If Not A Glock, Then What?

[WrongHanded]

I think a service pistol should have a positive, manual safety...

I think a trained operator is more important than a safety, personally. However, I made a compromise on safety and installed the NY-1 trigger spring in my Glocks. It certainly makes a difference in trigger weight, but is shootable and uncomplicated.

 

[Charlie98]

I think a trained operator is more important than a safety, personally.

Well... I have 2 references to that...

1) I was in the Army. At best, we shot qualification once a year. Once we got past Basic, there was no additional instruction or training on weapons marksmanship. Shooting (and handling firearms) is a perishable skill, and without recurring training... well, you get the idea.

2) Way back in the early '90's, a local gun shop advertised retired police revolvers (4" S&W 686's from the Westerville, OH PD...) I went in to check them out... the salesman pulled this big box out from under the counter... all the pistols had been, basically, dumped in this box. Anyway, he laid about 8 of them out on the counter... of those 7 of them looked like they had never been cleaned... ever. Dirt, cruft, damage, fouling. I was lucky enough to pick the diamond in the pile... a piece that had obviously been well taken care of, it was clean, polished, and I think the trigger had had some work on it. Those other 7 pistols, and I'm sure most of the others in the box, got me to thinking about service pistols... just because you carry a pistol in execution of your duty, doesn't necessarily make you a firearm enthusiast. Just like some of my brothers and sisters in the Army back then could care less about the M16's they were issued, let alone their skill with them, carrying a service arm is likely thought of as a nuisance rather than an advantage, and the idea of training with it a waste of time.

I agree... a trained operator is certainly more desirable than a generic manual safety, because at the end of the day the only real safety is a competent operator. But, living in Realville, and knowing many service weapons are carried by people with minimal training and/or poor attention to basic competence, a positive manual safety is a reasonable solution.

 

[C-grunt]

I'm a big Glock fan and believe they make one of the best service pistols available. One of..

Once you get to a certain point of reliability and durability, the differences come down to preferences.

I can't think of any reason why a Glock 17 is objectively better than a P226, P320, USP, M&P, P30, VP9, etc..

 

[d2wing]

How about an HK VP9 (also known as the SFP9)?

Good enough for the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Armed Forces of Luxembourg and Lithuania, 5 State Police Forces in Germany, also the Berlin Police Department and GSG-9, 1 Canton in Switzerland, and made under license by Sarsilmaz for Turkey's Armed Forces.

Good enough for me!
View attachment 948739

+1

 

[DT Guy]

Well... I have 2 references to that...

1) I was in the Army. At best, we shot qualification once a year. Once we got past Basic, there was no additional instruction or training on weapons marksmanship. Shooting (and handling firearms) is a perishable skill, and without recurring training... well, you get the idea.

2) Way back in the early '90's, a local gun shop advertised retired police revolvers (4" S&W 686's from the Westerville, OH PD...) I went in to check them out... the salesman pulled this big box out from under the counter... all the pistols had been, basically, dumped in this box. Anyway, he laid about 8 of them out on the counter... of those 7 of them looked like they had never been cleaned... ever. Dirt, cruft, damage, fouling. I was lucky enough to pick the diamond in the pile... a piece that had obviously been well taken care of, it was clean, polished, and I think the trigger had had some work on it. Those other 7 pistols, and I'm sure most of the others in the box, got me to thinking about service pistols... just because you carry a pistol in execution of your duty, doesn't necessarily make you a firearm enthusiast. Just like some of my brothers and sisters in the Army back then could care less about the M16's they were issued, let alone their skill with them, carrying a service arm is likely thought of as a nuisance rather than an advantage, and the idea of training with it a waste of time.

I agree... a trained operator is certainly more desirable than a generic manual safety, because at the end of the day the only real safety is a competent operator. But, living in Realville, and knowing many service weapons are carried by people with minimal training and/or poor attention to basic competence, a positive manual safety is a reasonable solution.

When I was an LEO, I realized that LEO's are expert at *carrying* handguns. They carry them 8-12 hours at a time.

If you want experts at *using* firearms, you need to look elsewhere; most of my LEO colleagues had an annual round count 1/20th what an IDPA competitor did each year.

Larry

 

[sigp6]

Yeet Cannon.

 

[billtool]

Only read the OP's post and question...

Brother, I have to say 1911 in 45 ACP. I am old. I am fat. I am slow. I can be cruel. Just like a 230grn RN at 910 fps. There are a lot of places somebody wants to be besides down the line of sight of a Springfield Champion in the hands of a moderately well trained and committed defender or attacker.

 

[Elkins45]

CZ P-07 or P-01 depending on if you want polymer or alloy. The P-07 is essentially a Glock 19 with a hammer. I just don't like the idea of a Glock-style trigger under stress. Yes, I know a thousand people who just read this said "it's a training issue you idiot" under their breath and to a degree I concur, but there's no way to 100% train away adverse reactions under stress. I want a first shot that takes an effort to break, and I want to be able to put my thumb on the hammer while reholstering.