I've put together 3 perfect (for my wants/needs) for $2K

G19 gen 3 - Smooth Face Trigger, 25 cent trigger job, Ghost Tactical Connector, Warren Tactical Sights.

Even meat left on the bone for extra mags.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
Its incredible easy to get to $2K if you are going to have an RMR on the gun, suppressor sights, milling and a few mags.
If those aren't in the equation then its silly.

I get that RMRs are $400-500 and you pay either $100 to get your slide milled or as an upcharge from the factory for your MOS pistol. But that means you're in about $1000 for a gun + optic.

That's not what I'm talking about here. Optics have always been expensive and there is no getting around that for quality/durability.

If I go on Gunbroker, there are plenty of custom Glocks that run between $1700 and $2200 or so without an optic. That's the gun I don't understand. And I'm not trying to be disagreeable here -- I just don't understand what someone is buying for that amount of cash. It's upwards of a $1000 surcharge over a Glock MOS model.

Custom 1911s I (somewhat) get because you're typically buying accuracy, tool steel parts, fit and finish, and checkering. Hand fitting is labor intensive. And the result from most shops is a 1" or so at 25 yards guarantee. That puts a high end 1911 on par with your P210, X-Five, high end CZs, etc. in both accuracy and price. But after $2000 or so, it does fall into the absurd level and the gains are marginal.

So what's the advantage of a fancy $2000 Glock over a G17 MOS + RMR with $50 spent on a trigger job and $25 on the grip enhancement tape/cover of your choice?

To each their own. I have done 3 custom Glocks and probably spent $8,000 between the three of them. The 34 pictured above is a complete Agency Arms gun and I love shooting it. Have had it a couple months and put right at 1400 rounds through it, have yet to have a malfunction of any kind. When I pick up a factory Glock I lay it down just as quickly.

I know it's not for everyone. I don't regret any of it.

quote:

twpayne75

Ok, so what makes your Agency Arms gun so good? At what distance was that target shot, because I made the same sized group off-hand at 7 yards with my Glock 19 last week. And I'd call that average performance for an average dude with an average gun.

Now if you tell me, "Yeah, that was at 25 yards off-hand with Winchester White Box" alright then, you have my attention.

That being said, what makes you put down a stock Glock after you pick it up? Is it the grip reduction aspect of it? I had a CCF for a while, I had a grip reduced Glock 17 as well, and for anyone who hates the hump or has smaller hands, the Glock grip is so-so. I get that. It's still the biggest flaw in the design in my opinion and I'm curious to try the new Gen 5s to see if it's any better.

Is it anything else? Does the trigger, ergonomics, and accuracy rival something in a similar price class like a P226 X-Five, full-custom 1911, or high end CZ? Because I've shot all of those too and I also get why they are so good (and expensive). They're all 1" @ 25 yard guns with flawless 3 lbs. triggers. And that's pretty easy to prove -- heck, most ship with a test target as documentation.

And don't get me wrong, I am not arguing the virtues of a stock Glock. That's not at all what this thread is about. I'm trying to find out as objectively as possible in what ways a gun costing 4x as much as mine is better.

Not if I'm spending the money they aren't.


I went down that rabbit hole with a glock for 3-gun. Reliable, accurate enough, trigger can be ok with a Zev or similar trigger kit.

I stopped after a trigger upgrade, tungsten guide rod, and Lone Wolf barrel. The barrel was just so I could shoot unjacketed bullets without worrying about polygonal rifling. The pistol worked fine but I was chasing a phantom thinking I could turn a Glock into exactly what I wanted for a competition gun.

Went to a 2011 and never looked back.


Personally, and I have only used them once or twice, I am not a fan of a dot on a handgun. I understand for some people with vision problems they may be a godsend. They are slower for me to acquire than a front sight.


The trigger was the real deal killer for me on the Glock.

If you want to keep all the safeties functional, it can never be what a series 70 type trigger can be.

quote:

Originally posted by caneau:

quote:

twpayne75

Ok, so what makes your Agency Arms gun so good? At what distance was that target shot, because I made the same sized group off-hand at 7 yards with my Glock 19 last week. And I'd call that average performance for an average dude with an average gun.

Now if you tell me, "Yeah, that was at 25 yards off-hand with Winchester White Box" alright then, you have my attention.

That being said, what makes you put down a stock Glock after you pick it up? Is it the grip reduction aspect of it? I had a CCF for a while, I had a grip reduced Glock 17 as well, and for anyone who hates the hump or has smaller hands, the Glock grip is so-so. I get that. It's still the biggest flaw in the design in my opinion and I'm curious to try the new Gen 5s to see if it's any better.

Is it anything else? Does the trigger, ergonomics, and accuracy rival something in a similar price class like a P226 X-Five, full-custom 1911, or high end CZ? Because I've shot all of those too and I also get why they are so good (and expensive). They're all 1" @ 25 yard guns with flawless 3 lbs. triggers. And that's pretty easy to prove -- heck, most ship with a test target as documentation.

