By continuing you agree to our use of cookies. You are able to update your settings at any time.

Cookie Policy

A cookie, also known as an HTTP cookie, web cookie, or browser cookie, is a piece of data stored by a website within a browser, and then subsequently sent back to the same website by the browser. Cookies were designed to be a reliable mechanism for websites to remember things that a browser had done there in the past, which can include having clicked particular buttons, logging in, or having read pages on that site months or years ago.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies cannot be disabled

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off. They are normally set in response to your interactions on the website e.g. logging in etc.

Cookies:
  • .ASPXANONYMOUS
  • .DOTNETNUKE
  • __RequestVerificationToken
  • authentication
  • CV_Portal
  • CV_Store_Portal_Cart_21
  • CV_USER
  • dnn_IsMobile
  • language
  • LastPageId
  • NADevGDPRCookieConsent_portal_21
  • userBrowsingCookie

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to monitor traffic to our website so we can improve the performance and content of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited or how you navigated around our website.

Cookies:
  • _ga
  • _gat
  • _gid

Functional Cookies

These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and content. They may be set by the website or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then some or all of these services may not function properly.

Cookies:

Currently we are not utilizing these types of cookies on our site.

Targeting Cookies

These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.

Cookies:

Currently we are not utilizing these types of cookies on our site.

HomeHomeDiscussionsDiscussionsFirearms and Sk...Firearms and Sk...One Handgun for the Non-Hobbyist One Handgun for the Non-Hobbyist
Previous
 
Next
New Post
12/23/2013 12:10 PM
 

I am 6'0" and 230, I doubt I'd have an issue concealing the G17. I shot about 120 rounds with one last Saturday and started doing well with it towards the end of the session. The only S&W I tried that time was a Shield but it was supposed to have a similar trigger to the M&P 9. The Glock trigger had a more positive tactile feel compared to the S&W, for me anyways. Overall, I had a good day with the G17 and will most probably purchase one in January once the holiday shopping spree is behind us. My thanks to everyone for your input. Merry Christmas. - Bob

 
New Post
5/17/2014 7:09 AM
 

 Well, it took longer than anticipated but I picked up a Walther PPQ in 9mm yesterday. Now it's time to get to the range and find some meaningful training to build my skills.

I appreciate everyone's input, it helped greatly.

-Bob

 
New Post
8/11/2015 6:28 PM
 
I have a 1911 and a .357 4" Ruger Speed Six stainless. I can use a wadcutter .38 Special on a killer bunnies (if needed) or a .357 163 g. for a hog (again, if needed). I have used both. Hogs, snakes and 2 legged interlopers fall to both revolvers or pistols. If one feels targets might most often be 2 legged interrlopers, one would be best served by a pistol. Dropped revolvers and pistols fall prey to rocks equally. Revolvers don''t have safeties to consider, but many pistols don't either. Pistols' major flaw, in my eyes, are more complex to operate well and cannot accept a wide range of different ammunition types. With either, train, train, train.

Do not readily omit something like a single action .357 revolver with a 4.5" barrel. Cock and fire with a constant trigger pull. No safety to consider except don't point at anything you don't wish to destroy.
 
New Post
8/12/2015 1:28 PM
 
The Glock 19/17 may well just be the new .357 revolver.With the introduction of Buffalo Bore's new 9 mm 147+P 147 gr hard cast flat point,we now have in conjunction with 15rd,17rd or even 22rd capacity,a package that may help deter some four legged predators(ok maybe not Grizzlies)as well as be useable for the non-hobbyist.
 
New Post
8/14/2015 9:53 PM
 
Glock 19 if I could only have one for everything.
 
New Post
8/26/2015 7:27 PM
 

Glock 23.   Good self defense gun and, with the right rounds, a decent woods gun.   Simple, reliable and durable.   Buy a conversion barrel and a couple of mags and you also have a 9mm.   Another barrel and you have a .357 Sig.

This is a do as I say and not as I would do though.  If I could only keep one handgun, it would be my 1911.   But that is influenced by how long I've been with the 1911 and .a fair amount of sentiment.

.

 

 
New Post
8/27/2015 7:22 AM
 
Glock 23 is probably one of the worst Glocks for problems if you are a high round count shooter.
 
New Post
8/27/2015 11:48 AM
 

You may be right.  Personally I've had less parts breakage with a Glock 23 than a M1911.   Have not heard any complaints from local LEOs about their .40 S&W Glocks.

