Hmmm. Thank you Joe for passing along those observations on .40 vs. .45 Glocks. Why, in your opinion, don't the .45's have the same kind of problems?
Maybe I should think about moving up to the G21.... I really like my G23, though, and my nephew is a cop, so I get all the brass I could ever want for it for nothing. It
is a lot cheaper just to replace the barrel, too. I went from revolvers right to the Glock as I have never been comfortable with grip safeties, but that may be just that 1911 frames don't fit my hand as well as I'd like. My dad has a full sized Kimber which I've shot quite a bit, and it's very accurate, (and also a Colt Officer's Model which I think is a waste of perfectly good steel
), but I am faster onto the target and more confident with my G23. I have nothing at all against the .45ACP, and I like the idea of the .45GAP though have not yet had a chance to put one through its paces. Any thoughts on .357SIG? How do they do with cast? It's just a matter of a new barrel to switch to that, too.
I think standards of beauty are relative. The Glocks have clean, simple lines, no controls to fiddle with or worry about, they're rugged and reliable, and they're more accurate than most comparable pistols. In all the 17's, 19's, 22's, and 23's that I have owned and/or shot,
I have never experienced a single failure to feed. (Somewhere between 4-5000 rounds of 9mm's and .40's.) It might not win any beauty contests, but then, I wouldn't either.
Not that I really give a flyin' (whatever) how it looks, it works! And it works every time. I trust it with my life, and much more importantly, the lives of my children. To me,
that's beautiful.