View Full Version : Glock vs the world!
I'm posting this because at least 2 other striker-fired pistol threads have now been derailed by Glock comparisons.
To those of you who insist that Glock is terrible and all of these new pistols are significant, practical improvements, can you post solid data that said pistol was a quantifiable improvement? I'm not interested in "it feels better" or "it has a better trigger pull". Pistol-training.com was a good website to see how a very good shooter tracks improvements and differences. Of course, his results are his results, and any individual may or may not see the same performance out of the same gear. However, at least he quantified his shooting choices.
Things that can be quantified:
Accuracy:
Example. Shooting different pistols back-to-back at 25 yards offhand, I consistently shoot 4-5" extreme spread groups regardless of pistol. The point of impact varies somewhat, but the group size doesn't.
Speed:
Example 1. Using a similar set-up (i.e. all from concealment and appendix carry), what is the time for a first shot on target (-0). Again, I have found no differencefor me.
Example 2. I find push button magazine releases a pain in the ass. No matter how much I train with them, the paddle magazine release is always faster by a few 1/10ths of a second. Same goes about the reload itself. On a single stack pistol with no aftermarket magwell, I am about 1 whole second slower on a reload. I bombed a F.A.S.T. drill with a 1911 because my reload sucked.
In my case, I can conclude that the next wunderpistole will not improve my shooting more than $500-600 dollars of ammo and instruction would. This website is notorious for saying the same thing about AR-15s, but pistols still seem to be a sore spot for most. I choose to mainly shoot HKs because of the quantifiable benefit of the magazine release. Barring that, everything else is equal to a Glock.
Has anyone else honestly evaluated his/her skills and came to the same (or different) conclusion?
Agreed.
Most name brand handguns are accurate and reliable. So long as the parts are to spec. Most guns need a teething period to fix issues. The customer is the beta tester.
Imho most of the name brand gun designs are gtg After 5 some need 10 years.
I prefer the standard Rh mag release. As a lefty its usually easier to depress the button with my trigger finger.
To each his own. As long as the gun works reliably with your shooting style and ammo rock on.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
Agreed.
I prefer the standard Rh mag release. As a lefty its usually easier to depress the button with my trigger finger.
Have you tried swapping the magazine release (like a gen 4 Glock) and timed your reloads? I'm also a lefty and I find using my trigger finger is almost impossible without shifting my grip in such a way as it slows me down and that using my thumb is on a left-sided button is worse. The exception to this is my 1911s where I have cut 2 coils off the catch springs and added extended buttons, so that I can push them with my middle finger with little force to release the magazine. I use my middle finger on my HK pistols as well, with minimal-to-no shifting of the gun in my hand. Therefore, I am faster at dropping magazines with my 1911s and HKs as compared to Glocks or M&Ps.
WickedWillis
11-29-16, 17:49
I carry a Glock every single day. I am proficient with it, and I trust it. I'm also financially tied to it via mags, night sights and other accessories.
It doesn't do anything the best, but it does several things very well. I also feel there is a laundry list of better striker fired polymer handguns out there. I am sick and tired of everyone getting their vaginas stubbed because someone thinks they are not perfect, or there is something coming that will be better. Deep breaths.
Glock is my 80% gun.
There are pistols out there that are SCHWEEEEET. Feel great, fun to shoot, and look pretty. But....if something boogers up, then the flaws become all too clear.
Glock is boring, dull, and bland. Vaporwave of handguns.
There are 1911s and steel framed guns that are heaven when everything works. Hell when it don't.
I can break a rock and burn water and have yet to have a Glock issue.
So...I have stuff because what is life without whimsy....
...but when lives are on the line and only the best will do.....
...in a world of compromise, for the men who don't:
Glock.
I'm posting this because at least 2 other striker-fired pistol threads have now been derailed by Glock comparisons.
To those of you who insist that Glock is terrible and all of these new pistols are significant, practical improvements, can you post solid data that said pistol was a quantifiable improvement? I'm not interested in "it feels better" or "it has a better trigger pull". Pistol-training.com was a good website to see how a very good shooter tracks improvements and differences. Of course, his results are his results, and any individual may or may not see the same performance out of the same gear. However, at least he quantified his shooting choices.
Things that can be quantified:
Accuracy:
Example. Shooting different pistols back-to-back at 25 yards offhand, I consistently shoot 4-5" extreme spread groups regardless of pistol. The point of impact varies somewhat, but the group size doesn't.
Speed:
Example 1. Using a similar set-up (i.e. all from concealment and appendix carry), what is the time for a first shot on target (-0). Again, I have found no differencefor me.
Example 2. I find push button magazine releases a pain in the ass. No matter how much I train with them, the paddle magazine release is always faster by a few 1/10ths of a second. Same goes about the reload itself. On a single stack pistol with no aftermarket magwell, I am about 1 whole second slower on a reload. I bombed a F.A.S.T. drill with a 1911 because my reload sucked.
In my case, I can conclude that the next wunderpistole will not improve my shooting more than $500-600 dollars of ammo and instruction would. This website is notorious for saying the same thing about AR-15s, but pistols still seem to be a sore spot for most. I choose to mainly shoot HKs because of the quantifiable benefit of the magazine release. Barring that, everything else is equal to a Glock.
Has anyone else honestly evaluated his/her skills and came to the same (or different) conclusion?
Little upset some people think other pistols are better for them? I do not remember reading how glocks are junk or another pistol is significantly better. there were also a couple leos that stated how much time they had with glock and when they switched they were better. Sometimes your natural reaction to said pistol is what matters the most. We are different people with different likes,feels,tastes,hand sizes and so on and so forth. Not one pistol will ever be the best for everyone. I AM better shooting with my p07 then I was with my glock. This is why I carry it. I imagine there will be people with long eloquent reasons either way. But simply put I am better without it. My shield shot better for me then my g43. But I carry the glock 43 because it is just that much smaller.
Glocks and 1911s for me. I have a Shield and I use it for when I need a thinner gun.
I have way too much invested in Glock holsters, mags, and parts.
http://i1226.photobucket.com/albums/ee412/SWCQB45/Gun/IMG_3460_zpsiztbmjwq.jpg (http://s1226.photobucket.com/user/SWCQB45/media/Gun/IMG_3460_zpsiztbmjwq.jpg.html)
Cant determine "better" without a requirement and in the end we all have slightly different requirements in what we want in a pistol.
I appreciate glocks for what they are. They're the Toyota camry of the gun world. Utterly reliable appliances. That said, they're not for me. I just don't like shooting them. Some combination of the dimensions and ergonomics rubs me the wrong way. So I don't have a single glock. No point in having a gun I won't shoot. Why carry a gun I have to force myself to practice with when I can have one I enjoy shooting?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Have you tried swapping the magazine release (like a gen 4 Glock) and timed your reloads? I'm also a lefty and I find using my trigger finger is almost impossible without shifting my grip in such a way as it slows me down and that using my thumb is on a left-sided button is worse. The exception to this is my 1911s where I have cut 2 coils off the catch springs and added extended buttons, so that I can push them with my middle finger with little force to release the magazine. I use my middle finger on my HK pistols as well, with minimal-to-no shifting of the gun in my hand. Therefore, I am faster at dropping magazines with my 1911s and HKs as compared to Glocks or M&Ps.
I'm a fairly rare bird, I'm a lefty with over 30 years of teaching firearms to a right handed world. As a result of that I feel I'm pretty comfortable reloading the pistol just about any way EXCEPT releasing the mag using my middle finger, you talk about unneeded movement and contortion.
Isn't it funny how people are different?
A long time ago, when the auto-pistol was first gaining acceptance as an LE duty weapon, I attended an auto-transition course put on by the Smith and Wesson Academy (Bill Burroughs and Gerry Smith(?). They taught reloading by using a mnemonic - 'Shift, Grab, Release, Mags X in the Air, Tap, (Release - if out of battery), Threat.' I've attended a lot of training since then, and I still use that mnemonic.
Focus for a moment on 'shift' and what it means. It simply means to let the weapon move in your dominant hand in order to achieve proper placement of the finger (for us lucky lefties) or thumb on the magazine release. The problem many folks have is they don't pay attention to the minutiae of the process. For me 'shift' means I've decided to reload and:
Exert slight upward pressure on the trigger guard of the weapon with the index finger of the right/support hand (for me it is the dust cover of the frame or weapon light, I shoot pretty aggressively support hand forward).
At the same time slightly relax your left/dominant hand's grip on the pistol.
As your hands separate during the reload process, the right hand shifts the weapon in the left hand slightly by the friction against the trigger guard or dust cover, allowing it to twist/move in the left hand. This allows for proper positioning on the index/trigger finger on the mag release.
At this point both elbows are moving back into the torso, but for different reasons.
