Why do some people hate glocks so much?

[billt]

was it something I said if so I'm very sorry.

I'd be glad to keep poking fun at you.

Grow up, and stop acting like an imbecile. Bill T.

 

[iomatic]

Ignorance. Just like everything else.

 

[buick455]

Glock+TLR-2= failure to feed

15 seconds of googlefu

seems they blamed the officers for limpwristing, then they said the aftermarket lights were no good, then when they made their own glock light and had the same problems they finally figured out that mag spings with 9 coils were too week or too slow and they needed to be changed for the 11 coil springs

I learned this info by scanning a half dozen cop forums like the one above

 

[Chipperxd]

Bill, you seem upset, was it something I said if so I'm very sorry.

Glock had a recall on their frames because they made a large number of them with the rear frame rails folded without a raduis in the corner. And the problem with the lights was documented by several police forces and glock said that the lights were too heavy or some such nonsense they were soaking up recoil and causing feed problem ala limpwrist.

I won't be doing any research for you but I assume that you can use google.

If you like to continue to blindly defend your gun I'd be glad to keep poking fun at you

oh please. you are just as bad as any "Glockhead" out there. If you only focus on the negatives of a gun, you can find faults in ANY gun. just enjoy the gun you have and please stop this same old lame argument.

 

[plumberfishes]

So 455 it took you to 15 secs to find out that they were having a problem with an add on , and that they worked through the problem, by changing a spring.... but your here spouting "they won't shoot with a light on the rail" but you just gave us all the corrective action for the issues, and now with the proper spring ... i am going to guess that they are shooting as well as ever.
My point is this, your spouting off reasons you dislike glocks... not issues that glocks have... I would love to have a look at chambers on glocks and other gun to compare... and I think the whole frame cracking was acctually due to over worked springs, but that could be somthing else there could have been defective issues... but then again I have never said glocks were perfect... I have said that when the SHTF... I'll be standing behind a glock!

 

[cyclesarge]

My point is this, your spouting off reasons you dislike glocks... not issues that glocks have.. I would love to have a look at chambers on glocks and other gun to compare... and I think the whole frame cracking was acctually due to over worked springs, but that could be somthing else there could have been defective issues... but then again I have never said glocks were perfect... I have said that when the s*** hits the fan ... I'll be standing behind a glock!

Improper operation with a rail mounted light IS an issue with Glocks, wether there is a band aid fix or not. Cracked frames ARE also an issue, not just a "dis like".

I don't think Buick was saying YOU said Glocks are perfect, but it has been said over and over. In fact every time someone spouts with "Glocks go bang EVERY time" they are in fact saying that Glocks have a perfect (100%) operation history. Which is simply NOT true.

E.T.A.
A "dis like" would be like "I dis like the color, or the feel of plastic, or the sights are too big". These are "dis likes" because other people LIKE these things about Glocks.
Broken frames and improper feeding with a rail mounted light are "issues" because NOBODY LIKES these things you called "dis likes".

 

[Drkside45]

I'm sure there were plenty of failures.Just because they all havent been recorded, dont think they didnt happen.If Glock were around in those times,.dont think for a minute they wouldn't have been used.You have to admitt, if you knew you were going to be belly crawling in a swamp, the sand, mud or whatever, a Glock is more likely to fire when you NEED it to.If I were in a war, I'd prefer my Glock on my side any day over my 1911.If you deny that,...well,...

Wow. And you think the thousands of 1911s from ww1, ww2, Korea, and vietnam failed to fire after being subjected to this kinda abuse? Have you ever actually tried it with both guns?

Being how people are making this thread more of a " glock vs 1911" thread I will say
that there is a reason the 1911 has been around for a hundred years. It's a good design.

Back to the original op's question, I don't like glocks because they are cheap guns. The slide feels like it has gravel in it when you rack it, the trigger pull is horrible, the grip angle sucks, and they are just plain ugly. Now, if you have a glock and like it then good for you. I'm not gonna bag on your gun if you like it. It's just not for me.

As I posted earlier, I think they are overrated. Glock owners usually look at glocks as the best thing since sliced bread when in actuality, to me, they are bottom of the barrel. A Springfield xd is nicer in my book. Sure, the glock goes bang everytime but so does any other gun when you pull the trigger.

 

[22many]

And here we go again. Yes, I'm sure they were failures. But apparently not nearly enough for the us government to warrent a new pistol design. There is something to be said for a 100 year old design that flat out works. You say if glocks were around then? What about now? Why is it that the majority of our forces don't have these glocks? The army for example, would be the perfect armed force to be "belly crawling in the Swamp, the sand, mud, or whatever" yet last time I looked, they still have the m9 berretta. Have you actually tried this? Maybe the army has and the glock didn't hold up. Or maybe it did. I don't know and I don't care.

As far as you having your glock beside you in battle, then good for you. This IS America and that's your choice. But Don't get butthurt because I don't like the same pistol that you like and I voice it. After all, like I said, this is America and thats MY choice.

 

[DERGLOCKINMEISTER]

Don't like Glocks ? don't buy one ! More for me ! Most people have strong opinions about a lot of things , not based on fact , just feelings . If you feel
safer with a Glock in your holster , great ! if not , carry what trips your personal trigger . Don't bash another man's preference just to make you feel better .

 

[22many]

Thank you. Now if some of these people Would understand that instead of taking it as personal attacks then this thread would be back on topic.

 

[Drkside45]

sheeez bro,..chil! Re- read my post,..aint nothin in it that makes me sound "butt hurt?" Let that vein go down in your forehead.By the way,...theres plenty of Glocks issued in the military.But just chil!

