I hate Glocks, thats why only own 4 of them.

Bummed it's not a 9mm, I guess they didn't want to cannibalize sales on 26s or 19s?

THe reason that the glock will outsell the kahir is because of the idiotic glock mentailty of, "Look at me with my pistol that I think is cool because I can torture test it more than you can".

Now, if you shoot a glock because its comfortable in your hand... great! I have no issue with that. Where I draw issue is the guys who try to compensate for their small stature by saying that their pistol is "tougher" than every one elses.

*end glock rant*

I must not spend enough time around pistol guys and mall ninjas because I do not get this Glock battle at all.

Maybe it is because I do not see the difference in many of these black pistols. To me there is no difference between the S&W, Ryger, Glock, FN, Beretta, Walther, Springfield, half of the sigs. CZ, etc. They all are black, go bang, are reasonably accurate and durable, and hold a bunch of rounds. And they are all priced within $150 of each other.

I didn't realize that Glock gun owners thought they were cooler than Springfield owners. Fascinating.


Sorry. End f pointless post.

I may buy one of these for my wife.

yeah, just got a Sig938 for wife, may buy one of these for her and "take over" the sig

I think El Gato and I could be friends!

I think from a marketing perspective, Glock should come out with a 380 first. Once it's been out, they'll introduce the same frame shooting a more popular 9mm. Just like the XDS did.

If they introduce the 9mm first, LESS would buy the 380.

I have three of these on preorder. Who wants one?

Seems like there is some meaningful disdain for Glock and Glock owners that is coming through on this thread. I don't get it.

I shoot Glocks because Glocks are what works best for me. The second I find something that works better for me than Glocks I will be a former Glock shooter. For a bunch of people it seems that they are that way about their M&Ps or their XDs or their Walthers or their H&Ks or whatever.

Who cares what someone else shoots, if it suits their needs?

As for me I will buy one of these to replace my Ruger LCP. Now, my LCP has been a good little gun. Never had a single failure after about 500 rounds through it. It's as accurate as I could ask for it to be, and it's second-to-none in terms of size and conceal-ability.

But the reason I'll be replacing it with the G42 isn't because the G42 is a Glock and the LCP is a Ruger and I somehow think Glocks are cooler. It's because I've been shooting Glocks for over 20 years and I know how they point and I know how the trigger breaks and I've got years and years of muscle memory training with a Glock that I have to re-think every time I carry my LCP instead of my G26 (or G19 or G17 or G22).

I'll buy it because it's a Glock, yes, but not for cool's sake. I'll get it for familiarity's sake. If a gun is a tool, and the Glock is the epitome of "gun as tool" design philosophy, then it makes sense to me to always carry the tool that I have the most familiarity, training and comfort with.

It's the same reason I don't own a 1911. 1911s are beautiful. Some of them are works of art. No one ever accused a Glock of being a work of art, except perhaps an industrial or mechanical engineer. I would love to have a 1911 for the sake of owning a 1911 (and for the sake of getting some cool grip scales from TX4Guns). But I haven't bought one because I don't have $1000+ to invest in a gun that will just sit in a safe. I wish I did. I just don't. So I buy guns that I'm going to shoot, and the guns that I'm going to shoot are Glocks because they are the tools that work best for me.

So I am disappointed that the G42 is a little .380 instead of a single-stack 9, but I will still buy one to replace my Ruger LCP because it serves a purpose and fits in with the rest of my platform and training.

Meanwhile I will keep pining away for a Glock single-stack 9. I was gun shopping over the weekend. Tried out a Shield, an XDs 9, and a Kahr PM9. The Shield is very interesting to me but it isn't enough different from my G26 to make me throw down my money. The Kahr trigger doesn't work for me (although I know people love it). The XDs just feels awkward and wrong in my hand and I don't know how anyone shoots it, although I know many great shooters and great friends (including a couple that are HPD) who have switched to the XD platform and LOVE it. It's not that I think Glock is any better than any of those guns. It's just that Glock is a better solution for me personally, and that's good enough.

Sorry for blathering. I guess I don't understand the need that some people feel to belittle the choices of other people, and that goes in any direction anyone wants to take it.

Eyeguy, I'll take one.

I never understood the disdain for Glock owners. I bought a G17 gen 4 a couple of years ago now, and have been switching over to standardize for myself.

Supposedly on tap for three of these and three 41s. Email me at eyeguytex@Gmail.com. pricing has not been determined yet sui it's more of a right to first refusal

email sent.

How much are these going to cost? Pardon me if I missed it.

No prices have been listed yet.

Yea...there is a lot of demand for concealable single stack 9's right now, and not near the competition of the pocket .380s.
People would be lining up to buy a ss glock 9, esp with the recall problems of the XDS right now.

I can see both sides, but I think Glock overall made the lesser of the two choices.

