My 3 Glock .45's. A 21 with night sights, A 21-C with standard sights. And a 30 with Glock night sights.



A Glock 17 and a Glock 19. Both with standard daylight sights.

I have only 5 Glocks, but I'm thinking of adding the Glock 26 to even it up at 3, .45's and 3, 9 MM's. Bill T.

Ooooooooh... I feel the longing for a Glock... it's like there's a rumbling in my insidey-parts!

...Oh, wait. It was just a little gas.

quote:

NDs and ADs, those are training issues. The gun is not to blame.

I prefer guns which need less safety-training.
Such as SIGs, for example.

quote:

I prefer guns which need less safety-training.
Such as SIGs, for example.

WTF???

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Belgian Blue,

quote:

Originally posted by dave-40:

quote:

NDs and ADs, those are training issues. The gun is not to blame.

I prefer guns which need less safety-training.
Such as SIGs, for example.

Uh huh. If you say so.

quote:

Originally posted by dave-40:
I prefer guns which need less safety-training.

Here ya go. Just watch what you load it with, Susy.

I own Glocks and SIGs. They are pretty much all I'll carry for work anymore. My Department approved 9mm Glocks last year, so I usually carry a 26 and 17. I'm still grand fathered in on my 239 and 220.They and my SIG 239 (40 S&W) are almost as reliable as my S&W 3913, 17 years with out a failure of any kind. But the Glocks are catching up, they just don't have the the round count yet. Although I've never had a problem with my G27 that I've had since they were introduced, Unfortunately they weren't deartment approved.

I used to carry a Colt Commander in 45. Now I won't carry any gun that requires a manual safety to be removed to fire. I used to believe it was all just a matter of training, until I missed the safety once. Then I saw one of the competition shooters do the same thing at a match and this guy is shooting 50-100k rounds a year. So it can happen to anyone.

My 93 SIG P220 has been less than totally reliable but this usually seem to cure its self with a mag spring change.

As far as accidental discharges go, our department hasn't had anyone shoot themselves with the Glocks but we have had a number of officers shoot themsevles with a variety of pistols (HK, SIG, S&W, Beretta etc.) by failing to decock the weapon before reholstering. And prior to the discontinuance of single actions in 1989 we had a fair number of ADs with, 1911s and Browning High Powers(Which for our younger members were pretty much what cops carried if they carried a semi auto before the late 80s). To solve this problem the only guns now approved since 2004 are DAO 9mm.

As far as cost goes, I can afford any gun we are approved to carry and have acquired a fair number thoughout the years (cops always need to have the new toys). But I carry Glocks because they work and work well. As an added bonus they are pretty munch impervious to the humidity and other damp weather we get here in South Florida.

Sorry for the long rant but Glocks really are more than just the hype. If you don't like them, lucky for you there are a lot more quality semi-autos to choose from then when I came on in 81.

Sold my soul last night and did the deed. Glock 23 somehow found it's way home with me.

Yep!

Pistols come and go around my place but I will always have at least one 1911 and yes...one Glock.

They're too good not to have at least one.

- brickboy240

I picked up a model 26 today with night sight near NIB 3 mags 300 bucks out the door not to bad I think and at of all places GANDER MOUNTAIN..........

I think I will always own at least a G19. It is by all standards a great fighting pistol. It is, however, uninspiring and there's no chemistry with me. It has all the right stuff but just doesn't get me hot'n'bothered. Purely a relationship of convenience at this point. If it were my only choice, I would be quite content, though.

Tim

quote:

Originally posted by sigmundsauer:
It is, however, uninspiring and there's no chemistry with me. It has all the right stuff but just doesn't get me hot'n'bothered. Purely a relationship of convenience at this point. If it were my only choice, I would be quite content, though.

You gonna shoot it or marry it?

Had one. Didn't fit my hand right. Sold it. Won't buy another.
Keech

quote:

Originally posted by Keech:
Had one. Didn't fit my hand right. Sold it. Won't buy another.
Keech

Ya gots two hands, son! Try the other'n.

Well, I not a big glock fan up until recently when I relized pretty much everyone(meaning everyone I know) has one. So, I looked at it as if we are in a SHTF situation and I will be like "im out of ammo" then my buddy will be like "here" and hands me one of his glock magazines..

Will that be a good enough excuse to get one?..

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by sigmundsauer:
It is, however, uninspiring and there's no chemistry with me. It has all the right stuff but just doesn't get me hot'n'bothered. Purely a relationship of convenience at this point. If it were my only choice, I would be quite content, though.

You gonna shoot it or marry it?

In a bona fide WTSHTF scenario, my guns will need to be multi-role-capable.

Tim

I've made it over 1800 days without purchasing a Glock... so far, so good!

Wow, I've made it over 14,000 days without buying a Glock! Yes, Thats almost 40 years.

I've looked at Glocks, held Glocks, and fired Glocks; but still no Glock.

Why? Glocks do NOT feel comfortable in my hand. I totally understand why they have the nickname of BLOCK.

So to get the features of a Glock, but with a comfortable feel in the hand, I own two S&W M&Ps. Love M&Ps... would NOT trade them for a Glock.

I'll buy a Glock after SIG produces a 10mm.

quote:

Originally posted by SurfinUSA:
...
I used to carry a Colt Commander in 45. Now I won't carry any gun that requires a manual safety to be removed to fire. I used to believe it was all just a matter of training, until I missed the safety once. Then I saw one of the competition shooters do the same thing at a match and this guy is shooting 50-100k rounds a year. So it can happen to anyone.
...

That's what I try to tell people.

There is a differnce between saying "Train enough and the risk can be brought down to a level where benifit out weighs it." and saying "Train enough and it will no longer be a risk." To say the later is a stright out lie as far as I am concerned.

I'm not saying people who chose a pistol with manual firing inhibit devices are wrong. They might have decided that whatever risk associated with having to flip the lever is less than not having one for some reason, and it's not necessarily a right or wrong answer.

But, with any added critical task, there is a probability of task being failed. Only way to eliminate the probability is to eliminate the task. It's a very simple logic. To say the risk can be magaged is correct. But, to say the risk can be eliminated or dees not exist is wrong.

If "train enough" can totally eliminate fumble with fliping the firing inhibit lever, then why are the same people saying that thinks no one can be trained enough to keep the finger on the trigger and never have an accidental discharge? Isn't that a paradox?