Glock Talk: Your thoughts?

[Alex]

Hey guys and girls,

As my 21st Birthday looms in the near distance, I have started to take a serious look at CC pistols. I plan to apply for my CHP day and date of my 21st, so I want to have a pretty good idea of what I'm going to get.

I have narrowed it down to a few things that are important to me:
-Size (Needs to be able to be concealed, Not like my 1911)
-Reliability
-Feel (I know, I know. It's subjective.)
-Ammo capacity
-Stopping power.

What I'm looking at right now are the Sub-Compact Glocks, either in 9mm, .45, or .40

I've held each of these pistols, and I like the way they feel. I have large hands, but strangely they seem to handle well even so.

Ideally, and instinctively, I want to go .45. I like the bullet, and I can shoot 45 comfortably. My concern, however, is that on such a light gun, Muzzle climb will be an issue under a Rapid-fire SD circumstance. Also, with the smaller frame, it seems that options to control the recoil will be more limited.

So I want your thoughts, experiences, etc. Please note that while I like Glocks, I am not dead-set on one. If you know of another weapon that might suit me better, I'd love to take a look at it.

Thanks in advance,
-Alex

[davasmith]

Alex, you can't go wrong with a glock. I'd go for the .40 cal version if you plan on carrying it concealed. If your worried about muzzle climb ect.. this caliber is controllable and very reliable. It has plenty of knock down power as well as cost less to shoot. Get some good hollow point ammo for it and don't look back. Taurus also makes a great little concealment pistol. I have the pt-709 slim and it goes very well with light wear and heavy wear (summer and winter clothes).

[Chasbo00]

I like the compact sized Glocks. They just fit my hands well. Regarding caliber, I've become a 9mm fan largely due to the cost of ammo these days. If you reload, this is less of an issue.

I have a Glock 36 (.45 ACP) and although Glock classifies it as a subcompact slimline, It's just about the same size as the standard Glock compacts (19, 23, 32 & 38). If fact, the Glock 36 fits in my Glock 19 holsters just fine. I really like the Glock 36, it's amazingly accurate for such a small .45 ACP. But, some don't like it's 6 +1 limited capacity.

As to follow-up shots and speed, I find that at 5 yards and closer and shooting one-handed, I'm not significantly slower with the Glock 36 .45 than I am with the Glock 19 9mm. Shooting with both hands, I see more of a speed difference between the two. I'm a big proponent for practicing one-handed shooting scenarios for SD, and doing so while moving when possible.

[ProShooter]

Buy a Glock 23 and don't look back! You'll be very happy with it..

[VBshooter]

Proshooter wrote; "Buy a Glock 23 and don't look back!"

+1

[gunderwood]

Hey guys and girls,

As my 21st Birthday looms in the near distance, I have started to take a serious look at CC pistols. I plan to apply for my CHP day and date of my 21st, so I want to have a pretty good idea of what I'm going to get.

Congrats.

I have narrowed it down to a few things that are important to me:
-Size (Needs to be able to be concealed, Not like my 1911)
-Reliability
-Feel (I know, I know. It's subjective.)
-Ammo capacity
-Stopping power.

What I'm looking at right now are the Sub-Compact Glocks, either in 9mm, .45, or .40

I've held each of these pistols, and I like the way they feel. I have large hands, but strangely they seem to handle well even so.

Can't go wrong with a Glock in any of those calibers.

Ideally, and instinctively, I want to go .45. I like the bullet, and I can shoot 45 comfortably. My concern, however, is that on such a light gun, Muzzle climb will be an issue under a Rapid-fire SD circumstance. Also, with the smaller frame, it seems that options to control the recoil will be more limited.

We perceive recoil differently, but generally most people find .45 harder to control than 9mm. 40s usually somewhere in between, but again, it really depends on you.

