Phil, as I've said earlier I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest over who shoots better or has more credentials. Not that it matters either way, but I'm a NRA Instructor as well.
![](https://f5s.blob.core.windows.net/web/legacy/images/forum/smile.gif)
I see students with a huge variety of pistols in class, so I tend to stick with the idea of "any gun that is reliable, is chambered in a proven caliber and works for you can serve the purpose" and avoid caliber/brand debates (in class anyway
![](https://f5s.blob.core.windows.net/web/legacy/images/forum/wink.gif)
).
Here is my takeaway from your posts that I wanted to address from the get go (and that I apparently addressed poorly)...to quote you:
quote:
Again, just my philosophy. Not saying you're doing it wrong or that others should do as I do.
Cool, makes sense to me and if it works for you I have no problems with it. As I said earlier, your complaints about Glocks are due to your philosophy and training, not due to inherent design deficiencies....which was the problem I had with your original statement about overcoming
design flaws.
We drifted a little bit there with defense/competition, but I think that sums up the root of my issue with your statement. Glocks don't work for you or in your philosophy of use. That is fine. That doesn't mean the design is poor or deficient, which is what you said in the other thread and what I wanted to address.
For the record, I wasn't saying I thought the Glock was deficient for Bullseye or target shooting, just that I could understand why someone else would choose a different pistol. Sorry if that wasn't communicated effectively... I'm much better at communicating face to face than online, unfortunately. So no, there is no logical fallacy in my post, just a very poor and unorganized explanation of my point.
Hope this makes my position slightly more clear than mud.