View Full Version : Glock reliability
In terms of basic out-of-the-box reliability, are the G17 and G19 considered to be about equal? A buddy of mine said that the G17 has a slight edge in this regard but I'm not enough of an expert to know one way or the other.
You can't go wrong with either one.
At one point in time there were issues with the NYPD G19s but that is ancient history.
Buy either one in confidence and enjoy!
While there may be some measurable difference in MRBS and MRBF, it's probably statistically insignificant. Variation from gun to gun is probably greater than the variation from model to model in terms of those two particular choices.
In other words, any particular randomly selected G19 may be more or less reliable than any particular randomly selected G17. And both guns, barring some bad luck on your part, should be reliable enough that you'd never notice the difference.
The G17 does have a slight edge in reliability, but I am fully comfortable using either the G17 or G19.
a308garand
06-12-08, 14:46
My own opinion is that the full sized 17 would be more reliable than the compact 19. The 17 is the original design, where the 19 is a choped and modified version.....something had to be traded away for the smaller size.
That said, I like my 19 and don't even own a 17 anymore. If there truly is a factual issue with "reliability" between the two, it is a small concern.
Gutshot John
06-12-08, 14:56
You REALLY have to try hard to go wrong with a Glock in 9mm.
They're like lays potato chips.
I've owned 5 (1 17, 3 19s, 1 34) over the years. The 19s probably got the most intense use (though less in the past year). NEVER ONCE had a problem with any of them, and I'm cheap in terms of ammo...and boy are they fun to shoot.
I resisted Glock for a long time as they were as ugly as a box of rocks, but pretty is as pretty does and IMO has the best stock trigger (though I've not shot an M&P).
I'd feel pretty confident taking a new Glock, throwing in a mag and carrying it right out of the box. I'm not advocating this, but I wouldn't even consider it with other weapons.
Me it's the GL-19 hands down. It's also my CCW. Plan on getting a 34 sometime this year. One caliber and one kind of mag. makes it simple. :D
Glock The AK Of Pistols! :cool:
Much is said with regards to the reliability of Glocks in its original platform/ caliber (G17/9mm). Is the G34 considered as durable/ reliable?
Gutshot John
06-12-08, 22:11
Much is said with regards to the reliability of Glocks in its original platform/ caliber (G17/9mm). Is the G34 considered as durable/ reliable?
I've shot mine quite a bit. Never a problem.
I don't see why it would be considered any less reliable than a G17.
G34Shooter
06-12-08, 22:25
Much is said with regards to the reliability of Glocks in its original platform/ caliber (G17/9mm). Is the G34 considered as durable/ reliable?
Almost 10k rounds thru my G34 with only one Fail to feed due to a worn out ISMI 15# recoil spring and I needed to replace my slide stop spring... I think that's pretty good and will now replace springs every 5k to be safe. It's also the most accurate Glock I've owned.
MadcapMagician
06-13-08, 08:59
Of the 7 different Glocks I have/had (2 G17s; 2 G19s; 3 G34s), I haven't noticed a difference in reliability. Simply put, they work. Of the many thousands and thousands of rounds fired, the only malfunctions I have had were either bad ammo (factory defects) or with 10-round Klinton Klips that were beat to crap (bad feed lips and/or way worn out springs).
As Todd said, the statistics will have more variation between guns than models themselves.
I must be one of the unlucky few as I have had two G19's that gave terrible functioning performance. I'll try to give a brief timeline and description. Some of you with more knowledge may have some input as to the cause or the timeline.
First, I've had quite a number of Glocks, G19's numbering somewhere between 8 and 10. G17's between 4 and 5 and a solo G26. I got my first G19 pretty soon after turning 21 which would have been sometime in the first half of 1990. My last Glock which would have been either a G17 or the G26 which would have been purchased sometime just before 2000. This gives 10 years which I owned somewhere between 13 and 16 Glocks, 1990 thru 2000. I had given up on the G19 first, I probably had not owned a G19 since 1998 or 1999.
Now the problems, I had one of the possible 5 G17's that shot extreme left of POA at ten yrds. Six inches left, I gave it a good break in as some pistols will settle in after a few hundred rounds. This G17 did not, it maintained six inches left after several hundred rounds, I drifted the rear sight to correct but I nearly had to drift it out of it's dovetail. I centered the rear sight and sold it to someone who didn't care, or didn't belive me.:rolleyes:
And now the G19's, as I stated I had two poor functioning G19's. The problem was the same for both. During feeding a round from the mag the bullet would nose dive, jamming low on the feed ramp. I had tried several brands of ammo in several configurations of fmj and jhp's. The mags I were using ranged everything that was available from Glock, gen 1,2 and 3 hi-caps and the Klinton 10 rounders. The only difference between the two G19's were the frequency of stoppages. The first G19 started giving this problem in the first 200 rounds and continued for approx the next 1500 rounds before being sent on it's way. It would jam in this manner 3-5 times every 100 rounds. The second G19 went about 2000 rounds before any problems began to show. It then began to jam in the same manner as describe above but it was consistently 2-3 times from every mag, regardless of ammo or the type of mag being used. Both guns used the 5lb trigger connector.
Needless to say my own confidence in Glock's has been shaken to the core. I had at times thought of giving the G19 another try as it has always been my favorite model, especially after the rave reviews it gets here. However that brings me to my third problem with the Glock, it's grip angle. I have owned so many other makes and models and I can switch out between them with relative ease. With the Glocks grip angle I can only be most effective by shooting nothing but a Glock or anything else but a Glock. At this point I have been happy with my MP9, MP9c, HK's and Sig's and find it hard to justify going to a G19 again but sometimes I am still tempted.
Only I can work around problem number three. I wonder if anyone has any ideas what went wrong with these two G19's I described. I thought for awhile it may have been related to the NYPD issue with the G19's but after reading more about that issue I not so sure. Any help?
So much for being brief:D
I'd be willing to bet that the nose diving issues were because of the dreaded 2183 followers. Those things sucked and while I never had an issue with any of mine I saw too many issues with then and replaced all of mine just for good measure.
You said that you owned 13-16 Glocks over the years...weren't the other ones reliable?
jhs1969, your Glock 19 issue doesn't have any relationship to the NYPD G19 "issue."
I concur that your problem sounds like a follower/magazine problem.
As for me, I've had a lot of Glocks that I've purchased and several issued to me. I have A LOT of rounds through Glocks, especially in 9mm and in .40. Reliability will vary slightly from individual pistol to individual pistol, but in my opinion, Glocks as a whole are extremely reliable and one model isn't more reliable than another model. I own or have owned, carry or have carried the examples of the 17, 19, 22, 23, 26, 27, 35 and 21.
Glocks work and they work well.
I'd be willing to bet that the nose diving issues were because of the dreaded 2183 followers. Those things sucked and while I never had an issue with any of mine I saw too many issues with then and replaced all of mine just for good measure.
You said that you owned 13-16 Glocks over the years...weren't the other ones reliable?
Thanks for the reply, I had heard of the follower problem but never in any detail. Now that you mentioned it, I recall seeing that number on some of the followers. This may be a connection I had not considered.
Yes, your right. All the other Glocks were stone reliable, no questions. I have had the urge to get another G19 several times in the past 5 years or so, especially the past 3 years. I had planned on getting my wife a G26 and myself the G19. She has rather small hands and found the trigger reach to fit her best on the Glocks, UNTIL, we tried the M&P. She liked the feel of the M&P9c better, and with my history on the G19's, we got a M&P9 for me and a 9c for her. At first I wasn't crazy about the trigger feel and had even planned on selling it then she reminded me why I got the M&P9. It was to fill a heavy duty role for me, being carried regardless of weather and such. If it got abused then oh well. It feels this role great, it goes places I rather not take my 'precious' HK:D
I have shot my 9 much more than we have shot her 9c, I would guess to have near 700 rounds through my M&P9 at this point. I noticed the trigger began to noticably smooth out nearing the 500 round mark. Now I have a renewed intrest in the M&P's, I guess they have a home after all:)
I still have an active intrest in the G19, it fills a role the M&P series does not. If S&W were to introduce a 'mid-size' M&P then they may make inroads into the G19's market. With all this being said I still prefer the G19 to all other Glocks and would still like to have one. Maybe the infection will return someday:cool:
jhs1969, your Glock 19 issue doesn't have any relationship to the NYPD G19 "issue."
