TexasCHLforum.com

bdickens wrote:

Here, let me take a whack that thing.

glbedd53 wrote:I understand that. You go ahead and I'll just keep doing what I've always done. But I'll say it again. It's not really any different that carrying a revolver with the hammer back, it's still not gonna fire unless you pull the trigger. A 1911 with a safety or a Sig with a decocker will always feel safer to me.

You're ignoring the design of the trigger itself. I'm a cocked and locked 1911 guy too, but even I know that. And your 1911 isn't going to fire, safety on or off, unless a hand is also gripping and depressing the grip safety. So technically, you can carry your 1911 cocked and unlocked perfectly safely, as long as it stays in the holster. In fact, that has actually happened to me on several occasions. I've unholstered my 1911 at the end of the day, to discover that somewhere along the line, the thumb safety got switch off. Trigger discipline is the difference. Ditto the Glock. As long as it stays in the holster, nothing is going to pull the trigger.

I have an M&P 45 I also carry, and while it also has a frame mounted thumb safety (not all the M&P models do), it also has a "sort of Glock-like" trigger safety system too. If the trigger is simply pushed back, it will not fire. I requires the slightly upward and back pressure of a finger tip to articulate the trigger safety and disengage the mechanism. And this is in addition to the firing pin block which requires the trigger to be pulled all the way to its break to fire the gun. I've gotten comfortable enough with it, that were I on the market for the same pistol today, I would be perfectly comfortable getting one without the thumb safety. And this is coming from a guy who is a 1911 nut to the core. As I recall, JMB's original design did not include the thumb safety; only the grip safety. It was the military trials board that made him add the thumb safety.

To me, the main value of the M&P thumb safety (which, although it is frame mounted like a 1911's, does not impede the slide travel) is to be able to cycle the slide to eject a live round, or to reload the pistol and chamber a round, without the pistol negligently discharging due to a CPU-to-boogerhook disconnect — and even your 1911 can't do that.

austinrealtor wrote:So now the all important question ... if a Glock pistol and Chuck Norris collide head-on at 1000 miles per hour, will the Earth survive? Will the space-time continuum be altered? Or will they morph into the the greatest Transformer-esque killing machine in the history of the universe?

I think it is more relevant to ask, "if there were a global nuclear conflagration and all human life was wiped out, who would be the last standing — a cockroach, or my wife's G19?"

And yes, if I dropped my Kimber, I would scream like a little girl. My son actually did drop my wife's G19 at the DPC range one day. It was empty with no magazine in it, and it landed slide down on some coarse gravel. My wife's back was turned at the time. He looked at me, I looked at him, and we both started chuckling. He picked it up and it didn't even make a mark on it. My wife turned around to ask us what was so funny. "Oh, nothing dear." They really are indestructible.



Back to the topic... I obviously think highly of the Glock platform, but the bottom line is what makes you comfortable. As much as I think of the Glock, I don't carry one because the grip isn't right for me, at least in the larger calibers. My non-1911 carry gun is an M&P 45 (which I recently botched up the trigger on and had to send it back to the factory, but that's another story). I picked that one over the XD, which is the other gun I looked at real hard, because it has a real low bore axis like the Glock, and it has adjustable grips making it fit my hand better than the other two. If the Taurus, or a Ruger, or some other brand is what works for you, by all means have at it. Just make sure that whatever you pick is a reliable platform and that you can shoot it reasonably well.

I have shot a number of Taurus products belonging to others over the years and never experienced any problems or heard any complaints. The only Taurus gun we own is a 1911, and it is a pretty good gun... ...for the price.

I think that is a comment you'll hear often about Taurus: a pretty good gun... ...for the price. They are a pretty decent brand at reasonable prices, and there is nothing wrong with owning one if that is what makes you happy. If you have limited funds, then the Taurus is a very good way to maximize your dollar.

The only Glock we own is my wife's G19. And we bought hers during the height of the post-Obama panic buying, so we paid a premium for it. You can find them for much cheaper now. It is a very business-like gun. This is my opinion only: Pretty much every other gun manufacturer tries to build a certain amount of "eye-candy" appeal into the design of their guns, regardless of the price point. Not Glock. Gaston Glock wouldn't care if his guns looked like cow patties as long as they worked... ...and that pretty much describes all Glocks — ugly as sin, and absolutely and dependably reliable. They flat work.

But don't take my word for it. I'm a Kimber 1911 snob, and I think Glocks make reliable mallets for use on your work bench. You could use a Glock as a hammer to drive home the mainspring housing pin on your 1911 during reassembly, and it wouldn't hurt the finish on the Glock or affect its function or accuracy. I would never do that with one of my 1911s. They are my babies. I could use my wife's Glock as a wheel chock (when she isn't looking), and it wouldn't hurt it one bit.

The point of all this is that, if you can get past the "oogly," I think that the Glock is worth $200 more than the Taurus.