There is good reason you see more Glocks than any other gun, they are a superior pistol

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yep.

 

In terms of design, weight, size, mag capacity, sight radius, barrel length, breakdown, simplicity, refinement, accuracy, and reliability.

 

+

 

More aftermarket parts, support, and holsters than any other gun.

 

The man was a true genius. Comparing apples to apples technical specifications you just can't beat them.

 

Even though M&P is running a close second, they just don't seem as refined in fit and finish and the takedown process needs to be simplified.

I second Jon's coolaid reference.

 

Superior for whome? Superior how? Superior in the same way an AK is superior for a conscript army? I actually find the M&P to be more refined and a better pistol. I have talked with a few departments whose qual scores jumped up considerably when they switched from Glocks to M&P's. That would seem to put a dent in the superiour theory. These criteria you list make no sense to me as benefits of one over the other. Mag capacity, sight radius, barrel length. 15 rounds is 15 rounds no matter whose pistol its in. Sight radius is dictated by slide length so unless a glock has a time space warp on top of its slide, roughly 4 inches is 4 inches no matter whose slide they sit on. Barrel length. Again, the length is the length no matter whose slide it sits in.

 

A Glock does have reliability going for it, but so do many others. Refinement. Highly debatable. How refined can a squirt and jerk pistol be?!?! Accuracy. Well, I havent really shot a Glock that impressed me with inherent accuracy. Its acceptable accuracy in most cases but nothing spectaculerly worthy of special praise. I would in fact put the M&P ahead of the Glock. I find the trigger is better but more importantly the NPA of a Glock FOR ME is horrible. Its about 3 feet above the target!!!! I know many that have the same issue.

 

More support than any other pistol? Really? Ok so I tested that theory. I punched 1911 into Brownells and got just shy of 1000 items, Glock, less than 400. Midway USA, 1911 just shy of 3000, glock less than 2000. So at a cursery glance I would say that statement is wrong.

 

This post is NOT a Glock bash. If you like Glocks, have at it but i take exception to statements like "they are a superior pistol". For many they arent even marginal.

 

Glocks true genious is getting the $ he does for a pistol that is so cheaply manufactured. As a Capitolist, I truly tip my hat to him in that regard.

Though I do not have either the magazine disconnect or thumb safety on my M&P, if it did have the thumb safety I probably wouldn't mind either.

 

Yep.

 

Even though M&P is running a close second, they just don't seem as refined in fit and finish and the takedown process needs to be simplified.

 

If flipping 2 levers is too complicated for you to takedown a pistol that you need something even more simple, then maybe you can't be saved. I have never understood that reasoning. Because the take down of an M&P is really that tough...?

Wow this thread derailed...

I second Jon's coolaid reference.

 

Superior for whome? Superior how? Superior in the same way an AK is superior for a conscript army? I actually find the M&P to be more refined and a better pistol. I have talked with a few departments whose qual scores jumped up considerably when they switched from Glocks to M&P's. That would seem to put a dent in the superiour theory. These criteria you list make no sense to me as benefits of one over the other. Mag capacity, sight radius, barrel length. 15 rounds is 15 rounds no matter whose pistol its in. Sight radius is dictated by slide length so unless a glock has a time space warp on top of its slide, roughly 4 inches is 4 inches no matter whose slide they sit on. Barrel length. Again, the length is the length no matter whose slide it sits in.

 

A Glock does have reliability going for it, but so do many others. Refinement. Highly debatable. How refined can a squirt and jerk pistol be?!?! Accuracy. Well, I havent really shot a Glock that impressed me with inherent accuracy. Its acceptable accuracy in most cases but nothing spectaculerly worthy of special praise. I would in fact put the M&P ahead of the Glock. I find the trigger is better but more importantly the NPA of a Glock FOR ME is horrible. Its about 3 feet above the target!!!! I know many that have the same issue.

 

More support than any other pistol? Really? Ok so I tested that theory. I punched 1911 into Brownells and got just shy of 1000 items, Glock, less than 400. Midway USA, 1911 just shy of 3000, glock less than 2000. So at a cursery glance I would say that statement is wrong.

