Glock Perfection????????????? - Page 3

Will Beararms · January 25, 2001, 01:16 AM

Glock is the high road.

J. Parker · January 25, 2001, 01:34 AM

LawDog; "I neither like nor dislike the Glock series". Could you be a little more NEUTRAL please? If Glock's take the high road then I'll take the low road.

J. Parker

January 25, 2001, 01:51 AM

We can find fault with anything; I recall some departments making their revolvers DAO.
A liberal demoncrat (sic) could ban Glocks as unsafe for LEOs.
Ban DA/SA from agencies--unsafe transition.
Ban SA cocked and locked--cops too untrained for that.
DAO...someting could go wrong--heavy trigger causes collateral damage to civilians; ban those too.
OK no guns for LEOs.
Civilians...no way they can have guns if they are not safe for LEOs.
Military...well under revised rules of engagement they will not carry any ammo.
OK are we safe yet?
Does this sound familiar?
Coming to a movie house near you!

TheFederalistWeasel · January 25, 2001, 02:36 AM

First and foremost; moderators I apologize.

My intention was to create a constructive and spirited debate about the issues, which currently surround the Glock line of firearms, but what I received, while not very productive was indeed spirited to say the least.

And I was accused of wasting band width!!!

I read the posts by all but one or two folks and question why we can have a constructive debate about the issues that surround other handguns from a $200.00 Kel-Tec to $5,000.00 Les Baur Whiz Bang Gold plated special. But somehow, when the Glock is tossed into the mix the gloves come off and it turns into a spitting contest.

A fine example of this is Glock Talk and numerous threads even here at The Firing Line.

If you read completely my post I have lined it with facts I have gathered from various sources across the net, mostly from news sites. If you question the validity of these facts don’t accuse me of being an agent of some liberal anti-gun agenda. Do your own inquiry and rebut them, if I am indeed making this up then it should be rather uncomplicated for most of you to substantiate this.

I do not work for nor have a monetary interest in Smith and Wesson, as I was accused.
I am not an agent of the Federal Government, as I was accused.
I am not a left wing anti-gun nut, as I was accused.
I have not threatened to kill anyone as one such post implies towards me.
I am not an alien here to take over the world.
And I am not a mouse, as I was accused…

My question to you who posted coarse and imprudent comments instead of productive and appreciable remarks, why?

TFW

TheFederalistWeasel · January 25, 2001, 02:42 AM

The main "Why?" that Tamara asked...
...was why can grown men not civilly disagree as to which brands of guns they like, causing me to have to lock threads?
__________________
MOLON LABE!
"..but never ever Fear. Fear is for the enemy. Fear and Bullets."
10mm: Everything you love about 20mm, and only half the recoil!
"...maybe the people in Texas were attacked because of child abuse. But, if child abuse was the issue, why didn't Janet Reno tear-gas Woody Allen?" -PJ O'Rourke

Arizona Fusilier · January 25, 2001, 03:49 AM

I will attempt to rebut the original posting, with a(pseudo)scientific slant. I am not a statistician by trade, but have had recent schooling in empirical methods in pursuit of my MPA.

There are two phenomenon that occurred concurrently with the wide-spread fielding of the Glock; unfortunately, without extensive access to original source data and research, they might be impossible to "control" for.

The first is the wide-spread adoption of the semi-automatic pistol by numerous jurisdictions across the country. Glocks entry into the market largely coincided with this "wave". Yes, some cut their teeth on Sigs or Berettas, but when the crescendo was reached, there was Glock, with a functionality in use (pull the trigger, it goes bang) similar to the revolver that had long been in use. It was often selected just for that ease of mental transition. Consequently, it was the first semi-auto many departments, and police officers, were exposed to. Based on (admittedly) casual observation, I believe that more have transitioned from the revolver to the Glock then from Sigs/Berettas. External safety devices, under these circumstances, could be more of a detraction to duty-use than most of us would perceive. I think many AD/UDs that resulted from Glocks were a by-product of years of sloppy gun-handling by experienced LEOs, who had heretofor gotten away with it because of the long/heavy trigger pull of the revolvers they were use to.

