Larry Vickers on Glocks

[sjstill]

I've personally seen a cheapie, clamp-on laser make a Glock (19??) malf because the shooter clamped it on too tight. Once we loosened it up, the Glock ran fine (won't comment about the laser or shooter....).

How can a light mounted on the front make a gun fail. I'm not saying it can't happen. I just don't get it.

 

[sjstill]

Already been said, but bears repeating - use jacketed or plated bullets, and stay away from the max end of the load data, and you *shouldn't* have any problems.

I've shot a couple 1000 of MY reloads thru my G30 & 21 without a problem.

Careful with reloads through a glock.

 

[sjstill]

The G22 I carry on duty was made in 1995, and has been through who knows how many deputies & rounds.

Was playing around with it at the range last week, and shot our qual course (30 rounds from 3 to 12 yards) and managed to keep 28 of the 30 in the head area of the target. The 2 I 'dropped' were in the neck.

With the same Glock, I managed to shoot a perfect 240 on the ILEA qual earlier this year. 48 rounds, and it's a timed qual from 3 to 25 yards.

 

[epsylum]

I have come to prefer a good 1911, but there is nothing at all wrong with a Glock. They are good guns period.

 

[shooter521]

His line about G22s, G23s and G21s is the same kind of hillbilly-gun-store gossip that I hear all the time.

his opinion is just as valid as mine

Except that Mr. Vickers has seen hundreds if not thousands of Glocks come through his training courses, and so has access a larger statistical sample than you or I do. Further, he gets to see the guns subjected to high volumes of fire in a compressed timeframe, which is a better test of durability and reliability than your average range session or police department qualification. If he says there are issues with 22s, 23s and 21s, it is because he has seen them firsthand and they are not isolated incidents.

Does that mean those models are "bad" or should be avoided? Not at all, but it is a data point worth considering. That said, I have thoroughly wrung out my 23s and 35, and have never experienced any of the issues he mentions. Friends of mine who shoot .40 and .45 Glocks have been likewise trouble-free, even under harsh firing schedules. The compatibility issue with the G22 and rail-mounted lights was acknowledged by Glock Inc. a few years ago, and was corrected by changing the magazine spring to add an extra coil for improved power and cycling, even with the extra weight of a light out front.

As for Mr. Vickers' parts recommendations - they are obviously shaped by his experience as a pistolsmith, as well as his personal biases (can you blame the guy for recommending his own product?), but should not be dismissed out of hand because of that. I agree with all of his recommendations in principle, if not on the particular brands or styles (I use Meprolight night sights, and the factory extended mag catch with the corners Dremeled down, as well as the factory extended slide stop and smooth trigger face).

My $.02.

 

[Hiram2005]

I'm not disputing his resume or his knowledge and I'm not knocking him... Or at least that's not my intent.

I'm just saying that every "expert" you run into will tell you something different.

There are guys who say, "Only shoot Sigs." or "Only shoot 1911s." or "HK is superior to every other brand in the world."

At the end of the day, you can't paint with a broad brush. Use the firearm that you are most comfortable with and that you shoot best.

For me, the G23/G19 is perfect in terms of ergonomics, capacity, concealment, accuracy and function. For Mr. Vickers, the G23 may be crap. That's his opinion and I respect it, but it doesn't mean I agree.

You won't ever catch me telling someone, "Taurus's are crap."

I've fired several and IMO, some are. But I also know people who shoot some of those "crappy" models very well, trust their lives to them and have never had any quality issues with them.

That said, if I find out you carry a Lorcin, I may break my own rule...

I traded for a Lorcin once.....safest gun I ever owned.....would not feed a round from the mag.....dropped one in the chamber, would not fire either!

 

[Disposable Heart]

I know Vickers is great and all, but I despise any instructor that spews brand name parts for guns that are already designed for one purpose: combat. I am not saying the Glock is perfect, but a stock glock is truely a reliable piece. I am not going to add parts to it to make it up to an instructor's snuff. Become one with your weapon, know it in and out, conform yourself to the weapon, not the weapon to yourself.

