The $250 price difference between Glock and HK gets you a 'nicer', but exactly equally functional weapon.
The $250 difference between a Hi-Point and a Glock gets you a weapon that is significantly better suited for competition, defense, whatever you might need a handgun for other than pure plinking.
I never said HKs aren't worth their price, but the price reflects an awful lot of machining that a different design, the Glock, doesn't have.
Does the price reflect a tougher finish? Not really, HK's hostile environment finish appears to work just as well as Glock's tennifer, no better, no worse.
Does the price reflect a more reliable weapon? Doesn't appear that way, given the Glocks with round counts in the hundreds of thousands.
Does it reflect better materials? Well, the type of polymer feels a little different between them, but one has not proven to be superior to the other yet. The metals, well they have both been treated with an excellent corrosion resistant process, so corrosion has not shown itself to be an issue with either pistol. So it seems they are equal in that regard, except the HK pistols do weigh more, have more metal in them than the Glock. Not sure if that's an advantage or disadvantage, the larger and heavier slide seems to tame the recoil of .40 caliber pistols better, but makes for a somewhat bulkier and heavier gun. The barrels in both are cold hammer forged, polygonal-bored, and both are accurate for a fighting-type pistol. I'm calling materials equal as well.
Does the price difference go into making the HK easier for the owner to service at home? Neither pistol is extremely complicated, but the edge definitely goes to the Glock design, someone with a modicum of mechanical inclination and an appropriate punch can replace pretty much every small part in their pistol in a matter of a few minutes and put it back together the right way. I never tried to detail strip my HK, seemed like it was best to leave it alone.
HKs cost more because they are a manufactured good that is made in a more expensive way than the Glock is. Not because they are an objectively better weapon. If they fit your hands better, if you like their sights better, if you want a hammer fired gun instead of a striker fired one, they are subjectively better for you. HK pistols may be a better fit for you, but they are not a better pistol than an equivalent Glock. And it cuts both ways. Many people would rather have a concealed primer igniter, or a lighter trigger or gun, or maybe they just have little room to spare in their waistband and want a pistol like the HK, Glock, XD, but how trim the slide is plays a part in deciding which pistol to get.
Like you guys just said, the price difference is pretty insignificant. The pistols themselves are not priced on an inferior-superior scale though, they are priced based on how much the market will pay and how much it cost to produce them. The HK is a more expensive pistol, because it was designed that way. Not because it's better.
