Cooper on Glocks

[Manedwolf]

The Glock is top heavy

I find that to be true of most polymer/plastic framed pistols, even aluminum framed ones.

Springfield and Taurus have both moved past that and balanced them properly with the XD, MilPros and 24/7s. They're also a lot THINNER than the chunky "block".

Glock really needs to do some innovating, they're stuck somewhere in the 90's, IMO.

 

[doofus]

Glock really needs to do some innovating...

I don't necessarily think so...the same argument could be made against 1911 pattern pistols as well.

IMO, Glocks:
1. Work.
2. Use a simple design (which I tend to favor; less to break).
3. Have ergonomics that work for me.

As a tangential to this topic, I think it's odd when I read so many posts concerning "poor" ergonomics of one pistol or another. Maybe I'm just not experienced enough (I've been shooting for about 10 years), but I don't find it all that difficult to adapt to a specific pistol; there are pros and cons to any design.

Sure the Glock grip angle is more extreme than -- for example -- a 1911, but the trade off is a very low bore-axis. I don't think there are many mainstream pistols with "poor" ergonomics...it's simply a matter of what you prefer.

 

[RyanM]

You can modify the weight of the Glock, but can you make the action a true DAO in length of movement?

The total trigger movement on mine, measuriat the tip of the trigger, is about 0.5" (0.55" if you count the trigger safety). Measuring my SP-101 the same way, that one's 0.8". Not that big of a difference.

And actually, one of the modifications to get an ultra-light trigger is drilling a new hole in the trigger bar to change the leverage. I think that results in a longer pull, but I'm not sure. It probably does. TANSTAAFL. That extra leverage's gotta come from somewhere. So doing that modification combined with stuff to increase pull weight would probably do the job.

 

[JohnKSa]

Of course, one thing to remember is the 1911 was actually proven in trenches. The Glock was not.

The 1911 had already been replaced by the M9 before the Glock was invented. So the Glock failed to prove itself in the trenches with the 1911 because it didn't exist yet.

Harsh criticism indeed...

 

[jc2]

Yep, John, most of us knew that which explains why the remark was clearly in jest in response to an earlier post (#25).

I'm sorry, but I really didn't realize you weren't aware the Glock wasn't around in 1914-1918 (or that anybody would be so sensitive as to interpret the remark as even remotedly critical). If known you (or anybody else) would be confused by a remark referencing a war that took place 70 years before the Glock's appearance, I would have expounded further on the subject and saved you some research.

I really don't what to do about your continued failure to understand that a "smilie" ( ) indicates a remark made in jest, John. Maybe a something like a post-it note on your screen would help.

 

[albanian]

Cooper is probably the man I respect the least out of a long list of gun rag "writers" that i don't respect. I repect Ayoob probably the most out of living writers and Elmer the most of all time. Cooper is nothing but a narrow minded A-hole.

His views don't sway me in either direction. Those that look up to him are looked down on by me.

That said, I would agree with the statements he made. Glocks were big news when they were the only game in town for a plastic gun. Now you can get plastic guns anywhere. The SA XD is probably more refined than the Glock and it costs less.

 

[XDKingslayer]

Of course, one thing to remember is the 1911 was actually proven in trenches. The Glock was not.

That I would have to disagree on. As much as I dislike 1911s and hate Glocks with a passion, the Glock is proven in the trenches. It might be different trenches but it does have a decent service record with many police forces that can't be denied.

Granted it may be due to Glock catering their prices to said police forces, but you simply can't ignore thier record.

As far as Cooper's opinion, well all know what opinions are like. He may be a well respected gun guy, but his opinion of the Glock pretty much mirrors his opinion of every other non-1911 gun. I can't remember the last time the guy got excited over a non-1911 gun, so I don't hold his opinion in very high regard.

This is the state we're in all across the board. All the senior gun guys are getting to the age where they don't take change well and we're in the middle of a big stage of change. More and more polymer guns are coming, companies making polymer guns are pushing the limits to the edge, the new XD .45 is a good example of that.

You're going to have guys that flat out refuse to accept polymer guns. Whether it's tradition, fear, or stubborness.

 

[SDM]

A friend's Glock lost that little sheet metal takedown switch that sits in the dust over. He locked the slide back, loaded a magazine, then hit the slide release to let the slide forward. The slide went forward alright, right off the end of the gun. He got to hunt around in the grass for 20 minutes looking for the pieces.

That's like taking the lug nuts off your car, trying to drive it, and then complaining that the car is unreliable because you didn't get to where you wanted to go. Start taking parts out of a 1911 and see how well it performs.


I have read some of Cooper's comments and most of the time he is fair to the Glock. I believe he mentions that his daughter carries a 27. I think he questions the need for it more than anything, as he feels the 1911 filled the world's handgun needs a long time ago. Maybe thats right, but as we all should agree you don't have to need a gun to have it.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

This is the state we're in all across the board. All the senior gun guys are getting to the age where they don't take change well and we're in the middle of a big stage of change. More and more polymer guns are coming, companies making polymer guns are pushing the limits to the edge, the new XD .45 is a good example of that.