I concur that your problem sounds like a follower/magazine problem.
As for me, I've had a lot of Glocks that I've purchased and several issued to me. I have A LOT of rounds through Glocks, especially in 9mm and in .40. Reliability will vary slightly from individual pistol to individual pistol, but in my opinion, Glocks as a whole are extremely reliable and one model isn't more reliable than another model. I own or have owned, carry or have carried the examples of the 17, 19, 22, 23, 26, 27, 35 and 21.
Glocks work and they work well.
Thanks for replying, you posted while I was replying to M4arc. Yes I agree, after finally finding some details of the NYPD problem it did not sound anything like my issues. Now after touching on a probable cause I find myself gaining some of my lost confidence in the Glocks. I have also put many thousands of rounds through the Glocks, I had set up two of my prior G17's for an IDPA/stock pistol type of competion and had shot the crap out of them. During this time frame I had developed a speed and accuracy I never thought I personally would be capable of. I had owned many 1911's in the past but never felt as confident with them as I did the Glocks. Darn, I can feel that Glock virus spreading again:D
Talking about this has brought back some good memories with the Glock. Thanks guys
toddackerman
06-14-08, 10:16
I've shot mine quite a bit. Never a problem.
I don't see why it would be considered any less reliable than a G17.
Same reason the the shorter than 5" 1911's have more reported malf's. It's all about the timing cycle designed into the original design. You just can't shorten the barrel and expect the same results. Colt has come very close when they came out with the 4 1/4" Commander series, but it needed an extended ejector to work. That being said (and I own both and have shot both extensively) a shorter barreled gun (within reason) can be made to be reliaable with extra TLC and preventative maintenance like changing the recoil springs more frequently, keeping a closer eye on extractor tension etc..
The Dumb Gun Collector
06-14-08, 11:24
jhs1969,
Your experiences with the Glock are almost a SPOOKY mirror of mine. I swear I wondered if someone had copied one of my old posts from 3-4 years ago until I kept reading.
In my experience a Glock 17, assuming it doesn't have any issues out of the box, is virtually unbreakable. Extremely tough and reliable. I have owned 3 Glock 19s and each have had weird issues. The last one pounded me with brass in the face. The ones before that had FTF issues. My other Glocks have been 100 percent, including my G26.
Gutshot John
06-14-08, 11:49
Same reason the the shorter than 5" 1911's have more reported malf's. It's all about the timing cycle designed into the original design. You just can't shorten the barrel and expect the same results. Colt has come very close when they came out with the 4 1/4" Commander series, but it needed an extended ejector to work. That being said (and I own both and have shot both extensively) a shorter barreled gun (within reason) can be made to be reliaable with extra TLC and preventative maintenance like changing the recoil springs more frequently, keeping a closer eye on extractor tension etc..
If memory serves short 1911s have problems due to the barrel lockup and how the barrel pivots in the shorter slide. It's an imperfect analogy but it's akin to making to decreasing the turn radius in a high speed turn, perhaps a gunsmith can explain it better. The Glock has a different lockup where this problem is less of an issue and why they're so reliable out of the box.
Likewise he 1911 was originally designed to be a 5" gun with the commanders coming later.
The Glock 17 was the original design and was proven well before the G34 ever came into existence.
I've never had a problem with any of mine, but I've heard from more then one person that the MOST reliable was the G19. I have no personal experience that either proves or disproves this.
While I believe the general idea that shorter guns are less reliable than full-size guns tends to be true, that doesn't mean the reason is the same from design to design. Nor is the degree of reliability loss the same.
For example, the percentage of sub-5" (and especially sub-Commander length) 1911 pistols that have or develop problems is much higher than the percentage of G26's that do.
Just because a less than full size gun develops a problem doesn't mean it's a size issue, either.
The only G19 I ever owned was a dog. Can't recall exactly without digging out my log book, but it suffered right around 25 of the NYPD/Phase3 malfs in about 6,000 rounds. It was the last Glock I ever owned (unless you count the 17/T). But I'd still be the first to say that the G19 is an extremely reliable and durable gun.
Talking about the reliability differences between a G19, G17, and G34 is like arguing whether a car advertised as 299hp is going to be better for your commute than one advertised as 301hp. First, the variation in actual output (or reliability, for the guns) will vary enough from car to car that you'll see way too much overlap to draw any conclusion. Second, you're comparing a factor that is only one tiny part of the whole equation.
If the G19 works better for you from a size, comfort, and/or concealability standpoint then get a G19. Even if you bought five of them, the odds you'd ever find a statistically significant loss of reliability compared to a G17.
I will echo some of the posters above in that, out of the total of 8 G19s I owned, I have never had a G19 run perfectly out of the box, with one exception.
I think magazines had a lot to do with it, because the one exception I had was a fairly new one with the 5 or 6 marked magazines. With the 5 or 6 magazines I had no problems with my other G19s, either. I am down to one G19, which has run flawlessly for about 4,000 rounds.
I have had 4 G17s. Two owned a long time ago, early 1990s, had some FTFs just like my G19s.
I had a recent green framed G17, only shot 550 rounds through it, no problems that I recall.
I own one G17 now, 1665 rounds, 365 Gold Dots, so far no stoppages. Current generation "6" magazines.
Based on my experience, I don't really see much of a difference between the two lines.
I will echo some of the posters above in that, out of the total of 8 G19s I owned, I have never had a G19 run perfectly out of the box, with one exception.
I think magazines had a lot to do with it, because the one exception I had was a fairly new one with the 5 or 6 marked magazines. With the 5 or 6 magazines I had no problems with my other G19s, either. I am down to one G19, which has run flawlessly for about 4,000 rounds.
Why, if you have had problems with 7 of them, have you continued to buy them?
I have seen G19s issued by the hundreds and never seen anything that would support the idea that the pistol is unreliable. In my experience, it is exceedingly rare when a G19 has had reliability issues that weren't being induced by the shooter. Going 1 for 8 would make me start to wonder whether its the shooter and not the gun.
Why, if you have had problems with 7 of them, have you continued to buy them?
I have seen G19s issued by the hundreds and never seen anything that would support the idea that the pistol is unreliable. In my experience, it is exceedingly rare when a G19 has had reliability issues that weren't being induced by the shooter. Going 1 for 8 would make me start to wonder whether its the shooter and not the gun.
I buy them because I like them and when my employer issues me a gun, which it does under certain circumstances, it is now a G19.
My current one seems very reliable with the current magazines. I now have 5,000 plus rounds through it. Even before the new magazines came out I would buy Wolff +10% magazine springs and that seemed to solve the problem. Based on that I think crappy mag designs were a problem with the G19 in the late 1990s
Keep in mind I have owned and bought, lets see, 80+, guns since 1988, and I traded them in around a lot. I barely fired about three of those G19s. In addition to my current one, I put circa 5,000 through three others, and they were working fine by the end. A friend has two of them, and has put several thousand more rounds through them.
But have put thousands of rounds through several Berettas and SIGs and experienced no malfunctions at all. Period. (I have also had a couple of lemon SIGs) Until recently I have never had a Glock that didn't bobble at least a few times. My opinion is that Glocks are certainly reliable enough, but are no more reliable than any other brand out there, and just maybe they are a little less reliable.
The Dumb Gun Collector
06-14-08, 20:50
At the Ken Hackathorn class I recently attended several folks reported various ejection related issues with G19s through the years. At the store the story is the same. It is purely speculative, but I wonder if the G19 is just a lot more sensitive to grip pressure and spring weight? I don't know, but the wild variety of experience seems odd. Also, almost no one seems to report these issues in G17s.
