Range Report - Glock 22

Late blogging today because I was at the range - the second time this week! Shooting with an old friend and coworker from Internet Security startup company lo these many moons ago. He needs one of the shirts that Jay got. Just sayin'.

We shot a Glock model 22 chambered in .40 S&W.


Now I'm not quite as adamantly opposed to Glocks as Kim Du Toit (" 1. ugly 2. plastic 3. made by furriners"), but I can certainly sympathize with an appreciation for the great old designs - 1911 or Colt SAA, for example. Or new "old" designs like the Ruger Vaquero. The Glocks, while reliable and accurate as all get out, are functional and utilitaritarian, rather than poetic. Nothing wrong with that, of course, if that's your cup of tea.

I'd never shot one, which seemed like a shame. I'd also never shot the .40 S&W cartridge, so this was a two-fer of new shooty goodness.

The Glock did not disappoint for accuracy (10 yard target). The first set of 5 shots were in the center of the target. You see the "ladder" effect as I was getting used to the sights. After that, it was everything you'd want in a pistol, and was everything you've heard.

The sights are simply outstanding. If you've never fired one, the square front sight is white on a black background. The rear sights are black, highlighted in white. The front and back sights line up better than maybe anything I've ever fired, once you get used to them. I have no idea how well they would work in tactical situations (presumably very well indeed), but there was nothing to complain about on the range. Boy, howdy, not at all.

The safety was unusual, as you'd expect if you've heard about Glock safetys. It's a small trigger-like mechanism that protrudes from the pistol's trigger. When you squeeze the trigger, you're automaticlly releasing the safety. Basically, this means that it's impossible to release the safety unless something is touching the trigger. If you are scrupulous about following Rule 3, it's hard to see how this could go wrong. It also means that it's impossible to forget to set the safety when you put the pistol down. Clever.

The trigger itself is fine. Not a spongy two-stage trigger like the Beretta 92 - very little take up and a good surprise break. That was a very good thing, because the .40 S&W was a snappy round. I mean snappy.

Most times when I shoot a new gun I mentally take note of which Borepatch family member might like to shoot it some time. The Marlin 1894C in .357/.38Spec is something that I could go for. The 1911 was one of #2 son's favorites. The Thompson? #1 son, all the way.

Which would like to shoot the .40 S&W? (sound of crickets chirping)

Note that I am not saying that this cartridge is insane, or unshootable. It did have a lot more recoil than most I've shot, and the recoil was sharper (more of a upwards kick to the barrel) than you'd get from .38 special in a revolver, or even .45 ACP in the 1911. I had to conciously work on a surprise trigger break to avoid developing a flinch, but this was obviously manageable. Chris Byrne has a good post comparing "defensive" caliber cartridges, if you're interested in more on this topic.

And it could have been worse. The guys a couple lanes down were shooting this.
Ruger Super Redhawk snubbie in .454 Casull. Wow. I'm not at all ashamed to say that I'm not man enough for this pistol. Sure was fun watching the guys (big guys) wince after each trigger squeeze.