Is it worth the additional money?

[glbedd53]

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.

[A-R]

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.

[pbwalker]

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.

I think the point was the fact that you are mistaken about there being no safety on the Glock pistol.

...I still don't feel good about a chambered auto with no safety.

ETA: I assumed you were referencing bdickens's post...

[glbedd53]

When I say safety I mean a manual safety. Im' not saying I think Glocks and Kahrs shoud be taken off the market and I have no problem with other people carrying them but I don't think they are for newbies. I guess the thumb safety on my 1911 makes me feel better and if the extra 1/2 second it takes to click it off gets me killed I'll just take that chance.

[glbedd53]

Who is in charge of the facts?

[driver8]

No the LEO was not neglegent. If he was why did it do when the armorer tried it? In fairness to Glock though, what happened on that one was it fired when he chambered a round. It continued to do it and then started to slamfire. Not sure if that was related to Glocks "internal safeties" but not sure it was not.

[A-R]

Who is in charge of the facts?

Joe Friday

[glbedd53]

I AM WRONG? Might be a little hard to prove. Looks like we just have some differing opinions. If I overstated mine as facts I can retract that. You don't have to look very hard to find that Glock has had a pretty troubled history. They are probably the most sued gunmaker. Negligence would be the reason in most of the problems but humans are negligent. It is my OPINION that negligent humans are more in danger from a Glock that a gun with an external safety. You're not supposed to drop your gun. If you do you're not supposed to try to catch it. People do just that. People that know better do it. It's reflex. Would you rather it be a Glock or a 1911 or a Sig. There have been shots fired this way in Glocks, one of them was a cop (knew better). That's where the term Glock leg came from. One incident where a cop was shot by his little boy. Yeah the cop was negligent. Left the gun where the child could reach it. But it happens. If it had been a Sig or a Beretta, or a 1911 would it have happened? Maybe but probably not. What happened to him you would say couldn't happen to you. That cop would have said the same thing. There are a lot of people out there who think Glocks are less safe by design, not just me. I wouldn't even bet that I'm in the minority. Glock had some pretty serious reliability problems in the early years, I know that from experience, but that's another day.

[A-R]

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.

[SecedeTX]

Now you have stepped over the line mister....

Exactly what is wrong with 80's hair-doos?

Business in the front, party in the back mullets will be back in style soon, and you will look pretty silly then!

(just for the record, no mullet now but had one in the 80's AND drove a Camaro *hangs head in shame*)

[A-R]

Business in the front, party in the back mullets

[USA1]

Business in the front, party in the back mullets

[alamo5000]

Now you have stepped over the line mister....

Exactly what is wrong with 80's hair-doos?

Business in the front, party in the back mullets will be back in style soon, and you will look pretty silly then!

(just for the record, no mullet now but had one in the 80's AND drove a Camaro *hangs head in shame*)

My name is pronounced 'dirt-tay' not dirty. Its french. Joe Dirt-tay. Get it right buddy.

[bdickens]

'Cause nobody ever has an ND with a 1911.

[glbedd53]

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.