[Terry G]

Yeah, they even let us carry them, if we're good boy's and girl's. Seriously, until about four years ago, I spurned the "tupperware toy's" as badly as anyone else. I packed a series 70 Colt, Ruger P90, Taurus PT 92 and (when forced to) a Ruger P89 DAO. So my carry guns were your traditional steel. I was shooting with some U.S. Marshal's on a qualification course, and one of them, a friend of mine, had me try his G21. God and Col. Colt, forgive me, I was hooked. It just fit me, and I could really hit with it. The trigger was strange at first, but took almost no time to get used to. My Colt's and Taurus guns aren't going anywhere, but Damn, I like that G21.

 

[Magnum88C]

Some guys are just averse to Lego guns, man. :dgrin:

 

[krept]

the fact that Glocks are comparable to handguns that cost... 2x... 3x... 4x more is kind of pressing.

Ironic that some ghetto foolios choose pretty damn capable guns.

Lack of safety is easily solved by the Comollini or whatever it is... or the funky insert, of course, if needed.

How well could someone with a Wilson CQB adapt to another 1911, randomly selected? Hmm... How well could someone with a G21 from Kansas adapt to one found in PRK? Probably pretty well, considering they are like the Borg.

Says a lot, IMO.

cheers

 

[Garand]

I grew up shooting a steel frame and thats where my heart is. Call me old fashion but a handgun with over 90 years combat experience(1911) or a handgun that has over 70 years of combat experience (Browning M1935) warms the cockles of my soul. Sorry, my limited experience with combat tupperware, has done nothing to change my mind. If I want a firearm that is dishwasher safe, I'll get something from Hasbro for my grandaughter!

 

[Magnum88C]

Krept, let me say for the record, I don't think Glocks are BAD guns, they just don't agree with me. Neither do Berettas. But that's why they make other guns eh?

I just don't like polymer frames. As much as I like Rugers, I don't like their polymer framed guns either. In fact I wish my P-90s were stell framed instead of aluminum, but at least they're overbuilt, so they're strong enough.

 

[41mag]

In the past two weeks I've had the pleasure to shoot a pair of fullsize 40s'.
One a Glock,the other a Smith SW40.Looooong,creepy triggers.Stack,stack,stack-bang!I could get used to that if I had to I guess.
For someone who doesn't get lots of practice unlike Terry(or Glenn B) I can see that trigger being a big obstacle.

I was impressed w/just how light they were.For a fullsize carry piece I see the advantage of light weight.In fact,I've been eyeballing a H&K USP expert in the local ranges gun case.*sigh*It is a Single action auto-more my style.

The fun part was my two friends telling me how accurate they were.Well,yep,you guessed it.Minute of paper plate @ seven yards w/both.
Their once dispariging looks evaporated when with both my M19 Smith & my 15-2 Dan Wesson managed quarter size groups at that range.He he,I even shot out one guys missed bullseye[pissed HIM off )

It's kinda telling that alot of the younger people who like ARs' also like the polymer pistols.They look @ wheel guns as being quaintly archaic.Just because its newer doesn't make it better.

 

[andy]

as long as you take ALL DAY to shoot, the revolver

does ok, but so does a single shot Contender, and the Contender offers far more accuracy and power, and range, and its chamber won't rapidly wear into misalignment with the bore, either.

Anybody who can shoot worth a hoot can put all a Glock's rds into a quarter at 7 yds. that's nothing. A decent pistol will do that "well" at twice that distance. A scoped Contender, even from weaver, will do that well at 30m.

 

[Garand]

Back in the late '80s when I shot IPSC in British Columbia, I used to shoot with BC's IPSC revolver champion quite frequently. Elwin Fehr (god rest his soul) could do unbelievable things with a 4" S&W M67 compared to the tricked out Browning I was using at the time. He got me to try shooting revolver for a full season. Shooting 500 rds a week through my S&W M66 was a wonderful experience. After about 5 months, I was regularly beating some friends that were using Berettas, Tauras's etc. Never underestimate what an experienced, practiced shooter can achieve. Marksmanship is a perishable skill, whether or not you choose to believe it.

 

[krept]

The only guns I've ever had a problem with are the ones that use crappy parts or are shoddily made. Quality plastic is far superior to junk steel, IMO.

I can easily see how someone thinks that the "feel" of a Glock or USP, etc. is cheap compared to a BHP, 1911, etc.

 

[andy]

Glock's a good choice, if u don't care about getting

really good, or if you dont mind wasting time and money doing extra, unnessary work, to get as good as somebody who's using a gun with a better trigger pull. You can't really compare the Glock to the 1911, because of the tremendous diffenence in wt. If you added 12 ozs of wt to the Glock, in the right places, it'd be a lot more stable in unsupported fire, just like the 1911 is. Use a lw Commander against a Glock, and the performance diff is a LOT less. In fact, if you try to use a .45 lw Commander, vs a 9mm Glock, you will be hard pressed to beat a guy who's put in the same amount of work that you have on mastering the pistol.

For the guy just learning, without lots of practice with (or caring about) skill with longarms (ie, SA triggers and safety levers) the Glock can do fine. Espeially if he thinks in terms of a Kahr as his pocket gun. However, for the guy with lots of SA trigger time, the glock accomplishes nothing that a good SA doesn't (with less work on the SA to build same skill level) and the double stack mag of the Glock is just a pointless ccw problem.

 

[41mag]

Quality plastic is far superior to junk steel, IMO.

I can easily see how someone thinks that the "feel" of a Glock or USP, etc. is cheap compared to a BHP, 1911, etc.

Very good points.

 

[Terry G]

really good, or if you dont mind wasting time and money doing extra, unnessary work, to get as good as somebody who's using a gun with a better trigger pull. You can't really compare the Glock to the 1911, because of the tremendous diffenence in wt. If you added 12 ozs of wt to the Glock, in the right places, it'd be a lot more stable in unsupported fire, just like the 1911 is. Use a lw Commander against a Glock, and the performance diff is a LOT less. In fact, if you try to use a .45 lw Commander, vs a 9mm Glock, you will be hard pressed to beat a guy who's put in the same amount of work that you have on mastering the pistol.

For the guy just learning, without lots of practice with (or caring about) skill with longarms (ie, SA triggers and safety levers) the Glock can do fine. Espeially if he thinks in terms of a Kahr as his pocket gun. However, for the guy with lots of SA trigger time, the glock accomplishes nothing that a good SA doesn't (with less work on the SA to build same skill level) and the double stack mag of the Glock is just a pointless ccw problem.

Your wrong. The Glock standard trigger is on par with the Colt 1911, at least on my series '70. The trigger pull IS different, but is very easily controlled by an experienced shottist. Once learned I found the G21 trigger pull easier than mY Colt's. Have you ever fired a Glock? When?

 

[Garand]

As I mentioned, I haven't had a lot of experience with the Glock. During my first experience, it was 3 mags of .40 S&W, the checkering on the back of the grip wore the web of my hand raw and the majority of brass was launched into the next province. Always a bad thing for a reloader.

My next experience was shooting with a friend who shot a 9mm Glock in IPSC, he had 3 glocks. As he tells it, 1 was for shooting, 1 was for spare parts, while the 3rd was in for repair. I find the recoil of both plastic and alloy frames uncomfortable. I just like steel better.