Why are Glocks so popular? Make a non US citizen understand.

[flux]

Shooting a few rentals yesterday got me thinking. With all the options available, why are glocks so popular. Given the issues gen 4s had, and the availability of HK's, SIGs and S&W, why do people and even trainers like Frank Proctor, Larry VIckers, Dave Spaulding, Ken Hackathorn still seem to speak highly of Glocks? This is not some attempt to get fanboys to endorse glock, I'm trying to understand it from a different perspective as I am not in the states. Here I went glock simply due to support and availability. I mean, why would a guy there buy a G19 if he can get a P30?? What am I not understanding?

[WDW]

A. They're reliable
B. They're cheap
C. They're durable
D. Insanely easy to maintain
C. Aftermarket support is virtually limitless

[Joe in PNG]

There's a few reasons:
-Price: a Glock is about as cheap as you can go and still have acceptable reliability, performance, and accuracy
-Reliability: Glocks are still pretty much the gold standards for semi-auto reliability
-Service time: Glocks have been around since the late 80's. It took a while for most other makers to offer a similar striker-fired, polymer framed option
-Widespread adoption: a lot of professionals use them
-Ease of maintenance: Glocks are really simple, and really easy to work on
-Lots of aftermarket support: There's a lot of parts and accessories readily available in even the average gunshop

[ssb]

I blame rap music.

[okie john]

They land in the sweet spot of being good enough, cheap enough, accurate enough, etc. Plus there's a ton of aftermarket support.


Okie John

[JTQ]

A. They're reliable
B. They're cheap
C. They're durable
D. Insanely easy to maintain
C. Aftermarket support is virtually limitless
I've never owned a Glock, but this is my understanding as well.


flux wrote,
I mean, why would a guy there buy a G19 if he can get a P30?? What am I not understanding?

In this instance, here in the USA, one reason could be the G19 costs around $500 and the P30 costs around $1,000.

[BehindBlueI's]

All of the above plus aggressive marketing.

[GJM]

The #1 reason is because most people can shoot better with a Glock than a P30. All the other benefits are just icing on the cake.

[Tamara]

I have a Glock 19 because they don't actually sell such a thing as a generic "pistol, 9mm, 1 ea.".

[Glenn E. Meyer]

They work and I don't have the money to experiment with 5 other brands for minimal gains. Have they been trouble free, no. But my SW 1911 has failed as has a 442. Don't ask about the Taurus horrors of the 90's and early 2000's.

Gen4 17 fine. G42, - had to go back to them for a fix up. G26 no problems.

[Greg]

When I started a serious search for a CCW pistol in the mid 1990s, you could basically count on 2 pistols to work out of the box. Sig Sauers and Glocks.

That has changed and there are more options now, but people my age remember that.

For me, the fact that Glocks are ugly, corrosion resistant, dehorned and fairly inexpensive means I don't have to baby them. If you drop it on asphalt, it doesn't look any worse and that is a bonus.

[SMD]

Deleted because redundant.

[okie john]

I have a Glock 19 because they don't actually sell such a thing as a generic "pistol, 9mm, 1 ea.".

Yep. They sell something close to a workable pistol then let the individual shooter sort out the rest with aftermarket support.


Okie John

[IanS]

There's a saying "danger focuses the mind". What is the pistol most people vote for in the proverbial TEOTWAWKI? A 9mm Glock. We all like to indulge in firearms that gives us good vibes whether it's a 1911, a revolver, or a pricey German contraption. But push comes to shove what you need is a tool that you've come to depend on. Proven itself over and over without much fuss. That's a 9mm Glock for many of us.

There are days though when I reflect back before the Glock broke through and became as common as potato chips like the 80's the Glock pistol still holds a lot fascination for me. It is still an animal unlike anything else.

[Chance]

It's easy to treat Glocks like tools because of how "not special" they are. You have no desire to baby them. "Soulless plastic people poppers," as the saying goes.

[Handy]

Glock was the first product to sell the public on Condition Zero carry through clever marketing. They had that market to themselves pretty much until 1999 when the HS2000 came to the US, since the otherwise similar Sigma had a poor trigger pull. With a head start of 14 years, it became the default choice for pistols that required little training to control the trigger while appearing safer than a Condition 1 pistol.

The corrosion resistant parts and high (9mm) durability contributed to an aura of indestructibility. They were perceived to be extremely reliable, probably by people unused to firearms designed after 1975 and used to guns designed for FMJ, like the old S&W, BHP and 1911s.

Add to that the ability to alter the pistol significantly with no tools or mechanical aptitude and you have the ultimate hobby gun. And since it was alone in the market for so long, the concentration of aftermarket parts to feed that plug and play nature grew significantly.


Had Glock not so successfully convinced the general public that its safety was somehow different than other firearms, it would never have caught on to the degree it did. But after enough gunwriters presented the same internal safeties that most other modern guns had as unique to Glock, the die was cast.

[GJM]

As a guy who bought the 17 as soon as it was available, I kind of disagree. I think the reasons it was successful were:

1) it functioned reliably right out of the box, unlike our 1911 pistols

2) it had a shorter trigger than most other reliable alternatives, as Cooper convinced DA/SA sucked

3) it held a bunch of BB's

4) it was inexpensive

I don't think safety had anything to do with it.

[Handy]

As a guy who bought the 17 as soon as it was available, I kind of disagree. I think the reasons it was successful were:

1) it functioned reliably right out of the box, unlike our 1911 pistols

2) it had a shorter trigger than most other reliable alternatives, as Cooper convinced DA/SA sucked

3) it held a bunch of BB's

4) it was inexpensive

I don't think safety had anything to do with it.

#2 is about safety. Until the Glock, the entire world believed you either had a DA pull of 9 or more pounds, or a single action with a safety. Glock marketed a single action trigger pull weight as being the same safety level as a DA trigger. That was unprecedented and very successful.

[crossrifles]

Popular - because you can buy one for under 400 new and you can buy a hacked up one for upwards of 3 grand, user skill is optional.

That's not a bash on the gun, I like them. But I don't think any other maker has more people cutting holes and promising quicker slide velocities. Hook, line and sinker.

[Spurholder]

Back in the late 80's, I read Chuck Taylor's article about his Glock 17 and the torture test he gave it...will it go to 100,000 rounds fired?

The last update I saw (circa 2011) said that Chuck was still shooting the same gun, with a round count just shy of 300,000. Reliable function and reasonable accuracy, too.

ETA: Kelly McCann estimated that he's fired about 750,000 through his Glock 19.

[IanS]

What people say about Glocks can be applied to just about any polymer pistol. Even H&K's. They simply don't have a 'soul' for lack of a better than even a GP100 with a wooden grip insert. At the end of the day it's plastic. I don't buy the it's "cheap and it works" argument. Gun stores have shelves of cheap and it work plastic guns from almost every manufacturer. There's more to Glocks popularity than any one thing. Or maybe Glock still does cheap and it works better than anyone else.

[Hot Sauce]

Since everyone else has covered the other primary factors, here is another addition: The rise of popularity of concealed carry throughout the U.S., as the laws became friendlier, pushed the market toward a sweet-spot of pistols--ones big enough to shoot well and with mucho capacity, but small enough to conceal. The G19 is still the gold standard for size efficiency in this category, and many people lament it when a new pistol comes out that doesn't have a G19 equivalent variant.

[Greg]

Since everyone else has covered the other primary factors, here is another addition: The rise of popularity of concealed carry throughout the U.S., as the laws became friendlier, pushed the market toward a sweet-spot of pistols--ones big enough to shoot well and with mucho capacity, but small enough to conceal. The G19 is still the gold standard for size efficiency in this category, and many people lament it when a new pistol comes out that doesn't have a G19 equivalent variant.

Agreed. When I started looking for a DA/SA CCW pistol last year as my interest in AIWB carry grew, I compared everything I handled to the Glock 19 in terms of size/capacity/barrel length.

The other thing Glock does very well for CCW carriers is the gun is rounded like a bar of soap. You don't get stabbed in the side by sharp edges.

[JCS]

Back in the late 80's, I read Chuck Taylor's article about his Glock 17 and the torture test he gave it...will it go to 100,000 rounds fired?

The last update I saw (circa 2011) said that Chuck was still shooting the same gun, with a round count just shy of 300,000. Reliable function and reasonable accuracy, too.

ETA: Kelly McCann estimated that he's fired about 750,000 through his Glock 19.

Wow. I didn't realize there was one in the 750,000 range.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Robinson]

Glocks might not always be the best answer for everyone, but it seems they are a really good answer a high percentage of the time.

[GardoneVT]

Simplicity.

No levers, safeties, or buttons besides the magazine release. Trigger has all the soul and feel of a Swingline stapler, and is light enough that Cleetus' mother in law and a budget minded PD near you needs no trigger skill to operate it. Surprisingly a lot of people don't want to practice with their guns and care more about what the bill looks like then the pistol itself.

For that demographic, the Glock reigns supreme.

[Tamara]

Back in the late 80's, I read Chuck Taylor's article about his Glock 17 and the torture test he gave it...will it go to 100,000 rounds fired?

I ate up those articles back in the Nineties.

My own subsequent experience makes me...let's just call it skeptical...of his reported results.

[Willard]

I ate up those articles back in the Nineties.

My own subsequent experience makes me...let's just call it skeptical...of his reported results.

Some of the assertions on longevity do cause me to raise an eyebrow.

Besides the reasons listed, magazine and parts commonality from bigger to smaller platforms(except 42 & 43) is nice.

[Tamara]

Some of the assertions on longevity do cause me to raise an eyebrow.

That many rounds fired with no parts breakage, let alone a defective round from the manufacturer or a light strike on a hard primer? Color me extremely skeptical.

[Jeep]

I ate up those articles back in the Nineties.

My own subsequent experience makes me...let's just call it skeptical...of his reported results.

Well, every bell curve has its outliers. Of course, when results from very far down the tails of the curve are reported by gun writers as coming from their personal guns perhaps some skepticism is in order.

