rockquarry
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,690
- Reaction score
- 10,683
What makes a modern pistol “better”?
- Thread starter BB57
- Start date
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!
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!
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
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,690
- Reaction score
- 10,683
What's a "burn down"?
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,690
- Reaction score
- 10,683
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.
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
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
My thoughts: Generally speaking, pistols are an inferior weapons system, in comparison to rifles. Their one saving grace is PORTABILITY. I've had a number of great pistols, 1911, 686, GP100,etc, that were all great, but I was never gonna lug those big,heavy bastages around on a belt ( or in a pocket!). Many modern designs effectively address and solve this issue.
"Better" is a multi-faceted and even subjective term, and I love old-school, machined steel as much as anybody, but modern design/manufacturing has often resulted in marked improvement in terms of firepower, and the above-mentioned portability.
"Better" is a multi-faceted and even subjective term, and I love old-school, machined steel as much as anybody, but modern design/manufacturing has often resulted in marked improvement in terms of firepower, and the above-mentioned portability.
I agree with your assessment of the Shield Plus being subjectively the "best". I own, carry, train and shoot other micro 9mm's. Glock 43X, Sig P365X, Kimber R7, FN Reflex are all fine machines. All share stock or added tritium orange dot sights, grip lengths and textures. My muscle memory has "trained into" carrying, drawing, presenting, and firing all interchangeably and similarly well. But, my Shield Plus ( I added a touch-activated Armalaser) checks all the boxes on your list and has that just- right skinny-single-stack-micro feel.
(My outdoor exercise and hiking extra power choice is also a revolver, Kimber K6S DASA 3". I'm trying to budget for a Model 19, 66 Combat Magnum or 686 Plus with comparable barrel / sight configurations. An armed society is a polite society....)
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2023
- Messages
- 632
- Reaction score
- 1,174
It all depends on the definition of better. Does a Glock have a “better” trigger than a 1911? In my opinion, no. As I have gone to more deeper concealment though, I don’t carry a C&L’d 1911 Appendix. I have been training with a CZ traditional DA/SA, but I set it up with safeties, vs a decocker. Why? Because the manual of arms is like the 1911 I’ve used for decades. Some of us don’t like change 
Sal1950
Member
Yep, as long as it will run reliably it's great, if not just possibly useless.
That's the key! Hi Sarge, 11B10 here. I spent a full year stateside training for a whole line of extras circa 1968, then a year with the 1st Cav, RVN winning hearts and minds.
I was "lucky" I guess, my dad was a WW II Infantry vet and he often took me to the range learning to shoot his beloved M1 Garand, Carbine, 1911, and the rest. (still have them all). By the time I enlisted I was a pretty fair shot, shooting "Expert" with everything I ever held without too much effort. I got a feeling it was my Basic Training range scores that got me pulled for 11B10. LOLNever had a chance or even heard of a Distinguished class?
Being a lover of accurate shooting, I never met a striker fired gun I could love..
When going to the range for practice I'll take one of my 3-4 lb tuned break SA or DA/SA pistols for shooting enjoyment.
Many things get cheaper to make without ever become better or even "as good"
Never met another gun as fugly as a Block.
McChemist
Member
I concur. Also extend these points to the M&P 9 and 45 M2.0. I wish the 45 had a thumb safety, but I purchased it a a great price point as an LE trade-in. So I can't be too icky or complain.
CollinCountyLawman
Member
I agree with the reply to the OP that asks, "What do you mean by better?" A Glock is better at malfunctioning with a failure to feed or eject than say my duty weapon which is a S&W Model 581.
I think bigger issue is this -
1) Firearms manufacturers are for-profit corporations that have to make record profits year after year to keep the stockholders happy.
2) A corporation or business tends to seek government contracts as they are a reliable source of guaranteed income.
3) Government entities purchasing firearms for the military and police look at two things -
A) What is readily available in large numbers.
B) What is cheap.
4) Manufacturing costs are kept lower to raise profit levels by using -
A) Lower costing materials.
B) Automated manufacturing rather than skilled employees as a craftsman's bench.
It is quite possible the main reason cops carry Glocks and Sig P320s is because they are a low cost way for the government to arm them.
