Printable View
I dunno when bashing the back of somones head in i'd rather use my metal 1911 or maybee a good old .357 mag... but this plastic stuff would shatter.... (partially why i rather have an ak over m16 any day)
I dunno i just dont trust plastic.... Even if it's "special" plastic like polymer.... cant tell me that it will stand up to heat and physical abuse like a 1911 type pistol.
Would you trust a glock or an XD?
Yes
I totally trust my "polymer" pistols. If you happen to be at a Border's Book Store or Barnes and Noble, check out Gun Digest Glock Book. It has a section where they did a torture test between a Glock and a 1911.
The Glock barely edged out the 1911. But it did. The Glock and the 1911 were even in alot of the tests, but the Glock beat it in a couple of tests, and the 1911 did not beat the Glock in any of the tests.
They hit both pistos with hammers, ran over them with a truck, dragged it behind a car. While the Glock still functioned flawlessly the 1911 was damaged in some of the scenarios.
I bought a Kimber Custom Tactical II over the summer. I wanted to see what all the hoopla was about the 1911s. Well, I just sold it. What I liked about it was it was slim, had a nice balanced feel to it. But that was it. When it comes to a .45, I'll take my HK USP Tactical or my Glock 21.
What I didn't like was, you needed a tool to field strip it, 8 round max, lots of oil, archaic design.
I'm not knocking people that prefer this firearm or the 1911 itself. IMO, 1911s are like Harleys. A classic, has a history and tradition. The Harleys still use pushrods, while updated, its still the same basic firearm.
The poly pistols to me are the "modern" firearms like the cruisers that are water cooled, use overhead cams, have power and performance.
Regarding pistol whipping someone. I hope I'm not in that situation where I need to draw my firearm but can't get a shot off and have to resort to using it as a "club". If this situtation happens, I'm pulling my "sharp-edged tool" to take care of business.
Just my .02
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delphi
I'm pretty sure my HK USP45F will leave a nice size dent in someone's skull if used in that manner.
If I had to sell my 20+ handguns and only keep one, it would be a G20 in 10mm.
It is the go to gun. Energy like a 41 magnum and 15+1 rounds in the gun....nothing can compete. Oh, yeah, accuracy. I shoot shotgun hulls at 25 yards easily. 50% at 50 yards.
I had a springfield which I loved and carried as a duty weapon. I got hired on El Paso county and knowing I was to be issued a G22, I bought one to become familiar with it. I went to an indoor range to try it out and out shot myself with the new Glock. BTW, the Springfield was a NM and had over $1000 in custom stuff done to it too. It was accurate, just not Glock accurate.
The groups were tighter and the follow ups were faster.
There is something to be said for the .45ACP, but, there are just better updated design's of John Brownings original 100 year old design.
I'd rather carry a mix of plastic and steel that is tough, reliable, and holds 15+1 on my hip all day than a solid chunk of steel that is fairly tough, fairly reliable, and holds 8+1 (maybe).
Brian
x2Quote:
Originally Posted by 7idl
and my arm wont get tired from swinging a big block of steel around.... LOL
Yes.
Sorry, I can't stop laughing long enough to come up with a serious reply to this thread. That is all.
:roll:
I'm in the same boat.
How about a plastic 1911 like an STI or Bul?
Without any doubt I would trust any plastic, aluminum, Ti or steel gun. But that might be 'cause I dont read American Handgunner and Combat Handguns anymore.
An AK over an AR? I must get back to laughing. Reminds me of the old tale of leaving a glock on the dash and coming back to a little blob and a slide. Who thinks this stuff up?
If you can find a volunteer head, I volunteer a Glock to bash it with. Empty chamber of course, and your choice full-size, compact, or sub-compact. Maybe at the next shoot, so there will be lots of pictures.
:wink:
I have a couple rather moronic army freinds i could bring along that would surley agree to getting whacked in the head with a "plastic" pistol.
And yes Tom the AK is way better than the M16. Much more reliable.... cheaper.... easyer to clean..... will always work..... reported cases of the rifle shooting while the barrel was melting from thousands of rounds of full auto.... in all honesty... the ar would fall apart ;)
If i can give the soviets props for anything it's the ak.
