[Laidback]

glock’s famous torture tests have documented an insane level of durability. Submerged in the ocean for months, frozen under snow, in the hottest desert, etc. All they needed was to take it to outer space. But one thing this showed to the world that if it wouldn’t break or fail to perform under the most extreme conditions it would work for you.

The question is - is this legendary reliability over or undervalued today?

In the one hand - guns like the HK USP or mark 23 have had 300k+ rounds through many without a single repair or failure to feed. I would never not trust a usp just because it wasn’t submerged in the ocean for half a year.

On the other hand, I hear many say things like “cz is as reliable as Glock just better shooting” and I’m not really sure about that claim. I’ve known many czs to have issues (most of these were the target series and not duty grade guns, but these are also the most high profile guns they make).

Walther is a great brand but the PPK is notorious for failures. The 2011 is considered an elite handgun but only a staccato p is really built to have the durability needed in a Duty pistol.

So, what do you think?

 

[Valmet]

 

[Redeemed]

Here we go……again.

 

[Danke Glock]

There are plenty of reliable handguns on the market and it’s been the case for many, many years. The torture tests with GLOCKs are prevalent for a number of reasons. First, when GLOCK came to market it had to convince LE, military, and consumers that were accustomed to metal frame guns that “plastic” guns could withstand punishment and perform. Second, in addition to being polymer, GLOCK was a striker-fired design that didn’t have a long track record. The easiest way to overcome the lack of history was to excel in torture tests and provide proof of concept. Third, GLOCKs were adopted by a large number of LE agencies and military units and naturally the civilian market started to follow. Since more guns were in the market more people were testing and using them. Forth, which follows along with number three, gun reviews for consumers, particularly social media, increased significantly and people created new and inventive ways to provide entertainment via absurd torture tests. There are other reasons, such as GLOCKs being affordable and plentiful enough that it encourages more people to abuse them and not really care, which ads to the lore of GLOCK reliability.

As I mentioned previously, there are plenty of reliable guns on the market, so GLOCK is not unique in that regard. Likewise, GLOCKs can and do break. I‘ve had a number of different parts failures with GLOCKs, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a proven design. Frankly, when it comes to guns, too many people rely on anecdotal evidence which has no statistical significance. If a person has a few hundred or even a few thousand rounds on a gun, they‘ll extrapolate that as a meaningful indicator for a model or entire product line. The same holds true for social media torture tests.

Whether GLOCKs reliability is over- or undervalued will vary by person. All I know is that GLOCK has a proven design, but like any manufactured product or machine, it’s not immune to failure.

 

[Maccabeus]

I think most Glocks will prove quite trustworthy for most people.

I also think the same thing can be said for most polymer striker guns from any of the major firearms companies. Most people will never need to or have cause to know how much abuse their particular pistol can or cannot take.

(In the end, they are all still only machines, not magic. Any of them can fail. I've had two Glocks with reliability issues).

 

[HKMark23]

 

[sciolist]

In my personal experience, Glocks have high reliability but significantly lower durability. So they are very resistant to things that cause malfunctions, but less resistant to things that cause structural failures of the gun.

And given that the Glock design is intended for applications where reliability is paramount but guns are typically replaced long before they reach high use volumes, this makes sense.

Like most consumer products, Glocks have an intended target market but are also used outside those parameters. And there is a lot of room for improvement in OE Glocks to make them work much better in a variety of ways.

But it's important to remember that there's a point of diminishing returns where it makes a lot more sense to move to a different gun if you are looking for certain kinds of results.

The Glock design inherently lends itself to user refinement, though. For me, that's a big selling point.

 

[JArthurD]

Chicken or egg??

 

[bdcochran]

Here we go……again.

Of course,, here we go again.

I am at a class many years ago. A Glock fails. Everyone crowds around. It turns out that the owner bought it used, didn't know how to break down a Glock into parts, and had never cleaned it. Gee! This is like the guy who never changes the oil in his car. There are plenty of people like that.

So, someone gets 300,000 rounds through his firearm. Are you going to fire 300,000 rounds in your lifetime? It is like the person who buys a knife with a lifetime guarantee and assumes that the company will be there forever, and especially after civilization collapses. I have lifetime alignment with Firestone and used it 6 times. I had somewhat lifetime brakes with a company with multiple locations that went out of business - and still got my money's worth.