The right elbow brushes the torso and continues arcing back at out at an angle as the right hand drops to the magazine pouches (proper equipment placement and hitting these contact points will allow you to find your mag pouch in the dark, off the 10 meter platform doing a 2.5 with a full twist).
The left elbow ends up against the left side, with the arm bent enough that, viola, the weapon is in the work space directly in front of you.
At this point the muzzle of the weapon will be far enough to the side that it may excite an overly excitable muzzle down range nazi, but it is still enough downrange to be safe when practicing on the square range.
If you've done this correctly, your trigger finger should be placed to drive into the mag release with the finger tip, rather than with the pad of the finger. The weapon is at eye level and you should be able to see the mag drop free if you are so inclined. You can also see what caused you to shoot in the first place.
Skipping some steps (release, mags cross in the air, etc.) and going to tap/seat - as you seat the mag in one fluid motion, and come up into your two hand shooting grip, the weapon will shift back into position in your left/dominant hand kind of naturally.
Practice this and you will pick up the minute things you need to change for efficiency and ultimately speed. For instance, I slightly shrug my left shoulder up to anchor the weapon where I want it in my field of view. I wouldn't have picked this up unless I had been practicing each segment and paying attention.
Give it an honest try and I think you'll find this method is a little more efficient than the middle finger.
If not, you've lost nothing and are assured the way you've been doing it is the best for you. It is a way to do it, not THE way.
Little upset some people think other pistols are better for them? I do not remember reading how glocks are junk or another pistol is significantly better. there were also a couple leos that stated how much time they had with glock and when they switched they were better. Sometimes your natural reaction to said pistol is what matters the most. We are different people with different likes,feels,tastes,hand sizes and so on and so forth. Not one pistol will ever be the best for everyone. I AM better shooting with my p07 then I was with my glock. This is why I carry it. I imagine there will be people with long eloquent reasons either way. But simply put I am better without it. My shield shot better for me then my g43. But I carry the glock 43 because it is just that much smaller.
You missed the entire point of my post. The point was that from a performance standard, it doesn't matter what you choose. People make up all sorts of touchy feely reasons why there is one pistol to rule them all, but none can quantify "better".
I'm a fairly rare bird, I'm a lefty with over 30 years of teaching firearms to a right handed world. As a result of that I feel I'm pretty comfortable reloading the pistol just about any way EXCEPT releasing the mag using my middle finger, you talk about unneeded movement and contortion.
Isn't it funny how people are different?
A long time ago, when the auto-pistol was first gaining acceptance as an LE duty weapon, I attended an auto-transition course put on by the Smith and Wesson Academy (Bill Burroughs and Gerry Smith(?). They taught reloading by using a mnemonic - 'Shift, Grab, Release, Mags X in the Air, Tap, (Release - if out of battery), Threat.' I've attended a lot of training since then, and I still use that mnemonic.
Learn something new all the time. I would have never though of shifting the gun with my right hand. Otherwise, you describe the way I reload. I tried it a few times and it does make the shift more fluid. The reason I use my middle finger is the mag release is nearest it on most pistols. The shift with my right hand did line up my index finger. I will play with this more. I don't think it will help with a paddle release, but it may be useful for Glocks.
You missed the entire point of my post. The point was that from a performance standard, it doesn't matter what you choose. People make up all sorts of touchy feely reasons why there is one pistol to rule them all, but none can quantify "better".
I shoot my p07 better. Why does that need to be quantified? It is a fact. Same with others. It is all personal. I do not believe a glock is equal. Some are better some are not.
After trying the other offerings I always go back to my G19.
Glocks are simply a benchmark, in the same way the 1911 is a benchmark. Some people may get butthurt if their favorite gun isn't the benchmark, but that's an emotional response to an equation. Every person is different. Some will find something works better for them than a Glock, but that doesn't change the equation, just where they are in relation to it. However, don't forget the individual buying and using the item in question is more important than the equation itself. The whole reason you buy a defensive handgun is to keep you safe.
It's best to keep things in perspective. :)
Glocks are simply a benchmark, in the same way the 1911 is a benchmark. Some people may get butthurt if their favorite gun isn't the benchmark, but that's an emotional response to an equation. Every person is different. Some will find something works better for them than a Glock, but that doesn't change the equation, just where they are in relation to it. However, don't forget the individual buying and using the item in question is more important than the equation itself. The whole reason you buy a defensive handgun is to keep you safe.
It's best to keep things in perspective. :)
This really should be a copy and paste answer for all of the generic "should I get X?" questions that pop up. Great points.
eightmillimeter
11-30-16, 10:54
You missed the entire point of my post. The point was that from a performance standard, it doesn't matter what you choose. People make up all sorts of touchy feely reasons why there is one pistol to rule them all, but none can quantify "better".
By this standard every gun/shooter combo that hits the target repeatedly in the allotted time is simply equal.
You can't be offended when you ask people why something like a PPQ is better than a Glock and they say the trigger is better... because it is.
Is Glock better because they have unparalleled industry aftermarket support and a track record? Is Walther, HK, Sig, CZ better because they introduce refinements of striker designs based on input from people who have a laundry list of things they wish Glock did "better."
What's clear to me is that Glock has no desire at all to upgrade their basic design, they've had decades of input and suggestions and yet here we/they are. I'm not a Glock hater by any means, my EDC is a gen4 19. But there are absolutely options out there now that feel better, are more accurate, easier to use, and at least as reliable if not more so.
By this standard every gun/shooter combo that hits the target repeatedly in the allotted time is simply equal.
You can't be offended when you ask people why something like a PPQ is better than a Glock and they say the trigger is better... because it is.
...
There is an old saying, "the target doesn't care". The target doesn't care if you shoot it with Glock or a Heritage Arms. So from a demonstrable performance standard, they are equal until you can quantify a difference.
"Because it is" is exactly the problem I am getting at. How about, an AK is more reliable than an AR...because it is.
KalashniKEV
11-30-16, 11:47
Thus far in the history of the human race, no man has conceived a better pistol than the Glock 26/19/17.
It can be done, but no one has done it.
The same can be said of the M2 Browning .50 cal, or the AR-type rifle.
Some people have said in the other thread that a can't-hit-the-broad-side-of-a-barn M&P feels better in their hand, or some chokes-on-light-drizzle VP9 prints a better group.
Probably you could also find some Tavor packin' weirdo who likes to change mags in his arm pit, or a SCAR-meister who thinks it's a non-issue that the stock breaks like a cheap joke if it slides off the hood of a HMMWV.
Neither rifle can unseat the AR. No known pistol can unseat the Glock.
Will the CZ do it? Let's all stay tuned and find out...
Digital_Damage
11-30-16, 12:12
Glocks are simply a benchmark, in the same way the 1911 is a benchmark. Some people may get butthurt if their favorite gun isn't the benchmark, but that's an emotional response to an equation. Every person is different. Some will find something works better for them than a Glock, but that doesn't change the equation, just where they are in relation to it. However, don't forget the individual buying and using the item in question is more important than the equation itself. The whole reason you buy a defensive handgun is to keep you safe.
It's best to keep things in perspective. :)
I would say the Glock is a minimum requirement at this point, several manufactures have put together better total overall packages over the last 2-3years.
Glock is the Barbie/lego gun of the pistol world, just like the AR. That is why everyone is so invested emotionally, I'm guessing 70% of personal owners have modified it either for some deficiency or to improve it.
I would say the Glock is a minimum requirement at this point, several manufactures have put together better total overall packages over the last 2-3years.
Glock is the Barbie/lego gun of the pistol world, just like the AR. That is why everyone is so invested emotionally, I'm guessing 70% of personal owners have modified it either for some deficiency or to improve it.
Perhaps (and that's debatable), but it still doesn't change the equation or it's place in good perspective.
KalashniKEV
11-30-16, 12:27
I would say the Glock is a minimum requirement at this point, several manufactures have put together better total overall packages over the last 2-3years.
What are these pistols????
I'm dying to know.
Digital_Damage
11-30-16, 13:39
What are these pistols????
I'm dying to know.
don't be obtuse.... We get it, you got a major koolaid high going on.
Out of the box performance of the PPQ, 320 has surpassed it. VP9 is debatable with the teething problems but when it is ticking along it is simply better.
Like I stated in the previous thread, I have many Glocks and had to use an issued G23 for 10 years. They are not getting used these days, better options exist.
This is all I can think of after reading this.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nzmkGgQLCMA
The motha f__ing Yeagermeister
Digital_Damage
11-30-16, 13:47
This is all I can think of after reading this.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nzmkGgQLCMA
ooohhhh sweet jesus you just had to bring that guy up.
(Glocks) are not getting used these days, better options exist.
While the "better options exist" is debatable (and I agree to an extent) saying glocks are not being used is a pretty wild and unfounded assumption at best. *Disclaimer*, not a kool-aid drinker.