The biggest disadvantage with .45/.40 is practice ammo costs IMHO. If have yet to acquire rapid-fire/SD shooting skills you will likely need a bit of ammo to get them. Then you need yet more ammo to keep them. You can get very rusty if you don't keep up the practice. .45/.40 are usually 50% more than 9mm (low $30s per 100 vice low $20s for WWB) and that makes a difference, especially in the beginning. 1500 rounds of good 9mm practice is far better than 1000 in .45/.40 IMHO. Again, 3k vs. 2k. Etc. After a couple thousand rounds (5k+ or so) things usually balance out and diminishing returns means it takes a lot more ammo to increase your skill significantly. It really depends on the person though (my numbers are more illustrative).

Decide on a good training plan, add up the ammo costs and see if the 50% ammo increase of .45/.40 matters to you or not. I'm going to guess that at 21 it probably does; in that case go with the 9mm and don't look back.

We get into debates all the time about which HP or caliber, but the reality is that any specific load which delivers that 400-500ft-lbs of energy and uses a modern HP design, they all perform very similarly. What is very different is failure modes. If a .45 fails to open up (expand), it's still a .451". If 9mm fails to open up, it's "only" .355". Clearly the .45 failure mode is less severe than the 9mm, but that's only part of the story. There seems to be an indication that most 9mm HPs fail less often when encountering heavy clothing than .45s. The thought is that the smaller HP of the 9mm is harder to clog (it could be a velocity thing too). I can't prove that and I don't know anyone who has, but there seems to be some circumstantial evidence towards that.

In the end, practice matters most. Get a good gun, lots of ammo and train hard. I'd recommend shooting at least twice a month (the gun you plan on carrying) and for at least 100-200 rounds. More often seems to work better than more volume per trip in the early stages of skill development. I.e. 4 trips per month of 100-200 rounds.

So I want your thoughts, experiences, etc. Please note that while I like Glocks, I am not dead-set on one. If you know of another weapon that might suit me better, I'd love to take a look at it.

Thanks in advance,
-Alex

There are lots of guns similar to the Glocks, any of those would be fine too. However, my preference is for the Glocks. They're good guns.

[Micro]

I've owned a Glock 21SF, 30SF and 36, and all have given me some problems.

The 20SF was relaible, but it did suffer from the notorious rub on th trigger bar.

The 30SF was down right unreliable. It ran well early on. After about 200 rounds it developed the dreaded FAILURE TO RETURN TO BATTERY issue. I changed the triger bar and that did not help. I finally sold it.

The 36 sufffered from frequent failures to feed and eject.

None of my other Glocks in calibers other than .45ACP ever had any problems. All of my .45ACPs did, to some degree.

[BW1911]

I am a 1911 fan, and Glocks don't really feel good in my hand, but they are generally reliable... not perfect, Youtube videos notwithstanding, but no machine built by man is failure proof. I'm sure this has been discussed here, but your best bet with Glock may be the 9mm versions, as there have been some issues with .40 and .45's and partially unsupported chambers. Googling "Glock KaBoom" or just "Glock KB" is always good for an afternoon of reading controversy.

http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/glock-kb-faq.html

The FAQ linked above is one of the more even treatments on the subject that I have read. I reload and I normally reload range ammo so its about a 10% lighter load than factory ammo, so I would shoot my light range reloads in a Glock all day long (IF the dang gun fit my hand, that is) and I would load factory ammo only, for carry, IF I owned a Glock chambered in .4X. This is the CENTENNIAL of the 1911, however, so ANYTHING else is HERESY...at least this year!

[Reverenddel]

Just asking, but have you thought about the Springfield XD Sub Compact series?

I like the XD's, and Glocks, both work fine for me...

However, the XDSC in .40 is pretty awesome in controllable sustained fire.

I like the XDSC in 9mm as well, but enjoyed the Glock 26 enough that it's on my "wish list" because I still carry my Glock 19... Which is my favorite pistol I own because it's so gatdanged ACCURATE!

