I'll chime in.For years I liked steel pistols, with hammers, with punch, in the proven caliber of .45 acp. For most folks that means 1911's. The single action trigger on a good reliable 1911 is hard to beat, but ....
The old reliability vs. accuracy deal still exists, despite what the gun writers tell us, especially with all of the hoopla surrounding the 100th anniversary of the 1911. Super accurate, tuned 1911's need some TLC and occasionally, more than just that. Stuff breaks on them on occasion, etc., etc.
Back in the fall of 2010 I went over to the dark side, at least for me. I'd been looking really closely at the Glocks, despite my own personal belief that a more butt-ugly pistol has never been made. I was willing to overlook the cosmetics because of the Glock's well deserved reputation for reliability. Anybody who goes on about reliability issues in Glock pistols clearly doesn't know what they're talking about. But that ugly thing still bothered me, and the no-safety (except in the trigger) thing. Soooooooo...
I bought a Springfield XDM in .45 acp. Since buying my first one I have consistently put at least 1,000 rounds a month through, and its sister. Yeah, I bought a second one about two weeks after buying the first, so that I could "spread the burden" between two pistols. Or maybe it was just an excuse to buy another .45 ....yeah, that's probably more honest.
Anyway, what I like about the Springfield (full size, 4 1/2 barrel) is : grip safety is a nice extra layer of security; it's simple and it works. Grip angle is more similar to the 1911 than the Glocks I test fired. The Glock seems to want to make me cant my wrists down into a less-than-natural position. The XDM is dead-nuts accurate. About the only bullet shape it sometimes has troubles with is SWC's in 200 grain weights, but then, every pistol I've owned in this caliber has been finicky about COL with those bullets. I don't bother with them anymore. JHP's from 185 grain to 230 grain are no problem at all. Never had a failure to feed and I'm at about the 16,000 round mark. Okay, the cons:
The triggers on Glocks or Springfield XDM's are never going to be 1911 triggers, and that's just a fact. However, the Glock has been around for long enough that the really good after-market stuff is well known, and you can get yourself a completely reliable and improved trigger set up with a connector kit for not much more than $20 or $30.
Both of my Springfield XDM's have Powder River trigger kits, and they greatly improve the take-up, and they're not so light that the gun fires if you sneeze on them. The safety in the trigger itself remains the same, but you get a much more crisp trigger pull, faster reset, and, of course, all of this lends itself to more accurate shooting. If you shoot a stock Glock, the out-of-the-box XDM trigger will be familiar, though I think the XDM stock trigger is a little better. The problem with the XDM trigger kits (after-market) is that they're really expensive (mine was $140) and they're not "drop-in" like the Glock after-market stuff is. I think this is just because the XD's and XDM's are relative newcomers to the scene, compared to Glock.
I haven't mentioned an awful lot of the double action triggered guns like the Beretta 92's and many more. I can't stand all of that travel in the trigger, even after the first shot. Years ago I wasted a lot of time trying to learn to shoot accurately with pistol which were really not conducive to serious accuracy. Maybe that comes from knowing what handgun accuracy can be, after shooting 1911's.
I wouldn't turn my nose up at a Glock, and may buy one in the future. Still in .45 acp, though. Hey, some things don't change.
- DixieBoy
