Get a Sig, it has taken the same abuse and it has looks and changeable grips and no one will mistake it for a plastic toy.
When your tired of the tough talk and want reality its here.
http://www.kiesler.com/videodetail.aspx?id=1277
'Semi-auto Battle Handgun Impairment' hardware vs. software
- Thread starter chadio
- Start date
When your tired of the tough talk and want reality its here.
http://www.kiesler.com/videodetail.aspx?id=1277
Im about tired of the tough talk from both sides. Reality is, they are both fine guns, its just one costs about half again as much more, and beats you up more on accessories, Where the other just gives you more for the money.
The Glocks dont have rust issues like "some" of the SIG's do either.
As far as the plastic toy thing, my "real" SIG looks just like the "toy" here, and you cant tell them apart in the holster.
"nuclear holocaust"
Whatever you get, don't waste money on night sights, everything will be glowing. Including you. And you'll be dead.
If I couldn't have a rifle or a shotgun, I'd pick up my FNP-45 USG. Nothing like 16 rounds of .45 ACP to put me out of my misery while the radiation sickness kills me.
Whatever you get, don't waste money on night sights, everything will be glowing. Including you. And you'll be dead.
If I couldn't have a rifle or a shotgun, I'd pick up my FNP-45 USG. Nothing like 16 rounds of .45 ACP to put me out of my misery while the radiation sickness kills me.
There are many fine pistols out there so I would not go by either criteria as top priority. I would start with proven service grade brands/models, then narrow it down to which is most comfortable and easiest for me to shoot well (trigger pull, sights, grip, accuracy, weight, etc.).
The 1911 would be eliminated in your #2 criteria because you have to be able to hold the grip safety firmly in while pulling the trigger. Yet the 1911 would be one of my top choices for shootability and toughness.
Likewise the Glock may be eliminated for concerns about limp wristing. But like the grip safety issue of the 1911, I have never seen either pistol fail due to manner of holding by myself or several family members including when my daughters we young teenagers. The 1911 and Glock are plenty shootable by anyone.
I like the Glock because it does everything I need, I can shoot it well, and I can afford multiple models and spare prats and mags.
I would consider the Beretta, SIG, CZ, and HK depending on your personal experience. I have owned SIGs and loved them but they were a bit pricey for me. Currently own Glocks, HighPowers, Makarov, and 1911 and love them. The SA 1911 is plain Jane but very reliable.
With so many excellent, tough models out there you should get whatever shoots best for you out of that group and not sacrifice personal comfort or shootability for some perceived "more tough" model. We may each reject some of these models because we don;t like how they shoot, but I think a person would be hard pressed to prove than any of the service grade models are significantly inferior to the others in terms of duraility and reliability.
The 1911 would be eliminated in your #2 criteria because you have to be able to hold the grip safety firmly in while pulling the trigger. Yet the 1911 would be one of my top choices for shootability and toughness.
Likewise the Glock may be eliminated for concerns about limp wristing. But like the grip safety issue of the 1911, I have never seen either pistol fail due to manner of holding by myself or several family members including when my daughters we young teenagers. The 1911 and Glock are plenty shootable by anyone.
I like the Glock because it does everything I need, I can shoot it well, and I can afford multiple models and spare prats and mags.
I would consider the Beretta, SIG, CZ, and HK depending on your personal experience. I have owned SIGs and loved them but they were a bit pricey for me. Currently own Glocks, HighPowers, Makarov, and 1911 and love them. The SA 1911 is plain Jane but very reliable.
With so many excellent, tough models out there you should get whatever shoots best for you out of that group and not sacrifice personal comfort or shootability for some perceived "more tough" model. We may each reject some of these models because we don;t like how they shoot, but I think a person would be hard pressed to prove than any of the service grade models are significantly inferior to the others in terms of duraility and reliability.
armoredman
New member
Again, I would have to base my choice on personal experiance. I would rather have a sidearm that will work if in "less than ideal"conditions and I am firing weak hand only, etc. I have one. Actually, two.
My personal experiance is having three Glocks jam/break on me, and I don't like the fit. I have had two revolvers jam, (caveat, older Taurus, 1982 era), I have had HKs break, Rugers jam, etc., mostly while working at a rental range, which is torture testing at another level!
I chose what works for me, my CZ SP-01 Phantom or the CZ P-01, botrh which went through some very rigerous testing. The P-07 also went through a torture test in the last G&A Special Edition.
But, as I said, I have to use my personal experience, and based on that experiance I choose the CZ.
That seems to say 1 and 2 as an answer.
My personal experiance is having three Glocks jam/break on me, and I don't like the fit. I have had two revolvers jam, (caveat, older Taurus, 1982 era), I have had HKs break, Rugers jam, etc., mostly while working at a rental range, which is torture testing at another level!
I chose what works for me, my CZ SP-01 Phantom or the CZ P-01, botrh which went through some very rigerous testing. The P-07 also went through a torture test in the last G&A Special Edition.
But, as I said, I have to use my personal experience, and based on that experiance I choose the CZ.
That seems to say 1 and 2 as an answer.