Secondly, in the last several years, "Glock-mania" has occurred during a time when fewer people have turned to a career in Law Enforcement, yet demand was simultaneously high, due to the state of the economy and various initiatives to hire more police offices (100,000 more Cops on the street, ad nauseum). Working in the Personnel department of the City of Phoenix, I can personally testify to the great difficulty we have had recruiting new police officers. Fewer and fewer are the "professionals", guys who's dad and uncles and brothers were cops, who grew up dreaming of being a cop someday. Forgive me as I indulge in stereotypes, but such people tend to be a part of the "culture" of force, and thus have above-average exposure to firearms; particluarly handguns. They are increasingly a minority. Now the average "joe", probably a good-guy at heart, but with little exposure to firearms, is the typical applicant, because of economic circumstances. In their hands, the Glock is probably not the ideal weapon from a safety issue. It is however, simple to operate (pull the trigger, it goes bang). With all due respect to LEOs past and present, we have more of a personnel/training issue, in the present day, than a firearm issue, in my opinion.

These are not trivial variables; they are real, widespread, and numerous. Without accounting for these variables, any declaration of inherent safety defects of the Glock cannot be considered with authority. As has been noted in this thread, other firearms have had their day in the limelight of controversy. This, coupled with the media's tendency to villianize any firearm, leads me to take the quoted sources/articles with a whole can of Morton Salt.

Keep your finger off the trigger, until you are ready to destroy your target.

denfoote · January 25, 2001, 07:10 AM

Yo Fed,
Put the crack pipe down, and listen to what I'm tell'in ya. Glocks just don't "go off". If that were the case, then the ATF (remember them???) would not let them into the country. Especially the KLINTON ATF!!!!

PLASTIC SIG · January 25, 2001, 08:01 AM

I agree that alot of LEO's shouldnt be carrying glocks. Some shouldnt even be LEO's. Remember that female officer (on TLC) who's gun wouldnt fire during qualifying so she holstered it up and said "Oh well...maybe next time" and went back out to finish her shift? Its LEO's like that who shoot innocent people and themselves. Think about it, If we cant train our peace officers to use glocks, maybe we should be asking for higher standards in our departments.

I think each LEO should have choice over several firearms and choose the one they are most effective and safe with. Im glad NYC has a rediculously heavy trigger pull. If I had a cop with a gun to my head in NYC i would hope it had a 20LB trigger pull. Because anyone who lives in NYC cant possibly be smart enuff to keep thier finger off the trigger before firing to begin with. Yeah i know that sounds like a generalization. But I have and always will think that alot of LEO's are undertrained to use any firearm, muchless a Glock. I say any officer that refuses to take a week-long training course at thunder ranch or similar course should be forced back to using a revolver and pepper spray.

Tim

shiroikuma · January 25, 2001, 08:42 AM

Hmmm not to start a bunch of flames, I expect this thread might get locked soon anyway the way some are acting, but..

as an example:
glock 5lb or so trigger no trigger blocking safety

Colt 1911 5lb or so trigger..but would you carry it cocked and not locked? Stock ones I've seen to have some slack although not as much as a Glock. Should be safe to carry unlocked righttt??? I mean it has a firing pin safety (good ones) so it will only go off if the trigger is pulled rightttt???

Just an example to think about.

did anyone follow that thread I posted on the first page?

with respect and love for all

Shiro

WESHOOT2 · January 25, 2001, 08:50 AM

Original intent was to carry the 1911 into battle cocked w/safety off.

(That's what the grip safety is for.)

I stick by my first post. Guns are dangerous, and anyone who thinks otherwise IS a moron.

**Mal H** · January 25, 2001, 09:14 AM

WESHOOT2 - that was not your first statement.

Your first statement was

Quote:

I agree. Guns are real dangerous.

Moron.

You flat out called TFW a moron. You did not qualify it by indicating that if he thought guns were not dangerous he was a moron. Nice, but ineffective, try.

BigG · January 25, 2001, 09:25 AM

Quote:

According to a study by the FBI, New York City police officers armed with Glocks fired an average of 4.8 rounds in gunfights while those with revolvers fired 2.4 in 1994. Even after 100 bullets were fired in stopping a robbery in the Bronx in 1995, New York City police officials briefly investigated "overfiring" of the Glock but decided to keep it anyway.

This proves to me that many must learn their pistol techniques from a John Woo movie rather than on the range!