[Handy]

Another marketing thing that has been big for Glock was (erroneously) marketing that their guns have nearly half the parts of a Beretta. The simple is better for reliability theme speaks to a lot of people.

[Tamara]

Of course, when results from very far down the tails of the curve are reported by gun writers as coming from their personal guns perhaps some skepticism is in order.

Gun writers are a pack of filthy liars who never report the bad stuff, right?

[11B10]

Popular - because you can buy one for under 400 new and you can buy a hacked up one for upwards of 3 grand, user skill is optional.

That's not a bash on the gun, I like them. But I don't think any other maker has more people cutting holes and promising quicker slide velocities. Hook, line and sinker.

"Under $400 new?" Where?

[11B10]

Gun writers are a pack of filthy liars who never report the bad stuff, right?


Well, maybe not FILTHY.

[RJ]

I'll tell you the reason.

The Gold Room Lounge in Atlanta is the reason.

http://www.goldroomatlanta.com/

In days of old (the 80s) it was not unknown for uh, those affiliated with approving LEO purchases, shall we say, to be treated to entertainment at this posh suburban Atlanta night club.

Awkward grip angle, blocky construction, requirement to pull the trigger to field strip be damned. After experiencing Shenanigans at the Gold Room, contracts for the new Glock pistol were suddenly approved throughout the land.

Oh, and marketing.

Like Sharon Dillon.

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160611/70f13b094daca212468095076e05c01b.jpg

:cool:

PS This post is very tongue in cheek. :)

PPS if you haven't read Paul Barrett's "Glock: The Rise of America's Gun", it's an excellent book.

[Tamara]

I'll tell you the reason.

The Gold Room Lounge in Atlanta is the reason.

LOLZ.

Um, "The Gold Room Lounge" is not "The Gold Club", which has been dead and gone (http://www.ajc.com/news/business/gold-room-to-fill-spot-vacated-by-gold-club/nQYSG/) lo these fifteen years. ;)

[SteveB]

Back in the late 80's, I read Chuck Taylor's article about his Glock 17 and the torture test he gave it...will it go to 100,000 rounds fired?

The last update I saw (circa 2011) said that Chuck was still shooting the same gun, with a round count just shy of 300,000. Reliable function and reasonable accuracy, too.

I shot that gun in a class around 1995. Chuck was a self-professed 1911 guy who bought that Glock to prove to himself how much it sucked. Last time I saw him, he was carrying a G22.

[RJ]

LOLZ.

Um, "The Gold Room Lounge" is not "The Gold Club", which has been dead and gone (http://www.ajc.com/news/business/gold-room-to-fill-spot-vacated-by-gold-club/nQYSG/) lo these fifteen years. ;)

Ah, but same building, no? at Piedmont and Lindbergh in Buckhead. That current name is what I know it as (so to speak, of course :) ) hence the reference.

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160612/4c284d253e9cd470a8031489f14e347f.jpg

But, yes, you are correct, thanks for the clarification.

We used to live on Peachtree near 85/75. Last time I ate at the Chili's near that MAARTA station, they were doing a car wash in the Parking Lot. It was only later I realized I'd driven by such a piece of history. :cool:

[BehindBlueI's]

"Under $400 new?" Where?

If you qualify for blue label, lots of places. Non-night sight versions of most of the "standard" Glocks are a fuzz under $400.

https://us.glock.com/bluelabel

and price list:

http://www.srjco.com/glock.html

[11B10]

If you qualify for blue label, lots of places. Non-night sight versions of most of the "standard" Glocks are a fuzz under $400.

https://us.glock.com/bluelabel

and price list:

http://www.srjco.com/glock.html


BehindBlueL's, I apologize, I have a blue label FFL that sells Glocks for $389. I don't qualify and meant to add that fact. Now, I would really love a non-blue label source - does anyone know of such a dealer?

[Tamara]

Now, I would really love a non-blue label source - does anyone know of such a dealer?

You won't find one. Wholesale on a base commercial gun is $440 and has been for years and years. The Blue Label price reflects, among other things, no P-R excise tax.

[BehindBlueI's]

You won't find one. Wholesale on a base commercial gun is $440 and has been for years and years. The Blue Label price reflects, among other things, no P-R excise tax.

Weeeellll, you won't find one that's playing by the rules. Ye Olde Rumor Mill suggests that a certain southern Indiana dealer lost their Blue Label privileges for offering sub $400 Glocks to folks who didn't actually qualify for those sub $400 Glocks a few years back.

[11B10]

Weeeellll, you won't find one that's playing by the rules. Ye Olde Rumor Mill suggests that a certain southern Indiana dealer lost their Blue Label privileges for offering sub $400 Glocks to folks who didn't actually qualify for those sub $400 Glocks a few years back.


I wasn't gonna bring this up - BUT - ya see, I'm from Central Pa. and a certain nearby FFL recently got popped for doing the very same thing. These guys haven't lost their privileges - yet.

[Kennydale]

They go Boom every time I pull the trigger



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[johnson]

Weeeellll, you won't find one that's playing by the rules. Ye Olde Rumor Mill suggests that a certain southern Indiana dealer lost their Blue Label privileges for offering sub $400 Glocks to folks who didn't actually qualify for those sub $400 Glocks a few years back.

And a KS dealer was selling blue label guns as red and pocketing the difference. You can also join the GSSF and get a discount for closer to $400.

https://www.fbi.gov/kansascity/press-releases/2014/kansas-firearm-distributor-charged-with-paying-bribes-and-kickbacks-to-glock-executives

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/06/robert-farago/kc-gun-dealer-paid-1m-bribes-glock-ex-leo-guns/

http://www.gssfonline.com/gssf_pistol_purchase_program_information.pdf

[BillSWPA]

I will add two other reasons:

1). The overall width of their double stack guns is no more than many single stack guns.

2) They weigh less loaded than some other guns weigh empty.

[Jeep]

Gun writers are a pack of filthy liars who never report the bad stuff, right?

It's far, far worse than that. There are no depths to which they won't sink. For example, many of them will use "impact" as a verb (or worse, modify it to "impactful") and think that not only is the word "unique" required in an article but that it needs to be modified by an adverb. While not quite reaching the full depths of television news and sports reporters, a federal investigation is still clearly needed.

[spinmove_]

Pretty much what WDW originally stated. They're inexpensive, reliable, accurate enough, super easy to work on, super easy to get affordable replacement parts for, and the aftermarket support is virtually limitless. If an accessory is being made for a pistol, it's most likely also make for a Glock. Couple all of that with the proliferation of the things and it's hard to justify why you WOULDN'T go with a Glock. Obviously there are reasons, some of them good, but it's a simple and robust system that works, but works well, and is accessible to the vast majority of people out there.

From a purely practical standpoint, in the US particularly, I have a really hard time not recommending Glock as someone's first, only, and/or primary sidearm choice.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

It's far, far worse than that. There are no depths to which they won't sink. For example, many of them will use "impact" as a verb (or worse, modify it to "impactful") and think that not only is the word "unique" required in an article but that it needs to be modified by an adverb. While not quite reaching the full depths of television news and sports reporters, a federal investigation is still clearly needed.

"impact" was originally a verb, derived from the latin "impactus"

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/impactus

Usage as a verb is found in English in the 1700s (earlier than as a noun, incidentally); rejection of "impact" as a verb is a recent phenomenon.

I wouldn't modify "unique" with much (except perhaps "truly" to denote when something actually is unique) but this trend to modify final and ultimate adjectives is nothing new...if you've ever modified "dry" with anything, you would have shocked the Victorians, for whom something was either "dry" or "in a state less than totally dry". Very dry, unusually dry, etc: NO. Dry itself was final.

So remember (also something my grandparents would have hated: the pointless use of the conjunction "so" at the beginning of a sentence, which was the "like" of their generation) that most people live in a constant state of violation of previous rules of language, which often conflict directly with previous rules for that same language.

[Drang]

So remember (also something my grandparents would have hated: the pointless use of the conjunction "so" at the beginning of a sentence, which was the "like" of their generation) that most people live in a constant state of violation of previous rules of language, which often conflict directly with previous rules for that same language.

I'm going to make one of those fake Facebook feeds in which French and Spanish are texting back and forth, complaining abut English slipping them a roofie and going through their pockets for spare words...

[Handy]

Pretty much what WDW originally stated. They're inexpensive, reliable, accurate enough, super easy to work on, super easy to get affordable replacement parts for, and the aftermarket support is virtually limitless. If an accessory is being made for a pistol, it's most likely also make for a Glock. Couple all of that with the proliferation of the things and it's hard to justify why you WOULDN'T go with a Glock. Obviously there are reasons, some of them good, but it's a simple and robust system that works, but works well, and is accessible to the vast majority of people out there.

From a purely practical standpoint, in the US particularly, I have a really hard time not recommending Glock as someone's first, only, and/or primary sidearm choice.

I've really never understood this view. It doesn't take an army of aftermarket parts suppliers to get a first tier gun running and keep it that way. Good guns work out the box and require maybe $40 worth of springs to go 50,000 rounds. Even if someone chose a "poorly supported" Walther, you can buy the springs, mags and Trij night sights you need to maintain it.

I get that something like a Caracal or Grand Power are a problem, but HK, Walther, Beretta, Ruger, Sig, XD and FN all have replacement parts and night sights available.

[LittleLebowski]

All of the above plus aggressive marketing.

Who's your favorite gangster rapper? :D

[SLG]

"impact" was originally a verb, derived from the latin "impactus"

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/impactus

Usage as a verb is found in English in the 1700s (earlier than as a noun, incidentally); rejection of "impact" as a verb is a recent phenomenon.

I wouldn't modify "unique" with much (except perhaps "truly" to denote when something actually is unique) but this trend to modify final and ultimate adjectives is nothing new...if you've ever modified "dry" with anything, you would have shocked the Victorians, for whom something was either "dry" or "in a state less than totally dry". Very dry, unusually dry, etc: NO. Dry itself was final.

