IDK because it seems that every time someone does a torture test on a semi-auto pistol it's almost always a Glock they are demonstrating on. It seems people are too scared to risk hurting their XD's, or M&P's, or Sigs, or HK's, or whatever else. I want to see what those guns will do when subjected to the same treatment that people have used to demonstrate how well a Glock can handle abuse.
Those guns generally cost a bit more than Glocks, at least for the guns that have been through military trials (IDK about the M&P or XD). The individual owners of the other guns may simply not want to mar the finish on the other guns. One of the great things about Glocks is that they are ugly to start with and easily replaced, so people are OK with them getting cosmetically damaged. (Same with lots of Ruger guns.) That doesn't mean that the other guns won't
perform just as well.
I know SIG's and M9's are reliable guns, but what did the government subject them to? The government also adopted the AR15, but if you're stuck in the mud for who knows how long and you can only have one rifle would you chose a AR15 or a AK47? You see what I'm getting at?
What you appear to be "getting at" is that you are totally unfamiliar with military ordnance trials, and with the story of the M16's adoption. The US ordnance department, like most military ordnance departments, buried guns in sand, water, mud, fired huge round counts without maintenance, etc. This information is all publicly available.
The M16 is
not a contra-example. The adoption of the M16 was the result of the usual ordnance procedures being circumvented by McNamara's defense department, who felt that getting more modern technology to the battlefield quickly was more important that the thorough, methodical, protracted procurement processes usually followed. Look at the weapons that the US military had adopted prior to the M16 - almost all were overengineered and very robust: M1 Garands, M14's, M1911's, M2 heavy machine guns, etc. There are many examples of those still firing today despite being 50, 80, or 100+ years old. The M16 teething troubles were the result of
skipping the typical torture tests. Since then, the approach to small arms acceptance has gone in the other direction and become even more demanding.
When people always claim their guns to be as reliable as a Glock I call BS. I mean it may be, but the proof is in the pudding, and until someone can show proof that any other model gun can hang with a Glock while be subjected to the same abuse and mistreatment that's being subjected to a Glock then those claims hold no water IMO....I'm not saying there aren't torture tests posted for other guns out there, but I haven't seen them.
If you want to ignore the vast quantity of military testing and call "BS," that's your call. Glocks are very reliable, and an impressive feat of engineering and materials science. But I don't think they are at a different level than service weapons.
Some of the reasons there are so many
amateur torture tests for Glocks is that they often were not involved in military trials (militaries still want safeties, for the most part), and because when they came out in the 80's, many people were skeptical that polymer could be as durable as metal. Early adopters made a point of showing that the Glocks were as reliable as other guns, and it just became a "thing" with Glock fans. That's fine. But remember that some guy on youtube might have tested 15 Glocks and only shown/posted the footage of the one that came through, and never mentioned the other 14. I'm not suggesting that people are really being deliberately misleading, but they usually have a point to make, and are going to find a way to make it. If you want to trust youtube strangers over the military trials, that's fine, but it's hard to defend from a rational point of view.
Bottom line: Glocks are very reliable. So are a lot of other handguns. If you want to believe that Glocks are unique in their reliability... well, people believe all sorts of things.