Will Beararms · January 25, 2001, 09:31 AM

TFW:

What do you expect when you post something that can only be constituted as the ultimate handgun heresy? I must advise you to seek counseling as soon as possible. Any quality range has rental Glocks that will go a long way in getting back on the path of wisdom. I advise you to take some sick days or vacation time to rest up and work through this condition. Be sure and keep us advised of your progress.

Now repeat after me: "Glock Perfection,Glock Perfection,Glock Perfection....

mcshot · January 25, 2001, 09:37 AM

Finer threads have been closed for less.

WalterGAII · January 25, 2001, 09:42 AM

IF ignorance is bliss, then there ought to be a few real gigglers about.

VonFatman · January 25, 2001, 09:54 AM

Amen Walter!

buzz_knox · January 25, 2001, 10:10 AM

Someone else may have brought this up but if I'm not horribly mistaken, TFW's initial post is a paraphrase (direct copy?) of that crappy Mother Jones "expose" on the Glock.

I just had a strange thought. I've heard for years people argue that the DA trigger isn't a problem because under stress, you won't notice the heavier trigger pull, thus allowing you to shoot it quickly. If that's the case, then the DA trigger offers absolutely no advantage (and some significant disadvantages) over the Glock. Hmmm? Makes you think, don't it?

Snubnose · January 25, 2001, 10:56 AM

To Mal H.

I saw your posting about conduct after I had made mine. But no I won't edit my posting because it's how I feel. You need to calm down and just let everyone speak there mind even if you don't like what we have to say. Geez guy what does the H in your name stand for....Hitler? I'm sure that remark may get me booted from the firing line but that's fine. AMF.

**Rich Lucibella** · January 25, 2001, 11:36 AM

Mr Nose-
The H in Mal's name stands for "Honor"; like in, "Honor your word".
From your signed agreement with TFL:

Quote:

No spamming, trolling, flaming or other personal attacks, be they acrimonious or veiled in humor.

Got it, new guy?
Rich

buzz_knox · January 25, 2001, 11:36 AM

Re: Snubnose's last post.

Calling a moderator Hitler? Been nice knowing you.

"Incoming!" buzz_knox yells as he runs for the bomb shelter.

Long Path · January 25, 2001, 12:11 PM

Quote:

In 1988, the FBI predicted that the Glock's sensitive trigger and lack of external safeties would "inevitably ... lead to an unintentional shot at the worst moment." Indeed, 11 years later, the Washington DC Police Department alone had had 120 accidental firings, 19 officers had wounded themselves or others with Glocks, and the district had paid $1.4 million in damages from resulting lawsuits related to Glock accidents.

Hmmm... how much did DC PD pay out over that same time period for vehicular accidents? Do we thus discuss the horrible nature of the Ford LTD Crown Victoria? (or whatever they drive out there)

The big beef of the first post of this really long thread seems to be that Glocks too easily do what they were designed to do. I've never owned a Glock. I'm not a huge fan. But I'll say that they do what they're designed to do, and in that light, they're good pistols.

Stating that a firearm is inherently unsafe because it does not have multifarious safeties hanging off of it that impede the ability of the shooter to fire it smacks of the marginalizing of "Gun-Control Moderates."

I've seen no reputable data on Glocks simply deciding to go off of their own accord. They all needed some human intervention to remove them from their safe state and put them into firing condition. Note in the first post that FederalistWeasal correctly states that in the unwanted shootings the "officer shot...", the "shooter" shot... This is correctly put. The pistol did not shoot those unfortunate victims; the person in charge of it did. The pistol did as it was bidden. Better training, not better design, is the solution to these tragedies.

**Rich Lucibella** · January 25, 2001, 01:18 PM

Quote:

But no I won't edit my posting because it's how I feel.

Not a problem. I've handled it for you.
Rich Lucibella

Fish · January 25, 2001, 01:20 PM

While I don’t agree with some of the information The Federalist Weasel has included in his post because of its source. I can understand his thinking and where he was headed with this post before it was railroaded by the quick-tempered typing and lack of thinking by some.

I think one moderator says “think twice, post once”.

