I'm curious, who here shoots a Glock 21 on a regular basis? How about folks who have shot a Glock 21 in a range session of more than, say, 200 rounds? Or through a multi-day handgun class?

I have a G20. Same frame. Painful recoil.

I have a G21 but haven't shot it in probably 5 years. I never had a problem shotting it, but honestly never put close to 200 rounds through it in a single day. It was the 1st gun I ever bought but have since started shooting 1911s.

I carry a G20, its fine, provided you avoid the serious loads.

The 21 does recoil a bit more than many 45s, but its quite a bit lighter - 200 rounds in a day, for how many days?

It wouldn't be that bad, IMO for one - maybe a second - but if its going to be a more prolonged experience, I'd either switch platforms, and buy a 9, or get a G20, w. a 40 S&W conversion barrel, and shoot 40 minor.

Crossbow- What made you switch to 1911's?

I'm specifically interested in how your wrist, forearm and upper arms felt after shooting a large amount of ammo in one session.

Specifically, how does it compare to the effects of shooting a 1911 in .45 in a session like that?

I have a Gen3 21 and have never noticed any wrist/arm discomfort after after an extended range session. I find it slightly more comfortable to shoot than all but one of my 1911s.

I have never put more than 50 in a day thru mine. I don't notice any residual issue at that rate.

I'm here, per your request, to address the ridiculousness of the $1000 handbag of the pistol world, the 1911.

The only valid argument I can think of for carrying one is it's slim. It works best in a round that doesn't really offer any meaningful advantages with modern ammo, they are less likely to be reliable out of the box, even at prices 2x and more above what you can expect to pay for most polymer guns, they require more tinkering to run right (IE this spring combo, these mags, this HP round, etc).

For what? What does the extra money spent get you? A slim gun with good ergos and a good trigger. Wow, underwhelmed. I guess it's really customizable, but that circles back to all the variances between manufacturers and having to find combos that run.

I just don't get the obsession, and most people seem to harp on the trigger. They're more "accurate" with it. No, you're not. The short, light trigger covers up how much you suck, and you'd be much better served spending the time to fix your underlying trigger control issues then blowing a bunch of money on a less-likely-to-run, pickier, more expensive, low capacity design from the time when skilled manual labor was readily abundant and pistols could be hand-fit en masse.

Your turn, justify your Louis handbag in practical terms. Just an fyi, I'm not buying your BS about the grip angle, so you can table it.

Someone with stars pass me the popcorn.



Edit to my edit: Nm, I need to work on reading comprehension...

[This message has been edited by AgEng06 (edited 2/25/2013 8:42a).]

Well since this thread looks to be derailed I'll just post a pic of my 1911, sit back, and wait for this to get good

quote:

---

they are less likely to be reliable out of the box, even at prices 2x and more above what you can expect to pay for most polymer guns, they require more tinkering to run right (IE this spring combo, these mags, this HP round, etc).

---

I find this to be patently false. Maybe 30 years ago when there were but a handful of manufacturers, but even the budget 1911's of today (RIA, Metroarms, Citadel, etc.) produce extremely affordable 1911's that manage to function just fine without the need to send your gun to some world renowned guru to get it tuned.

By in large, the idea that you need to super tune a 1911 (and only have it done at a handful of respectable places) is as much a myth as the idea that a .45 will knock a man down even with a near miss.

I'm not saying one is infinitely better than the other, but making statements like that is pretty much flat out lying about the platform, especially when you make such broad generalizations and don't even bother to single out a manufacturer or two in the process.

I also love the idea that a better trigger somehow is only masking horrible trigger control.

If that were the case, why bother to have companies like Jewell, Timney, Gieselle, etc. create triggers that break at specific weights on rifles?

After all, if we didn't suck so bad with our trigger control, we could easily shoot 1/2 MOA groups with our factory 8 lb triggers, and every single pistol champion would not have super light and super crisp triggers on their competition guns - those 6lb factory triggers with the little bit (or a lot) of creep and a rough break should be just as good.

Do I really need to? Pick a 1911 manufacturer and you can find a thread on the OB about them not running. Didn't someone on here get a freaking Ed Brown that didn't run? I'm pissed if I have any issues with a $400 used glock (I haven't), I can't imagine a $2k 1911 that likely has a long wait.