The stocks of AR's and M16's have been used to bash in many things and still function.
Who was it that did that test of the suppressor over on ARFCOM probably a year or so ago, and the barrel and the suppressor was red hot and the barrell was sagging and the gun was still shooting? if I remember right that was an M16.
in a crystal clean test lab that might work with an m16, heck might even work at the range.... but once you get down to real fighting.... i doubt the m16 will outpreform the ak. The ak will always work, the m16 a little dirt and your a goner.
http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/anim_horse.gif
This is like the Glock Vs. 1911 threads.
If the AK-47 is so much better, why do the people using it keep losing to the M-16/M-4?
Losers rely on the AK-47. :P
I'm just wondering how this went from a plastic pistol bashing thread to an AK v AR one.
I am just wondering whats up with all the bashing threads lately :wink:
The guys winning dont win cause the m16 they win cause of things like the f-16 or the B-52.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
The guys that are losing usually use the ak cause it's cheap and reliable, almost no training required to use. US military uses the m16 because when it was demonstrated, it was in perfect almost space like clean condition, and it worked flawlessly. Once in the field under real conditions it gunked up. And bieng our arrogant selves we (USA) didnt want to give up and tryed to fix it. Instead of just dropping it and going with a beeter rilfe like the G3 or the L85 or even ak47, we kept the mediocre m16 because our pride was going up our butt. ;)
:roll:
I think you are talking about the first generation M-16s.
They've come along way since the Vietnam war.
It wasn't "pride" that kept us "using" improving the M-16. If you know anything about how our government procures "systems" for the military, you'd understand why we've stuck with it.
Nothing against the AK, its served its intended purpose which follows or followed typical Russian cold-war doctrine, which was to produce massive quantities of an item as relatively inexpensive as possible, with the thought of it being "disposable" and replaceable....
All I know is it`s great to have choices!
I couldn`t choose between my AK or my AR,
they are two very different weapons,and each one is a kick in the shorts to shoot.
And I have faith in American soldiers to win any battle they are fighting,
with any weapon system, due to the fact they are trained to actually use their sights and they hit what they are shooting at. :D
agreed
I just have to chime in and say that I would definately trust a polymer pistol and I do so daily. I carry an XD and I love it. It has plenty of "head bashing" capabilty too.
This is an interesting "torture" test of an XD
http://springfield-armory.primediaou...SPstory11.html
It reminds me of those guys on TV that try to sell you a set of kitchen knives based on their ability to cut sheetrock and steel pipe. Still...... pretty cool to see them abusing a pistol so much. All of this stuff is pretty rediculous but the 20,000 rounds they put through it impresses me.
Since this comment is always made, let me educate people on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delphi
This is taken directly from "Princilples of Ploymer Engineering" by McCrum, Buckley,and Bucknall.
"Plastics and rubbers are sub-groups of the same class of materials - organic high polymers - differing only in detail in their molecular structure"
Let me give you some examples of these "weak"polymers: Kevlar, nylon, polypropylene.
Here is why plastics are generally chosen (again fromteh same book):
"combine lightness and corrosion resistance witha good balance of stiffness and toughness maintained over a wide temperature range. They are easily, precisely and rapidly fabricated at modest temperature."
So here it is: "polymer" isn't a "special plastic" in the same manner that "metal" isn't a special "titanium".
Now that we are onto titanium...ok... I will stop. I like titanium too much...
-Dana
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7idl
I trusted my USP also until I came across this picture of a Tactical. The guy was firing factory +P ammo (which HK says is ok) and came across an unusually hot one.
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/2...eath0025as.jpg
I still stand behind my comment as quoted.
any "official" determination of the failure pictured ?
HK offered to fix the pistol for $175, the ammo manufacture Extreme Shock has offered to cover that cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7idl
Both one of them would not accept responsibility and HK has not asked for the failed parts to be shipped back for failure analysis.
I'd like to see the slide and magazines ...heck.. all of it up close and in detail.