My opinion is that Glocks are certainly reliable enough, but are no more reliable than any other brand out there, and just maybe they are a little less reliable.
That's been my experience, as well ... especially when you start to analyze a lot of stoppages that are blamed on "limp wristing" or "bad ammo" ...
Master_of_Sparks
06-14-08, 21:48
I have several GLOCKs, including a 17 and some 19s. The only GLOCK failure I've had in thousands and thousands of rounds, was with my G23 running UMC ammo. I had two stovepipes in the same factory mag during rapid fire. Could have been operator error, magazine, or maybe a filthy gun. I had been shooting all day and was tired and was shooting lazy. I dropped the mag and threw it in the woods. Next mag ran fine. Never had another malfunction out of that gun since.
I have one G19 that has at least 20 thousand rounds through it, with original springs. It has never, ever failed. Never....ever....
Even my G36 has never failed, and according to most people at GT, no G36 has ever worked.
I bought G19s for both of my sons and both say they trust them more than any other gun they own.
Failure2Stop
06-15-08, 05:18
Neither the G17 or G19 are magic talismans. They do not guarantee function or success. They are what they are- decent robust guns. Do not be blinded by advertising or psychophants. There are lots of guns that have never had a stoppage, and some companies have a better reputation for delivering trouble-free firearms than others. Somewhere out there is some guy thinking to himself, "My Ruger P90 has never failed!". The fact remains that mechanical things fail, prepare for the eventuality.
Gutshot John
06-15-08, 07:56
Neither the G17 or G19 are magic talismans. They do not guarantee function or success. They are what they are- decent robust guns. Do not be blinded by advertising or psychophants. There are lots of guns that have never had a stoppage, and some companies have a better reputation for delivering trouble-free firearms than others. Somewhere out there is some guy thinking to himself, "My Ruger P90 has never failed!". The fact remains that mechanical things fail, prepare for the eventuality.
Absolutely correct. There are NO guarantees. Any gun can fail at any given time. Parts wear, shooters don't do proper maintenance or employ proper technique and sometimes the stars just align poorly (Phase III).
I'm under no illusions that because I've never had a problem, that I never will. This being said, very few handguns have been so universally tested by so many people, over so long a time. They've delivered an impressive reliability record that exceeds more expensive firearms. When there were problems generated by heavy use this "testing" brought them to light and Glock has addressed them. How many other handguns can make that claim?
You'd be hard pressed to find a better handgun for the same money, and in some cases for more money that has been so thoroughly tested/proved.
They are the STANDARD by which others are judged...not necessarily the "best."
Does that distinction make sense?
This being said, very few handguns have been so universally tested by so many people, over so long a time. They've delivered an impressive reliability record that exceeds more expensive firearms. When there were problems generated by heavy use this "testing" brought them to light and Glock has addressed them. How many other handguns can make that claim?
Beretta & SIG come immediately to mind. Possibly HK, too, depending on how you want to measure things. Glock failed the ICE/DHS procurement, SIG and HK were both awarded ~$25M contracts. That was the most recent really big across-the-board test I'm aware of.
I've got to agree with F2S, they are decent and robust guns. They are not magically more reliable than most of their big-name competitors.
Gutshot John
06-15-08, 08:41
Beretta & SIG come immediately to mind. Possibly HK, too, depending on how you want to measure things.
I'm not really speaking about laboratory testing so much as street testing. The statistical sample of which is far larger, and by extension far more accurate.
While I agree that many have received years of testing, I don't think the others, with the exception of Beretta have been issued in similar numbers to the Glock (I've heard 50% market share in LEO handguns). Correct me if I'm wrong but that's a pretty large statistical sample. It gave ample testing for working out bugs and improving the basic design which is the only design Glock really has. The other's have a multitude of different models/designs which "dilute" the process. Much of this however is a matter of manufacturing philosophy. The Japanese call it "kaizen" which is to constantly improve and refine by evolution, this is the Glock model.
I agree with what you say...they are decent and robust and while they offer no advantage over their big name competitors (will put rounds on target) they achieve similar performance/reliability for far less money. Sig and HK likewise are "decent" robust guns...not magically more reliable than their cheaper and more numerous competitors. The impression I got was that "decent" equated to "mediocre" and that's not the case with the Glock.
Glock in my opinion offers better (not necessarily more reliable) design. I'd be very curious to see how the M&P grows and develops.
Gutshot John
06-15-08, 09:01
Glock failed the ICE/DHS procurement, SIG and HK were both awarded ~$25M contracts. That was the most recent really big across-the-board test I'm aware of.
I don't know about this test but in my experience in government procurement, that doesn't necessarily say much about any of those firearms.
I'm sure you'd agree. ;)
Please understand I'm not trying to say Glock is a "supergun" just that its production/development sets a pretty high manufacturing standard.
I buy them because I like them and when my employer issues me a gun, which it does under certain circumstances, it is now a G19.
My current one seems very reliable with the current magazines. I now have 5,000 plus rounds through it. Even before the new magazines came out I would buy Wolff +10% magazine springs and that seemed to solve the problem. Based on that I think crappy mag designs were a problem with the G19 in the late 1990s
Keep in mind I have owned and bought, lets see, 80+, guns since 1988, and I traded them in around a lot. I barely fired about three of those G19s. In addition to my current one, I put circa 5,000 through three others, and they were working fine by the end. A friend has two of them, and has put several thousand more rounds through them.
But have put thousands of rounds through several Berettas and SIGs and experienced no malfunctions at all. Period. (I have also had a couple of lemon SIGs) Until recently I have never had a Glock that didn't bobble at least a few times. My opinion is that Glocks are certainly reliable enough, but are no more reliable than any other brand out there, and just maybe they are a little less reliable.
I would say that your experience (7 of 8 G19s have had problems) is absolutely not representative of the reliablility of the Glock 19.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Glocks are more reliable than other pistols out there. But I'd say that they're just as reliable as the other issued handguns out there, but that wasn't the question posed in the thread.
If the question is about "basic out-of-the-box reliability" (and it was ;)) the answer is, "yes, the Glock (17 OR 19) is extremely reliable out-of-the-box".
Your experience notwithstanding.
If we're going to expand the question and ask "what else is reliable out-of-the-box" then I'd say Sigs, Berettas, HKs are all also extremely reliable out-of-the-box.
Every manufacturer puts out a lemon. Glock, Sig, HK and Beretta put out fewer than most. If you want a reliable out-of the-box handgun, you're not gambling much by buying a G17 or a G19.
While I agree that many have received years of testing, I don't think the others, with the exception of Beretta have been issued in similar numbers to the Glock (I've heard 50% market share in LEO handguns). Correct me if I'm wrong but that's a pretty large statistical sample. It gave ample testing for working out bugs and improving the basic design which is the only design Glock really has. The other's have a multitude of different models/designs which "dilute" the process.
Using SIG as an example, because it's the one I'm most familiar with:
The P22x guns (often called the Classic line) have been around for a decade longer than the Glock. They're still being produced with no matter significant changes to major or minor components than Glocks have experienced in their time.
Glock's claimed LE marketshare is a math game. Any agency that issues or even authorizes even a single Glock is considered a Glock agency (so if one officer out of a thousand in a particular department carries a Glock, Glock calls that 1,000 Glock-carrying officers).
But let's pretend that number is correct. Let's assume arguendo that 50% of US LE are carrying Glocks. And let's further assume that only 20% are carrying SIG (I think SIG claims 1/3rd right now, but we'll use 20%). Is 20% of all the LE in the US not a "pretty large statistical sample" as well? There are about 850,000 sworn LE in the US. Has Glock learned a lot more from 425,000 users than SIG would from 212,500 users? If a problem is so rare that you need more than 200,000 samples to identify it, it's probably not much of a problem and certainly not something a company is going to "fix."
The Toyota Camry is the most popular car in the US. And it's a perfectly good car for a lot of people. That doesn't make it the best, or even a good option for a lot of other people.
