the reasons I stipulated in the OP.
It has been interesting to read the Glock haters having their little "melt down"...
Find what works best for you. Period. No need to trash other handguns to affirm your choices.
Just silly.
Glock sure always get some people's emotions going.
I have owned and shot just about every kind of modern Semi-Auto firearm out there:
HK
Steyr
FN
SIG
SW
Walther
I am forgetting some.
I prefer Glocks for the reasons I stipulated in the OP.
It has been interesting to read the Glock haters having their little "melt down"...
Find what works best for you. Period. No need to trash other handguns to affirm your choices.
Just silly.
Personally, I'll never buy another. Had one, hated the feel and balance, had some jams, and sold it.
I know of other folks who have had reliability issues with them as well. I don't get the "bulletproof" mentality/reputation around them at all.
I've had less malfunctions from my Taurus 24/7 pistol, and never had one from my Colt 1911 except for when I started loading too light to cycle the slide. Not to say that Taurus is better than Glock or anything like that, but I certainly don't think Glock is anything special in my mind. Plenty of folks obviously disagree, so to each their own.
I know of other folks who have had reliability issues with them as well. I don't get the "bulletproof" mentality/reputation around them at all.
I've had less malfunctions from my Taurus 24/7 pistol, and never had one from my Colt 1911 except for when I started loading too light to cycle the slide. Not to say that Taurus is better than Glock or anything like that, but I certainly don't think Glock is anything special in my mind. Plenty of folks obviously disagree, so to each their own.
As for the innovation, they'll eventually fall behind and need to catch up. Look at Leupold - they finally got the message and have been churning out better products over the past few years. But Glock has released new models and new generations consistently, so I don't really view them as un-innovative anyway. They just aren't interested in compromising what made them so successful, and I can certainly understand and respect that.
You got it man
Glocks are excellent pistols for the beginning handgunner or somebody who wants a decent pistol that will work when it is called upon.
I have owned both a Glock 17 and a Hi-Point JHP .45 ACP in the past before. I have not had any FTF's or any other issues with either of them. That is why I discourage gun snobbery. Sure, sometimes I will say the Hi-Point is ugly as fuck but functionality? They kick ass and they are priced so that even those who work 10 hour shifts at gas stations can have a powerful and reliable handgun for protection. Same thing with Glocks. I got my G17 used for a song. It already had 2 previous owners. Now one of my closest friends have it and he says it's a darn fine shooter.
Well said....I have never tried a Hi-Point...I may have to do that some day too. I shoot my Glocks well, and I love how easy they are to detail strip, I mean, down to the last little piece and then put them all back together again. I like shooting them suppressed, work great. I enjoy other handguns. My "fun" gun is my big old Ruger .357 magnum. I had a "Dirty Harry" 44 Magnum for a while, wish I would not have sold it. Now THAT was a fun handgun to shoot.
Well said...they make handguns and not much else, oh, and crappy bayonets. But heck, even those work too.
"I don't get the "bulletproof" mentality/reputation around them at all."
That's ok, plenty of the rest of us do, it's ok if you don't.
Use what you have confidence in.
That's ok, plenty of the rest of us do, it's ok if you don't.
Use what you have confidence in.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
Ever take apart a 1907 Savage pistol? I had a pristine example at one time. There isn't a single screw or pin in it.
It is simple in the extreme, easier to do with a blowback, but so finely machined and fitted that it would probably cost $1500 or more to produce today. Even the grips are dove tailed into the frame. And IIRC, it is famous for being the world's first double stack magazine. Maybe JM Browning stole THAT idea from Savage for his Hi-Power!
Not on the list, least for work.
Browning did not design the P-35. He died well before the design was finalized. By the time the design was finalized the patents (owned by Colt) had expired and design features of the 1911 were incorporated. He is also not the originator of the double stack.
The 1911 was never conceived as an accurate handgun. It was designed to keep working no matter what. The first accurate 1911s were the Match guns of the thirties. They were promoted by J. H. FitzGerald a Colt employee. FitzGerald was also the designer of the "Fitz Special Revolver". the Fitz Specials that came from Colt were reputedly all built by Fitz himself but were reproduced my other competent smiths in the private sector. The Match I'm sure was custom assembled by Colt. Anybody issued a 1911 in my era will tell you they rattled but they always worked.
