If someone was really in love with the 45 ACP and didn't want to carry a 1911 would the G36 be a good option? I understand the trade offs related to capacity. I guess I'm asking if the 36 is a viable alternative to a 4" 1911?
Printable View
If someone was really in love with the 45 ACP and didn't want to carry a 1911 would the G36 be a good option? I understand the trade offs related to capacity. I guess I'm asking if the 36 is a viable alternative to a 4" 1911?
The G36 was one of the worst Glocks. The SS mag never leant itself to great reliability. An M&P 45c would be a much better choice or a G30 or USPc, or HK45c.
I had one, and carried it for a year as an experiment. Mine was reliable, surprisingly soft on the recoil, and very accurate. In fact, it was the most accurate of the six Glocks I have. Getting parts for it can often be harder than the other Glocks, simply because everything is different on a G36. There is very little parts commonality between it and the other Glocks. Which in turn, might be a reason why folks tend to have more problems.
I sold mine not due to any problems with it, but simply because I wanted to just use 9mm Glocks. So off it went.
I would have said it's the most problematic Glock, but then those Austrian geniuses came out with the Gen4 G19.....
I'd only buy a used G36 from trusted sources. I tried a G30, but shot the G36 way better, due to hand fit issues. I have relatively small hands, have busted a lot of bones in both hands, and subsequently have arthritis in both.
ETA: I am only speaking from personal experience on the G36. I've never fired or owned a HK45C or an M&P45C. But from what I have read from people whose opinions I value, I would look at those first.
If I was carrying a shorter barrel .45, without question it would be an HK45C, for reasons of reliability, accuracy and build quality.
My experience with the G36 has been good. Very easy to carry and accuracy is quite acceptable with 230 gr. JHP and FMJ factory and hand loaded ammo.
I completed a two-day "Pistol Tune Up" class with this pistol at Gunsite. It was the first Glock in any caliber and the second short-barreled pistol in .45 ACP I had ever owned.
Before attending the Gunsite class, I had shot 250 rounds through it with zero malfunctions. On the first morning of class, I experienced three malfunctions with the pistol shooting handloads. The instructor correctly identified the fact that I was not holding the pistol firmly enough, and after tightening up my grip, the malfunctions stopped. I finished the first day with no further problems and had zero malfunctions the second day. Total rounds in the two days of class numbered between 600 and 650 rounds.
Since that time, I have fired another 850 rounds through the pistol, including a couple of "BUG" division local IDPA matches, and the gun has continued to shoot with no issues. It is small for my large (size 12 glove) hands, and has factory Glock night sights. I like mine, but you can't get lazy with your grip when shooting it. YMMV.
Early G36s were a crap shoot as GI played with the guns (esp feed geometry). New ones seen are fine. Buy NIB, or a known-good used one from a trusted other.
If shopping for a compact Glock 45, I'd wait until after SHOT. If you can't wait, I'd lean more toward a gen4 G30 than the G36.
I wouldn't bother with a compact 1911 unless I had time, money, and ammo to burn. And a spare gun.
I would posit that there is a vast difference in the likelihood of reliable function between a hand-built, multi-kilobuck Commander-length pistol from Heirloom Precision and any <4" rack-grade 1911 priced comparably to the Glock product.
I like 1911s and am not particularly fond of .45 Glocks, but I know where I'd put my limited funds in that case.
Interesting timing -- Larry Vickers just said, in his "ask Larry" section on M4, that he would not carry a 9mm 1911 for defense as they will never be as reliable as a 1911 in .45.
For me, there is a point where something is "reliable enough", and as long as it passes that standard, it's fine. Everyone's threshold is different.
(Emphasis mine)
That's the rub. What are the comparative price points and PM/upkeep requirements at a certain performance level between the right 1911 and something else (Glock, M&P, or other). Many will require an identical spare of the chosen model or within the system, too, making the costs and logistics more complex.
Not unthinkable, and nothing to be afraid of, but something that must be gone into with both eyes open.
Not that steel versus alloy has been specified, but for me, alloy, 1911 and reliable don't go in the same sentence. While I have a few 1911 alloy guns that run, it is a crapshoot compared to steel.
Tam, would you care to explain why you don't care for Glock 45's? I'm curious. I've had 1911's, Sig's, and Glocks in 45 and liked them all. For a stock 45 the Sig P220 is my favorite and a well built 1911 is by far the pistol I enjoy shooting the most. But for price, availability, a concealability I've always leaned toward the Glocks.
I could buy two Glock 36's plus several mags for the price of a tuned 4" 1911. The Glock won't be as smooth or shootable as the 1911 but it also will require very little to keep it running (I think).
Mostly because I think that the farther away from a pistol's original chambering and dimensions, the more problems you may encounter.
The .45 Glocks are an adaptation of the 10mm Glocks, themselves swollen versions of the original small-frame (9/.40/.357) guns. Then when you chop the slides you increase slide speeds and make properly-functioning mag springs that much more crucial...
All things considered, If I'm going to have a Glock these days, it's going to be a 17 or maybe a 19, and my 1911s are going to be 5" steel guns in .45ACP.
(I'm not saying that the other variants aren't necessarily reliable, but I'm just not hung up enough on caliber anymore to worry about it. I'm comfortable with a 1911 in .45. If I need more potent BBs for whatever reason, I'll take my 629; if I need more BBs, I'll carry a plastic 9.)
*redacted*
I will not get in Glock/1911 discussions on the internet.
I will not get in Glock/1911 discussions on the internet.
I will not get in Glock/1911 discussions on the internet.
x97
I carried a Glock 21 for 9 years on the road before going undercover and would say that if I had to go back to uniform and a .45 was required it would be a hard choice for me between e Glock 21 and the HK 45. That being said I was issued a Glock 36 for a backup weapon and during the 12 years I had it I never cleaned it and only shot it during qualifications as the gun never felt right for me. Needless to say it never had a malfunction of any sort I just be never cared for the ergonomics of the gun. I would buy one if it fits your hand and it meets any other criteria you might have.
I've had my hands on one and it felt like a cheese grader. I wasn't able to shoot it though so it's difficult to judge it just by "feel". As someone else mentioned, it would probably be a good idea for me to wait until after the shot show and see what pops up there. Maybe Glock will do something crazy and finally release a single stack G19 or a slim G30. I'm kidding of course.
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/n...30392A4A4C.jpg
These are my carry pistols.
I carry the G36 most in a Crossbreed Supertuck holster. It is reliable and accurate and lighter than my other pistols... but I do like variety. My Custom Carry Compact is just as reliable as my glock and extra mags are easier to carry, but as the G36 is lighter, the 1911 gets left home mostly. The Beretta is the bulkiest of the group (single stack Type M) but I bought that more as to extend the collection more than as a carry pistol.
FWIW: I have full size versions of all three and the Glocks get shot and trained with most. Also, I am a die hard 1911 fan, but I prefer Glocks for use as tools.