I think too many are being suckered into the world of "tactical" this and "defensive" that. I simply dont understand why I would be put in a derogatory light for showing up to a class with a stock 22. In addition, why is such a high price tag attached to "training"? I understand that there is a person to pay for the training, however, the student incurrs a huge payment, not only in the training itself, but also the weapon, "required accessories" and ammunition, not to mention petrol for going to these events. What certification is required in the holding of an instructor to warrant a 300$+ price tag for learning to defend one's life?

I am not claiming to be an instructor or anything for that matter. However, I feel there is alot of elitism in regards to training. You show up to a carbine class, you will get looked at funny for not having a super ubertacticool optic on it. Or rails. Or super bullets. Oh sorry, your carbine/rifle doesnt say LMT or Colt, what were you thinking when you bought that DPMS? Stuff like that! What happened to having stock weapons (good ones mind you) and learning to use the weapon without a hokey gimmick that some guy MAKING MONEY from all of this insists you must have. People were killing off wholesale enemies in terrible and terrifiying situations without tactical what not and have done just fine. Training in my mind takes months, years, not something one can simply attach a price tag to and have it performed in a few days. There is much more to it, I understand, however I dont believe that people should be forced to pay huge sums of cash to be seen as capable fighters in the eyes of the "fighting elite".

Now that I have pissed everyone off, PM me for free kicks in my rear as the above paragraphs warrant me to drop my drawers and take in the rear. This is my instructed and educated opinion on this matter. Many moderators here are trainers or trained, so I will most likely face banishment, so be it. But this is a shocking trend I have noticed recently in the gun community.

 

[Lars]

DisposableHero: (yes I know it's disposableheart..... Honestly I still get visions of Scud the Disposable Assassin every time I read your nam) I actually agree about the gear, and "image" portions of that. I read an article about a class a former SWAT instructor took because like many good instructors he doesn't turn down going to classes from as many different sources as he can.

He showed up in running shoes, jeans, and a t-shirt. And was laughed at for not "looking professional" by the other students. The instructors went on to accept any hits on the targets vs good heart/brain box hits as "Hits" and worked on getting the students to draw and fire 2 shots in 2 seconds..... where the two shots just had to hit the paper.

When the instructors were asked about that after the class by the author they mentioned they were a new company, and focusing on making the students "feel" successful so they would come back.

That said, I'll still pay for good instruction. It sure beats trying to learn all of this on your own.

 

[abnk]

I know Vickers is great and all, but I despise any instructor that spews brand name parts for guns that are already designed for one purpose: combat. I am not saying the Glock is perfect, but a stock glock is truely a reliable piece. I am not going to add parts to it to make it up to an instructor's snuff.

Mr. Vickers is recommending those modifications; he's not saying that they are required for the pistol to function properly. Those are his opinions based on experience. Whether we want to heed his advice or not, is up to us. For the record, my Glock is stock with the exception of sights.

Become one with your weapon, know it in and out, conform yourself to the weapon, not the weapon to yourself.

I am not sure that I agree with the quotation in red. I went through half a dozen pistols until I settled for the Glock 19. I did not conform myself to my first pistol; instead, I continued my search until I found what conformed to me.

This concept is discerned easier with a precision rifle. You cannot attain a perfect natural point of aim unless your rifle fits you perfectly. Sure, you can conform yourself to a less than optimal rifle, but it won't be the same.

I think too many are being suckered into the world of "tactical" this and "defensive" that. I simply dont understand why I would be put in a derogatory light for showing up to a class with a stock 22. In addition, why is such a high price tag attached to "training"? I understand that there is a person to pay for the training, however, the student incurrs a huge payment, not only in the training itself, but also the weapon, "required accessories" and ammunition, not to mention petrol for going to these events. What certification is required in the holding of an instructor to warrant a 300$+ price tag for learning to defend one's life?