The Glock was not designed for simplicity in terms of parts. It was designed for simplicity of manufacture and low cost of materials. Anyone who has polished the fire control parts on a Glock has seen the rivulets stamped into parts to prevent them from bending. They make MIM parts look sophisticated. I would also disagree with the idea that they are easy to field strip. The BHP is the easiest, the 1911 is second and the Glock is last. The slide lock on the Glock is an extremely poor design hence the after-market offerings.
Now let's look at mag. capacity. I have three nines a Nighthawk Heine Competition, a BHP that I've had for over a half-century and a G19 Gen4. The Heine Nighthawk is 9+1 and I can get eight in without some kind of loading assist tool. The BHP is 13 and can load all without a problem. The 19 is 15 and without the load assist tool I can get maybe eleven or twelve in and all will be a chore from number two or three onward.
The Glock is a brilliant piece of industrial design. It certainly does work but it is absolutely not the end all and be all of combat handguns. I like the Glock 19 because of it's reliability and it's dimensions. I can no longer carry at 4 o'clock because of torn rotator cuffs so it's appendix or cross draw. The 19 is comfortable but only because of my build. If I was built differently it might not be the case.
My carry gun is a Sig 230. Again appendix carry is the mode. I prefer DA/SA as a carry gun because I don't like a SAO pointed at my stones. Now with all I have said it might be surprising but the 19 is my second most carried gun. There are two reasons. I live on a farm and I'm in and out of a truck constantly. I have no attachment to the 19 and so if it goes in the mud I don't care.
The Glock is a superb example of industrial design and fits perfectly into a very big niche which is a handgun designed to be cheap, reliable and to be used, in general, by people with moderate skill sets. It is not the M4 of handguns it is the AK-47 of handguns. Everybody has different needs, skills and desires. The Glock is certainly an option. But to imply that the Glock is the answer for everyone is utter BS.
The 1911 was never conceived as an accurate handgun. It was designed to keep working no matter what. The first accurate 1911s were the Match guns of the thirties. They were promoted by J. H. FitzGerald a Colt employee. FitzGerald was also the designer of the "Fitz Special Revolver". the Fitz Specials that came from Colt were reputedly all built by Fitz himself but were reproduced my other competent smiths in the private sector. The Match I'm sure was custom assembled by Colt. Anybody issued a 1911 in my era will tell you they rattled but they always worked.
The Glock was not designed for simplicity in terms of parts. It was designed for simplicity of manufacture and low cost of materials. Anyone who has polished the fire control parts on a Glock has seen the rivulets stamped into parts to prevent them from bending. They make MIM parts look sophisticated. I would also disagree with the idea that they are easy to field strip. The BHP is the easiest, the 1911 is second and the Glock is last. The slide lock on the Glock is an extremely poor design hence the after-market offerings.
Now let's look at mag. capacity. I have three nines a Nighthawk Heine Competition, a BHP that I've had for over a half-century and a G19 Gen4. The Heine Nighthawk is 9+1 and I can get eight in without some kind of loading assist tool. The BHP is 13 and can load all without a problem. The 19 is 15 and without the load assist tool I can get maybe eleven or twelve in and all will be a chore from number two or three onward.
The Glock is a brilliant piece of industrial design. It certainly does work but it is absolutely not the end all and be all of combat handguns. I like the Glock 19 because of it's reliability and it's dimensions. I can no longer carry at 4 o'clock because of torn rotator cuffs so it's appendix or cross draw. The 19 is comfortable but only because of my build. If I was built differently it might not be the case.
My carry gun is a Sig 230. Again appendix carry is the mode. I prefer DA/SA as a carry gun because I don't like a SAO pointed at my stones. Now with all I have said it might be surprising but the 19 is my second most carried gun. There are two reasons. I live on a farm and I'm in and out of a truck constantly. I have no attachment to the 19 and so if it goes in the mud I don't care.