That said, I would expect a .40 S&W Glock would not last anywhere as long as a 9mm Glock.

I doubt a hobbyist is a high round count shooter and, for me, if I was in the one gun for all category I'd give up some gun lifespan to gain versatility and have a caliber a little better for woods use.

If I knew my only threats were human aggressors and would not have to use the gun to defend against bears or mountain lions or hunt more than small game, I might go with a 9mm.
 
New Post
8/27/2015 12:03 PM
 
Fortunately, I'm not limited to a Glock. If all of a sudden I was, I'd resign. I value my life a bit more.

I've had to discontinue more Glock 40s on the range than almost any other pistol..particularly the 23. 22s can be ok....but I question their service life using the hotter .40 rounds. And either can be problematic with a light attached. If it came down to a Glock only, and I had a caliber choice limited to 9 or 40, I'd go 9.

 
New Post
8/27/2015 2:19 PM
 
cco45acp wrote:

You may be right.  Personally I've had less parts breakage with a Glock 23 than a M1911.   Have not heard any complaints from local LEOs about their .40 S&W Glocks.

That said, I would expect a .40 S&W Glock would not last anywhere as long as a 9mm Glock.

It won't, but that is still a good "prepper" move to have a Glock 23 (I'd go gen 4) and get a factory (and a Storm Lake) 9mm barrel for it.  Just don't shoot much 40 thru it, AND LOCK UP THE 40 MAGS.  Supposedly the Brownie that ate Treadwell was killed with a 40 Glock.

 
New Post
8/27/2015 5:28 PM
 
El Mac you must have had a traumatic experience with a Glock. There is so little that can make one seize up. Was the one that failed you improperly armored? You have to really work at getting one to fail. The newer Gen 4s were even able to eliminate one of the ones that could occur with forgetting to put a part back in.

I really like my 1911s, but they require a lot more care for hard outdoors use.

Before my current choice I might have gone with a S&W 65 that shot dead on at 25 yards with 158 grain JHP despite the fixed sights. It is a 4" with rubber packmyer grips.
 
New Post
8/27/2015 7:47 PM
 
CZ Fan,

Curious about your statement, "I really like my 1911s, but they require a lot more care for hard outdoors use. ". Could you share what led you to that conclusion, and specifically, what you mean by "...a lot more care...", and "...hard outdoors use."?


Assuming your choice for a single handgun is the Glock 19? And, that, prior to your preference for the Glock 19, you would have chosen the S&W M-65, with 158 gr JHPs, correct?

Thank you,

112Papa

 
New Post
8/27/2015 8:05 PM
 
CZ Fan wrote:
El Mac you must have had a traumatic experience with a Glock. There is so little that can make one seize up. Was the one that failed you improperly armored? You have to really work at getting one to fail. The newer Gen 4s were even able to eliminate one of the ones that could occur with forgetting to put a part back in.

I really like my 1911s, but they require a lot more care for hard outdoors use.

Before my current choice I might have gone with a S&W 65 that shot dead on at 25 yards with 158 grain JHP despite the fixed sights. It is a 4" with rubber packmyer grips.



You could say that.

No matter. Glocks are good within their limitations. But there are plenty of good guns, Glock is only one. I do not believe it to be the best polymer gun.

Not sure what kind of 1911s you have, but mine have been remarkable. Glock is a brand, 1911 is a design. It's how the 1911 design is executed that carries the day. That said, the Timberwolf spin on the Glock is somewhat interesting to me. I have pondered that for some time now. If I had the extra jack laying around, I might throw down for one.

I hate Glock OEM triggers. I find them....dumb.
 
New Post
8/28/2015 6:10 AM
 
The Glocks in 40 are WELL known for having issues, and there are a bunch of department reports and justifications for discontinuing use if you care to look. I don't know if the Gen4s have fixed all those issues. I do know that the introduced fix for the 40 issues introduced issues in the 9mm. I couldn't say if those issues have been cleared up or not since I just don't have the time to follow up like I used to. Like in any discussion context and defining terms is essential for good communication. A 1911 can mean anything from a 300 dollar Llama using crap mags and crap re-loads up to a 7k+ custom gun with tuned magazines. Whereas Glock means a Glock made gun with Glock Made magazines (until recently) as that was really the only choice. I have watched the Glock world evolve in the last few years with great amusement. With the exception of the Magazines, kind of as Magpul makes some now, they have gotten in the same boat as the 1911. You can assemble and entire "Glock" without having a single oem part in from catalogs. However, unless you get stupid with spring weights and lightening cuts it is probably going to work because the Glock was designed form the word got to be a plug and play system. The 1911 wasn't. They simply didn't have the technology at the time to machine to the level of precision we do now.