I am not claiming to be an instructor or anything for that matter. However, I feel there is alot of elitism in regards to training. You show up to a carbine class, you will get looked at funny for not having a super ubertacticool optic on it. Or rails. Or super bullets. Oh sorry, your carbine/rifle doesnt say LMT or Colt, what were you thinking when you bought that DPMS? Stuff like that! What happened to having stock weapons (good ones mind you) and learning to use the weapon without a hokey gimmick that some guy MAKING MONEY from all of this insists you must have. People were killing off wholesale enemies in terrible and terrifiying situations without tactical what not and have done just fine. Training in my mind takes months, years, not something one can simply attach a price tag to and have it performed in a few days. There is much more to it, I understand, however I dont believe that people should be forced to pay huge sums of cash to be seen as capable fighters in the eyes of the "fighting elite".

This should probably be a separate topic, but I'll comment anyway.

I agree with the sentiment that way too many people get suckered into "tacticool" products. However, I have not encountered anyone who attempted to scorn or ridicule me for not having the latest equipment.

I have had the honor and luck to train with some excellent instructors and always showed up in an old pair of tennis shoes, every day pants, and a t-shirt. Not a derogatory comment ever on my attire, outdated load-bearing vest, or stock pistol.

As far as the tuiton costs, I don't think they are unreasonable. When I was looking to take SQL courses, ~$3,000 for a Mon-Fri class was pretty much the norm. ~$500 for three days invested in a skill that I will practice for life is not a bad deal at all.

Now that I have pissed everyone off, PM me for free kicks in my rear as the above paragraphs warrant me to drop my drawers and take in the rear. This is my instructed and educated opinion on this matter. Many moderators here are trainers or trained, so I will most likely face banishment, so be it. But this is a shocking trend I have noticed recently in the gun community.

Pull your drawers up, you sick bastard. This is a discussion forum.

 

[abnk]

DisposableHero: (yes I know it's disposableheart..... Honestly I still get visions of Scud the Disposable Assassin every time I read your nam) I actually agree about the gear, and "image" portions of that. I read an article about a class a former SWAT instructor took because like many good instructors he doesn't turn down going to classes from as many different sources as he can.

He showed up in running shoes, jeans, and a t-shirt. And was laughed at for not "looking professional" by the other students. The instructors went on to accept any hits on the targets vs good heart/brain box hits as "Hits" and worked on getting the students to draw and fire 2 shots in 2 seconds..... where the two shots just had to hit the paper.

When the instructors were asked about that after the class by the author they mentioned they were a new company, and focusing on making the students "feel" successful so they would come back.

That said, I'll still pay for good instruction. It sure beats trying to learn all of this on your own.

Need I even comment?

 

[shooter521]

I despise any instructor that spews brand name parts for guns that are already designed for one purpose: combat.

Why, if those "brand name products" can improve the function of a weapon or enable you to be more effective with it?

I am not saying the Glock is perfect, but a stock glock is truely a reliable piece.

Reliable, sure. But Mr. Vickers wasn't talking about parts to make the gun more reliable; he was talking about addressing those other imperfections you allude to! Now whether you agree with him, or me, or anyone else about what those imperfections might be, is another matter entirely.

conform yourself to the weapon, not the weapon to yourself.

I would rather give myself every possible advantage in a fight. If that means making changes to my weapon to improve function, accuracy and/or ergonomics, you bet your ass I'm gonna do it. How many advancements in firearms technology have come about because people opted to improve upon their weapons rather than "conform" to them? It's because of people not "conforming to their weapons" that we're shooting high-capacity semi-automatic rifles with optical sights and a 500-yard effective range today, rather than matchlocks.

I would be put in a derogatory light for showing up to a class with a stock 22.

Why do you assume that would be the case? Have you personally had that kind of experience with a trainer? I've taken a good number of courses and have seen a LOT of stock guns in use, and NEVER have I seen an instructor berate a student for his choice. That the gun RUNS is the overriding concern.

In addition, why is such a high price tag attached to "training"?

Define "high price"? A couple years ago, I took a 2-day carbine course from DETC for $150. I don't think the 2-day Intro to Defensive Pistol course that Sheriff Ken offers at BCSD is much more than that, and many of the courses over at TDI in Ohio are similarly affordable. Then there's the NRA personal protection courses put on at Eagle Creek, Custom Cop Corporation and elsewhere. Sure, the "big name" instructors with national exposure will charge more, as will the "theme park" facilities (Gunsite, Blackwater, Valhalla, etc) with lots of maintenance and overhead costs to cover. But if you think there's no such thing as "affordable" training, you haven't looked hard enough.