The Glock is a superb example of industrial design and fits perfectly into a very big niche which is a handgun designed to be cheap, reliable and to be used, in general, by people with moderate skill sets. It is not the M4 of handguns it is the AK-47 of handguns. Everybody has different needs, skills and desires. The Glock is certainly an option. But to imply that the Glock is the answer for everyone is utter BS.
"But to imply that the Glock is the answer for everyone is utter BS."
Can you document in this thread where anyone has made that assertion? I have not noticed it. I certainly have not said or otherwise suggested it. Use what works best for you. That's what I say.
You make the following incorrect comments:
"The Glock was not designed for simplicity in terms of parts. It was designed for simplicity of manufacture and low cost of materials."
This is a false dichotomy, and rather silly. The very reason it is easy to manufacture and the very reason it is relatively low cost to manufacture is precisely because there are so few parts in a Glock.
"The slide lock on the Glock is an extremely poor design hence the after-market offerings."
That is a false assertion. It works just fine and there is nothing "poorly designed" about it, let alone "extremely."
"would also disagree with the idea that they are easy to field strip. The BHP is the easiest, the 1911 is second and the Glock is last."
Again, that's simply ridiculous. If you are trained and used to it, you can field strip the 1911 quickly, but the Glock is, by far, easier to field strip, and how about detail stripping? Glock, hands down.
Can you document in this thread where anyone has made that assertion? I have not noticed it. I certainly have not said or otherwise suggested it. Use what works best for you. That's what I say.
You make the following incorrect comments:
"The Glock was not designed for simplicity in terms of parts. It was designed for simplicity of manufacture and low cost of materials."
This is a false dichotomy, and rather silly. The very reason it is easy to manufacture and the very reason it is relatively low cost to manufacture is precisely because there are so few parts in a Glock.
"The slide lock on the Glock is an extremely poor design hence the after-market offerings."
That is a false assertion. It works just fine and there is nothing "poorly designed" about it, let alone "extremely."
"would also disagree with the idea that they are easy to field strip. The BHP is the easiest, the 1911 is second and the Glock is last."
Again, that's simply ridiculous. If you are trained and used to it, you can field strip the 1911 quickly, but the Glock is, by far, easier to field strip, and how about detail stripping? Glock, hands down.
The true beauty of a service pistol is the lack of attachment.
This thread needs some porn....as Julie Andrews used to sing "These are some of my favorite things"
but these are what I carry.......
and this is what I go to work with.....
The first go from safe to range and get wiped down after each use. Although I am going to take the decommisioned M45A1 to a carbine course so that collector piece, new from the box, will be used in training - Oh the collector horror!
The second group gets exposed to love handle sweat and pocket lint. Still I care about them and get bummed out if I think a pant rivet is rubbing against a muzzle.
The last pistol gets beat by seat belts, may get banged into shit and I wont wince when it happens and has definitely been put away wet. It gets cared for to the extent I know it will work when I need it to.
That is the beauty of Glock and the difference between a "cared" for gun and a "service" pistol.
This thread needs some porn....as Julie Andrews used to sing "These are some of my favorite things"
but these are what I carry.......
and this is what I go to work with.....
The first go from safe to range and get wiped down after each use. Although I am going to take the decommisioned M45A1 to a carbine course so that collector piece, new from the box, will be used in training - Oh the collector horror!
The second group gets exposed to love handle sweat and pocket lint. Still I care about them and get bummed out if I think a pant rivet is rubbing against a muzzle.
The last pistol gets beat by seat belts, may get banged into shit and I wont wince when it happens and has definitely been put away wet. It gets cared for to the extent I know it will work when I need it to.
That is the beauty of Glock and the difference between a "cared" for gun and a "service" pistol.
Last edited:
The Glock grip angle is certainly different from the 1911 angle. It puts the gun pretty low in relation with hand and arm, which is good for control. People should train with the gun that they want to use anyway. Some dry firing seems to transition me well enough between Glock, 1911 and Ruger revolver.
"the lack of attachment"
Can you explain this? And...your images or whatever aren't working.
Re. the M45A1...good luck with that. My former MARSOC and RECON guys who had to use them hated them and their units could not wait to get rid of them as soon as possible. Jammo-matics.
Can you explain this? And...your images or whatever aren't working.
