Pistol Choices

[MM60]

A thread started on October 20, 2009 showed up with some new posts today. The thread is called, "What's your everyday carry?" This thread currently has 86 responses. I am curious about the order of popularity of the pistols mentioned (I am not including revolvers) as follows:

Glock - 16
1911 - 14
LCP - 7
Kahr - 6
S&W - 5
Springfield XD - 4
Taurus, CZ, Walther, HK USP - 2 each
Ruger, Bersa, Browning - 1 each

I am not particularly surprised to see that Glock's and 1911's were the most popular, as both of those types have a group of followers who seem to use those designs to the exclusion of all others for no logical reason. The LCP's popularity doesn't surprise me either, as it is probably the most popular pocket pistol in existence. What does surprise me is everything else.

Kahr was the most popular after Glock, 1911's, and the LCP? I had not even heard of Kahr until I joined THR. I looked at the Kahr website, and the company seems to be similar to Kel-Tec; they began as a CNC machine shop and produced other goods long before they made firearms. I do not doubt their quality, but it seems that Kahr pistols all use single-stack mags with somewhat low capacity compared to other single-stack semi-autos. They sell in the intermediate price range ($450 to $700), which doesn't seem that great since most other mid-quality semi-autos from more established manufacturers sell for the same price. Also, I know Kahr's are made in USA, but I would not want to carry a gun that sounds like it comes from Iran.

After the Kahr, S&W semi's and the Springfield XD were next in popularity? These are basically DAO/SAO (whichever you consider striker-fired to be) Glock-mocks. The only advantage I can see these have over a Glock is the difference in grip angle. They are fairly new designs from mid-quality established manufacturers. Why not just buy a Glock?

There were two votes each for Taurus, CZ, Walther, and H&K, and there was one vote each for Ruger, Bersa, and Browning. I can understand the low popularity of Taurus, CZ, Walther, Bersa and Browning, but I would have thought that the Ruger P-series would be somewhat more popular, and I would have thought that H&K would be very popular since it is one of the highest-quality firearms manufacturers in existence. There were ZERO votes for Sig Sauer - how can that be? Sig Sauer is comparable to H&K in quality! I think the following would make a lot more sense for the order of popularity:

Glock/1911 will always be most popular because of their fan followings.

LCP will remain popular because it's so small and still reasonably powerful, and because it's made by Ruger.

High quality pistols should be the most popular:
H&K
Sig Sauer
Glock (although I don't care for them, they are very tough and reliable)

Mid-quality pistols should be popular only with people who won't pay for better quality:
Ruger
S&W
Springfield XD

Given all the better choices, I don't know why anybody would buy these pistols even if they are decent quality:
CZ, Browning, Beretta, Taurus, Walther, Bersa, Kel-Tec, Kahr, or any 1911

Can anybody give me a good reason - other than price - why you would pick a low to mid-quality pistol like a Kahr or CZ over a high-quality pistol like a H&K or Sig?

PS: I forgot to include Springfield in the poll, so you might as well vote for Glock or S&W if you'd choose the XD.

 

[CoRoMo]

Why not just buy a Glock?

Personal taste I suppose. People like what they like, and dislike what they dislike.

There were ZERO votes for Sig Sauer - how can that be?

Maybe, just maybe, not every member is the type to post what they carry, or maybe only a small portion of members have posted there, and it doesn't reflect any sort of scientific survey.

Can anybody give me a good reason - other than price - why you would pick a low to mid-quality pistol like a Kahr or CZ over a high-quality pistol like a H&K or Sig?

See the answer to the first question above.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

The Kahr (especially the PM series) is very compact and slim for the caliber, like front pocket of jeans. Glocks can also be compact but are rather chunky (I carry one when my style of dress permits) and the Kahrs use of a single stack gives you a similar design without the brick-like feel.

I don't know that the glock is necessarily better quality than the springfield XD (and I own both). The glocks (along with most european guns) have a pretty steep grip angle which can cause people who are used to the more upright american (1911/Springfield XD) grip angle to shoot high (like over an attacker's head high). Sure, either can be gotten used to with training but I wouldn't want to be going back and forth on a daily basis for people that carry different guns. You may only get a split second to react.

I think a large number of people on this board (from what I've read over the years) feel HK is overrated, overpriced, and arrogant towards civilians.

If I shoot well with it, it never jams, always goes bang, and I can conceal it effectively, that's quality for me. Price isn't always an indicator of quality. There are some $3,000 custom guns that get spanked by lowly Glocks and XDs in the reliability dept.

 

[Grizfire]

1911 as a first.

 

[Coyote3855]

I own Colt 1911s, Springfield 1911s, 3 Glocks, 2 Kahrs, a Springfield XD, an STI 2011 IPSC limited pistol, and a few smaller semiautos, several Colts, a Savage, and half a dozen KelTecs. My regular carry guns are a Kahr .380 in a pocket holster and a Kahr P9 IWB (no, they really aren't made by Moonies...).