That being said might I offer up just a bit of insight from my experience. When I joined the US Marshals in 1995 we were just commencing the change over of our duty weapons. USMS issued the Sig 228, which most Deputies carried until late 1998. The weapons that were tested were the Glock .40, the Sig 226 and 229 in .40 and the USP .40. These tests produced the Sig 229 and USP Compact .40 and later we added the USP in .357 Sig that I presently carry. The Glock had its share of documented teething problems from the very first batch we received. I remember the instructors at Glynco needing to revise their standard firearms curriculum due to encounters with the limp wristing and the initial panic produced by a few isolated slam fires that were experienced with the first pistols we received. Glock later blamed that on an error in shipping, declaring we received older pistols that had not yet been modified. I have no way of knowing if this is true because I don’t work for Glock.

I do know that I was placed in a firearm class in 1999 during in-service at Glynco to train and then be issued a Glock. But the day before the class was to begin the Agency pulled the Glock from our inventory. Specifying various problems with the firearm, from Deputies openly stating to range instructors that they were uncomfortable with the weapon, to our technicians citing higher than normal failure to feeds and uneasiness about the high-pressure rounds we carried causing the “kabooms”.

While some agencies do issue this gun such as the FBI I do think that it is not a choice weapon for a new hire or the first time handgun owner.

Fish

Snubnose · January 25, 2001, 01:21 PM

Rich Lucibella said: "The H in Mal's name stands for "Honor"; like in, "Honor your word". From your signed agreement with TFL:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No spamming, trolling, flaming or other personal attacks, be they acrimonious or veiled in humor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Got it, new guy? Rich

Yeah...old guy I got it. No, I didn't actually sign off on anything though. I clicked a button a joined and none of that means that I would indeed honor my word. I in fact and admit that I broke my word all to hell. But then again I'm certainly not the only person guilty of that in this forum or especially this thread. Go ahead an make an example of me if you so desire. It certainly doesn't matter in the end. Debate often inspires heated and sometimes ugly disagreement. If you won't allow people to speak their minds, even in that fashion, then what is the point of this forum if we are not free to speak our minds now matter how odd, radical or rude that voice may be? I already know what the answer to that question is. "No matter how you feel Snubnose we still have rules here and you need to honor your agreement." That's fine. Just let me know where my membership stands at this point.

Will Beararms · January 25, 2001, 01:30 PM

Stop the train! As much as I love Glocks, TFW as well as the rest of us are entitled to our own opinions and even to be inaccurate as long as we are not immoral or inflamatory.

We are all on the ame page when push comes to shove aren't we. If one of you out there will buy me a new HK USP or Sig Classic, I might be able to change my position.

January 25, 2001, 01:34 AM	#52
J. Parker Senior Member Join Date: May 12, 2000 Location: Ephrata, wa. USA Posts: 1,338	LawDog; "I neither like nor dislike the Glock series". Could you be a little more NEUTRAL please? If Glock's take the high road then I'll take the low road.J. Parker

January 25, 2001, 02:42 AM	#55
TheFederalistWeasel Senior Member Join Date: October 4, 2000 Posts: 109	A quote from a Moderator from handgun-general forum The main "Why?" that Tamara asked... ...was why can grown men not civilly disagree as to which brands of guns they like, causing me to have to lock threads? __________________ MOLON LABE! "..but never ever Fear. Fear is for the enemy. Fear and Bullets." 10mm: Everything you love about 20mm, and only half the recoil! "...maybe the people in Texas were attacked because of child abuse. But, if child abuse was the issue, why didn't Janet Reno tear-gas Woody Allen?" -PJ O'Rourke

January 25, 2001, 07:10 AM	#57
denfoote Senior Member Join Date: November 12, 1999 Location: Buckeye Arizona Posts: 5,526	Yo Fed, Put the crack pipe down, and listen to what I'm tell'in ya. Glocks just don't "go off". If that were the case, then the ATF (remember them???) would not let them into the country. Especially the KLINTON ATF!!!! __________________ Ich bin kein Nationalsozialist!!!!!! Ich bin Republikaner!!!!!!!! Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset. Arizona: Flush the Johns!!!