Here is the only other picture I have
BTW this is not my gun
http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/2...eath0033bm.jpg
Boy I know this is a necro-topic but I just now feel the urge to comment on several points made here..
1. Polymer Pistols are beyond proven a this point in the life cycle. Glock brought that to the main stream and has more than made it's name and the value of the polymer weapon system evident.
I will openly admit to being a Glock hater until about 2 years ago. I have been able to shoot 3 different iterations of the Glocks with 100's of rounds each - 21,22c and now a 30 .. the 30 is what truly converted me to a fan. I'm not rushing out to purchase a full of compact any time soon, but I will have a 30 for a CCW at some point.
I'm even a fan of the XD's as well. They are beginning to prove themselves in so many ways that I won't even go into it. The reviews are out, the weapon system is being widely adopted and hopefully, Glock will come off it's high price horse and attempt to compete against the XD. Everything gets better from there! Hell, now that the XD45 is officially brought a reasonable price to a high cap 45 that is actually reliable.. Glock better get its ducks in a row and start innovating again, or at least bring it's pricing better in line with the far more affordable XD series.
2. 1911's .. odd that few remember why they were dropped by the military, or so disliked for about 20 odd years. Then again like anything, it's a matter of preference. I've had a huge preference for the 1911's for a while. Though I'm a bit of a snob about em' and don't know as much as some (Gman!) about them, they are infinitely capable weapons and the longevity speaks to the quality of the design... but... welcome to the 21st century boys.
The 1911 is starting to see such a massive resurgence (well over the last 10 years at least) that we are indeed seeing impressive evolutions in the weapon itself, but the core of the weapon is still the same ol' wonder gun first given wide use in WWI.
I really don't think it is all that fair to compare the two weapon types side by side.
That takes me to some of the comments about the now tired AR vs AK arguments.
1. The AK is cleaner, more reliable and far more widely used than the AR.
2. The AR is far more accurate and modular (finally!) than the AK
A few have noted that the bad guys, or the losing’s guys always seem to have AK's... the assumption derived is that the AK is a bad weapon. Well that is just too easy to rip apart as an assumption.
First off.. we've (the US Military) not faced an opponent who actually trains their troops to something close to Western Standards on the battle field who equip their military with the AK. But I would venture to say that when the time comes for an encounter with the North Koreans or even worse, the Chinese... the AK will garner a greater degree of your respect.
I might not be able to nail my target as effectively at 300m with the AK as I can the AR (the diff is rather slight and I'm not the best shot I know) but I can damn well tell you that the AK at sub 150m ranges is exceptionally effective when used correctly. By correctly I mean not using the "Spray and Pray" technique we see so commonly amongst the untrained yahoo's in the Stans' or in the Mid., much less the wankers in Africa (Yeah that theater of op's for the US is coming sooner than you think boys).
The AK is a far more proven weapon than the AR… then again, like I said earlier… welcome to the 21st Century. The AR and AK are dated technology, look to the newer far more effective evolutions of these weapons.. H&K G3x series (http://www.hkpro.com/G36.htm), the Israeli Tavor (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapo...vor/Tavor.html) and several more modern and modular systems are hitting the field’s en’ mass. Hell even the evolution of a Piston upper for the AR (Friggen Finally a clean AR!) is a huge leap forward for the AR series of weapons. Though I’ve said it a thousand times, the AR is on it’s last legs. There are just too many limitations to the core design. The refinement stage of the long lived weapon is almost at an end. Polymer Barrels, Piston Uppers, Rail systems and attachments (optics, lasers, lights, ect.) have extended it’s life, but it’s about time it gets replaced with a more effective caliber and carriage.
Love all of these weapons, each has their place.. preferably in my safe or on my hip… but folks have to accept that all of the weapons systems mentioned here are capable in their own right at the very least.
--------- Anyone need a slightly used soap box?
This brings a question to mind: How widely known is it that Glock is on it's high horse or somewhat pretentious regarding XDs? Is this just commonly known in the shooting community?Quote:
The reviews are out, the weapon system is being widely adopted and hopefully, Glock will come off it's high price horse and attempt to compete against the XD.