I understand that there is a person to pay for the training

As well as his travel expenses, liability insurance, fees for use of the host range, consumables (targets, snivel supplies, etc), salaries for assistant instructors, etc etc. In a perfect world, they'd be doing it all pro bono for the purpose of promoting a competent armed citizenry, but in the real world, it's their job, and they have families to feed just like you and I do.

the student incurrs a huge payment, not only in the training itself, but also the weapon, "required accessories" and ammunition, not to mention petrol for going to these events.

Most people don't buy a new gun just to go take a class, so that's a one-time expense that you've probably already incurred whether or not you decide to take a training course. As far as ammo and gas, those expenses can be mitigated to some degree by planning in advance. Work out an annual "training budget". Divert funds from other "discretionary spending" (beer, fast food, movies, whatever), take a second job, whatever you have to do. Identify which courses you want to do as early as possible, so you can start saving up. Rope a couple of your buddies into taking the same course, and carpool to save gas. Seek out local or 1-day training opportunities to eliminate travel and lodging expenses. Bottom line is, you gotta pay to play, and if training is important to you, you'll find ways to make it happen.

What certification is required in the holding of an instructor to warrant a 300$+ price tag for learning to defend one's life?

Instructors charge what they feel is appropriate (see related comment on overhead costs, and having families to feed), and to an extent, what the market will bear. The nice thing is, this is a free country and you can always say "this isn't worth $300 to me" and not sign up. But if it's a good course/instructor, there will be a long line of guys behind you to fill your slot.

You show up to a carbine class, you will get looked at funny for not having a super ubertacticool optic on it. Or rails. Or super bullets. Oh sorry, your carbine/rifle doesnt say LMT or Colt, what were you thinking when you bought that DPMS? Stuff like that!

Again with the assumptions. Have you ever taken a professional firearms training course?? My experience says you couldn't be more off-base, but who knows, maybe I've just been lucky in my choice of instructors/courses.

Training in my mind takes months, years, not something one can simply attach a price tag to and have it performed in a few days.

Finally, something we agree on! Training courses aren't meant to make you into a "capable fighter" - they are intended to provide you with the skillsets needed to employ your weapon effectively. If you want to derive any real benefit from a course, you will continue to practice those skillsets on your own, for the rest of your life!

My $.02.

 

[obijohn]

shooter521, sir, i could not have said it better myself.

i was under the impression that mr vickers was a 1911 guy and the comment in the opening post were his responses to specific questions about striker fired polymer pistols, specifically glocks.

 

[rhino]

In addition, why is such a high price tag attached to "training"?

I have no comment on your other points, however, how do you define "high price tag"? How do you determine how much is too little, just right, or too much for this service? Have you ever purchased any and evaluated it?

In addtion, have you compared to other types of lessons?

Let's say a three day class is $500. Typically, that is a minimum of 24 hours of instruction. That works out to $20.84 per hour, or $10.42 per half hour.

Try pricing piano lessons, or cello lessons compared to that. Try pricing golf lessons compared to that. Try pricing tutoring for your kid in school compared to that.

I think your lack of experience with this market has led you to an unrealistic conclusion that is based solely on a dollar number that scares you. The difference between shooting classes and some other types of lessons is that logistics often force the lessons to be compressed into three to five days instead of a few times per week over a longer time period. If you compare what you're getting to similar services, it's not very expensive at all.

In addition, if you compare it to the cost of a new pistol, the tuition for the 3-day class is typically less (you can't hold the instructor responsible for the cost of ammunition or travel any more than you can complain to the piano teacher that your piano was expensive and you don't like paying for the bus fare to go to your lessons). It's been said before, but most people who complain about the cost of professional shooting and defensive firearms instruction have quite a few more than one gun. That is their choice and in a free society it's entirely valid, but we need to keep things in perspective.

