Curse

Xue Yi Liang · Sep 24, 2005, 11:45 PM // 23:45

One of my hobbies is shooting.
Specifically, I’ve studied defensive handgun, carbine and subgun from schools like Fronsight Academy in Nevada and Thunder Ranch in Oregon. This, by no means, qualifies me as an expert, but I've been taught by experts (such as Kirby Reed 8 year instructor at Heckler & Koch Defense). It was through these schools where I learned to appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of different firearms - and I learned to appreciate the Glock.

So I just have to comment on Sayshina’s post (in a different thread) on the Glock being a “novice” gun.
Instead of hijacking that thread just to lash out at Sayshina (

)I’ve started this thread to respond to the following post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sayshina

Don't get me wrong, the (Glock) was designed for combat, an environment that normaly involves low levels of training, very poor maintenance, and nightmare operating conditions. This is also why so many police units are going to it, and it is very good at its job.

However, the bottom line is that every other gang banger stuffs a 9mm version down his pants and thinks it's going to get him "respect". The reason it's become so common has little to do with its combat heritage and everything to do with image. Well, image and the fact that it's stupidly easy to operate.

There are not many weapons I would recomend over the Glock to a complete novice, and most of them would be shotguns. But I'm not in the habbit of recomending any weapons to novices. The very first question I ask someone looking for advice on a weapon is "are you absolutely positive that you have the ability to kill another human being?". It amazes me how many people have never asked themselves that question.

Personaly I don't really like it, although I'm hard pressed to give a really good reason as to why. Even after fiting the Barstow barrel, the G27 I tried just didn't work for me.

I've been out of the military for more than 15 years now, but I'm unaware of a single ops team that makes use of the Glock, and I'd be surprised to hear of one. It's ok for novices, conscripts, and police, all of whom tend to have about the same level of ability. It seems to work well for competition, but then slick tyres work well on a racecar too. In the end I believe there are too many better alternatives out there.

Although I think the topic of this thread is about dead, I'm not sure we should keep going into weapons here.

*sigh*
You threw down the gauntlet when you referred to Glocks as novice weapons.

-------
Up front I will agree with these points you made:

You said, “Every other gang banger stuffs a 9mm version down his pants and thinks it's going to get him "respect". The reason it's become so common has little to do with its combat heritage and everything to do with image.”

I would have to agree.

You said, “The very first question I ask someone looking for advice on a weapon is "are you absolutely positive that you have the ability to kill another human being?". It amazes me how many people have never asked themselves that question.”

Again, you speak the truth – I have the same issues with people who want to purchase a firearm for the purpose of self-defense. No argument here.

------
But here’s where we disagree: I take issue when you characterize the Glock as little more than a “novice-gun.” I don’t think it’s the best pistol out there but I’d certainly consider it one of the best.

But what makes the Glock a novice-gun?
Let me rephrase that to address what you really meant – What makes the Glock less than adequate for persons with more than a basic familiarity with the defensive handgun?

Lack of combat heritage?
If a “combat heritage” means that it should be historically proven over years in warfare then you should also exclude HK pistols, modern SIG-Sauer pistols etc which may have seen combat but, being modern pistols, have no “combat heritage” to speak of either.
As a combat-worthy weapon the Glock is good enough for the armed forces of Norway, Netherlands and Austria – so please don't be so quick to dismiss it as some civilian toy.

Not in use by any ops teams?
Two features exclude the Glock from even participating in any trials for US military contracts – a) the absence of an external hammer and b) absence of external safety. The rationale behind the external hammer is to be able to verify visually if the weapon is c0cked – which is irrelevant in a weapon of this design. The fact that US military bureaucracy does not accommodate unique designs says more about bureaucracy than it does about the weapon itself.

The Glock has seen use in war. In Iraq the Glock 17 is standard issue with US Military contractors such as Blackwater USA. Unless you regard military contractors as mere “thugs” I’d give that endorsement some consideration.

You said, “The weapon was designed for combat, an environment that normaly involves low levels of training, very poor maintainance, and nightmare operating conditions.”
What defines a weapon “low levels of training"? Is it just the lack of an external safety? The safety was excluded because the Glock implements a trigger safety instead.
If you are of the opinion (as some people are) that an external safety is a must on any “serious” firearm – then the Glock should be the last thing you’d want to issue to a novice since it'd be prone to more accidental discharges by design.