[derek141]

My first serious EDC was a G23. I have always really liked it and generally shoot it well. Then when I started IDPA, I discovered that BIGGER GUNS are easier to shoot. Eventually I transitioned to a G17 for high volume practice/comp and a G20 for EDC. Yep, a 10 mm Glock plus reloads year round... I pull that off by dressing around it at 200 lbs & 6 feet tall. It isn't really too hard if you get the right gear.

If you follow a line of reasoning that you're going to carry a lot and shoot a little, allow me to counter that any shooting done in defense is going to take on a new plane of difficulty with the adrenaline pumping. If you like the .40, it might be worth looking at the 22. The extra half inch in grip and muzzle really seem to feel more controllable to me.

Just my $0.02, FWIW, YMMV.

[CombatVet]

I instinctivly wanted a .45 also, mainly because thats what i grew up shooting. I was planning on getting a G21 until i held it today at Green Top. IMO its too big and bulky if your going to carry with it, which is what i'm interested in right now, i still plan on getting a glock in .45, just not today. I ended up getting a G23, it feels amazing in my hand. I plan on taking it to the range this weekend and seeing how she really performs.

[Reverenddel]

CoVet, have you tried the Springfield XD, or XDm series? Also, I hate saying it, but look at the Taurus 24/7.

These two in .45 ACP are rather comfortable, and controllable.

[gunderwood]

I'll second the .45 Glocks being less than ideal. I love the other calibers, but the .45s just don't feel right in my hand. To each his own I guess.

Kabooms aren't that big of an issue as they are rare; careless reloading aside. As an interesting side note, the .357SIG Glocks have a fully supported chamber, which is possible to due to the cartridge's bottleneck design.

[CombatVet]

CoVet, have you tried the Springfield XD, or XDm series? Also, I hate saying it, but look at the Taurus 24/7.

These two in .45 ACP are rather comfortable, and controllable.

I grew up loving all Springfield weapons, but I've held the XD and it just doesn't feel right. The hand and slide angle feels better with the glocks IMO. As far as Taurus goes, i've never shot one and don't really know much about them and i'm not going to trust my life on a gun i havn't heard praised and seen everywhere my whole life. Someone recently told me that their great guns and have great customer service if you have an issue with one of their weapons, but i'm still not sold.

[ChicagoGuy]

Alex, of course the choice is yours. However, since you asked may I highly suggest the XD Subcompact. I own a glock also but find myself rarely carrying it. That is for a number of reasons. One big reason is I carry +1 (or why bother carrying in my view). The added safeties on the XD give me added piece of mind where the glock doesn't. Also I have larger hands and the XD with the grip extenstion in the 13rd mag feels great. Also the handle is a bit fatter than the glock's. Houge gribs never work well with glocks. As for stopping power. Using the Gold Dot 124gr+p for short barrels.......NO ISSUE!! Last but not least compare dollar for dollar. I think you will find the XD wins there also. Combine it with the IWB holster I picked up from Backwoods (local gunshow). It cc's great and no one suspects I'm carrying. At the end of the day though.....find a range that rents and try everything your considering.

Let us know what you decide. Either way though....be safe.

[gunderwood]

CoVet, have you tried the Springfield XD, or XDm series? Also, I hate saying it, but look at the Taurus 24/7.

These two in .45 ACP are rather comfortable, and controllable.

I grew up loving all Springfield weapons, but I've held the XD and it just doesn't feel right. The hand and slide angle feels better with the glocks IMO.

I too never jumped on the XD bandwagon. They're good guns, but just weren't right for me.

One big reason is I carry +1 (or why bother carrying in my view). The added safeties on the XD give me added piece of mind where the glock doesn't.

This caught my eye. Why do you say that? Both guns have well designed internals that have shown to be fairly reliably. As much as Glock loves to praise them as safeties, they don't count IMHO. Good engineering isn't a safety, it's a good product. IMHO, a safety is something which prevents a normal function of the firearm such that if used as intended it prevents accidental discharges while engaged.

Same with the "trigger" safety on either gun, it doesn't count. IMHO, probably one if not the most useless features on either gun...anything that can pull the trigger can just as easily disengage that "safety." If it doesn't, it's a fluke.