Among the major firearms manufacturers involved in current Government contracts, Beretta seems notably absent. Is it reasonable to assume that the 92 series (to include the M9A1 and 90 Two) is at the end of the line as far as bidding for new government orders?
You get a team of firearms people who agree that the second strike capability is vitally important, then certain pistols aren't going to do well. And certain "failures" have nothing to do with how a firearm would actually perform on the street. Yes, you can fire thousands and thousands of rounds through a Glock and get the recoil spring rod to eventually melt.
Just for the record with regard to the ICE procurement:
Second strike capability was not a requirement and to the best of my knowledge was not even considered a benefit (SIG argued to have it included but it was not).
There was no way a gun at the ICE testing would have been fired to the point where parts were melting unless the manufacturer chose to do that. There was no time limit for achieving the 10,500 round test. Some companies tried to do it fast (I personally shot about 8,000 rounds in one week, as part of a 10-man team from SIG) while others limped along at a pace so slow some of the officials even started to make jokes about it.
We're really talking about two different things here.
Can selection criteria be biased? Yes.
Does that invalidate the raw data from testing? No.
Federale, correct me if I'm wrong but as I recall the FBI test that selected the Glock, it was run in a much different way than the DHS/ICE test. DHS/ICE put every gun that passed basic requirements through the accuracy, reliability, and durability testing. But when FBI tested, they only did the serious shooting portion with the gun that scored highest on the basic requirement segment ... so the SIG, Smith, Beretta, etc. entries were never compared to the Glock in terms of durability and reliability.
edited to add:
Among the major firearms manufacturers involved in current Government contracts, Beretta seems notably absent. Is it reasonable to assume that the 92 series (to include the M9A1 and 90 Two) is at the end of the line as far as bidding for new government orders?
Basically yes. The 90-series gun is just much bigger and less ergonomic than most of the competitors these days. It's also not nearly as reliable or durable in .40 S&W, which is the mainstay of the LE business. Finally, Beretta USA has not put much serious effort into the LE market (or pistols in general) in this decade.
Gutshot John
06-15-08, 09:37
Using SIG as an example, because it's the one I'm most familiar with:
The P22x guns (often called the Classic line) have been around for a decade longer than the Glock. They're still being produced with no matter significant changes to major or minor components than Glocks have experienced in their time.
Sig produces 1911s, they produce rifles, the produce a myriad of different weapons. Glock only produces one firearm design.
Glock's claimed LE marketshare is a math game. Any agency that issues or even authorizes even a single Glock is considered a Glock agency (so if one officer out of a thousand in a particular department carries a Glock, Glock calls that 1,000 Glock-carrying officers).
I was under the impression it was based on total "sales" rather than "authorization" but I'll see if I can find out.
But let's pretend that number is correct. Let's assume arguendo that 50% of US LE are carrying Glocks. And let's further assume that only 20% are carrying SIG (I think SIG claims 1/3rd right now, but we'll use 20%). Is 20% of all the LE in the US not a "pretty large statistical sample" as well? There are about 850,000 sworn LE in the US. Has Glock learned a lot more from 425,000 users than SIG would from 212,500 users? If a problem is so rare that you need more than 200,000 samples to identify it, it's probably not much of a problem and certainly not something a company is going to "fix."
Yes 20% is a large statistical sample, but 50% is an even larger, and therefore more accurate one according to statistics. Ultimately though you're right, they haven't learned A LOT more. While they may not fix everything in pushing it to those limits you have a pretty good idea of the reliability limits of the gun, this may or may not be the case with others. It might also expose weaknesses in metallurgy or other processes that can be improved.
The Toyota Camry is the most popular car in the US. And it's a perfectly good car for a lot of people. That doesn't make it the best, or even a good option for a lot of other people.
No argument there, but that kind of makes the point. I'll use VW and Porsche though. Yes Porsche can produce thousands of more expensive, higher performance automobiles of superlative quality and reliability. VW however produces FAR MORE automobiles which are at least as reliable. It is FAR harder to achieve consistent reliability in manufacturing over a million units than it is over 100,000.
Will the Porsche outperform the VW? Yep, but the VW performs at least as well for a wider swath of the population and is apt to be less temperamental.
Believe it or not though this is exactly why I'm interested in the M&P with time and numbers, I believe it will surpass the Glock in reliability as it already does in design.
Sig produces 1911s, they produce rifles, the produce a myriad of different weapons. Glock only produces one firearm design.
That's a complete red herring. Glock makes knives, grenade shells, and kitchen appliances. So what? It doesn't matter how big a company is or how many subsidiaries it has. What matters is how much experience do they have producing a particular product.
I was under the impression it was based on total "sales" rather than "authorization" but I'll see if I can find out.
When Glock reports marketshare, they do it by agency. So an agency that authorizes Glocks but issues something else counts as a Glock agency.
Yes 20% is a large statistical sample, but 50% is an even larger, and therefore more accurate one according to statistics. Ultimately though you're right, they haven't learned A LOT more.
Actually, if you talk to a statistician, for large populations (like all LE in the US), there is almost no benefit to a 50% survey compared to a 20% survey. You can achieve very high confidence results with much, much lower representation. I'll say it again: there is nothing a company would learn at 500,000 guns issued that they wouldn't learn at 200,000 guns issued.
Will the Porsche outperform the VW? Yep, but the VW performs at least as well for a wider swath of the population and is apt to be less temperamental.
Based on my recent car-buying investigation, I don't think VW is nearly as reliable as Porsche.
G34Shooter
06-15-08, 09:50
Beretta & SIG come immediately to mind. Possibly HK, too, depending on how you want to measure things. Glock failed the ICE/DHS procurement, SIG and HK were both awarded ~$25M contracts. That was the most recent really big across-the-board test I'm aware of.
I've got to agree with F2S, they are decent and robust guns. They are not magically more reliable than most of their big-name competitors.
I had a lemon of a USP but I don't judge all H&K pistols by it...
Just for the record with regard to the ICE procurement:
Second strike capability was not a requirement and to the best of my knowledge was not even considered a benefit (SIG argued to have it included but it was not).
There was no way a gun at the ICE testing would have been fired to the point where parts were melting unless the manufacturer chose to do that. There was no time limit for achieving the 10,500 round test. Some companies tried to do it fast (I personally shot about 8,000 rounds in one week, as part of a 10-man team from SIG) while others limped along at a pace so slow some of the officials even started to make jokes about it.
We're really talking about two different things here.
Can selection criteria be biased? Yes.
Does that invalidate the raw data from testing? No.
Federale, correct me if I'm wrong but as I recall the FBI test that selected the Glock, it was run in a much different way than the DHS/ICE test. DHS/ICE put every gun that passed basic requirements through the accuracy, reliability, and durability testing. But when FBI tested, they only did the serious shooting portion with the gun that scored highest on the basic requirement segment ... so the SIG, Smith, Beretta, etc. entries were never compared to the Glock in terms of durability and reliability.
Todd, you and I both know that the DHS protocols are not published and its unfair to debate what the test was here, without being able to furnish details. I provided examples as to how a test could be swung in favor of one manufacturer or another. Separate paragraph, separate thought.
I think you're getting pretty far down in the weeds here. The question was whether a Glock 17 or 19 is a good choice for an out-of-the-box, reliable handgun and if there was any difference between the two.
But since you've brought up Sig's success, I'd say that Sig has been losing ground in LE sales steadily for 20 years. Sure, the extra cost of the Sig plays a factor. But if you can get similar reliability and performance out of a Glock for less money, then why would an administrator choose to pay more?
I don't frankly see anyone (except DHS) adopting new Sig weapons. I see many more transitioning away from them.
And btw, it wasn't an "FBI test" that selected the Glock.
Gutshot John
06-15-08, 09:55
That's a complete red herring. Glock makes knives, grenade shells, and kitchen appliances. So what? It doesn't matter how big a company is or how many subsidiaries it has. What matters is how much experience do they have producing a particular product.
Firearms are a complicated technology upon which people bet their lives. More complicated than knives or grenade shells...and people don't bet their lives on their kitchen appliances.