You say the Glock is designed to remain functional with “poor maintenance” and “nightmare operating conditions” then you’ve just described the ideal military tool. The AK-47 isn’t the most accurate rifle, but it is a legendary design only because of its mechanical simplicity and its ability to remain functional under adverse operating conditions. (I’d rather not compare Eugene Stoner’s direct-gas design of the M16/AR15 because that’s a whole different can of worms).

You said, “It's ok for novices, conscripts, and police, all of whom tend to have about the same level of ability. It seems to work well for competition, but then slick tyres work well on a racecar too.”
I get the analogy.
Glocks are popular in many competitions. That’s true – but so are 1911s. Are you going to tell me the 1911 (which served the US in WW2, Vietnam and Korea) isn’t good enough, either? In fact, far more 1911s are tricked-out to be “race guns” than Glocks.

So you didn’t like the G27. I can understand that. Not every gun is for everybody. I once bought a S&W 4506 and just didn’t like it at all. Maybe it was the grip angle, the feel of the trigger or something else– but I just didn’t like shooting it so I gave it to my father. But it seems your entire criticism stems from your personal opinion about the G27 - and that's a matter of taste.
(side note – Bar Sto has the reputation for making excellent Glock barrels but what was wrong with the stock-barrel that you felt compelled to change it?)

In the end I’m not trying to put the Glock on a pedestal it's not perfect, but I think you’re mistaken to call it a “novice” gun. Personally, I don’t like semiautos that require one to shoot DA/SA if carrying on a loaded chamber. I prefer to either SA - “c0cked and locked” (as with my BHP and HK USP Compact) or a mechanism like the Glock. Some people, like yourself, don’t care for them – but that’s just a matter of personal taste.

There, I’ve said my peace.

Lag Hell · Sep 25, 2005, 01:14 AM // 01:14

Could u consider maybe...u no...reducing the size of that post

EchoSex · Sep 25, 2005, 01:19 AM // 01:19

I think this guy called it a "novice" gun merely on the fact of it's mistaken popularity in the uneducated world of "gangstahs." They think they know guns. They WANT to know guns. They don't know crap. Same goes for the media - watch any TV show and they'll get it wrong. I remember watching Mad TV and this kid said his gun was a "Glock 10mm" (nonexsistant model) and the gun was actualy a fake USP .45 Match with a gold plated barrel weight. Because of the word "Glock" is so commonly thrown around, I think this guy just got sick of it and started thinking it was amature.

But what do I think about the company and it's products? Home defence. Glock manages to produce easy to use, light, synthetic firearms that are affordable and effective. It's greay for home defence or recriational shooting. Is it good for law enforcement? Well, if you use some of the later models, yes. 9x19 is obsolete for semi auto weapons in terms of law enforcement. They litterly "Squish." Somebody who is out there to protect you needs something better, and one company put down the cash and study time to figure it out - it's the .40 S&W and it's a proven cure for sociopathy. So, use any model for a .40 S&W, and you have a great little firearm for police officers. Have I ever used a Glock? Yes, models 17, 26 and 40. Did I like 'em? The 26 is an UGLY weapon, and the 17 is a bit scrany, but the weapons were comfortable and preformed well. Personaly, I take a liking to the Swiss company SIG and the German company H&K over anything else just as I've had much experiance with both companies and have never had a problem with either (Expect for H&K and their prices).

Alone) · Sep 25, 2005, 01:31 AM // 01:31

I like the Glock 17 9mm just fine. 26 is a bit compact, but it works.

Glocks in general, I feel, an all around gun.

However, I prefer the p12-45 SemiCompact. How I love .45's..

EchoSex · Sep 25, 2005, 01:34 AM // 01:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alone)

I like the Glock 17 9mm just fine. 26 is a bit compact, but it works.

Glocks in general, I feel, an all around gun.

However, I prefer the p12-45 SemiCompact. How I love .45's..

As you should :3 After all, there's a reason why the M1911A1 was in the American arsenal for almost a century.

zehly · Sep 25, 2005, 01:56 AM // 01:56

Who the hell cares what kind of gun it is. Does it pop a round into someones head and cause hemoraging? If so = owned. If not = novice.

Sagius Truthbarron · Sep 25, 2005, 02:12 AM // 02:12

I remember the day the police force in the small town I lived in - which was pretty rich - just got in a shipment of Glock27s, I think they were. We were all scared to death that they were going to start killing people

They always seemed to be pretty inept.

