TexasCHLforum.com

glbedd53 wrote:If that's directed at me you got the wrong gun. I'll take a Sig over anything else. Not just for safety but especially reliability. And their reputation backs it up. None of my Sigs have ever had any kind of malfunction and they're the only auto's I ever had that I can say that about.. Can't say it about my 1911's and sure can't say it about the Glocks. The one I still have had to go to Smyrna Ga. twice before it would work. I'll base my opinions on my own experiences and those of my friends. Our Glocks all jammed and our Sigs never have. What would you do? A firearm only has to do one thing. It doesn't have to send text msg's or open garage doors or play mp3's, just shoot when you want it to. If it can't do that I have no use for it. Especially the one you might be trusting your life to. If someone sells you bad products do you just keep on buying more from them? That's the definition of stupid. No, I go buy something that's proven, and it worked. I'm not saying you should go on my experiences because I have no doubt yours are different from mine, but I'm going to.

Different experiences is correct, glbedd. I know plenty of people who trust their life to Kahr. I'll never own another (at least not the polymer framed versions) after the troubles I had with a PM40. Never owned a Sig, but their reputation precedes. In a general unscientific sample of "gun people" I talk to, I find a few more "issues" with Sig than Glock, but they are minor and neither are considered "troubled guns" by any stretch. I'd bet my life on either. That said, Sig is usually 50% more expensive than Glock for similar size/caliber of weapon. Other than some early trouble with Blazer aluminum cased ammo (which I've never used again) and some user error when I changed my grip a bit (and was inadvertantly activated the slide release), I've never had a single problem with any Glock I've ever owned - from brand-spanking new to some very ragged out old LEO trade ins. Glocks just go bang. Sigs apparently do too (I've just never owned one).

SecedeTX wrote:Business in the front, party in the back mullets

Wow. A lot of pent up Glock hostility there. As for all the NDs you site above, all were a failure of the BRAIN not the GUN. And you assume rather arrogantly that none of those NDs would've been possible if Glock would simply install a manual safety? Please, if a child has the manual dexterity to fire a Glock then they have the manual dexterity to disengage the safety on a 1911 and fire it (this is why you keep guns LOCKED UP or on your person when around children). As for Glock leg, sure I'll give you that one. But it's not like it doesn't ever happen with other guns - as TAM pointed out, it's easy to unknowingly disengage the safety on a 1911 or any other gun. Reliability issues? Not in the last 12 years since I've been an owner. Earlier adopters of Gen 1 and Gen 2 Glocks? Sure, earlier adopters of any gun are basically guinea pigs for the manufacturers to test "what works" and what doesn't. I'm sure Colts were the same way in 1912, 1913 etc. Don't by the first generation of any gun and you'll likely be fine with any reputable manufacturer.

Based on your last post, I'll amend my statement a bit .... Glocks are not inherently more dangerous for COMPETENT users. If you're a klutz or a moron (and I'm NOT calling you or anyone else here either of these terms) then yeah a Glock is probably not for you. If you ARE a competent user but still don't feel comfortable with a Glock (which I assume is your situation) then by all means don't use one. But please stop spreading this age-old scary story about how Glocks are inherently more dangerous. It's as tired as an '80s hairdo.

Anyway, you've made your point and I've made mine. I'm going to drop it now and give you the last word if you chose to take it.

glbedd53 wrote:Who is in charge of the facts?

Joe Friday

glbedd53 wrote:So what's your point? I never said it would fire without something pulling the trigger. My point is that 5.5 lb is a little light for a gun without a safety.

Sorry to be blunt, but the point is you're wrong. I've carried a Glock with a 5.5 lb trigger loaded with round in chamber for 12 years without incident (only incidents I've had are with 1911-pattern guns - and they were MY FAULT not the fault of the gun or design, because I was careless). In fact, I now carry Glocks with 4.5 lb triggers and still no NDs.

I'm not saying you have to do the same. Feel free to carry or not carry whatever makes you comfortable. But don't continue to incorrectly claim that a Glock is inherently more dangerous, because it's not. You're wrong on the facts.

glbedd53 wrote: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.

The trigger travel distance of a Glock in Safe Action "semi-cocked" state is a LOT longer than the trigger travel distance of a cocked revolver or a 1911 cocked and unlocked. Plus even improved Glock 4.5-pound trigger pull is significantly heavier than the single-action pull of a cocked revolver or 1911. And if it really bothers you, Glocks can be set up with 8-pound or even 11-pound trigger pulls.

But I think you already know that and are just omitting in a futile attempt to make your unfounded point.

mctowalot wrote: Now that that's out of the way I have to ask:
Does anyone remember a scene in an old Chuck Norris movie where he is unconsious in a jacked-up Dodge pickup truck, which is buried past it's roof in a large hole?
When Chuck wakes up, he pours a beer (Lone Star?) over his head, cranks up the Dodge, engages the 4 wheel drive and is then is able to "drive" his way up and out of the "grave".
Did this really happen (in a movie) or did I dream this up?

YES!!! Oh my gosh I remember that!!!!

