Black Butte
Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2008
- Messages
- 888
Why a Pablo Picasso over a John Smith?
One is original, the other is not.
One is original, the other is not.
Why Glock over an XDM?
- Thread starter KAS1981
- Start date
- Status
Inebriated
Member
Black Butte said:
So you're advocating he get an HK VP70? They are the "original", after all...
Glock wasn't the first polymer pistol, it didn't have the first polygonal rifling, it wasn't the first to have the safety in the trigger, it wasn't the first striker fired pistol, etc....ad nauseum. The fact is Glock only took earlier ideas and combined them effectively into a very good pistol. But as far as the innovations he supposedly invented for the Glock there just aren't really any.
Both the XD and the Glock are very fine pistols. Choose whichever one fits you better not which on someone else tells you is "cooler" or is THIER preference. The practical differences between the two are really too close to objectively call one superior to the other in my opinion.
This is my list of Glock 17 firsts:
1. Revolutionary ease of assembly/disassembly
2. Polymer frame with steel rail inserts molded in
3. semi-double action striker-fire mechanism
4. Inertial trigger safety
5. Simplified Browning tilt mechanism where the barrel hood and breechface are used as the locking lug.
6. Extensive use of simple stamped parts for internals
7. First semi auto maker to realize the market for handguns without a manual safety. And to be able to sell said handgun for a profit and not get sued into bankruptcy. If it weren't for Glock, safety-free striker fire and single action semi-autos wouldn't exist.
So think about that, and the fact that Glock was doing it 20 years before the HS2000 came along.
Glock had no experience in firearms design. His background was manufacturing. He took the latest manufacturing technologies at his disposal, and he designed the firearm from the ground up to take advantage of them. And instead of ending up with a cheap, cobbled together throw-away gun held together with disposable parts and roll pins, he quite inexplicably created a cheap plastic gun that is revolutionary in its serviceability and durability. The fact that it's also a great shooter is almost secondary.
Last edited:
FIVETWOSEVEN
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,146
More like you are calling Croatia a 3rd world country. FACTS PLEASE!
The Colt 1910 was made without a safety but added one because of the military and became the 1911. Also, the SIG P220 was made before the Glock and it doesn't have a safety.
So? By that logic, nothing after the first semi auto is better. Just because something is older, doesn't mean it's better.
How much profit did Colt make before adding a personal safety? They stopped making the safety-less version, completely, after less than a year in production. My point is the Glock made it an actual standard. I'm sure a lot of people asked for one, and they said, no thanks. And continued to crush the market, and in the process changed what we're allowed to own and operate without lawyers getting big eyes. You know how many times Glock has been sued for causing an ND? I'm sure it's a lot. I'm sure Glock spent a lot of money on lawyers, politicians, and PR to make this work. Going after police contracts was a smart move, to establish the safety of the design.
Who said anything about better? I was making a point about innovation. Without Glock having forged the path, the other polymer wonders wouldn't have happened. They owe their commercial success to Glock.
Last edited:
jad0110
Member
Sorry Gloob, I really don't mean to pick on you (honest), but I just laugh because that sounds like a marketing statement off Glock's website.
It is certainly easy to field strip, though there are others that are as easy or easier still. For example, the Vz.82 comes to mind. Granted, it came along about the same time or maybe even a little after the Glock, but there are other much older pistols that disassemble with the same ease. The CZ-75 is also a pretty simple gun to field strip. Easier still are my wheel guns - I just remove the wood stocks so they don't get crud an oil on them.
jackpinesavages
member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2009
- Messages
- 809
OK, here you go...
http://www.svri.org/minors.pdf
http://amusinghistorymusings.blogspot.com/2009/02/human-slavery-sex-trade-croatia.html
http://www.ask500people.com/questio...e-do-you-think-it-happens--see-comment--27034
http://www.spectrezine.org/content/...ur-not-welcome-even-if-theyre-passing-through
http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/Croatia.htm
This last one here ^^ is a release from the US State Dept. in 2009.
http://www.svri.org/minors.pdf
http://amusinghistorymusings.blogspot.com/2009/02/human-slavery-sex-trade-croatia.html
http://www.ask500people.com/questio...e-do-you-think-it-happens--see-comment--27034
http://www.spectrezine.org/content/...ur-not-welcome-even-if-theyre-passing-through
http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/Croatia.htm
This last one here ^^ is a release from the US State Dept. in 2009.
Last edited by a moderator:
I never said field strip. I am referring to the complete assembly/disassembly. This affects the gun's overall cost (assembly cost), maintenance/upkeep/repair cost, and ease of detail cleaning.
I am not picking on you, but it sounds like you've never taken a Glock apart beyond a field strip. (I wonder if you're ever disassembled any gun, if you would even compare it to a revolver. Yikes!) It's one of the best features of this gun. The disassembly/reassembly was a huge consideration in the design of every single part of the gun, and it shows.