But it wasn't the fact that they got new guns that scared people, it was the fact that they had Glocks. ^^ I think it's pretty renowned by most people as being a powerful weapon.

Alone) · Sep 25, 2005, 02:15 AM // 02:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by zehly

Who the hell cares what kind of gun it is. Does it pop a round into someones head and cause hemoraging? If so = owned. If not = novice.

There are lots of reasons to care what kind of gun it is. Each person has their own preference. Some are uncomfortable, some are not. Some are heavy, some are light, big, small. And there ARE pro paintball players. And paintball guns usually don't kill someone. So are they novice? =p

Sagius Truthbarron · Sep 25, 2005, 02:20 AM // 02:20

I don't think any gun enthusiast really cares how well their weapon can "pop a cap".

Lasareth · Sep 25, 2005, 02:23 AM // 02:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sagius Truthbarron

I don't think any gun enthusiast really cares how well their weapon can "pop a cap".

Truth. It's all about how it handles, how it shoots, how the trigger feels, and how accurately you can shoot with it, not to mention how well it holds together. Most people who actively pursue a hobby in firearms use them with the intent of shooting at sport targets, not people. It's the people who use them in gangs, etc, who give a bad name to firearms.

EchoSex · Sep 25, 2005, 02:24 AM // 02:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sagius Truthbarron

I don't think any gun enthusiast really cares how well their weapon can "pop a cap".

Yeah, mainly because being a lefty I reeeeeally can't be a chooser.

Alone) · Sep 25, 2005, 02:25 AM // 02:25

I'm a lefty too. paying for customizing can cost a bit much.

zehly · Sep 25, 2005, 02:26 AM // 02:26

You won't catch me playing with guns.. I'd shoot myself some day.

The only gun I play with is an electron or photon gun :/

EchoSex · Sep 25, 2005, 02:29 AM // 02:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alone)

I'm a lefty too. paying for customizing can cost a bit much.

Hehe, try convicing a German H&K representative with bad English that you need a reversed reciever for your '94.

H&K:"(In German accent) Reciver is apidexterous."
Me:"No, it really isn't."
H&K:"The syztem works as a front and forward ejectio-"
Me:"I got hit in the face with a casing."
H&K:"Part in 6 weeks."

Manderlock · Sep 25, 2005, 02:30 AM // 02:30

Hehe yall keep your "little" guns, and Ill stick to my 270. Alot better range with a 270.

EchoSex · Sep 25, 2005, 02:36 AM // 02:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manderlock

Hehe yall keep your "little" guns, and Ill stick to my 270. Alot better range with a 270.

Raaaaar. I owned a .308 (7.62x59) AR10, but I got sick of the Aramlite design and didn't enjoy having a cheap stock bashing against my shoulder. "Push Button" magazine releases on the reciver are the DEVIL! Darn Aramlites...

Manderlock · Sep 25, 2005, 02:39 AM // 02:39

The funest gun Ive ever shot was my Mini-14, I love that gun.

EchoSex · Sep 25, 2005, 02:42 AM // 02:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manderlock

The funest gun Ive ever shot was my Mini-14, I love that gun.

Try finding a range or club that has it's own jurisdiction so you can play around with some full auto toys and antiques. The North Attleboro Range, which is a few miles outside Boston, has some great little hunnies you can play around with.

Manderlock · Sep 25, 2005, 02:49 AM // 02:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by EchoSex

Try finding a range or club that has it's own jurisdiction so you can play around with some full auto toys and antiques. The North Attleboro Range, which is a few miles outside Boston, has some great little hunnies you can play around with.

Hehe, now auto is a dierent story, much destruction if put in my hands, I see.

Xue Yi Liang · Sep 25, 2005, 02:50 AM // 02:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by EchoSex

Try finding a range or club that has it's own jurisdiction so you can play around with some full auto toys and antiques. The North Attleboro Range, which is a few miles outside Boston, has some great little hunnies you can play around with.

No kidding! Dang! I lived for 4 years in Pawtuckett, RI - just a skip away from South Atteboro and didn't know about that range! I didn't even bother to look for shooting ranges in MA. It's too late now that I've moved to California...

The last time I handled a selective fire weapon was in Nevada.

Oh - lmao about your conversation with the H&K rep.

The 94 is nice but I'm pretty content with my .308 FN-FAL.