Their firearms line is dedicated to one design that has been produced in numbers that competitors have a very hard time matching with any single design of their own. I'll concede that the Sig P22x design probably comes VERY close, but I'd also concede that the Sig is an extremely well-made handgun that I'd have no doubt picking up and using. It also costs about 70% more than a Glock.
When Glock reports marketshare, they do it by agency. So an agency that authorizes Glocks but issues something else counts as a Glock agency.
Fair enough. What are total sales of Glock designs vs. other designs? What are LEO vs. Civilian Sales? I'm sure Glock sells more than Sig and HK, per year and overall (especially to LEO) but I could be wrong.
Actually, if you talk to a statistician, for large populations (like all LE in the US), there is almost no benefit to a 50% survey compared to a 20% survey.
You're missing the point.
Actually a statistician would not even use 20% if he was doing a formal survey not because it's not needed, but because it's too difficult to compile. This being said he'd not deny that 50% sample would achieve more accurate and definitive results if the data was readily available...which it is.
Based on my recent car-buying investigation, I don't think VW is nearly as reliable as Porsche.
There are far more VW bugs on the road from the 1960s than 911s. Is this year more reliable, maybe, but that's a different conclusion.
If Porsche decided tomorrow to produce the same numbers as VW, they would not be of the same quality of the Porsche nor as reliable as the VW. TANSTAAFL
Based on my experience my Glocks have been far more reliable than the Berettas, Sigs and HKs I've been issued/owned...and I've tried them all. The HKs especially were especially temperamental, but that doesn't mean I think they're "bad."
It's not an "all or nothing' proposition.
Based on my experience my Glocks have been far more reliable than the Berettas, Sigs and HKs I've been issued/owned...and I've tried them all. The HKs especially were especially temperamental, but that doesn't mean I think they're "bad."
It's not an "all or nothing' proposition.
Based on my experience, I haven't had any issues with either Glock or Sig (though with the exception of my P229R, all my Sigs were built in Europe, not NH). And that's personally and having seen a lot of Sigs and Glocks issued over the years. You are hardly taking a gamble on reliability if you go with a Glock or with a Sig (classic series). I have not had any issues with my Beretta, but its a sample of one and it hasn't gone anywhere but to the range. I have a HK USPc .40 that doesn't feed as reliably as it should (or as reliably as my other "duty grade" pistols). I wouldn't call HK unreliable. I'd say my sample was until I tweaked it.
In fact, of all the pistols I've owned, I've only encountered serious reliability problems with two of them, a Kahr K40 and a Kimber. Since I have read and seen other people have exactly the same issues with both of those companies as I did, I'm not surprised by my experience.
Gutshot John
06-15-08, 10:22
Based on my experience, I haven't had any issues with either Glock or Sig (though with the exception of my P229R, all my Sigs were built in Europe, not NH). And that's personally and having seen a lot of Sigs and Glocks issued over the years. You are hardly taking a gamble on reliability if you go with a Glock or with a Sig (classic series). I have not had any issues with my Beretta, but its a sample of one and it hasn't gone anywhere but to the range. I have a HK USPc .40 that doesn't feed as reliably as it should (or as reliably as my other "duty grade" pistols). I wouldn't call HK unreliable. I'd say my sample was until I tweaked it.
In fact, of all the pistols I've owned, I've only encountered serious reliability problems with two of them, a Kahr K40 and a Kimber. Since I have read and seen other people have exactly the same issues with both of those companies as I did, I'm not surprised by my experience.
I'm really NOT saying the HK is unreliable, just that the ones I had were temperamental and required significant break-in. As has been pointed out, any given firearm, from any given manufacturer will produce "temperamental" examples. My complaints with HK though have nothing to do with "reliability" and far more to do with shootability.
The Sig P220 is one of my favorite handguns of all time.
Todd, you and I both know that the DHS protocols are not published and its unfair to debate what the test was here, without being able to furnish details. I provided examples as to how a test could be swung in favor of one manufacturer or another. Separate paragraph, separate thought.
The protocols were and probably still are available to anyone who looks at them. They were published at FedBizOps. It was a completely public procurement. The results were not published.
I think you're getting pretty far down in the weeds here. The question was whether a Glock 17 or 19 is a good choice for an out-of-the-box, reliable handgun and if there was any difference between the two.
I was responding to John's comments regarding Glock's LE marketshare and the tests they'd passed and won. If you don't see it as applicable, we'll have to disagree.
But since you've brought up Sig's success, I'd say that Sig has been losing ground in LE sales steadily for 20 years. Sure, the extra cost of the Sig plays a factor. But if you can get similar reliability and performance out of a Glock for less money, then why would an administrator choose to pay more?
Your assessment does not match SIG's LE sales numbers. They've been up and down, and SIG is definitely in more LE holsters today than it was 10 years ago. As for why an administrator or agency would choose a SIG over a Glock, I could easily list half a dozen reasons. I could also list half a dozen reasons why one might choose a Glock instead.
I don't frankly see anyone (except DHS) adopting new Sig weapons. I see many more transitioning away from them.
SIG has made major inroads into both state and local LE, as well. Now they're starting to lose that position and may fade back into a less prominent role.
And btw, it wasn't an "FBI test" that selected the Glock.
The folks I know at DSU think it was. :cool:
Firearms are a complicated technology upon which people bet their lives. More complicated than knives or grenade shells...and people don't bet their lives on their kitchen appliances.
John, you're just continuing to grasp at your argument here. You keep making broader and broader assumptions without facts to back them up. I've been directly involved in firearms manufacturing for most of the past decade. I'm telling you it is a fallacy to assume that the number of different items a company makes determines the quality of their products, positively or negatively.
Fair enough. What are total sales of Glock designs vs. other designs? What are LEO vs. Civilian Sales? I'm sure Glock sells more than Sig and HK, per year and overall (especially to LEO) but I could be wrong.
I'm sure Glock sells more, too. That doesn't mean they sell more than the entire rest of the industry combined, which is what would be required to have 50% of all sales.
If Porsche decided tomorrow to produce the same numbers as VW, they would not be of the same quality of the Porsche nor as reliable as the VW.
John, this to me is the cornerstone of your argument style. You create hypotheticals and then announce the result as if it were fact. Based on what evidence do you know that Porsche couldn't maintain QC?
And you're the one who started by saying that VW was more reliable. :cool:
Based on my experience my Glocks have been far more reliable than the Berettas, Sigs and HKs I've been issued/owned...and I've tried them all. The HKs especially were especially temperamental, but that doesn't mean I think they're "bad."
By your own logic, if you haven't used 500,000 of each, your numbers are meaningless. :D
Gutshot John
06-15-08, 11:02
John, you're just continuing to grasp at your argument here. You keep making broader and broader assumptions without facts to back them up. I've been directly involved in firearms manufacturing for most of the past decade. I'm telling you it is a fallacy to assume that the number of different items a company makes determines the quality of their products, positively or negatively.
Todd, I have extensive experience in the manufacturing industry. I promise you that in general terms (though firearms may be the only exception to this rule) that it is harder to have consistent quality over large quantities of product than fewer.
I'm arguing generally because not a single one of us have enough experience to definitely prove one is better than the other, not even you. All of this forum put together would not be adequate to establish "fact." What you're arguing doesn't jive with basic economic principles.
I'm sure Glock sells more, too. That doesn't mean they sell more than the entire rest of the industry combined, which is what would be required to have 50% of all sales.
50% market share means that for every dollar spent, $0.50 goes to Glock. That means that they have more than the rest of the industry combined...just like Caterpillar. If they don't have 50% market share than your assessment is correct.
And you're the one who started by saying that VW was more reliable. :cool:
I said they're more reliable over a larger data sample. Easier maintenance, availability of parts probably has much to do with this.
By your own logic, if you haven't used 500,000 of each, your numbers are meaningless. :D
Nope...re-read. That's actually what you're saying.
Gutshot John
06-15-08, 11:11
John, this to me is the cornerstone of your argument style. You create hypotheticals and then announce the result as if it were fact. Based on what evidence do you know that Porsche couldn't maintain QC?