I shelved all my striker fired plastic guns after 20 years of being on the job. New does not equal better. One time adjustable sights on a pistol was new. When I started as a uniformed cop laser sights on the Glock 22 was all the rage as was the 40S&W round. Where are they now?
My pistol needs to fire when I pull the trigger. That includes when I may want to fire before I come to full presentation that normally causes an auto-loader to short cycle as that is all the time I have to get my shot off first. I also want that first shot to hit so hard I may not need to have a follow up shot.
I think bigger issue is this -
1) Firearms manufacturers are for-profit corporations that have to make record profits year after year to keep the stockholders happy.
2) A corporation or business tends to seek government contracts as they are a reliable source of guaranteed income.
3) Government entities purchasing firearms for the military and police look at two things -
A) What is readily available in large numbers.
B) What is cheap.
4) Manufacturing costs are kept lower to raise profit levels by using -
A) Lower costing materials.
B) Automated manufacturing rather than skilled employees as a craftsman's bench.
It is quite possible the main reason cops carry Glocks and Sig P320s is because they are a low cost way for the government to arm them.
I shelved all my striker fired plastic guns after 20 years of being on the job. New does not equal better. One time adjustable sights on a pistol was new. When I started as a uniformed cop laser sights on the Glock 22 was all the rage as was the 40S&W round. Where are they now?
My pistol needs to fire when I pull the trigger. That includes when I may want to fire before I come to full presentation that normally causes an auto-loader to short cycle as that is all the time I have to get my shot off first. I also want that first shot to hit so hard I may not need to have a follow up shot.
Last edited:
I'm also in the (apparant) minority in that I like having a safety. I traded into a M&P9 a few years back, and I actually ordered, and installed the thumb safety ( and I ain't no mechanic, and it was still pretty simple, and functioned flawlessly.)
I've been eyeballing some M&P's here on the forum, with the intention of adding that safety again, but they ain't so cheap anymore.
I'm no rabid Glock apologist, but top-tier "operators" like the Navy SEALs and others, aren't using G19's because they're cheap. And I'm confident domestic companies like S&W are offering highly competitive deals.
I've owned Glocks longer than anyone I've ever met ( not counting the owner of Barrows Automotve, where I bought my first one about '86) , and over the years I've been in and out of more Glocks than I can recall, and the ONLY hiccup I ever had, or witnessed, was from a single out-of-spec round of Russian-made steel-cased 9mm. (that stuck itself partly into the chamber, clearly not the pistols fault )
"The Wonder Nines beginning with the HK VP70 in 1970 and the S&W Model 59 in 1971. The CZ-75 in 1975 and the Beretta 92 in 1976 are arguably the longest lasting and most successful of the original wonder nine pistols. Both are still produced and still have a loyal following." I didn't read all the posts and maybe someone mentioned it but the Beretta 92 used the Walther p38 locking block system. I like the old stuff by far the best.
Modern pistols are most definitely better. The metallurgy is better and the machining is better. Obviously some MIM and/or 3D printed parts aren’t great, but all things being equal, today’s guns are way better.
Before anyone freaks out, I own and have owned many older pistols, including the best ever made. They have a charm to them that can’t be equaled today. Attention to detail was better back in the day when skilled craftsman labored for long hours.
That being said, the finest pistols today trump the finest pistols from 50 years ago. The machining is perfectly precise, virtually eliminating the need for hand fitting, the materials are better, the finishes are better, accuracy is better, durability is better, reliability is better, etc, etc
I feel confident in saying that, owning the best from both eras.
Before anyone freaks out, I own and have owned many older pistols, including the best ever made. They have a charm to them that can’t be equaled today. Attention to detail was better back in the day when skilled craftsman labored for long hours.
That being said, the finest pistols today trump the finest pistols from 50 years ago. The machining is perfectly precise, virtually eliminating the need for hand fitting, the materials are better, the finishes are better, accuracy is better, durability is better, reliability is better, etc, etc
I feel confident in saying that, owning the best from both eras.
Some of the finishes are better, and some finishes were works of art that are no longer done. I love the old bluing finish that isn't done today. For revolvers, there isn't anything to compare to that quality wise today.
Similar threads
