What makes a modern pistol “better”?

[CollinCountyLawman]

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 )

That is a very good point. Especially if the question is "Are modern firearms better for the modern battlefield?" My good friend says, "If I am going to a pistol competition I am taking my 1911. If I am going to the battlefield I am taking my Glock."

After WWII the U.S. demanded that NATO forces use 5.56 for rifles. In turn, all the other NATO forces demanded the 9mm pistol cartridge be used. Being that rifles are the main battle weapon of infantry the U.S. had no problem going along with this.

Based on all of this it makes sense for military units to carry modern firearms. As one Green Beret stated, the Glock 19 is his favorite pistol because he could find 9mm no matter what part of the planet he was deployed to. You can't argue that logic.

 

[45Smashemflat]

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 )

Barrow Automotive! What a store!

 

[collector14]

First, I want to thank the OP for starting this thread. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading every post, especially the opposing views. Second, I want to say my first love is and always will be older guns and when I carry on my person, it is always one of a few, select older guns.

Now lastly, have you ever heard the story about the young bull and old bull standing on the hilltop looking out over the vast pasture of cows? The young bull says to the old bull, "let's run down there and love on a couple of those beautiful cows." To which the old bull replies, "no son, let's walk down there and love on them all."

The Smith & Wesson M&P 9 Pro Series, Nighthawk 1911 and Sig P320 are evidence that I'm like that old bull, I love them all. If you read any of the sales literature on these guns extolling the features, you will realize that most features are aimed at improving or increasing accuracy (other than high capacity).

For an old guy that inherited Macular Degeneration from his father, the ability to add optics, Green Dot and flashlight were all welcomed features for a home defense gun.

 

[Revelation]

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

Roger that!

 

[SGT ROCK 11B]

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. LOL
Never had a chance or even heard of a Distinguished class?

Distinguished Class was from my police service.

My Dad was a WWII Veteran and Grandpa was a WWI Veteran.

 

[Bullseye Smith]

SMITH & WESSON is still KING of the rock pale. Yesterday I found that to be true, I went shooting and used my 22auto first and done great with it till I shot my 617 at 50 ft and put 5 rounds in a 1" circle double action. I shot Bullseye, PPC for years with a K frame and L frame double action. My friend's Dad was my second Dad at showed me how to shoot and work on Smith's. At fifty yards he could knock the center out of a target, that was the reason he was over the State Police School.
I lost 60% of one eye when I pasted out and hit my head on the concrete. I also shot High Power for five years starting with a grand and then the Rock River AR Match came out, it was the best rifle made at the time and still is as I think. My last year I cleaned the two-hundred-yard target four times. Almost break your leg to brake it apart. sorry about spelling, I can't see to well.

 

[LVSteve]

That is a very good point. Especially if the question is "Are modern firearms better for the modern battlefield?" My good friend says, "If I am going to a pistol competition I am taking my 1911. If I am going to the battlefield I am taking my Glock."

After WWII the U.S. demanded that NATO forces use 5.56 for rifles. In turn, all the other NATO forces demanded the 9mm pistol cartridge be used. Being that rifles are the main battle weapon of infantry the U.S. had no problem going along with this.

Based on all of this it makes sense for military units to carry modern firearms. As one Green Beret stated, the Glock 19 is his favorite pistol because he could find 9mm no matter what part of the planet he was deployed to. You can't argue that logic.

Actually, after WWII the US put the arm on Europe and NATO to adopt 7.62x51 NATO (as it became known) as the standard issue rifle ammo. Everyone in Europe then, and many analysts since, knew that this was the wrong round. The villain in that debacle was one Col Rene Studler, US Army.

5.56x45 was adopted by the US in 1963, but it was 1977 before it became fully accepted as the NATO standard.