Originally posted by The Verminator
Reliability is the top concern in a self-defense pistol.........TOP.
Yes, other pistols are reliable it's just that Glocks are regarded as the most reliable and chosen by cops and military worldwide because of it.
I'd like to see some empirical evidence that Glocks are more reliable than other pistols of comparable quality, price, and features. While it is true that Glock is the most popular pistol among U.S. law enforcement agencies, it isn't widely used by the U.S. military and both militaries and police agencies internationally use plenty of other makes of pistol including HK, Sig, FN, and CZ among others. Likewise there are many reasons besides reliability that a military or law enforcement agency might choose a particular pistol over another including cost, marketing, and institutional momentum.
Consider this, Glock became a major player in the U.S. police market in the 1990's. At that time, there were few other polymer-framed, striker-fired pistols to compete with them (certainly nowhere near as many as today) and most of their competition was metal-framed, hammer-fired guns like 3rd Generation S&W's, Beretta 92 Series, and Sig 220 series. It's no secret that polymer-framed pistols are a lot less expensive to produce and between this and the fact that Glock was willing to sell their guns to police for deep discounts, they were able to significantly undercut the price of competing pistols of comparable quality and features. I personally know a small-town Sheriff's Deputy who bought a brand-new Glock 21 for his duty weapon in the mid-90's for $300 while another acquaintance of mine bought an identical gun on the retail market around the same time and paid well over $500.
Fast forward to today and many departments likely stay with their Glocks not because they're that much better or more reliable than something like a S&W M&P, HK VP9, or Sig P320, but because they still work as well as they ever did, are still competitively priced and they simply see no reason to change. Much like the current trend of LE going back to 9mm, it isn't that the Glock is better, or in some attributes even as good as their competition, it's that they're good enough.
Glocks are also simple and extremely easy to take down for cleaning.
That's important for a newcomer or anybody who hates taking things apart.
I've taken Glocks apart before and while they're certainly not difficult guns to field strip and clean, they're no easier to do so with than any of my several S&W M&P series pistols, my Walther P99AS, my Ruger SR45, or several of the hammer-fired, metal-framed pistols I have such as my CZ-75, CZ-82, Walther PP and many others. Like reliability, Glock does not have the market on ease of maintenance cornered.
It's true that there are many other good options......it's just that they may not be the best.
They may not be, but a Glock may not be either. Believe it or not, there are several good reasons why someone might not want a Glock or may prefer something else. Glocks are striker-fired pistols without active manual safeties, if someone wanted a hammer-fired pistol or wanted a manual safety, they aren't going to get if from Glock. Glocks also have a grip size, shape, and angle which doesn't work well for everyone. I personally find the grip of a Glock to be too wide and too square and other guns fit my hand much more comfortably. I'm not saying that the OP definitely should not buy a Glock, but I think it's short-sighted to make the blanket statement that it's the only gun he should consider.
The cheaper pistols are a gamble......High point and Taurus might be ok, but we're getting to the low end there.
Knowing what I do of Hi Point's manufacturing methods and the materials they use, I'd be hesitant to bet my life on one. However, everyone I've ever known who had experience with them tells me that despite how cheaply they're made that they are surprisingly reliable. I do personally know several people who've bought the newer Taurus semi-autos and I've yet to hear of an unreliable Taurus G2c or G3c, they may not be as refined as something more expensive but they do seem to work and for the price point I think a person could do a lot worse.
The 1911s as a group have always been a bit more finicky......I like the way they feel and look.......and I avoid them for defense. They require more skilled and experienced users I think.
In my experience, 1911's can be very reliable as long as one understands a few things about them. The 1911 is a 100+ year old design that was designed to shoot a specific 230 gr FMJ loading. The feed ramp geometry, magazine feed lip geometry, spring tensions, extractor tuning, etc. were all designed around .45 ACP ammunition with specific velocity, bullet weight, and ogive. If you want one to be reliable with something much different than the .45 ACP ammunition it was originally designed around (much less a completely different caliber), you're going to have to make a few changes to the design. A vintage 1911 or close approximation thereof isn't going to have things like a throated or ramped barrel and will likely not have magazines designed for anything but 230 gr FMJ-RN ammunition and so cannot be expected to be reliable with anything but that type of ammo.
Also, 1911's have been made for over a century by dozens, if not hundreds, of different manufacturers to wildly different specifications and levels of quality. Many 1911's have been made as target and competition guns rather than combat pistols and, as such, reliability took a back seat to accuracy or other factors. While something like a Colt Gold Cup National Match is an excellent pistol for what it was intended to be used for, it's probably not the most reliable 1911 to be carried with JHP ammunition for self-defense. Also, some 1911's have been made as replicas of vintage ones and many of these don't have the upgrades I mentioned earlier because they're meant for collecting and re-enacting rather than defensive use.
Finally, there are a myriad of different makers of 1911 magazines out there and they aren't all created equal. It's no secret that good magazines are essential to reliability in any self-loading firearm and even Glocks have been known to become unreliable with certain aftermarket magazines. Unfortunately, there are several very good 1911's that ship with substandard magazines and, to someone who doesn't know the difference, this can taint the design. Based on my own experience, I would only depend on Wilson Combat or Chip McCormick magazines in a 1911 I intended to use defensively. There may be other good 1911 mags out there, but those two have been the most reliable that I have found. The brands of 1911 that I have personally had good experience with or people who I personally know and trust have had good luck with include Colt, S&W, Springfield Armory, Dan Wesson, Wilson Combat, and Rock Island Armory. While I don't have first or even secondhand experience with them, I've also heard/read very positive things about the 1911's made by Ruger, Tisas, and Sig.
We should not forget revolvers, either........they have a lot of advantages to consider. I stick with the older Smiths myself.
On this we agree, I think that revolvers are highly underrated defensive firearms particularly for a novice.