The other disconnect is use level. When El Mac is talking about what he is seeing with Glocks he is not talking about one or two at an IDPA match or in personal use, he is talking about tens if not hundreds of guns with hundreds to thousands of rounds through them. Same with 1911s, although fewer of those. So is Papa112 when it comes to 1911s. In both cases, they insist on a very limited selection of manufactures with good magazines and ammunition.

When I manage to make it matches the only issues I see with 1911s is crappy reloads or crappy magazines. I see the crappy reloads issue with Glocks too.

Does a 1911 need more lube than a Glock, probably, but the reality is that if you start out with a quality 1911, lube it, use quality magazines, and feed it good ammunition you really aren't going to have issues, or at least that is my experience. I never ran a Glock long enough to really opinion, but I had more issues with M&Ps than I have with any of my Springfields.

All 1911s are not created equal, and using it as a generic term really doesn't accurately convey what you are talking about, and I am as guilty as anyone.

Co-Owner Hill People Gear "If anything goes wrong it will be a fight to the end, if your training is good enough, survival is there; if not nature claims its foreit." - Dougal Haston
 
New Post
8/28/2015 9:37 AM
 
This is offered for entertainment value only - not to derail the thread:

Originally and for some period of time, the 1911 was mostly a plug and play platform for the military. In those days, you could take any number of guns apart - without any specialized tools - and assemble them from a random selection of parts and they would all work.

However, the rejection rate for parts back then was off the scale, (80% in some cases) which is why the practice was eventually abandoned. Obviously it’s cheaper to fit them at the bench, which is the production paradigm that persists to this day in many places. The only thing you really sacrifice is interchangeability which may or may not be a priority.

I suspect that computer aided technology will continue to bring the production quality of all firearms into new era of performance and reliability. As just one example, Ruger’s current 1911 entry – from what I’ve seen - is simply an assembled gun for most part and very little “fitting” is taking place. That gun seems to be working pretty well.
 
New Post
8/29/2015 11:17 PM
 
In the Gen4 they tried to use the same RSA for the 19 and 23. This combined with people shooting WWB caused some malfunctions in some of the guns. The answer was a new RSA for each model. The Gen4 is also more accurate than the previous generations. 4" at 50yards from a ransom rest is the expected average. All rounds must land in a 6" box with sights set to mechanical zero when test fired.

The main reason a Glock 40 fails are.

Plain soft Lead projectiles

Improper reassembly after armoring. Especially when the slide stop spring tail gets sandwiched between the block and spring.

The extractor which has been refined almost every year since the gun was first produced and is now quite reliable.

The old single pin block, which was

It's a 40.

Police departments swapped followers in different magazine bodies

Police added weapon lights to guns that weren't designed to take them or were in the case of the original TLR-1 cranked on way too tight.


The 1911 is great, but it is more fragile. Drop it on it hammer ot the wrong place along the rail and it will lock up. I hated polymer guns when they first came out, but now I understand the need for flex and the advantage of elasticity in them. The polymer trigger guards on hard use long guns have some advantages too.
 
New Post
8/30/2015 6:26 AM
 
CZ Fan,

You might want to go back and reread Scot's post. I work with Glock 40s that have thousands and thousands of rounds through them...none of them have shot soft lead projectiles. There isn't a range session now that one doesn't break. As I said, Glocks are fine within their limitations. Broken pins, broken springs, cracked slides, sheared lugs, failed magazines...shall I go on? The jacked up rail mounted lights are the least of my concerns. There is a large federal agency that is switching to 9mm and though they won't call a spade a spade for a reason, the failure of the Glock 40s to hold up is one of the prime drivers.

The 1911 DESIGN is not a fragile design. You've been reading too many gun pulp fictions. As for dropping a hammer on it...well, in the 40 someodd years of gunning, I've never dropped a hammer on any of my guns - bolts, semis, levers, single shots, revolvers, bb guns, sling shots, or bows. I'm really not going to put that ridiculous cart before that unicorn and stop using a perfectly fine handgun because the man on the moon might sling a hammer at me causing me to instinctively use my 1911 as a shield to absorb or deflect the impact of said hammer.

