Glock G17 Semi-Automatic Pistol

What do you think of this product?

  1. Conceptual:
    A pistol helps a person to eliminate a threat (subjective) from certain distance. Created from a result of human-survival instinct that is driven by having advantage over competition or threat. Uses bullets to penetrate the body parts (mostly vital organs like liver, heart, brain) of a living-specie so that the threat is neutralized or eliminated completely. ?t can be carried discreetly on users body thanks to its shape and size.

  2. It was the first plastic-fame pistol. I talked with Mr. Glock and he would tell me nothing technical about it. I had worked on a Colt, and other firm’s versions. I always tell critics, “Keeping your country often depends on the quality of your weapons.” The advantage is: it’s cheap – not better than metal.

  3. HK actually made the first polymer frame pistol fifteen years earlier.

  4. The Glock pistol wasn’t the first polymer-framed pistol, but it has grounded itself in elements that define a durable product: simplicity of design, extreme reliability, simple maintenance, and ease of operation.

    It has proven itself repeatedly as a reliable sidearm since its adoption by the Austrian army in 1982, and has been a common sidearm for police and military units throughout the world. They are highly regarded in Iraq due to their extreme resistance to dust-related jamming, unlike the US military’s mandated sidearm, the Beretta 92.

    The entire gun is composed of only 34 parts, counting the magazine parts, and field stripping can be done in seconds. Unlike many hammer-fired pistols (the Glock is a striker-fired pistol), it requires almost no lubrication. Many owners have reported firing tens of thousands of rounds and not cleaning the pistol, but still operating as flawlessly as if it were new.

    One of the unique features when the Glock 17 pistol was introduced was the lack of a manual safety, causing traditional shooters to regard the pistol as extremely unsafe. Contrary to this perception, the Glock pistols are designed with 3 independent safety sytems, which prevents accidental discharges, even if the gun is dropped from a height. The lack of an external, manual safety is regarded as a critical feature by police and military, as it has been shown that in gunfights that many people forget to switch the safety off, preventing them from responding in the precious few seconds they would have to save their life or others. Due to considerable pressure from some contracts, Glock does manufacture a pistol with an external safety, but they are not commercially sold, and are considered a poor resale feature. It is also claimed that the lack of an external safety causes the shooter to exercise more caution when handling the gun. In fact, there have been many accidental shootings by people that thought their safeties were engaged. In the end, Glock’s philosophy is that the operator IS the ultimate safety. Considering Glock’s widespread adoption and low accident rate, this seems to be proven.

    Some of the more valid complaints against Glock’s design is the “one size fits all” aproach to their pistol frames. This was recently addressed with slimmer-framed pistols, but the internal design and function was still maintained. With extremely rare exception, parts from a 1982 Glock 17 will work with parts from a new Glock 17.

    Over time, Glock has offered pistols in multiple calibers and sizes, and now offers full-sized and concealable pistols in every major pistol caliber that is used by the police or military.

    You can find much more information on Wikipedia about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock_pistol

    My comments above are based on personal expereince as a firearms trainer and a Glock owner.

  5. It is one of the finest polymer pistols around. I wrote this about the Glock 22-23 vs. Springfield XDM a while back and the 17 is almost identical except bullet size to the Glock 22.

    So why did you buy an XD(m) vs. Glock?

    Fashion! What? Shooters like fashion? “Heck Ya!” Have you ever considered that at an IDPA competition or IPSC match all the guys talking about their rigs wearing their favorite manufacturer’s shirt. If that “ain’t” fashion awareness then I might have to start reading more tabloid magazines in the grocery store check out.

    I bought my XDM because fewer people have them and make me more original all the while remaining tasteful. Had I gone with a Nickle Plated 1911 it would have been too bold of a statement for a newbie. Although I have been in possession of firearms since I was a wee little one, noob none-the-less in the eyes of my shooting buddies.

    Lets compare the the Glock 23 to the XDM.