And don't get me wrong, I am not arguing the virtues of a stock Glock. That's not at all what this thread is about. I'm trying to find out as objectively as possible in what ways a gun costing 4x as much as mine is better.

It's a total package. That group was shot at about 8 yards, with a second or less split time. It's quick on target, and it stays on target. That may not be super impressive for some, it's pretty damn good for me.

The reason I put down a stock Glock quickly is after you're used to Glocks with framework done, it's impossible to go back. The Agency fitted trigger, in my opinion, is about as good as a Glock is going to get. Overwatch Precision is right there with it, but since this is an Agency gun........

I won't have a gun anymore that doesn't have the rear dovetail cut forward of the optic cut. It makes all the difference in the world.

I have gone through every gun phase imaginable. When I joined here I was straight Sig. Have owned about every variant of 226, 228, and 229, with a couple 220's thrown in for good measure. Really got over DA/SA and sold all of them except for 3 or 4 of which I converted to DAK. I actually liked it until I discovered HK's LEM trigger. After that the rest of the Sigs left and several HK's showed up. In the midst of all that, I owned several Glocks. I never could love them. I appreciated them for what they were, which is boringly reliable and simple. I also went through a short 1911 phase in which a Wilson Combat, Nighthawk, and Springfield TRP was bought. That was short lived.

In custom Glocks I found guns that I love to shoot, I can have them the way I want, and are still boringly reliable without being boring.

I wouldn't try to talk anybody into or out of a custom Glock. I'm sure a lot of people would rather have 6 Glocks versus the one 34 pictured above, and that's fine, I'm just not that person. I would rather have one great gun exactly the way I want it than a bunch of average ones. I'm the same way with rifles. I would rather spend $15,000 on 4 or 5 great rifles than have 30+ okay rifles.

I debated replying in the post because I think I have a pretty good idea of how the general consensus is relating to modified Glocks here. Different people value money differently. I'm not loaded by any means. I also don't have any drinking, smoking, gambling, etc. habits that eat up my income. Guns are the only bad habit I have really. But even with those, I have never really lost any money on them when selling. I probably spend a couple hundred bucks a month on ammo and try to put enough back to take classes.

quote:

Originally posted by twpayne75:
I would rather have one great gun exactly the way I want it than a bunch of average ones. I'm the same way with rifles. I would rather spend $15,000 on 4 or 5 great rifles than have 30+ okay rifles.

I am right there with you on this aspect.

Similarly I would rather have a few guns that I shoot a bunch than a bunch of guns that I almost never shoot.

This is the direction I went for a handgun.

quote:

Originally posted by caneau:

quote:

Originally posted by .38supersig:
I've been on both sides of this one.

Bought a 21 that had a Burris with it. Traded parts around and was able to convert it to .38 Super. Out of pocket cost: $350.

Traded a Taurus for a Gen2. Threw in a Salient trigger and converted it to a 9. Got about $800 in it now.

Found a deal on a Salient BLU. Wanted a RMR on that one also. This one was about $1800.

They cost a heck of a lot more when you don't have any other parts to sell or trade.

So how does the Salient BLU shoot compared to your Gen 2? I can say without a shadow of a doubt that an $1800 1911 such as a Dan Wesson Valor will be more accurate and easier to shoot than an $800 Springfield Loaded model. And test after test has proven this, everything from a Ransom Rest to having a pro with repeatable performance demonstrate faster shooting, reloading, etc. Is the same true for the Salient, Zev, and others?

They both shoot very well. They both have no finger grooves as well as both having Salient flat triggers.

The BLU has a brass plug, grip reduction, Trijicon RMR with co-witness sights, full stippling and stippled trigger guard, double undercut trigger guard, A steel magwell with matching baseplates, and a box fluted barrel. Yes, it does cost more, but the BLU has spectacular second shot placement.

For the record, neither of them shoot as accurate as an SVI.

Nor are they as much fun as a 50AE Desert Eagle and some bowling pins.

Ok, so it's an ergonomics improvement. And since twpayne75, your gun is compensated, I can imagine follow up shots are easier. I have a comped G34 as well and it's like cheating. Very noisy cheating.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the conclusion here seems to be:
- The accuracy improvement seems to be marginal at best. The slides and barrels don't seem to do much except look the part. The big benefit of course is from the optic.

- Triggers can be improved with a drop in module. That I think is fairly well established. Still not sure how much it impacts accuracy the way a nice 1911 trigger can (or even a Sig trigger), but it makes the shooter happier when they pull it.

- The big benefit is ergonomics over stock. Undercut trigger, stippling, frame reduction, magwell, etc. all make the gun more pleasant to use for certain individuals who aren't a fan of Glock geometry. So until Glock improves the ergonomics, there will be plenty of companies grinding away at their frames.

Did I miss anything?

And again, this is not a post about how you spend your money. This is about "What do you get for your money?" As a proud owner of a Royal Blued 1918-built Colt 1911 with stag grips, I'm all about vanity for the sake of vanity even at the cost of performance.