So remember (also something my grandparents would have hated: the pointless use of the conjunction "so" at the beginning of a sentence, which was the "like" of their generation) that most people live in a constant state of violation of previous rules of language, which often conflict directly with previous rules for that same language.

You like words.

[SLG]

In addition to all the good reasons listed, Glocks are popular because the early press talked about how cops and females shot them better than anything else. Then agencies started adopting them. Then the big agencies did. Then the small military units did. It was too much for a poor confused gun snob to handle, so Joe citizen went out and bought them too.

[Handy]

In addition to all the good reasons listed, Glocks are popular because the early press talked about how cops and females shot them better than anything else. Then agencies started adopting them. Then the big agencies did. Then the small military units did. It was too much for a poor confused gun snob to handle, so Joe citizen went out and bought them too.

I recall Glock being huge with civilians long before the FBI or any US military units bought any. The only thing I recall from the early '90s was some F-16 squadrons buying them for survival kits - but the many aviation groups in first Gulf War didn't have enough pistols, so Marines and sailors were bringing their own.

When I went to OCS in 1996 the SEAL in my class said that they didn't like them (at that time) because the trigger was too light for all the gear they have sticking out all over.


Historically, it seems like Glock's sales successes have come from PDs and private citizens before many military or large agency sales (NYPD being an exception).



Different from Beretta, who had a lot of military sales that lead into PD and civilian sales.

[Padwan]

The Gen 2 Glock was the first pistol I bought new for myself. The biggest driver for me was price and parts availability. The HK USP just launched at the time and my local dealer was selling the HKs for just a little more money than the Glock. The deal breaker was they had no spare magazines in stock and HK Germany couldn't give them a timeline on delivery. Holsters were another issue.

The Caracal pistols fit me better and I was able to shoot better with the F version that I briefly had. The lack of parts and holsters plus the recall notices made me ditch that gun after less than a year of ownership. Looking back, I should have just gotten a Gen 3 G17 and simplified my life (and parts box.)

[Chance]

I've really never understood this view. It doesn't take an army of aftermarket parts suppliers to get a first tier gun running and keep it that way. Good guns work out the box and require maybe $40 worth of springs to go 50,000 rounds. Even if someone chose a "poorly supported" Walther, you can buy the springs, mags and Trij night sights you need to maintain it.

I get that something like a Caracal or Grand Power are a problem, but HK, Walther, Beretta, Ruger, Sig, XD and FN all have replacement parts and night sights available.

That's true, but aftermarket lends itself to hobbyists very well. Who here hasn't swapped sights more than twice?

[Jeep]

"impact" was originally a verb, derived from the latin "impactus"

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/impactus

Usage as a verb is found in English in the 1700s (earlier than as a noun, incidentally); rejection of "impact" as a verb is a recent phenomenon.

I wouldn't modify "unique" with much (except perhaps "truly" to denote when something actually is unique) but this trend to modify final and ultimate adjectives is nothing new...if you've ever modified "dry" with anything, you would have shocked the Victorians, for whom something was either "dry" or "in a state less than totally dry". Very dry, unusually dry, etc: NO. Dry itself was final.

So remember (also something my grandparents would have hated: the pointless use of the conjunction "so" at the beginning of a sentence, which was the "like" of their generation) that most people live in a constant state of violation of previous rules of language, which often conflict directly with previous rules for that same language.

So . . . I think that really uniquely impactful comment wins the Internet for the day! I'm still calling for a Congressional investigation, though.

[EVP]

Having access to replacement parts is of course good but I think it is vastly over emphasized and presume it is just mentioned without any thought anymore because everyone just says it.

[BillSWPA]

Since everyone else has covered the other primary factors, here is another addition: The rise of popularity of concealed carry throughout the U.S., as the laws became friendlier, pushed the market toward a sweet-spot of pistols--ones big enough to shoot well and with mucho capacity, but small enough to conceal. The G19 is still the gold standard for size efficiency in this category, and many people lament it when a new pistol comes out that doesn't have a G19 equivalent variant.

I think this point deserves additional comment.! I have seen numerous examples of gum makers offering "compact" versions of their full size gun that are nothing more than a shorter barrel on the same grip frame. Failing to shorten the grip frame reveals some serious ignorance of what makes a good concealed carry gun. As the quoted post points out, Glock got this one right.

[rob_s]

availability of HK's, SIGs and S&W, ...
I mean, why would a guy there buy a G19 if he can get a P30??

I are confuse.

These guns are better than Glocks in some way?

[DocSabo40]

I are confuse.

These guns are better than Glocks in some way?

Well I mean, there isn't a sticky'd 7 page thread on how to fix your new HK :D

[spinmove_]

Well I mean, there isn't a sticky'd 7 page thread on how to fix your new HK :D

Eh, a little BTF never hurt anyone. Keeps you on your toes and trains you to shoot good with random distractions. It's not a bug, it's a feature!

[Kennydale]

Just Watch This Torture Test
If I had to stand at the GATES OF HELL, I'd want a Glock at my side !


https://youtu.be/ub4OswUhLwo

[GJM]

Well I mean, there isn't a sticky'd 7 page thread on how to fix your new HK :D

And there should be a 70 page thread on how to shoot your LEM trigger.

[spinmove_]

And there should be a 70 page thread on how to shoot your LEM trigger.

At least Glocks generally have one trigger press. If you're an HK guy you practically have a Baskin Robin's spread of options on just how your trigger/safety combination works.

[Splat!]

A few months ago I wanted a 10mm pistol so I went to my local range and they have only one, a Glock G29 Gen 4 with three 10 round mags. I wasn't familiar with Glock and certainly heard stories about them, good and bad. I wanted a full size but when I saw this G29 I thought concealable beast. Handling it I noticed the top end is heavy. Thick slide, thick chamber and barrel. Built like a tank. Surprisingly easy trigger too.

I bought it and they gave me a chit for a free session at the range. The first thing I did was to order the pinky extensions and a G20 15 round mag from the Glock Store. Then I bought a box of Sig Elite 10mm 180 FMJ from Academy and headed to the range for my free session.

Love that beast. :D

Later I bought a Lone Wolf 40sw barrel and a new rear 6.1 mm sight for it.

[Spurholder]

I ate up those articles back in the Nineties.

My own subsequent experience makes me...let's just call it skeptical...of his reported results.

I get that; however, there's a G17 in Austria (owned by Hirtenberger?) that went at least 350,000. My understanding is that it was a test gun that went all Energizer Bunny.

[Tamara]

I get that; however, there's a G17 in Austria (owned by Hirtenberger?) that went at least 350,000. My understanding is that it was a test gun that went all Energizer Bunny.

Were parts replaced according to schedule? Were there any parts breakages? And I'm assuming that they aren't claiming (like some gun writers) that they made it through hundreds of cases of ammo without a single out of spec case or a sideways primer or underloaded round.

[rob_s]

Well I mean, there isn't a sticky'd 7 page thread on how to fix your new HK :D

Maybe if anyone was actually buying and shooting HKs there would be.

[JonInWA]

Glocks are reliable, rugged, durable, reasonably inexpensive, weather impervious, easily available, and with concurrently easily available aftermarket support and components. Magazines are easily available and durable. Not only are they easily field-stripped, they are also incredibly easy to detail dis-assemble and reassemble, and replace/swap components.

The arguable "best of the batch" Glocks are the G17 and G19-which neatly coincide with 9mm cartridge advances as being pretty much the gold standard gun/cartridge platform for a huge spectrum of pistol uses-both defensive and recreational.

I have, and appreciate, other platforms, such as HK, SIG, Colt, Ruger, FN, 1911 and others. None really shoot significantly appreciably better than the Glocks, none are more weather impervious, none are as simple, none are as easily detail disassembled/reassembled, and none are as simple (conceptually, component-wise and operationally).

Glocks certainly aren't perfect, But they're very, very good. And well fielded and proven over time, by some very credible users (both individuals and organizational). And well priced. That's a pretty dynamic, and convincing position that they hold.

Best, Jon

[breakingtime91]

I love the elitist attitudes people are putting toward glocks. It's a cheap gun that works (after some fixes), it's easy to work on, and began a trend towards 5.5 pound triggers with no visual feed back on said trigger press or a safety. Stop building it up to be something it isn't. I like glocks but seriously contending that it's leagues better then others is a stretch.

[breakingtime91]

Maybe if anyone was actually buying and shooting HKs there would be.

todds p30 test comes to mind.

[Hot Sauce]

The arguable "best of the batch" Glocks are the G17 and G19-which neatly coincide with 9mm cartridge advances as being pretty much the gold standard gun/cartridge platform for a huge spectrum of pistol uses-both defensive and recreational.

This is a great point.

[Hot Sauce]

Having access to replacement parts is of course good but I think it is vastly over emphasized and presume it is just mentioned without any thought anymore because everyone just says it.

I think it's probably because authority figures who actually shoot high round counts emphasize it. Perhaps that rubs off on average joes.

[NCmtnman]

And there should be a 70 page thread on how to shoot your LEM trigger.

As you know, just pull the trigger and don't flinch. It's like a two stage AR trigger but for some reason, myself and countless others try to dissect it like the LEM is a verse in the Bible.

[EVP]

I think it's probably because authority figures who actually shoot high round counts emphasize it. Perhaps that rubs off on average joes.

Hmm I don't get it.

Most quality modern polymer semi autos can go 5-10k rounds without any parts swaps. Change the recoil spring and any other springs according to the manufactures recommendations and that's it. I also think you can get springs or parts to any quality modern polymer pistol relatively easy. If you are shooting high round counts you probably have a backup or extra gun, but that is going on a tangent.

I think people just like the idea and ability to tinker with their glocks.

[spinmove_]

Hmm I don't get it.

