Posted: 9/3/2008 3:35:08 PM EDT
So I have been out to my local range about 4 times in the last 2 months test firing tons of pistols to decide what I want, yet I can't come to decision and I was hoping for some opinions from others who have lived with each gun.
A little history, my first pistol was a CZ 75B, I loved it's looks but hated it's performance. My second pistol was a SA Mil-Spec 1911. Again, I loved the way the gun looked and that it felt like a hand cannon to fire it, but the trigger pull and sights turned me off. My third handgun was a 4" SA XD 9mm. I LOVED that gun and when I decided to buy a new gun I made my Dad buy it off me to replace his Walther PPK. I currently have a Kimber Custom II 1911 and I will definitely keep this gun forever, but I want another pistol that can fulfill a tactical role that the 1911 can't.
So this is what I have looked at:
Glock 17,19,21,22,23 - hated all of them, don't know why, just didn't like the feel of them.
Sig 226,229 - hated it, totally inaccurate with them, most likely cause they just don't sit well in my hand.
Springfield XD 5" in 9mm - felt too long, my 4" was much nicer.
Berreta 92FS - beautiful to look at, not that enjoyable to shoot.
HK USP 4" .40 - nice balance, but a bit small
HK USP 5" .45 - a monster of a gun in the hand, did not like it
Kimber 1911 Warrior - as close to perfection as can be, with a $1,200 price tag, but I already have a nice Kimber...
Glock 35 Comp - This is a Glock? it's awesome looking, accurate, great sights, if not a bit long, and it would be my choice but it's impossible for my gun store to find one.
Rugar anything - not my idea of a tactical pistol.
I will not buy an S&W, I have my reasons.
Are there other guns I should look at or take a second not so opinionated look at? Do any of you run the competition Glock's as carry/tactical pieces or does the extra tweeking take away reliablity?
i noticed that you are basing a lot of your observations on "looks"...looks is nothing; FUNCTIONALITY is EVERYTHING--imo at least
if it happens to look good too, well, thats a bonus
that said, which ones actually SHOOT well for you?
seems so far, you are set on either: SA XDs, std HK USPs, loaded-type 1911s (non-GI), and perhapse the competition G35
as to your questions, i would consider the glocks (but then, i'm a pretty big glock fan) but w/ the 3.5lb connector, which is about the only diff the G35 has w/ all the other glocks, which for some reason you didnt like the "feel" of em...why is that, b/c ALL the glocks have the same basic feel physically imo
if not, stick w/ 1911s--which, imo, will work just as well as a duty/"tactical" weapon as any
have you considered the Beretta Storm, the HK P30/P2000 (contoured better vs the older USPs imo)?
why did you hate the CZ's performance? another to consider are Browning Hi-powers
and while you may not consider the Rugers "tactical", they run and are built tough...they do get the job done imo
Try the HK45. It's a slimmed down version of their .45 USP & it should fit your hands a good bit better, IMO.
Aside from using the beat to death word "tactical", would you please be a bit more concise about what you're looking for?
i run competion glocks (both stock and semi-modified) in competion and neither have failed in reliability...that said, if the fireram is for serious/duty/defensive use, i would highly suggest NOT changing too much
+1 on my bobcole, whats your uses for this firearm?
I totally agree that the looks of a gun are not important, but that said, Beretta 92FS and 1911s and the like just look awesome, and I'd prefer a good looking gun that works great compared to an ugly gun that works great. I mean, wouldn't you want a 1911 that looks good compared to one that looks ugly?
With the Glock I was referring to the balance/trigger pull of the pistol. If the 17 had as good a trigger, the same sights, and the same balance I'd get a 17 without hesitation.
For some reason my 75B was much less accurate then the my friends Glock's and XD's that I was testing out using the same ammo.
I looked at the Hi-Power, but I'd rather have a Beretta or Glock or XD.
I have a bunch of buddies in the military and LE and they don't like the Ruger's and the gun shops around my town HATE them, it just looks bulky and cheap.
Oh, I'd like to spend less than $1000 for the pistol too, and nite sights would be a plus. Trigger pull, balance and weight are important.
And as far as what shoots well for me:
That said, only the Glock 35 made me fall in love, but it is hard to find.
have you tried online?
Gunbroker, summitgunbroker, CDNN Investments, the EE, etc all tend to have quite a few G35s in stock
CZs are very accurate, and can hang with almost any production pistol...
Something was amiss here.
I went through this several years ago, here is how I did it.
1. Find the caliber you want......
2. Trigger: SA, DAO, DA/SA....this is the most important IMO...
3. do you want a hammer or striker fired
4. Do you want polymer, aluminum, or an all steel frame
once you have the options decided by these criteria then look at whats available to your budget money is the least importnat thing on a pistol purchase, if you are looking for your perfect piece. If you decide the perfect piece is a $2000 1911 then you won't be happy with less so save and trade. BUt before you make that decision look at used pistols and other quality pieces that do not have the high brand name price.
Why not just get another XD? Sounds like it worked great for you, and now you just want something different.
You appear to have eliminated most of the competition. You can also get used to most anything given enough trigger time with it. That said, I understand not liking several brands. I don't ever see myself buying another SIG, Glock, or HK.
Take a look at the FNP series, FWIW.
I don't understand how a Glock 35 feels any better than a Glock 17. Are you referring to the ballance? Because you should consider the loaded weight versus empty, as this changes the ballance of the pistol.