Re. the M45A1...good luck with that. My former MARSOC and RECON guys who had to use them hated them and their units could not wait to get rid of them as soon as possible. Jammo-matics.
The whole grip angle thing has always been a non-issue for me. But then again, at this point, after putting perhaps 50,000 rounds through Glocks I'm just used to them and know how to use them well enough for government work.
Why there are image hosting sites I do not know because every time I try to just post the links the images never view requiring I down load them again. Fixed the image fuck up.
Yes cerakoting the internals of the M45A1 was dumb. Why they just didnt go with a carbon gun and parkerize it or use some oxide type finish on the stainless steel was being too smart by half.
Still that 45 is one of the nicest shooting ones I have. It needs to be tested on some card board IPSC targets.
Definition.....
"Lack of Attachment" - A willingness to use the item as designed/intended rather than being emotionally invested to a degree that you limit its function/use out of concern you may perhaps scratch it or otherwise harm your precious substitute for your penis.
There is a small bug in the site that sometimes causes pictures to not load properly.
Best way to do it, is to wait for the pic on the host site to fully resolve, then copy the final link. If picture is still trying to load and the link is a garbled paragraph-long mess of numbers, it won't stick here. For users on smartphones, if the image link contains the words "data" or "=" in the beginning of link text, it might not work properly either.
After you post image here, refresh a couple of times. Or go to the main Hide board, locate the thread and come back. If your image is still there, it should be good to go. Hope that helps.
Hah, now that is just hilarious.....gave me a good chuckle in the a.m.
I hear you....
I am certainly attached to a .45 1911 bull barrel pistol and a Ruger revolver. Not to a degree that prevents me from using them for sport purposes, though. The old Glock ... that is my boring pistol. It works with boring certainty, as long as ammunition is somewhat decent, and I get good hits on IPSC/USPSA type targets as long as I do my part. The Glock just doesn't look as shiny.
Here you go...
I need eye wash now.
Here you go...
Not bad at all though. I respect those with artisan skills. I know some auto body techs in my area who would do shit like that with ANYTHING as long as ya got the $$$$$ to fork up.
The bad rep associated with chromed up guns comes from the gangbangers and the dopeboyz. I admire the artistic value of that shiny Glock. Won't carry it on me though
Not bad at all though. I respect those with artisan skills. I know some auto body techs in my area who would do shit like that with ANYTHING as long as ya got the $$$$$ to fork up.
The bad rep associated with chromed up guns comes from the gangbangers and the dopeboyz. I admire the artistic value of that shiny Glock. Won't carry it on me though
With all due respect to those in Arlington.....Im only hating on the pistol mind you......it reminds me of this....
https://www.sigsauer.com/press-rele...ld-guard-for-the-tomb-of-the-unknown-soldier/
I want my betters protected by death dealing, no non sense slingers of instant incapacatation. As a MaDeuce is too heavy to walk Twenty One Steps with I think the standard version of the current service pistol (okay maybe in black) is the appropriate choice.
Dont want a guard in time of need hesitating because he would than have to reshine his pistol.
Add some 20 LPI checkering to that thing, the grip must suck.
Honestly, I'm not one of these "...as God and JM Browning intended" types, where I put the 1911 on a pedestal. The whole deal for me, re: natural pointability is that if I focus on something across the room... say, a light switch... and bring up the pistol that I'm holding to point it at the "target" without ever actually looking at the pistol, the (factory framed) Glock is inevitably pointed high. Obviously, as soon as I look at the pistol I can see that it is pointed high and make a correction to bring it on target, but it takes effort to do so.
Obviously I could train/practice with the Glock to break my hand at a sharper angle when I raise my weapon to point at the target, and that's the very gist of what I was saying... the natural tendency of most users to aim high with a Glock can be trained out of them, but the fact that it has to be trained out of them means that the grip angle is not natural. Now, whether or not the trade off between natural pointability and a lower effective bore axis is worth it, that's up to each individual shooter (unless dealing with agency-issued weapons... then you get what you get).
I also agree with you in regard to training with what you're going to carry/use... that only makes sense for a variety of reasons not limited to grip angle; control location and operation, recoil management, etc... are all things with which the user should be intimately familiar on a weapon to which he is going to (possibly) entrust with his life.