 

This post is NOT a Glock bash. If you like Glocks, have at it but i take exception to statements like "they are a superior pistol". For many they arent even marginal.

 

Glocks true genious is getting the $ he does for a pistol that is so cheaply manufactured. As a Capitolist, I truly tip my hat to him in that regard.

 

 

I knew that statement would touch a few nerves. But understand I didn't say the Glock blows away the M&P, I said it is a close second (meaning real close). I am actually in the process of buying another M&P (M&P Full Size 45). I am also a big Beretta fan. I was a Glock hater at one time, I actually despised them. But after tons of research, I couldn't find a pistol that did everything as good as Glock does. So I bought my first Glock. A Glock 23 Gen4. Man did my conceptions change.

 

Couple quick examples:

 

Beretta PX4 Full Size 40 vs Glock 22 (also relates to other hammer fired pistols vs stiker fired pistols)

-Both pistols are full size with comparable weights

-Takedown field stip, comparable

-Beretta 14rds Glock 15rds

-Sight radius, Glock

-Barrel length, Glock

-Trigger, opposite ends of the spectrum (personal preference)

-But I still love my Beretta's

 

M&P 40C vs Glock 23 (Both Marketed as COMPACTS!!)

-Almost the same size with the Glock being slightly larger

-The M&P is actually heavier than the Glock

-M&P 10rds, Glock 13rds (both the same weight when fully loaded)

-Trigger, Glock. The M&P trigger is nice and light, but the reset is non existent, the Glock will push your finger back up.

-Barrel length, Glock

-Sight radius, Glock

-Takedown and field strip, Glock

 

 

M&P FS 45 vs Glock 21SF

-M&P 10rds, Glock 13rds

-M&P is heavier (loaded and unloaded)

-Nuff Said

 

 

In response to some other comments:

 

The takedown on the M&P could be simpler. You have to retract the slide, lock it, turn the takedown lever, THEN remove the tool from the grip and proceed to push the lever down in the mag well. Seems to me like an extra step for nothing. Then when I put the slide back on my M&P it feels rough and quarky, unlike the Glock and Beretta.

 

A Glock can be completely dissasembled with one plastic punch. The M&P requires punches of different sizes, as does the Beretta, But the Beretta also rquires some fancy manuvers with a screwdriver to remove the hammer assembly.

 

1911 require way more parts to operate and thats why you found a 1000 1911 parts and only 400 Glock parts. That is some of the Genius that went into the Glock -- Simplicity.

 

Police Department qual scores increases with M&P. Does not mean anything to me. Most police officers are not sharp shooters or compettion shooters. Most shoot only to qualify, and it just may be a coincidence if it is even true. Heck, maybe the switched calibers with the M&P. Either way, when you go to a pistol shooting competition, Glocks are always the majority. I am sure if there was a machine to test mechanical accuracy, it would be neck and neck between the Beretta, M&P, and the Glock. I know, the grip angle on a Glock. All I can say is alot of research went into that grip angle, and Gaston was no dummy.

 

My Glocks, Berettas, and my M&P have all been 100% reliable.

 

 

Like I said before, they are all great guns with some great features. It's just that Glock has "ALL" the best features in one platform.

 

Go buy yourself a Glock 19 and you will see, you will change your mind real fast.

So... having put several mags through a G19 and G21 and coming to the same conclusion that they are the most uncomfortable guns I have ever shot, I should buy one?

 

Just because Glocks work for you, does not mean they will work for everyone. Have you ever shot an HK or Sig?

So... having put several mags through a G19 and G21 and coming to the same conclusion that they are the most uncomfortable guns I have ever shot, I should buy one?

 

Just because Glocks work for you, does not mean they will work for everyone. Have you ever shot an HK or Sig?

 

 

No, then dont buy one. I am a technical and mechanical guy, and in terms of technical specs, Glock always eeks out an edge over other brands including HK and Sig(I know that's going to start a war), whether it be weight, size, capacity, radius, simplicity, reliability, or/and a combination of those. I can not find 1 other pistol in today's market to match the combination of specs of a Glock.

 

Glocks work for 75% of the LE community and probably 50% or more of the comp shooting community.