I think you'd also do well to not analyze my motivations or my style. That seems excessively personal and you are similarly vulnerable. It also seems at odds with the substance of debate and the spirit of the forum rules.
As for my "style" I believe in generalities over specifics. If you don't like it, you don't have to respond. If you can't address the generalities, than how can your specifics be correct?
I can only presume you've taken economics and yes I use hypotheticals to illustrate a point. So? Don't you? Economics is filled with hypotheticals...or are you saying the laws of economics don't apply to the firearms industry?
If they don't, then I'll concede the point, but so far you're not making your case, and if I fail to agree with you, that's not really my fault. If you fail to agree with me it's no skin off my back.
All of this ignores that I've never said the Glock was "supergun" or even that the others "sucked." Only that the degree of reliability that they've achieved over so many firearms produced, is an impressive manufacturing feat. If you are unconvinced by that, than oh well.
Porsche can produce better cars than VW. It can even probably even produce more cars than VW, but it can't both produce better cars in equal or greater numbers. How do I know this? Because if they could...they would as it would improve their bottom line.
I have a 17, 20 and 22. My G17 is the newest of the three, but all have been 100%. Thats why I like them. As mentioned, they are the AK of pistols. Easy to teach someone how to handle, you can do all the maintenance yourself, there is an extensive user network available, so if you do have any problems, someone has seen it before and can help you out.
I picked the 17 over the 19 because I did not have a requirement for a smaller pistol and I would not be carrying it. It was for competition and general plinking, as well as a loaner gun if someone needed one and didn't have time to do a lot of shooting with it. (I loaned this pistol to a buddy of mine during Huricane Katrina/Rita, when looting was an issue)
I added XS big dot sights which in my opinion is the only fault of Glock pistols, their cheap sights. I have over 1K rounds through the 17 and it is accurate and reliable.
I know there are a lot of people who love the G19 and most of them use it for carry, off duty, home defense, plinking, etc. If possible, see if you can shoot both either by getting with someone who has one of each or find a range that rents them. Glocks are pretty popular rentals. Then evaluate what your needs are. If its just for the range and backup home defense, I would go with the 17. Just my thoughts.
I would say that your experience (7 of 8 G19s have had problems) is absolutely not representative of the reliablility of the Glock 19.
I should qualify my statement. Once I tweaked them they worked fine. They didn't choke every magazine, certainly. I wouldn't call them lemons. They did amost always fail to shoot 200 rounds of my carry brand of hollowpoint (Mostly Fed 9BPLE, back in the day) without failure, though. It was bloody expensive tweaking them and re-shooting HP through them, come to think of it :). My current gun is one of those 7, not the last one that had no problems.
I keep records of what I have shot through my guns, and my current Glock was typical, so I thought I would share . I bought it in 2002, and shot 500 rounds of ball with no problems with the 10 round magazines of the day and some 15 rounders I had squirreled away. I promptly had several FTFs when I tried to shoot 200 rounds of my then current choice of hollowpoint through it and those magazines. I replaced the magazine springs with +10 Wolfs and it had very few other problems. I did have one FTF on another brand of hollowpoint, Federal Hydra-Shok 124. A friend of mine, a newbie, had a failure to eject on a round of Blazer.
I replaced the magazines with the current Glock mags when the AW ban lifted and have shot them and the gun for several hundred rounds with my current brand of hollowpoint, Gold Dot, with no problems and am happy. I have also shot at least 200 rounds of several other brands of hollowpoint (beside the above H-S 124) with no problem. I could probably shoot some 200 more HS 124 through it and "qualify" it, but it is not my carry round so I have not bothered. As noted, it is now on 4,000 trouble free rounds (with the exception of that Blazer round-which I will chalk of to a newbie shooting with a weak grip)
If the question is about "basic out-of-the-box reliability" (and it was ) the answer is, "yes, the Glock (17 OR 19) is extremely reliable out-of-the-box".
Your experience notwithstanding.
It stands for me :) I hear people say how jam free, utterly reliable Glocks are, and that is simply not true for me, and for some others I have talked to (see some other posts on this thread).
I don't believe in out of the box reliability for semi-auto pistols. I have had lemon SIGs, and HKs (another brand that has failed to live up to a myth of flawless reliability in my hands, actually) that did choke every magazine. Actually, comparing them to cars and electronic hardware, I must say the firearms I have bought have shown a surprising perentage of problems-maybe as much as 10 percent.
If you put a gun to my head, so to speak, I would not recommend a G19 for an out of the box reliable semi-auto. I would recommend a SIG or a Beretta.
If you asked me which semi-auto handgun I would recommend to a new shooter I would recommend a G19. It is user friendly, compact, durable, and I like shooting them. But I would recommend you practice a little, and then fire 200 rounds of your carry load before carrying it.
I have attended several classes, and several qualification sessions with my employer, and I must say the 9mm Glocks have been pretty reliable with the ball ammunition used. Less so the .40 Glocks, and much less so the 1911 pattern guns
Fine Todd, the results are not published and that's really the point, isn't it?
Glock has a huge LE marketshare and has kicked the crap out of Sig and everyone else in gaining that share. And no, it doesn't just come down to price, if it did, there are cheaper alternatives to the Glock. You know I can argue for Sig as well (MY choice for duty is a P229, but I wouldn't say that there is anything about the P229 that is head and shoulders better than my G22, only that I personally prefer the P229).
And to discount the tests that Glock has passed because the most recent major contract went to HK and Sig is pretty silly. They're all reliable pistols. If you can't bring yourself to say THAT, then I'm pretty sure that you're letting your personal bias get in the way.
And by the way, I spent the time since my last post putting 450 rounds downrange through 2 Glocks and a MP5. One of the Glocks had a brand new Lone Wolf slide attached to it because I decided to put a .40 slide on my Glock 19 (the other was my 35). No malfunctions. How many other pistols can you completely swap the upper on and have no issues? Pretty few. The Glock design is so reliable that its also practically modular.
Gutshot John
06-15-08, 12:22
I don't believe in out of the box reliability for semi-auto pistols. I have had lemon SIGs, and HKs (another brand that has failed to live up to a myth of flawless reliability in my hands, actually) that did choke every magazine.
I completely agree which is why I originally said I'd never recommend someone depend on "out of the box" reliability. Only that if I absolutely HAD to rely on one brand, new out of the box, I'd pick a Glock 9mm. On some level however it remains a game of russian roulette...and you have a chance of losing.
I would like to hear from those in the industry what tests are performed on each gun before being shipped to the consumer. I've had several brands that were ostensibly "tested for function" that seemed to malfunction and had to be sent back.
Todd, I have extensive experience in the manufacturing industry. I promise you that in general terms (though firearms may be the only exception to this rule) that it is harder to have consistent quality over large quantities of product than fewer.
By this logic then DMPS and Oly should be higer quality AR systems than Colt, right?
I'm arguing generally because not a single one of us have enough experience to definitely prove one is better than the other, not even you. All of this forum put together would not be adequate to establish "fact." What you're arguing doesn't jive with basic economic principles.
I'll trust my own experience over your 'principles' any day. By following your posts for a while now I would say that a large precentage of people here have much more experience.
Sig produces 1911s, they produce rifles, the produce a myriad of different weapons. Glock only produces one firearm design.
These are different designs that do not use intercangeable componets. This says nothing about reliability, durability. If anything it says Sig is a more established firearms manufacturer than Glock, who is a relative new comer by comparison.
All of this ignores that I've never said the Glock was "supergun" or even that the others "sucked." Only that the degree of reliability that they've achieved over so many firearms produced, is an impressive manufacturing feat. If you are unconvinced by that, than oh well.
Sure sounds like your singing Glock's praises to me.
I'm really NOT saying the HK is unreliable, just that the ones I had were temperamental and required significant break-in. As has been pointed out, any given firearm, from any given manufacturer will produce "temperamental" examples. My complaints with HK though have nothing to do with "reliability" and far more to do with shootability.