Find me some examples of people that have put 10k or so through their RIA or metroarms pistols, then maybe I'll care. Til then, they're just loosely fit, cheap 1911s from the phillipines that don't offer the a lot of the advantages that draw people to the design in the first place. People shooting a few hundred through a gun and rushing to the forums to proclaim "FLAWLESS!" are a bore.

ETA: Oh, we're discussing shooting competitions and precision rifles now? Funny, I missed that memo. You know exactly the type of person I'm talking about, you just won't admit it. The guy that picks up a glock, shoots low and left cause they snatch the **** out of the trigger, and proclaim it crap. No, you just can't shoot. Instead of spending a few minutes a week dryfiring at a paster on the wall, you buy a 1911 with a super short, relatively light trigger that hides some of that lack of skill, and proclaim it the best thing ever. Bull****.

Do you really not see the difference between saying a stock glock/M&P/HK trigger vs 1911 shouldn't make a difference for carry (what I thought was so obvious it shouldn't need to be stated) and HERP DERP TRIGGERS NEVER MATTER EVERYONE SUCKS? Really? Or are you just pretending not to get it so you can continue your longstanding tradition of disagreeing with every opinion I have on handguns?

[This message has been edited by NRH ag 10 (edited 2/25/2013 8:50a).]

People who buy cars with power steering are only trying to mask crappy turning ability.

NRH -

A) I don't know why you brought this up, on this thread.

B) Have you done much/any competitive pistol shooting?

More on point, you really should consider how often you will be shooting ~200 rounds/day.

Even my open gun starts to wear my elbows after a 3-4 days of shooting that kind of volume.

So far, my XDm 5.25, loaded w. 147 gr subsonic 9MM has been the easiest gun to shoot for heavier periods - I went through 2500 rounds in ~3 weeks w. that set-up without any real discomfort.



[This message has been edited by Bradley.Kohr.II (edited 2/25/2013 10:02a).]

....."I'm here, per your request, to address the ridiculousness of the $1000 handbag of the pistol world, the 1911.

The only valid argument I can think of for carrying one is it's slim. It works best in a round that doesn't really offer any meaningful advantages with modern ammo, they are less likely to be reliable out of the box, even at prices 2x and more above what you can expect to pay for most polymer guns, they require more tinkering to run right (IE this spring combo, these mags, this HP round, etc).

For what? What does the extra money spent get you? A slim gun with good ergos and a good trigger. Wow, underwhelmed. I guess it's really customizable, but that circles back to all the variances between manufacturers and having to find combos that run.

I just don't get the obsession, and most people seem to harp on the trigger. They're more "accurate" with it. No, you're not. The short, light trigger covers up how much you suck, and you'd be much better served spending the time to fix your underlying trigger control issues then blowing a bunch of money on a less-likely-to-run, pickier, more expensive, low capacity design from the time when skilled manual labor was readily abundant and pistols could be hand-fit en masse.

Your turn, justify your Louis handbag in practical terms. Just an fyi, I'm not buying your BS about the grip angle, so you can table....."


I know what youtube vid someone has been watching......

[This message has been edited by SAWgunner (edited 2/25/2013 10:06a).]

quote:

---

Do you really not see the difference between saying a stock glock/M&P/HK trigger vs 1911 shouldn't make a difference for carry (what I thought was so obvious it shouldn't need to be stated) and HERP DERP TRIGGERS NEVER MATTER EVERYONE SUCKS? Really? Or are you just pretending not to get it so you can continue your longstanding tradition of disagreeing with every opinion I have on handguns?

---

It's not as much a disagreement on opinion - Glock makes a very solid gun. I just happen to not like them, but I've stated numerous times that I admire the quality and reliability of them. I've also stated umpteen times that they are far from the end of any discussion concerning pistols.

I'm sorry you adhere to old logic and mentality concerning 1911's and their reliability. Are there some that have issues? Of course their are - especially considering the multitude of manufacturers and various quality productions. That is a statistical fact. Do you need to have a 1911 brought to some world renowned 1911 pistol smith before you can ever dream of it being reliable? No way in hell - that is an old wife's tale and is realistically only applicable to a small portion of the thousands and thousands of firearms produced (and honestly, I think it's a myth perpetuated by high end 1911 producers and pistol smiths to get Average Joe to spend more money than they need to, but that's another discussion).

