OK, I was wrong....

[FL-NC]

you must have been devastated when glock wasn't picked for the next issued weapon....

I'm not devastated a bit. My former command (which I still work with on occasion) retained their Glock pistols, and they are standard issue (17) in my current contract position. I'm not familiar with that new Sig, but I will welcome the chance to fire one when that opportunity presents. I felt the same way when we tested the Beretta storm, which we were not impressed with.

 

[FL-NC]

From reading his posts, it appears the "Kool-Aid" FL-NC has been drinking is called "reality" with regards to the command in which he served. I am not sure why people that do not like Glocks feel the need to demean or diminish those that like or respect them.

I would say you are correct. Over my 20+ years in the military, I had the opportunity to use (or at least test and evaluate) several different pistols (along with about any other type of equipment you could name). Polymer handguns included offerings from HK (MK 23 and USP), Glock, and the S&W M+P. The M&P was very well received, and in my opinion was as good as the Glock (at least in terms of the performance exhibited during live fire). Separate from the military, I have some experience with the XD. I enjoyed firing it, and I really like the trigger. However, I've only fired MAYBE 1,000 rounds through XD's in my life, and I have no data to suggest "deeper" level mil testing, so I can't speak to their suitability as a military handgun, but even with my minimal exposure to them, I will say that I consider them a good choice for defensive and competition use. I would also like to fire some of the striker fired handguns made by Ruger, like the SR series and the American. They seem pretty solid, and in my experience, Ruger products work as advertised- but until I have some trigger time on them, I'm unable to comment intelligently with an opinion on them because I haven't even had the chance to develop an opinion.

 

[Mike J]

I honestly don't have opportunity to shoot a wide variety of different pistols. We do have polymer from Ruger, Taurus and XD around & I've shot Glock and a couple others. There are also a few other things. Personally I think the prettiest and nicest guns are 1911's & revolvers. Most of the time if I have a pistol on my person it is polymer & striker fired. The polymer pistols don't give the same pride of ownership but they work & work well.

 

[jdc1244]

I'll be the first guy to admit, I never embraced a polymer pistol. I've been a dyed in the wool 1911 and Smith guy for four decades or so. I tried Glocks, and just couldn't embrace them.

I ordered a Shotgun (Winchester 101) from CDNN, and had to do a FFL transfer though, and they had a M&P Shield 9mm, with a thumb safety, for cheap and a $75 rebate. I bought it on a whim, as a potential camping, carry, 'leave in the truck' gun. I picked up a cheap carbon-fiber IWB holster for carry.

Certainly I'd hate it.

It is about the size of my carry gun (Kimber Ultra Aegis II 9mm), but not single action.

I took it to the Range today and it shot surprisingly well. It wasn't fussy about ammo at all, functioned perfectly for 350-ish shots. It is light, fits the hand well, and the Novak-like 3 dot sights are decent. The trigger is no 1911 trigger, but workable.

I'm kind of happy with it as a truck gun, and potential carry gun. It is no piece of art, and the slide stop lever is best ignored (...unlike a 1911's that makes a decent release...not just a latch), but I'm probably better off releasing the slide with my off hand over the slide as some trainers claim.

FWIW, I was wrong...it looks to be a useful tool. I'll worry less about it getting stolen leaving it in my truck to run into a store too. No regrets.

That said, I'd have never gotten it without the thumb safety...apparently they sell them both with and without.

My M&P 40 Shield was my first striker-fired pistol – it’s reliable, accurate, and conforms well to concealed-carry.

And should something happen to it, it can be easily replaced, which is not necessarily the case with my Colt 1911 and other hammer-fired, steel-framed pistols.

 

[FL-NC]

If you define a quality gun as one that is accurate, reliable and durable, then yes, quality guns can be had for under $300. I won't confuse a Shield with a high end 1911, as to me the 1911 has class that a polymer gun doesn't, but that doesn't take away from the Shield's quality.

I gave up on the concept of using something because its looks nice a long time ago. Sure, I have some very nice 1911's- GI property marked, an unfired gold cup, etc. They are all, for the most part, safe queens. I do have a springfield armory mil spec that I shoot occasionally just for fun. When it comes to "work", I put about as much thought process into my handgun as I do into a hammer, or a leaf rake, or a steak knife.

