Lots of shooters think striker fired pistols are “new” and “next generation” when in reality it’s an old technology. Some of the earliest semi-automatic handguns used strikers vs. the traditional hammer for cartridge ignition. Take the FN Browning 1900 as an example. The FN 1900 was the first commercially successful auto-loading pistol and it featured a striker firing system. It was sleek, snag free and was well-suited for the task of concealed carry . . .
When the Glock 17 came onto the scene, some thought it was the most advanced handgun of the time and it may well have been. But nothing about the Glock was really new. The polymer frame and striker ignition had been done before by HK with their VP70 handgun. It broke new ground with its innovative polymer frame and striker firing, but it wasn’t what I would consider a commercial success in the US.
The VP70 was originally designed as a police/military weapon and was a machine pistol that was capable of full-auto fire with the stock affixed. Unfortunately, the trigger pull was abysmal and measured 16+ lbs on examples I have examined.
Glock took design elements of other pistols, modified them and rolled them up into the Glock 17. Apparently Glock got it right because the G17 went on to become one of the most prolific handguns of the 20th century. In the United States the Glock rivals the popularity of the 1911, which is pretty amazing. The majority of police departments in the US have at one time used the Glock pistol in 9mm, .40 S&W or .45 ACP.
Why has the Glock become so popular? What is it about the design that appeals to so many shooters?
I’d venture to say that reliability is the primary reason behind the Glock’s popularity. The 17 is, if nothing else, reliable. However I believe the recipe for the Glock’s success also lies in its striker firing system which features a consistent 5.5lbs trigger pull. But there’s something else.
The one thing that separates the Glock from the other two pistols mentioned is the fact that it lacks a manual safety. Calm down my loyal Glock groupies, I didn’t say the pistol lacked safeties — I merely stated the fact that Glocks lack a manual safety (please follow the link if you need clarification as to what defines a “manual safety”).
The relatively light trigger pull coupled with the lack of a manual safety makes the Glock one of the quickest handguns into a fight. Let’s face it, adding more operations to ready your pistol under stress only serves to increase the probably Mr. Murphy will make an appearance at your moment of truth. Something as simple as brushing off a safety is easily accomplished on a one-way range, but when you put that same shooter on a two-way range where bullets are coming back at him, all of a sudden the most trivial task becomes a likely failure point.
At first the Glock was decried as being unsafe or even downright dangerous. It’s true, it does have a higher incidence of unintended discharges by LEOs and others that carry them for defensive purposes. However, I view these negligent discharges as being attributable to a lack of training. Why do I say that? Because the Glock will not fire unless the trigger is pulled. Since the Glock is incapable of pulling its own trigger, that means someone pulled the trigger if the gun goes “boom” when the operator wasn’t expecting it.
It’s this simplicity and reliability that draws me towards the Glock for daily carry. With a good holster that covers the trigger and ample range time, the Glock is not only safe, but one of the fastest pistols into a fight you can buy.
I say “one of” because Glock’s success has spawned a whole cornucopia of pistols from competitors that borrow from the Glock’s successful recipe. Some have copied that recipe to such a degree that they’ve found themselves in court facing Glock’s rather aggressive attorneys who enforce the company’s patents with vigor. But many companies have found ways around the Glock patents and brought pistols to market (the M&P, SR9, XD, Steyr A1, Walter PPQ, Caracal, FNS, etc.) that closely mimic Austrian functionality.
I’ve always favored a consistent trigger pull over a double action trigger. That’s why I carried the 1911 for so many years before jumping on the Glock bandwagon. I moved to Glock many years ago before competitive products came to market. At this point I have a couple of decades of Glock shooting under my belt so it makes sense for me to continue using what I’m familiar with. However, if I were to buy my first defensive handgun today I’d lean heavily towards the S&W M&P 9mm.
In the end, I find modern polymer framed striker fired pistols to be the ultimate defensive handguns as they are the epitome of speed, reliability and ease of use. You?
Tim Harmsen runs the Military Arms Channel
Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of platform war!