And while you are weekend soldier of fortune, the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of firearm owners don't shoot competitions, don't put 10's of thousands of rounds through their pistols in a year's span, don't plan on assaulting Hamburger Hill with nothing but a 1911, don't spend thousands of dollars and hours weekend warrioring it up at some shooting school that replicates the conditions of the Ho Chi Min trail or Khandahar or some desert in Iraq. So the idea that each and every firearm you own must meet the standards required to take on a regiment of enemy combatants in some God forsaken hostile environment is unrealistic at best.

If the shooter is a weekend range guy that sends a few hundred rounds downrange every 6 months and keeps his 1911 perfectly clean and in a bedside stand, and it magically functions perfectly as a result, making the statement that it is of no use and purely nostalgic is a flat out ignorant statement, because it serves the needs 100% perfectly.

You know what though? Even Glock's have their lemons or finicky-ness on various aspects of equipment, ammo, etc. They are machines, made by man and thus are not immune from individual manufacturing tolerances, flaws, quirks, etc. Surely even a glock homer like yourself has to admit this to the man in the mirror. They may not have the rate some other brands do, but that's not because they are polymer, it's because Glock has looser tolerances and better QC. High Standard makes a polymer pistol as well, and we'd all agree it is pure crap - but that is on the manufacturer, not the materials of construction or design.

I completely disagree with your sentiment that triggers simply mask a shooter's flaws. A good trigger is a good trigger for a reason - it enhances the ability to put rounds on target (hence the extremely valid comparison between race gun super tuned triggers - even in Glocks - rifle triggers, and craptastic factory triggers and the resulting increase in accuracy from any given shooter). This really is not an argument you have much ground to stand on in - a good trigger, with all else being 100% equal, increases accuracy in any level of skill.

If I can barely hit paper with a 8lb factory trigger in Brand A, but can put every shot in the 10 ring with a crisp and clean 4lb trigger in Brand B, that tells you that the trigger increases accuracy - not that the shooter just can't shoot. Pretty simple logic.

No need to get upset, this is simply a discussion where we differ on opinion on really just a couple of things. In the grand scheme of things, you are going to stick with your Glock and I'm going to continue to say they are solid firearms that I don't like the ergo's on.

Phil,

Here is my basic complaint with your statement in the other thread:

You complained about the grip angle of Glocks and the trigger.

1) Grip angle on Glocks and 1911s are basically the same, so when someone says the "grip angle is wrong", it makes me question their knowledge and credibility. Grip size is different (the slight hump on the backstrap of Glocks is what makes it point differently for you, not the angle of the grip) and can absolutely affect how a gun fits your hand, but the grip angle isn't the issue.



2) The trigger. This one I'll give you more of an allowance on, because the kind of trigger pull you prefer can affect how well you shoot something. I own and shoot lots of different styles, including Glocks, da/sa Sigs, and sa 1911s. I personally like the Glock trigger best because of the firm reset. If you don't, that is fine.

But in short, when I hear people parrot the usual gun store talk about glocks having bad grip angles and stapler gun triggers, it makes me question how much experience they have shooting Glocks. I used to say the exact same crap when I started shooting. (Heck, I actually started as a 1911 guy. )

I shoot Glocks, Sigs, Rugers, 1911s, and revolvers and enjoy them all. Yes, the grips for different guns are different. Adjusting your grip to what you're shooting isn't exactly rocket science.

If you have no problem shooting other designs but the Glock just magically "isn't designed right", I'll respectfully submit that the issue isn't in the design, but in the user.

If you don't like Glocks, I'm cool with that. Just don't blame your own issues with the pistol on "design issues".

"If you have no problem shooting other designs but the Glock just magically "isn't designed right", I'll respectfully submit that the issue isn't in the design, but in the user.

If you don't like Glocks, I'm cool with that. Just don't blame your own issues with the pistol on "design issues"...."


Agree. I started on the 1911 and still shoot mine but I have no problems switching to a Glock. I carry a 27 for CC and love it.

To be fair though, most of the guys knocking the 1911 are usually younger guys/Velcro Cowboys.

quote:

---

To be fair though, most of the guys knocking the 1911 are usually younger guys/Velcro Cowboys.

---

Is a velcro cowboy like a mall ninja? Never heard the term before.

I'm a younger guy who likes both.

Wow, lots to address this morning...

NRH - First of all, thanks for coming and replying here. I didn't want to be the cause for derailing the other fella's thread.

You and I have discussed this before. Let's talk about shooting. The two components of good shooting are trigger control and sight alignment.

