Top tier, second tier, and so on...

[fightingquaker13]

And this is what puzzles me Basfu. I don't get that. If I were operating in a clean environment and wanted pin point accuracy a Glock would be far down on my list. If I were operating in the sand box or in a jungle and 4" was good enough, even if cleaning meant stripping it down and pissing on it and running a knotted shoe string through the barrel, I can't think of a hand gun I'd rather own. It's weird to me that more of our SF and particularly SEAL types don't carry them. I mean hell, the tennifer isn't just a coating, its embededd in the metal. For sand and salt, what is there better on the market?
FQ13

[kmitch200]

The thing is true operators who can choose exactly what they want to carry, sometimes right down to the man never picks a Glock. Someone who has an advanced level of training and isn't really worried about ease of use and maintenance pick something that's pretty much hand built, usually by their own hand, an armorer/smith they personally know or a custom shop smith from one of the big 1911 builders or HK spec-ops division. For that reason only I'd have Glock right on top of the 2nd tier. Honestly though if you can't afford a pistol that's $1500-$2000 minimum and if you don't know how to take every piece off that pistol and rebuild it then a Glock is probably your best choice.

"Afford" isn't a question for military (or LE) operators is it?  Our TAX dollars pay for it.
The HK Mk 23 is listed as a SEAL handgun as well as the SIG 228 (M11).  At least by this link:

http://information.usnavyseals.com/2010/01/navy-seal-weapons-handguns.html

[billt]

The fact there is no "Tier" system that is set for handguns, means there is really no way one can be met. Saying this one is "better" than that one is all based on conjecture and personal opinion, not on what the parts are made of. Is a H&K USP "better" than a Glock? Not in my book, and I own and shoot both. If my life were to depend on one single handgun it would be a Glock based on how well they run, not if a Special Forces outfit uses them along with their own custom gunsmith, who basically rebuilds the gun from the ground up on the taxpayers dime before the soldier fires shot one.

It's the same with all of these 1911's these guys use. I seriously doubt if one of them is a box stock model. I remember in the 70's Armand Swenson had a year long waiting list for his 1911's. If you were a soldier wanting one of his guns, he would "bump you up" on the waiting list if you were on active duty. Today these outfits have their own custom gunsmiths and armory's that build pretty much whatever they need or want. This no longer requires the military to go to the private sector to get their guns customized the way we do.

All of this complicates the issue even more. The Mk. 23 SOCOM Pistol by H&K sells out of the box for around $2,300.00. Then God only knows what the Special Ops. gunsmiths do to it before Joe Seal gets deployed with it. I can all but guarantee you not one gun carried into Bin Laden's house was a box stock model, regardless of make. While there is nothing "wrong" with this, it makes it all but impossible to establish a "Tier" system of what guns qualify, and which ones don't.

[Ping]

HK's are nice, but they cater to the miiltary/police, not civilians. For the price, I could own several Glocks that I would bet my life on.

Hi Point was put on a lower tier. I think they do not get the respect they deserve. I have owned a Hi-Point and would be willing to own another. Just hate the low capacity magazines but they also have a lifetime warranty.

Currently own, or should I say my wife owns, the Taurus 92 AFS in 9mm. It also is an absolute tack driver. More accurate than any Beretta I carried in the Air Force. Love the key that shuts down the trigger to keep it safe.

Smith and Wesson are really nice for revolvers and the Smith and Wesson M&P. Never cared for their other semi-autos. But customer service has a lot to be desired.

Never cared for Rugers till I purchased the LCP. Totally changed my mind about Ruger that I always thought of as cheap. Now they are putting out quality semi-autos with the SR9. Did like their revolvers by the way.

We all have our opinions and not matter what, we would disagree on one portion or another which is one thing I really enjoy about this forum. 

[bafsu92]

"Afford" isn't a question for military (or LE) operators is it?  Our TAX dollars pay for it.
The HK Mk 23 is listed as a SEAL handgun as well as the SIG 228 (M11).  At least by this link:

http://information.usnavyseals.com/2010/01/navy-seal-weapons-handguns.html

I didn't mean that towards operators, I meant to the general public, if you can't afford one of those then you should probably choose a Glock since it would be your most reliable choice if you don't have the money and knowledge.

[Sponsor]

[bafsu92]

And this is what puzzles me Basfu. I don't get that. If I were operating in a clean environment and wanted pin point accuracy a Glock would be far down on my list. If I were operating in the sand box or in a jungle and 4" was good enough, even if cleaning meant stripping it down and pissing on it and running a knotted shoe string through the barrel, I can't think of a hand gun I'd rather own. It's weird to me that more of our SF and particularly SEAL types don't carry them. I mean hell, the tennifer isn't just a coating, its embededd in the metal. For sand and salt, what is there better on the market?
FQ13

I wouldn't be surprised if they would use a Glock for certain missions when the handgun was only a backup weapon. The difference is for most regular troops a sidearm is a last resort defensive weapon, right before you go to rock, knife or fist. For an operator the entire mission plan might be based around a handgun as the primary assault option, especially in a cqb setting with a suppressed pistol. The Glock's don't really suppress well from my experience where pistols like the Mk23 are designed from the bench up to be suppressed. Same thing with the custom 1911's they choose, they are bench tuned to a suppressor if that is part of the op. The Glock is probably the very best "jack of all trades, master of none" type pistol. If you could only own one psitol in 99.9% of the cases it should probably be a Glock. If you can own as many as you want you really don't have a need to own even one Glock. If you're somewhere in the middle like most people are then you probably own a couple of them and know you can count on them even when your higher priced toys may fail you.

