I'm probably going to get a Beretta 92FS next, before I hit the .44 heavy calibers. The safety mechanism by folding the double firing pin away from the hammer is ingenious, and that fits my hand even better than the Kimber. The tri-dot Beretta sights are also great for target shooting.
Poll
The Greatest Pistol Of All Time
| Colt M1911 .45 | 40% | 40% - 121 | ||||
| Colt Single Action Army "The Peacemaker" | 6% | 6% - 19 | ||||
| The "Luger" | 7% | 7% - 23 | ||||
| The Glock 17 | 20% | 20% - 61 | ||||
| The Desert Eagle .50 cal | 24% | 24% - 74 | ||||
| Total: 298 | ||||||
Trust me, I know what Glocks are all about. You have your opinion, I have mine.bhnrecon wrote:
Thank you for the correction, as i do not own a five seven i am not that interest in it thus the maker is of no importance to me, however as stated before, the glock is just "coated" in polymer not entirely polymer. the majority of the weapon is metal. If you ever get a wild hair accross your ass and deside you want to throw away a perfectly good weapon take a torch to a glock frame and melt off the "plastic" you will see that it is metal all the way through out the weapon.
I went with the Taurus 92 AF. cheaper and same design, the only thing that i wish was different is the finish. But i am thinking about getting a coating put on it (matte black of course, as i think that it needs to be functional not pretty). The de-cocking lever is a nice feature.Marconius wrote:
I'm probably going to get a Beretta 92FS next, before I hit the .44 heavy calibers. The safety mechanism by folding the double firing pin away from the hammer is ingenious, and that fits my hand even better than the Kimber. The tri-dot Beretta sights are also great for target shooting.
~Recon
Voted Colt 1911.
The best overall firearm invention since gunpowder itself.
The best overall firearm invention since gunpowder itself.
Seriously, who can fucking handle the kick of a .50 Cal (12.7mm) cartridge? From a feasability standpoint, Desert Eagles don't really cut it as effective. Seven rounds before you reload (or 8 to 9 if you go with the .357 variant), so you have to make your shots count--even with the lengthy barrel compared to most other pistols, aiming with them is by no means easy. And as someone mentioned...expensive ammunition is a concern.
FN Five-Seven is still the one that strikes me as the most interesting one, having body-armor penetrating velocity speed, and is interchangeable ammunition with the FN P90--which is probably one of the more interesting SMG variants out there, considering its modular nature, unique clip and loading, AND the fact its' technically a bullpup. Basically from what I've heard, a 5.7mm round is like a hardened 9mm slug but smaller, and a hell of a lot faster. And if anyone knows regular physics, kinetic impact energy is 0.5MV^2, so the small size is more than compensated. Although in this day and age, only militaries and high-rate police forces can really afford body armor in mass quantity, so that is one small sticking point.
FN Five-Seven is still the one that strikes me as the most interesting one, having body-armor penetrating velocity speed, and is interchangeable ammunition with the FN P90--which is probably one of the more interesting SMG variants out there, considering its modular nature, unique clip and loading, AND the fact its' technically a bullpup. Basically from what I've heard, a 5.7mm round is like a hardened 9mm slug but smaller, and a hell of a lot faster. And if anyone knows regular physics, kinetic impact energy is 0.5MV^2, so the small size is more than compensated. Although in this day and age, only militaries and high-rate police forces can really afford body armor in mass quantity, so that is one small sticking point.
Decockers are nice, but you still have to be careful. I dunno about Taurus, but I've heard stories of rounds flying out when people decock. Make sure it's always empty when you do so.bhnrecon wrote:
The de-cocking lever is a nice feature.
Correct you are entitled to your own opinion, however while being incorrect in a statement that you are stating as a fact, i was correcting you as you corrected me about the five seven. The glock is not a plastic weapon.bubbass wrote:
Trust me, I know what Glocks are all about. You have your opinion, I have mine.bhnrecon wrote:
Thank you for the correction, as i do not own a five seven i am not that interest in it thus the maker is of no importance to me, however as stated before, the glock is just "coated" in polymer not entirely polymer. the majority of the weapon is metal. If you ever get a wild hair accross your ass and deside you want to throw away a perfectly good weapon take a torch to a glock frame and melt off the "plastic" you will see that it is metal all the way through out the weapon.