In a world of affordable and reliable handguns, training is all that really matters.
While the "better options exist" is debatable (and I agree to an extent) saying glocks are not being used is a pretty wild and unfounded assumption at best. *Disclaimer*, not a kool-aid drinker.
In a world of affordable and reliable handguns, training is all that really matters.
Pretty sure he means glocks in his personal world. Not glocks like other peeps.
Pretty sure he means glocks in his personal world. Not glocks like other peeps.
Got it, then thats fine. Use what you shoot best. people will get emotionally attached to guns that they favor, at the end of the day (for defensive purposes) its just a tool. Use the tool best suited to you and your task at hand.
Got it, then thats fine. Use what you shoot best. people will get emotionally attached to guns that they favor, at the end of the day (for defensive purposes) its just a tool. Use the tool best suited to you and your task at hand.
Very well put. And no one tool is the best for everyone. (Except snap on.....)
It's funny seeing my post as defending Glock. It really isn't defending or condemning any pistol. I haven't shot my Glocks in 4 months. Before that, 7 months. I've been carrying a full-size 1911.
What I was trying to get at is that the firearms industry and their "reviewers" are constantly putting up the next great thing. In reality, that thing that "feels better", "is more ergonomic", has an undefinably "better" trigger doesn't do a damn thing for your ability to put rounds on target.
Digital_Damage
11-30-16, 16:16
It's funny seeing my post as defending Glock. It really isn't defending or condemning any pistol. I haven't shot my Glocks in 4 months. Before that, 7 months. I've been carrying a full-size 1911.
What I was trying to get at is that the firearms industry and their "reviewers" are constantly putting up the next great thing. In reality, that thing that "feels better", "is more ergonomic", has an undefinably "better" trigger doesn't do a damn thing for your ability to put rounds on target.
on split and follow up it sure as hell does... can't even take that statement seriously.
MountainRaven
11-30-16, 17:04
on split and follow up it sure as hell does... can't even take that statement seriously.
Then you can quantify it.
on split and follow up it sure as hell does... can't even take that statement seriously.
This is not true on a practical level. Look at what USPSA production shooters are using. The trigger type varies. There are both Glocks and single action tangfolio's represented. The terrible Glock trigger does not seem to be holding people back.
Is a 1911 trigger significantly better than a double action? Yes. Is a Glock trigger significantly different than any other striker fired pistol? Not really. My VP9 is slightly lighter, but much rougher than my Glocks with a longer reset. My wife's M&P is smoother but heavier than both, but with a break like mashed potatoes. None of them come close to a stock Colt 1911 trigger. They all suck pretty equally. However, look at production pistol choices. In the end, the trigger doesn't matter much as long as it isn't Hi-point grade.
This is not true on a practical level. Look at what USPSA production shooters are using. The trigger type varies. There are both Glocks and single action tangfolio's represented. The terrible Glock trigger does not seem to be holding people back.
Is a 1911 trigger significantly better than a double action? Yes. Is a Glock trigger significantly different than any other striker fired pistol? Not really. My VP9 is slightly lighter, but much rougher than my Glocks with a longer reset. My wife's M&P is smoother but heavier than both, but with a break like mashed potatoes. None of them come close to a stock Colt 1911 trigger. They all suck pretty equally. However, look at production pistol choices. In the end, the trigger doesn't matter much as long as it isn't Hi-point grade.
Triggers don't matter much if you're a grandmaster. They can pick up any gun and with little practice will still be a gm.
For the other 99% of us mere mortals they do matter. I shoot and own glocks exclusively. I shoot my competition glock with a competition trigger better than my carry gun. Why? Because it has a significantly better trigger. If triggers didn't matter then production guys would all be shooting stock triggers. Instead they are running tuned and custom triggers because triggers matter.
Then you can quantify it.
Is it quantifiable?
At what point does the "human" element skew the data?
Sure you can quantify the mechanical tolerances and advantages and such on any gun and have quantifiable data. You could be able to look at said data and say that gun "X" trigger is mechanically superior to gun "Y" trigger based on a series of metrics.
But I don't think you can quantify what a person is able capable of doing behind a gun. If you spent your life doing nothing but devoting yourself to having, say, the fastest possible split time between two shots, and you did nothing but dry fire and live fire and become intimately fast with that trigger, could you be faster than someone with superior equipment?
I just don't think you can quantify the human ability to become proficient at something until that ability intersects with the absolute mechanical limits of say, a trigger pull. Forgive me if this is completely unfounded and misguided, but is not the Glock capable of split times in the thousandths of a second?
Again, just my two cents. Train for the day you need it, and train with the tool that you can use best. For some its a Glock, others Sig, HK, whatever.
Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
crusader377
11-30-16, 17:56
Interesting debate. My thoughts are that the Glock was the last major revolution in pistol design and subsequent designs have been a very incremental and minor upgrades at best. Even the Glock was more a revolution on the maintenance and ease of manufacture and not really a revolution in handgun performance considering one carrying an older design like the Beretta 92 or SIG 226 is just as well armed and has a pistol of equal reliability to a Glock.
The last real revolution in handgun performance was probably the Browning Hi-Power which was the first reliable, high capacity pistol which saw widespread use. Even though later designs like the Wonder nines and later Glock improved on the general template of a modern high-capacity pistol none of them offered any significant advantages in overall performance and shootability.
Triggers don't matter much if you're a grandmaster. They can pick up any gun and with little practice will still be a gm.
GMs didn't get to being a GM by picking up the latest cool guy gun. They got there by practice and dedication. So when marketing says "pick up the latest striker fired pistol that is sooo much better than anything else" stop and think a minute. The $800 that you spend on the pistol, new holster, and magazines would probably make you far better if you used that money for instruction. I'm not a grandmaster and with the exception of running a full-sized 9mm 1911, my splits for sighted fire are all the same. Splits on a "hammer" which is frowned upon by most major instructors runs the same on all pistols and rifles. The 1911 being faster has nothing to do with the trigger. The 1911 is faster for the same reason the all steel Tangfolio's have gained popularity in competition. It's a stupidly heavy (for the caliber) gun the doesn't really leave the -0 region when recoiling.
Forgive me if this is completely unfounded and misguided, but is not the Glock capable of split times in the thousandths of a second?
This is not unfounded. Just like the stock AR-15 trigger is capable of making hits out to distances beyond most people.
I'm a fairly rare bird, I'm a lefty with over 30 years of teaching firearms to a right handed world. As a result of that I feel I'm pretty comfortable reloading the pistol just about any way EXCEPT releasing the mag using my middle finger, you talk about unneeded movement and contortion.
Isn't it funny how people are different?
A long time ago, when the auto-pistol was first gaining acceptance as an LE duty weapon, I attended an auto-transition course put on by the Smith and Wesson Academy (Bill Burroughs and Gerry Smith(?). They taught reloading by using a mnemonic - 'Shift, Grab, Release, Mags X in the Air, Tap, (Release - if out of battery), Threat.' I've attended a lot of training since then, and I still use that mnemonic.
Focus for a moment on 'shift' and what it means. It simply means to let the weapon move in your dominant hand in order to achieve proper placement of the finger (for us lucky lefties) or thumb on the magazine release. The problem many folks have is they don't pay attention to the minutiae of the process. For me 'shift' means I've decided to reload and:
Exert slight upward pressure on the trigger guard of the weapon with the index finger of the right/support hand (for me it is the dust cover of the frame or weapon light, I shoot pretty aggressively support hand forward).
At the same time slightly relax your left/dominant hand's grip on the pistol.
As your hands separate during the reload process, the right hand shifts the weapon in the left hand slightly by the friction against the trigger guard or dust cover, allowing it to twist/move in the left hand. This allows for proper positioning on the index/trigger finger on the mag release.
At this point both elbows are moving back into the torso, but for different reasons.
The right elbow brushes the torso and continues arcing back at out at an angle as the right hand drops to the magazine pouches (proper equipment placement and hitting these contact points will allow you to find your mag pouch in the dark, off the 10 meter platform doing a 2.5 with a full twist).
The left elbow ends up against the left side, with the arm bent enough that, viola, the weapon is in the work space directly in front of you.
At this point the muzzle of the weapon will be far enough to the side that it may excite an overly excitable muzzle down range nazi, but it is still enough downrange to be safe when practicing on the square range.
If you've done this correctly, your trigger finger should be placed to drive into the mag release with the finger tip, rather than with the pad of the finger. The weapon is at eye level and you should be able to see the mag drop free if you are so inclined. You can also see what caused you to shoot in the first place.
Skipping some steps (release, mags cross in the air, etc.) and going to tap/seat - as you seat the mag in one fluid motion, and come up into your two hand shooting grip, the weapon will shift back into position in your left/dominant hand kind of naturally.