If I'm working or recreating outdoors, I OC a Ruger Speed Six or a USFA Rodeo II. Sigs, HKs, Ruger centerfire autos - just don't float my boat. I'm thinking that many who carry either a 1911 or a Glock will disagree with your statement that they "...seem to use those designs to the exclusion of all others for no logical reason."

As my (politically incorrect) Uncle Roy used to say, "It's good we don't all like the same things or everyone would want my squaw."

Who said gun owners must be logical?

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

I added Springfield XD to the poll.

 

[MM60]

Thanks for adding it Larry!

 

[TXCleaver]

1911 for me. My strategy for the past few years has been to put off buying one until I can comfortably afford to both buy the one of my choice AND shoot the heck out of it.

It seemed silly to buy a low-end version (Taurus, et. al.) of such a great design and spend a fortune in ammo before I can get into reloading.

 

[Tenebrio]

W.German sig p228... Great choice !

 

[LancerMW]

1911 top
next for me would be Glocks/CZs

 

[wbwanzer]

I'm not sure I agree with your rankings. I don't think Glocks, Rugers or S&Ws are any better than CZs, Brownings, Berettas, Bersas or most 1911s. As a matter of fact, I would take any of those before I'd buy a Glock, Ruger or S&W.

 

[weisse52]

OP, Just a couple of questions
May I ask what you base these comments on?

I am not particularly surprised to see that Glock's and 1911's were the most popular, as both of those types have a group of followers who seem to use those designs to the exclusion of all others for no logical reason

Glock/1911 will always be most popular because of their fan followings.

To a quick glance it would appear that you feel they have no merit in having these rankings?


OH, and how did you decide that these designs / companies should never be considered?

Given all the better choices, I don't know why anybody would buy these pistols even if they are decent quality:
CZ, Browning, Beretta, Taurus, Walther, Bersa, Kel-Tec, Kahr, or any 1911

And one last thing. A 1911 is a model, not a make. So how did one model get in the lineup with a rating on companies.

 

[MM60]

Weisse52,

I put 1911 in the poll because it's a specific firearm that's made (almost) the same by many companies in addition to each company's (more) unique firearms - the poll option just allows anybody who wants to specify the 1911 design to do so.

I based the idea that the Glock and 1911 will always be popular due to their fan followings on the fact that guys (especially on THR) continuously write about how great both of these pistols are regardless of all of their downsides. Glock owners will consistently praise and defend the Glock despite it's lack of manual controls, odd grip angle, ugliness, and being SAO/DAO (whichever way you want to look at it). 1911 owners will consistently praise and defend the 1911 despite it's relative heaviness, low mag capacity, needing a hex-key or other tool for disassembly of slide components, and being SAO. The ideal combination of features (it would seem to me) would be found on a pistol that has manual controls (safety and decock levers), a decent magazine capacity, a "normal" grip angle, a DA/SA trigger, an external hammer (for cocking to SA manually), is easy to disassemble without tools, and is light-weight and fairly attractive.

That description would fit most H&K and Sig pistols. It would fit models offered by lesser companies as well, but why would you want to buy a gun made by a lesser company when you could by a H&K or a Sig? I would consider CZ, Browning, Beretta, Taurus, Walther, Bersa, Kel-Tec, Kahr, etc, to all be inferior to H&K and Sig. I did look around on the CZ website and I'll admit that their pistol designs look pretty good, but I still would choose a Swiss/German/Austrian firearm over one made in a former com-bloc country and known for it's use by the Turkish police. Also, I do not own an H&K pistol anymore, but I have owned one and shot several, including the Mark 23 and versions of the USP, and they are definitely top-of-the-line pistols. I own two Sigs, and I prefer the Sigs over H&K only because of the more crisp trigger pull I have felt on the Sigs. H&K quality may be a hair better than the Sig, but not much. Nothing else I've seen comes close to either of them (other than the Glock in quality alone - I think the Glock design leaves much to be desired).

 

[Jed Carter]

Could have left Taurus off the list and added Beretta and FN, I voted H&K cuz I have most of the others, except the XD and I don't want one. H&K P30L or the USP Expert .40S&W, perhaps the FN FiveSeven. Everyone should own a CZ PCR, I would like to have a single stack PCR, if only CZ made it. MM60 I love my SIGs, Glock G34 and dig my CZs, you really need to handle and shoot a CZ, I'm a SIG man (own 5), but my ccw is a CZ.

 

[BHP FAN]

I was torn between the 1911,and the BHP. Coin toss... Tails....1911.The Tokarev would be a close runner up.

 

[Shytheed Dumas]

I chose 1911 only because I already own a Kahr. Your post makes me think you miss the point of these ultra concealable and reliable 9mm/.40/.45's, super slim single stack, made for easy everyday carry semi-autos. If that's not your primary thing you will certainly choose something else, but for that purpose few others do the job as well. I love mine, but I would love to add a 1911 to the mix.

 

[CombatArmsUSAF]

Price has very little to do with quality when what you are paying for is only the name.

HK treats civilians like we're second class citizens, you don't want my business? Fine, you won't get it. As far as I'm concerned, there are better quality guns out there for less money.