Most quality modern polymer semi autos can go 5-10k rounds without any parts swaps. Change the recoil spring and any other springs according to the manufactures recommendations and that's it. I also think you can get springs or parts to any quality modern polymer pistol relatively easy. If you are shooting high round counts you probably have a backup or extra gun, but that is going on a tangent.

I think people just like the idea and ability to tinker with their glocks.

I think, generally speaking, you can get replacement parts to just about any modern semi-auto. Sometimes, it can be tricky though as I've heard some HK and Sig owners complain (something about VP9 spare parts availability or P320 replacement parts availability). Sure, your parts should be able to make it through to their regularly scheduled maintenance intervals, but sometimes shit happens and you have to replace a part sooner than expected. Being able to source that part on demand when you need it and weren't expecting to replace it just yet is definitely a nice feature. It's not a deal maker or breaker, but it's definitely a tick in the positive column.

[pew_pew]

Why wouldn't Glocks be extremely popular? They are simple, accurate, light, good capacity for the size. Parts, holsters, and aftermarket are everywhere.

Top that all off with the ergos being fantastic. People will argue this but here's why; the "more aggressive" grip angle puts your hands and wrists in a much better position to handle recoil and stay more solid while pressing the trigger. It also allows for a lower bore and the hump keeps your hand high up on the beavertail. The square grip allows for even pressure on the front-back and sides. Rounded grips feel comfortable when you are playing with guns in the store or dry firing or whatever but they also have a tendency to twist under recoil or while breaking off a shot. It's really minor stuff that comes with being used to whatever you shoot. But I think there's a reason glocks are so popular among big name trainers and all that.

[Handy]

I think, generally speaking, you can get replacement parts to just about any modern semi-auto. Sometimes, it can be tricky though as I've heard some HK and Sig owners complain (something about VP9 spare parts availability or P320 replacement parts availability). Sure, your parts should be able to make it through to their regularly scheduled maintenance intervals, but sometimes shit happens and you have to replace a part sooner than expected. Being able to source that part on demand when you need it and weren't expecting to replace it just yet is definitely a nice feature. It's not a deal maker or breaker, but it's definitely a tick in the positive column.

All the spare parts you should likely ever need should cost $40 at most. If someone is serious about this stuff, why wouldn't they have a baggie with all of them already?

[Spurholder]

Were parts replaced according to schedule? Were there any parts breakages? And I'm assuming that they aren't claiming (like some gun writers) that they made it through hundreds of cases of ammo without a single out of spec case or a sideways primer or underloaded round.

Beats me - I read about this gun in one of the Glock annuals from years ago (probably the late 1990's), but here's a link with photos of the gun. Yeah - Glocktalk's not my favorite spot for detailed information, either - but that's all I can find right now:

http://www.glocktalk.com/threads/just-a-regular-glock.1482827/print

Maybe it's just me - but ammo used to be a lot higher in quality back in the day.

[EVP]

All the spare parts you should likely ever need should cost $40 at most. If someone is serious about this stuff, why wouldn't they have a baggie with all of them already?

Agree!

If you are shooting a high volume and are serious you would have springs and any spare replacement part on hand which can be sourced with a little thought and looking.

Speaking on the vp9, there are a few places that you can get whatever spare parts and springs you need.


IMO I think the need to have easily accessible spare parts is a little over exaggerated.

[breakingtime91]

hk owners= hk direct or hk parts. All you need guys. If holsters are a concern, JM and many others can accommodate your needs. *que rob s special snowflake comments*

[Joe in PNG]

I have finally went ahead and done what I should have done years ago- bought a Glock 19 to be my EDC.

[breakingtime91]

hk owners= hk direct or hk parts. All you need guys. If holsters are a concern, JM and many others can accommodate your needs. *que rob s special snowflake comments*

with all joking/piss match stuff aside, I have been heavily debating going back to glock 19s and spare parts with the current climate. Another reason is I really want a red dot on my pistol now.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

Who's your favorite gangster rapper? :D

OMG totally Billy Danze of M.O.P.

I was driving around the other day listening to the 1996 album "Firing Squad" and it's so over-the-top devoted to advocating violent crime it's pure self-parody. They don't even talk about dealing drugs like other gangster rap; it's mostly just advocating shooting each other. And there's a LOT of voiced sound effects for shooting, like "bluk bluk bluk". Made all the more hilarious by the complete lack of self-awareness as they complain about all the "fake-ass Gs" that are not actually committing the crimes they rap about...followed by lush descriptions of extended shootouts with police as their building gets surrounded. Actual lyric: "blucka blucka blu-blucka blu-blucka blucka blau."

Depending on your sense of humour, HIGHLY recommended.

[SLG]

To agree with some comments made, specifically some that BT91 made, I think pretty much every pistol mentioned here is better than a Glock. Doesn't make the Glock bad, just not as good.

Of course, if you don't shoot at a reasonably high level, or at all as the case may be, then you wouldn't have any clue that one was actually, measurable better than another. Better go find a chart or something so you can keep them straight.

[spinmove_]

Agree!

If you are shooting a high volume and are serious you would have springs and any spare replacement part on hand which can be sourced with a little thought and looking.

Speaking on the vp9, there are a few places that you can get whatever spare parts and springs you need.


IMO I think the need to have easily accessible spare parts is a little over exaggerated.

I agree that someone who is serious about such things should have spare parts on hand. And I also agree that parts availability is probably a little overblown. And I also agree that with a little "can-do" and searching, you can find just about every part that you would ever want available to you.

But not everyone is serious about such things, not everyone knows parts availability is overblown, and not everyone has the "can-do" and know how on where to source all these parts. Yes, this is PF, but not everyone is on PF. The people outside this comfy little sphere of yours, its big and full of ??? to the point of silliness.

All I'm saying is that while, yeah, it's not that big of a deal to people who know, it definitely doesn't hurt to have that kind of availability and helps the people who don't know.

[TiroFijo]

To agree with some comments made, specifically some that BT91 made, I think pretty much every pistol mentioned here is better than a Glock. Doesn't make the Glock bad, just not as good.

Of course, if you don't shoot at a reasonably high level, or at all as the case may be, then you wouldn't have any clue that one was actually, measurable better than another. Better go find a chart or something so you can keep them straight.

I'm not a US citizen, and certainly no glock rabid fan, but to me is not difficult to understand why glocks are so popular. It would be difficult to understand if they were not.

"Better" is a debatable term when it comes to guns. The HK VP9 has 63 parts, the Gen 3 G17 has 33. The engineer in me tells me someone went the German way of "why make it simple if we can make complicated". Who really needs replaceable side panes for the grip, or add-on flaps to help rack the slide? The PV9 may be more accurate, but 99% of users won't ever notice it, and 99.9% of users won't notice when the gun is used outside the range.

For a defensive/service pistol, there is only so much you can do better than a glock, and tiny incremental improvements (if so) are heavily outweighed by the low price, super easy serviceability, and availability of guns, mags, holsters and parts everywhere.

If you don't like the "safe action" trigger, obviously go to something else.

Obligatory picture of the fabled Gen 1 G17 used in the Hirtenberger Factory (BTW, they load the 9 mm hot), 342,210 shots and still running:

http://www.cybershooters.org/IWA2000/Glock17.JPG

I would not bet all G17 would last this much, but they are very durable in 9 mm.

[Handy]

I'm not a US citizen, and certainly no glock rabid fan, but to me is not difficult to understand why glocks are so popular. It would be difficult to understand if they were not.

"Better" is a debatable term when it comes to guns. The HK VP9 has 63 parts, the Gen 3 G17 has 33. The engineer in me tells me someone went the German way of "why make it simple if we can make complicated". Who really needs replaceable side panes for the grip, or add-on flaps to help rack the slide? The PV9 may be more accurate, but 99% of users won't ever notice it, and 99.9% of users won't notice when the gun is used outside the range.

For a defensive/service pistol, there is only so much you can do better than a glock, and tiny incremental improvements (if so) are heavily outweighed by the low price, super easy serviceability, and availability of guns, mags, holsters and parts everywhere.

If you don't like the "safe action" trigger, obviously go to something else.

Obligatory picture of the fabled Gen 1 G17 used in the Hirtenberger Factory (BTW, they load the 9 mm hot), 342,210 shots and still running:

http://www.cybershooters.org/IWA2000/Glock17.JPG

I would not bet all G17 would last this much, but they are very durable in 9 mm.

Glocks don't have 33 parts. They have 34 part numbers, but the actual number of separate parts used to assemble a Glock at the factory is about 42 for a Gen 2 and 47 for a Gen 4. The trigger assembly alone accounts for 5 total parts.

This is just another example of how Glock has successfully marketed a false representation of its simplicity and safety to the public. The popular comparison was to the Beretta 92, which has 63 parts. But if you make an apples to apples comparison with a 92D it drops to 55 parts - and 10 of those parts are just grips and grip hardware.

Not counting the grips, it is reasonable to say that a Gen 4 Glock is more complicated than a Beretta 92D.

[breakingtime91]

Handy, you nailed it. Decent guns but no where near where most lift them up to.

[psalms144.1]

It's all been said before, but, in case it hasn't hit home yet, Glocks are cheap. Cheap to produce, cheap to sell. That, in and of itself, would make them the darling of US LE. Add in the fact that, pre-2010 they were boringly reliable in 9mm, are easy to maintain (armorer training is a joke, and, frankly, a waste of money), and they're as accurate as 90+% of the people who'll ever shoot one, and you have the rest of the story.

I have a love/hate with Glock, especially after the Gen4 introduction fiasco, and I have significant heartburn with the way they've responded to some agencies who have openly questioned their perfection. I personally feel they've also "jumped the shark" when it comes to making their end users into beta-testers.

I also shoot SIGNIFICANTLY better with the VP9 I shot for the first time last week (compared to the G19s I've shot more that 100,000 combined rounds through over the last couple of decades), so there are, IMHO, "better" options out there from other similar platforms from a pure "shootability" perspective. Hell, I shot my new HK45C with its horrible, heavy, crunchy, hitchy DA trigger better in qualification yesterday than my Gen4 G19 - and those were the first 60 rounds I put through it.