[This message has been edited by Bob_Ag (edited 1/6/2014 1:53p).]

quote:

---

As for me I will buy one of these to replace my Ruger LCP. Now, my LCP has been a good little gun. Never had a single failure after about 500 rounds through it. It's as accurate as I could ask for it to be, and it's second-to-none in terms of size and conceal-ability.

But the reason I'll be replacing it with the G42 isn't because the G42 is a Glock and the LCP is a Ruger and I somehow think Glocks are cooler. It's because I've been shooting Glocks for over 20 years and I know how they point and I know how the trigger breaks and I've got years and years of muscle memory training with a Glock that I have to re-think every time I carry my LCP instead of my G26 (or G19 or G17 or G22).

I'll buy it because it's a Glock, yes, but not for cool's sake. I'll get it for familiarity's sake. If a gun is a tool, and the Glock is the epitome of "gun as tool" design philosophy, then it makes sense to me to always carry the tool that I have the most familiarity, training and comfort with.

It's the same reason I don't own a 1911. 1911s are beautiful. Some of them are works of art. No one ever accused a Glock of being a work of art, except perhaps an industrial or mechanical engineer. I would love to have a 1911 for the sake of owning a 1911 (and for the sake of getting some cool grip scales from TX4Guns). But I haven't bought one because I don't have $1000+ to invest in a gun that will just sit in a safe. I wish I did. I just don't. So I buy guns that I'm going to shoot, and the guns that I'm going to shoot are Glocks because they are the tools that work best for me.

---

You mean the guns you are going to shoot are Glocks because you've pigeon-holed yourself into Glock products by forming your muscle memory around them.

That's the reason I'm personally down on Glocks, not as a bad product and not as poor design but as a lack of versatility regarding multiple platforms. As a defensive instructor I teach technique along with muscle memory. When the Glock uses the same grip angle and the same muscle memory and techniques used for 5% of other handguns on the market, that's not versatility. The other 95% of handguns on the market today have a different grip angle and thus the same muscle memory and pointability across their spectrum. I like having options. I don't like having to go with a certain brand or design because that's all I can shoot. When you learn solid fundamentals and you have nearly identical muscle memory on all the guns in your collection, you can carry anything and be just as well armed as if you were carrying your druthers.

That's why I stay away from Glock entirely.

[This message has been edited by phideaux_2003 (edited 1/6/2014 2:45p).]

I want more ass shot of the girl in the first video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EVj5NOywSY

Seems as though you are implying that I can't shoot anything else because I've pigeon-holed myself into Glock as a shooting platform.

You know that's pretty weak, right?

If you don't like the way Glocks point then don't shoot Glocks.
If you don't like Glock's triggers then don't shoot Glocks.
If you don't like Glock's safety system then don't shoot Glocks.
If you like something better than Glock then don't shoot Glocks.

But do not assume that I shoot Glock because of some perceived weakness in my fundamentals, my training, or my inability to shoot something else effectively.

Standardizing my platform is a choice, not a weakness. And if I ever need to shoot someone else's gun, and it happens not to be a Glock, and I can't shoot it for some reason? Then I am an idiot. That's my fault, not Glock's.

That said, you mention that Glock has the same grip angle as about 5% of other guns. Is that 5% of other gun models, or 5% of guns in the world?

Being a trainer, your experience may be different. In my experience, Glocks are the guns that most of my friends own, Glocks are the guns I most often encounter at the range, Glocks are the guns that I see carried by more LEOs, etc. I think - and maybe I'm wrong - that if I am going to encounter a gun "in the wild" that isn't my own, I'm most likely to encounter a Glock. So if that's the argument, it seems to me that it would be best if everyone shot guns that share the same grip angle as Glocks because there are probably more Glocks in the United States than there are any other gun. Right?

But regardless - my point is this:

I don't care what someone else shoots, and I don't understand why someone else would care what I shoot. If I can shoot a 1921 Smith & Wesson Hand Ejector in .32-20 better than I can shoot any other gun? Then I should be carrying a 1921 Smith & Wesson Hand Ejector in .32-20. The only exception would be is if I am in an environment where a standardized platform across a team would make a difference for the purpose of sharing ammo, magazines and making field repairs. But that's not my environment.

People who want to shoot Glocks should shoot Glocks.
People who don't want to shoot Glocks should not shoot Glocks.

It's pretty simple. I still don't get why it has to be polarizing. Let's argue over something that matters if we're going to argue. Like beer. Or scotch. Or steelhead vs. coho. Rainbows vs. browns. Blondes vs. brunettes.

Carry on.

quote:

---

I still don't get why it has to be polarizing. Let's argue over something that matters if we're going to argue.

---

I find this funny since you have led the Glock charge over multiple pages with the near equivalent of a dissertation.

You get it and your passion shows it. What you don't understand is how anyone could be on the other side of the argument. Totally different and that is because you're a Glock homer.