“Why has the Glock become so popular? What is it about the design that appeals to so many shooters? I’d venture to say that reliability is the primary reason behind the Glock’s popularity.”
Among the reasons you listed, I would add “luck”.
Glock was simply in the right place at the right time, with a pistol at the right price-point, when police departments were transititioning from revolvers to semi-autos.
Luck, as in Happenstance?
So then it was just Bad Luck that doomed the S&W59 and a dozen other autos in the previous 25 years?
To a degree, yes.
By the time the Glock came out in the mid-1980s, how many police U.S. police agencies had replaced thei revolvers with semi-auto pistols?
– Illinois State Police in 1967
– Crockett and Tubbs of “Miami Vice” in 1984
– ??? (I’m sure there were others, I just can’t think of any)
I recently found a stack of gun ragazines from the 1980s and 1990s while cleaning out my basement. Even into the early 1990s, there were still discussions about the vaibility of the auto-loader vs revolver.
Even the F.B.I. used revolvers until the early 1980s..
In the mid-1980s, the U.S. military finally replaced the .45 with 9mm, making that round more acceptable to an American gun culture which in many ways is conservative (as in the “stick to the old ways” sense of the word). While 9mm had been common in Europe for much of the 20th century, your choices in America were basically .38/.357 in a revolver and .45 ACP in a 1911.
And perhaps one should probably not underestimate the influence that “Miami Vice” may have had on the gun culture and law enforcement.
The very first pistol I ever bought was an M&P 9mm and since have put a few thousand rounds through it and have never had a failure to fire.
I can still count on one hand how many failures to feed or extract rounds, and that only happened with steel cased crappy russian ammo from tula.
It was much cheaper than a glock but IMO has given similar performance and is a made in america gun, a true win-win!
My first (and still carry is a sig p229). I got a sig because of an all metal frame and they’re just really cool. If I had to go with an alternative handgun with a better price point, a glock would be my first choice hands down. The value for what you pay is not possibly, but is the best out there. It’s moderately priced, reliable, and built tough. But price goes a long ways for most people!!!
My first (and still carry is a sig p229). I got a sig because of an all metal frame and they’re just really cool. If I had to go with an alternative handgun with a better price point, a glock would be my first choice hands down. The value for what you pay is not possibly, but is the best out there. It’s reliable, built tough and moderately priced
Glock’s success had everything to do with their marketing and sales tactics. It’s a fine pistol, but the way they sold it was the key.
In lot of ways you could say the same about Apple computers.
The GUI and other Apple “innovations” were first developed by Xerox Labs, but they chose not to pursue them. Steve Jobs, who visited the Xerox Labs, saw the potential and ran with it. Mixing those ideas with his own notions of OCD engineering and quirky marketing, has produced three decades worth of innovative and successful products, along with some spectacular duds (Lisa, Next, Newton).
NeXT wasn’t exactly Apple, but it was a Jobs project when he ventured outside of Apple with a new company.
Of course ever since then, Gates has had to try to copy the feel of the Mac… even to some degree with the up and coming Windows 8, which will have the look and feel of your phone (or XBox) more than it will ever a normal desktop computer.
I too moved from the 1911 platform to carrying a Glock, for two reasons… Simplicity & “Hands-off” Reliability. I want to have the ability to treat my carry gun like I treat my lawnmower and still have it perform like it should.
There are definitely a lot of good options outside of Glock, but for me the G19 and G26 fit my needs/wants perfectly.
My lawnmower has a safety bar that forces me to use trickery when I want to wipe my forehead.
I want to have the ability to treat my carry gun like I treat my lawnmower…
By that do you mean use it a couple times a year, having to yank on it really hard to get it to start working, and let it turn to rust because it isnt being oiled?
Are you talking about your Lawnmower or your,,,,?
What about the M&P makes you lean that way?
Get ready for a response from Tdinva (sp?) on how inherently unsafe they are.
I consider the holster to be the manual safety, that’s why the holster has to be a good one.
Tim Harmsen:
However, I view these negligent discharges as being attributable to a lack of training.