Last edited:
Big_John1961
Member
jackpinesavages said:
Loony, loony, loony...
WRGADog
Member
XDM or Glock
I own a G26, G19, and G30 along with a XDM 40, XDM 9, and XDM 9 3.8. Personally, I prefer the XDM's because of capacity, match grade barrel, grip safety, and the lifetime warranty. The XDM's fit my hand better, and thus I am more accurate when I shoot them.
I own a G26, G19, and G30 along with a XDM 40, XDM 9, and XDM 9 3.8. Personally, I prefer the XDM's because of capacity, match grade barrel, grip safety, and the lifetime warranty. The XDM's fit my hand better, and thus I am more accurate when I shoot them.
I never said a Glock was better. What's up with Glock threads? They certainly seem to bring out the worst in people.
You can argue an XD is better if you want, and I don't care. But if you think an XD is more innovative than a Glock, you have your timeline backwards.
You can argue an XD is better if you want, and I don't care. But if you think an XD is more innovative than a Glock, you have your timeline backwards.
#5. While you admit Browning invented the tilting barrel lock up you claim Glock invented the barrel locking into the ejection port. Sig uses the same lock up and the P220 was adopted by the Swiss in 1975, and I doubt they were the first either so how did Glock invent that?
FIVETWOSEVEN
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,146
Most of Europe must be third world too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Central_Europe
I see you completely missed over where I noted that the SIG P220 didn't have a safety and it came a few years before the Glock.
Who cares? If I like the XD more, I would get it. I don't need a history lesson on Poly Pistols to own one and buying something just because of hype is just plain silly.
Last edited by a moderator:
grayhambone
Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2011
- Messages
- 171
did the second comment just say xdm was better than glock?
that is all. get what you want though.
that is all. get what you want though.
WinThePennant
Member
There are some things I really like about the XD. But, there are some things I really don't like. I'm not a big fan of the grip safety because I am not a fan of having to have a perfect grip on a gun in order to shoot it. The only external safety I'll tolerate is a trigger safety similar to those found on all Glocks (and copied by many other manufacturers).
That said, I do wish that Glock would implement an elevated loaded chamber indicator and a striker status indicator. Perhaps Gen 5?
Also, I prefer the XD takedown. The only think I dislike about my Glocks is a takedown procedure that forces you to pull the trigger.
That said, I do wish that Glock would implement an elevated loaded chamber indicator and a striker status indicator. Perhaps Gen 5?
Also, I prefer the XD takedown. The only think I dislike about my Glocks is a takedown procedure that forces you to pull the trigger.
You don't need a perfect grip on an XD to deactivate the grip safety. In fact I doubt you would ever even notice it has one during any type of shooting. I do like the grip safety for one reason. I like to move my thumb over to the back of the slide when reholstering. This deactivates the grip safety, in the case of the XD, and it is NOT POSSIBLE for it to fire when re-holstering. The same can not be said for the Glock (or my carry gun the M&P for that matter!). It also works on hammer fired weapons. If you are pushing the weapon in with your thumb on the hammer it makes it very difficult for you to accidentally pull the trigger or for the trigger to be pulled by accident.
FIVETWOSEVEN
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,146
I don't at the range but if my hand is mangled in a gunfight, it won't be reliable anymore.
The extractor on a Glock protrudes slightly when chambered and the trigger is the striker status indicator. It's not fully cocked so it wouldn't work like an XD.
The XD takedown requires you to pull the trigger, the XDm however doesn't require the trigger to be pulled. Either way it's not an issue if you are smart about it.
KAS 1981- Good Luck with your upcoming purchase. I hope you find the right gun for you. Personally I haven't shot an XDm. I have an XD-40 I bought new in 2007. It has been a good gun. I like it. I also like the Glocks I have shot. I don't think you will really go wrong either way.
Jamyatunes
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2008
- Messages
- 33
I'm losing track but I have owned several Glocks, XDs, and 1911s ... For the longest time I loved the XD above all because of the lack of manual safety and the trigger being way smoother than the Glock. Recently I have gone back to Glocks because my trigger control has gotten better even with crunchy triggers, and I've learned that a bigger factor for me is how the pistol fits my hand. I have big hands and Glocks fit well.
The moral of this story? Get the gun that fits you better, not the one someone else tells you is better, and also expect that at some point in the future your tastes will change, so don't get married to a brand or style. God forbid, but I might even find myself shooting revolvers someday!
The moral of this story? Get the gun that fits you better, not the one someone else tells you is better, and also expect that at some point in the future your tastes will change, so don't get married to a brand or style. God forbid, but I might even find myself shooting revolvers someday!
- Status