 

I have looked at and considerd HK and Sig. Not to say that I wouldn't be able to shoot a SIg or HK great, I just couldn't justify spending 2 times as much as a Glock or Beretta or M&P and not get twice the gun. That's just me though.

So... having put several mags through a G19 and G21 and coming to the same conclusion that they are the most uncomfortable guns I have ever shot, I should buy one?

 

 

 

Come to think of it, my first few mags through my G23 were a little hairy. I think it takes a good 200-400 rds to get use to the new grip angle. Then you will enjoy it.

Glocks may not be the most accurate gun, but they were not really designed to be range guns. They are still quite accurate and certainly suitable for combat accuracy. They have looser tolerances on purpose, which aids in their AK-like dependability. And, besides the 1911, stock (I did say stock), they probably have the fastest reset on their triggers, even though they feel like the stapler that I hang my targets with. And they seem to be tops in durability as well. I would love my other guns to have their tennifer finish. And, unlike other pistols, the frame also flexes quite a little when shooting, which adds to its durability by not stressing it. Are some other guns well made? Sure! Are others close to the Glock in its capacities? Sure! Are some other guns more fun to shoot? Maybe. I think so... the 1911 and CZ75B come to mind. But in pure stark functionality, Glocks are still on top as a combat pistol. Even the "uncomfortable" grip was designed for a purpose to reduce barrel flip with the low axis gripping.

 

I don't drink the Glock Koolaid. They are just a gun. I for one think they should have safeties. After all, 1911s, the quintessential defensive handgun, they have them. Yeah, I know, Browning didn't originally intend for that.

 

For a stock polymer pistol, I actually love the way the American made Ruger SR9, handles. But, it is a pain to break down and I don't think it is as "perfect" as the Glock to which it and the M&P are copies. And, it doesn't have the excess magazines, other parts, sights, etc., that the Glock does.

 

 

An updated, and ergonomic Glock (not the GEN 4), but an updated modernized one, if Glock ever gets around to it, would kick some M&P tail.

 

If you like pure functionality and minimalism, a Glock is an absolute engineering masterpiece! I wouldn't trade for a Beretta or an M&P, or even a SIG, but they are nice.

 

Diamond is right. He isn't drinking the koolaid. He is expressing facts about the Glock. You guys are right in that the Glock isn't always the most comfortable thing to shoot, or the best thing for the job (unless it is combat and combat accuracy and reliability).

 

Guys, give the Glock a rest. Jealousy isn't a good thing!

 

Getting back to the post. I say get the thumb safety, if you are even considering it. And, since you started this thread, you must be. If you came out gung ho for not getting it, then I would suggest not to. But, since you are uncertain, I would go ahead and get it.

Its multiple departments, same caliber, same cadre. So the only difference is the pistol. It doesnt matter if they were all experts or lousy shots. The bottom line was they improved. That gives an indication of the inherant shootability of the M&P over the Glock for those departments.

 

BTW a sand test done by Larry Vickers, the Glock failed miserably compared to the HK and a Custom 1911. Having chatted with Larry a few times I take him at his word and credibility. Im sure there are many tests that achieved an opposite result. In the end I think they are all reasonably reliable but i have personally seen failures from almost every last one of them. Ive seen glocks shear their locking bars, a rash of sigs spit out their extractors etc etc. Its a mechanical device. The only one I havent seen go down is an HK. But Im sure those failures are out there too.

 

Again, Im not here to bash Glock or even say its a bad pistol but I WILL say its a bad pistol for me. 2 main reasons. It points horribly for me and it has no external safety. I will also say that many of the things you are touting as key benefits are pretty much all insignificant issues for me. Also the fact that there is vastly more for a 1911 would indeed indicate that it has much greater support contrary to you comment that the Glock is the most supported pistol. The # of parts difference between a Glock and 1911 is less than 20. That doesnt account for over 100% more avaiable for the 1911.

 

You have to learn to not speak in absolutes. If one wants an external safety, then the glock not having one certainly discludes it as having all the best features. What would be correct is to say that it has all the best features for you.

 

Ive said it before. Confidence in your weapon is important. If Glocks work for you , great have at it. Just dont tell me the Glock is the one true religion and all others are false. I can make anything work, but I choose whats best for me based on my criteria and experience. And a glock aint even in my top 3!

