What seems to be happening in the shooting world is a collision of two schools of thought.

On one side of the table are the old timer shooters who believe in a frame made of steel and a great trigger pull. Such a shottist believes that pressing the trigger and hitting the target is of prime import, and all other considerations regarding end use or treatment of the pistol is secondary as long as the piece is a quality unit.

The other side are populated by people who believe polymer frames are the way to go in terms of capacity and reliability, sometimes taken to extreme levels.Such hold the belief that the traditional double action pistol is obsolete and that any who would decide to carry such a piece is stuck in the past, as after all haven't Glocks and other polymer frame choices been on sale for some time?

I would state that Glock has done nothing new or innovative to change the status of the pistol world that wasn't done already in 1911 with the Colt pistol of the same name, or in 1935 with the Browning Hi-power, or in 1959 with the S&W model 59. Ironic that a small cult of people cherish a pistol that has an inferior trigger pull built to standards of reliability that they will never reach. I have yet to see a practical instance of a shottist needing to recover a fallen carry piece lost during a 10,000 ft skydive, but I see at every range trip a need for the return of the excellent trigger pull. Perhaps then people will be motivated to shoot their guns instead of flapping e-gums about them.