Jason:
I consider the holster to be the manual safety, that’s why the holster has to be a good one.
lol wut? So a Blackhawk! SERPA?
No, just something that holds the firearm snugly and protects the trigger from being pulled inadvertently. What does a manual safety do — it protects the trigger from being pulled inadvertently. I’m getting at people that stick a glock in their sweat pants and call it a day. Some systems may be more conducive to sweat pants carry but not a glock. The holster is not optional and it has to be a good one, not some floppy cordura one. Jeez, obtuse much?
The M&P has the same simplicity and reliability of the Glock yet it is more ergonomic, IMHO. The M&P fits great in my hand, the only thing I’m not a fan of is the trigger.
I realize an APEX trigger will remedy the issues with the current M&P’s trigger, but I’ll wait until the Shields trigger finds its way into the rest of the M&P line. That might be the straw that breaks the proverbial camels back and tips me towards adopting the M&P.
On cue just for you…
The Glock relies on the least reliabley safety mechanism…the generic you. You can release the manual safety when you find yourself in an increased threat situation and if you have 40+ years experience with a manual safety flicked it off is a reflex.
Did I meet your expectations?
Yes, thank you. 🙂
Always willing to please!
+1k to tdiinva
The Glock’s (and M&P’s) lack of a manual safety makes it defective out of the box. I find it appalling how many people think this lack is a good thing.
The M&P does have models with the other safeties, such as the thumb safety, it’s just most people don’t go for that model.
It seems to me very nice for a sidearm in a proper holster… when I carry my 23 I’m either on the range or shit is hitting fans… but perhaps not so much for concealed carry.
I have a 26 & am thinking of switching to a small double action for the few times I cc… just too much chance for shennanigans getting a loaded Glock out of ones pocket, etc, even in a cc holster, even though I grew up shooting them. Note that in no case would I want a cc weapon with a safety.
correct.
I never had to worry about my M&P because if I was not shooting it I kept it in its holster, where the trigger cannot be touched unless it is drawn out of it.
I always thought of my holster as my safety and anyone who does not agree I tell them to put their gun in their front pocket for a couple of days!
“It’s true, it does have a higher incidence of unintended discharges by LEOs and others that carry them for defensive purposes. However, I view these negligent discharges as being attributable to a lack of training.”
Unfortunately that lack of training among the Glock owners is the problem that exists. It’s not the gun it’s the people. Most gun buyers to include those that buy Glocks (or the police) do not get professionally or adequately trained on the Glock system to make it second nature, and many or rather probably most Glock owners do not follow up their ownership with enough range time.
For the average Joe gun owner (like me) that means most have will not commit themselves to mastering the safe handling of an operating system like the Glock. It seems simple once its mastered and stays mastered with ongoing familiarization.
This is why, for the average American gun owner, I suggest a revolver. For some reason, despite the revolver’s safety being the trigger-only like the Glock, revolvers are generally safer and more intuitive to use for the average Joe. Maybe revolvers are safer because of the longer trigger pull. Bottom line Glocks have and will continue to have a higher incidence of unintended discharge.
Some of it, I think, has to do more with basic intelligence than training. Don’t touch trigger thingie if you no want boomstick to make loud noise.
Heck, I’d say revolvers can be more dangerous because of the various methods of decocking that are out there.
The only firearm I have which makes me at all nervous is my NAA mini revolver. Having to load the cylinder, cock the hammer, then lower it while making sure the safety notch is lined up does pucker my butthole a bit.
That could explain why I rarely shoot the thing. I’ve put maybe 50 rounds through it lifetime, and it basically sits loaded in the pocket holster. I’d almost say the design is unsafe, but that’s just my opinion.
@Aharon’s last paragraph – hat’s the kind of speach and justification they used in Massachusetts to make a minimum 10 lb trigger rule, which is bogus. 4.5-5lbs is what’s considered safe for duty and carry. Anything more and you are sacrificing shooting capability. Take a look at the accuracy of the NYPD, who are required to carry with a 12 lb trigger…because it’s “safer.”