That is why anything that the military designs/adopts for use must be the exemplars of ruggedness and near-perfect reliability. Cosmetics are a moot issue in this department. Me personally, I like parkerized finishes. The matte finish on Glocks make them a perfect candidate for SERVICE weapons, which runs back on the main idea of the OP.
If I am going to be spending a prolonged amount of time in an earthen defensive position in scorching day and freezing night keeping a nearby airfield safe from Taliban assault, I want something strapped to my calf that I can forget that is even there until I need it. That is, if I bust my ass tumbling down an incline, sitting in a soaking rain, or blasted by a sandstorm, the last thing I want to think about is that the finish on my gun is going to be fucked up.
We can even look back to the Civil War to see this thinking in action. One of the reasons why in 1863, when the US Dept. Of Ordnance approved a standard sidearm for it's combat units, it went with Colt's Model 1860 revolver was because of it's soldier-friendliness. The closest contender to the 1860 was the Remington/Beals handgun. While the Remington is far more rugged because of the solid frame design, it has a narrow cylinder pin that, when exposed to mud and fouling, tends to gum up and make the cylinder hard to turn (proven by personal experience too). The 1860 can be broken down with one tap of a barrel wedge into 3 separate parts, and put back together with the same speed and ease. This was exactly like the comparison between first edition M-16 vs. AK-47.
Someone here had also mentioned that the early 1911's were not meant to be tack drivers, but built so that you can drag them through a quicksand and it would still shoot. In a firefight, whoever can put the most amount of rounds downrange wins. This is life or death, not a benchrest accuracy competition.
I don't think we disagree much.
I just think that a person, who has not shot much, will rarely be able to get the sights aligned drawing with the eyes closed, whatever style handgun is in use. It needs to be learned. I do not find the Glock angle unnatural. Just different. More like a punching-with-the-2-big-knuckles angle. My revolver also has a different grip angle that is probably closer to the Glock angle than the 1911 angle.
Without question Glock pistols do work reliably, no one can argue that.
I never really thought they were ugly untill I looked at the one with the chrome slide in the picture above, now that is ugly.
Glock pistols are the equivalent of Bic Pens.
Bic Cristal
Description
The Bic Cristal is an inexpensive disposable ballpoint pen mass-produced and sold by Société Bic of Clichy, Hauts-de-Seine, France. It was first released in December 1950 and is the best selling pen in the world – the 100 billionth was sold in September 2006.
I drank the Glock cool-aide and found I prefer metal frame pistols.
I never really thought they were ugly untill I looked at the one with the chrome slide in the picture above, now that is ugly.
Glock pistols are the equivalent of Bic Pens.
Bic Cristal
Description
The Bic Cristal is an inexpensive disposable ballpoint pen mass-produced and sold by Société Bic of Clichy, Hauts-de-Seine, France. It was first released in December 1950 and is the best selling pen in the world – the 100 billionth was sold in September 2006.
I drank the Glock cool-aide and found I prefer metal frame pistols.
Can you list your reasons for your preference?
Strapped to your calf? How long are your arms?
To me the grip of metal frame pistols just feel more connected than the Glock. The Glock grip seems to feel like I am holding a block of slippery wood where my PCR for instance is glued in my hand. Even pos Makarov grip ergonomics feel more connected to me
.
.
That's actually a really good point about punching... I have found that inevitably when I punch*, it's my middle, ring, and pinky knuckles that make contact, seemingly with the pinky taking the brunt of it. I recognize that that is probably bad form, but for no more punching that I do, it's not worth making an effort to correct; that's just the natural angle of my wrist. Huh... interesting.
*It's not like I spend a lot of time punching things (and certainly not people), but it's something that I've noticed on the odd occasion when I *do* punch something
He must be the only Japanese Warrior to have ever said that.
They bring "spirit" of the weapon to a high art form.
Fuck they polish their Samurai swords with baby unicorn sperm.
Just think had things gone a bit different we could have half this group debating how the Savage 1907 is superior to the Glock.
Well he was a hermit not known for his personal hygiene....