YMMV, of course, and if Glock does it for you, more power to you. I've reached the age where I can't be bothered championing or defending any platform or manufacturer...

[Handy]

Glocks don't appear to be cheaper to buy at retail than a VP9 or PPQ. They were in the '80s, but the price/profit of Glocks have climbed until they are pretty much like any 1st Tier polymer striker gun.

Rugers and Sigmas are cheap.

[psalms144.1]

Glocks don't appear to be cheaper to buy at retail than a VP9 or PPQ. They were in the '80s, but the price/profit of Glocks have climbed until they are pretty much like any 1st Tier polymer striker gun.

Rugers and Sigmas are cheap.I was largely referring to agency and individual officer sales. Glock is still the most afforable, though S&W has dropped the M&P price to match Glock, and Sig's P320 is darned close to it. The VP9 is still quite a bit spendier - close to $200 or 50% more

[spinmove_]

I was largely referring to agency and individual officer sales. Glock is still the most afforable, though S&W has dropped the M&P price to match Glock, and Sig's P320 is darned close to it. The VP9 is still quite a bit spendier - close to $200 or 50% more

I have to agree with Psalms' findings. Glocks aren't the best at anything, no doubt about that. But they're good enough in every area that matters and priced accordingly which makes them a compelling option. Glocks aren't your thing? Cool, I get it and there's nothing wrong with that. We live in a great time where you don't have just one option that's good. Find what works for you and train/practice.

[Handy]

I was largely referring to agency and individual officer sales. Glock is still the most afforable, though S&W has dropped the M&P price to match Glock, and Sig's P320 is darned close to it. The VP9 is still quite a bit spendier - close to $200 or 50% more

Well, that's great for cops and all, but the majority of all of these guns are purchased by consumers at retail prices. I don't know if it makes sense to refer to a discount availabe to a tiny minority of buyers - buyers who can only buy certain guns under department guidelines in the first place.

For 95% (? 99%?) of pistol buyers, Glocks are just as spendy as their German counterparts.

[EVP]

Psalms144

I hope you write a post about your experience and findings with the vp9 after you have given it some time.

[GardoneVT]

Well, that's great for cops and all, but the majority of all of these guns are purchased by consumers at retail prices. I don't know if it makes sense to refer to a discount availabe to a tiny minority of buyers - buyers who can only buy certain guns under department guidelines in the first place.

For 95% (? 99%?) of pistol buyers, Glocks are just as spendy as their German counterparts.

But the German counterparts aren't used by Small Town PD.

It is ironic that while most Average Joes and Janes buy Glocks because LE use them and thus they "must be good" (or The Gunslinger Sheriff Deputies wouldn't use them, right?) , the LE agencies buy them because they're the lowest quality bidder for a tool they can fill their employees' holsters .

[TiroFijo]

Glocks don't have 33 parts. They have 34 part numbers, but the actual number of separate parts used to assemble a Glock at the factory is about 42 for a Gen 2 and 47 for a Gen 4. The trigger assembly alone accounts for 5 total parts.

This is just another example of how Glock has successfully marketed a false representation of its simplicity and safety to the public. The popular comparison was to the Beretta 92, which has 63 parts. But if you make an apples to apples comparison with a 92D it drops to 55 parts - and 10 of those parts are just grips and grip hardware.

Not counting the grips, it is reasonable to say that a Gen 4 Glock is more complicated than a Beretta 92D.

Anybody that says that a beretta is less complicated than a glock has never done a complete disassembly the beretta. For the safety lever you need three hands, a lot of light, and good luck to no loose the micro parts.

The comparison of the HK and glock is still valid, since 42 is 2/3 of 63.

Anyone that works on his own guns will quickly realize how simple are the glocks to detail strip and reassemble.

But hey, just keep piling up on why "cheap" is the only reason glocks sell so well, in spite of much "superior" offerings.

[Handy]

But the German counterparts aren't used by Small Town PD.

It is ironic that while most Average Joes and Janes buy Glocks because LE use them and thus they "must be good" (or The Gunslinger Sheriff Deputies wouldn't use them, right?) , the LE agencies buy them because they're the lowest quality bidder for a tool they can fill their employees' holsters .

That's assuming that Glock isn't discounting LE sales so much BECAUSE of the marketing value of filling PD holsters. If you could sell a million guns by selling 10,000 at cost, wouldn't you?

A lot of 92 pistols were sold because of the M9. Local PDs are just a grass roots version of winning the service pistol award.

[Handy]

Anybody that says that a beretta is less complicated than a glock has never done a complete disassembly the beretta. For the safety lever you need three hands, a lot of light, and good luck to no loose the micro parts.

The comparison of the HK and glock is still valid, since 42 is 2/3 of 63.

Anyone that works on his own guns will quickly realize how simple are the glocks to detail strip and reassemble.

But hey, just keep piling up on why "cheap" is the only reason glocks sell so well, in spite of much "superior" offerings.

Easy to work on isn't the same as less likely to break. A Beretta mag release button has four parts, a Glock two. Is a Beretta mag release twice as likely to break? (Nope.)

And I don't know why you keep comparing a DA/SA gun with a decocker/safety to a Glock. As I pointed out, a Glock is more comparable to a DAO 92D, which has 55 parts.


The reality is that both guns work very, very well. I have taken both apart, and Glocks definitely can be worked on easier, but neither is that difficult. I don't know if it is actually a good thing that someone with the mechanical skills of a kindergartner can feel comfortable doing a trigger job. But replacing the mainspring in a Beretta is actually easier than replacing trigger parts in a Glock.


I don't hate Glocks at all, but your posts just indicate the kind of deceptive marketing that made Glock into the giant it is. They can be good pistols for real reasons, not just ad copy and specious arguments about engineering philosophies.

[SteveK]

Because Smith & Wesson discontinued the 645.

[Mr_White]

I think other people have covered many of the reasons for Glocks' larger popularity well. Speaking only for myself - shooting a Glock isn't about the Glock, it's about the shooting. The Glock does a fantastic job of being simple, invisible, getting out of my way to let the shooting just be about the shooting.

[TiroFijo]

I don't hate Glocks at all, but your posts just indicate the kind of deceptive marketing that made Glock into the giant it is. They can be good pistols for real reasons, not just ad copy and specious arguments about engineering philosophies.

"Deceptive marketing" is what EVERY single maker I know uses, be it guns, cars, or toophpaste ;)

If you think that a beretta 92D is prettier, simpler to maintain, stronger, more durable, lighter, more compact, holds more rounds and is more accurate and user friendly than a G17, then be it.
I don't agree, and it has nothing to do with marketing or not being familiar or knowledgeable enough about the tid bits of both guns.

[Clay]

Col. Cooper always said that you should be checked out on your country's basic small arms. To me that means both the Glock and the Beretta M9. If you don't have both, you should. 😃

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk

[Handy]

"Deceptive marketing" is what EVERY single maker I know uses, be it guns, cars, or toophpaste ;)

If you think that a beretta 92D is prettier, simpler to maintain, stronger, more durable, lighter, more compact, holds more rounds and is more accurate and user friendly than a G17, then be it.
I don't agree, and it has nothing to do with marketing or not being familiar or knowledgeable enough about the tid bits of both guns.

I used it as an example, nothing more. Pic any gun you'd like to use as an example and all the same accounting applies. If you want to count parts, count all the parts. If you want to say something breaks more because it is more complex, demonstrate the connection.

At this point I would buy something like a PPQ because it is more user friendly, compact and accurate than a Glock. And I wouldn't worry that it was likely to break because the whole gun isn't held together by wedging steel parts into undersized plastic holes - even if that works okay on a Glock.

[JonInWA]

Glocks don't have 33 parts. They have 34 part numbers, but the actual number of separate parts used to assemble a Glock at the factory is about 42 for a Gen 2 and 47 for a Gen 4. The trigger assembly alone accounts for 5 total parts.

This is just another example of how Glock has successfully marketed a false representation of its simplicity and safety to the public. The popular comparison was to the Beretta 92, which has 63 parts. But if you make an apples to apples comparison with a 92D it drops to 55 parts - and 10 of those parts are just grips and grip hardware.

Not counting the grips, it is reasonable to say that a Gen 4 Glock is more complicated than a Beretta 92D.

Ummm, not so sure I buy off on your analysis conclusions-and I own and heavily use both Glock and Beretta 92 platforms (and my 92 IS a 92D). While I agree with your parts breakout, some Glock parts are put into component assemblys, which are not intended to be disassembled, and are sold as a group, not as individual sub-components-the triggerbar assembly is a great example, as is a Glock recoil spring assembly.

However, Glocks are in an entirely different universe when it comes to ease of disassembly, reassembly and parts replacement/substitution. While most Beretta parts are indeed plug and play, there are some (notably a replacement locking block) that needs to be fitted to the gun to achieve optimal wear/lifespan, and several components require re-staking.

Design-wise (and action operability-wise) I consider a Glock to be simpler than a Beretta 92-even a simpler 92D.

The Beretta is an exceptionally reliable gun, however, even with its increased parts count. It will require more lubrication, and more consistent application of lubrication, and has more lubrication points. It also requires more time and a slightly higher skill- (and tool-) set to detail disassemble and reassemble. And it's finish is less weather impervious that that of a Glock.

Best, Jon

[JonInWA]

To agree with some comments made, specifically some that BT91 made, I think pretty much every pistol mentioned here is better than a Glock. Doesn't make the Glock bad, just not as good.

Of course, if you don't shoot at a reasonably high level, or at all as the case may be, then you wouldn't have any clue that one was actually, measurable better than another. Better go find a chart or something so you can keep them straight.

