Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Told my nerd gang about it and they went nuts. All I heard was some pretty unwarranted Glock bashing and a lot Kimber plugging.
Didnt know there was so much hate for such a well-established gun company.

Pics later, after I get back from the range. Its nothing special anyway. Just a used model with some annoying texture on the grip and orange fiber optic front site. No case and only one magazine, but I can deal with it.

Congrats.

ShortMan wrote:Told my nerd gang about it and they went nuts. All I heard was some pretty unwarranted Glock bashing and a lot Kimber plugging.
Didnt know there was so much hate for such a well-established gun company.

Kimber is (was?) the new SIG which was the new Glock. A good gun at a good price so lots of people bought them...the popularity and bashing of everything else is more of a fad IMHO.

The Swiss Army Special Forces recently selected Glocks to replace their high-end SIGs:

http://www.ammoland.com/2011/05/03/swis ... ce-pistol/

Yeah thats nice but unfortunately it keeps opening up a tired old argument, that anything so cheap could be worth a damn. Remember the main reason the governments buy them is their price.
I keep trying to tell people that costs arent automatically an indicator of quality. Glock could just have a really well run business and thats how they make superior weapons at a reasonable price.
But then the BS starts about overall quality and precision and blah, blah, blah.

It gets annoying to have to prove over and over that they make guns reliable enough to trust my life on and it doesnt matter how pretty they are.

Most of these competitors in the below link could afford just about any pistol; yet, Glock is by far the most popular choice. These competitors also shoot more rounds in 6 months than most pistol owners will in a lifetime. Glocks just work very well. With their low bore axis and short positive reset, they make great fighting pistols that can be shot very rapidly and their accuracy is more than good enough. Glocks are ugly as hell though.

http://www.idpa.com/tj.asp?ID=290

Chasbo00 wrote:With their low bore axis and short positive reset, they make great fighting pistols that can be shot very rapidly and their accuracy is more than good enough. Glocks are ugly as hell though.

+1

Yup. Like them Dodge pickups. Tough. Dependable. And ugly as a mud fence.

ShortMan wrote:Yeah thats nice but unfortunately it keeps opening up a tired old argument, that anything so cheap could be worth a damn. I keep trying to tell people that costs arent automatically an indicator of quality. Glock could just have a really well run business and thats how they make superior weapons at a reasonable price.
But then the BS starts about overall quality and precision and blah, blah, blah.

Cost may be an indicator, but it is not the only one. The real question is, why does it cost so much or so little. For example, two different handgun designs, made with the same materials, process and quality can cost dramatically different. Modern designs put an emphasis on optimizing the design for manufacturability. It not only has to function, but it needs to be cheap and easy to manufacture given our materials and processes. IMHO, one of the reasons 1911s are so expensive is they predate that. They have many complex parts where you may need several parts, pins, etc. to accomplish what we realistically can now do in one. That adds lots of cost, but does not make it more reliable or of higher quality.

If you ever get a chance to look at 3D printing tech (I have and it's way coool!), its one of the issues they are addressing. 3D "printing" or more appropriately named, additive manufacturing, completely changes the rules on what and how you can build things. There are literally aerospace parts that are impractical or impossible to build any other way. I.e. you would never design a part that way without such manufacturing processes, but if you have them they can give you a tremendous advantage.

I could go on and on, but it isn't necessary because your friends are id10ts if that's what their telling you. Glocks are a utilitarian design that was intended to be simple, reliable and easily manufactured and it shows. IMHO, Glock should ship with better sights, triggers and guide rods as those are subpar IMHO, but Kimbers are hardly the gold standard of quality either. In the 1911 world, Kimbers are cheap POS that use MIM. Tell them to quit being cheap and buy a real gun like a high end Wilson Combat or Les Baer.

/sarcasm off

Have your friends ever designed or built anything in their lives? I suspect not.

Why does it have serial numbers on the barrel and slide?
Isn't the receiver legally the gun?
And what happens when I buy new slides and barrels?

ShortMan wrote:Why does it have serial numbers on the barrel and slide?
Isn't the receiver legally the gun?
And what happens when I buy new slides and barrels?