... then again he did kill a fuck ton of people for sport..... so maybe he knew what he was on about
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
I read that book straight through, twice. I expected some sort of deep insight into combat, human psyche...something. I remember a ton of pretty obvious advice like,"circle to your opponents weak side" and other gems of wisdom like that. Maybe it was there and I just missed it.
I used to do some karate way back in my school days, and we were taught to punch wrist straight with the big knuckles. Seemed effective when punching a heavy bag too, not to speak about doing push ups with the knuckles on the floor.
The only time I've punched anyone since those days was when a company summer party had some physical activities, including boxing with GIANT gloves.
Those are some classic shooters that you owned right there. Especially the .44 Mag. Smith. I never owned one but I have shot one before. In Unintended Consequences, the author John Ross does one hell of a good write-up on that gun. Henry Bowman uses one as a main arm several times throughout the story and at one point he machines a couple of super-lightweight and super-high velocity bullets out of NYLON rod. Uses em' to dissolve scumbags' chests with no collateral destruction. Fuckin' savage lol.
The Hi-Points are certainly deserving of far more credit than they currently get. I think it is because all the gangstaz doing drive-by's with them put a taint on their rep. BUT, where else are ya going to find a pistol that chambers full martial calibers for only $150 give or take? My advice for those who want to try out Hi-Points, is stick only to the big ones chambered in .40 S&W or .45 ACP. The .380 ones can be quite jammo-matic from others' experience. The 9mm pistol is relatively trouble free, but not as fully reliable as the top dogs, though the 9mm carbine is flawless.
The funniest thing about Hi-Points is that a lot of YouTube reviewers put them thru full-on torture tests to see them break down and fail. Yet the weapons withstand everything thrown at them almost every time, and their videos become free advertising for the company
Of course, the gun is not all without faults. They are pretty big and clunky for a single stack mag design and I certainly would not want to EDC it unless there are no other choices. I got the JHP model as a bug out gun and as a backup to my backup. Function-wise? Just as reliable as my Glock 17. Not one failure. Even when I fed some underpowered handloads thru them, they ejected and cycled perfectly. I sold both the G17 and the JHP to my before-mentioned friend during the Great Obama Gun-Confiscation Scare
because he was afraid budget shooters might not be available soon. He had just moved into a house in the country with his wife and 2 young kids so I decided to start him off with a basic defensive package. One for the nightstand and one as a plinker, those were my exact words. But he became just as fond of the HP as the Glock so both of them occupy tactically important areas in his home. I might yet still get another JHP .45 to keep around as a last ditch backup gun. They certainly live up to the task and then some.Accuracy wise, they live it up too. I have shot my 1911-PKZ out to 200 yards. My JHP and 9mm's out to the same. I have even rang steel out to 350 with my 1858 firing both .44 cap and ball (200-grain Buffalo hunting conical) and .45 LC. These guns are simply built to deliver such results. Anybody who practices with enough dedication can get results like that, and more too. I am a handgunner before everything else. Probably because I live/commute/work within super-urban areas and suburban areas. Nobody lugs around rifles in these parts unless they are going hunting way upstate. The way I carry and handle handguns is the full GRAY MAN approach. I never advertise or give the slightest hints that I carry or own guns. No NRA decals on vehicle or what ever. The element of surprise is what I always want up my sleeve in case shit do go down. Instead of sniperized rifles I got sniperized handguns LOL. And despite the tacticool 'operators' (no offense guys, I respect you all the same) stating that handguns are only used for getting to your rifle, from my experience, handguns are JUST AS formidable as rifles. A lot of them certainly pack the same wallop and distance as any midrange rifle.
What I usually have on me in an urban environment:
.38/.357 Mag. SAA with 5.5 inch barrel. Traditional leather on hip crossdraw (under coat in winter, backpack in summer):
Auto-Ordnance 1911-PKZ. Same config as above:
Rifle-like performance from either? You bet!
It's obvious you Glock and 1911 retards haven't heard of the FN 5.7 yet!
Absolutely correct. Musashi was who you would call a true renaissance man. He was well ahead of his time...That is why he was undefeated. He mopped the floor with Japan's most lethal swordsmen and their lifeblood, time and time again, challenge after challenge. He used tactics, common sense and pragmatism........and against the pigheaded rigidity of the warriors of the "established schools", that was absolutely fatal for the latter.