The LCI isn't a safety, but practically every gun which has an external extractor already has this (e.g. Glocks) regardless if they market it or not. The striker indicator is interesting, but useless too. At best it can tell you that the gun is not cocked, but how valuable is that? Strictly speaking it tells you what? Nothing much.

The only real safety that the XD has over the Glock is the grip safety. While its a feature on the famous 1911, Browning thought it was useless too (military made him put it on) and I tend to agree. Anytime you're drawing or holstering the gun you're gripping such that it doesn't do anything. In fact, anytime you're holding the firearm properly it's not doing anything useful. Furthermore, all it does is disconnect the trigger...which you can't pull because your not holding it...right? You can't toss it in a pack or something chambered because it's far too easy to engage the grip safety. So at best, it provides disconnects the trigger if you happen to throw or drop your gun. If you did that and something hit the trigger, it would prevent the gun from firing. I'm with Browning on this, it's an extreme edge case dreamed up by playing a silly what if game.

[ChicagoGuy]

CoVet, have you tried the Springfield XD, or XDm series? Also, I hate saying it, but look at the Taurus 24/7.

These two in .45 ACP are rather comfortable, and controllable.

I grew up loving all Springfield weapons, but I've held the XD and it just doesn't feel right. The hand and slide angle feels better with the glocks IMO.

I too never jumped on the XD bandwagon. They're good guns, but just weren't right for me.

One big reason is I carry +1 (or why bother carrying in my view). The added safeties on the XD give me added piece of mind where the glock doesn't.

This caught my eye. Why do you say that? Both guns have well designed internals that have shown to be fairly reliably. As much as Glock loves to praise them as safeties, they don't count IMHO. Good engineering isn't a safety, it's a good product. IMHO, a safety is something which prevents a normal function of the firearm such that if used as intended it prevents accidental discharges while engaged.

Same with the "trigger" safety on either gun, it doesn't count. IMHO, probably one if not the most useless features on either gun...anything that can pull the trigger can just as easily disengage that "safety." If it doesn't, it's a fluke.

The LCI isn't a safety, but practically every gun which has an external extractor already has this (e.g. Glocks) regardless if they market it or not. The striker indicator is interesting, but useless too. At best it can tell you that the gun is not cocked, but how valuable is that? Strictly speaking it tells you what? Nothing much.

The only real safety that the XD has over the Glock is the grip safety. While its a feature on the famous 1911, Browning thought it was useless too (military made him put it on) and I tend to agree. Anytime you're drawing or holstering the gun you're gripping such that it doesn't do anything. In fact, anytime you're holding the firearm properly it's not doing anything useful. Furthermore, all it does is disconnect the trigger...which you can't pull because your not holding it...right? You can't toss it in a pack or something chambered because it's far too easy to engage the grip safety. So at best, it provides disconnects the trigger if you happen to throw or drop your gun. If you did that and something hit the trigger, it would prevent the gun from firing. I'm with Browning on this, it's an extreme edge case dreamed up by playing a silly what if game.

You can't toss it in a pack or something chambered because it's far too easy to engage the grip safety. So at best, it provides disconnects the trigger if you happen to throw or drop your gun. If you did that and something hit the trigger, it would prevent the gun from firing. ............

From my point of view, the chances of TWO DIFFERENT "forces" applying pressure in DIFFERENT directions ay the same time and causing the weapon to fire are remote at best. Remember, I also said it's a matter of choice and glocks have never fit my hand right. Also, IMHO I believe the Springfield weapons and craft on par with glocks and present a very good value.

[gunderwood]

From my point of view, the chances of TWO DIFFERENT "forces" applying pressure in DIFFERENT directions ay the same time and causing the weapon to fire are remote at best.

I don't think it's remote at all. Consider that in order for a force to be applied to the trigger which causes it to discharge the firearm, there must be an opposite and equal force applied the other way. That means that to even pull the trigger something must exert a force equal and opposite to the force trying to pull the trigger (thanks Newton). That could be friction (not likely). The most likely source is another object pushing on the backside of the firearm...which has a high likelihood of engaging the grip safety.

