rainbowbob
Member
This was posted today on Police Link at http://www.policelink.com/?utm_source=nlet
Has anyone with a Glock 40 experienced this same problem?
Has anyone with a Glock 40 experienced this same problem?
Why I prefer revolvers...
- Thread starter rainbowbob
- Start date
- Status
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I know it's too easy to say...
...but...
...maybe the biggest problem is "wounding" an assailant with 13 shots. At that point the odds of the 14th shot really making a he** of a lot of difference seem to be diminishing...!
LOL.
-Sam
...but...
...maybe the biggest problem is "wounding" an assailant with 13 shots. At that point the odds of the 14th shot really making a he** of a lot of difference seem to be diminishing...!
LOL.
-Sam
ScareyH22A
Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2009
- Messages
- 468
Jam on the 13th or run out after 6. Hmmmm.... 
I prefer revolvers because they're generally works of art.
The nicest semiauto still feels like a contraption.
That said, I have a .45ACP for HD, and I shoot matches with .22 autos. (I have a 9mm but it's not something I use seriously.)
Either way, there's something to be said for training as if you have only 6 rounds, even if you have 13.
There is a problem with high capacity: knowing you have "plenty of rounds" can breed carelessness. Better to shoot those 13 as if you have only 6.
The nicest semiauto still feels like a contraption.
That said, I have a .45ACP for HD, and I shoot matches with .22 autos. (I have a 9mm but it's not something I use seriously.)
Either way, there's something to be said for training as if you have only 6 rounds, even if you have 13.
There is a problem with high capacity: knowing you have "plenty of rounds" can breed carelessness. Better to shoot those 13 as if you have only 6.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
There is a subtle hint in the article (quoted in the original post) that it just might have been a .40.
-Sam
JImbothefiveth
Member
I don't think a revolver would have saved him. Better to jam after 13 than to run out after 6.
Travis Bickle
member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
- Messages
- 476
Choosing an automatic pistol over a revolver means giving up some reliability in exchange for extra capacity. For cops, this trade off is arguably worth it, since they're far more likely to find themselves in a position where they need more than five or six shots. However, IMO, for civvies, there is no better weapon than a good old-fashioned .357 Magnum revolver, and a .44 Special revolver rates a close second.
rainbowbob
Member
You got a point Jimbo.
Vonderek
Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,538
Revolvers are not trouble-free. I have had two (both S&W) bind up completely while shooting. One had to go back to the factory that way and the other required disassembly to unfreeze. I have had others (not S&W) fail via light primer strikes. At least with a semiauto when you have a FTE or FTF you can generally clear the problem quickly. I am crazy for revolvers too but don't find them inherently more reliable than a quality semiauto.
I had a Glock 23 for a brief while and considered making it a "night stand" and cc weapon. It was the most reliable auto I have ever seen, and easy to shoot accurately. If I were told I had to carry a Glock .40 S&W as a duty weapon, I would have no worries.
However, even the smaller Glock 23 was neither 1) easily concealable or 2) ergonomically shaped in the grip - it felt like holding a brick. I sold it and went back to carrying a S&W 19 snub-nosed. But reliability is not an insult I'd fling at a Glock .40.
1) Believe it or not, revolvers can fail.
2) When revolvers fail, they often do so catastrophically. There is no rapid remedial action to unbind one in the heat of a shootout.
3) Glocks don't take kindly to limpwristing. This is not new information, and for the most part can be overcome with training.
2) When revolvers fail, they often do so catastrophically. There is no rapid remedial action to unbind one in the heat of a shootout.
3) Glocks don't take kindly to limpwristing. This is not new information, and for the most part can be overcome with training.
hometheaterman
Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2009
- Messages
- 1,115
A buddy here was telling me the police department switched from the 9mm's to the .40's due to a problem like this. Maybe he got it backwards who knows. If they really did switch to the .40's instead it doesn't look like that was the best move.
Brian Dale
Member
For me, 13 shots to only wound a criminal reinforces the reason that I choose the guns I do:
Buy the gun that you can shoot well. {I understand that police departments have equipment sourcing and uniformity requirements that I don't have to meet}
About the magazine problem:
I'm just glad that Glock isn't finding themselves offering to "replace" X number of dead cops "at no charge."
I'm glad that Officer Colon is recovering.
Buy the gun that you can shoot well. {I understand that police departments have equipment sourcing and uniformity requirements that I don't have to meet}
About the magazine problem:
The Article said:
I'm just glad that Glock isn't finding themselves offering to "replace" X number of dead cops "at no charge."
I'm glad that Officer Colon is recovering.
Last edited:
Knightrider03m
Member
I would be a little worried about using my gun again if it jammed on me like that. Even if it is a mag problem. Just a mind thing with me.
That's the Glocknut chorus, isn't it?
Next time your brakes fail and your car crashes into a block wall, can we all drive by and yell, "Learn to drive, you idiot!"? That's the equivalent of Team Glock blaming all problems and failures on the operator or on "training", which is the same thing said more politely. (Same goes for anything, not just a Glock, BTW. I just see it written about Glocks, and seldom about anything else.)
Revolvers can have mechanical failures. They are, however, more tolerant of imperfect grip, firing at odd angles, etc. than semiautos. And you only get 8 shots, max, from bulky expensive ones. 5 to 7, in regular models.
Semiautos usually hold more rounds -- nowadays a LOT more rounds. They also can have mechanical failures. They are far less tolerant of imperfect grip, firing at odd angles, etc. than revolvers.
You pays your money, you takes your pick.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
Travis Bickle: "Choosing an automatic pistol over a revolver means giving up some reliability in exchange for extra capacity."
Also variation in load. I can have shotshells, wadcutters, LRN or ball in my Model 29 in any combination and it matters not a whit. Military went with autoloaders partly for capacity, partly for speed of reload, and mostly because under treaty they HAD to load ball. Still, a lot of our guys carried M1917 revolvers in WWI and loved 'em, even with those dorky half-moon clips and .45ACP. Imagine if our guys in 'Nam could have carried Model 29s with .44 magnum expanding rounds?
Also variation in load. I can have shotshells, wadcutters, LRN or ball in my Model 29 in any combination and it matters not a whit. Military went with autoloaders partly for capacity, partly for speed of reload, and mostly because under treaty they HAD to load ball. Still, a lot of our guys carried M1917 revolvers in WWI and loved 'em, even with those dorky half-moon clips and .45ACP. Imagine if our guys in 'Nam could have carried Model 29s with .44 magnum expanding rounds?
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
Clarence: "I didn't think Glocks had reliability issues."
Oh, boy.
They certainly do, as you'd expect from any cheap plastic striker-fired pistol disqualified from U.S. military service. But try telling it to the Glock fanboys.
Oh, boy.
They certainly do, as you'd expect from any cheap plastic striker-fired pistol disqualified from U.S. military service. But try telling it to the Glock fanboys.
- Status