 

[Disposable Heart]

What Im simply saying is that with regards to Lars comment about students feeling successful and coming back for continued business is different from learning good concepts, shot placement, point shooting, and proper drawing, not to mention retention. To learn all of this and being able to know if one's PRACTICE of it is on track are two different things. Three days aint gonna do it! This takes years. However, without an instructor present to overlook the student's progress (if the training is meerly a primer to allow the student to build their technique), the student can be led astray by other "techniques" they learn from gun rags or internet stuff. They seem to want to cram it all in three days and leave the student high and dry. Any follow up on students that doesnt consist of another couple hundred dollars of "advanced" training?

I see alot of guys that go to Funsite or similar, and come back thinking they are top notch. Many are, however, Ive also seen a brashness to their defense ability and reinforcement. They will buy into only the things that are spewed over in forums as tacticool or similar. I am simply stating in my OPINION (everyone seems to beat everyone down b/c of their opinion, if there is a personal matter, I am sorry and lets take it to the private messages) is that people are hung up on what class to take or what school to go to, not to mention what weapon to use, what accessories they should tack on, etc... Jeff Cooper (while not a gadget glamourizing guy, still a business man) preferred simplicity. The only thing he said needed to be done with a 1911 was use flat point hardball as it reduces the chance of riccochet. I get ridiculed because I dont have a 16" barreled, chrome lined uber-AR, but hey, my AR has functioned with now over 750 rounds without cleaning, with a variety of rounds and and couple accidental trips into the sand with only a quick shake to rectify the issue. Not one jam. I think people need to look to themselves to determine what training and equipment they NEED, train hard and determine the style of fighting that suits them, not a syllabused method used over and over, not conforming to a student's needs. The existing training covers alot, however, I dont believe I agree with the whole sale, package them up and out method of training. One on one training is far more effective in my mind, however it may not be as PROFITABLE to some.

Incidentally, what ever happened to revolver fighting instruction? Not meerly defending one's self with a J-frame, but how to FIGHT with a 6 gun (so many service guns out there)? Today's world is filled with automatics, but a lot of securty groups still carry revolvers. Heck, I had a guy living up my street that was a treasury officer in the 60s, who sat me down and taught me (not just instruction but drills) on how to fight with a revolver, using it as a offensive AND defensive weapon. Not too much of that lately.

I can see where many people think me a snot nosed punk who needs his teeth smashed to the curb. What I am stating is that I dont believe in "standardized" testing and training of people for defensive purposes. A price tag should NEVER be placed upon a person's ability to defend themselves. Its a further commercialization of the gun industry that I find strange and misplaced in the spirit and concept of shooting sports and defense.

People throw money to become better fighters, however, become tacticool troops that believe since they've had three days instruction that they can now go into any situation and come out alive. They believe range time is a method of training (while it is, one cannot move appropriately as they need to learn while behind a barrel or shooting table). Three days or even a week is not nearly enough time to learn what is needed to defend oneself, and to make it second nature.

I respect others opinions here, however, I would like if some would grant me the same liberty.

 

[abnk]

...

I respect others opinions here, however, I would like if some would grant me the same liberty.

Hey, brother, I don't know how to say this in a way that does not sound personal, but please stop painting yourself as a victim. No one is trying to censor your posts. Some merely disagreed with your opinions. If you are asking of us to agree with everything that is posted, that just ain't gonna happen, Bubba.


Regarding your 750 rounds in your AR, that is hardly a test. I had much more than that in my AR without a hitch. Problems only surfaced in a rather fast-paced course. Guess what the causes were? Out-of-spec parts.

As far as training and its fees, if you train with a good instructor, your opinion will likely change. None of the instructors that I have trained under have sold their way as the only way. They recommend that you try what they teach and decide if it works for you. All of them have also stressed that retaining skills requires perpetual training.

Frankly, I don't understand the bitterness against these trainers. Maybe I've just been lucky to have good ones.

 

[bigcraig]

D_H, I think your missing the point. Everyone here that has taken a class, some have taken MANY, will agree that you will not become an expert from taking a 2 or 3 day class. The point in taking a class is to learn drills and to have an "expert" diagnose your shortcommings. Then you take that info and work on it on your own time.

As far as why people recommend a certain instructor or class, it is simply because that is the class that they have taken, and they walked away from it having learned something new, so they will quite obviously recommend it to others.

