Would you trust a plastic pistol?

[MPfiveengineer]

Here is the only other picture I have

BTW this is not my gun

[BadShot]

Boy I know this is a necro-topic but I just now feel the urge to comment on several points made here..

1. Polymer Pistols are beyond proven a this point in the life cycle. Glock brought that to the main stream and has more than made it's name and the value of the polymer weapon system evident.

I will openly admit to being a Glock hater until about 2 years ago. I have been able to shoot 3 different iterations of the Glocks with 100's of rounds each - 21,22c and now a 30 .. the 30 is what truly converted me to a fan. I'm not rushing out to purchase a full of compact any time soon, but I will have a 30 for a CCW at some point.

I'm even a fan of the XD's as well. They are beginning to prove themselves in so many ways that I won't even go into it. The reviews are out, the weapon system is being widely adopted and hopefully, Glock will come off it's high price horse and attempt to compete against the XD. Everything gets better from there! Hell, now that the XD45 is officially brought a reasonable price to a high cap 45 that is actually reliable.. Glock better get its ducks in a row and start innovating again, or at least bring it's pricing better in line with the far more affordable XD series.

2. 1911's .. odd that few remember why they were dropped by the military, or so disliked for about 20 odd years. Then again like anything, it's a matter of preference. I've had a huge preference for the 1911's for a while. Though I'm a bit of a snob about em' and don't know as much as some (Gman!) about them, they are infinitely capable weapons and the longevity speaks to the quality of the design... but... welcome to the 21st century boys.

The 1911 is starting to see such a massive resurgence (well over the last 10 years at least) that we are indeed seeing impressive evolutions in the weapon itself, but the core of the weapon is still the same ol' wonder gun first given wide use in WWI.

I really don't think it is all that fair to compare the two weapon types side by side.

That takes me to some of the comments about the now tired AR vs AK arguments.

1. The AK is cleaner, more reliable and far more widely used than the AR.

2. The AR is far more accurate and modular (finally!) than the AK

A few have noted that the bad guys, or the losing’s guys always seem to have AK's... the assumption derived is that the AK is a bad weapon. Well that is just too easy to rip apart as an assumption.

First off.. we've (the US Military) not faced an opponent who actually trains their troops to something close to Western Standards on the battle field who equip their military with the AK. But I would venture to say that when the time comes for an encounter with the North Koreans or even worse, the Chinese... the AK will garner a greater degree of your respect.

I might not be able to nail my target as effectively at 300m with the AK as I can the AR (the diff is rather slight and I'm not the best shot I know) but I can damn well tell you that the AK at sub 150m ranges is exceptionally effective when used correctly. By correctly I mean not using the "Spray and Pray" technique we see so commonly amongst the untrained yahoo's in the Stans' or in the Mid., much less the wankers in Africa (Yeah that theater of op's for the US is coming sooner than you think boys).

The AK is a far more proven weapon than the AR… then again, like I said earlier… welcome to the 21st Century. The AR and AK are dated technology, look to the newer far more effective evolutions of these weapons.. H&K G3x series (http://www.hkpro.com/G36.htm), the Israeli Tavor (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapo...vor/Tavor.html) and several more modern and modular systems are hitting the field’s en’ mass. Hell even the evolution of a Piston upper for the AR (Friggen Finally a clean AR!) is a huge leap forward for the AR series of weapons. Though I’ve said it a thousand times, the AR is on it’s last legs. There are just too many limitations to the core design. The refinement stage of the long lived weapon is almost at an end. Polymer Barrels, Piston Uppers, Rail systems and attachments (optics, lasers, lights, ect.) have extended it’s life, but it’s about time it gets replaced with a more effective caliber and carriage.

Love all of these weapons, each has their place.. preferably in my safe or on my hip… but folks have to accept that all of the weapons systems mentioned here are capable in their own right at the very least.

--------- Anyone need a slightly used soap box?

[Driftwood]

The reviews are out, the weapon system is being widely adopted and hopefully, Glock will come off it's high price horse and attempt to compete against the XD.

This brings a question to mind: How widely known is it that Glock is on it's high horse or somewhat pretentious regarding XDs? Is this just commonly known in the shooting community?