SLG, from a component-by-component and absolute accuracy standpoint, I agree with you-for example, I consider HKs individual component quality, and individual gun accuracy to be higher than that of Glock's. However, from a practical standpoint, I consider it to be a bit moot, at least for most users-Glock individual component quality and accuracy are more than acceptably decent throughout their forecasted lifespan (which, especially in 9mm chamberings, is likely to be quite long-likely in excess of 40K rounds is my understanding (with scheduled parts replacement intervals adhered to). And again, Glocks are far, far easier and quicker to perform a detailed disassembly/reassembly-which I suspect may be a major factor mitigating against their adaptation by LEOs when armorer time requirements for servicing and periodic inspections/certifications are a quantifiable resource commodity with agency budgeting requirements and constraints.

In simple terms, while an HK (for example) may well be a superior weapon in an individual comparison, a Glock is likely to be more than good enough. And when you need to factor in the gun's use in a larger/organizational perspective (incorporating other or over-arching organizational {or individual user's} criteria), a Glock might actually become the superior choice.

Best, Jon

[SLG]

All of the below assumes a reasonably skilled person.

There is better, and then there is better for you. I carry a Glock everyday, all day. It does the job just fine, and the gen4 is the best yet, for me.

A proper Sig, HK, or Beretta, will be more reliable and more accurate than a Glock. That makes it's performace measurably better, imo.

Those guns are unlikely to be lighter than a Glock, and some may or may not be as durable as a Glock. They are also likely to hold less ammo. These are features, not measures of performance. Durability could be a measure of performance, but I think everyone can agree that all of them are "durable enough".

Ease of disassembly/parts swapping is a nice feature to have, but it doesn't impact the performance.

Price does not affect performance.

Hard to really quantify, but I consider the Glock to be less safe for the user, and less safe for the public, then the others. This could be a feature, or it could be performance, take your pick.

For me, the Glock does what needs to be done. The others do it better. They trade some features, for some performance.

Does any of it really matter? No, not for most people, even pretty good shooters. High level "practical" shooting can be done with any of them. But when you look at pure shooting, removed from artificial measures like target size and target distance, the others shoot better. For the shooter that wants or needs that, it's nice to be able to get it.

[JonInWA]

I used it as an example, nothing more. Pic any gun you'd like to use as an example and all the same accounting applies. If you want to count parts, count all the parts. If you want to say something breaks more because it is more complex, demonstrate the connection.

At this point I would buy something like a PPQ because it is more user friendly, compact and accurate than a Glock. And I wouldn't worry that it was likely to break because the whole gun isn't held together by wedging steel parts into undersized plastic holes - even if that works okay on a Glock.

Have you used a PPQ? While it's a good gun, some have argued that it's trigger pull weight and magazine release spring are a bit TOO user friendly-nice in a range gun, not characteristics necessarily so desirable in a threat-management tool...

Best, Jon

[SLG]

Jon,

I posted before I saw your post. I would agree with most of what you wrote.

[JHC]

I think other people have covered many of the reasons for Glocks' larger popularity well. Speaking only for myself - shooting a Glock isn't about the Glock, it's about the shooting. The Glock does a fantastic job of being simple, invisible, getting out of my way to let the shooting just be about the shooting.

Pistol, 9mm, one each. Everything you need, nothing that you don't. ;)

[JonInWA]

All of the below assumes a reasonably skilled person.

There is better, and then there is better for you. I carry a Glock everyday, all day. It does the job just fine, and the gen4 is the best yet, for me.

A proper Sig, HK, or Beretta, will be more reliable and more accurate than a Glock. That makes it's performace measurably better, imo.

Those guns are unlikely to be lighter than a Glock, and some may or may not be as durable as a Glock. They are also likely to hold less ammo. These are features, not measures of performance. Durability could be a measure of performance, but I think everyone can agree that all of them are "durable enough".

Ease of disassembly/parts swapping is a nice feature to have, but it doesn't impact the performance.

Price does not affect performance.

Hard to really quantify, but I consider the Glock to be less safe for the user, and less safe for the public, then the others. This could be a feature, or it could be performance, take your pick.

For me, the Glock does what needs to be done. The others do it better. They trade some features, for some performance.

Does any of it really matter? No, not for most people, even pretty good shooters. High level "practical" shooting can be done with any of them. But when you look at pure shooting, removed from artificial measures like target size and target distance, the others shoot better. For the shooter that wants or needs that, it's nice to be able to get it.

Excellent points and perspective. Thanks.

Best, Jon

[JonInWA]

Jon,

I posted before I saw your post. I would agree with most of what you wrote.

I suspect we're both pretty much on the same sheet, just fleshing out the thread discussion from our own experiences and perspectives-one of the things that makes this an excellent forum.

Best, Jon

[BehindBlueI's]

Have you used a PPQ? While it's a good gun, some have argued that it's trigger pull weight and magazine release spring are a bit TOO user friendly-nice in a range gun, not characteristics necessarily so desirable in a threat-management tool...

Best, Jon

The PPQ, VP9, and P320 all give me the heeby-jeebies for use in that role...and that's just from dry firing.

[BehindBlueI's]

That's assuming that Glock isn't discounting LE sales so much BECAUSE of the marketing value of filling PD holsters.

Of course that's why they discount LE sales. Sig is starting to see the value in that as well.

[JonInWA]

The PPQ, VP9, and P320 all give me the heeby-jeebies for use in that role...and that's just from dry firing.

I'm on the fence regarding my HK VP40; while I haven't weighed it, I strongly suspect that its triggerpull weight is in the 4' to 4.5' range, and it's lighter and softer that that on my Glock Gen 3 G34 with a minus connector and coil trigger spring (which when I use for carry I replace the coil trigger spring with a NY1). To date, I've used it in an IDPA match without any unexpected drama, and this weekend I'll be running it in a Classifier for some added dynamic input (and to simultaneously classify in CCP, SSP and ESP).

While I've used it for carry, I'm inclined to feel that my .40 guns, from a triggerpull weight standpoint my Gen4 G22 (with standard Dot connector and coil trigger spring) may be a tad better as a threat management tool, due to a heavier, and slightly longer triggerpull. But the HK give me a quicker, more natural index and sight acquisition....and appears to be slightly more accurate.

Best, Jon

[breakingtime91]

Pistol, 9mm, one each. Everything you need, nothing that you don't. ;)

don't forget glasses so brass doesn't blind you :p

[JCS]

The PPQ, VP9, and P320 all give me the heeby-jeebies for use in that role...and that's just from dry firing.

Could you explain? Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Joe in PNG]

I wanted another Beretta 92D- I love my 92D Centurion.
I went to multiple stores, and multiple sites, and they're pretty much not there. Should my sole example break, or become otherwise unavailable, I'm out of luck.
However, every single one of those stores and sites had Glock 19s. Should I need a quick replacement, there you go.

[JonInWA]

I wanted another Beretta 92D- I love my 92D Centurion.
I went to multiple stores, and multiple sites, and they're pretty much not there. Should my sole example break, or become otherwise unavailable, I'm out of luck.
However, every single one of those stores and sites had Glock 19s. Should I need a quick replacement, there you go.

Joe, while the 92 D-series family has been discontinued as an available/orderable SKU from Beretta's inventory since 1998 as I recall, the D-Series 92s still pop up with some regularity on the auction sites, etc. They seem to be becoming a bit of a cult favorite, but were predominantly a LEO-oriented production niche. The 1994 AWB put a pretty significant crimp in their desirability from a civilian purchaser standpoint, as essentially what you had was a fairly bulky 10-shot (versus 15 rounds or higher previous {and subsequent to the AWB when it sunset in 2004}) fairly large pistol, whose DAO viability/ease of use was contested by many at the time.

Overall, however the D series guns, especially with an updated locking block assembly and newer/strengthened Beretta trigger return springs (or, better yet, in my opinion, the Wolff TCU assembly) are exceptionally rugged, durable and reliable guns. Replacement springs and locking blocks are very easily obtained.

Don't get me wrong-I have multiple Glock 19s, and given a choice between the two in most situations I'd prefer the Glock 19, but the 92D is an exceptionally good weapon in its own right.


Best, Jon

[11B10]

Well, that's great for cops and all, but the majority of all of these guns are purchased by consumers at retail prices. I don't know if it makes sense to refer to a discount availabe to a tiny minority of buyers - buyers who can only buy certain guns under department guidelines in the first place.

For 95% (? 99%?) of pistol buyers, Glocks are just as spendy as their German counterparts.


Handy - ANYONE an buy any model, any caliber of Sig P320 at my local FFL for $424 - $494 with Siglites.

[breakingtime91]

Could you explain? Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not Mr.Blue but the triggers are too light for me also. While thats nice for shooting, no hammer/visual feed back when that gun is gonna go off=no go for me.

[Handy]

Handy - ANYONE an buy any model, any caliber of Sig P320 at my local FFL for $424 - $494 with Siglites.

Do you consider a P320 a German pistol?

[ReverendMeat]

Have you used a PPQ? While it's a good gun, some have argued that it's trigger pull weight and magazine release spring are a bit TOO user friendly-nice in a range gun, not characteristics necessarily so desirable in a threat-management tool...

Best, Jon

Glock advertises a 5.5 lb trigger pull. Walther advertises a 5.5 lb trigger pull. The difference is the Walther will actually gauge at 5.5 lb without needing to be fucked with first.

The PPQ has more overall trigger travel before breaking than a Glock does, and plenty of people smarter than me (Nyeti IIRC, for instance) will tell you that the distance of the pull is more pertinent than the weight when you're talking about a threat management tool.

The magazine release is not an issue with the original design either.

[Joe in PNG]

Joe, while the 92 D-series family has been discontinued as an available/orderable SKU from Beretta's inventory since 1998 as I recall, the D-Series 92s still pop up with some regularity on the auction sites, etc. They seem to be becoming a bit of a cult favorite, but were predominantly a LEO-oriented production niche. The 1994 AWB put a pretty significant crimp in their desirability from a civilian purchaser standpoint, as essentially what you had was a fairly bulky 10-shot (versus 15 rounds or higher previous {and subsequent to the AWB when it sunset in 2004}) fairly large pistol, whose DAO viability/ease of use was contested by many at the time.