January 25, 2001, 08:50 AM	#60
WESHOOT2 Senior Member Join Date: February 20, 1999 Location: home on the range; Vermont (Caspian country) Posts: 14,324	Original intent was to carry the 1911 into battle cocked w/safety off. (That's what the grip safety is for.) I stick by my first post. Guns are dangerous, and anyone who thinks otherwise IS a moron. __________________ . "all my ammo is mostly retired factory ammo"

January 25, 2001, 09:37 AM	#64
mcshot Senior Member Join Date: October 24, 1999 Location: Over da bridge, Mi Posts: 754	Glocks Finer threads have been closed for less. __________________ "In my opinion, anyone pushing through anti-gun legislation is a bloody traitor and should be sent up for treason" N.H. Stuart

January 25, 2001, 01:16 AM	#51
Will Beararms Senior Member Join Date: October 12, 1999 Location: North Texas Posts: 2,834	Glock is the high road.

January 25, 2001, 01:51 AM	#53
M58 Guest Posts: n/a	We can find fault with anything; I recall some departments making their revolvers DAO. A liberal demoncrat (sic) could ban Glocks as unsafe for LEOs. Ban DA/SA from agencies--unsafe transition. Ban SA cocked and locked--cops too untrained for that. DAO...someting could go wrong--heavy trigger causes collateral damage to civilians; ban those too. OK no guns for LEOs. Civilians...no way they can have guns if they are not safe for LEOs. Military...well under revised rules of engagement they will not carry any ammo. OK are we safe yet? Does this sound familiar? Coming to a movie house near you!

January 25, 2001, 02:36 AM	#54
TheFederalistWeasel Senior Member Join Date: October 4, 2000 Posts: 109	First and foremost; moderators I apologize. My intention was to create a constructive and spirited debate about the issues, which currently surround the Glock line of firearms, but what I received, while not very productive was indeed spirited to say the least. And I was accused of wasting band width!!! I read the posts by all but one or two folks and question why we can have a constructive debate about the issues that surround other handguns from a $200.00 Kel-Tec to $5,000.00 Les Baur Whiz Bang Gold plated special. But somehow, when the Glock is tossed into the mix the gloves come off and it turns into a spitting contest. A fine example of this is Glock Talk and numerous threads even here at The Firing Line. If you read completely my post I have lined it with facts I have gathered from various sources across the net, mostly from news sites. If you question the validity of these facts don’t accuse me of being an agent of some liberal anti-gun agenda. Do your own inquiry and rebut them, if I am indeed making this up then it should be rather uncomplicated for most of you to substantiate this. I do not work for nor have a monetary interest in Smith and Wesson, as I was accused. I am not an agent of the Federal Government, as I was accused. I am not a left wing anti-gun nut, as I was accused. I have not threatened to kill anyone as one such post implies towards me. I am not an alien here to take over the world. And I am not a mouse, as I was accused… My question to you who posted coarse and imprudent comments instead of productive and appreciable remarks, why? TFW

January 25, 2001, 03:49 AM	#56
Arizona Fusilier Senior Member Join Date: September 19, 2000 Posts: 1,082	I will attempt to rebut the original posting, with a(pseudo)scientific slant. I am not a statistician by trade, but have had recent schooling in empirical methods in pursuit of my MPA. There are two phenomenon that occurred concurrently with the wide-spread fielding of the Glock; unfortunately, without extensive access to original source data and research, they might be impossible to "control" for. The first is the wide-spread adoption of the semi-automatic pistol by numerous jurisdictions across the country. Glocks entry into the market largely coincided with this "wave". Yes, some cut their teeth on Sigs or Berettas, but when the crescendo was reached, there was Glock, with a functionality in use (pull the trigger, it goes bang) similar to the revolver that had long been in use. It was often selected just for that ease of mental transition. Consequently, it was the first semi-auto many departments, and police officers, were exposed to. Based on (admittedly) casual observation, I believe that more have transitioned from the revolver to the Glock then from Sigs/Berettas. External safety devices, under these circumstances, could be more of a detraction to duty-use than most of us would perceive. I think many AD/UDs that resulted from Glocks were a by-product of years of sloppy gun-handling by experienced LEOs, who had heretofor gotten away with it because of the long/heavy trigger pull of the revolvers they were use to. Secondly, in the last several years, "Glock-mania" has occurred during a time when fewer people have turned to a career in Law Enforcement, yet demand was simultaneously high, due to the state of the economy and various initiatives to hire more police offices (100,000 more Cops on the street, ad nauseum). Working in the Personnel department of the City of Phoenix, I can personally testify to the great difficulty we have had recruiting new police officers. Fewer and fewer are the "professionals", guys who's dad and uncles and brothers were cops, who grew up dreaming of being a cop someday. Forgive me as I indulge in stereotypes, but such people tend to be a part of the "culture" of force, and thus have above-average exposure to firearms; particluarly handguns. They are increasingly a minority. Now the average "joe", probably a good-guy at heart, but with little exposure to firearms, is the typical applicant, because of economic circumstances. In their hands, the Glock is probably not the ideal weapon from a safety issue. It is however, simple to operate (pull the trigger, it goes bang). With all due respect to LEOs past and present, we have more of a personnel/training issue, in the present day, than a firearm issue, in my opinion. These are not trivial variables; they are real, widespread, and numerous. Without accounting for these variables, any declaration of inherent safety defects of the Glock cannot be considered with authority. As has been noted in this thread, other firearms have had their day in the limelight of controversy. This, coupled with the media's tendency to villianize any firearm, leads me to take the quoted sources/articles with a whole can of Morton Salt. Keep your finger off the trigger, until you are ready to destroy your target.