    Nobody can deny that Glock is perhaps the most popular pistol manufacture of polymer pistols. In fact it is probably the most dominate pistol in law enforcement protecting streets today. […]

    Besides the barrel length and weight there isn’t much difference. The XDM does come with a Match Grade barrel which is far and above Glocks Hex barrels which have been nothing but headaches for money conscious realoaders. If you take out using lead cast bullets I can find little difference in the function of the weapons. The barrels of the three compared weapons are different lengths. The weight between the weapons is a major separator.

    But what about performance. I like the sights out of the box on the XDM over the Glocks. As far a function and accuracy I can’t tell a difference. They both function well and the only accuracy difference I can tell is perhaps at 100 yds with the XDM is a little better. Shooting at 100 yds is not self defense.

    In my opinion these three weapons are similar and are clearly built for different reasons. It is hard to compare them. Each weapon is a great weapon for that job. For weekend plinking the XDM is the winner and my choice for what I do. If this comparison was between an XD40 and Glock I would go with the Glock even though I own the XD40. Why? Because there have been so many Glocks sold that every gunsmith shop can fix them without sending out for work. Parts are abundant, and the price is a little lower at my store. But if cost wasn’t a factor and all three were never before seen guns without a brand name associated with it I would choose the XDM over and over again because it looks cool.

    In the polymer 9mm Glock 17 price range I only consider three manufactures competitive – Smith & Wesson (The M&P), Glock 17, Springfield Armory (XD 9 or XDM 9). There is also Sig Sauer, Beretta, pretty sure Ruger has one also. But any of those first three would be my choice. If I had to choose one today I would go with the Glock 17.

  6. I’m not sure how many polymer-framed handguns came before the Glock but it is the first popular one. It has become a standard and now many other manufacturers make polymer-frame weapons. For example Smith and Wesson, Walther, and Springfield all make such guns.

    I remember when the Glock came out many worried that it would be invisible to metal detectors. However, the slide, barrel, and springs are metal along with other smaller parts. So, no worry there.

    A big advantage of the Glock is that the polymer frame is much cheaper than a metal frame. No expensive machining of the frame is required. The frame is molded with some metal rails for the slide to move on, and other metal parts, present as I remember. Another advantage is the light weight of the polymer frame.

    The gun is apparently very reliable in all weather conditions. It’s been adopted by some militaries and many police forces. I seem to remember that it’s good functioning in cold weather made it popular.

    I read the comments on the safety but the safety issue is not a problem. It uses what is called a striker with no exposed hammer. That pretty much makes a manual safety unneeded. It’s really not much different from a double action revolver, which also has no manual safety.

    The trigger pull is long, which takes some getting used to for people like me. But again, it’s not any different than firing a double-action revolver in double-action mode. That’s one reason that I doubt if you’ll see it used as a target pistol.

    One thing that I think works against the Glock with traditionalists like me is the missing craftsmanship. The Glock is a blocky, not very good looking weapon. It’s sort of a utilitarian and industrial design. Older types of weapons are more like works of art with their machining. I remember reading that soldiers said the same thing when their good looking Thompson submachine guns were replaced by the ugly M3 grease gun. However, the cost of production of the M3, and the Glock, trumps any concerns about fine machining and works of art.

    The Glock has undoubtedly set the trend for the future. It popularized what will probably be the most common type of handgun for quite some time.

  7. Wow, the gun nuts sure to go on and on, don’t they? OK, yeah, I’m just Joshin’ around — I have used Glock 17s at the range several times myself, I’m not extremely anti-gun or anything.

    The main thing I like a lot about it is that it is stupid simple and straight-forward. E.g. not having some bull-pucky safety means that you can’t fool yourself into thinking it is “safe”.

    The bad things: (1) It is really difficult at times to get the slide off e.g. for cleaning, because the places you grip just to do that aren’t affordable so you can’t get enough leverage. Or maybe I’m just an idiot and I don’t know how to get it apart properly. But I always end up cussing and with hurt fingers. (2) It gets really hard to get the last few bullets in to a full-size (pre-ban) clip just with fingers. (3) I find the trigger pull to be not very user-friendly. I shot a similar HK and the trigger just felt a lot smoother and more comfortable. (Sure, maybe changing the trigger on the Glock would address that.) So in the end I think I liked the HK more (although to be fair I never had to clean it).

    Was that too many words? 🙂


google

couk