Practice this and you will pick up the minute things you need to change for efficiency and ultimately speed. For instance, I slightly shrug my left shoulder up to anchor the weapon where I want it in my field of view. I wouldn't have picked this up unless I had been practicing each segment and paying attention.
Give it an honest try and I think you'll find this method is a little more efficient than the middle finger.
If not, you've lost nothing and are assured the way you've been doing it is the best for you. It is a way to do it, not THE way.
Outstanding! Never thought to break the motions to this level.
Regarding the OP's topic, I live in NJ. No carry, no real opportunity to time myself when actually shooting. Having said that, I do dry fire a lot and practice draws from a holster and what not. For ME, in the parameters that I can actually shoot, I don't find much variation on my ability to place an accurate shot...be it slow shooting for groups, or double taps at the fastest pace I can get away with before I get the stink eye from the RO. I do find differences in the pistol formats of how easy it is achieve what I consider good shooting for myself. For ME, Glocks and M&P's shine in shooting quickly and controllably. Not to say I can't shoot other formats to the same level, but with these examples, achieving the desired result is easier. Conversely, when shooting for groups, both the Glock and M&P lag in this regard. USP's, 92fs, Sig 226, 1911 are all much easier for me to group small. I find consistent accuracy capability for me on Glocks is directly proportionate to how much time I put monogamously to the platform. Switching between other platforms does not hinder consistent accuracy capability anywhere near what I experience with Glocks.
I envy those that have ranges where practicing true pistol craft is possible. I think with enough practice on whatever platform, competency can be achieved. When you take into account availability and cost of parts/mags and ease of maintenance, Glocks have it over any other brand though.
It's funny seeing my post as defending Glock. It really isn't defending or condemning any pistol. I haven't shot my Glocks in 4 months. Before that, 7 months. I've been carrying a full-size 1911.
What I was trying to get at is that the firearms industry and their "reviewers" are constantly putting up the next great thing. In reality, that thing that "feels better", "is more ergonomic", has an undefinably "better" trigger doesn't do a damn thing for your ability to put rounds on target.
I get where you are coming from, but in my opinion your natural reaction to the pistol does make certain people shoot certain pistols better. Certain guns I can pick up and my natural point of aim feels right. Mostly grip angle related. A lot of the newer pistols do have better ergonomics. And for some people that does actually make a difference. Yes practice will make me shoot a glock as good as a cz/hk/fns. But, why would I waste my time with it, if I can become even better with one of the others. Some have better triggers or better sights. You can just buy one with nice sights, trigger, and better grip angle. So you are ahead of the glock and just spend time training.
Practice makes perfect but why not practice and train with somwthing you naturally shoot better? Yes some gun rags/guntubers do pimp whatever they are paid to. But there are a lot out there who have personal reasons, that are legitimate for xyz pistol to be better then a glock.
matthepanther
11-30-16, 19:50
+1 still waiting on a poly pistol I shoot better than a Glock. Even though I agree some of the new triggers feel nice, the groups don't lie. I feel like one of the few that prefers the glock ergos or lack there of
Practice makes perfect but why not practice and train with somwthing you naturally shoot better? Yes some gun rags/guntubers do pimp whatever they are paid to. But there are a lot out there who have personal reasons, that are legitimate for xyz pistol to be better then a glock.
And that's fine. I don't think everyone should buy Glock. I do recommend it as a first carry gun because of the proven track record, ease of use, and most importantly for new shooters, it retains value well when they inevitably are swayed by other advertising. I don't have any issue with guns like the Sig P320. What I'm taking issue with is that people segregate into two common groups. Those who will never own or shoot anything that doesn't start with a "G" and in with "lock". And the second group, those who piss on anything that is more than 2 years old. Neither group ever backs up their opinion with data. Of course, most shooters don't train with a shot timer and should really consider it. The numbers don't lie (and can be really humbling).
And that's fine. I don't think everyone should buy Glock. I do recommend it as a first carry gun because of the proven track record, ease of use, and most importantly for new shooters, it retains value well when they inevitably are swayed by other advertising. I don't have any issue with guns like the Sig P320. What I'm taking issue with is that people segregate into two common groups. Those who will never own or shoot anything that doesn't start with a "G" and in with "lock". And the second group, those who piss on anything that is more than 2 years old. Neither group ever backs up their opinion with data. Of course, most shooters don't train with a shot timer and should really consider it. The numbers don't lie (and can be really humbling).
Hmmm well I still own a glock and my favorite vehicle is my 68 chevelle so I'm good there. I understand being pissed at haters. But there are a lot of people who have very good reasons for why something is better, that has nothing to do with being a hater.
As most here might know, I am a (2) week old new 1st ever Glock owner. And, I love it! I do have other name brand pistols, but, this Gen4 G17 is starting to become my favorite hand gun! I don't know why I waited so long to become a Glock owner (Truth be known, I "was" a Glock hater!) ! I have shot it almost every day in the first (2) weeks of ownership. It's like a drug and I'm an addict!
Anyway, I ordered some XS-Big Dot sights and they came in today. I installed them, which were the easiest sights I have ever installed, and can't wait until tomorrow to go test them out.
http://i68.tinypic.com/vhzshu.jpg
KalashniKEV
12-01-16, 09:22
+1 still waiting on a poly pistol I shoot better than a Glock. Even though I agree some of the new triggers feel nice, the groups don't lie.
Exactly.
Because the new pistols-of-the-quarter are not superior in any quantifiable way, we must invent new subjective terms to describe subtle ways in which they are better.
I feel like one of the few that prefers the glock ergos or lack there of
Glock ergos are perfect.
No modification is needed.
The whole stippling/frame mod craze is just because they don't take grip panels and dudes want to get their snowflake on. They should just paint their nails and leave the gun alone.
Exactly.
Glock ergos are perfect.
No modification is needed.
Engineering human factors analysis says you're wrong. The dimensions and configuration are not optimal for the full 5-95 range of hand sizes. If you happen to fall into it's ergonomically optimal range it's gravy, but if you don't......
Digital_Damage
12-01-16, 10:09
Engineering human factors analysis says you're wrong. The dimensions and configuration are not optimal for the full 5-95 range of hand sizes. If you happen to fall into it's ergonomically optimal range it's gravy, but if you don't......
yep.... save your breath tho. Dude has that reality distortion bubble going on. These are the same people that said the G3 did not need backstraps and everything is perfect the way it is.
+1 still waiting on a poly pistol I shoot better than a Glock. Even though I agree some of the new triggers feel nice, the groups don't lie. I feel like one of the few that prefers the glock ergos or lack there of
And that's fine. I don't think everyone should buy Glock. I do recommend it as a first carry gun because of the proven track record, ease of use, and most importantly for new shooters, it retains value well when they inevitably are swayed by other advertising. I don't have any issue with guns like the Sig P320. What I'm taking issue with is that people segregate into two common groups. Those who will never own or shoot anything that doesn't start with a "G" and in with "lock". And the second group, those who piss on anything that is more than 2 years old. Neither group ever backs up their opinion with data. Of course, most shooters don't train with a shot timer and should really consider it. The numbers don't lie (and can be really humbling).
This is why I posted what I posted. The equation still stands and it still isn't as important as the user. I've been shooting pistols as primary for over 25 years. I do most of my own gunsmithing and I've worked in a shop where I worked on customer guns, to include sight work that included test fire to sight in, so I've shot just about everything out there except the VP9 (just haven't gotten my hands on one). I competed at a high level in IDPA for over 15 years, to the point I made Master in 4 divisions, all through promotions at the Nationals (yeah I know that's like "A" class in USPSA). I started in 1999 with a Ruger P97DC, then moved through Sig (P226) Glock (34), Wilson (KZ45), S&W (19, 686 and 625), Glock (17), S&W (M&P 40) Colt (CRG), back to the 17 and now a fully tricked out Dan Wesson PM9. Along the way I've even tried odd stuff from a HK P7, SigPro, PPQ and a few others.
I say all that to simply say that at normal handgun ranges, trigger and ergos are overrated in importance. WAY overrated. I campaigned the M&P .40 for a full year as SSP Master. It was one of the few guns I didn't work myself as I was friends with Mike Cwyrus at Accurate Iron at the time he was mainly working on M&P's, so he did the full workup on it. Sights, stippled backstraps, tape on the front (for SSP rules), Storm Lake match barrel and simply one of the best striker fired triggers I've ever felt, and I've felt a ton of them. That gun felt better in my hand than any Glock I've owned and the trigger was light years better. It was tuned specifically to run 180gr Montana Gold bullets loaded to 132pf, which equates to pretty much zero recoil. I never won squat with that gun and I couldn't run basic drills as fast and accurate as the Glocks or 1911's. I fired thousands of rounds in that gun and never gelled with it, which goes against every instinct I had at the time. The best I've ever finished overall (11th out of 368 at Nats) was with the G-17, and anyone who ever fired it would tell you it had a nasty trigger, even for a Glock. I lost count of the times I heard "how do you win with that terrible trigger?" It just didn't matter because I shoot it better than every other gun I've competed with except the PM9 (and possibly the S&W Model 19), which is just trading one set of advantages for another.
