TexasCHLforum.com

lowonair wrote:

.30calSolution wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote: There are people who hate Glocks??????

Yeppers! They are called realists! Ok, I will stop stirring the pot. That is all.

they just wont admit glocks are better...

Maybe they can't bring themselves to lie?

03Lightningrocks wrote: There are people who hate Glocks??????

Yeppers! They are called realists! Ok, I will stop stirring the pot. That is all.

jeeperbryan wrote:When the zombies attack I'll probably grab my Glocks.Could care less what the grip feels like when a zombie is in my face.

I would if I shot about a foot high and painted the stairs with little timmy's gray matter as he was trying to evade the zombie.

austinrealtor wrote: I'm not a reloader. Not saying I never will be. But for now, I get by on factory loads. I do adhere to Glock's requirement for jacketed bullets only. And I also use only new brass ammo unless I get really desperate. Stopped using Blazer years ago when a couple of feeding and ejection problems cost me what would've been a perfect score on my first CHL rewnewal shooting test That's the only thing my Glock won't "eat" reliably - aluminum cases.

Anyway, good points, all. I tend to forget the quirks of reloading when evaluating guns.

With scrounging free lead, groupbuys on wolf primers and spending a little time making my own, 9mm/.40/.45acp costs me about $4-$5 per 100rds. It really saves me money on the magnum stuff. What's a box of .44mag now?.. like $35 for 50rds I think. I can load 50rds for about $5 or so..maybe a buck less. I couldn't afford to shoot some calibers if It weren't for reloading. Not only that but it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside knowing that I made them with my own 2 hands.

Ok, it really doesn't save me money, but it allows me to shoot ALOT more. If I am testing bullets like Gold Dot's or XTP's for expansion, I can load up $100rds for $25-$30, granted it doesn't give me penetration statistics identical to the factory loads, unless i reload them to chrono'd factory stuff, but it gives me a good idea of the reliability of expansion for a very good price. $25 for 20rds of store bought and the same cost for $100rds of the reloaded. And, I don't carry reloads, I just use them for testing.

austinrealtor wrote:

.30calSolution wrote:forgot to mention the barrels, don't even get me started.

I've heard most of the other complaints you listed and all are legit depending on your personal preferences and point of view. But I've never heard a complaint about the barrel. So I guess I'll have to get you started .... what's wrong with Glock barrels?

I reload my own ammo, and I shoot frequently and cast my own lead alloy bullets.

Unjacketed lead bullets have a tendency to "smear" lead into the voids in the polygonal rifling. This will cause the barrel pressure to rise dramatically in as little as 100 rounds or less. This could mean a Kb....and/or possibly a lodged bullet. However, the land and groove rifling does not have this problem, and unjacketed lead can be safely fired.

The reasoning behind polygonal rifling is that there is significantly less pressure leakage than when using conventionally rifled "land and groove" barrels....This will produce a higher muzzle velocity in a shorter barrel than is normally achievable with land and groove rifling...with one drawback...you cant use lead bullets....unless you spend big bucks and order a replacement barrel that's traditionally rifled. Glock says specifically in their manuals that lead is a no no.

So, that is another reason why I don't care for Glocks. That's not to say their bad guns, they just aren't for me.

For $500 I can get an M&P or XD with traditional rifling that shoots just fine and is aesthetically appealing, to me anyways. If I were to buy a glock and a replacement barrel I am coming out of pocket an additional $150-$200. For $750 I could buy a nice Springfield 1911 or BHP, HK, Sig or possibly a used Kimber.

They're ugly, they point high, they have mushy triggers, and they have plastic sights. They also mess up my brass. Oh and did I mention they are the ugliest things I have ever seen. The actual production costs have been estimated at around $100 per pistol , so I have read, that's a nice profit margin, but you could have guessed that by the looks. They use cheap polymers and the little bendy thingy in the trigger that's a safety or some such will chew the crap out of your finger after 50-100rds at the range. I forgot to mention the barrels, don't even get me started.

With that being said they also have a very short trigger reset, reliable, durable, low bore axis, and a very good tennifer treatment.

You just won't catch me shooting one. There are a ton of Glock fanboys and I think sometimes people pick on the brand just to ruffle their feathers.