To add fuel to the fire.... an out of the box 1911.... how many people will keep it this way with out any mods.....?
Hardly any... you will at the LEAST get grips for it.... i did... now.. an out of the box glock... how many mods can you even BUY for it.... not a lot unless you are going to make it in to a race pistol. back strap plug... new sights... trigger connector.. that is all you really need to make the weapon far better then most other hand guns that you will spend hundreds of dollars on. A trigger job on a 1911 can cost a couple of hundred of dollars depending on the trigger group you go with. back strap plug > $30, sights > $100 installed professionally, trigger connector > 30.... so for less then 160.00... just my opinion...
~Recon
I'm meaning to keep the grips on my 1911...I'll probably only change the sights and add a compensator, otherwise no other work to mar the functionality of my Kimber. It really depends on what 1911 you get...it takes a lot of money to get a Colt up to the quality of a new Kimber, and a lot more money to get up to the quality of a Wilson.
always, and always pointed down range... not like the ATF agent that shot himself.bubbass wrote:
Decockers are nice, but you still have to be careful. I dunno about Taurus, but I've heard stories of rounds flying out when people decock. Make sure it's always empty when you do so.bhnrecon wrote:
The de-cocking lever is a nice feature.
Okay, this is to end the Glock discussion. It's too late.
no comment.bubbass wrote:
Okay, this is to end the Glock discussion. It's too late.
http://content.imagesocket.com/images/foodchainac7.gif
Ditto.bhnrecon wrote:
no comment.bubbass wrote:
Okay, this is to end the Glock discussion. It's too late.
http://content.imagesocket.com/images/foodchainac7.gif
Well for one thing, when you talk pistols versus machine pistols, from what I know, machine pistols have to have a much tougher barrel to compensate for the heat of going full auto. You would completely destroy a pistol that doesn't have the upgraded barrel if you went on full auto, even continuous semi-auto firing is enough to warp barrels.Sneaky.Russian wrote:
would Glock-18c have anything different to Glock-17 apart from the automatic mechanism and extended barrel?
M1911 duh
I think what you meant (well, I hope) is that there are metal inserts into the polymer frame. Four pins, that make contact with the slide, to be exact, as this is the area that suffers the greatest wear. There is also one or two metal pieces in the trigger group. Most of the rest is polymer. I do not THINK the frame alone would set off a metal detector, but without the barrell and slide, the frame is pretty useless. And this was not a design to get past security, but only to save weight.bhnrecon wrote:
...
2. Next to address the "plastic" issue. There is enough metal in the lower receiver (for all you non gun noobs - the bottom part where the trigger, pistol grip live) to set off a metal detector from the 50's. The polymer coat's a metal frame. In addition, all of Glock's metal parts are coated with tenifer. This is a Harding material that Glock uses to protect its parts. You can fire a "dry"(noob term - no oil) Glock for at least 1000 rounds in rapid cession and not have a jam, this has been proven time and time again. (Lets see a colt 1911 do that.) Now after personally putting many Glocks thru the "wringer" This is a NO Brainer for me.
...
***EDIT: forgot, after the frame, most of the remaining parts, such as the slide, barrell, striker (firing pin), springs, ARE metal, and would easily set off a detector.
The material used to coat the pieces of a glock is propriatary, but much of the industry now uses a powdered enamal which is baked on to metal parts.
Some of the reasons law enforcement went to the glock in droves was the simplicity of action, since there were no active safeties or decockers, it was an easy transfer from revolvers. Also, many cops are infamous for not cleaning their sidearms, so reliability made a big deal. And since it was lighter, it was an easier carry on theri belt all day long.
People who depend on concealed carry like the glock for the light weight, and the non-reflective surfaces, so attention is not drawn to their firearm.
I have loved my glocks and I have loved my 1911s. I have owned 3 of each. They all have their purposes, strong points and drawbacks.