Long or heavy trigger pull, it doesn’t matter, the gun still doesn’t fire unless the trigger has someone’s finger on it to pull it. If a ND hits someone, at least 2 of the 4 basic rules of gun safety have been violated.
I feel quite comfortable with Glocks, quite comfortable with the 4 rules, and I ain’t lacking for brains.
Nonetheless, I have to agree about double action revolvers for anyone who isn’t a super-pro or using the semi-auto as a proper sidearm in a proper sidearm holster.
I’m confident my finger will stay on that trigger guard pulling from the hip all proper. I’m a LOT less confident pulling out of my jacket or pants or whatever. Intelligence really isn’t a factor when “little crazy man try hit me with broke bottle!”
And frankly, I’m not eager to train enough to be that confident. Fair chance I’d shoot myself during the process. Shooting oneself is to be avoided.
Glocks get a bad rep cause majority of guns sold are Glocks. If you Have 50 percent of the market you should have 50 percent of the negligent discharges. Because percentages would make fair rather than numbers. The ultimate safety is your index finger. Keep your booger hook off the bang switch and you won’t get fireworks. This is true on any weapon system ever made and people blame the machine for working like its supposed to.
adding more operations to ready your pistol under stress only serves to increase the probably Mr. Murphy will make an appearance at your moment of truth.
True. But adding stress to any situation makes the probability of error more likely. Which is why this happens:
“it does have a higher incidence of unintended discharges by LEOs and others that carry them for defensive purposes. ”
They get under stress (go to mental condition Red), the trigger finger goes inside the trigger guard. BOOM. They shoot themselves in the leg. You don’t see that happening with other platforms, and there’s a reason for it. If it was solely “training” then the incidence of NDs would be uniform.
Which is why I love my Glock clone (XD9) for the range, but I carry a SIG p220 that has a decocker. You couldn’t pay me to carry a striker-fired pistol locked and loaded, regardless of who makes it.
The Kahr pistols are DAO and striker fired. It’s a nice compromise—very much like a revolver.
If you take a look at the recent shooting at the Empire State Building in NYC where police wounded more innocent bystanders than the gunman himself, this can be attribute to two things.
1) Lack of training.
2) 12lbs double action trigger pulls.
Some believe that because they go to the range once every 3-4 months and fire 50 rounds at a bullseye target that they’ll be well prepared for a gun fight. They might be able to put a round or two in the X-ring with their double action first shot when given ample time to carefully aim and practice good trigger control. However, under stress something completely different is likely to happen, just as it did in NYC.
Most double action autos are designed specifically to make that first shot far more difficult than subsequent shots with the belief that the heavy-creepy trigger pull is a “safety”. The problem with that is that you own every shot that comes out of your firearm and will be held accountable for what it may strike. If that heavy trigger pull inhibits your ability to land that first shot under stress (or subsequent shots if the weapon is a DAO pistol), it’s now a liability to you and those around you, just like it was in NYC.
As to people getting excited and shooting themselves on the presentation, I believe many of the ADs/NDs occur when handling the weapon when there isn’t a threat. Things like cleaning it, showing it to friends, and other Tomfoolery that has nothing to do with reacting to a threat. Then there are those that have problems with re-holstering, loading and unloading, etc. My personal favorite is the number of people who drop their loaded firearm then clamor for it only to grab the trigger and discharge the weapon. With a little training they would have learned to let a falling gun fall.
If you prefer a double action auto because you don’t trust yourself with a striker fired pistol, I applaud you for your willingness to admit your concerns and react appropriately. At one time I had a similar mindset as yours (20 years ago perhaps), but through training and thousands upon thousands of rounds fired in practice with a striker fired pistol I’ve over come my phobia. I now realize the tremendous benefit of striker fired pistols and understand why most LEO agencies, contractors, and security professionals favor them as well.
I love DA/SA and have never found the DA pull to inhibit my accuracy enough to matter in any situation save bullseye competitions. Rapid fire, slow fire, it really has never been a problem. YMMV. Maybe my index finger exercises that help with that? Haha
A Glock is a good gun for an expert. For people who don’t practice and don’t get training, it has characteristics that are fail-dangerous. As with any firearm, you pay your fare and you ride the ride.