I'm not a Glock fan. They don't point instinctively for me and the long trigger results in low pulls to the left. Since I own other fire arms (that I prefer and all shoot the same) owning a Glock and reteaching myself to draw, aim and shoot isn't practical. So I won't ever own one.

It doesn't mean I'll argue against them or recommend others go in a different direction. I purchased a G26 for my wife. She likes it and shoots it well, but they aren't for me.

[This message has been edited by agla06 (edited 1/6/2014 3:42p).]

Gonna bold my statements in the quoted block just to differentiate the two posters responses.

quote:

---

Seems as though you are implying that I can't shoot anything else because I've pigeon-holed myself into Glock as a shooting platform.

That's not what I said. You said that you will continue to shoot Glocks because they work best for you. I said that you probably mean you'll continue to shoot Glock because you've pigeon holed yourself, etc. It's not that Glocks work best for you. The fact of the matter is, because Glocks apparently work for you, that tells me that lots of guns will work equally well for you. You have a mental block against anything else though, evidently. Glocks are extremely generic in their fit and function. I'll bet you could shoot a DAK Sig just as well as you shoot a Glock if you took the time to develop the muscle memory for it.

You know that's pretty weak, right?

If you don't like the way Glocks point then don't shoot Glocks.
If you don't like Glock's triggers then don't shoot Glocks.
If you don't like Glock's safety system then don't shoot Glocks.
If you like something better than Glock then don't shoot Glocks.

A: I'm not criticizing your choice of the Glock. If you like them, more power to you. B: I thought I clearly stated in the last post several times that "I" don't like Glock for this reason or that. I then summarized with a conclusive statement stated that the preceding had been the reasons I stay away from Glock. If it was unclear that I was talking about me and my choices, I'm sorry.

But do not assume that I shoot Glock because of some perceived weakness in my fundamentals, my training, or my inability to shoot something else effectively.

Again, not assuming that. See first response above.

Standardizing my platform is a choice, not a weakness. And if I ever need to shoot someone else's gun, and it happens not to be a Glock, and I can't shoot it for some reason? Then I am an idiot. That's my fault, not Glock's.

Agreed. It's kinda like not knowing how to work on PC's because all you do is Mac's. Not quite the same proportions but you get what I'm saying.

That said, you mention that Glock has the same grip angle as about 5% of other guns. Is that 5% of other gun models, or 5% of guns in the world?

I said 5% of other HANDGUNS. I suppose I'll go with other gun models. The German Luger, Ruger Mark I & II's, High Standard .22's, the Colt Woodsman and a few other lesser knowns like Wildey and Sterling High Standard copies. And then Glock. They share grip angles. Most everything else in the wide world of semi-automatic handguns is a more traditional angle.

Being a trainer, your experience may be different. In my experience, Glocks are the guns that most of my friends own, Glocks are the guns I most often encounter at the range, Glocks are the guns that I see carried by more LEOs, etc. I think - and maybe I'm wrong - that if I am going to encounter a gun "in the wild" that isn't my own, I'm most likely to encounter a Glock. So if that's the argument, it seems to me that it would be best if everyone shot guns that share the same grip angle as Glocks because there are probably more Glocks in the United States than there are any other gun. Right?

Our experience must be very different. Preparing for finding a gun on the street is kind of an odd thing. Would you want to touch such a gun would be my first question. But that's not what I was getting at as the advantage in versatility. Here's some numbers for you: Glocks account for about 6% of the handgun market in the US. They were GIVEN to police departments around the country because they were the first reliable polymer framed handgun that could be made in mass for $27 each. (Sarcasm) Glock took in hundreds of thousands of Smiths, Colts, Beretta, Sigs, Rugers, etc and sold them on the used market to folks like www.summitgunbroker.com to recoop their lost profits. Glocks are extremely easy to use, to work on and most importantly, extremely cheap to replace. That's why police departments love them. Since shooters have embraced them and subsequently demanded more from them (changeable back straps, finger grooves, less aggressive stippling, better sights, accessories like larger slide lock levers and mag releases, etc) the Glock has caught up in cost of manufacture and thus cost of product. Their desirability has thusly gone down with LE and that's why we see departments like TX DPS leaving Glock several years ago for Sig, and again recently leaving Sig for S&W M&P's. Before Glock it was Beretta and before that it was stainless steel revolvers and Colt 1911's because they last forever. It's just the simple facts.

But regardless - my point is this:

I don't care what someone else shoots, and I don't understand why someone else would care what I shoot. If I can shoot a 1921 Smith & Wesson Hand Ejector in .32-20 better than I can shoot any other gun? Then I should be carrying a 1921 Smith & Wesson Hand Ejector in .32-20. The only exception would be is if I am in an environment where a standardized platform across a team would make a difference for the purpose of sharing ammo, magazines and making field repairs. But that's not my environment.