There are better polymer guns out there now. For a time, Glock was unique. It has been surpassed in my opinion. And it certainly is not the only game in town now - and that is fact. FN, CZ, SA, HK, and so on...all build great polymer guns.
 
New Post
8/31/2015 2:33 AM
 
El Mac,

Not to derail this, but I have to say, my experience with the Gen4 Glocks has been the opposite of yours. We are seeing them shoot very well (compared to the gen3's), and very reliably. Otoh, I see 1911's go down all the time. At one point, I carried my 1911 because, among other things, it was more reliable than my gen 3 glock. Now it is less reliable than my gen 4 glocks. Even then, other's 1911 went down, literally every day on the range. You and I know that most people don't know how to keep a 1911 up and running, but even knowing how, the gen4 Gliocks have impressed me. All 22's, of course. I have a single copy of a gen4 17 that I'm going to use for a bit and see. I am a 9mm fan and always have been.
 
New Post
8/31/2015 3:30 AM
 
SLG,

I like a 9mm too...they are great for use when training new shooters - the majority of which have never picked up a gun in their life. And a 1911 in 9mm is an absolute joy to compete with. And in a pinch, I'd not feel too under gunned in an urban setting. Hell, my wife carries one.

I'll admit to less time on the Gen 4s v. the Gen 3s...because they haven't been out as long. The Gen 3s were the **it back in the day...unbeatable - or so we were told. That turned out not to be true. I'll believe the Gen 4s are the **it when I see them. The fact that we are on a "Gen 4" is reason enough for me to avoid them. And as you know, the ammunition has been dumbed down to the point that one might as well be shooting a 9. Why? Because of the gun. It didn't hold up. Ever notice that the G23 ain't on the list anymore? And of course the other reason goes back to the coddling of those 'new shooters'.

The reason those 1911s went down is very simple. Despite the ultra high round count, they weren't maintained and they weren't operated by knowledgeable (of the 1911) shooters. Initially, the push was strong...a week long intensive school burning approx. 2500 rounds, that taught the operators how to shoot them, how to employ them, how to clean them, and how to maintain them. They were also issued with tools and parts like recoil springs, mag springs, etc. to maintain them with. Now, the majority of those that are handed the certificate, get that certificate after shooting a qual course - 60 rounds. Pathetic. And the majority of the kids on the line today are fed the Glock koolaid from Day 1. So, it's an uphill battle to try and reeducate them. No, the 1911 isn't for everyone. (It's taken me awhile to accept that, but accept it I do now.) And I wouldn't vouch for any 1911 that has been processed by the "mother ship". If it didn't come from SACS, I'd be skeptical at least until it had proven itself because despite what you may hear, you really don't know who "the mother ship" is wrenching on it. I'll leave the reasoning to your imagination/experience. Actually, no I won't - I'll say it: I wouldn't trust a Chevy dealer to work on my BMW. Particularly if that Chevy dealer was out to convince me I needed in the worst way, their new fangled Chevy Volt that is "just as good as" - fill in the blank. No thanks...I'll keep mine SACS all the way.

I've worked in my neck of the woods to improve the image of the 1911. And for those that I've touched, I've succeeded. One in particular was virulently against the 1911. He now carries one with full confidence. Well, one I failed miserably with - but that one slipped through the entire screening process so I won't beat myself up too badly about it.

The majority of folks are well served with a Glock. But....here we go....the majority of folks are well served with a keyboard and a mouse too. I'm sure you know what I mean. It kinda comes down to what you expect out of a pistol and what you expect out of yourself. The minimum is the minimum because its the standard and its acceptable. To some. A 1911 helps me get to a higher standard. The ergos are correct and I'm not having to work around the gun unlike with a Glock.

That said, if a Glock is doing it for you, by all means. I'm not trying to convince anyone that they should switch. But, I find it a bit galling when I'm told that the 1911 is "fragile". It is anything but.

Sorry to all for the thread drift.

 
New Post
8/31/2015 4:04 AM
 
I should also add, I often feel like a T-Rex...that wakes up one morning to see something he or his kind have never seen before....snow falling....
 
Previous
 
Next
HomeHomeDiscussionsDiscussionsFirearms and Sk...Firearms and Sk...One Handgun for the Non-Hobbyist One Handgun for the Non-Hobbyist