Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Coffey
I hear you (and am not particularly fond of Glocks myself), but just a couple counter-points:
A Glock is not designed to be an "heirloom quality" firearm. It is designed with actual duty use in mind, with no unnecessary complications. They are rugged, lightweight, reasonably accurate, with good capacity, and dead-nuts reliable.
All while also being relatively inexpensive. It's the VW Bug of handguns.
A Glock is not really something you buy to pass down to your kids, but something you carry with no fear of scratching, holster wear, or even losing it, should you ever have to use it (you will certainly lose a gun if you use it...and if/when you ever do get it back it will likely be beat/scratched to hell). IOW, it's a relatively "disposable" appliance.
Regarding accuracy: Most are acceptably accurate right out of the box, and even exceptionally accurate depending on the model/barrel length/caliber. They can also be massaged into extremely accurate guns with a bit of money thrown at them. If the AR is the rifle equivalent to "man Legos" then the Glock is the pistol equivalent (displacing the 1911 that previously held the title). There are enough do-dads, upgrades, and ad-ons for Glocks to make your head spin.
Lots of competitive Glock shooters out there with well-stocked trophy cases as well.
That being said, my personal preference for Tupperware guns are the HK variants.
|
I absolutely agree with all of that, Eric. Definitely. I have huge respect for Glock, and what they represent. They fill a very real need. Just not my cup of tea.
I have handguns that see very hard use. Or used to anyway, while I was still spending an inordinate amount of time hunting all over hell and gone. We're talking things like staying constantly wet for three weeks in Alaska, with their only chance to "dry out" inside a wall tent. Yes, sometimes they rusted a bit, even the stainless steel ones. The coastal salt air will do that. But, I don't mind - every worn through spot on the bluing, every polished off rust spot has a story. And hopefully those stories get passed on.
I do have just one counterpoint. I often hear that "if you use a gun you will lose that gun". This has been a topic of discussion in gun circles for as long as I can remember. My gun club, years ago, actually held a "self defense and the law" kind of a seminar, wherein we had many experts, both civilian and LEO, lawyers and laymen, giving advice and recounting their experiences.
What we learned was that in the case of lawful self defense, that is hardly ever the case. Especially if the shooting occurred in your own home or on your own property. Out on the street, it gets a little dicier, but - what we were told - is that unless there was sufficient probably cause to see you arrested, you are not legally required to forfeit your property. In these cases, your gun.
Yes, by all means, you will surrender it upon the arrival of the police as they secure the crime scene and get things sorted. If they wind up arresting you (and they often will), the gun will be kept as evidence. If they do not arrest you, they do not get to keep the gun. If you are released with no charges, they do not get to keep the gun. The only way they get to legally keep it is if charges are filed. Oh, many will try, many will say it's "departmental policy", but the fact remains it is illegal to keep your firearm unless it's being held as evidence in the crime for which you have been charged.
That's what we were told, anyway. This is Washington state, and we do have very strong pro-gun, pro-self defense law here. "Shall issue" concealed carry, permit less open carry, "castle doctrine" laws, and "stand your ground" laws. I'm sure other states vary a good deal, but that's the way it is here.