Glock's production process (assembly, tracking and warranty purposes) and customer desires (military, foreign nations & police) are probably the main reasons Glock serial numbers the slide and barrel the same as the frame. It also seems to be a European tradition.

Replacement frames slides and barrels have special serial numbers. The serial number consists of a single letter followed by 4 digits:
G#### for replacement frames
S#### for replacement slides
L#### for replacement barrels

The prefixes seem to fit with the German translation of the part they represent:
G = Griffstück (frame)
S = Schlitten (slide)
L = Lauf (barrel)

Here in the USA, the frame is legal key component of the gun. This is not necessarily true in other countries.

Slides and barrels are just machine parts here in the USA - no legal requirement to treat them any differently.

Short, ask your friends to stick their Kimber, sigs, berettas, wilson combat, us govt. models, ect... in the mud, then drop it in sand, followed by a two year nap in the back yard. Then dig it up, load it up and fire it over 10,000 times consecutively. This has been done with a glock, and you can find it on youtube. Glocks are a superior design. It's all preferrances about names, and imho, ignorance to argue any other way. I'd be willing to bet your buddies wont entertain the idea of the true firearms test! Show them the footage on youtube but be prepared its quite long because its uncut from the digup to the end firing. By the way, after the initial 10,000 rounds fired, the gun still remains active but they ran out of ammo.

Would you guys buy cheap magazines, just for the range?

http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/cb.aspx?a=511063

I already have one Glock magazine for carry, but do you think its acceptable to use knock-offs for practice only?

ShortMan wrote:Would you guys buy cheap magazines, just for the range?

http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/cb.aspx?a=511063

I already have one Glock magazine for carry, but do you think its acceptable to use knock-offs for practice only?

Personally? No. If you aren't practicing with what you carry, how do you know those mags work?

I use knock offs for practice and for competition if they have been reliable. If I am going to be practicing speed reloads, rather than tactical, I would rather have the cheap stuff hit the dirt.

I would still use your carry ones in practice a bit too. You need to test their reliability.

gunderwood wrote:

ShortMan wrote:Would you guys buy cheap magazines, just for the range?

http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/cb.aspx?a=511063

I already have one Glock magazine for carry, but do you think its acceptable to use knock-offs for practice only?

Personally? No. If you aren't practicing with what you carry, how do you know those mags work?

+1 Besides, if you only have 1 or 2 good mags you might one day find you need to carry more in an emergency...times like that is when you need your gear up to par...skimp on your ammo for the range and the extra cost for decent mags will be saved in the long run...

Stick to factory mags, if you shop around a bit you can find some pretty good values and not have to worry about some of the knock-off issues. I'm no one special (except to me:) but I have run well over half a million rounds through the some 50+/- Glock factory mags I own, without ever having any mag related issues. This in about a decade of Glock pistol usage.

The one time I used a friends knock-offs I did. Enough coincidence for me.
B2

First as stated prior your friend's are idiots.Are any of them Enginers, do any of them own or have fired a Glock.
I carried a Glock 17 as a duty weapon for many years along with the other 350 people in my department. We never had any problem's with them other then normal maint.they never needed anything. As a striker fired weapon it can't be beat and for the price any Police Department can equip with a quality weapon that would give many years of service without the worry of breakdown and anyone can fire it without any problems unless they don't know how to keep their finger off the trigger the same as with any other weapon.
My curent weapon is a Glock Model #22 in .40 Cal. and with Crimson Trace Laser Sight's that I added after I purchased it used from a Gun Dealer that deal's with Police Department's in N.J. It had been my daughters duty weapon when she first went on the Police Department and she carried it for 8 years. I have now had it for over a year and it has not soo much as burped with all the factory and handloads that I have put through it.
Yep! it is ugly, but it sure as hell work's right good.
Bill

SgtBill wrote: Yep! it [Glock] is ugly, but it sure as hell work's right good.
Bill

I agree Bill. Compared to some classic pistols, Glocks are just plain ugly. I suspect those who are really bothered by this view their pistols as toys rather than tools. When it comes to pistols, I favor function over form -- all mine are shooters and I shoot them a lot. No pretty safe queens for me!