One of the most underrated shooters IMO is Earnest Langdon. I knew Ernie back when he worked in the LE division at Beretta and before I ever met him on the range. I watched him shill just about every major brand over his career and he won major titles with wildly differing platforms. Most top shooters shoot one, MAYBE two platform types at the height of their shooting careers. Ernie won with whatever someone would pay him to shoot. That's because he was more than just a shooter, he was a serious student of the game. He understood the mechanics better than all but a very few.
So when someone tells me the newest polystrike wonderstud pistol has superior this or that, I just nod my head and say "sounds like you got a nice one!", and go about my way. The equation remains the same and the individual is still more important than the equation. JMO, YMMV
Digital_Damage
12-01-16, 11:01
This is why I posted what I posted. The equation still stands and it still isn't as important as the user. I've been shooting pistols as primary for over 25 years. I do most of my own gunsmithing and I've worked in a shop where I worked on customer guns, to include sight work that included test fire to sight in, so I've shot just about everything out there except the VP9 (just haven't gotten my hands on one). I competed at a high level in IDPA for over 15 years, to the point I made Master in 4 divisions, all through promotions at the Nationals (yeah I know that's like "A" class in USPSA). I started in 1999 with a Ruger P97DC, then moved through Sig (P226) Glock (34), Wilson (KZ45), S&W (19, 686 and 625), Glock (17), S&W (M&P 40) Colt (CRG), back to the 17 and now a fully tricked out Dan Wesson PM9. Along the way I've even tried odd stuff from a HK P7, SigPro, PPQ and a few others.
I say all that to simply say that at normal handgun ranges, trigger and ergos are overrated in importance. WAY overrated. I campaigned the M&P .40 for a full year as SSP Master. It was one of the few guns I didn't work myself as I was friends with Mike Cwyrus at Accurate Iron at the time he was mainly working on M&P's, so he did the full workup on it. Sights, stippled backstraps, tape on the front (for SSP rules), Storm Lake match barrel and simply one of the best striker fired triggers I've ever felt, and I've felt a ton of them. That gun felt better in my hand than any Glock I've owned and the trigger was light years better. It was tuned specifically to run 180gr Montana Gold bullets loaded to 132pf, which equates to pretty much zero recoil. I never won squat with that gun and I couldn't run basic drills as fast and accurate as the Glocks or 1911's. I fired thousands of rounds in that gun and never gelled with it, which goes against every instinct I had at the time. The best I've ever finished overall (11th out of 368 at Nats) was with the G-17, and anyone who ever fired it would tell you it had a nasty trigger, even for a Glock. I lost count of the times I heard "how do you win with that terrible trigger?" It just didn't matter because I shoot it better than every other gun I've competed with except the PM9 (and possibly the S&W Model 19), which is just trading one set of advantages for another.
One of the most underrated shooters IMO is Earnest Langdon. I knew Ernie back when he worked in the LE division at Beretta and before I ever met him on the range. I watched him shill just about every major brand over his career and he won major titles with wildly differing platforms. Most top shooters shoot one, MAYBE two platform types at the height of their shooting careers. Ernie won with whatever someone would pay him to shoot. That's because he was more than just a shooter, he was a serious student of the game. He understood the mechanics better than all but a very few.
So when someone tells me the newest polystrike wonderstud pistol has superior this or that, I just nod my head and say "sounds like you got a nice one!", and go about my way. The equation remains the same and the individual is still more important than the equation. JMO, YMMV
Says glocktogo .... smh
Says glocktogo .... smh
It could just as easily be DWtogo now, but I'm on multiple local and national forums and this is what people know me by and have for many years. I'm not wedded to it and actually dislike Glock as a company quite a bit. They're not perfect, but they are still the benchmark for all striker fired polymer pistols.
If all you could do to refute what I wrote is refer to my screen name, let me know and I'll PM you a participation award. ;)
It could just as easily be DWtogo now, but I'm on multiple local and national forums and this is what people know me by and have for many years. I'm not wedded to it and actually dislike Glock as a company quite a bit. They're not perfect, but they are still the benchmark for all striker fired polymer pistols.
If all you could do to refute what I wrote is refer to my screen name, let me know and I'll PM you a participation award. ;)
https://a1.memecaptain.com/src_thumbs/74943.gif
Fixed that for you.
In all seriousness, I didn't start with a Glock, but my G26 is my Third, and current, daily carry. I can say that, out of my other two options, I am the most confident, proficient, and understanding of the Glock model.
Not because of any special magic, but because they make them easy to use. I really like the ergonomics, but I would be lying if I didn't say that I have felt Walthers and 1911s that I like as much, or more.
Either way, I don't sip the 'laid from either the Hater Spring or the Fanboy Spring, but I can say I have tasted both.
Fixed that for you.
In all seriousness, I didn't start with a Glock, but my G26 is my Third, and current, daily carry. I can say that, out of my other two options, I am the most confident, proficient, and understanding of the Glock model.
Not because of any special magic, but because they make them easy to use. I really like the ergonomics, but I would be lying if I didn't say that I have felt Walthers and 1911s that I like as much, or more.
Either way, I don't sip the 'laid from either the Hater Spring or the Fanboy Spring, but I can say I have tasted both.
That's what too many people don't get. I still have 1911's, Glocks, a Shield and a PPQ in inventory and I carry all of them under varying circumstances. A few dry fire draw strokes before loading up and heading out the door and I'm good. No I don't carry a HiPoint, but you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a decent carry gun these days. Back when I started it was a revolver, 1911, BHP or S&W 1st gen and you were pretty much out of options. Still, it's the Indian, not the arrow that counts most. :)
That's what too many people don't get. I still have 1911's, Glocks, a Shield and a PPQ in inventory and I carry all of them under varying circumstances. A few dry fire draw strokes before loading up and heading out the door and I'm good. No I don't carry a HiPoint, but you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a decent carry gun these days. Back when I started it was a revolver, 1911, BHP or S&W 1st gen and you were pretty much out of options. Still, it's the Indian, not the arrow that counts most. :)
Short of being heckled, I used to "home-carry" my Hi-point .40, for at least a couple years, in condition 3. This was prior to me being a CCWer, and it was what I was gifted as a youngin. When I started buying my own, I had experience with, mostly, DA/SA hammered firearms. Took my CCW at 20 and a week, application for CCW was put in on the day of the 21st. (Minnesota honors CCW training for applications for 12 months). I didn't get a glock until 3 years later, but had other striker fired guns and hammer fired guns.
That hi-point, though, was horrible for accuracy starting out. It's because of that crappy trigger, at least in my beliefs, why I can shoot well enough with most pistols. It took some crazy trigger discipline to get that gun to hit where you wanted it to.
Either way, /rant over.
My point, is: I agree.
MountainRaven
12-01-16, 13:57
Engineering human factors analysis says you're wrong. The dimensions and configuration are not optimal for the full 5-95 range of hand sizes. If you happen to fall into it's ergonomically optimal range it's gravy, but if you don't......
I seem to remember there was once a time when a particular video of Dave Harrington, Larry Vickers, and Ken Hackathorn standing around a table talking Glocks was commonly shared on this forum.
I further seem to recall that they all agreed that they would undercut the trigger guards on their guns and stipple the grips of the Gen3s.
And then you read about some of the big names who do stippling and Glock frame modifications and how they came by it as their trade and how they had problems with stock Glocks. Ditto-ditto the guys who mod Glock slides.
That brings up another pet peeve of mine. Apparently it's okay to customize a 1911, but if you do it to to Glock "Perfection" it's a sin. My Glocks have their finger grooves removed and grips stippled. Granted a lot of these companies are selling snake oil modifications, but that's no different than a lot of the more cosmetic 1911 modifications (french border, etc).
I don't get to play with P320s or PPQs.
On the P320 I understand the trigger bar moves forward, not back like a Glock, and does not require a trigger safety. 1:56 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_qStEMQPts
But what stops the sear from slipping down off the firing pin? (where a Glock has the drop safety). Trigger bar? it is hard to tell from animation.
On the PPQ it looks like the trigger arm that the sear rests on could be moved. But does the trigger bar prevent the sear from releasing even if the trigger arm moved? The PPQ has a firing pin block safety that I believe the P320 does not have.
Mysteryman
12-02-16, 01:59
By this standard every gun/shooter combo that hits the target repeatedly in the allotted time is simply equal.
You can't be offended when you ask people why something like a PPQ is better than a Glock and they say the trigger is better... because it is.