And here we go again. Yes, I'm sure they were failures. But apparently not nearly enough for the us government to warrent a new pistol design. There is something to be said for a 100 year old design that flat out works. You say if glocks were around then? What about now? Why is it that the majority of our forces don't have these glocks? The army for example, would be the perfect armed force to be "belly crawling in the Swamp, the sand, mud, or whatever" yet last time I looked, they still have the m9 berretta. Have you actually tried this? Maybe the army has and the glock didn't hold up. Or maybe it did. I don't know and I don't care.

As far as you having your glock beside you in battle, then good for you. This IS America and that's your choice. But Don't get butthurt because I don't like the same pistol that you like and I voice it. After all, like I said, this is America and thats MY choice.

 

[Riot]

And here we go again. Yes, I'm sure they were failures. But apparently not nearly enough for the us government to warrent a new pistol design. There is something to be said for a 100 year old design that flat out works. You say if glocks were around then? What about now? Why is it that the majority of our forces don't have these glocks? The army for example, would be the perfect armed force to be "belly crawling in the Swamp, the sand, mud, or whatever" yet last time I looked, they still have the m9 berretta. Have you actually tried this? Maybe the army has and the glock didn't hold up. Or maybe it did. I don't know and I don't care.

As far as you having your glock beside you in battle, then good for you. This IS America and that's your choice. But Don't get butthurt because I don't like the same pistol that you like and I voice it. After all, like I said, this is America and thats MY choice.

Because the military wanted a gun with a manual external safety...it had nothing to do with the quality. The military turned down the FN SCARs because they wanted their machine gun platform to be able to change out barrels quickly to prevent overheating.

Why bring up the military's choice for the Beretta M92FS over the Glock, but then state you don't care why they didn't choose the Glock? Maybe because you're a little biased against the Glocks like some people are biased for the Glocks? Just a thought...

One thing that kinda gets me is the "modification" or "break in" mentality. Glocks don't need any mods to make it a good gun and they don't need "break in period" like some guns that cost three times as much as a Glock.

 

[cyclesarge]

One thing that kinda gets me is the "modification" or "break in" mentality. Glocks don't need any mods to make it a good gun and they don't need "break in period" like some guns that cost three times as much as a Glock.

Are you talking about "target" pistols? I can't really think of any gun comparable to a Glock that costs 3 times as much.

 

[22many]

sheeez bro,..chil! Re- read my post,..aint nothin in it that makes me sound "butt hurt?" Let that vein go down in your forehead.By the way,...theres plenty of Glocks issued in the military.But just chil!

Lol. Reread your post. You come off as butthurt. Thats ok, I'm smiling as I write this and your concern towards my health is duly noted.

 

[22many]

Because the military wanted a gun with a manual external safety...it had nothing to do with the quality. The military turned down the FN SCARs because they wanted their machine gun platform to be able to change out barrels quickly to prevent overheating.

Why bring up the military's choice for the Beretta M92FS over the Glock, but then state you don't care why they didn't choose the Glock? Maybe because you're a little biased against the Glocks like some people are biased for
the Glocks? Just a thought...

One thing that kinda gets me is the "modification" or "break in" mentality. Glocks don't need any mods to make it a good gun and they don't need "break in period" like some
guns that cost three times as much as a Glock.

Biased? No. I stated the reason why I don't like glocks as the op asked why people don't. If you look at all my posting in this thread I have said many times that if people like them then good for them. There just not for me.

And your right, I don't care if the military chooses glocks or not. But I'm not the one that claims that if they were around in our previous wars that the government would have
chosen them. If they are so great and indestructible (as many people claim in this thread) then why wouldn't gaston glock put a external safety on them for a huge military contract? It would make sense from a business standpoint.

I would suggest your reread my post and not twist my words around.

 

[scrappydoo]

IYou have to admitt, if you knew you were going to be belly crawling in a swamp, the sand, mud or whatever, a Glock is more likely to fire when you NEED it to.If I were in a war, I'd prefer my Glock on my side any day over my 1911.If you deny that,...well,...

I think most Vietnam Vets would disagree with you. Those guys are pretty adamant about their love for 1911's, and a jungle environment is one heck of a testing ground. Those dusty old farts aren't as susceptible to advertising because they've been to war with that pistol and it's earned their trust.

You can't say that about the Berretta M9. Nobody is really singing the praises of that piece of crap. But who knows. If Glocks were the standard issue in Iraqistan they may be as beloved as the 1911 is.

 

[DavinFelth]

Why is it that the majority of our forces don't have these glocks? The army for example, would be the perfect armed force to be "belly crawling in the Swamp, the sand, mud, or whatever" yet last time I looked, they still have the m9 berretta. Have you actually tried this? Maybe the army has and the glock didn't hold up. Or maybe it did. I don't know and I don't care.

A few weeks ago I was shooting at my first USPSA match in Puyallup and the squad I was shooting in had a group of Army Rangers shooting with me. I asked them about the m9. They had very unkind words about it, they hate that gun. I was surprised when they said they would be much happier with a Glock 19 for their sidearm.

As for the discussion at hand, I personally wouldn't carry a Glock. I know some people don't care, but I prefer to have a thumb safety on my gun. That being said, I really like my Glock 34 that I just recently bought for shooting competitions.

 

[titsonritz]

The army for example, would be the perfect armed force to be "belly crawling in the Swamp, the sand, mud, or whatever" yet last time I looked, they still have the m9 berretta.

Not by choice.

 

[22many]

Im pretty sure that when the army was looking for a pistol that meet their demands they wernt looking for approval from each soldier.

 

[cyclesarge]

Any military reference is a moot point. The people that decide which gun is used DON'T use them. Economics, features (decided on by same people that DON'T use the guns), and availability are some of the factors in this decision.
Not to mention, ask 100 solders which gun THEY would choose, and I doubt you get more than 10 to agree on any ONE gun.