So, look at your firearms. Have you bothered researching which parts wear out and purchased spares? That is a lot better approach than worrying about the longevity of the firearm. Have you noticed how many gun companies have gone out of business and sold off their inventory of spare parts??

 

[NAZG26]

Any handgun you 100 percent trust good to go.

 

[CBennett]

It used to be a awesome thing at that time some of the semi auto 9's(and others) had teething pains just coming out or mostly revolvers for LE.. It was peobably the best/first good LE plastic 9mm that worked well.

Now days though same reputation they havent lost it.. its just that now almost every plastic 9mm from a reliable maker IS EQUALLY AS GOOD AND RELIABLE... now Glock doesnt own/corner the market on that anymore like they used to.. now they are all about equal.. Glock stopped being the best and ONLY game in town a couple deacdes ago now or at least 15 years ago now Steyr,M&P(S&W),Sig,HK,CZ,FN,all equally as reliable/good as a Glock..

 

[Brandon Breeze]

glock’s famous torture tests have documented an insane level of durability. Submerged in the ocean for months, frozen under snow, in the hottest desert, etc. All they needed was to take it to outer space. But one thing this showed to the world that if it wouldn’t break or fail to perform under the most extreme conditions it would work for you.

The question is - is this legendary reliability over or undervalued today?

In the one hand - guns like the HK USP or mark 23 have had 300k+ rounds through many without a single repair or failure to feed. I would never not trust a usp just because it wasn’t submerged in the ocean for half a year.

On the other hand, I hear many say things like “cz is as reliable as Glock just better shooting” and I’m not really sure about that claim. I’ve known many czs to have issues (most of these were the target series and not duty grade guns, but these are also the most high profile guns they make).

Walther is a great brand but the PPK is notorious for failures. The 2011 is considered an elite handgun but only a staccato p is really built to have the durability needed in a Duty pistol.

So, what do you think?

I've had Glocks since 2002, with my first being a 19. I still own this 19 to this day. Stopped counting rounds around the 5k mark many years ago. It has only ever had a single malfunction in 22 years. That was when I was still new to the platform and misplaced the magazine floorplate for one of my mags. It had one FTF. Found the floor plate and reinstalled it and no problems ever since. I did break a trigger bar return spring once during dry fire, but that was an aftermarket spring.

I would say their reliability is still rock solid.

In most instances that I see folks talking about any sort of reliability issues, they have aftermarket parts on their firearm, which has nothing to do with Glock.

 

[ringel05]

What do I think? I think I'll have a Spam sammich for lunch.........

 

[racer88]

A lot of people think Volvos are the safest car. They're not. But they WERE the FIRST to market safety. Remember the crash test dummy Volvo ads? So they were the first car company to emphasize safety in their ads. The assumption became that they were the safest car.

Same with Glock.

 

[G2670Boss30A]

I personally have had incredible reliability with a Glock. There's plenty of great handguns out there that are reliable but I stick with Glock because since 1992 I've had incredible luck with reliability.

 

[familyman357]

So, what do you think?

Glock reliability is both overblown and taken for granted, particularly when you stray from 9mm. But it's still pretty daggone good.

 

[Goldengun]

And let’s not leave out the meteoric growth of YouTubers who had to resort to all sorts of theatrical performances to get views, follows, likes, subscribes so they could make money. Boring videos die. Exciting content draws eyeballs and earns huge profits.

 

[pugman]

its neither and both.

Glock hand guns are reliable but nearly every other manufacturer has stepped up their game. Hell even a Hi Point, being a single stack brick, has been shown to run well.

Glock’s problem is they haven’t had an innovation since the original firearm was designed in the mid 80’s. Different colors, finger grooves/no finger grooves, etc. isnt innovation.

Their two big announcements in the past 40 years has been the .45 GAP and a .22 conversion kit. Neither were big splashes.

I own a G26, 17 and 19. Honestly, none of them have been more or less reliable than my PDP, VP9, 228, 226…

 

[unit1069]

Glock certainly has lived up to its reputation.

I've only owned one Glock, a 3rd generation. It has been perfect since Day One with all brands and ammo designs ever shot through it. Why would I need another one?

 

[Danke Glock]

Generally speaking, people only have the capacity to determine if a firearm is reliable or unreliable. The time and cost involved in trying to ascertain the “most” or ”least” reliable firearm available across brands makes it unrealistic, if not impossible. Those types of discussions are typically subjective based on anecdotal experience.