All in all, let us give thanks to the Great Ones:
Samuel Colt
John Browning
Mikheal Kalashnikov
Eugene Stoner
..and to the two great educators, Jeff Cooper and Massad Ayoob.
Last edited by imortal (2007-01-31 07:34:14)
If you think that there are only 4 metal pins that contact the metal frame, you really need to take a good look at your weapons. inspect the frame at the front of the weapon, you will see that the serial # piece is metal, however, that is not what i am pointing out... if you take a good look to the rear of the serial # your will see that the area under the over-travel stop block is metal.... if you are brave enough you can remove this with the glock armor tool. you will enjoy the fact that your glock is greater then 80 to 85% metal. loot it up.... you don't have to trust me..... i just work on my glocks on the armor's level myself.imortal wrote:
I think what you meant (well, I hope) is that there are metal inserts into the polymer frame. Four pins, that make contact with the slide, to be exact, as this is the area that suffers the greatest wear. There is also one or two metal pieces in the trigger group. Most of the rest is polymer. I do not THINK the frame alone would set off a metal detector, but without the barrell and slide, the frame is pretty useless. And this was not a design to get past security, but only to save weight.bhnrecon wrote:
...
2. Next to address the "plastic" issue. There is enough metal in the lower receiver (for all you non gun noobs - the bottom part where the trigger, pistol grip live) to set off a metal detector from the 50's. The polymer coat's a metal frame. In addition, all of Glock's metal parts are coated with tenifer. This is a Harding material that Glock uses to protect its parts. You can fire a "dry"(noob term - no oil) Glock for at least 1000 rounds in rapid cession and not have a jam, this has been proven time and time again. (Lets see a colt 1911 do that.) Now after personally putting many Glocks thru the "wringer" This is a NO Brainer for me.
...
***EDIT: forgot, after the frame, most of the remaining parts, such as the slide, barrell, striker (firing pin), springs, ARE metal, and would easily set off a detector.
The material used to coat the pieces of a glock is propriatary, but much of the industry now uses a powdered enamal which is baked on to metal parts.
Some of the reasons law enforcement went to the glock in droves was the simplicity of action, since there were no active safeties or decockers, it was an easy transfer from revolvers. Also, many cops are infamous for not cleaning their sidearms, so reliability made a big deal. And since it was lighter, it was an easier carry on theri belt all day long.
People who depend on concealed carry like the glock for the light weight, and the non-reflective surfaces, so attention is not drawn to their firearm.
I have loved my glocks and I have loved my 1911s. I have owned 3 of each. They all have their purposes, strong points and drawbacks.
All in all, let us give thanks to the Great Ones:
Samuel Colt
John Browning
Mikheal Kalashnikov
Eugene Stoner
..and to the two great educators, Jeff Cooper and Massad Ayoob.
~Recon
I just wanted to add a final thought.
It is almost disheartening that the Desert Eagle got nearly the same votes as the Glock 17. Please if you don't know about these weapons-don't comment.
It is almost disheartening that the Desert Eagle got nearly the same votes as the Glock 17. Please if you don't know about these weapons-don't comment.
The lugers original and got alot of history and very accurate
how about the beretta 93R???Trigger_Happy_92 wrote:
glock.
and dont say that the DE is the best because you play CS or because it fires big bullets.
the glock has proven itself in reliability, and its price. ive seen a guy with a 100 round double drum cartrige fire it off in a glock. try that with another pistol.
ya glock is crap. even the 18 and 26.
1911 FTW.
Why no Buntline Special or Navy Colt?