January 25, 2001, 08:01 AM	#58
PLASTIC SIG Senior Member Join Date: April 27, 2000 Location: Pasadena, Maryland Posts: 268	I agree that alot of LEO's shouldnt be carrying glocks. Some shouldnt even be LEO's. Remember that female officer (on TLC) who's gun wouldnt fire during qualifying so she holstered it up and said "Oh well...maybe next time" and went back out to finish her shift? Its LEO's like that who shoot innocent people and themselves. Think about it, If we cant train our peace officers to use glocks, maybe we should be asking for higher standards in our departments. I think each LEO should have choice over several firearms and choose the one they are most effective and safe with. Im glad NYC has a rediculously heavy trigger pull. If I had a cop with a gun to my head in NYC i would hope it had a 20LB trigger pull. Because anyone who lives in NYC cant possibly be smart enuff to keep thier finger off the trigger before firing to begin with. Yeah i know that sounds like a generalization. But I have and always will think that alot of LEO's are undertrained to use any firearm, muchless a Glock. I say any officer that refuses to take a week-long training course at thunder ranch or similar course should be forced back to using a revolver and pepper spray. Tim

January 25, 2001, 08:42 AM	#59
shiroikuma Senior Member Join Date: June 27, 2000 Posts: 331	Hmmm not to start a bunch of flames, I expect this thread might get locked soon anyway the way some are acting, but.. as an example: glock 5lb or so trigger no trigger blocking safety Colt 1911 5lb or so trigger..but would you carry it cocked and not locked? Stock ones I've seen to have some slack although not as much as a Glock. Should be safe to carry unlocked righttt??? I mean it has a firing pin safety (good ones) so it will only go off if the trigger is pulled rightttt??? Just an example to think about. did anyone follow that thread I posted on the first page? with respect and love for all Shiro

January 25, 2001, 09:31 AM	#63
Will Beararms Senior Member Join Date: October 12, 1999 Location: North Texas Posts: 2,834	TFW: What do you expect when you post something that can only be constituted as the ultimate handgun heresy? I must advise you to seek counseling as soon as possible. Any quality range has rental Glocks that will go a long way in getting back on the path of wisdom. I advise you to take some sick days or vacation time to rest up and work through this condition. Be sure and keep us advised of your progress. Now repeat after me: "Glock Perfection,Glock Perfection,Glock Perfection....

January 25, 2001, 09:42 AM	#65
WalterGAII Junior member Join Date: November 7, 1999 Posts: 1,516	IF ignorance is bliss, then there ought to be a few real gigglers about.

January 25, 2001, 09:54 AM	#66
VonFatman Senior Member Join Date: November 23, 2000 Location: Kansas City Posts: 587	Amen Walter! __________________ "Onward thru the Fog"

January 25, 2001, 10:10 AM	#67
buzz_knox Senior Member Join Date: December 2, 1999 Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse Posts: 4,190	Someone else may have brought this up but if I'm not horribly mistaken, TFW's initial post is a paraphrase (direct copy?) of that crappy Mother Jones "expose" on the Glock. I just had a strange thought. I've heard for years people argue that the DA trigger isn't a problem because under stress, you won't notice the heavier trigger pull, thus allowing you to shoot it quickly. If that's the case, then the DA trigger offers absolutely no advantage (and some significant disadvantages) over the Glock. Hmmm? Makes you think, don't it?