Yes, any manufacturer can let problems creep into their product line.
Look, nothing here is new. If you read this complete thread you would know I've had 13-15 different Glocks, of which two G19's would not function well enough for me to trust my life with and a G17 which I would not trust to hit it's target. I've also had about 15-16 different 'classic' Sigs, of which one was a first gen 229 in .40 and another 229 in .357. All the others were in 9mm in one model or another. With exception of the .40 229, I've never had a single functioning problem with these Sigs. I've had six different makes of HK, two of which were in .40, the other 4 in 9mm. I have never had a single functioning problem with ANY of these.
The point? You say you are not claiming Glock to make 'super' guns but then you argue that same point. As I understand you, Glocks are best because the largest percentage of LE uses Glocks, right? The Seals have chosen a 'classic' Sig. I don't think anyone would argue that the Seals are more serious, high volume shooters, right? Does that make the Sigs a better weapon?
Look, the bottom line is there is no 'best' handgun. If there really was then all other handgun designs would fade from the market, relagated to collector status and only the 'best' design would continue.
What it is, is a choice. Be it a personal choice, or a choice on a local unit level, or state level, or federal level, etc. etc. The point is, stop arguing about it. You just want to argue, have the last word, come out on top, whatever.
Stop trying to 'win' an arguement, stop highjacking this thread and let it get back on track, please!!
Gutshot John
06-15-08, 12:30
By this logic then DMPS and Oly should be higer quality AR systems than Colt, right?
No, it is harder for Colt to maintain that quality over large numbers due to their contracts which is why you pay a premium for their product. It's also why they can't produce all the rifles needed in the US demand. There is a limit to production size or quality. You can usually choose to produce more, or choose to produce better, but you reach a limit beyond which you can't do either. That Glock has achieved such reliability over such a large product line is a testament to their quality, not saying they're the "best." Just saying it's a remarkable manufacturing achievement.
I'll trust my own experience over your 'principles' any day. By following your posts for a while now I would say that a large precentage of people here have much more experience.
Cool...except they're not my principles, they're economic principles. If you think your experience negates the laws of economics, than I'm not interested in trying to convince you. In terms of firearms experience you are doubtlessly correct, but I have experience which is just as valid from my perspective. I'm far less concerned about yours. Moreover I've NEVER argued that one "gun is better" only that Glock has achieved remarkable things given the numbers of firearms it produces. This is a manufacturing judgment not a firearms one. I've used that phrase so often that I can't help but wonder if you've even read what I've said. If not, than your subsequent analysis is entirely irrelevant.
These are different designs that do not use intercangeable componets. This says nothing about reliability, durability. If anything it says Sig is a more established firearms manufacturer than Glock, who is a relative new comer by comparison.
I'm not knocking the Sig, but you're talking about two different manufacturing models. Sig makes a great firearm...for significantly more cash.
Sure sounds like your singing Glock's praises to me.
They make an excellent weapon, no one here denies that. So does Sig, I've not denied that, in fact I've repeatedly said I love the Sig.
Yes, any manufacturer can let problems creep into their product line.
Yes and? That's exactly my point, the more "product" produced, the easier it is to let problems creep in. Glock produces huge numbers of handguns and maintains a very high standard of consistent quality. How is this not a remarkable manufacturing feat?
Look, the bottom line is there is no 'best' handgun. If there really was then all other handgun designs would fade from the market, relagated to collector status and only the 'best' design would continue.
What it is, is a choice. Be it a personal choice, or a choice on a local unit level, or state level, or federal level, etc. etc. The point is, stop arguing about it. You just want to argue, have the last word, come out on top, whatever.
Stop trying to 'win' an arguement, stop highjacking this thread and let it get back on track, please!!
I never said there was a "best" Go back and re-read. Moreover I've never argued any of that.
As for the rest of your blatherings, how is talking about Glock reliability and manufacturing standards "hijacking the thread"? I'm not trying to "win" anymore than Todd is, and while I'm pretty sure he's capable of talking for himself, if he misinterprets my argument or my words, and I try to clarify it for him, I'm certainly within my rights to do so. Moreover you and he are the only ones that have relied on ad hominem tactics, trying to discredit me, rather than the substance of my argument. This certainly doesn't speak to your "experience."
People in glass houses n'at. :rolleyes:
I completely agree which is why I originally said I'd never recommend someone depend on "out of the box" reliability.
I'm pretty sure we all agree on that. But if you want to start with a pistol that is more likely to work out-of-the-box and not need to be tweaked, the Glock isn't much of a gamble. Neither is a Sig Classic series or a HK. Yes, you still need to run rounds through it because they all can vary. But in my experience (and I've seen hundreds of brand new Glocks get issued and work without problems through 4,000 round training courses), I'd say that pretending that the Glock is not a good choice for reliability is pretty silly.
Now, as for DrewH's experience, well, I'm sorry to say, you've got some bad luck across ALL brands.
Gutshot John
06-15-08, 13:01
nevermind
GJ -- There's clearly no point in continuing the sideline debate between us. I let you have the last word, above.
Fine Todd, the results are not published and that's really the point, isn't it?
It's one point. I'm not the one who threw "guns heating up" and "second strike capability" into the debate, so I made it clear neither of those were issues in the ICE test. Simple as that.
Glock has a huge LE marketshare and has kicked the crap out of Sig and everyone else in gaining that share. And no, it doesn't just come down to price, if it did, there are cheaper alternatives to the Glock.
I wouldn't disagree with anything you said there.
And to discount the tests that Glock has passed because the most recent major contract went to HK and Sig is pretty silly. They're all reliable pistols. If you can't bring yourself to say THAT, then I'm pretty sure that you're letting your personal bias get in the way.
Where did I say that we should "discount the tests that Glock has passed because the most recent ...?" I never said that. I simply pointed out to someone who was using Glock's record that Glock's record isn't perfect. I used one test as an example. There have certainly been other tests where they haven't faired well.
How many other pistols can you completely swap the upper on and have no issues? Pretty few. The Glock design is so reliable that its also practically modular.
So you put an aftermarket slide on the gun and it worked and you think that's unusual? I don't even see how that relates to Glock. I've swapped slides plenty of times on SIGs and never had a bobble. I completely replaced the slide on my first M&P a little past 20k and the gun has run flawlessly since. Really, with current modern manufacturing methods and tolerances, guns are designed with parts interchangeability in mind.
Todd, the implication you made about the ICE/DHS tests was that they were the most recent and Glock "failed", which leaves the distinctly negative impression. You don't have the results of those tests to post here, do you? There have been tests that HK, Beretta and Sig have all failed as well. Nobody has a perfect record.
As I am sure you are WELL aware, departments HAVE put things into their specifications that pretty much steer themselves to specific pistols and exclude others, so I'm not sure why you're stuck on this. And those specifications also have a lot to do why certain brands do well in certain tests and don't do well in others.
And as I'm sure you're also aware, there are many people in decision making positions that really just do not like the Glock (in particular). There are trainers who don't particularly like them either. Do you know any?
Somewhere in this thread you've apparently gotten the idea that people are saying that Glocks have mythical reliability. Nobody has said that. What many have said is that they're as good of a choice as any for someone looking for a pistol that will be reliable out of the box.
Experience says that they are.
John_Wayne777
06-15-08, 17:50
Actually a statistician would not even use 20% if he was doing a formal survey not because it's not needed, but because it's too difficult to compile. This being said he'd not deny that 50% sample would achieve more accurate and definitive results if the data was readily available...which it is.
Actually there is a point of diminishing return. While a larger n (sample size) does give results more predictive of the general population, beyond a certain point the increase in reliability of results becomes minor.
In political science they use 1,068 subjects in a probability sample method because mathematically it gets them to within + or - 3 points of the population statistic. A sample size of 2,041 will only get you within + or - 2 points of the population statistic. (Assuming a normal population) To get within 1 point of the population statistic you'd need a sample size much much larger...and the larger your n becomes the smaller the difference it makes until you're essentially just down to adding nines to the back end of 99.9999999999, etc.
