TexasCHLforum.com

The reason I like and own more Glocks than I probably need is the ease of operation. I hope I never have to use it in SD but if I do with everything else going on I know all I have to do is pull the trigger to fire it. No worries about safeties or anything like that. Also really easy to take down and clean.

If you get the G30 I think you will be very happy with it.

Stan

I am a confirmed 1911 guy, and my two main carry pistols are a 3" Kimber, and a 5" Springfield. It is a matter of both "that's what I'm used to," and "a love affair with the 1911 platform." That being said, my wife recently acquired a G19, and I really like this pistol. I like it for all the reasons stated above - reliability, accuracy, simplicity, price, etc - but I also admire the idea of form following function. After all, that is how John Moses Browning came up with the final design of the 1911's shape and control levers - it flat works, and it points naturally. The G19 seems to share this ethos.

My only complaint about Glocks so far is that in .45, the G21 is a massive pistol with a slide like a boxcar, or, like the G36, it suffers in capacity. Even the G30, while smaller than the G21, still has a really wide slide. I looked at a G36 yesterday while I was dropping my USPc off at a gunsmith to be worked on, and while I liked the fact that it was only a little bit bigger than my 3" Kimber, it was a 6+1 pistol, instead of a 7+1, like the Kimber.

I am considering selling my USPc when I get it back from the gunsmith. It's a .40 cal., and I'm on kind of a quest to simplify my ammunition requirements. Right now, we own pistols chambered in .380, .38 Special, 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and .44 Magnum. If I get rid of the .40 and buy either a 9mm or a .45, that's one less caliber to have to inventory. So I'm leaning hard toward either the G19 or the G30.

Do you G30 owners out there have any particular niggling little complaints about that pistol, versus other pistols you own - taking into account the other Glock virtues? Forget about caliber wars. I'm pretty well convinced that 15 rounds of 9mm is the equivalent of 10 rounds of .45. I'm more interested in the ease of concealability, and whether or not the size of the pistol noticably impacts the ability to control the .45 round compared to other small .45s like my 3" Kimber.

I've had my G30 for about 2.5 years now and still love it. It is a bit wider, but I decided on a CTAC over leather for this reason. I think that (for me) going with the G30 and leather would make it less concealable.

I have carried it daily for 2 years now and don't worry about it. I carry under nearly any type of untucked shirts from sweaters to t-shirts. I will say that I transition to my PM9 carried up front if I need to be absolutely sure that nothing is exposed.

Like everyone else has said - Glock work, they're safe, the price is right, they last forever, and there is nothing to think about if you need to use it.

You also have the option to get the G30 in a SF model. This doesn't mean that the width is any different, it just means that the grip is built for smaller hands.

I'm the type of person who prefers function over fashion. But don't get me wrong. I can appreciate the beauty of a BBQ gun.

I like the simplicity of its design. In my mind, less parts = better reliability.

My only complaint about the Glocks is the grips. I think it was a mistake for Glock to go with the finger grooves when the grip on the .45s is already as large as they are. On the 36 it seems a person would have to have a very narrow hand and small fingers to be able to hold it correctly. On the 30 the grooves are so close together I cannot get a totally comfortable grip on the gun. However, I make it work; I would just like it more if they were not there. On the 21 it isn't as bad and that is possibly my favorite. I would like to see them all without the finger grooves like the Springfield XDs, not necessarily like the original Glocks. That includes a smaller backstrap area.

My Glock 30 and 21 are guns I carry and would count on without worry if that was all I could have. I like the simplicity as well as wearability of the finish. I have a XD9 sub-compact that is wearing badly from use. I like the gun a lot, better than any Glock I have used or owned, except for the caliber. I have a XD45 that I would carry all the time if I could because of the finish and the grip. I hope to get a compact 45 as my carry gun soon. I have a Glock 30 but think a XD45 is superior as a carry gun. As a cheaper, ultra reliable, S(tuff)HTF gun, Glock 21.

