[KW Gary M]

Originally Posted by KW Gary M
I hold no value to these torture tests that EVERY gun maker has done and claims to be the best. How often do you shoot 100,000 rounds between cleanings? Have you ever had to run your gun over with a truck, fill it with mudd, subnurge it in water, freeze it in a block of ice, throw it off a 20 storey building or any of those other things they do in their torture tests? I never have and don't know anyone who has. I want a gun I can shoot, clean, shoot again and shoot well. For me, that is the XD. I tested a Glock and it didn't shoot well for me. I wouldn't own one no matter how many tests there are where they are lit on fire or run over by a train.

Quote:       Originally Posted by jmp8927

The point is that no matter what you put it through, it's more likely to make it through and still function 100%. As for the shooting well, I understand that perfectly. I was only trying to say that it's proven reliable. I know everyone shoots a little different. Case in point, I have a Ruger Mark III Target Model with which I can consistently score headshot groups with at 50 yards with ease. I can even do that from 100 yards about 20% of the time with open sights. I've let several other more experienced shooters shoot it and they can't hit didly squat at 30 yards with it. I just happen to be more comfortable with how it's set up. The same way, I've seen guys consistantly hit a body sized object at 100 yards with a Glock 17. I doubt I could do that. I'm sure there are guys out there who can do the same with a SA XD because it suits them better. However, it in no way makes it a better pistol than a Glock. Just more suited for the specific user.

I couldn't agree more on the gun the individual shooter shoots best is the best gun for that shooter. I still think those torture tests are silly. If you read any gun magazine for a year you will see just about every gun maker do a torture test claiming they are the best. I don't plan on dropping my gun off the Sears Tower, lighting it on fire, peeing on it, filling it with mud and then shooting 1,000,000 rounds out of it between cleanings.

[thunderjohn]

I wonder if the OP is even reading this after almost a year and a half.

Most Glock haters will always be Glock haters. And almost all Glock haters
that I've talked to have never owned a Glock.

There's a reason that more than 65% of all American law enforcement uses Glocks, and I assure you it isn't just price.

I personally know an instructor, and probably the best in the state that has 65,000 rounds through his 19. Same barrel, slide, etc.

You still need to get what feels good and what you can shoot well, but
to compare a Glock to a Hi-Point is just silly.

[Beach Bum]

Quote:       Originally Posted by thunderjohn

There's a reason that more than 65% of all American law enforcement uses Glocks, and I assure you it isn't just price.

I can say, as a retired Attorney who worked all of my career for New York City and most of it for The NYPD, that price is EXACTLY the reason they carry Glocks, not quality. I worked with the accounting department and purchasing on the contracts for everything from weapons to boots to gloves to cars and it is all about price. Glock deserves credit for smart marketing. They probably loose money selling their guns to Law Enforcement but the exposure they get by having so many officers carrying Glocks they make it up selling to the general public. As soon as we started allowing the officers to carry their own personal gun as long as it was on the approved list there were fewer and fewer Glocks being carried. The most commonly carried guns by the officers are Kimber, CZ and XD's are starting to show up a lot more.

[G. Green]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Beach Bum

I can say, as a retired Attorney who worked all of my career for New York City and most of it for The NYPD, that price is EXACTLY the reason they carry Glocks, not quality. I worked with the accounting department and purchasing on the contracts for everything from weapons to boots to gloves to cars and it is all about price. Glock deserves credit for smart marketing. They probably loose money selling their guns to Law Enforcement but the exposure they get by having so many officers carrying Glocks they make it up selling to the general public. As soon as we started allowing the officers to carry their own personal gun as long as it was on the approved list there were fewer and fewer Glocks being carried. The most commonly carried guns by the officers are Kimber, CZ and XD's are starting to show up a lot more.

My agency issues the Sig, I'm a Sig armorer, and a lot of our troops, including me, have that Sig in the box in the closet and carry their personal Glock. If we ever approve a 1911 pistol, I'll be at the credit union the next day, and picking up my Kimber right after.

Once you reach a level of quality and dependability it boils down to shooter's choice. You can argue the merits of XYZ's bullet launcher ad infinitum, which is fun, but it's a shootability issue for me. I just shoot the Glock better so that's what I carry.

[Vekta]

Fit is right. And not just the grip, the controls to.

I fired a Sig, an H&K USP, a Glock, and an XD-45.

The Sig was dead sexy but WAY out of my price range.
The H&K felt like a toy and the magazine release was just weird
The Glock felt fine but the controls were horrible to me
The XD felt good AND all the controls were easy to find and not tiny. That's why I went with an XD.

*crawls towards Sig P229R DAK* Must...save....pay che-*...dies*

[Beach Bum]

Quote:       Originally Posted by thunderjohn

There's a reason that more than 65% of all American law enforcement uses Glocks, and I assure you it isn't just price.

I just called a friend who still works for the city in Purchasing. They paid $83.65 for each Glock they bought in 2009. They have been taking bids for 2010. Glock is $86.00 if they contract for the full year. Sig offered them $107.45 for a six month contract and $102.00 for a full year. They are going to stick with Glock and allow the officers to carry their own weapon as long as it is on the approved list, which he said most reputable brands are and the officer agrees to allow the department inspect the gun upon request. He said he can only speak for The City of New York but their decision to stick with Glock was 100% about cost.

[G. Green]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Beach Bum

I just called a friend who still works for the city in Purchasing. They paid $83.65 for each Glock they bought in 2009. They have been taking bids for 2010. Glock is $86.00 if they contract for the full year. Sig offered them $107.45 for a six month contract and $102.00 for a full year. They are going to stick with Glock and allow the officers to carry their own weapon as long as it is on the approved list, which he said most reputable brands are and the officer agrees to allow the department inspect the gun upon request. He said he can only speak for The City of New York but their decision to stick with Glock was 100% about cost.

No offense meant, and purchasing is a friggin' nightmare, and I really appreciate the guys in purchasing, (in my state it seems to me purchasing laws and rules aren't meant to save money, they're meant to make it hard to spend money) but it would mean more if it came from the NYPD firearms training section.

[Doc Jones]

Quote:       Originally Posted by thunderjohn

I wonder if the OP is even reading this after almost a year and a half.

Are you kidding?! I'm certain the poor kid still has his nose pressed against the computer screen waiting for my opinion!

The XD feels better in my hand. There ya go son. Now you can go buy yer pistol. Sorry to keep you waiting so long.


Doc

[scoleman73]

Dude simply put.....if you like plenty of options for accessories the glock is what you want. Both are great they do feel differant but you can find anything you want anywhere for a glock. Wish I went in that direction!!