...and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the first time since college that I've actually been able to use any of my training in political science. :D
Cool...except they're not my principles, they're economic principles
Thank you for making my point, this is not an economic forum, please do us all a favor and find one. I've never questioned your economic education, however, this is a firearm forum. Please check your economic education and ego at the door please. I have read a few of your posts in the past and enjoy reading opinions and experiences from other people but more often than not you seem to want to debate someone and feel you must always 'win'. I've never put anyone on an ignore list but I find myself tempted with you. Please cool your 'guns' and just add opinions and preferences. Feel free to debate in the general discussion.
GJ -- There's clearly no point in continuing the sideline debate between us. I let you have the last word
I agree with Mr. Todd here, feel free to post your last word. I'm about finished with it.
Back to Glocks, when asked what is the best handguns made I have a short personal list that goes something like this;
Glock
Beretta
Sig
HK
Soon I may add the M&P. This list is in no certain order and certainly not definitive. IT IS MY PERSONAL LIST BASED ON MY PERSONAL FEELINGS. It is simplely my advice to newcomers asking for good choices. The Glock has had a large volume of problems, not just the few examples here but look to the NYPD. Again this is not a knock on Glocks, just a qualifier, Glocks do not live up to their 'perfection' marketing. I know of a local agency that went with Glock because of their lower price, they wanted Sigs.
Again let me repeat, I consider Glock easily in the top five handgun designs to be trusted with life and property. As with most things in life, test and confirm for yourself, no matter the choice. Good luck all.
Now, as for DrewH's experience, well, I'm sorry to say, you've got some bad luck across ALL brands
Well, I enjoyed shooting them all :) Actually I think I have had a pretty average experience, I tend to think the people that have thousands and thousands of rounds with no stoppages whatsoever are unusual, or subject to a bit of selective memory.
I have a friend that has put another 10 to 15 thousand rounds through two G19s I sold him that that already had 5, 000 rounds through them. He swears by them. And I have been with him when he has had stoppages.
I think all semi-auto guns are a tough problem to get flawless, one hundred percent reliability from. And if you shoot enough rounds you will have a failure. It is a good idea to practice those malfunction drills.
For one thing ammo occasionally has quality failures as well, and semi-autos require certain specs from the ammo. I had a case of Blazer that gave a new HK P2000 and P229R fits-but the same well shot in Glock I have been dissing ran it without the slightest problem :)
Glock has constantly fiddled with their design. G19s have had frame changes, grip changes, re-designs of the locking blocks, re-jiggering in response to the NYPD experience. Let alone all the versions of the magazines, non full metal lined, full metal lined, 9mm3, 2183, 4, 5 and 6 followers, versions with somewhat different configurations of the metal linings. Some of this was forced upon them by the government, of course. (This was mostly why I bought so many- I always wanted the latest version)
But you know what? My last two Glocks, a G17 and a G19, had no problems whatsoever. Maybe Glock has hit the sweet spot.
The Glock has had a large volume of problems, not just the few examples here but look to the NYPD.
Are you going to actually look to the NYPD, or are you going to look to what the internet has said about the NYPD's Glocks? That's two separate and distinct things. As a person who lived through "NYPD malfunction" phenomenon and who still has his Glock 19 that was "modified" at the trailer at Rodman's Neck to solve the "problem," I can tell you that the NYPD problems have taken a life of their own on the internet. I never personally experienced of these malfunctions or saw one on the range. I couldn't find another range instructor who had actually seen one (as opposed to heard about them) and they couldn't replicate the malfunction under controlled conditions. This was an exceedingly rare phenomenon. And yet Glock showed up and milled the slides on every last one of the pistols anyway. I would not "look to the NYPD" as an example of the Glock being unreliable.
If you want to "look to the NYPD" for anything (and take something useful away), consider that they approve three pistols for duty- the Glock 19, the Sig P226 and the SW 5946.
And they used to approve of the Kahr K9 for off-duty, but you know what? It isn't approved any more - reliability issues. The NYPD has pulled pistols that have been deemed unreliable - the Glock isn't one of them and is now running into its second decade of service and is carried daily by about 25,000 NYPD officers.
Jay Cunningham
06-15-08, 18:33
General Warning -
Do not let ths thread become like the last "Glock reliability" thread.
~ Thekatar
Todd, the implication you made about the ICE/DHS tests was that they were the most recent and Glock "failed", which leaves the distinctly negative impression. You don't have the results of those tests to post here, do you? There have been tests that HK, Beretta and Sig have all failed as well. Nobody has a perfect record.
Federale, again it seems like we're talking past each other here. Obviously there have been plenty of tests and different winners. Hell, the 96D Brigadier won the old INS test, INS even produced a video about how detailed their testing had been and how great the gun had performed. A few years later they hated it, guns were breaking by 10,000 rounds, etc.
Glock "failed" the DHS test to the obvious extent that they were not given a contract in a multiple contract award environment. SIG and HK got awards.
As I am sure you are WELL aware, departments HAVE put things into their specifications that pretty much steer themselves to specific pistols and exclude others, so I'm not sure why you're stuck on this. And those specifications also have a lot to do why certain brands do well in certain tests and don't do well in others.
Absolutely. Dude, for eight years it was my job to help agencies do exactly that (if they wanted to buy my employers' wares) or fight against it (if they wanted to buy something else).
However, I believe it's a mistake for anyone to believe there was a brand target with the ICE test. There were some very pro-HK people involved in writing the SOW, but in the end their procurement and management people parsed things down to a very scientific and fair test. Changes were made to the original draft SOW specifically to allow (some believed give a preference to) Glock. It's not like Glock was being shut out.
And as I'm sure you're also aware, there are many people in decision making positions that really just do not like the Glock (in particular). There are trainers who don't particularly like them either. Do you know any?
Sure, and the reverse is true, too. I can name you two large (+/- 3,000 agent) fed agencies which selected Glocks against the recommendation of their firearms training staff because the admin exec at the top of the food chain wanted Glocks. That happens all the time to every company. I can also name you at least two agencies (similar size or larger) that refuse to consider the Glock because of the takedown procedure. Personal preferences play a huge role in these things no matter how "fair & open" they try to be.
I'll use the example of a mag disconnect. There are many people who think a mag disconnect is a bad idea. There are some who think it is a great idea. Depending on who is driving a procurement, that feature could be forbidden or required. Neither is the "right" decision, but still the decision has to be made.
Somewhere in this thread you've apparently gotten the idea that people are saying that Glocks have mythical reliability. Nobody has said that. What many have said is that they're as good of a choice as any for someone looking for a pistol that will be reliable out of the box.
Your interpretation of what certain people have said is different than mine, then. I agree completely that Glocks are probably about as reliable as most of the other major pistol brands on the market today.
This was an exceedingly rare phenomenon. And yet Glock showed up and milled the slides on every last one of the pistols anyway. I would not "look to the NYPD" as an example of the Glock being unreliable.
You think Glock spent all that money to fix a non-existent problem, especially after previous attempts to solve the same problem failed?
There are certainly guys at Rodman's Neck who've seen the problem, I've spoken to them personally. I also owned a G19 from that same time period that experienced the same problem more than 20 times in 6,000 rounds, and when I called Glock about it they knew exactly what I was talking about and recommended a variety of possible solutions (this was before Glock came up with the CNC machining solution). I handled at least two other G19's owned by private citizens in that same year suffering the same problem ... I know because I replaced their extractors per instructions I received directly from Glock.
And while we're on the topic, I spoke with an agent yesterday over lunch. His agency is in the planning stage to replace every G19 in inventory because they're having so many failures, including catastrophic breakages. They're old guns and it's not surprising that they need replacing, unless you're the kind of person who believes that a G19 will last forever and work flawlessly until the end of time. But the problem is so significant that the guy I was talking to, former SRT and FI, decided not to switch to one even though he'd rather carry a 9mm (and the G19 is the only authorized 9mm for that agency).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.