Overall, however the D series guns, especially with an updated locking block assembly and newer/strengthened Beretta trigger return springs (or, better yet, in my opinion, the Wolff TCU assembly) are exceptionally rugged, durable and reliable guns. Replacement springs and locking blocks are very easily obtained.

Don't get me wrong-I have multiple Glock 19s, and given a choice between the two in most situations I'd prefer the Glock 19, but the 92D is an exceptionally good weapon in its own right.


Best, Jon

Agreed. The idea that I would really have to put in a lot of work, time, effort to find a second D Centurion does tend to make the one I have that much more precious, and more of a safe queen.

[BehindBlueI's]

Could you explain? Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The trigger is so light and provides to little feedback I'm not comfortable with them. My off hand trigger finger has reduced sensation due to nerve damage and particularly with WHO shooting I couldn't really feel when I'm breaking the trigger or when it reset, so it would be easy for me to send an unintentional double tap.

[Appalachained]

I own or have owned all the striker fired polymers that came out over the last decade (except for the P320). I always go back to the Glock. It's not because any other SFP's aren't better in certain aspects ( mainly trigger pull), but because of the total package, many of the things that have been mentioned in previous posts combined.
The top reason I always go back is the size, weight/ capacity ratio.
The only SFP that beats it in this regard is the Caracal. The Caracal also had fewer parts and a lower bore axis FWIW.
I know I'll get flamed for this, but I miss the Caracals. I put Four Thousand rounds through my C and just recently returned it.

[Handy]

Ummm, not so sure I buy off on your analysis conclusions-and I own and heavily use both Glock and Beretta 92 platforms (and my 92 IS a 92D). While I agree with your parts breakout, some Glock parts are put into component assemblys, which are not intended to be disassembled, and are sold as a group, not as individual sub-components-the triggerbar assembly is a great example, as is a Glock recoil spring assembly.

However, Glocks are in an entirely different universe when it comes to ease of disassembly, reassembly and parts replacement/substitution. While most Beretta parts are indeed plug and play, there are some (notably a replacement locking block) that needs to be fitted to the gun to achieve optimal wear/lifespan, and several components require re-staking.

Design-wise (and action operability-wise) I consider a Glock to be simpler than a Beretta 92-even a simpler 92D.

The Beretta is an exceptionally reliable gun, however, even with its increased parts count. It will require more lubrication, and more consistent application of lubrication, and has more lubrication points. It also requires more time and a slightly higher skill- (and tool-) set to detail disassemble and reassemble. And it's finish is less weather impervious that that of a Glock.

Best, Jon

Hey Jon,

I picked the 92 just because I'm familiar with both. I wasn't really trying to contrast their use as much as they are both highly reliable. What I'm getting at is that they aren't that simple, and simple doesn't make something work better, last longer or break less.

The key to Glock simplicity is that Glock relies on the fact that you can force things into undersized nylon holes with hand strength without it walking about. That's why Glock's non-reversible mag release has two parts, and why you can take apart a Glock quickly. Even HK's polymer guns use traditional spring pressure methods to retain pins instead of just using friction and interference fit.

All these companies with high parts counts could, if they thought it would make a better gun, pin sub-assemblies together to make one "part", get rid of reversible or ambidextrous features, risk frame damage by molding hardware ports in the frame and using non-coil springs. But the things that break most on Glocks are some of these parts that make the gun simpler, so I'm glad HK and others don't build guns with that philosophy.

Glocks work so well because barrel, locking block, frame and slide work very well together. It could be a superlative pistol if the cheap parts that require little labor cost to assemble wasn't part of them, because the small parts would be more reliable to match the major components. This wouldn't be as fun to tear down, but why tear down a gun that doesn't need preventative replacement of the assembly latch spring so often?

Use wise, any gun with nothing more than a trigger, mag release and slide release is effectively the same to me.


As for the Walther, I don't have problems with paddle mag releases. The trigger is light. The Glock trigger is also light. I consider both of them too light, so why not go with the better one if you're already in the too-light category?

[cathellsk]

I wanted another Beretta 92D- I love my 92D Centurion.
I went to multiple stores, and multiple sites, and they're pretty much not there. Should my sole example break, or become otherwise unavailable, I'm out of luck.
However, every single one of those stores and sites had Glock 19s. Should I need a quick replacement, there you go.


I have a local store that has a 92D Centurion in excellent shape. I can give you the contact info if you're interested. Been there awhile now. It was traded in by a fellow coworker too, who I believe originally got it on GunBroker.

[GJM]

You know that old saying that guys like to talk .45, shoot a 9 and carry a .38. There should be some corollary saying about guys liking to talk down the Glock while carrying and/or competing with one.

Glock hasn't been the #1 striker and polymer pistol forever because it is crap.

[breakingtime91]

You know that old saying that guys like to talk .45, shoot a 9 and carry a .38. There should be some corollary saying about guys liking to talk down the Glock while carrying and/or competing with one.

Glock hasn't been the #1 striker and polymer pistol forever because it is crap.

No one said it was crap George. There had to be reason you tried every other option. I think to expand on this (sorry I have had a few beers it was a long day), its a cheap gun that works alright with awesome marketing. You seem to be having great success with it, especially with the DP pro and your carry rmr. I am honestly happy for you because I have been watching your progress since 2012 but to say its better then every other option is pretty far fetched. I think the fact that the gun has a 5.5 pound trigger pull with no visual reference on the trigger being depressed makes it an experts gun, not a good choice for basic trained cops or citizens.

[Joe in PNG]

I have a local store that has a 92D Centurion in excellent shape. I can give you the contact info if you're interested. Been there awhile now. It was traded in by a fellow coworker too, who I believe originally got it on GunBroker.

Thanks mate, but I'm pretty much now committed to changing over to the Glocks

[JHC]

No one said it was crap George. There had to be reason you tried every other option. I think to expand on this (sorry I have had a few beers it was a long day), its a cheap gun that works alright with awesome marketing. You seem to be having great success with it, especially with the DP pro and your carry rmr. I am honestly happy for you because I have been watching your progress since 2012 but to say its better then every other option is pretty far fetched. I think the fact that the gun has a 5.5 pound trigger pull with no visual reference on the trigger being depressed makes it an experts gun, not a good choice for basic trained cops or citizens.

I don't know. I really don't know that these "margin for error" features make anyone but the super dialed in shooter any safer. (see often quoted Front Sight stats on action types of NDs). Basic trained cops and citizens . . . more likely to not decock or heck just let my finger rest on that trigger while I carry the pistol across the house to the safe cause it's a long pull anyway. That shit happens. You handle a hot Glock like a hot 1911. Like milking a rattler. That's safe.

[JHC]

You know that old saying that guys like to talk .45, shoot a 9 and carry a .38. There should be some corollary saying about guys liking to talk down the Glock while carrying and/or competing with one.

Glock hasn't been the #1 striker and polymer pistol forever because it is crap.

If you wanna be the champ, you gotta beat the champ. Awesome cool boutique designs are great and all but its not like PF and the whole gunworld isn't full of examples of Glock shooting performance that is competitive with pretty much anything else. 1" gun vs 2" gun or whatever. Clear superiority would have changed the market share by now (across militaries, LE, civilians, SOF etc).

[JCS]

Do you all think the price plays into the public perception of a gun. For example, Glock could probably sell their guns for $100 less than they do. But a $400 gun is viewed as "cheap" by the public.

I own nothing but Glocks ( I only own three handguns) but to me it's kind of overpriced because you have to add ~$100 in sights to make it carryable.

I think if Glock charged $400 for their guns people would call me cheap. $650 and people would say their over priced. $500 seems in the middle of being cheap and too expensive.

Luckily I have access to blue label :)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MDS]

I haven't weighed in because I'm unqualified, but I can at least speak for myself. Glock is the only platform that hasn't given me any back talk. It's not that it's better than other stuff I've shot, it's that it disappears, it doesn't require my attention, I can ignore the hardware physically and psychologically, and focus on the software. At least, that's all more true, and more consistently true, for the glocks in my life than for anything else.

I also have a "toy" Glock that I can experiment with - wacky stippling and rmr and lightweight slides and threaded barrels, and... - so I can channel my tinkering there when I want, with unlimited lego-like options and without breaking the bank.

Other platforms might be like the bad boy on a motorcycle - hot and funny but winks at other girls and has a mean streak. Glock is the boring dependable average-looking nice guy that provides. Who do you want to marry?

I self identify as a Glock, I guess. :-/

[JTQ]

This comment

... Speaking only for myself - shooting a Glock isn't about the Glock, it's about the shooting. The Glock does a fantastic job of being simple, invisible, getting out of my way to let the shooting just be about the shooting.
and subsequently this comment from MDS

...It's not that it's better than other stuff I've shot, it's that it disappears, it doesn't require my attention, I can ignore the hardware physically and psychologically, and focus on the software
both made me think of Cole Trickle (Tom Cruise) comment early in the movie Days of Thunder when asked why he wanted to race stock cars.

Cruise: To win in Indy I'd need a great car, but stock cars are all the same.

Duval (I think): There's nothing stock about a stock car.

Cruise: I'm not trying to insult you, but stock cars are built to run equal. I won't be beaten by a car. - Only by a driver.

[breakingtime91]

I haven't weighed in because I'm unqualified, but I can at least speak for myself. Glock is the only platform that hasn't given me any back talk. It's not that it's better than other stuff I've shot, it's that it disappears, it doesn't require my attention, I can ignore the hardware physically and psychologically, and focus on the software. At least, that's all more true, and more consistently true, for the glocks in my life than for anything else.

I also have a "toy" Glock that I can experiment with - wacky stippling and rmr and lightweight slides and threaded barrels, and... - so I can channel my tinkering there when I want, with unlimited lego-like options and without breaking the bank.

Other platforms might be like the bad boy on a motorcycle - hot and funny but winks at other girls and has a mean streak. Glock is the boring dependable average-looking nice guy that provides. Who do you want to marry?