Is Glock better because they have unparalleled industry aftermarket support and a track record? Is Walther, HK, Sig, CZ better because they introduce refinements of striker designs based on input from people who have a laundry list of things they wish Glock did "better."
What's clear to me is that Glock has no desire at all to upgrade their basic design, they've had decades of input and suggestions and yet here we/they are. I'm not a Glock hater by any means, my EDC is a gen4 19. But there are absolutely options out there now that feel better, are more accurate, easier to use, and at least as reliable if not more so.
Lets compare apples to apples. The VP9/PPQ/Ruger American/and XD lines are all SINGLE ACTION striker fired guns. I would certainly f**king hope their triggers are better than a double action gun. Sadly that isn't the case for some like the Ruger which is absolutely garbage for trigger pull and the reset is non existent. But I digress.
Other than the PPQ's "superior" trigger what else does it do better than a Glock?? The PPQ is slightly shorter in length than a Glock 19, it is however taller in the grip and we all know that grip length is the problem when it comes to concealment. The PPQ also has exactly the same capacity as a 19 while being a nearly an 1/8th of an inch thicker and almost an ounce heavier. The PPQ has 38 pieces and includes the magazine as ONE piece. And yet the PPQ still has the Glock like squared off trigger guard and the absolutely pure Glock trigger tab safety. Don't forget the low key slide lock. For such a revolutionary design they sure tried hard to copy/look like a Glock. For people that bash Glocks and yet rave about the other poly striker guns they just won't admit that the vast majority have a LOT of commonalities in their design and looks.
What strikes me odd here is that even though the claim of better pistols is being touted you admit you carry a Glock 19, why???
I would say the Glock is a minimum requirement at this point, several manufactures have put together better total overall packages over the last 2-3years.
Glock is the Barbie/lego gun of the pistol world, just like the AR. That is why everyone is so invested emotionally, I'm guessing 70% of personal owners have modified it either for some deficiency or to improve it.
If you remove the low frequency mouth breathers from the firearms community and I'm not labelling anyone here with that descriptor. And really look at the accomplished shooters you would probably be surprised at how little modification has been done. I personally have changed the sights on my Glocks, that's it.
don't be obtuse.... We get it, you got a major koolaid high going on.
Out of the box performance of the PPQ, 320 has surpassed it. VP9 is debatable with the teething problems but when it is ticking along it is simply better.
Like I stated in the previous thread, I have many Glocks and had to use an issued G23 for 10 years. They are not getting used these days, better options exist.
Again the PPQ is a SINGLE ACTION design so not exactly the same setup. The 320 has no defined wall and zero positive reset. Other than that it isn't bad. Except it's nearly a quarter inch wider than a Glock with the same capacity as a 17(comparing full size to full size here) is a whopping 4.2 oz heavier, has an atrocious 7.5lb trigger and 51 plus parts. Clearly a simpler more refined design. The 320 also has the classic squared Glock like trigger guard and the low profile slide lock. Very original... Oh yeah the 320 was not selected by the FBI or anyone in the USSOCOM group.
Triggers don't matter much if you're a grandmaster. They can pick up any gun and with little practice will still be a gm.
For the other 99% of us mere mortals they do matter. I shoot and own glocks exclusively. I shoot my competition glock with a competition trigger better than my carry gun. Why? Because it has a significantly better trigger. If triggers didn't matter then production guys would all be shooting stock triggers. Instead they are running tuned and custom triggers because triggers matter.
The reason a GM can shoot so well is because his/her FUNDAMENTALS are SOLID. A poor craftsman blames his tools. A stock Glock will make an honest shooter out of anyone. The vast vast majority of firearms owners have NEVER taken any type of formal instruction/training and yet these same "self taught" pistoleros have no reservations about proclaiming that a trigger this or a trigger that is what is needed. Heaven forbid the problem be the shooter who has a poor grip, poor trigger control and a flinch response he/she is blissfully ignorant of. Nope, no way, can't be the shooter...
Blaming the trigger or the sights or the grip is just plain bullsh*t. I especially like the "it doesn't fit my hand" or "get the gun that fits your hand". Then when you ask said individual to describe what a proper "fit" consists of they somehow can't remember. Sight alignment, trigger squeeze and follow through. Everything else enhances those three aspects. A good leading thumbs grip aids all three areas. a controlled press of the trigger aids in keeping your sight alignment on target. Working the reset aids follow through which greatly enhances your ability to place follow up shots. A positive stance aids follow through and follow up shots. Obviously not every situation involves ideal grip, stance, trigger, squeeze, sight alignment, or time. The ideals are something to strive for or exploit if the opportunity arises. At the end of the day if you can keep sights aligned and depress the trigger with as little disruption to that sight alignment/sight picture as possible and hold firm throughout the shot(follow through) you will do well.
MM
There are lots confusing/not logical comments in here by folks that probably consider themselves as a "gun guy." Here are some logic bombs for ya:
1. Not all shooters are equal. Some folks can pick up ANY gun and shoot it well. Yes, anyone can LEARN to be less trigger sensitive, but some are just naturally that way. Same way that some folks are more athletic than others. As a gun store/range owner I watch people dry firing and shooting Glocks. No one has ever said that a Glock trigger "feels awesome" (which is how the general public evaluates firearms BTW). The standard for trigger pull weights is to never go above double the weight of the pistol as it exponentially worsens a shooters ability to hit what they aim at. Just to prove a point that not only do "uninformed" shooters talk trigger pulls, Hackathorn called me to ask for my opinion on a new handgun coming to market (that we have both shot). His first comment to me was that the trigger sucked.
2. Shoot ability. I was helping AI a pistol class with Vickers once. After watching a bunch of Glock shooters struggle with a drill, I made the comment to him that the Glock is the most difficult pistol to shoot accurately at speed (of all modern service pistols). He agreed. Why? How did I come to this conclusion? First, is the grip angle. Most shooters do not realize that their hand position on the gun is setting them up to push the trigger to the left (as a righty) instead of pulling it straight back. Second issue is the hard link reset. Because of this hard reset, shooters do everything in their power to stop RIGHT AT this engagement point (riding the link as it is called). By doing this, a shooter will never be able to shoot at speed (accurately) because their rhythm will always be off. If you watch professional shooters, they run the trigger all the way to the end and then all the way back through so that they have a consistent trigger pull. The best thing I ever did was to shoot the old M&P's (which had NO reset). This taught me to not try and find the reset point while shooting at speed.
3. Grip size. Got bad news for folks, people have different hand sizes to include finger lengths. Vickers has small hands and short fingers. He has work done to his Glock frames. So no, not "perfection" as some have tried to make the case for. If Glock thought their frames were perfect, they wouldn't have added the back straps to the GEN4.
Before the Glock Kool-aid drinkers come off their high thrown to give me their .02, I am the FIRST ONE to tell people that we live in a Glock world. My primary carry gun is a G3 19 (with no grip modifications) and my second carry gun is a G43. Point is, always be open minded and be critical of things. If you can't find a single fault with something, then you are probably married to it. Not good....
C4
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thus far in the history of the human race, no man has conceived a better pistol than the Glock 26/19/17.
It can be done, but no one has done it.
The same can be said of the M2 Browning .50 cal, or the AR-type rifle.
Some people have said in the other thread that a can't-hit-the-broad-side-of-a-barn M&P feels better in their hand, or some chokes-on-light-drizzle VP9 prints a better group.
Probably you could also find some Tavor packin' weirdo who likes to change mags in his arm pit, or a SCAR-meister who thinks it's a non-issue that the stock breaks like a cheap joke if it slides off the hood of a HMMWV.
Neither rifle can unseat the AR. No known pistol can unseat the Glock.
Will the CZ do it? Let's all stay tuned and find out...
Tavor-packin' weirdo...lololol
G-damn that's funny. [emoji23]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My personal Glock killer is the Sig 320. I sold all my glocks and related gear because there isn't a single thing the glock does better when comparing the two. When I purchase a new glock I immediately send it out for grip work to remove finger grooves and add texturing (320 is good to go), I add a GFA (320 is good to go), add a Vicker's mag release (320 gtg), add Vickers slide release (320 gtg), 320 has front cocking serrations (glock doesn't), add sights to both.
Even after all that the 320 is more comfortable in hand and points/tracks more naturally for me. The 320 is much better (better break, better take-up and better reset). 320 mag changes are easier (mag shoots out easier/faster). 320 also allows changing size of frame (glock doesn't). And the most important aspect, glocks have always shot left for me no matter what, 320's are dead on.
