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

[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