In the past, Sig produced some of the finest quality combat pistols, BUT their quality control and customer service has definitely diminished in recent years. Because of this, I don't believe they are worth the price being asked. In the past, maybe, but not now.

Let me remind you that the Beretta 92SB beat the Sig P226 for the US military pistol contract in the 80's. Mostly because of price bidding, but Beretta and Sig performed almost identically during the testing as far as quality and reliability are concerned.

Also, just so you know, not everyone thinks that Glocks have odd grip angles, and that a lack of a safety/decock lever, and being DAO are negative attributes.

 

[wally]

Don't know if I should be laugh or cry, I have one of everything on the list except Bersa.

Why no Beretta? or Colt? (they made other, often collectible now, pistols besides 1911s).

--wally.

 

[wbwanzer]

I've had an HK and couldn't shoot well with it at all. I currently have a SIG 229 which I like a lot and shoot decently with it. I shoot equally well with my XDm. I shoot the best with my $500 Witness Elite Match, which is a clone of a CZ. So I still don't agree with your rankings. I would take any of your bottom rankings (save for the Kel-tec) before I'd buy one of your top tier.

 

[NG VI]

If you think CZ makes a low quality pistol you need to get out and shoot one.

 

[MM60]

NG VI,
I think CZ makes a medium-quality pistol. Their P01, P06, and 75 somewhat resemble many Sig's in their design, and their P07 somewhat resembles the H&K's in it's design. I still have to wonder - why not just buy a Sig or H&K pistol - both of which are high-quality firearms?

I asked you in another thread and you never responded... what are your signature lines supposed to mean? They do not seem very patriotic.

 

[NG VI]

Well Sigs are much more bulky, for one, no more accurate or reliable, two, only come with one magazine, three, spares cost nearly twice as much, four, Sigs do come with a nicer trigger though. Not so with HK, HK pistols are bulkier, uglier, and have a pretty rough trigger. A USP .40 was my first gun, I love it, but realistically it doesn't do anything my CZ 75D PCR does, or any better.

And outer shapes don't really mean a gun is the same as or a knock off of other designs.

My sig lines came from a tool in a very broad political forum I used to frequent. I just wanted to let other posters here know that there really are people who think like that in the U.S.

Also, I didn't mean to duck the question earlier but my internet access has been sporadic for the last nine months or so.

 

[MM60]

So far, out of 73 polled, the results are showing the 1911 in first place with 29 votes. In second place is Sig Sauer with 11 votes. CZ has 7 votes, Browning and S&W both have 6 votes, and H&K has 5 votes.

I think it's incredible that 29 people would most like to own the hundred-year-old official sidearm of WWI, but only 11 people would most like to own the modern official sidearm of the U.S. Navy SEALs. I would think that today's SEALs might be more qualified to recommend a firearm than conventional soldiers from WWI.

My Sig's came with two mags (P226 Navy) and three mags (P239) new from the factory. The P226 is a full-size pistol and somewhat bulky, but it's intended for combat. The P239 is quite thin. The mags cost about $36.00 apiece on Midway.

I wasn't implying that CZ was a Sig knock-off; they just appear to have similar features and look a little alike. The CZ 75 compact is only .5" shorter in length and height and .1" thinner than the Sig P226, but the CZ 75 compact mag only holds 10 rounds (according to their own website) whereas the Sig P226 mag holds 15. I think that if CZ was the better choice, then U.S. military and law enforcement would be using it more. I have only heard of a couple of police departments in the U.S. using CZ's. Sig's are used by Naval Special Warfare (SEALs and SWCC), Dept. of Homeland Security, many American police departments, etc. Sig's are also made/have been made in places known for fine precision work (Germany/Switzerland). CZ is made in the Czech Republic; formerly part of the Soviet Union - which is well known for sloppy and ugly work. I'm sure the CZ pistols being made today are of decent quality, but I doubt they'll ever have the fine quality or reputation of firearms made in Switzerland, Germany, and Austria.

 

[NG VI]

Yeah... But more modern companies are making pistols on that platform now than at any time in the past for any other handgun design. And more variations as well. I've never owned or even fired a 1911, but I understand why they are popular. Different people want different things from their pistols. I'd like to get a Dan Wesson sometime, but there are a couple of Glocks and CZs higher on the list for me. I like Glocks, like that I can do all the modifications I would ever want to them, and I've done some work on a couple of CZ pistols as well, it was test of my skills but they both came out much better than before.

 

[MM60]

Just because a design has been around for 100 years doesn't mean it's necessarily the best thing to use in modern times - even if more companies are making them than at any time in the past. Bolt-action rifles were used by most of the soldiers in WWI, but our troops aren't all carrying bolt-action rifles today even though more manufacturers are making them than ever before. There are better designs now.

The way I see it, owning a 1911 is like owning a Corvette; people buy them because they look fancy, but there are many more practical options to choose from that would really be better in almost every way other than just being for show. I would choose a utilitarian Hummer 1 (Sig/H&K) over a flashy Corvette (1911) any day.