You state that you don't believe in "standardized" testing or training, this makes ZERO sense as there is no standarized testing or training. Every instructor brings something a little different, it is up to you to decide what works for you. That is why, if you can afford it, take as many classes you can from different instructors.

You also seemed to be hung up on the cost of training, do you expect instructors to do this for free? The classes that usually cost the most are also the ones that teach proper movement, firing from cover, failure drills and reloading procedures.

Revolvers, if you chosen CCW is a revolver, then by all means use it in a class, most instructors can accomodate a wheel gun in their class.

Folks that take a class and come away with it with a sense "confidence" do so for a reason, they have learned a valuable skill set that can save their life, because most of the evil doers in this world are not trained and will fold when meet with force, or die.

To finish, the reason you are not getting the respect for your opinions is because your making incorrect assumptions about classes that you have never taken.

 

[Disposable Heart]

As for opinions, I dont expect anyone to see the way I do. Heck, Im democrat as they come on many issues. But I haver an opinion and in no concern to anyone will I consider my opinion "unreasearched" or "unfounded". While many of my ideals or views are crazy, they are researched and I have a reason behind them. I will listen and understand other's approaches, all I ask is for folks to do the same in their interactions with others.

Perpetual training=Perpetual money. Why should only those with disposable income learn to defend themselves? If someone were to run a basic defense class (not just firearms, but hand to hand, situational awareness and defensive mindset), not charge for it, and taught at least 50 people in the Lafeyette area, a dramatic reduction in crime would occur, almost overnight. But many in teh gun community cannot afford such infusions of cash for training. They have to make due with basic marksmanship and nothing more. I wish there was an advanced program available, a good one, but not expensive in the slightest.

750 rounds SO FAR WITHOUT CLEANING AT ALL (not even putting any CLP in the BCG holes, I plan to keep going until failure). Ive had over 2000 rounds through that rifle so far (variety of rounds, different conditions). While not a super test, its good enough for me considering the conditions the rifle has been put through. I left it out the in the last rains weve had, so I get to see if the rifle will function after all of this craziness. The rifle is capable of going through my two carried 7 mag complements (about 420 rounds rifle) without any issues being my ultimate test. It has smashed this barrier almost twice so.

Cant give my opinion without the world calling me a retard.

 

[Disposable Heart]

Revolvers, if you chosen CCW is a revolver, then by all means use it in a class, most instructors can accomodate a wheel gun in their class.

Will they? I am and would be interest in such a class! I would have to dust off the old speedloaders and get back into the groove of that.

 

[bigcraig]

Nobody called you a retard.

And again you mention free training.

I pay for my training, why can't you.

I am not rich, I am a tow truck driver, I just have my personal priorities straight.

 

[abnk]

...

Perpetual training=Perpetual money. Why should only those with disposable income learn to defend themselves? If someone were to run a basic defense class (not just firearms, but hand to hand, situational awareness and defensive mindset), not charge for it, and taught at least 50 people in the Lafeyette area, a dramatic reduction in crime would occur, almost overnight. But many in teh gun community cannot afford such infusions of cash for training. They have to make due with basic marksmanship and nothing more. I wish there was an advanced program available, a good one, but not expensive in the slightest.

I apologize for not being more specific. I was not referring to perpetual instructional training. Training can be done in your basement with dryfire, in front of your mirror, at the range, etc.

750 rounds SO FAR WITHOUT CLEANING AT ALL (not even putting any CLP in the BCG holes, I plan to keep going until failure). Ive had over 2000 rounds through that rifle so far (variety of rounds, different conditions). While not a super test, its good enough for me considering the conditions the rifle has been put through. I left it out the in the last rains weve had, so I get to see if the rifle will function after all of this craziness. The rifle is capable of going through my two carried 7 mag complements (about 420 rounds rifle) without any issues being my ultimate test. It has smashed this barrier almost twice so.

It sounds like you have a good rifle. Read Pat Rogers' review on Three Smiths from the last issue of SWAT.

Cant give my opinion without the world calling me a retard.

There you with the victim mentality again.