.....whats wrong with liking big bullets when they do more dmg to the enemy?
so i go for the DE
so i go for the DE
when you make a statement that is false then you are making yourself look stupid. the statement "the glock is crap" without the phrase "in my opinion" then you are presenting that statement at fact or truth. Just because you are not a Glock fan. Does not mean that the Glock is crap. IN MY OPINION FN and SIG are way over priced for the quality of weapon that you get. IN MY OPINION Colt M1911's belong in a box on the desk or on the wall. IN MY OPINION all revolvers are good for are museium pieces.... IN MY OPINION anyone who would prefer to carry a revolver over a SA style weapon needs to have their head checked and then their CHL removed.... but now that i have gone off on a rant about my PERSONAL OPINION's..... i will end this rant with one thing..... Glocks are made to a higher standard then most other weapon's they are constructed of polymer not plastic and steal. please see this link.... as these are facts.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock
please PLEASE P L E A S E pay attention to the following paragraph:
"Plastic pistol" myths
Contrary to early reports, Glock pistols do set off metal detectors and can indeed be detected by X-ray machines, due to their metal barrels and slides. The claim that they could not was first made in an article published in the Washington Post on January 13, 1985, entitled, "Quaddafi Buying Austrian Plastic Pistol." In this article, vocal gun control advocate Jack Anderson made the allegations, which were then reported without fact-checking by the Associated Press and further reported by many United States television news stations and newspapers. It has since become an urban legend that to this day continues to appear in news reports and movies, and has even been a topic of debate in the United States Congress.
In fact, 83.7% (by weight) of the Glock pistol is normal ordnance steel and the "plastic" parts are a dense polymer known as 'Polymer 2' which is radio-opaque and is therefore visible to X-ray security equipment. In addition, virtually all of these "plastic" parts contain embedded steel to make them functional and shoot better, not to make them "detectable". Contrary to popular movies like Die Hard 2: Die Harder neither Glock nor any other gun maker has ever produced a "ceramic" or "plastic" firearm which is undetectable by ordinary security screening devices.
In Die Hard 2, the character John McClane portrayed by Bruce Willis specifically referred to a non-existent Glock 7 with many fictitious characteristics:
That punk pulled a Glock 7 on me! You know what that is? It's a porcelain gun made in Germany. It doesn't show up on your airport X-ray machines, and it costs more than you make here in a month!
Furthermore, if a pistol completely undetectable by either X-ray machines or metal detectors were to be developed, the ammunition inside would still be detectable.
Mike Papac, an armorer at Cinema Weaponry, which supplied the Glock pistols used in Die Hard 2, has stated, "I remember when we did that scene, I tried to talk them out of it. There's no such thing as a gun invisible to metal detectors, and there shouldn't be, but they wouldn't budge. They had it written into the script and that was that.".[7]
While some Glock fans have boasted that the Glock pistol design was the first pistol to incorporate a plastic frame, this is incorrect. Heckler & Koch was the first company to use polymer for their VP70 pistol frame in 1970. HK's innovation of polymer frames and polygonal rifling seem to have been influential in the Glock design. Still earlier, Remington introduced their polymer-framed Nylon 66 Rifle in 1959. This was so revolutionary at the time that Remington dyed the plastic brown to resemble wood and fitted a cosmetic sheet-metal cover on the receiver to make it appear to be made from steel. Further, the most extensive use of polymers in a pistol was in the Ram-Line Exactor pistol with a barrel made from steel-lined plastic.
However, the popularity of Glock pistols seems to have encouraged other manufacturers to begin production of similar polymer-framed products in recent years, such as the Springfield XD pistols.
/rant
~Recon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock
please PLEASE P L E A S E pay attention to the following paragraph:
"Plastic pistol" myths
Contrary to early reports, Glock pistols do set off metal detectors and can indeed be detected by X-ray machines, due to their metal barrels and slides. The claim that they could not was first made in an article published in the Washington Post on January 13, 1985, entitled, "Quaddafi Buying Austrian Plastic Pistol." In this article, vocal gun control advocate Jack Anderson made the allegations, which were then reported without fact-checking by the Associated Press and further reported by many United States television news stations and newspapers. It has since become an urban legend that to this day continues to appear in news reports and movies, and has even been a topic of debate in the United States Congress.
In fact, 83.7% (by weight) of the Glock pistol is normal ordnance steel and the "plastic" parts are a dense polymer known as 'Polymer 2' which is radio-opaque and is therefore visible to X-ray security equipment. In addition, virtually all of these "plastic" parts contain embedded steel to make them functional and shoot better, not to make them "detectable". Contrary to popular movies like Die Hard 2: Die Harder neither Glock nor any other gun maker has ever produced a "ceramic" or "plastic" firearm which is undetectable by ordinary security screening devices.