Having worked sales in a gun store, I agree. A Glock isn’t the handgun I would recommend to a novice shooter looking for a CCW weapon. Many new shooters walk out of gun stores with their new Glock pistols, receive no training, load it up, strap it on and start carrying it around. It makes me cringe.
In his book “Surviving the Economic Collapse” (2009), Fernando “Ferfal” Aguirre makes the mistake of recommending Glocks to new shooters (pp. 144 – 147):
Of course, most people won’t bother to become proficient, or even competent, with their firearms. In a comment left on Tamara Keel’s blog, Todd Green wrote that
Brilliant post.
Not to knock glocks (and i agree with the above assesment of external safeties), but i have never understood the bladed trigger safety. In what scenario might the trigger be depressed without depressing the bladed safety? It’s like mounting your cars brakes on top of the gas pedal. Take the thumb safety off of a 1911 and give it a 5.5 trigger pull…. carry it condition one? Many do safely i suppose, but it gives me a little bit of the heebie jeebies. I agree a good holster and training are key but I prefer da/sa ala sig or DOA
It prevents the trigger from being depressed from side loading of the trigger. Like say pressure exerted from a badly fit holster that pushes into the trigger guard area. Some say it could also be another form of drop safety (which the glock already has another internal one) to prevent the trigger from depressing from its own intertia in a fall.
The bladed trigger safety prevents a loaded Gluk from discharging when dropped on it’s muzzel from a given hieght. this is a stated requirement of most Gvt agencies world wide. It was this test that ultimately doomed the 1911 during the Army re-trials,it did not matter that the test firearm was Mfg’d in the 1940’s or that the Badratta 9mm has serious design flaws which actualy caused injuries to the shooter, the FIX was in for the 9mm. A cunning method has been designed to increase safety and eliminate NDs for those shooters who “get the Heebie Jeebies” using a bladed trigger: Keep Your Finger Off The Trigger
@RIGHT
Thanks! I did not know that and always wondered why it was there at all. Is that the purpose of all bladed triggers? I’m not a gunsmith or an engineer and have always assumed that any firearm without some type of hammer block will fire from a given height if the inertia is sufficint to move the firing pin with enough force. Does the bladed safety somehow remove a physical barrier?
Also i agree with your “cunning method” to get over the heebie jeebies- point taken and to each his own.
http://www.usacarry.com/mans-leather-holster-causes-accidental-discharge/
Glock’s website says it’s both a drop safety and prevents side loading of the trigger from depressing it.
The bar on the glock does not go into the firearm. It just sticks down and jams into the frame if the trigger is pulled back without depressing the center bar. It’s a very simple system. There is already a firing pin block. The trigger could hold back the inertia of the trigger itself.
M&P 9mm for the win. Practically it’s at or near equivilant in reliability, function, and safety features as the glock. As a bonus it acutally looks cool and not like a brick, and it’s made in the good ‘ol US of A.
I agree the M&P has great ergos, now if I could just find one to shoot!
The M&P compact 9 mm vs the Glock 19 presents a tough choice. I don’t like the M&P magazine release button, but it looks good and feels very good to shoot. The Glock 19 feels good too though not as good as the M&P. But it’s the reliability champ and it also sounds like it has a near infinite service life. To me, that makes it the ultimate self-defense warrior. But you can’t go wrong either way.
Any one feel these polymer guns are too flippy in .40?
I’m not totally up on my gun history, but does this imply that John Moses Browning had a hand in the development of the Glock?
Wouldn’t surprise me. The man was… amazing.
I think the glock is the ideological successor to the double action revolver.
Ease of use , reliability , and speed were optimized in the design when they were developed. everything else was took a back seat. for a defensive pistol, this is a winning strategy.
I have a smith and Wesson , but same difference.
I think after considering reliability, ease of use, logistics, and lethality among other things, it is a matter of personal preference of the user. I wanted the Glock 19, but after trying out a friend’s(a priest as a matter of fact!) Glock 17, I didnt like it at all and snagged a Sig P228 and that is my CC pistol.