I'm trying to think what movie that was. Was it "Lone Wolf McQuaid" ? He was a small-town sheriff or something in that movie I think. Probably last saw that movie on re-runs on basic cable about 20 years ago.

frazzled wrote:Shoot a firearm enough, and it will break. Evidently if you shoot 30,000 - 40,000 rounds through something it'll just up and break on ya.

Unless it's a Glock.

Glocks are the Chuck Norris of handguns.

You can actually shoot a Glock - I mean really shoot it, fire a bullet AT a Glock and hit it multiple times - and it will continue its boring, ugly, functional life.

OK, I will digress now before I suffer non-self-inflicted Kimber leg (that's when a Kimber owner shoots a Glock owner in the leg who won't shut up about how reliable Glocks are).

The Annoyed Man wrote: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?"

Chuck Norris

frazzled wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: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.

Yep. The only time I will admit toscreaming like a girl was when I dropped my Kimber, not that it would go off, but that I might have hurt my baby!!!

And y'all wonder why a klutz like me carries a Glock instead of a 1911? When I drop my Glocks I worry about damaging the floor - the concrete floor in my garage.

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 try not to say bad things about guns/brands I have not owned/used/carried. I know a lot of people who trust their life to Taurus. There are others who feel it is an inferior brand. To each his own, I have no personal experience with the brand other than taking a few shots with a friend's or relative's gun at a range.

That said, Glock is one of the premier semi-automatic handgun manufacturers in the world for good reason. In the interest of full disclosure, I own several Glock handguns (and a Walther that is basically a Glock knock-off). The only complaints I consistently hear about Glock is that for certain people it just doesn't fit them right (the grip) and/or they just don't feel "safe" without a manually activated thumb safety.

The grip complaint I understand. Those polymer grips are large and can get slippery when wet (rain, sweat, whatever). There are fixes for this - including rubber grip sleeves, grip tape, and even "stippling" the grip with hundreds of tiny melted holes in the polymer itself using a soldering iron (extreme - but works).

The safety complaint, I understand but disagree. There is no difference between a Glock with no externally activated thumb safety vs. a revolver with no externally activated thumb safety. Sure, a standard Glock trigger pull is about 5 or 6 pounds vs. about 10 or more for a revolver. But if you really want the extra pull weight, there are different connectors and spring kits that can give a very similar pull weight to a revolver (this is what NYPD uses in all their Glocks).

Personally, I like to actually LIGHTEN the pull weight of my Glock a bit - down to 4.5 pounds. And I've never had a negligent discharge or any problem of any kind with a Glock (two NDs in my lifetime with pistols patterned on the Colt 1911 - not a knock on 1911s, just my experience - and I've learned from it). And I've carried a Glock or gun with similar-type action loaded with one in the chamber nearly every day for more than 12 years without incident. Literally thousands of police officers have done the same thing for even longer, with very few incidents. Just use a quality holster that covers the trigger guard completely and you'll be fine (don't EVER carry a Glock "Plaxico Burres style" tucked in a waistband without a holster or you too could suffer "Glock leg" as he did.

And Glocks are quite possibly the most rugged and reliable semi-auto handgun ever made (just review this website to find out how unbelievably rugged - http://www.theprepared.com/index.php?op ... view&id=90" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). They are accurate enough for any self-defense situation. They come in a variety of sizes and calibers (like the unique model 36 you mentioned). They are light and easy to carry. They don't rust unless you want them to (again, see link earlier in this paragraph).

But there are also other fine pistols out there in this general category of polymer-framed semi-autos. I strongly suggest you take a close look at Springfield XD, Smith & Wesson M&P, Beretta PX4, Ruger SR9, Walther P99, H&K and Sig (though they are pricier) in addition to Glock and Taurus.

And if the price premium is really a difficult obstacle to overcome, be sure to look for quality used Glocks. I've shot Glocks that looked wrung out from years of LEO use that shoot just fine and utterly reliable. If something doesn't feel quite right, a Glock Armorer can replace a few key parts and get it running like new (you can even do this yourself, but all the caveats of armchair gunsmithing are in effect). As long as the frame, slide, and barrel are in good shape, you can basically replace the rest of the entire gun for about $100 give or take. And you likely won't even need to do that. My 12-year-old Glocks still shoots as well as the day I bought it. I've replaced a few parts just "because", but didn't really need to (a few of the new parts are "improvements" - like the lighter trigger pull and an ejector with a loaded-chamber indicator).

Seems like I just recently saw a gently used G36 listed for sale either here or on TexasGunTrader.com for about $450. And if you don't mind a .40-cal instead of .45, you can regularly find police trade-in Glock 23s and 22s for $300 at GT Distributors in Austin. In fact, just recently saw some older Generation 2 models (no tac light mount up front - no finger grooves on grip) for $289 + tax at GT's.

As an FYI, the Glock 23 (with a double-stack mag holding 13 rounds of .40 S&W) is actually VERY similar in size to the Glock 36, which holds 6 rounds of .45 ACP in a single-stack mag). Put the two side-by-side some time. Here are the relevant numbers:

Glock 23 is 6.85 long x 5 tall x 1.18 wide and weighs 21 oz unloaded and 31 oz loaded
Glock 36 is 6.77 long x 4.76 tall x 1.13 wide and weighs 20 oz unloaded and 27 oz loaded