 

[FL-NC]

The one made 50 years ago. Back then they had skilled craftsmen hand fit the parts...which is essentially what you pay for now in a Custom gun.



I feel great about my choices in guns. I'm less sure about my choice of returning a little "snark". The McDonalds analogy, while snarky, is accurate. Glocks are far from the pieces of art that guns of old often were. I only went there because of some of the outrageous claims made such as that Glocks "...out-performs all other designs in every possible way...".

There are criteria and performance standards used in the DOD, and in some cases within specific commands in the DOD, that go way beyond those used by individual gun owners and virtually all other agencies and entities. Within SOCOM, most of the tests aren't even remotely applicable to civilians when evaluating equipment. For example- how many gun users of any type are concerned with performance of their firearm and accessories after immersion at depth in salt water? In some cases, unfortunately, the "best performing" piece of equipment isn't always what Santa leaves under the tree, for various reasons. In MOST cases, there are some INDIVIDUALS assigned to the given entity (whether its the military, a law enforcement agency, etc.) who "would have preferred something else". Sometimes these preferences are based on legitimate data, sometimes just due to personal preference. The take-away is that the reasons are irrelevant- INDIVIDUALS usually (always in the DOD) have no more choice in what handgun they are authorized to use any more than they can choose how to dress themselves daily.

MY choices in firearms often (but not always) reflect my experiences with firearms of the same or similar designs from the times and places where I gained the most experience with them- which happens to be in the military. Secondarily, my experience comes from the "civilian side"- 3 gun matches, working as a contractor, working as an instructor, working in a gun shop and seeing which guns seem to come back for repairs, etc.

 

[rskent]

The one made 50 years ago. Back then they had skilled craftsmen hand fit the parts...which is essentially what you pay for now in a Custom gun.

Now your just fooling with me, right?

 

[roscoe]

Now your just fooling with me, right?

I agree. You can buy an off-the-shelf rifle that will shoot sub-MOA for $400. You could never have hoped for anything like that 50 years ago without pouring money into the rifle. The same goes for pistols - I paid $350 for my Shield and it will put overlapping holes into paper at 20 yards. There is nowadays too much competition for your money, and too much high-end engineering relative to 50 years ago - you would need to have a custom gun from those days to compete with off-the-shelf products of today. True, parts are not hand-fit, but that is because they are machined correctly the first time.

Soulless, maybe, but to me a gun is a tool, not a statement about man's relationship with the the material world . . . save that for Bernini's marble statuary of John Browning.

 

[Louca]

To the OP, I was pretty much like you: owned and shot a (Colt Mk IV Series 70) 1911 for 25 years, then I decided to have an open mind and try a polymer frame pistol. Long story short, I took a liking to the HK 45C and got one. I got used to the DA/SA trigger and actually shot it better than just SA, and it was nice to stay with the .45 ACP cartridge I was used to. Then I got the bug to try a polymer in 9 mm. Long story short there, I got a Walther PPQ M1 and now shoot it better than any pistol I have ever owned.

When I carry the HK, I carry it de-cocked, safety off, with one in the chamber; the PPQ is of course carried with one in the chamber with no safety catch available. And carrying the PPQ that way doesn't bother me one bit, however I am of course careful when re-holstering.

When I shoot pistols at the range, the PPQ gets used 90% of the time, the HK 10% of the time, and the 1911 is all but fully retired.

 

[czhen]

I'm in following the steps of OP there so many options in the market now from brand, caliber, size and use.
I don't think we had that before 80/90's (I will confess I'm a BHP/1911 fan since I was 6 yo. and from my 30's CZ firearms brought mostly everything I needed), but today let me rephrase we live in the GoldenAge of polymer handguns, for how long idk may be another 50 years until another material come up. However, handcraft man quality wise I would say not, even my loved brand cz cut corners when they can.
As part of my sickness and sins Hk vp9 and XDM reached my router bank number. When I possess them I will make my opinion with support.