I haven't shot an XD but have handled a few and they fit SO well and the ergonomics are great! But their lack of aftermarket parts is what turned me off to them in favor of the Glock. I've even heard that Springfield has no intention in the future of ever making aftermarket parts available, which is what settled it for me. Does anyone know if there is any truth to this rumor?
The XD parts and aftermarket accessories have been debated quite a bit on www.xdtalk.com. SA is having a problem keeping XD's on the store shelves let alone trying to get parts out. You can buy some parts now from Springfield but you have to call them. It's the supply vs. demand story. As for the aftermarket accessories they are starting to come out. I own 2 XD's and really like them, in fact one of them is at SA for some custom work. I bought the beretta 92fs for the academy and carried it for a while before changing careers. Everyone had Glock's or Berettas at the academy (13 yrs ago). I did not like Glock back then due to the need to strip the magazine if it didn't fall free. But then again I had to deal with a heavy and long first DA shot out of the Beretta.
I am not much of a Glock fan, they don't fit my hand very well. (I have small hands but don't tell my wife) :oops: I have shot alot of glocks. One of my friends has done quite a bit of custom work to his G23 which is starting to fit me more then him. They are great firearms and have a very good record. I also own several other firearms such as 1911, S&W 357 Mag 686 to name a few. As to the AK vs. AR debate I own both.
Firing Line rents Glocks and XD's to shoot, if you have never fired a "plastic gun" you should go give them a try.
I'm not a big fan of Glocks. Both Glocks and XDs feel hollow and cheap to me. I shoot the XD really well, though. Glocks feel like a plastic brick in my hand. That's not to say that I'll never own one because every Glock that I've shot has been extremely reliable. I also like the fact that you can buy standard cap mags for $10 a pop. Because of their reputation and the accessories available for them it's hard to convince myself that they're not worth the money. When I do finally get around to deciding between getting a Glock and an XD I'll probably go with the Glock despite the XD being more ergonomic.
Right now I've got an H&K USP and a SigPro 2009. These two companies make the best plastic pistols that you're going to find imo. I love my USP but it's too big for concealed carry (at least for me) so it's become a camping/range gun. Accessories for anything made by H&K are ridiculously expensive as well so that limits me even more.
Honestly I think that the SigPro is the best plastic pistol out there. I almost gave up on mine because of some minor quirks. The limited availablity of holsters, magazines, etc also discouraged me. I got this gun with the intention of carrying it so I wanted something that was absolutely perfect for me. I ended up working out the quirks, found a good holster that I wouldn' t have to wait 6 months for and found a cheap source of magazines, though. Now I shoot it better than any handgun that I've ever handled. The trigger is 100x better than any other polymer pistol that I've shot. It's even worlds better than my USP. It doesn't have that typical hollow feel that other polymer handguns seem to have, either.
You should also look at the effect that polymer has had on pocket guns. Now you can get a Kel-Tec P3AT that weighs a little more than half a pound and will fit in the palm of your hand. It doesn't matter what you're wearing. It will dissapear. If you're not comfortable with the power of the .380 round you can even get a small 9mm. The Kel-Tec PF-9 isn't much bigger than the P3AT and it has a light rail. Kahr also makes a 9mm that's about the same size as the PF-9 for twice as much money if you think that you always get what you pay for when you're buying a gun (I don't).
Polymer pistols have more than proven themselves. 1911s are great guns but they have their shortcomings. That's not to say that polymer pistols don't have limitations of their own but overall I think that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
It gunked up because the Military told the soilders it didn't need cleaning and therefore provided no cleaning kits. Once they started cleaning them they worked fine. If I could only choose one I choose better accuracy and having to clean my gun once in a while over being able to bury it in a swamp and still have it fire when I dug it up 3 months later. The modular design is a big plus also if you could only choose one rifle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delphi
As to the plastic pistol debate I trust them. Somebody already brought up the fact that plastics are very high tech these days. I really don't like the Glock's grips. My buddy bought an XD-40 and it fits a lot better in my hand. Very nice gun to shoot also. I would buy one ove the Glock for the grip reason alone. Why should I have to spend another 300 bucks fixing a grip problem that shouldn't be there.