You're talking military and LE application now and that's a different ball game.

People who want to shoot Glocks should shoot Glocks.
People who don't want to shoot Glocks should not shoot Glocks.

And people who use nothing but Left side drive cars should use Left side drive cars.

But why do you hate on me because I don't like left side drive cars and I can articulate why?

---

quote:

---

I find this funny since you have led the Glock charge over multiple pages with the near equivalent of a dissertation.

---

If this was a general firearms thread you might have a point. What's the title of this thread again?

I shoot pretty well (but not expertly) with most platforms. I still carry a glock everyday. I guess I am the exception to this rule? Do other people have trouble shooting both a 1911 and a glock? Weird.

quote:

---

quote:

---

That's why I stay away from Glock entirely.

---

That's a completely absurd statement. I'm glad that you're at least only calling yourself an instructor and not an expert.

---

It's absurd to say that I stay away from Glock entirely for stated reasons or it's absurd to stay away from Glock for stated reasons?

And part of being a good instructor is realizing there is more than one way to skin a cat in most every case. Like I said, I'm not criticizing Skub's choice to pigeon hole himself. (And he clearly stated that he only shoots Glocks. That's pigeon holing.) I just see benefit in learning different platforms and over reaching fundamentals which do not require pigeon holing and allow for more veratility. Skub evidently can shoot other guns, see his comment about his LCP. That's great. Just boggles me why he wouldn't do that.

[This message has been edited by phideaux_2003 (edited 1/6/2014 4:07p).]

quote:

---

I shoot pretty well (but not expertly) with most platforms. I still carry a glock everyday. I guess I am the exception to this rule? Do other people have trouble shooting both a 1911 and a glock? Weird.

---

A lot of people do. I bet your shooting education was very fundamentals based too. Do you do defensive shooting or just recreational?

quote:

---

quote:

---

I find this funny since you have led the Glock charge over multiple pages with the near equivalent of a dissertation.

---

If this was a general firearms thread you might have a point. What's the title of this thread again?

---

I get that. What I found funny was he said it wasn't a big deal either way, but then proceeded to tell everyone why they were wrong in more words than I ever turned in during college. He's a Glock homer and this is the perfect place for it. That doesn't mean he isn't in full denial.

Recreational

Sorry MAAL I edited my response to you as you were typing. I added a bit up above.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I shoot pretty well (but not expertly) with most platforms. I still carry a glock everyday. I guess I am the exception to this rule? Do other people have trouble shooting both a 1911 and a glock? Weird.

---

A lot of people do. I bet your shooting education was very fundamentals based too. Do you do defensive shooting or just recreational?

---

I'm on the target and wouldn't say I shoot horrible groupings after re-familiarize myself with a Glock, but it isn't as natural to me as other side arms I own. I have to think about it and that is the last thing I want to deal with in a concealed carry / self defense situation.

quote:

---

Recreational

---

See that's another thing. Defensive shooting has very different goals than recreational shooting. There are whole mindsets around defense. Many of them. If hitting a target is your goal that's great and can be done with most pistols by simply following fundamentals.

Line up the sights, hold it steady and press the trigger making sure not to take the sights off the target. Right?

When that round goes off, if you did what you're supposed to, that bullet should hit what you were aiming at.

Defensive shooting is less precise and relies on muscle memory a lot more. Sometimes all you see is just a flash of the sight picture. Sometimes, especially in the dark or when you're about to piss yourself in fright, you don't see the sights at all.

That's where this minutia I'm BS-ing with Skub over comes in to play. Skub knows that. He's had training and is a defensive shooter.

quote:

---

I get having preferences. I don't get staying away from some of the more readily available guns on the because of those preferences. Learn all, teach all, enjoy all. Hell, I'd find a way to enjoy a Hi Point if the damn thing could make it through a range session.

---

We agree on this and I've instructed lots of people with Glocks. You just have to teach them Glock fundamentals, not the "everything else" fundamentals.

quote:

---

I find this funny since you have led the Glock charge over multiple pages with the near equivalent of a dissertation.

You get it and your passion shows it. What you don't understand is how anyone could be on the other side of the argument.

---

No - you have misunderstood. What I don't understand is why there is an argument at all. Period stop. At no point in my "dissertation" on this thread have I made any claim that Glock is equal to or better than any other firearm, except only for me, and that's only a matter of my personal preference.

You see, I'm not arguing for or against anything. I don't care if people like Glocks or not. For that matter I don't care if people like the Glock 42, which is, after all, the subject of this thread.

My view of my handguns is that they are tools and nothing else. It would be like arguing whether Craftsman or Crescent makes better socket wrenches.

It's just not something that I'm that passionate about. As I said earlier in the thread, the minute I find a gun that I like better than my present gun, I'll replace my present gun with it.

It's a tool for me. That's it.