Shoot whatever you’re going to buy and make sure you like it. If you do like the grip and can shoot it well, don't hesitate to get a Glock pistol. That is my opinion.

I am really a Hipower guy, but I do have a Glock 26. I use the Glock 26 primarily as one of my back up gun with pocket carry. (Depending on the circumstances I use a J frame or a Seacamp for that purpose probably more than the Glock.) The best things about the Glock are its shootability and trigger. I shoot it better with my left hand than any of my other back ups and just as well as my Hipowers with either hand or both hands. On the downside, it is bulky, the slide and grip especially are pretty wide for pocket carry or for owb carry on my left side. I also don't like the lack of a thumb/slide safety. It may just be me but for a gun with a trigger that is essentially the same as a Hipower or 1911, I really would like to have that safety. As another poster noted, that does lead to a question as to whether it may be just as safe to carry a Hipower or 1911 with the thumb safety off.

Right now I've made up my mind that I want a new pistol for a carry gun, once I get my plastic. I have a Taurus PT145 (.45 ACP compact) but I don't like the long trigger pull and double-action-only.

A couple of weeks ago I fired a friend's wife's Springfield XD9. So right now I'm torn between either a Glock or a Springfield in .45 ACP. However, I'm starting to reconsider caliber and looking at the .40 weapons. I know they've been called .40 "short and weak" as a slam since they're a toned down version of the 10mm cartridge....but supposedly I've heard they have good stopping power. Plus it's now a popular caliber and ammo is reasonable.

What I really want is a concealable carry pistol chambered in a caliber that will reliably stop any bad guys I shoot. I know shot placement means more than caliber, but let's assume I'm a decent shot. If I shoot a bad guy, I want him to stay down, and I feel that the larger calibers will ensure that.

That being said I might mention I'm a really big guy, 6'6" tall and 270 lbs. Large pistols aren't a problem for me.

I think it was on this forum that someone called Glock "the revolver of semi-autos".
In addition to all the great stuff posted above, I like mine because (like many other "older" designs) Glock has a proven track record.
There are also some way over the top "tests" that have been done (dropped from an airplane, buried in mud or whatever for "x" number of days and still firing flawlessly) etc.
I carry mine in a Comp-tac holster as well, and appreciate that there is no way for the trigger be contacted while holstering or during carry. It's also handy to have the ability to tighten or loosen the "grip" of the holster with an allen wrench - I can hang upside on the monkey bars with my kids and it still won't fall out. Now if my glasses would stay on that would be cool!

I was going to go with the G27 or G26, but the finger grooves did not suit my hand. I chose the S&W M&P 40c. Basically the same type of pistol (DAO) but it just conformed to my grip better. I've shot glocks before, and the 40c is comparable to shoot. As far as reliability, there's not much difference. It's just a personal preference to me. Aftermarket though, tons of stuff for the Glock. For me, S&W aftermarket is sufficient. MTAC IWB, .40S&W ammo, what else do you need? Aftermarket add ons are just icing... really what do you really need to stick on your pistol to stop a threat besides iron sites, and what is in between your ears.

Simple.
Reliable.
Rugged.
Proven.

My EDC is a Glock 23. This is after swearing off Glocks when the first Glock I ever fired didn't fit my hand well at all. It was a Glock 21, and it was simply too big and blocky for my hand. My wife fell in love with the Glock 19 when we started looking for a SD pistol for her. After shooting her pistol, I had to reevaluate my dislike of Glocks. The 9/40 frame Glocks fit may hand pretty well. With a polymer frame, I can file off the finger bumps that don't fit my fat fingers myself. I can detail strip the pistol easily with a single tool, and I can modify the pistols cheaply and easily myself. I guess I just don't like the really big Glocks. Now I may have to reevaluate that statement since Glock has released the Slim Frame version of the Model 21. We'll see. I personally like the .40 cartridge. Good balance of bullet speed and bullet weight, IMHO. The fact that many LE agencies use it is anothe factor in my decision to carry the G23.