I have a couple of very expensive Wilson Combat custom spec 1911's (one of which was blued by Doug Turnbull back when that option was available), I've got an X5 L1, a P210 Legend Target, a Mk. 23, and several other high dollar pistols including Ed Brown 1911's and some other stuff.

I have a few Glocks that qualify for this thread, including a G17 that cost me over 2 grand without an RMR. Deus Ex Machina parts (barrel, guide rod, flat trigger, mag well), slide milling, sights, frame work, custom CeraKote on the whole gun.

Ergonomics are the huge difference for me. I've trained with and carried stock Glocks for years (stock aside from sights). The frame work, removing the finger grooves and re-contour of the back strap, makes all the difference for me. The rest is just fluff. Oh, and the scallop for the mag button on a Gen 3 makes the release so much easier to reach without shifting from a firing grip on the weapon.

Are they as accurate, pretty, or made of as pricey materials as something like a high dollar 1911? No.

If I was only going to go for one expensive pistol, would it be a custom Glock? Nope.

I really enjoy them, though, and that's all that matters to me.

My custom G19 is almost done (factory OD, frame work, slide milling, Trijicon HD XR's, stock internals). I'll have a matching OD G17 built next month, but that will wear an RMR.

They aren't a value proposition, that's for sure. I've made a lot of money selling off my Colt Pythons, and I'd lose a lot of money selling my custom Glocks. I know that. I like custom pistols, I like Glocks, and it's a lot of fun to spec them and design the slide. Yes, my slides are true custom, not the big "get on the internet and pick one of our pattern" type jobs.

My custom 9mm Glocks feel better in my hand than just about anything I've ever owned, and I've owned just about everything at one point or another.

My Wilson Combat Beretta cost nearly 2 grand, and while the trigger is much better than a Glock, I can't shoot it as well.

I shoot my CZ Tac Sport 9mm better than my custom Glocks, but I hate looking at the thing, and it doesn't feel great. But guess what? It's next on the list for a custom overhaul.

quote:

Originally posted by caneau:


Did I miss anything?

I'd say that's a fair assessment. I could live without slidework except possibly RMR cut and now that I've done a 19, 17, and 34 I probably will. Framework is a must. I help admin a fairly large custom Glock group and have gotten to know many custom Glock shops, stipplers, etc. There are guys turning out great work that don't cost a fortune.

quote:

Originally posted by twpayne75:

quote:

Originally posted by caneau:


Did I miss anything?

I'd say that's a fair assessment. I could live without slidework except possibly RMR cut and now that I've done a 19, 17, and 34 I probably will. Framework is a must. I help admin a fairly large custom Glock group and have gotten to know many custom Glock shops, stipplers, etc. There are guys turning out great work that don't cost a fortune.

all very true points

For me all i NEED is frame work, RMR milling, and simple serrations on the front. I don't NEED anything besides that.

Ok, then this makes a bit more sense:

- Base MOS Glock $650
- RMR - $450-550
- Trigger - $150-175 (based on Overwatch Arms's website)
- Frame enhancements - $275 or so (also based on Overwatch Precision's website).

So $1500 or so for a gun with optic and ergonomic/trigger customization. And the rest seems like cosmetics. That makes more sense to me. Thanks everyone for the feedback/explanation.

I would much rather have a standard Glock milled for an RMR instead of an MOS.

quote:

Originally posted by twpayne75:
I would much rather have a standard Glock milled for an RMR instead of an MOS.

Why is that?

quote:

Originally posted by caneau:

quote:

Originally posted by twpayne75:
I would much rather have a standard Glock milled for an RMR instead of an MOS.

Why is that?

stability of the MOS system (the plates they used) has been shown to be a weak point, they also sit relatively high on the slide compared to Milling.

the beating the RMR takes, and the screws holding things together an tight milling has shown to greatly improve the reliability of reflex mounted options on handguns.

quote:

Originally posted by caneau:

quote:

Originally posted by twpayne75:
I would much rather have a standard Glock milled for an RMR instead of an MOS.

Why is that?

Much more secure. Sitting down in the slide with bosses milled in for extra support not just sitting on top of the slide with only the screws holding it.

All so you won't need extra tall sights if you plan on having backup sights.

You should also consider having the rear dovetail cut forward of the RMR cut. I'm telling you, it makes a world of difference.

quote:

Originally posted by IndianaBoy:

quote:

Originally posted by twpayne75:
I would rather have one great gun exactly the way I want it than a bunch of average ones. I'm the same way with rifles. I would rather spend $15,000 on 4 or 5 great rifles than have 30+ okay rifles.

I am right there with you on this aspect.

Similarly I would rather have a few guns that I shoot a bunch than a bunch of guns that I almost never shoot.

This is the direction I went for a handgun.

Same.

Who built that one?

quote:

Originally posted by caneau:

quote:

Originally posted by twpayne75:
I would much rather have a standard Glock milled for an RMR instead of an MOS.

Why is that?

You can get the dot lower without the plate.

quote:

I have done 3 custom Glocks and probably spent $8,000 between the three of them

Goodness.