January 25, 2001, 10:56 AM	#68
Snubnose Junior member Join Date: January 12, 2001 Posts: 21	To Mal H. I saw your posting about conduct after I had made mine. But no I won't edit my posting because it's how I feel. You need to calm down and just let everyone speak there mind even if you don't like what we have to say. Geez guy what does the H in your name stand for....Hitler? I'm sure that remark may get me booted from the firing line but that's fine. AMF.

January 25, 2001, 11:36 AM	#70
buzz_knox Senior Member Join Date: December 2, 1999 Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse Posts: 4,190	Re: Snubnose's last post. Calling a moderator Hitler? Been nice knowing you. "Incoming!" buzz_knox yells as he runs for the bomb shelter.

January 25, 2001, 01:20 PM	#73
Fish Member Join Date: September 30, 2000 Posts: 39	While I don’t agree with some of the information The Federalist Weasel has included in his post because of its source. I can understand his thinking and where he was headed with this post before it was railroaded by the quick-tempered typing and lack of thinking by some. I think one moderator says “think twice, post once”. That being said might I offer up just a bit of insight from my experience. When I joined the US Marshals in 1995 we were just commencing the change over of our duty weapons. USMS issued the Sig 228, which most Deputies carried until late 1998. The weapons that were tested were the Glock .40, the Sig 226 and 229 in .40 and the USP .40. These tests produced the Sig 229 and USP Compact .40 and later we added the USP in .357 Sig that I presently carry. The Glock had its share of documented teething problems from the very first batch we received. I remember the instructors at Glynco needing to revise their standard firearms curriculum due to encounters with the limp wristing and the initial panic produced by a few isolated slam fires that were experienced with the first pistols we received. Glock later blamed that on an error in shipping, declaring we received older pistols that had not yet been modified. I have no way of knowing if this is true because I don’t work for Glock. I do know that I was placed in a firearm class in 1999 during in-service at Glynco to train and then be issued a Glock. But the day before the class was to begin the Agency pulled the Glock from our inventory. Specifying various problems with the firearm, from Deputies openly stating to range instructors that they were uncomfortable with the weapon, to our technicians citing higher than normal failure to feeds and uneasiness about the high-pressure rounds we carried causing the “kabooms”. While some agencies do issue this gun such as the FBI I do think that it is not a choice weapon for a new hire or the first time handgun owner. Fish

January 25, 2001, 01:21 PM	#74
Snubnose Junior member Join Date: January 12, 2001 Posts: 21	Rich Lucibella said: "The H in Mal's name stands for "Honor"; like in, "Honor your word". From your signed agreement with TFL: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No spamming, trolling, flaming or other personal attacks, be they acrimonious or veiled in humor. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Got it, new guy? Rich Yeah...old guy I got it. No, I didn't actually sign off on anything though. I clicked a button a joined and none of that means that I would indeed honor my word. I in fact and admit that I broke my word all to hell. But then again I'm certainly not the only person guilty of that in this forum or especially this thread. Go ahead an make an example of me if you so desire. It certainly doesn't matter in the end. Debate often inspires heated and sometimes ugly disagreement. If you won't allow people to speak their minds, even in that fashion, then what is the point of this forum if we are not free to speak our minds now matter how odd, radical or rude that voice may be? I already know what the answer to that question is. "No matter how you feel Snubnose we still have rules here and you need to honor your agreement." That's fine. Just let me know where my membership stands at this point.

January 25, 2001, 01:30 PM	#75
Will Beararms Senior Member Join Date: October 12, 1999 Location: North Texas Posts: 2,834	Stop the train! As much as I love Glocks, TFW as well as the rest of us are entitled to our own opinions and even to be inaccurate as long as we are not immoral or inflamatory. We are all on the ame page when push comes to shove aren't we. If one of you out there will buy me a new HK USP or Sig Classic, I might be able to change my position.