Maybe I shoulda threw in the extra $50 and got a P229?
this is another of those space filler non arguments like 9mm or 45 for self defense. we have a wide variety of pistols and revolvers for the simple reason that there is no generic person. everybodies needs and wants differ so the market reflects that.
Maybe so. I still think 5.56 is adequate for hunting deer, though.
[ducks and heads for the nearest cover/concealment]
it’s been many years since i hunted. at that time the 223 wasn’t legal for deer in most locals. don’t know if it’s changed since then.
I only hunt in Minnesota, but the law here is that the projectile’s diameter must be at least .220.
I went to the range yesterday to test fire an M&P to see what the hype is all about (I love Sigs and 1911s; I really want to love Glocks, being an all-around gun enthusiast, but just can’t; I have no hate for Glocks, just no love). Their full size M&P9 was already taken, so I rented the M&P9c. It felt solidly build (Glocks feel to me like a hollow piece of wood), and I’m sure the full size would have been fun to shoot, except for that trigger. Jesus. It slapped my finger worse than an low-end AK. My trigger finger HURT afterwards. I’d heard complaints about it. Like Tim said, I’m sure with a replacement trigger or improvements from S&W in a gen2 would make this a Glock killer.
Now if Glock would only come out with a single stack version for concealed carry…
You mean like the 36?
Maybe he meant in 9mm?
Even the Baby Glocks like the 26 and 36 have really large uppers – the 36 is the same cross-section as the 21. They really do need to come up with slimmer “subcompacts”.
You rather missed the mark– Glocks are popular because they’re cheap, reliable, and plentiful. Has crap all to do with trigger pull and safeties.
Glocks are the torque wrench of the handgun world. So long as it works when you need it to work, nobody much cares what name is written on the side, save for the platform geeks.
One of the more annoying parts of this article, however, is that old “can’t flick off a manual safety in a gunfight” nonsense. I’m sorry, but if you can’t accomplish flicking off a safety when you really need to flick off a safety, you’ve no business carrying a firearm into a situation that may require it. It is an extremely simple operation that many millions of people have practiced successfully the world over for generations. Period. Not being able to do so is the firearms equivalent of driving down the road with a suitcase on your roof. Yes, it happens, but the people who do it are mindless idiots.
I can understand carrying a 1911 cocked and locked, but why carry a DA auto on safe? The long trigger pull is safety enough. Revolvers didn’t have safeties, right?
I carried a S&W 3913 with a round chamber off safe for years. Why not? It’s no different than a DAO with no safety or a revolver. I do believe the trigger pull on my 686 is lighter than the autopistol was, anyway.
That being said, being able to flick a safety off is no biggie, especially on the Smiths. Flicking it up is a more natural movement than flicking one down, like a 1911.
I have a G19 and a G30. They’re great. I shoot them well, they’ve been reliable, and they are very accurate. My G30 is more accurate than my dad’s Kimber 1911, which cost a whole lot more.
I don’t carry a Glock. I carry a Kahr P9. It’s smaller, thinner, and I like the DAO trigger, as it reminds me of the revolvers I grew up shooting.
Now, if TSHTF, my G30 will be on my gunbelt, no doubt.
When you say your G30 is more accurate than your dad’s Kimber, how do you mean that? Are you more accurate with your G30 than your dad is with his Kimber? Are you more accurate with your G30 than YOU are with your dad’s Kimber? Just trying to get a sense of the comparison you are making.
I am more accurate with my G30 than with the Kimber. G30s are known for being unusually accurate, from what I’ve ascertained.
The G30 cost me 500 bucks. I think Dad paid over a grand for the Kimber.
The Glock 17 is and remains the pistol that transformed the world. Glock peaked with the G17. It’s still the best pistol in their lineup. And it’s still ugly.
Ugly guns need love too.
Yup. And like ugly chicks, not from me. 😉
Yeah, but they are so grateful!
if they’re ugly, turn the lights out. you only ever get laid twice in this life, your first time and your last time. never pass one up, it might be your last.
at least that was how i looked at it til i got married. changed the rules a little then.
and no, i didn’t marry an ugly woman. she married an ugly man, but that’s a whole other story.
