Originally Posted by stratton
OK I have a question about glocks. I know they are carried by law enforcement. But I have heard a lot of bad things about them. I just took a NRA course for handguns. I didnt need to but thought why not. Anyways.... the instructor bashed glocks the whole time. He owns a couple along with a million other handguns that he brought in for the class. He claims that they are throw away guns. And that the polymer doesnt last like a good quailty gun. I know that they are not considered a highly accurate handgun. But has anyone else heard negative things about them. I would like to buy one someday but I dont wanna spend a lot if it is only trendy to do so. My friend has one but he can be bias, seeing how you would never want to diss a expensive gun that you bought.
It's mainly just personal preference. There is no doubting that Glock makes a fine weapon. It's accurate and it is extremely reliable. However, some people just don't care for them for whatever reason. I respect Glock owners and their choice of weapon, but I myself am not a fan. I don't care for the grip angle and I don't really do striker-fired handguns...I like a hammer and I like having the option of double or single action.
And as far as what makes a glock accurate (and part of what makes it so reliable); it's the barrel. Glock barrels have what is called hexagonal rifling (it's not really rifling) which has proven to not only be extremely accurate, but less prone to fouling than traditional rifling lands and grooves.
So, with that knowledge, unless you just fall in love with a glock in your hand, you do have options in finding these features (the good things about Glock) on other weapons.
For instance, the hexagonal barrel design is also found on HK handguns. HK handguns use the modified Browning locking system (found on the Browning HP 9mm...considered one of the most reliable repeating handguns ever). But the big thing about HK over Glock (to me) is the availability of a weapon with a de-cocker and no saftey.
If it's the small size or the striker-fire design that you like, the Springfield XD series and all Kahr arms are striker-fired, but their smaller, compact guns feel much different in the hand than a glock does.
And if the argument is about how a glock will shoot while it's full of hardened cement and cryogenically frozen while buried in sand 500 feet under water in a raging river during a full-moon after it was dropped from a helicopter, I always ask people when exactly they plan to be in that type of situation where they would need to expend hundreds of rounds with a dirty handgun as their primary defense and not a rifle in such a pressing situation. If you carry a dirty weapon, and you rely on it, you deserve what you get when you have to use it.
Now, as far as the instructor of your class, the only thing I can think of that would have him so down on glocks would be that there is no second strike capability on a bad round or bad strike with a striker-fired weapon. Not saying Glocks are prone to misfire, just that in the event of a bad strike or a bad round, you have no choice but to chamber a new round to get a shot off. With a hammer-fired weapon, you have the option of trying to fire the bad round again by cocking the hammer with your thumb. This practice wouldn't be (and isn't) advisable (or even an issue, for that matter) in an altercation unless your attacker occupies your free hand, rendering the striker-fired weapon useless on a misfire.