The lighter, smoother, crisper and cleaner a trigger is, the easier it is to control. To a point, that is... Once it gets too light it becomes unpredictable, but at a reasonable pull weight of 3-5 lbs, a clean, short traveling, crisp trigger that breaks like a glass rod is very very good. I'm sure you'll agree. It's an ideal.

There are certainly reasons to opt for other trigger mechanisms, and I'm not calling those mechanisms poorly designed. Some are just poorly executed. That's what I feel is wrong with the Glock trigger. The "factory upgrade 3.5lb" trigger from Glock is actually quite decent. I readily admit that, but as you said, it will never, ever compare to a 1911 trigger for a number of reasons, the most prominant of which being simple range of travel to sear break and to reset.

The trigger is perhaps the most attractive thing about 1911's.

Secondly you have sight alignment. Aligning the sights with each other is one thing, but they also need to be in line with the eye, and thusly should be in line with the arm. The design of the Glock requires theback strap of the gun to go in the crease in your hand right here... What the yahoo palm readers refer to as your life line...



In order to do this, you have to rotate your grip forward and in slightly. (Think isosceles shooting stance.) This moves the gun out of alignment with the arm and requires more focus and conscious action to align the sights. See here..



Vs. something more like this...



The 1911 engages your palm in a more vertical manner and allows for a grip that is more straight on line with the arm.

More along what the palm reader yahoo's call the head line...



So, ergonomics plays a huge roll in accurate shooting.

So, you answered your own question:

quote:

---

What does the extra money spent get you? A slim gun with good ergos and a good trigger.

---

It just appears you underestimate the importance of good ergos and good triggers. That makes me sad for you.

Bender,
Sort of. That term came from the 90's when the BATF and the FBI HRT team were not doing so well, as far as public relations goes, after Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Isn't NRH10 the same guy who says Sig P series ergos suck?

Hes either a glock fanboy or someone who simply has no idea about pistols.

[This message has been edited by squirrelhunter (edited 2/25/2013 11:41a).]

He's quoting, almost verbatim, from a guy on youtube that hates 1911's and loves Glocks, almost exclusively.
I like Glocks too but not to the point of thinking that there are NO other pistols out there.

BenderRodriguez - Dig the screen name. Makes me think of this...



Here's a little better image of what you're attempting to display with your photo...



See the difference now? How about here... Here's a Glock that's had it's grip reduced to match a 1911's grip angle...



See it? You say the hump on the Glock is a grip fit issue rather than grip angle. You're right and wrong. Grip angle is PART of grip fit. Yes, the Glock grip angle DOES fit some people, but not very many.

Again, I'm not saying that this issue can't be easily over come simply by practicing your muscle memory, but I am simply questioning why one would choose to alter their shooting techinique to accomodate one gun.

If all you own is Glocks, well then more power to you. But I like all handguns, even Glocks, so I prefer to train for one shooting style.

(BTW, I have owned a Glock. Used to use it for a boat gun. Ended up selling it and buying an M&P. Trigger sucks on that too, so I replaced it with an Apex and it's good to go now.)

I don't have a problem w/Glocks operationally. Hate their marketinv though, especially the trigger safety bs.


Actually shot a Gen 4 in 9 once, really liked how it shot/felt in my hand vs a Gen 3

Phil, I'm on a phone so ill be more detailed later, but a quick question: do you own any revolvers?

The grip used for a revolver is radically different from a 1911 grip, yet lots of 1911 shooters have no issues shooting both.

You seem to be hung up on the issue that a 1911 points differently than a Glock. Is it overcoming some massive design flaw to learn how to shoot a revolver? Do you only own 1911s?

I honestly don't understand this idea that shooting one gun one way somehow ruins your ability to shoot other guns. Almost every gun points and shoots a little differently. That's why you train.

I own both, and shoot both. Somehow, a slightly different grip on a slightly different gun doesn't ruin my ability to shoot either accurately.

Your inability or unwillingness to adapt to a different gun does not mean the gun is flawed, as you've been implying. It simply means you're not willing to put in the time to learn how to shoot it. That's fine, but stop blaming the design for your own issues.

To expand on that: please don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to call you a lousy shot or question your training. For all I know, you could outshoot me with my own Glock. . But, this idea that learning how to shoot a Glock somehow will negatively affect how you shoot other guns is ludicrous.

Brad: OP asked me to post this here.