I self identify as a Glock, I guess. :-/

Out of all the reasons, mr white and you have the best. Cheers guys

[EVP]

I agree with Mr White and partially to what MDS said but you can focus on the software portion of shooting with any quality platform.

It's the actual individual who decides if they want to focus on software and not hardware.

[Mr_White]

it's that it disappears, it doesn't require my attention, I can ignore the hardware physically and psychologically, and focus on the software

Well said and that's how I see it too.


I self identify as a Glock, I guess. :-/

Lol me too.


Out of all the reasons, mr white and you have the best. Cheers guys

Just expressing my feelings bro! ;)


I agree with Mr White and partially to what MDS said but you can focus on the software portion of shooting with any quality platform.

It's the actual individual who decides if they want to focus on software and not hardware.

I think that's a very good point. Even though I wrote what I wrote and feel what I feel, it occurred to me that maybe all that meant is that I've shot the Glock long enough that I have kind of forgotten about it. Maybe it would be the same with any gun I'd use for that long.

[GJM]

Even though I wrote what I wrote and feel what I feel, it occurred to me that maybe all that meant is that I've shot the Glock long enough that I have kind of forgotten about it. Maybe it would be the same with any gun I'd use for that long.

This what I think. You would no doubt feel the same way if the Beretta 92, an HK or 1911 was your regular pistol.

Trying to shoot well has to be all about the software. Each platform, including the Glock, has it own software plusses and minuses. On one hand the Glock is pretty simple to make it go bang, but on the other hand, its peculiar trigger characteristics, low pistol weight to trigger weight, and grip angle make for its own challenges.

[Handy]

A G19 was my third centerfire pistol. The frame shape and muzzle rise made it one of the most conspicuous pistols I shot in competition - it required more concentration on the pistol itself for me to shoot it well. The P7M8 was the first pistol that disappeared when I was shooting fast and reloading quickly.

[11B10]

Do you consider a P320 a German pistol?


Gee, I'm sorry. It would appear I have misunderstood your earlier posts. Do you think I'm unaware my Sig Sauer p320 is made in Exeter, NH?

[Handy]

Gee, I'm sorry. It would appear I have misunderstood your earlier posts. Do you think I'm unaware my Sig Sauer p320 is made in Exeter, NH?

I don't know what you know. I said "Glocks are just as spendy as their German counterparts". You replied with the price of a pistol that is neither a Glock nor German.

I may have been mistaken why you named the price of a SIG as a reply to my German vs. Glock post. Why did you post the price of a US SIG as a reply?

[GJM]

A G19 was my third centerfire pistol. The frame shape and muzzle rise made it one of the most conspicuous pistols I shot in competition - it required more concentration on the pistol itself for me to shoot it well. The P7M8 was the first pistol that disappeared when I was shooting fast and reloading quickly.

Hearing someone comment that a G19 has a lot of muzzle rise and a P7M8 is fast to reload, reminds me how different people can perceive the same things so differently.

[Handy]

Hearing someone comment that a G19 has a lot of muzzle rise and a P7M8 is fast to reload, reminds me how different people can perceive the same things so differently.

The clock perceived the same thing. The G19 is top heavy compared to the Jericho and Witness I was shooting or the P7M8 and P9S that I got after it. All had pretty low bore axis - the Glock was slightly lower than the Jericho, but not enough to make up for the frame weight difference, so they all had less muzzle rise.

And the P7M8 launched mags and got back into battery with so little hand movement. I don't know why the single stack mags went in so easily, but I never had trouble jamming them in accurately. I find even Berettas easier to eject and reload than Glocks.

[11B10]

I don't know what you know. I said "Glocks are just as spendy as their German counterparts". You replied with the price of a pistol that is neither a Glock nor German.

I may have been mistaken why you named the price of a SIG as a reply to my German vs. Glock post. Why did you post the price of a US SIG as a reply?


To repeat: "I misunderstood your post."

[11B10]

I haven't weighed in because I'm unqualified, but I can at least speak for myself. Glock is the only platform that hasn't given me any back talk. It's not that it's better than other stuff I've shot, it's that it disappears, it doesn't require my attention, I can ignore the hardware physically and psychologically, and focus on the software. At least, that's all more true, and more consistently true, for the glocks in my life than for anything else.

I also have a "toy" Glock that I can experiment with - wacky stippling and rmr and lightweight slides and threaded barrels, and... - so I can channel my tinkering there when I want, with unlimited lego-like options and without breaking the bank.

Other platforms might be like the bad boy on a motorcycle - hot and funny but winks at other girls and has a mean streak. Glock is the boring dependable average-looking nice guy that provides. Who do you want to marry?

I self identify as a Glock, I guess. :-/


Sir, I absolutely love this ^^^ !

[11B10]

I don't know what you know. I said "Glocks are just as spendy as their German counterparts". You replied with the price of a pistol that is neither a Glock nor German.

I may have been mistaken why you named the price of a SIG as a reply to my German vs. Glock post. Why did you post the price of a US SIG as a reply?


Your post #96 is what I was responding to. You did not single out European guns. You were responding to a post that mentioned S&W and Sigs, as well as Glocks. You said: " The majority of these guns are purchased by consumers at retail prices." I was just giving you one local example of an FFL that is discounting the Sig P320. Carry on.

[Handy]

Your post #96 is what I was responding to. You did not single out European guns. You were responding to a post that mentioned S&W and Sigs, as well as Glocks. You said: " The majority of these guns are purchased by consumers at retail prices." I was just giving you one local example of an FFL that is discounting the Sig P320. Carry on.

Sure. It was just that my response was to his response about my post 93 about "first tier guns", naming HK and Walther models that are priced the same. The point I had been making with all of that was that Glock pistols are now at prices equal to the historically most expensive brands for like models.


You can buy more and less expensive guns than Glocks that are arguably equal in quality and utility. Glocks used to be priced like Rugers and Sigs like HKs and Walthers. All of that has adjusted, but it has adjusted with major changes in product line ups, with the exception of Glock that is producing pretty much the same weapon it came out with in 1982. Of course, everyone else has adjusted to become like Glock.

[Nephrology]

Sure. It was just that my response was to his response about my post 93 about "first tier guns", naming HK and Walther models that are priced the same. The point I had been making with all of that was that Glock pistols are now at prices equal to the historically most expensive brands for like models.


You can buy more and less expensive guns than Glocks that are arguably equal in quality and utility. Glocks used to be priced like Rugers and Sigs like HKs and Walthers. All of that has adjusted, but it has adjusted with major changes in product line ups, with the exception of Glock that is producing pretty much the same weapon it came out with in 1982. Of course, everyone else has adjusted to become like Glock.

Classic SIGs and the HK USP/P30/45 are still pushing twice the price of a Glock. Comparing the price of a Glock to the price of a P320 or a VP9 is a bit silly because they were designed specifically to compete with the Glock on features and price....seems like a no brainer that they would be comparable.

[Handy]

Classic SIGs and the HK USP/P30/45 are still pushing twice the price of a Glock. Comparing the price of a Glock to the price of a P320 or a VP9 is a bit silly because they were designed specifically to compete with the Glock on features and price....seems like a no brainer that they would be comparable.

The Walther polymer P99 pistols, which the PPQ is a family member of, debuted at several hundred over Glock in the early '90s. I keep seeing sub-$600 prices for hammer fired HKs since the VP9 came out. Sure, there are 'spensive HK versions, but if you count custom Glocks the prices still don't seem high.

Overall, it seems like stock handgun prices are compressing to a narrow band centered on Glock's steadily increasing price point.

[Nephrology]

The Walther polymer P99 pistols, which the PPQ is a family member of, debuted at several hundred over Glock in the early '90s. I keep seeing sub-$600 prices for hammer fired HKs since the VP9 came out. Sure, there are 'spensive HK versions, but if you count custom Glocks the prices still don't seem high.

Overall, it seems like stock handgun prices are compressing to a narrow band centered on Glock's steadily increasing price point.

Huh? Where are you seeing sub $600 hammer fired HKs? Are they new or used?

The used market - especially police surplus handguns - always fluctuates per supply/demand. The glut of used HK USP 45s on gunbroker recently is a good example. however, as far as I know, the price difference between a new Glock 19 and a new SIG P229 9mm hasn't really changed.

Also, the P99 and the PPQ are mechanically quite different - the P99 is a SA/DA pistol, as you may recall - so I would be unsurprised if they have very different manufacturing costs as well. the PPQ is just another striker pistol designed to de-throne Glock, and just like the M&P, the P320, the VP9, it is competing directly in ergos and in price.... so I am still not sure if I see your argument.

[Handy]

CDNN has P30SK and P2000 for less than $600, new.

The PPQ is supposed to be an update of the P99QA - a Glock like LDA type. The P99 came in TDA (AS), DAO (P990) and LDA (QA) at various times. Kind of like all the triggers the HKs can be had with.

P99AS > P99QA > P99 RAD > P99Q > PPQ


Are you maybe thinking of the CCP, the Umarex abomination?

[Tamara]

Huh? Where are you seeing sub $600 hammer fired HKs?

Right?

HundK seems to have gone all loss-leader on P30SK's, but the full-size guns are holding hard price-wise at any wholesaler you care to check.

[Handy]

Right?

HundK seems to have gone all loss-leader on P30SK's, but the full-size guns are holding hard price-wise at any wholesaler you care to check.

Is a P2000 not full size enough for you?

https://www.cdnnsports.com/p2000-9mm-da-sa-v3-2-13.html?___SID=U

[Nephrology]

Is a P2000 not full size enough for you?

https://www.cdnnsports.com/p2000-9mm-da-sa-v3-2-13.html?___SID=U

The P2000 is maybe a point of comparison, as they do retail for slightly higher than Glock prices. I guess the SigPro is comparable to Glock in price, too, but both guns have been around for at least 15 years or so, so I dunno if this is a new development per se.