Don't believe me? Unload your gun, put it on a very slippery surface (which still has friction) and try to push the trigger. It won't work, the gun will just slide...you'll just push it around by the trigger with no discharge happening.

Remember, I also said it's a matter of choice and glocks have never fit my hand right. Also, IMHO I believe the Springfield weapons and craft on par with glocks and present a very good value.

I didn't question any of that and generally agreed with it. I questioned only the safety comment. IMO the safety this and that and even safety colors is marketing BS. Nothing more.

Safety doesn't technically exist as that would require the absence of risk. Something can be more or less safe than something else, but strictly speaking nothing is 100% safe. Risk is a function of probability and consequences. A safety really only changes the probability. A grip safety strictly speaking adds a step to the process so it can be corrected argued (if restricted to that alone) that it is more safe than a firearm without it as there is a reduction in probability. However, IMHO it's a insignificant decrease. In fact a counter argument would be, since it makes the trigger group more complex the probability of failure has been increased more than the grip safety decreased the probability of accidental engagement, so it's actually less safe. On and on.

I'm going with Browning on this. It's (i.e. a grip safety) a silly idea dreamed up by a id10t in the military brass who thought they knew better than perhaps the greatest firearm designer the world has ever seen. Umm, not likely.

[ChicagoGuy]

From my point of view, the chances of TWO DIFFERENT "forces" applying pressure in DIFFERENT directions ay the same time and causing the weapon to fire are remote at best.

I don't think it's remote at all. Consider that in order for a force to be applied to the trigger which causes it to discharge the firearm, there must be an opposite and equal force applied the other way. That means that to even pull the trigger something must exert a force equal and opposite to the force trying to pull the trigger (thanks Newton). That could be friction (not likely). The most likely source is another object pushing on the backside of the firearm...which has a high likelihood of engaging the grip safety.

Don't believe me? Unload your gun, put it on a very slippery surface (which still has friction) and try to push the trigger. It won't work, the gun will just slide...you'll just push it around by the trigger with no discharge happening.

Remember, I also said it's a matter of choice and glocks have never fit my hand right. Also, IMHO I believe the Springfield weapons and craft on par with glocks and present a very good value.

I didn't question any of that and generally agreed with it. I questioned only the safety comment. IMO the safety this and that and even safety colors is marketing BS. Nothing more.

Safety doesn't technically exist as that would require the absence of risk. Something can be more or less safe than something else, but strictly speaking nothing is 100% safe. Risk is a function of probability and consequences. A safety really only changes the probability. A grip safety strictly speaking adds a step to the process so it can be corrected argued (if restricted to that alone) that it is more safe than a firearm without it as there is a reduction in probability. However, IMHO it's a insignificant decrease. In fact a counter argument would be, since it makes the trigger group more complex the probability of failure has been increased more than the grip safety decreased the probability of accidental engagement, so it's actually less safe. On and on.

I'm going with Browning on this. It's (i.e. a grip safety) a silly idea dreamed up by a id10t in the military brass who thought they knew better than perhaps the greatest firearm designer the world has ever seen. Umm, not likely.

Consider that in order for a force to be applied to the trigger which causes it to discharge the firearm, there must be an opposite and equal force applied the other way. That means that to even pull the trigger something must exert a force equal and opposite to the force trying to pull the trigger (thanks Newton). That could be friction (not likely). The most likely source is another object pushing on the backside of the firearm...which has a high likelihood of engaging the grip safety.



Are you suggesting this in a holstered weapon? That is where I disagree

[gunderwood]

Are you suggesting this in a holstered weapon? That is where I disagree

On a holstered firearm all the safeties become a mute point or at best secondary. It always requires two opposite forces to pull the trigger in all cases. Simple Newtonian physics.

E.g. the grip safety on a 1911 isn't doing anything on a holstered firearm where the trigger is inaccessible.