Have you considered that all this new change isn't necessarily for the better?

I learned how to shoot on a Glock 19. It was a good enough gun, for what it was. But I'm not convinced that it's the equal to a well made 1911 or Hi Power.

Sure, the old-guard writers aren't very smitten with the Glock. But maybe the reason isn't prejudice or stubbornness or dislike for anything new and different. Maybe the Glock simply isn't a spectacular gun. Maybe their cool reception towards the Glock is justified.

Newer doesn't automatically mean better.

 

[XDKingslayer]

Have you considered that all this new change isn't necessarily for the better?

I learned how to shoot on a Glock 19. It was a good enough gun, for what it was. But I'm not convinced that it's the equal to a well made 1911 or Hi Power.

Sure, the old-guard writers aren't very smitten with the Glock. But maybe the reason isn't prejudice or stubbornness or dislike for anything new and different. Maybe the Glock simply isn't a spectacular gun. Maybe their cool reception towards the Glock is justified.

Newer doesn't automatically mean better.

Yeah, I actually have. The way I see it if these polymer guns weren't what they are cracked up to be, then they wouldn't sell as well as they do. Their popularity mirrors the 1911. They may not have the aftermarket support that 1911s do, but give that time and it will change.

They're cheaper, they perform as well if not better, and they are just as reliable if not more reliable than 1911's out of the box. They are today's firearm.

The M-16 was crapped on simply because it was plastic and 40 years down the road it's still the choice of our armed services. It took time and redevelopment of some items, but it's still there. So will polymer pistols.

No, newer doesn't automatically mean better, but all of these new pistols are well proven, well tested, and well liked. It's hard to argue with that evidence.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I'm not saying that plastic guns are bad. I didn't say that any gun in particular, including the Glock, is bad. My first handgun experiences were with a Glock, and I own and carry several plastic handguns. Nothing wrong with plastic or with Glocks, if that's what you like.

What I was trying to say is that for a gun to be considered great, and for it to receive high praise from the old-timey gunwriters, the gun must deserve it. The Glock doesn't.

Glocks are decent guns. They get the job done. But they aren't spectacular. That's essentially what Cooper said about them and I think he's right on the money (this time).

 

[TaxPhd]

I can't remember the last time the guy got excited over a non-1911 gun, so I don't hold his opinion in very high regard.

Cooper has had good things to say about the CZ-75 and the Bren 10, to name two.

Cooper formed his opinions from combat and competition. He was always looking for what was demonstrably better. He was very willing to accept new and different equipment and technique when it proved to be superior (1911 over SAA, Weaver over one handed shooting, etc.).



Scott

 

[yy]

hmm,

meatcurtain: did you paste your reply to my thread (newbie XD) to this thread? (not a put down), this is humorous, because your reply fits both threads.


(disclaimer: I've never met Cooper, and do not claim to know him) Still, it chafes this Taiwanren when someone ripps on "gun experts" based on age. An intelligent man does not throw out good advice/opinion due to a dislike of the source. The same way one does not throw out a perfectly good birthday cake (or pizza) because a disliked person delivered it.

Now to evaluate Cooper's opinion that the OP quoted...
Sounded fair. No faulty facts. Looks like good opinion.


finally, I own a glock 27. I will not try to sway the world opinion to justify my purchase. I'm not that invested.
<my turn to rant>
But what's the big deal about looks? How many people (outside this forum)buy a pistol for its looks? I don't even *look* at my glock, the same way I don't ogle my wife. <looks over shoulder> Glocks' look has zero import when evaluating Cooper's opinion. He's not a guru of gun collecting.

I'll drive a toyota Prius over an Italian convertible _anyday_ because let's face it, I'd rather be saving money while stuck in Los Angeles traffic.


ps: note to OP -- I guess I could be overcompensating for my lack of internet connection yesterday when I wished I could be policing my own thread. Sorry

 

[XDKingslayer]

What I was trying to say is that for a gun to be considered great, and for it to receive high praise from the old-timey gunwriters, the gun must deserve it. The Glock doesn't.

I know where you were coming from.

Sure, the glock doesn't receive high praise from old-timey gunwriters. Is the problem the Glock or the old-timey gun writers? Considering hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of glock owners and users aren't throwing them away I'd have to say that kinda narrows it down.

As much as I hate Glocks and hate to admit this, the glock does deserve high praise. They changed the handgun world in the same fashion the M-16 changed the battle rifle world. They've placed a reliable, accurate, popular and cheap firearm in the hands of gun enthusiasts.

Every gun manufacturer out there is now flooding the market with polymer guns. When Glocks first hit the shelves how many people said Smith & Wesson would never do that, but now they are. When everyone else is following your lead in today's market, you deserve praise because you've done something right.

 

[nitesite]

XDKingslayer~

+1 and props for what you wrote.

I recently bought my first Glock and understand why they are a good sidearm for many people. They are not exactly for novice shooters IMO. But there are many shooters in that category that own one (perhaps their only gun). It's good that the shooting sport and the RKBA has been bolstered by Glock's presence on the shooting scene.