Glock 17 gen 4 left, 320 full size 9 right (10 yds as fast as I can pull the trigger with a reload):
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161202/fbcc145417f6742869eef59261535c98.jpg
There are lots confusing/not logical comments in here by folks that probably consider themselves as a "gun guy." Here are some logic bombs for ya:
1. Not all shooters are equal. Some folks can pick up ANY gun and shoot it well. Yes, anyone can LEARN to be less trigger sensitive, but some are just naturally that way. Same way that some folks are more athletic than others. As a gun store/range owner I watch people dry firing and shooting Glocks. No one has ever said that a Glock trigger "feels awesome" (which is how the general public evaluates firearms BTW). The standard for trigger pull weights is to never go above double the weight of the pistol as it exponentially worsens a shooters ability to hit what they aim at. Just to prove a point that not only do "uninformed" shooters talk trigger pulls, Hackathorn called me to ask for my opinion on a new handgun coming to market (that we have both shot). His first comment to me was that the trigger sucked.
2. Shoot ability. I was helping AI a pistol class with Vickers once. After watching a bunch of Glock shooters struggle with a drill, I made the comment to him that the Glock is the most difficult pistol to shoot accurately at speed (of all modern service pistols). He agreed. Why? How did I come to this conclusion? First, is the grip angle. Most shooters do not realize that their hand position on the gun is setting them up to push the trigger to the left (as a righty) instead of pulling it straight back. Second issue is the hard link reset. Because of this hard reset, shooters do everything in their power to stop RIGHT AT this engagement point (riding the link as it is called). By doing this, a shooter will never be able to shoot at speed (accurately) because their rhythm will always be off. If you watch professional shooters, they run the trigger all the way to the end and then all the way back through so that they have a consistent trigger pull. The best thing I ever did was to shoot the old M&P's (which had NO reset). This taught me to not try and find the reset point while shooting at speed.
3. Grip size. Got bad news for folks, people have different hand sizes to include finger lengths. Vickers has small hands and short fingers. He has work done to his Glock frames. So no, not "perfection" as some have tried to make the case for. If Glock thought their frames were perfect, they wouldn't have added the back straps to the GEN4.
Before the Glock Kool-aid drinkers come off their high thrown to give me their .02, I am the FIRST ONE to tell people that we live in a Glock world. My primary carry gun is a G3 19 (with no grip modifications) and my second carry gun is a G43. Point is, always be open minded and be critical of things. If you can't find a single fault with something, then you are probably married to it. Not good....
C4
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Very well put.
My personal Glock killer is the Sig 320. I sold all my glocks and related gear because there isn't a single thing the glock does better when comparing the two. When I purchase a new glock I immediately send it out for grip work to remove finger grooves and add texturing (320 is good to go), I add a GFA (320 is good to go), add a Vicker's mag release (320 gtg), add Vickers slide release (320 gtg), 320 has front cocking serrations (glock doesn't), add sights to both.
Even after all that the 320 is more comfortable in hand and points/tracks more naturally for me. The 320 is much better (better break, better take-up and better reset). 320 mag changes are easier (mag shoots out easier/faster). 320 also allows changing size of frame (glock doesn't). And the most important aspect, glocks have always shot left for me no matter what, 320's are dead on.
Glock 17 gen 4 left, 320 full size 9 right (10 yds as fast as I can pull the trigger with a reload):
For 10 yards that is a nice grouping shooting fast!
KalashniKEV
12-02-16, 10:22
For 10 yards that is a nice grouping shooting fast!
Yeah, seriously!
If I could blaze at a target 30 feet away and turn out a group like that, I'd shoot nothing else. Then I'd start a youtube channel called P320Gunny and get all the money and hunnies.
CanineCombatives
12-02-16, 10:24
The above has been the re occurring theme with every department that transitioned from glock to P320, there are still some improvements that
need to happen, mainly a more aggressive grip stippling pattern that extends further and some slight grip frame alterations, namely the thinner
circumference of the small size grip frame and enhanced web of the hand contour that it has but without shortening the reach to the trigger. I'd
also like to see a little bit more material on the slide release to get a better purchase with your thumb.
Meh. I can see some merit in a VP9 or a PPQ but the P320 seemed good but the more I messed with it (rental) the more I'm like "I would rather be shooting my Glock"
I've tightened that group a bit more now that I had my 320 slide milled for an rmr. Really the only negative I can think of for the 320 is parts availability, but even that is catching up fast. Safariland is even releasing an rmr duty holster in January..
@firefly What do you like about the glock better?
@firefly What do you like about the glock better?
The trigger seems way more consistent and I am used to it. There are 1911s and some DA/SA guns with fabulous triggers but I havent spent enough time with them to say I'd pick one over a Glock.
The trigger seems way more consistent and I am used to it. There are 1911s and some DA/SA guns with fabulous triggers but I havent spent enough time with them to say I'd pick one over a Glock.
Good deal, was just curious
There are lots confusing/not logical comments in here by folks that probably consider themselves as a "gun guy." Here are some logic bombs for ya:
1. Not all shooters are equal. Some folks can pick up ANY gun and shoot it well. Yes, anyone can LEARN to be less trigger sensitive, but some are just naturally that way. Same way that some folks are more athletic than others. As a gun store/range owner I watch people dry firing and shooting Glocks. No one has ever said that a Glock trigger "feels awesome" (which is how the general public evaluates firearms BTW). The standard for trigger pull weights is to never go above double the weight of the pistol as it exponentially worsens a shooters ability to hit what they aim at. Just to prove a point that not only do "uninformed" shooters talk trigger pulls, Hackathorn called me to ask for my opinion on a new handgun coming to market (that we have both shot). His first comment to me was that the trigger sucked.
2. Shoot ability. I was helping AI a pistol class with Vickers once. After watching a bunch of Glock shooters struggle with a drill, I made the comment to him that the Glock is the most difficult pistol to shoot accurately at speed (of all modern service pistols). He agreed. Why? How did I come to this conclusion? First, is the grip angle. Most shooters do not realize that their hand position on the gun is setting them up to push the trigger to the left (as a righty) instead of pulling it straight back. Second issue is the hard link reset. Because of this hard reset, shooters do everything in their power to stop RIGHT AT this engagement point (riding the link as it is called). By doing this, a shooter will never be able to shoot at speed (accurately) because their rhythm will always be off. If you watch professional shooters, they run the trigger all the way to the end and then all the way back through so that they have a consistent trigger pull. The best thing I ever did was to shoot the old M&P's (which had NO reset). This taught me to not try and find the reset point while shooting at speed.
3. Grip size. Got bad news for folks, people have different hand sizes to include finger lengths. Vickers has small hands and short fingers. He has work done to his Glock frames. So no, not "perfection" as some have tried to make the case for. If Glock thought their frames were perfect, they wouldn't have added the back straps to the GEN4.
Before the Glock Kool-aid drinkers come off their high thrown to give me their .02, I am the FIRST ONE to tell people that we live in a Glock world. My primary carry gun is a G3 19 (with no grip modifications) and my second carry gun is a G43. Point is, always be open minded and be critical of things. If you can't find a single fault with something, then you are probably married to it. Not good....
C4
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What pistols & grip sets one up to shoot centered and not to the left then?
Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
What pistols & grip sets one up to shoot centered and not to the left then?
Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
While it is somewhat based on hand size and knowing how much finger to put on the trigger, but most any gun is the answer.
Couple notes. I put a flat Apex trigger in my G19 and I can put less finger on the trigger than before (and not push rounds). People that have spent a lot of time shooting 1911's, .22's with short, lite triggers, etc tend to use the tip of their finger. This makes things far worse with Glocks (typically).
C4
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
don't be obtuse.... We get it, you got a major koolaid high going on.
Out of the box performance of the PPQ, 320 has surpassed it. VP9 is debatable with the teething problems but when it is ticking along it is simply better.
Like I stated in the previous thread, I have many Glocks and had to use an issued G23 for 10 years. They are not getting used these days, better options exist.
Well said. Major Koolaid was my impression
I don't get to play with P320s or PPQs.
On the P320 I understand the trigger bar moves forward, not back like a Glock, and does not require a trigger safety. 1:56 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_qStEMQPts
But what stops the sear from slipping down off the firing pin? (where a Glock has the drop safety). Trigger bar? it is hard to tell from animation.
I'm guessing the purple & gold piece
https://s13.postimg.org/p4pms0ao7/purple.png
The 320 has no defined wall and zero positive reset. Other than that it isn't bad. Except it's nearly a quarter inch wider than a Glock with the same capacity as a 17(comparing full size to full size here) is a whopping 4.2 oz heavier, has an atrocious 7.5lb trigger and 51 plus parts.
My P320 Compact has a great trigger, little take up, 6.0 lb, great reset.