The Annoyed Man wrote:My only complaint about Glocks so far is that in .45, the G21 is a massive pistol with a slide like a boxcar, or, like the G36, it suffers in capacity. Even the G30, while smaller than the G21, still has a really wide slide. I looked at a G36 yesterday while I was dropping my USPc off at a gunsmith to be worked on, and while I liked the fact that it was only a little bit bigger than my 3" Kimber, it was a 6+1 pistol, instead of a 7+1, like the Kimber.

You're not only one with this dilemma. There is a thread on GlockTalk about taking the slide assembly off of a G36 and putting it on a G30 frame. It works perfectly (for those that have done so, and some have for several hundred if not thousand rounds), and you have a pistol with a smaller slide profile and weight, and a larger capacity. It also apparently fits in holsters designed for the G19/23/32, as they have the same slide profile (or close enough) as the G36. Unfortunately, there is no source that I know of for G36 slide assemblies, so for now, to do this, you'd be stuck with having to buy both pistols.

MojoTexas wrote: ... "Why do you love Glocks so much?" ...

1. There's less to go wrong with them than most other launching platforms.
2. I've never known one not to work ... and to work well.
3. They don't complain about sweat or lint.
4. They like to run mostly "dry" and don't have to be dripping with lube/grease to work well.
5. They're so ugly that they're cute.

Let me ask another question about the Glock platform (unless this needs to be moved to Reloading):

I am about to take up reloading. If I wind up with a Glock at some point, are the chambers still not fully supported? If so, is there a replacement barrel that can be installed that does have a fully supported chamber, and if so, does that fool with the reliability of ammo feeding?

I know the barrel was designed as it was to help with ammo feed, but with the cost/availablity of ammo looking like it will never come down, I'd hate to have so much brass ruined and made unuseable again. Plus, I've seen the pictures of what reloads can do in a non-fully-supported Glock chamber and I'd like to not ever have that happen, should one wind up in my safe.

MojoTexas wrote:I've fired several Glocks over the years, including one of the 10mm Glock 20s, the original 9mm Glock 17, and the .40 Glock 22. These were all pistols owned by buddies that let me shoot them a few times at the range.

I've never been a big fan of Glocks, but lately I've been reconsidering. So my question to all of you Glockaholics is, "Why do you love Glocks so much?" I'm not looking to flame anybody or start a holy war...I'm seriously interesting in hearing the opinions of all of you who love them.

Thanks!
MojoTexas

Strangely enough, I really don't like my Glocks. They are ugly but as tools, they work exceedingly well for their intended purpose.

• - above all I prefer the Glock's simplicity
  - only 33 parts of uniform manufacture (unlike 1911's for which their are no less than 30 manufacturers using 30 different sets of tolerances)
  - armorer level maintenance can be performed with no special tools or fitting
  - operating system eliminates manual control levers (decockers and safeties)
  - trigger is light (3.5-5.5lbs) and fast but long enough to require deliberate action
  - reliability/durability
  - remains serviceable for extended periods with minimal maintenance
  - consistently feeds a wide variety of ammunition
  - magazines hold up to insane amounts of abuse (I've only ever managed to render one inoperable by splitting it in five places)
  - gun often remains serviceable even when some critical parts (slide, trigger return spring, etc) fail
  - affordability
  - used Glocks can be had for $400 (+- $50)
  - less than $50 in parts will return most used guns to factory specs
  - only necessary mods are metallic sights to replace the factor supplied plastic sights (everything else is gravy)

Glock's may appeal to others for different reasons but those are mine. I really don't care if anyone agrees with them or not. I've heard the supposed need for manual safeties and all I can say I am now convinced that is an inferior way of thinking. The Glock is not perfect but, it works exceedingly well for its intended purpose with no unnecessary impediments

If you are going to reload for a Glock, don't use lead bullets. There is something about the barrel that can cause lead to build up and lead to problems.