You'll never hear me cheer "GO Glock" but I am glad they have made such an influence.

 

[Nail Shooter]

SlamFire
Member

...."I don't have any problems with the "double action saftey" -- but Kahr makes a better small 9mm (MKII) with a better trigger, better action, better balance, smaller"....
***************************

I'll comment on the above quote from early in this thread.

I own a G19 and an MK9 Kahr (both about 5-6yrs old). Love both guns. My assessment does not coincide with SamFire's. I tried double and triple taps with both guns recently--NO CONTEST--the Glock wins easily in a time/accuracy race. If I take my time, I can shoot the Kahr very accurately too, just not fast. Practice some "resets" with the Glock, you'll see what I mean.

That said, I carry the Kahr more because it's so easy to hide in a number of different ways for CCW, but let me have the Glock if the shootin' ever starts!

NS

 

[Croyance]

Does anybody know if the Austrian Army ran torture tests like the ones the Army did for the M9? Because they use Glocks, but I don't know if they just brought the hometown product.

 

[ugaarguy]

ps: note to OP -- I guess I could be overcompensating for my lack of internet connection yesterday when I wished I could be policing my own thread. Sorry

Ian,

No apology needed. You make some great points that contribute to this thread. A pleasant surprise, it's been a rather civil discussion on a ploarizing writer's comments on a polarizing pistol.

 

[JohnKSa]

...the remark was clearly in jest ...I really didn't realize you weren't aware the Glock wasn't around in 1914-1918...a remark referencing a war that took place 70 years

jc2, if the remark was made in jest, then I apologize for taking you seriously.

However, your response was a bit ungracious considering,

1. I'm not the only one who took the comment seriously.
2. Neither your post nor the one you say you were responding to referenced any war or timeframe specifically.
3. Not even you really think I didn't know the Glock wasn't use in WWI.
4. Ascertaining anyone's frame of mind over the internet (yes, even with smilies) is something less than 100% accurate.

 

[jc2]

JohnKSA #56
So the Glock failed to prove itself in the trenches with the 1911 because it didn't exist yet.

JohnKSA #71
Neither your post nor the one you say you were responding to referenced any war or timeframe specifically.

John, I really figured most people with even rudimentary knowledge of American history (or British, French or German for that matter) would understand that trenches (trench warfare) was the salient characteristic of The Great War (1914-1918). My bad.

 

[JohnKSa]

My bad.

Indeed.

Trench warfare was also employed in the Korean war.

Besides, "in the trenches" is far more commonly used as a metaphor relating to general military service than it is to reference trench warfare specifically.

 

[slzy]

i have no dog in this fight,and i can only remember one thing Cooper said,and that was more or less sillines is Americas biggest problem.

 

[SgtRich]

The M-16 was crapped on simply because it was plastic and 40 years down the road it's still the choice of our armed services. It took time and redevelopment of some items, but it's still there.

Yeah, but the M-16 is still crap in combat. Ask the guys that use them in the sandbox.

 

[bcominos]

I've owned a couple Glocks and SA XD's... great guns for their intended purpose... I currently have a G17L that is pretty impressive. I bought it for 3 gun comp's and it faired well. The 6" barrel, 3.5# factory trigger, lightened slide (cut out - think this also allows for use of ported barrels), and 17 + 1 capacity make this a pretty competitive & attractive pistol for what I bought it for. I later acquired a Kimber Classic Custom 1911 that was tweaked and tuned by Wilson Combat. I now use the Kimber. The Glock cost me just over $600... The Kimber is worth over $1500... which one to use for three gun was actually a pretty tough decision... I shoot better with the Kimber, so it won... but it costs over 2 x's as much as the Glock! I still like my Glock, but have posted it for sale or trade... it's in the classifieds for pistols if your interested (with pics!). You may not admit it publically, but you know you need an extra inch in the barrel department!

*pretty funny ad if you read it all the way through (additional comments later in post)

My G23 ran like a top! had to part with it in a trade though... may pick up another as it was one of my favorite CCW's...

 

[XDKingslayer]

I recently bought my first Glock and understand why they are a good sidearm for many people. They are not exactly for novice shooters IMO. But there are many shooters in that category that own one (perhaps their only gun).

Actually, I think Glocks, and most other polymers, especially the XD, make the perfect sidearm for novice shooters. They are accurate and that helps when training a newer shooter. You'll always know it's the shooter and not the gun that's throwing rounds all over the place.

They are inexpensive. They are simple to disassemble and maintain which is important. I'm a mechanical guy and with 20 years of gun experience under my belt, 8 years of military experience with 1 of that being my platoons armorer, tearing apart and reassembling my first 1911A1 was a frustrating process, while field stripping my XD is a 5 second happening.

The only draw backs I can see giving a Glock to a new shooter with a lack of guidance is the lack of safeties. However, if he has guidance from a knowledgeable instructor the lack of safeties will enhance his handling of just about every other weapon.