1. "Fixation is the way to death. Fluidity is the way to life".
2. "You win by bending and warping your opponent's mind".
3. "The art of the shuriken is the art of throwing a short sword, and must remain a secret. It must only be used for a decisive effect".
Those are quotes from the Book of Five Rings. Written in 1640, five years before his death from stomach cancer, this is his most famous volume of the philosophy and techniques of combat. It contained wisdom learned from his 60 duels, all of them in which he killed his opponent. And also from his participation in the battles of Sekigahara and Osaka, each of which claimed the lives of 100,000 to 200,000 men. The one thing about this book which is so unique is that every single saying and fighting technique taught in it can be translated for use in ANY daily life situation where there is conflict. The Book of Five Rings is read with almost religious zeal by all Japanese businessmen and corporate leaders today. They get up in the morning at 6AM every day and practice Kendo and meditate before they proceed with work.
Musashi especially stressed the importance of mastering not just YOUR style of fighting, but EVERY style and weapon that you can learn. Over his career, he not only perfected the art of the sword, but also challenged to fight the masters of other weapons: the Kusarigama, the spear, the bow and the arquebus. He defeated them all. At one point, when he was about to enter a duel with a man named Kojiro, who was famous for using a very long sword, Musashi simply carved a wooden ship oar into a staff, and killed Kojiro with it.
We say today that "if you are fighting fair, your tactics suck". In 17th century Japan, Musashi already realized this and developed an entirely new school of combat based on pragmatism, opportunism, and flat out trickery. Things which were, in the past, associated only with the dark and taboo ways of the Ninja.
The third quote from the Book of Five Rings that I wrote above basically concerns the use of a hidden backup weapon. An extra bit of nasty surprise hidden up your sleeve that you can deploy with no warning to change the course of a fight. In Musashi's day, this was a short dagger that can be thrown. Today, it can be an extra pistol or knife.
Musashi revolutionized the world of how battles are fought. This is one of the best documentaries made on this warrior philosopher. Narrated and produced by US Olympics martial arts champion Mark Dacascos:
If this man was alive today, he would have been the ultimate pistol and rifle fighter. Utilizing and employing every make, model and caliber. He would not have cared whether the weapon was built by this or that manufacturer. His only concern would be if it can kill or not.
I think that many people who like one firearm, and dislike another one try to find various reasons, explanations, and justifications for those likes and dislikes rather than simply admitting to a personal preference.
For example, I don 't like the Sig P line of pistols. However, I readily admit that they are plenty accurate enough, durable enough, and reliable enough to be a viable choice for those people who like them. My dislike of them is purely a personal preference, and I accept that plenty of people like them, use them effectively, and have had good experiences with those pistols. I just prefer other pistols.
When people begin trying to justify a personal preference, rather than simply saying it is a personal preference, they seem to draw out other people who have a different opinion .
Glocks work fine, and I have owned a number of them, 1911's can work fine, and I have owned a number of them. Browning hi-powers also work fine, I just don't like the trigger reset on them.
So I spend my money on things I like, and I presume the rest of the gun buying public does the same.
Why in the world someone would buy a gun they don't like just because some folks on the internet tell them that they should buy something else is beyond me.
For example, I don 't like the Sig P line of pistols. However, I readily admit that they are plenty accurate enough, durable enough, and reliable enough to be a viable choice for those people who like them. My dislike of them is purely a personal preference, and I accept that plenty of people like them, use them effectively, and have had good experiences with those pistols. I just prefer other pistols.
When people begin trying to justify a personal preference, rather than simply saying it is a personal preference, they seem to draw out other people who have a different opinion .
Glocks work fine, and I have owned a number of them, 1911's can work fine, and I have owned a number of them. Browning hi-powers also work fine, I just don't like the trigger reset on them.
So I spend my money on things I like, and I presume the rest of the gun buying public does the same.
Why in the world someone would buy a gun they don't like just because some folks on the internet tell them that they should buy something else is beyond me.
Similar threads
Sidearms & Scatterguns Best fire arms lubrication article I have ever read 1911 specific