SAW: your guess is wrong, you can post a link or not, but I already know your guess is wrong. Last youtube vid I watched other than stage vids was Manny Bragg breaking down reloads.

Schemllba: I'll address when I have a break

Phideaux: I'll address when I have a break, we don't aggree.

squirrel: yep, they do. Moreso with stock grips. Haven't tried and e2. Sorry you go butthurt. I don't know who you are, but chances are I can shoot rings around you. Not cause I'm all that good, but cause most shooters are just that bad.

I think I've found the root of the disagreement here...

I think we're talking about two different skill sets when it comes to shooting.

Punching holes in paper and knocking down steel plates is one set of skills.

Using a firearm in an extremely efficient manner for defending one's self and others is a totally different matter.

I'm a defensive shooter. I don't hunt with handguns, I don't plink or paper punch or compete. When I hit the range I'm practicing for defense. My mentality is totally rooted in that. I suppose I may have miss addressed the OP in that other thread in that regard, as he wasn't planning on carrying.


But to your question Bender, yes I own a revolver. Double action revolvers are a very different design and taking into account the way that design relates to the fundamentals of shooting, I'd say that yes, it is a design flaw. Once again though, it can be over come. With a double action revolver you shoot isosceles. This brings the grip around the gun slightly, much in the same manner as a Glock grip requires. But with a double action revolver it allows you to get a little more finger on the trigger for the long trigger travel and overcoming the heavy DA spring. You also have no slide function to direct energy upwards in the hand (towards the thumb and over the grip like with a semi-auto,) but you have a solid frame that still makes good contact with the lower half of the palm. Also, most DA revolvers grips do wind up at a more vertical grip angle, some even more so than the 1911. Look at a J-Frame Smith...



While the backstrap at the top of the grip is more angled, it angles back more vertical towards the butt and even hooks back forward (hence the name J-frame), and the frontstrap of the grip is damn near vertical. Since we do most of our strength gripping with our pinky, ring and middle fingers, that's definitly the way you want it.

Also, notice I've been careful to keep saying DOUBLE ACTION revolvers. Bet you don't hold your single actions like a Glock... :-) In fact there was this little design change in 1894 that made the revolvers grip angle drastically more vertical...

See the Colt Bisley on top (the change) as compared to the Colt SAA on bottom...






So in the end what I'm trying to say is that perhaps the word "flaw" is a bit harsh. I'm just going to go with sub-optimum from now on. Can you shoot Glocks accurately? Certainly. It just requires more work to do so. That's not something I want to rely on in a defensive situation.

[This message has been edited by phideaux_2003 (edited 2/25/2013 1:48p).]

quote:

---

So in the end what I'm trying to say is that perhaps the word "flaw" is a bit harsh. I'm just going to go with sub-optimum from now on. Can you shoot Glocks accurately? Certainly. It just requires more work to do so. That's not something I want to rely on in a defensive situation.

---

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Like you, my primary interest in handguns is for defense. 95% of my range time with handguns is geared towards possible defensive use.

I might have accepted your argument of having to adjust for the Glock making it more difficult to punch holes in paper from 25 yards, but you're talking about defensive use and discussing a slight variation in an isosceles stance being an issue?

Perfect stance and grip would be ideal in a defensive situation, but good luck achieving that.

I train with and carry several different guns, depending on where I'm going, what I'm wearing, weather, etc. Being proficient with my J frame doesn't negatively affect my proficiency with my 1911 or my Glock. It is not hard at all to transition between different guns, especially with practice. Also, becoming accurate with the Glock was no harder than learning to be accurate with my J frame or 1911 for me.

I'm now truly confused now by your position. 25 yard bullseye shooting? Yeah, lets talk about how important a perfect, consistent stance with no deviation and a great trigger is.

Defensive use? This is starting to look a lot less like you have a rational reason to dislike using Glocks and more like a 1911 fans irrational hatred of tupperware.






[This message has been edited by BenderRodriguez (edited 2/25/2013 2:00p).]

[This message has been edited by BenderRodriguez (edited 2/25/2013 2:38p).]

Forgot to add: My picture was a comparison of the 2 guns showing minimal to no difference in the angle of the grip. Your counterpoint was a dude holding a ruler with his interpretation of where they point...for him. Using a ruler. Yeah, okay.

The angle isn't the issue. "glock has a bad grip angle" is a gun store myth like Mattel made M16s.

This is a funny thread.