Oh gee - yet another Glock Glock goose game. It gets more than old and more than stale real quick. The Glock Kool-Aid drinkers remind me of the saying "A man convinced against his will, remains of his opinion still". :thsmiley_deadhorse:

 

You guys are bordering on 9/11 "truthers" and Obama "birthers". I have technical specs to prove that too.

Or like the Jahova witnesses that show up at my door every now and then LOL

If you need an external safety, Glock is not for you. If you can't get comfortable shooting a Glock, that is unfortunate for you. But from a design and engineering standpoint, Glock is a superior pistol. For duty, war, hd, CCW, recreation, and competition they are hard to beat.

 

And yes there are more accurate match grade pistols, but we are talking about a $500 plastic gun here.

Safeties are stupid. The only ones I like are drop safeties (which basically protect the gun from discharging when dropped). Everything else just gets in the way.

Wow, what a great thread... ok, so here is my personal opinion.

 

M&P with thumb safety (I have never felt the location so I dont know) with no mag safety.

 

Having that out of the way... please lay off the glock cool aid. Yes, they are great guns... but not the be all superior gift from god.

 

What I learned in Vegas... does not matter if you have a glock, or gold plated HK... sand in the magazines and blowing sand will jam up any gun. Even all the Glock sponsored shooters still cleaned mags after every stage.

 

Personally...

 

1911 > CZ > M&P > Glock

 

If Glocks were the be all, every production shooter would be shooting Glocks... unfortunately, most of the top production shooters I am seeing here in Vegas are shooting CZ's (and clones like Tanfoglio/EAA Witness) and M&P's. when you look at international shooters here from Canada, Thailand, Phillipines, that number jumps to over 90% shooting CZ or M&P.

 

The general comments, the CZ's and M&P's are much more ergonoical and have a very good after market for support. No matter how you work it, I have yet to find a glock trigger anywhere not mushy.

 

Lastly, 1911/2011 are still the best guns. =P

Wow, what a great thread... ok, so here is my personal opinion.

 

 

Lastly, 1911/2011 are still the best guns. =P

 

Your Right!!! HAHA

Glocks suck. M&ps are better... 1911 is the best...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=518oXXbmRQg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

I'll set it up for anyone who wants to try.

 

 

Most factory guns are more accurate than you or I. It's the user not the tool.

 

Shane you shouldn't use police officers as group to praise the merits of any firearm. Generally they hate tp qualify and some struggle to do so. ( read this as they aren't the beat shots and mostly not gun people)

 

 

All that matters is a strong understanding and practical usage of the fundimentals with ANY pistol

 

 

I will tell you a glock keeps on going... And going.... For $500 or less.

Wow, what a great thread... ok, so here is my personal opinion.

 

M&P with thumb safety (I have never felt the location so I dont know) with no mag safety.

 

Having that out of the way... please lay off the glock cool aid. Yes, they are great guns... but not the be all superior gift from god.

 

What I learned in Vegas... does not matter if you have a glock, or gold plated HK... sand in the magazines and blowing sand will jam up any gun. Even all the Glock sponsored shooters still cleaned mags after every stage.

 

Personally...

 

1911 > CZ > M&P > Glock

 

If Glocks were the be all, every production shooter would be shooting Glocks... unfortunately, most of the top production shooters I am seeing here in Vegas are shooting CZ's (and clones like Tanfoglio/EAA Witness) and M&P's. when you look at international shooters here from Canada, Thailand, Phillipines, that number jumps to over 90% shooting CZ or M&P.

 

The general comments, the CZ's and M&P's are much more ergonoical and have a very good after market for support. No matter how you work it, I have yet to find a glock trigger anywhere not mushy.

 

Lastly, 1911/2011 are still the best guns. =P

 

 

Agreed, mostly with what you have said, except for the trigger. Glocks were not designed to be competition guns, though.

 

What CZs are being used? 75Bs, customs?

Tosser, unfortunatly thats the only place empirical data exists for a group that I have come across. But I contend that the group doesnt matter. It wouldnt matter if it was a group of gun hating liberals. If the scores went up from one pistol to another, that data suggests one is inherently better than the other in terms of shootability.