I’ve owned my Glock for 24 years, I’ve yet to have a ND, even with the less safe 22 conversion unit in place
Next time we have an article here that will incite Glock v. 1911 or Glock v. everybody else discussions, could we include “Grab your popcorn” in the title? These threads always seem to be as entertaining as a “B” rated action movie. Just want a heads up, so I can be ready. And no, they don’t make tactical single point slung popcorn machines, so its harder to always be ready. Unlike having my G17 on my right hip. *trollface*
And we haven’t even started talking about the Glock 20 10mm DeathRay™.
I like my Glock 7. It’s porcelain and invisible to X-rays.
Did the magical elves sign the grip?????
The argument is always made between Glocks and 1911’s that the manual safety makes the 1911 safer. But what’s, safer a Glock or a 1911 with the safety mistakenly left off? What’s safer, a Glock or a Sig that you forgot to decock?
1 point about a carry gun that’s been niggling at my little brain. twice in recent months we’ve seen where a person carrying a semi auto, zimmermans 9 and an unknown cops 45, have fired 1 shot each and then because of the closeness of their assailents had their weapons jam because their slides were not able to function properly because of binding during the struggle.
in zimmermans case the 1 shot proved enough but a citizen, also with a 45 auto had to fire multiple shots to rescue the cop.
i guess my point is that lawful self defense is going to be up close at grappling range. when i’m armed i carry a j frame, a lot less gun to grap at and no slide to restrict.
+1 on the belly gun for wrasling.
Why was the Glock originally a great seller? That answer is both simple and complex.
Honestly, we have to put a large amount of credit for Glock’s success at the feet of the Anti-gun crowd, believe it or not. I remember when the Glock first hit the market and all the news articles (TV and print) about a gun that was not completely made of metal and therefore might not be detectible by airport screeners. Remember that this was during the height of Airplane hijackings by terrorists, and the very idea that they might have a gun that could not be detected by the airport x-ray machines scared the left out of their socks. News articles ran for months on the subject, across the country.
Also one would have to hand a bit of the success to Hollywood, and the movies of Tommy Lee Jones (the US Marshall who recommended a Glock over a “Nickel plated sissy pistol”, “You know these things shoot under water”). Hollywood jumped on the Glock band wagon pretty quickly, and that trend continues to this day.
“Remember that this was during the height of Airplane hijackings by terrorists”
The comedian Gallagher had a joke about that in the 1980s that went something like this (from memory):
You ever notice that all these planes getting hijacked are TWA? Do you know what TWA stands for? Travel With Arabs. That’s why I fly DELTA: Don’t Even Let Them Aboard.
I trust my Glocks explicitly. They replaced every handgun in my arsenal, including the 1911. The Glock 26 is my favorite.
I use the clip draw system instead of a holster. Never had an ND, and I don’t have to dress like a hobo to pull it off.
Glock won. Game over. Interesting to go over the wreckage as to why. Cops, feds, all hail. Great price point, reliability, light with lots of rounds on tap. Swap out barrel in a Glock 22 and it goes from 40 to a Glock 17 at 9mm. Nothing left to say but goodnight. If ya want something pretty, get a nice revolver.
> However, if I were to buy my first defensive handgun today I’d lean heavily towards the S&W M&P 9mm.
Why is that so? Could you kindly elaborate on this a little?
There is a consistent accuracy issue reported across several website about the M&P9 (btw, there’s no such issues with the M&P45 and 40) and S&W seem pretty quite about this.
My first handgun was a Beretta 92S 9mm, (which sucked by the way), and I upgraded to a S&W Sigma .40 cal. It was the most accurate gun on the market (IMO), and never misfired, was a comfortable fit. It is the main reason why I upgraded to the GLOCK 19 Gen 4 9mm. The Sigma still to this day (IMO) was one of the best handguns S&W ever made, but the GLOCK 19 is dependable, accurate, and precision all wrapped up in one handgun.
Comments are closed.