What makes a modern pistol “better”?

[rockquarry]

Marketing and Internet propaganda.
More is better. All you can eat is better.

I went in the opposite direction. Started off BIG and Heavy, Now carry a 5 shot Snub.

Good for you. Nothing wrong with being well equipped.

 

[BAM-BAM]

LOL I'm 71 my 30-45 year old guns still work fine..... my Dad's guns from the 1930s-50s still work fine.
Dad was a police officer for 39 years and on the Dept Pistol team; I've shot PPC, USPSA and IDPA so a lot of rounds down range.

Gun companies have to sell product to stay in business, most folks don't put a lot of rounds down range ........ guns for the most part don't wear out from use, or sitting in a sock drawer so......... they need to sell "new and improved" or go out of business!

 

[Harv 24]

The concept that a typical modern polystriker has improved safety features over an '80s or '90s era DA/SA auto is LAUGHABLE.

They also have no improvement in accuracy, reliability, or shootability (in fact are actually worse).

But, yes, they do have less parts, so good for them...

We'll do a 1000rd burn down, you grab a Revolver, I'll grab a pistol. When the M9 Beretta was fielded, that pistol had gone thru more testing and more ammo then any previous handgun in history. A revolver would never stand up to that. Dump a revolver in the sand or mud and get back to me.
people stopped testing Glocks because of the amount of ammo needed to try and make them fail, and the MRBF on modern Pistols is crazy stupid compared to revolvers. That's fact.

Modern pistols with Decocker vs. trying to safely drop a cocked revolver hammer...No contest.
Drop safeties/firing pin safeties, trigger safeties. De cockers.

You may not like modern striker fired Pistols, but there here to stay and there reputation is well documented. Nobody reaches for a Revolver, except those who grew up with them, and Nostalgia. Once there gone, Revolver usage will diminish quite a bit, especially at the price point they are today.

 

[rockquarry]

What's a "burn down"?

 

[MelvinWalker]

The concept that a typical modern polystriker has improved safety features over an '80s or '90s era DA/SA auto is LAUGHABLE.

They also have no improvement in accuracy, reliability, or shootability (in fact are actually worse).

But, yes, they do have less parts, so good for them...

The Taurus G3 has all that a Glock has AND a frame mounted side safety, which I love...Just for giggles, watch the YouTube Sootch review video on the Taurus G3. It made a believer out of him.

IMO, the modern striker fired pistols do have a reliability edge on older DA/SA pistols. In a world of simplicity and cost versus precise and sometimes complicated effectiveness, the old DA/SA's like the S&W 39's and others series are heavy, complicated and dated compared to modern striker pistols.

Once again, complexity doesn't mean better...If that's the case, then why do no modern PD's carry S&W 59's, Colt Double Eagles and Beretta 92's anymore?... They are too complicated, too many machined parts to tend to, heavier, costlier and most of the time, more finicky. Also, the same reason the US military dropped Thompson SMG's in WW2 for M3 grease guns, and Germany dropped the lugers for P38's.

As I said before, modern 9mm striker fired pistols are the Model 10/Official Police guns of our time....Plus, the 9mm round has come a LONG way ballistically in the last 20 years. That is why .40's have fallen from grace. The modern 9mm's do that same thing with less cost and recoil.

If classic designs were "better" by modern standards, then all PD's would go back to registered magnums.

 

[MelvinWalker]

What's a "burn down"?

A burn down, is when a firearm is tested continuously until it implodes or stops working....Kind of a fatal "stress test", if you will...

There are many videos on YouTube of guys taking brand new PSA AR15's and shooting them until the gun literally catches fire, and then comparing the same round-count test with their more expensive boutique sisters.

 

[rockquarry]

A burn down, is when a firearm is tested continuously until it implodes or stops working....Kind of a fatal "stress test", if you will...

There are many videos on YouTube of guys taking brand new PSA AR15's and shooting them until the gun literally catches fire, and then comparing the same round-count test with their more expensive boutique sisters.

I'm not a YouTube follower, but such testing seems pointless, especially with a quality firearm. Wouldn't the manufacturers do a far more refined testing of their products?

 

[MelvinWalker]

I'm not a YouTube follower, but such testing seems pointless, especially with a quality firearm. Wouldn't the manufacturers do a far more refined testing of their products?

It's not pointless...Wasteful maybe, but not pointless...Same as a new car crash test.

The point is that in the AR15 world, there is a constant sneering about people that buy a brand new, out of the box PSA or Anderson AR15 for $450.... These buyers then say, (and I mostly agree), that it is "good enough" for their use. Then you have the ultra snobby AR buyers that spend $3000+ for their rifles and they sneer at the casual AR15 buyers as if their guns are junk, (they aren't).

Certain YouTubers have bought both rifles and subjected them both to fatal torture tests to see if the inexpensive AR models will hold up to Somalia levels of use and abuse...From what I have seen, the budget AR's hold up extremely well and beyond.

 

[quikdraw67]

PSA and Anderson are are perfectly fine for 99.5% of AR owners. I had both (and still have a H&R marked M16A1 PSA) and they worked fine.

Glocks are the king of the LEO world for a reason. Affordable and reliable. I'll never love it for its looks, but if the excrement ever hit the oscillating blades, I'd have 100% confidence in my Glock 45 MOS. It has everything I need and want and nothing that I dont