What makes a Glock so shootable

[blues]

Isn't defensive use the most demanding and important use?

Preaching to the choir, brother. The only semi-autos I own and carry are Glocks. I've carried and shot several others, primarily on the job.

I don't dispute that for many folks the ergos of other guns may fit them better and perhaps lead to better and more reliable shooting. Or that the other guns may be more attractive to them.

For me, I only care that the gun functions when I need it to and that I shoot it well enough for what I consider to be my purposes. The simplicity of the Glock combined with the lack of a manual safety and its reliability makes it "beautiful" to me. I consider it the gun I want with me if I get into a gunfight.

But I am not a gun collector and my purposes are purely defensive as opposed to recreational shooting. (The new Glock 44 might lead me toward some more recreational shooting in the future.)

To each his own. I'm happy with my choice and take no offense with what others may prefer.

[Robinson]

Isn't defensive use the most demanding and important use?

Arguably the most important, but probably not the most demanding in terms of "shootability". Most demanding in some aspects certainly.

[HopetonBrown]

Arguably the most important, but probably not the most demanding in terms of "shootability". Most demanding in some aspects certainly.

Didn't some cops just shoot a bystander and a hostage?

I'm not getting how "shoot ability" is further down the ladder for a life saving tool.

[miller_man]

As Gio just pointed out in another thread, and USPSA and IDPA (the Vogel games) results confirm, a Glock is no disadvantage in high level competition in Production, Limited, Carry Optics and whatever the IDPA equivalents of these divisions is. Consider that a $500 hunk of plastic that weighs about half as much and costs 1/2 to a 1/10 of a metal pistol, can run with those dedicated competition guns.

So why is this so?

I think - Because high level competitors. These are the guys/gals who out train most folks and know how to train to squeeze every ounce of performance out of their gear and themselves. The glock is not at any real disadvantage. I don't think the weight difference and especially the cost difference isn't enough to really matter, the fundamentals and skill matter far more. "its the Indian not the arrow". Put any somewhat decent pistol in the hands of one of the top 5 national finishers hands, give them a year to train with it and they will still be in the top of the pack.

The glock is fine. Didn't Leatham do pretty well with an XD? JJ with a Caracal?

[spinmove_]

I think - Because high level competitors. These are the guys/gals who out train most folks and know how to train to squeeze every ounce of performance out of their gear and themselves. The glock is not at any real disadvantage. I don't think the weight difference and especially the cost difference isn't enough to really matter, the fundamentals and skill matter far more. "its the Indian not the arrow". Put any somewhat decent pistol in the hands of one of the top 5 national finishers hands, give them a year to train with it and they will still be in the top of the pack.

The glock is fine. Didn't Leatham do pretty well with an XD? JJ with a Caracal?

Matt Hopkins went from shooting Shadows and Shadow 2s for years to shooting a P-10F this year. He stated that, while there was a learning curve, once he was up to speed the P-10F didn’t really hold him back. The gun was just different in that the pros and cons of the platform were not the same as the pros and cons of a Shadow 2.

My takeaway from that is: the hardware essentially doesn't matter so long as it doesn’t suck. Just stick with it and make yourself better.

[Robinson]

Didn't some cops just shoot a bystander and a hostage?

I'm not getting how "shoot ability" is further down the ladder for a life saving tool.

Just my opinion, the most critical things in a defensive shooting are going to be the person's readiness, willingness, and ability to act quickly, appropriately, and decisively when the moment presents itself. The technical shooting problems that need to be solved in most (most, not all) defensive shootings are probably not as demanding as say a highly technical stage in a shooting match.

Attending training by a qualified instructor and consistent practice will probably make more difference than the type of gun a person is carrying. But I will concede your point if you mean to say that the "shootability" of a particular gun in a given user's hands will lead to a higher level of proficiency and confidence within the context of a defensive shooting.

I like Glocks and find them shootable. But I really like the trigger, weight, and redundant safeties on the 1911. And I find it shootable too.

[pew_pew]

Matt Hopkins went from shooting Shadows and Shadow 2s for years to shooting a P-10F this year. He stated that, while there was a learning curve, once he was up to speed the P-10F didn’t really hold him back. The gun was just different in that the pros and cons of the platform were not the same as the pros and cons of a Shadow 2.

My takeaway from that is: the hardware essentially doesn't matter so long as it doesn’t suck. Just stick with it and make yourself better.

I just listened to a recent podcast and he said the p10 wasn’t as good. Even though he put 10s of thousands of rounds through it, wasn’t as good and he’s back to the shadow 2.

[nwhpfan]

I shoot a Glock and I've done OK shooting one. If it has any advantage it's that it allows a person to focus on themselves; their training, their performance. When you are not very good and you have a Glock, you can watch videos of this person or that doing 1.80 bills, winning championships, etc. They are doing it wtih a Glock, the same gun you have, not some 7k SVI. So it's not the gun, it's you. And "all" they did was put in the work. Dry fire. I don't think the Glock has any "advantages" or features that make it perform better than other guns available.

[miller_man]

I just listened to a recent podcast and he said the p10 wasn’t as good. Even though he put 10s of thousands of rounds through it, wasn’t as good and he’s back to the shadow 2.

I heard that too. I had thought he was more saying he never completely got used to it, but I didn't think it was as much about the gun just "wasn't as good".

Either way, I probably don't have to shoot thousands of rounds through either gun to reach that conclusion. I doubt many shooters would say any plastic pistol is as good or better in pure shooting than a shadow/stock 2 or 2011 type guns ??

[QuickStrike]

Is that what makes those stupid things easier for me to shoot, than my preferred guns?



I really do need a couple more gen5’s...