Monday, June 27, 2016

Best survival Gun?

Right here. Glock 17. When you do the equation factoring concealability, reliability, durability, availability, commonality, weight, accuracy, ammo capacity, ergonomics and simplicity no other fighting gun comes close. You dont agree? Tell me why and I’ll explain why you are wrong.

The Glock 17 is today what back in the day was a 1911 or maybe more popular world wide the Browning Hi-Power. Anywhere you go, you are likely to find a few rounds of 9mm and a Glock to fire them.
For all survivalists and preppers, this is the gun to own and master. Maybe you like its smaller brother the Glock 19 or maybe you like a different caliber, I understand that too. But with a Glock 9mm you will always be well armed, you will always find some rounds to feed your gun given 9mm’s popularity and you’ll always find parts and magazines if you ever need them.
The only thing I recommend changing is the sights. Get good metal nightsights like these.

Fernando “FerFAL” Aguirre is the author of “The Modern Survival Manual: Surviving the Economic Collapse” and “Bugging Out and Relocating: When Staying is not an Option”.


HÃ¥kan said...

I actually do agree with you as the Glock is the best overall survival pistol. But there is many good ones to choose from. I have a CZ 85 in the same type as the Glock and it is a great pistol but heavier and a bit more complicated to use than a Glock. Where the Glock suffers for me is the trigger. I know you can get used to it and a know many who shoot great with a Glock but for me the trigger is to different from my other pistols to bother.

Mike Yukon said...

I own a 17 and I agree for all the same reasons.

Anonymous said...

Hah, I messed up on that one. My only Glock is the 21 (.45acp full size) model. Definitely called it on the factory sights - not very durable, about the only thing you REALLY need to switch out.

Anonymous said...


The Glocks are very nice guns and have lots of performance features to commend them.

The only thing I disagree with is the lack of a positive mechanical safety.

I know that devotees of the non-safety pistols get defensive when anyone takes exception to this design feature.

But--anyone trained to a level of competent pistol shooter can train to take the safety into account when they do need to deliberately fire the weapon.

And--when they don't need to have the weapon fire, or heaven forbid not have it fire when somebody who should not have their hands on the gun (but somehow got hold of it)--then that is when the manual safety earns its plaudits!

We see too many cases with the non-safety pistols where gun owners (including experts) somehow shoot themselves or others, kids get hold of a gun and shoot themselves or others--where a mechanical safety properly employed would have likely saved people from harm.

I realize that everyone who has not had such an incident happen in their own lives will poo-poo and object to suggestions along these lines, but consider how many tragedies might have been prevented happening to others like themselves who did have things go bad for themselves or their loved ones.

Best wishes,

Anonymous said...

I used to be a Glock "hater", but then I started to use a borrowed Glock 17 in competition. I was able to hit plate racks and targets with decent speed. Now I own 10 or so Glocks. I do believe for a survival situation the 17 would be hard to beat. As a firearms instructor I often said it was the first hit that was important and not the hardest hit. I think a 9mm Glock 17 is a tough gun to beat.