The other day Derek, The Packing Rat mentioned that he’d gotten his Glock specifically because some cops of his acquaintance had opined that no civilians should own Glocks — or any non-double-actions for that matter — because they’re too dangerous. These cops would get all hinky if they saw a civilian with a Glock. “Only Ones,” anyone?
Well, that night Derek permitted me to inspect his Glock. My Glock experience is limited to say the least — I’d previously shot a .45 Glock more than fifteen years ago, and it was okay, but nothing special. But at SHOT Show 2010 I really really liked the Gen 4 9mm Glock I shot at Media Day. Easy to shoot, fit my hand very well, ridiculously accurate offhand. So I wanted to see what the earlier-generation Glock felt like, and Derek’s Glock 19 felt very compact in my hand. I was quite surprised — I’ve been assuming for years that Glocks were about as thick in the grip as a Beretta 92, which is really too thick of a shooting handle for my wife.
See, I’ve been musing about standardizing on something other than the Beretta 92/Bersa Thunder 380 platforms for our home defense guns. (Those work well together because the controls are virtually identical.) Glocks came to mind. I like the way you can use the 17′s magazines in all three sizes in exigent circumstances. And the grip would fit her hand quite well, I think. But I mentioned this to the wife, and she said “ooh, too thuggish.” Which is of course a completely irrational, biased opinion, just like the cops above.
We don’t have any gun-rental places nearby, so (sigh) I suppose I’ll just have to buy one so she can try it out.
Any Glock owners want to answer this question for me: if you hold your Glock with your finger off the trigger, and you were severely startled, do you think your natural hand-clenching motion would be enough to fire a round unintentionally?