I haven't shot an XD but have handled a few and they fit SO well and the ergonomics are great! But their lack of aftermarket parts is what turned me off to them in favor of the Glock. I've even heard that Springfield has no intention in the future of ever making aftermarket parts available, which is what settled it for me. Does anyone know if there is any truth to this rumor?

[AR_Forever]

The XD parts and aftermarket accessories have been debated quite a bit on www.xdtalk.com. SA is having a problem keeping XD's on the store shelves let alone trying to get parts out. You can buy some parts now from Springfield but you have to call them. It's the supply vs. demand story. As for the aftermarket accessories they are starting to come out. I own 2 XD's and really like them, in fact one of them is at SA for some custom work. I bought the beretta 92fs for the academy and carried it for a while before changing careers. Everyone had Glock's or Berettas at the academy (13 yrs ago). I did not like Glock back then due to the need to strip the magazine if it didn't fall free. But then again I had to deal with a heavy and long first DA shot out of the Beretta.

I am not much of a Glock fan, they don't fit my hand very well. (I have small hands but don't tell my wife) ops: I have shot alot of glocks. One of my friends has done quite a bit of custom work to his G23 which is starting to fit me more then him. They are great firearms and have a very good record. I also own several other firearms such as 1911, S&W 357 Mag 686 to name a few. As to the AK vs. AR debate I own both.

Firing Line rents Glocks and XD's to shoot, if you have never fired a "plastic gun" you should go give them a try.

[Artyboy]

I'm not a big fan of Glocks. Both Glocks and XDs feel hollow and cheap to me. I shoot the XD really well, though. Glocks feel like a plastic brick in my hand. That's not to say that I'll never own one because every Glock that I've shot has been extremely reliable. I also like the fact that you can buy standard cap mags for $10 a pop. Because of their reputation and the accessories available for them it's hard to convince myself that they're not worth the money. When I do finally get around to deciding between getting a Glock and an XD I'll probably go with the Glock despite the XD being more ergonomic.

Right now I've got an H&K USP and a SigPro 2009. These two companies make the best plastic pistols that you're going to find imo. I love my USP but it's too big for concealed carry (at least for me) so it's become a camping/range gun. Accessories for anything made by H&K are ridiculously expensive as well so that limits me even more.

Honestly I think that the SigPro is the best plastic pistol out there. I almost gave up on mine because of some minor quirks. The limited availablity of holsters, magazines, etc also discouraged me. I got this gun with the intention of carrying it so I wanted something that was absolutely perfect for me. I ended up working out the quirks, found a good holster that I wouldn' t have to wait 6 months for and found a cheap source of magazines, though. Now I shoot it better than any handgun that I've ever handled. The trigger is 100x better than any other polymer pistol that I've shot. It's even worlds better than my USP. It doesn't have that typical hollow feel that other polymer handguns seem to have, either.

You should also look at the effect that polymer has had on pocket guns. Now you can get a Kel-Tec P3AT that weighs a little more than half a pound and will fit in the palm of your hand. It doesn't matter what you're wearing. It will dissapear. If you're not comfortable with the power of the .380 round you can even get a small 9mm. The Kel-Tec PF-9 isn't much bigger than the P3AT and it has a light rail. Kahr also makes a 9mm that's about the same size as the PF-9 for twice as much money if you think that you always get what you pay for when you're buying a gun (I don't).

Polymer pistols have more than proven themselves. 1911s are great guns but they have their shortcomings. That's not to say that polymer pistols don't have limitations of their own but overall I think that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

[Han not-so-solo]

US military uses the m16 because when it was demonstrated, it was in perfect almost space like clean condition, and it worked flawlessly. Once in the field under real conditions it gunked up.

It gunked up because the Military told the soilders it didn't need cleaning and therefore provided no cleaning kits. Once they started cleaning them they worked fine. If I could only choose one I choose better accuracy and having to clean my gun once in a while over being able to bury it in a swamp and still have it fire when I dug it up 3 months later. The modular design is a big plus also if you could only choose one rifle.

As to the plastic pistol debate I trust them. Somebody already brought up the fact that plastics are very high tech these days. I really don't like the Glock's grips. My buddy bought an XD-40 and it fits a lot better in my hand. Very nice gun to shoot also. I would buy one ove the Glock for the grip reason alone. Why should I have to spend another 300 bucks fixing a grip problem that shouldn't be there.