Join BayouShooter For Free
Brass

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst ... 23
Results 21 to 25 of 25
  1. #21
    Marksman

    User Info Menu

    Are you referring to completely altered race glocks, with nothing stock other than frame that has been cut and stippled???? Or are you talking about basic stock glocks from factory running the way the factory designed them to be...with any gain in a race gun you have to give somthing up!!! Speed for relibilty, felt recoil for reliability, completely loading down a round for ease of follow ups for reliability... Just saying... And yes I am a glock fanboy lol I did cut my teeth on a 1911 and glock, and to me the 1911 was the bees knees in its hay day... But now is a range fun gun... To me the glock is a range fun gun but like a Eastwing hammer... It just works in a shtf situation...



    Quote Originally Posted by Cbzr1107 View Post
    Few things. I'm not a Glock fan either although I owned one years ago. They have a reputation for just running, and to sone degree, rightfully so. However, they malfunction as well. When I used to shoot IDPA, I saw far more issues with Glocks than with 1911s. And the number of shooters using either platform appeared to be pretty equal. In my personal eperience, which is probably opposite everyone else on here, I had more issues with the 1 Glock I used to own than I've had with my Sig and the 4 1911s I own, combined.

    A lot of people, through a wide assortment of topics, throw out some line about taxpayers and the military. I assure you, I pay taxes as well. So do the rest of the military members. People make it sound as if we don't, not true. But I do agree with the notion taxpayer money can always be spent in a wiser manner.

    When I joined, we still used the M9. I still like that platform and intend to get one one day. I never had any issues firing one. A lot of people with smaller hands, particularly females, did though. We switched from the M9 to the Sig 229 DAK in .40 a couple years after I got in and I've never had issues with it either.

    To be honest, I've no idea why we will eventually go from the 229 to the 320. I think it is a waste of resources. Some have cited broken this or that. But that's going to happen over time and enough rounds.
    To ANY platform. My argument is that it's cheaper to replace parts than buy a whole new firearm.

  2. #22
    Mary's gone Cedric's next

    User Info Menu

    You can keep your Eastwing Hammer. I swing a titanium Stiletto Hammer.

    Glocks can, and do fail. Period. To argue otherwise is a fool's errand. Having never owned one, I can't comment on the frequency of their failure, but I have seen them fail, and fail hard. Deadlined failed. Never seen a 1911 fail to the point that it could not be put back into service with some remedial field action.

    Now, . . .

    When I was in the service, they took away my beloved 1911, and gave me some Italian job with a projectile that FAILED to start with a '4' in the caliber designation. ANY .355 handgun in military service is inferior to the beloved 1911 using .45 acp. (I was NCOIC of Bn S-2, and authorized a sidearm in the MTOE)

    Am I condemning 9 X 19? NO!!!! I wish to remind those of y'all who've never served that service members are relegated to using BALL ammunition. While 9mm Luger performs well with modern ammunition, it hoovers with ball ammo.

    The above has been the personal opinion of an old soldier. Your mileage may vary.
    "Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy."
    Benjamin Franklin

  3. #23
    Newbie

    User Info Menu

    No I didn't mean a race gun. IDPA is for stock guns. The one I owned was stock as well.

    And I like the M9. I have always wanted one and kicked myself earlier this year for not picking one up when gunprime had brand new M9s on sale for $425. That was stupid on my part.

  4. #24
    Ed

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by CatCam View Post
    Dumb move by the military and expensive for the taxpayer.

    Nothing at all wrong with the Beretta M9. It was time tested and proven --

    The only 2 reasons you would change a military handgun is the round isn't lethal enough OR realiability.....in both cases this is not true for the M9.....They could have used all that wasted money to actually TRAIN our military to shoot it.
    Exactly right - I agree 100%. The funny thing is, when the M9 was tested and put into service there was massive screaming and ringing of hands about how horrible it was and soldiers would be killed and maimed from failing slides, and so on. Ironically, years later the same cycle repeats itself with the new kid on the block.
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe."
    "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword [weapon], sell your cloak and buy one."

  5. #25
    Newbie

    User Info Menu

    The Army should have ran the full gammet of testing. Glad to see soldiers of today have to deal with same idiocrosy I dealt with when I was in.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •