Glock Perfection?????????????

[9x19]

ArmySon,

"Why are there so many people that get extremely sensitive in proving the Glock is the greatest/worst thing on earth?"

For the same reason there are "so many people that get extremely sensitive in proving" it's not...

Passion!

The way you feel about, and vigourously defend, those reproduction antique pistols from the early 1900s, I'd think you'd understand completely.

[Greg Bell]

Jdthaddeus,

While I agree that Glock triggers vary widely from example example, it sounds like you have seen some fairly heavy triggers on the competitions you have measured. Glock now advertises their competition trigger as ~4 pounds (they used to say 3.5). If you don't believe me check their annual or web site.

I figure you missed it because this thread is so long, but I originally brought up the 3.5 trigger as a hypothetical. Some repeated "keep your finger off the trigger" as an answer to the criticism that Glocks have unusually light triggers for a gun without a manual safetey . I mentioned Glock's longstanding, and wise, policy of recomending that competition triggers not be installed on carry weapons. The point of this argument is that Glock realizes that a trigger can be so light that the gun is unsafe even if the user trys to keep his finger off the trigger. Sloppiness and bad luck seem to trump training every time--dang that Murphy. What I am arguing is that both the ~3.5 and the standard ~5.5 trigger are too light. Obviously, many disagree. I think that the "New York" trigger module, that exists to address this concern, makes the Glock as safe or safer than most revolvers and autoloaders.

Once again, I don't believe the standard trigger Glock is unsafe, only less safe than most competing designs.

Denfonte,

"Cocked and locked" means the gun is cocked with a manual safetey engaged. The manual safetey makes it safer to have a light trigger.

GHB

[ArmySon]

The way you feel about, and vigourously defend, those reproduction antique pistols from the early 1900s, I'd think you'd understand completely.

See, that's exactly what I was talking about. For starters, you misread my question. The question was geared towards anti-Glockers and pro-Glockers alike. Yet, you decide to take a jab at 1911's.

[leedesert]

The reason we get defensive is we have chosen these items to defend ours/our families lives.

Weasel,
You spew numbers but upon consideration you have no knowledge of what you are talking about.

And yet you haven’t heard or read about the 3.5-pound trigger? It’s out there, I found reference to it on several Glock sites ranging from Glock talk to Glock Works a site that specialized in parts and accessories for Glocks.

That's really nice. You read something from another forum and right away you know what they mean and become an authority. Glockers call it a 3.5lb trigger but they actually are referring to the connector. Even if they did work it to an 3.5lb trigger pull, so what! That's their choice. That still doesn't make a Glock go off with out pulling the trigger.

Sir, I have seen a P7 fired while being held upside down and one handed with zero malfunctions. I personally have fired my Sig 220 while moving, lying prone and even on my side with no problems. I have seen so many colts fired by “trick shooters” fired in just about every conceivable fashion possible with no malfunctions its funny. And I had never even heard of “limp wristing” until the Glock came along.

Again you show your ignorance on your own topic. Limp wristing has nothing to do with shooting upside down or sideways or while moving. It is allowing your wrist to flex with the recoil thus allowing the energy of the recoil to be absorbed in your wrist rather then ejecting the brass. I have allowed my wrist to absorb the recoil on many guns and all but those with very short actions have stove piped. Longer actions take longer to cycle thus giving more time for a limp wrist to cause problems.

And this explains why there are so many lawsuits centering on this one line of handguns?
I don’t think a judge would allow an attorney to present, “I found it on the Internet, yer honor!” As an argument.

What lawsuit are you referring too? Can you mention one that Glock was proven negligent? Funny though how "I found it on the Internet, yer honor" seems to work for all your arguments.

I guess you will have to contact the individual departments themselves and request those documents what I used was info I gathered from various sources across the internet and a few folks I know. But let me guess, you will scream, “You can’t trust anything you find on the Internet!”

But I seriously doubt the Washington Post and various handgun magazines would fabricate such a tale and give Glock the grounds to sue the pants off of them now would they?

Actually we don't. YOU are the one who decided to open this post therefore YOU should be providing your proof. I have yet to read a HandGun Magazine that stated the Glock is unsafe. Can you provide a Month and date to a specific issue or is this another of your I heard it from some guy on the internet stories..lol
The you quote the Washington Post. Now there's an unbiased gun reviewing publication if I ever heard of one. Are you honestly telling us that you think a newspaper will never print a lie if it promotes their agenda. Wow! you are smart.

It seems your whole argument revolves around this one case
in Louisville. 1 gun out of millions is your whole story since it's the only one we can find supporting evidence.

I have went through all the possible combinations and there is no way a Glock would just fire with out pulling the trigger. I even assumed that the striker channel was so dirty it held the striker back until finally letting go. This still would require pulling the trigger because the resting state of the striker spring does not have enough tension to impact the primer. Even if some how the very dirty channel caught the striker and held it back during a previous firing then we still have to disengage the safety plunger which again, requires the trigger to be pulled.

What I do question is the holster. It is possible that either the holster or something in the holster pushed the trigger. Much more possible then the gun shooting itself. You see other guns (with the hammer cocked and locked) have sufficient tension to cause accidental discharge if the hammer is tripped. With the Glock it's impossible.

The reason so many attack you is because you use unfounded numbers and statistics and then continue to demonstrate how little you know about your topic.

I'll tell you what weasel, if you can video tape you making one of your Glocks discharge, without pulling the trigger and without manipulating the internals, I will eat crow and publicly apologize.

[buzz_knox]

I went back and looked at the Mother Jones article (from 2-4-2000). TFW has taken it, cut and pasted it with a couple of other news articles from anti-gun sources, and passed it off as his own work.

[DerGlockenpooper]

The above post exposes precisely why people are getting so mad about this. Is is misinformed anti-gun drivel. The "facts" are wrong and misrepresented, coming to wrong conclusions.
Guns do not just go off, any more that cars just drive into someone and kill them on their own!

And, I do believe that if someone posted scathing articles about how the "1911 is unsafe because it has a cocked hammer", then there would be just as much vitrol passed. This is not a "Glock" issue, and about people defending Glocks. It is about exposing anti-gun misinformation as false lies, no matter what gun is involved.

[Tamara]

...it seems that this thread has more or less run it's natural course. Folks're to the point that they're repeating the same factoids from 75 posts ago. I'm going to go ahead and close it for aesthetic reasons, hm'kay?

Y'all play nice, now, y'hear?