In Die Hard 2, the character John McClane portrayed by Bruce Willis specifically referred to a non-existent Glock 7 with many fictitious characteristics:
That punk pulled a Glock 7 on me! You know what that is? It's a porcelain gun made in Germany. It doesn't show up on your airport X-ray machines, and it costs more than you make here in a month!
Furthermore, if a pistol completely undetectable by either X-ray machines or metal detectors were to be developed, the ammunition inside would still be detectable.
Mike Papac, an armorer at Cinema Weaponry, which supplied the Glock pistols used in Die Hard 2, has stated, "I remember when we did that scene, I tried to talk them out of it. There's no such thing as a gun invisible to metal detectors, and there shouldn't be, but they wouldn't budge. They had it written into the script and that was that.".[7]
While some Glock fans have boasted that the Glock pistol design was the first pistol to incorporate a plastic frame, this is incorrect. Heckler & Koch was the first company to use polymer for their VP70 pistol frame in 1970. HK's innovation of polymer frames and polygonal rifling seem to have been influential in the Glock design. Still earlier, Remington introduced their polymer-framed Nylon 66 Rifle in 1959. This was so revolutionary at the time that Remington dyed the plastic brown to resemble wood and fitted a cosmetic sheet-metal cover on the receiver to make it appear to be made from steel. Further, the most extensive use of polymers in a pistol was in the Ram-Line Exactor pistol with a barrel made from steel-lined plastic.
However, the popularity of Glock pistols seems to have encouraged other manufacturers to begin production of similar polymer-framed products in recent years, such as the Springfield XD pistols.
/rant
~Recon
cause you most likely won't hit them with each and every round you fire... no one is that good not under stress of combat...... #2.... most likely they are going to come at you more then 8 at a time... this will limit your ability to kill them all before you get your second mag loaded... to add to this you could kill a whole platoon with 1 mag from a de .50cal AE.... you would just need to ask them all to stand in a straight line. also, dmg is not what you are always looking for. you may want to question the enemy before he dies.... this is not counter strike where we know where the bomb is and can just run to it... there are no anti-tamper devices on or around it, and there are just a few "T's" between you are your objective. In real life (trust me i know) 9mm is good enough to stop most grown men NOT wearing body armor dead in their tracks. and if they are wearing body armor, then you will need to aim at the arm or legs.... head is not a prefered target, as it leaves the target incapable of answering any questions that you may have.duranddurand wrote:
.....whats wrong with liking big bullets when they do more dmg to the enemy?
so i go for the DE
~Recon
Beretta M93R/Auto 9
Robocop FTW!!
Robocop FTW!!
I chose the DE! Nah, just kidding, my top 3 is: 1. GLOCK 17, 2. Colt M1911, 3. "Luger".
GLOCK, because of it's simple design and lack of manual safeties, that makes it in my opinion a very good self defense and authorities weapon.
Colt, because it's a Single Action Pistol if I remember correct, and after what I've heard it's thus more accurate. The design is nice, too.
Then the Luger, because of the design , and it's the only pistol of these I would've had a chance to shoot with (in a firearms triathlon, but I took the 9mm SIG P210)
The Colt Peacemaker is very accurate, but I don't like revolvers... I don't know why.
The DE isn't really suited for anything but showing around. It's like a Lamborghini: You don't need it, it's expensive but it's cool
GLOCK, because of it's simple design and lack of manual safeties, that makes it in my opinion a very good self defense and authorities weapon.
Colt, because it's a Single Action Pistol if I remember correct, and after what I've heard it's thus more accurate. The design is nice, too.
Then the Luger, because of the design , and it's the only pistol of these I would've had a chance to shoot with (in a firearms triathlon, but I took the 9mm SIG P210)
The Colt Peacemaker is very accurate, but I don't like revolvers... I don't know why.
The DE isn't really suited for anything but showing around. It's like a Lamborghini: You don't need it, it's expensive but it's cool