There are lots confusing/not logical comments in here by folks that probably consider themselves as a "gun guy." Here are some logic bombs for ya:
Second issue is the hard link reset. Because of this hard reset, shooters do everything in their power to stop RIGHT AT this engagement point (riding the link as it is called). By doing this, a shooter will never be able to shoot at speed (accurately) because their rhythm will always be off. If you watch professional shooters, they run the trigger all the way to the end and then all the way back through so that they have a consistent trigger pull. The best thing I ever did was to shoot the old M&P's (which had NO reset). This taught me to not try and find the reset point while shooting at speed.
C4
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Grant, I have to thank you for this tip / reminder. I have been practicing this way and didn't realize
it was a negative for speed shooting. I will now practice correctly.
My personal Glock killer is the Sig 320. I sold all my glocks and related gear because there isn't a single thing the glock does better when comparing the two. When I purchase a new glock I immediately send it out for grip work to remove finger grooves and add texturing (320 is good to go), I add a GFA (320 is good to go), add a Vicker's mag release (320 gtg), add Vickers slide release (320 gtg), 320 has front cocking serrations (glock doesn't), add sights to both.
Even after all that the 320 is more comfortable in hand and points/tracks more naturally for me. The 320 is much better (better break, better take-up and better reset). 320 mag changes are easier (mag shoots out easier/faster). 320 also allows changing size of frame (glock doesn't). And the most important aspect, glocks have always shot left for me no matter what, 320's are dead on.
I found the same thing after owning and carrying Glocks, M&P's and now the P320C
After shooting and owning every Premium brand semi auto in all calibers
over the last 30 years I can say that with some credibility.
I started CCW with a gen 2 G23 in 1992 when I got my first CCW in Florida.
I still will pick up a nice gen 2 G19 if I come across one, to me that is
still the best Glock for carry.
I carried a pistol in harms way for a lot of years. Only for 7 years during that time could I carry what I wanted within some limits. Most of the time I carried an issued Browning Hi Power and then later a Glock.
We shot a lot and we got the job done with either pistol.
Having said that, I have never really warmed up to Glocks. But they do work and work and work. But Glocks elicit zero emotion in me. Browning Hi Power has a warm spot in my heart, but as my eyes have gotten older I like having a red dot on my pistols.
Enter the CZ P09/07, they are as if the Hi Powers and Glocks had babies and I love these pistols.
I still have 8 Glocks in the safe for that rainy day, but CZ's have become my EDC. I shoot the CZ's slightly better in a clinical sense, meaning on a range.
But I don't think for one nano second I would lose a gunfight, if I had anyone of these pistols in my hand. Instead of one of the other 3.
People that have spent a lot of time shooting 1911's, .22's with short, lite triggers, etc tend to use the tip of their finger. This makes things far worse with Glocks (typically). C4
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We could discuss both sides of the issue, but to me that is more of a mechanics problem than a weapon problem.
I had a hand in training the first generation of LE shooters in Kansas as they transitioned to the Glock. Most of these shooters were coming from either the DA/SA Smith or Sig platforms, a few from the DA revolvers. With their background of trigger placement for the DA money shot, the Glock trigger was an easy adaptation.
I think that the smallest portion of the problem with shooting left comes from, as you mention, folks that are used to a significantly different trigger system/feel.
I think that folks not having proper instruction in the fundamentals of grip and trigger manipulation is a significantly larger problem.
And, as we all should know, one size doesn't fit all in auto pistols. As a result, a large portion of the 'left' problem is shooting a weapon that is too large for them.
Bottom line 1) a weapon that fits. 2) proper instruction leading to... 3) practice ingraining the fundamentals.
To me the sig p320 is just a better pistol overall vs a glock 19 as is the ppq. If the decision didn't include which gun was easier to conceal, I'd pick the ppq and 320 over the 19. However, not living in the Wild West, I need to conceal a handgun. The glock 19 is the easiest to conceal, high capacity, 9mm on the market still today. Are the ergos as nice as the vp9? No, but they are acceptable. Is the trigger as nice as the ppq? Hell no, stock the trigger is terrible (trigger job works nicely, easy and cheap). Can I shoot the g19 as easily as the 320? No, but I can shoot it well enough. I own a single glock, the 19. It's not my nightstand gun, that's a sig m11-a1. However, when I take a gun outside my home 90% of the time the 19 comes along because it just works.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We could discuss both sides of the issue, but to me that is more of a mechanics problem than a weapon problem.
I had a hand in training the first generation of LE shooters in Kansas as they transitioned to the Glock. Most of these shooters were coming from either the DA/SA Smith or Sig platforms, a few from the DA revolvers. With their background of trigger placement for the DA money shot, the Glock trigger was an easy adaptation.
I think that the smallest portion of the problem with shooting left comes from, as you mention, folks that are used to a significantly different trigger system/feel.
I think that folks not having proper instruction in the fundamentals of grip and trigger manipulation is a significantly larger problem.
And, as we all should know, one size doesn't fit all in auto pistols. As a result, a large portion of the 'left' problem is shooting a weapon that is too large for them.
Bottom line 1) a weapon that fits. 2) proper instruction leading to... 3) practice ingraining the fundamentals.
I think it has more to do with grip and grip angle than trigger pressure. I can use the exact same grip with a glock, M&P and 320 with only the 320 hitting dead center. The M&P is more centered than the glock with the glock being the furthest left from center. I'm not talking several inches up close, but enough to matter at 25 yds. At 7 yds a glock typically impacts the line between 10 ring and the 9.
I really believe a big part of the 320 being so much more accurate for me is the FCU not being a part of the frame like the glock/M&p. You can crush the grip of a 320 without much affect, with the other two it can have a big difference. Another point, the increase in total circumfrance in the 320 grips makes a big difference. Going from a medium to a large was a lot more comfortable for me and I was having left issues with the medium, not so with the large.
After saying all this, I'd be perfectly happy with being issued/carrying a glock. I carried one for several years in different sizes and calibers. M&P's were the worst pistol I was ever issued, I will never be happy carrying one (hopefully won't ever have to). The 320 just does more things right for me when looking at striker platform guns, if it doesn't, find what does. The most important thing is to train with what you choose and find the limitations whether it be an accuracy issue, ammo issue or whatever.
We could discuss both sides of the issue, but to me that is more of a mechanics problem than a weapon problem.
I had a hand in training the first generation of LE shooters in Kansas as they transitioned to the Glock. Most of these shooters were coming from either the DA/SA Smith or Sig platforms, a few from the DA revolvers. With their background of trigger placement for the DA money shot, the Glock trigger was an easy adaptation.
I think that the smallest portion of the problem with shooting left comes from, as you mention, folks that are used to a significantly different trigger system/feel.
I think that folks not having proper instruction in the fundamentals of grip and trigger manipulation is a significantly larger problem.
And, as we all should know, one size doesn't fit all in auto pistols. As a result, a large portion of the 'left' problem is shooting a weapon that is too large for them.
Bottom line 1) a weapon that fits. 2) proper instruction leading to... 3) practice ingraining the fundamentals.
Yeah, a good DA shooter is going to have an easier transition to a Glock than say a 1911 shooter (which is what I did).
The majority of the shooting public rarely receives any training above NRA basic pistol (CCW). If I had a dollar for every time a customer asked us to drift their sights because their Glock shoots left, I would be a Millionaire!
C4
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If I had a dollar for every time a customer asked us to drift their sights because their Glock shoots left, I would be a Millionaire!
C4
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, I can believe that.
Everyone should have a GLOCK 19. It's number 3on my current rotation (HK VP9, HK P2000 LEM & GLOCK 19).
I love all three.
The 1911 is awesome and every time I pick it up after an extended leave its like shaking hands with an old friend.
The VP9 is boring. There's not a damned thing it needs. Well, not quite true. I installed a new slide plate that covers the firing pin hole and I added a stainless guide rod with the stronger VP40 recoil spring. I like it better.
The P2K has the TLG SPRING COMBO. Phenomenal pistol!
The GLOCK... What can't you do? Just get one with trigger and mag release characteristics you like, add LAV slide and mag release, Apex Tactical FRE and Glockmeister SS Guide Rod and you have a stud of a pistol that you have Zero emotional attachment with negligible skills to strip to frame and rebuild which is why it will be the very last pistol I will own.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ramairthree
12-11-16, 19:21
The Glock is like a Toyota 4Runner.
I have owned them since the early 90's.
It is reliable, efficient, priced ok, you can go off road, use it as a daily driver, throw shit in the back, carry people, tow stuff, etc.
You can find a better off road vehicle, a better people hauler, one that holds more, tows more, etc. but not one single vehicle as versatile.
BangBang77
12-11-16, 19:43
The Glock is like a Toyota 4Runner.
I have owned them since the early 90's.
It is reliable, efficient, priced ok, you can go off road, use it as a daily driver, throw shit in the back, carry people, tow stuff, etc.
You can find a better off road vehicle, a better people hauler, one that holds more, tows more, etc. but not one single vehicle as versatile.
Well said ramairthree. Well said...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.