[kmitch200]

I didn't mean that towards operators, I meant to the general public, if you can't afford one of those then you should probably choose a Glock since it would be your most reliable choice if you don't have the money and knowledge.

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding this thought. If someone doesn't have $2000+++ for a Wilson or Brown or Nighthawk 1911 or God forbid a chunky, oversized HK and know how to rebuild it, they should get a Glock?
Doesn't make sense.

Why should I have stopped myself from owning the fine Colt and SIG 1911s I have or any of the SIG P series pistols I have just because I can't "rebuild it myself" and it didn't cost mega-mega-bucks? That's what pistolsmiths or customer service is for.
The 1911s had the $140 for the gunsmith trigger/reliability jobs added in my head to price. They are 100% reliable, accurate as hell and eat ANY ammo. They cost damn less, with the sight upgrades and gunsmith than the custom builders want for a basic gun.  

A SIG armorers DVD only cost $23. The SIGs only need new springs once in a while and have been 100%.
None of these P series or 1911s have a custom builders name on them but looking at the tidy groups they shoot, the target doesn't care. Can they make a brainstem shot at 25 yards if I do my part? You bet your ass they can.
And none of them go full auto like some high dollar custom guns...cough...les baer...cough.

 

[bafsu92]

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding this thought. If someone doesn't have $2000+++ for a Wilson or Brown or Nighthawk 1911 or God forbid a chunky, oversized HK and know how to rebuild it, they should get a Glock?
Doesn't make sense.

Why should I have stopped myself from owning the fine Colt and SIG 1911s I have or any of the SIG P series pistols I have just because I can't "rebuild it myself" and it didn't cost mega-mega-bucks? That's what pistolsmiths or customer service is for.
The 1911s had the $140 for the gunsmith trigger/reliability jobs added in my head to price. They are 100% reliable, accurate as hell and eat ANY ammo. They cost damn less, with the sight upgrades and gunsmith than the custom builders want for a basic gun.  

A SIG armorers DVD only cost $23. The SIGs only need new springs once in a while and have been 100%.
None of these P series or 1911s have a custom builders name on them but looking at the tidy groups they shoot, the target doesn't care. Can they make a brainstem shot at 25 yards if I do my part? You bet your ass they can.
And none of them go full auto like some high dollar custom guns...cough...les baer...cough.

 

The point I was trying to make was the Glock will basically do everything the $2k pistols will do, outside of maybe the degree of accuracy, and they are pretty simple to work on yourself. If you like a Sig, or other brand better than the Glock have at it. Liek I said from the very beginning I think a true tier 1 pistol is one you will carry as much as possible and shoot the most effectively, regardless of brand. I've personally streamlined my auto pistol inventory to only 1911's, 9mm Glocks and 9mm & 45 FNP's. I've done this for a few reasons, personally choice, ease of training, parts/magazine interchangeability etc. I think more in a survivalist mode of one is none, two is one etc. so I like owning in redundancy. I've got a few other pistols in the safe, mostly inherited items or stuff for my wife & kids, .22's etc. I personally don't like Sig auto pistols.

I've owned a few and don't like the high bore axis, double action/single action changeover or the fact that they aren't really left hand friendly. I've tried XD's, M&P's etc. and they're all decent guns but won't do anything better than a Glock will. I can buy Glocks cheaper and I think they're easier to work on and parts are easier to get and more plentiful. I've got huge hands and have never had an issue with the grip or angle of a Glock. I don't really like the finger grooves but I can fix that to my liking in under an hour. I fix all my own stuff for the most part, I use gunsmiths for certain things, more for convenience. I like the fact that I can fix my own stuff and modify it the way I want.

I kind of like to use the Casio G-Shock versus a nice hand fitted automatic watch argument for the Glock vs. tuned 1911. Both will keep adequate time and serve the needs of most people. The Glock like the Casio is rugged and will do it with little to no service needed. The tuned 1911 may run better, and more accurately, but like the hand fitted automatic watch movement it will need more servicing to stay at the highest level. If you don't know how to do at least some of this tuning yourself then it might not be the best choice for you. If you decide you still want to own one and can't work on it yourself then be prepared to pay for somewhat regular maintenance and tunings. Therefore if you just like it but don't really "need" it then you would probably be better buying a Glock or "Brand X" pistol that doesn't need so much attention.

If you really want a 1911 but don't want to go through the trouble of a tuned model then a Sig or S&W 1911 is a good choice. The external extractor takes a lot of the tuning issues away. I think they're very nice pistols but don't really consider them a true 1911, a good compromise though. And before you beat me up I own a S&W 1911 and my wife has a Sig 1911 so I'm not hating on them. I just don't see them in the same light I do a fine tuned, perfectly fitted and running "real" 1911.

[kmitch200]

Understood.
I didn't mean for my post to be as snarky as it read...my bad. If we were able to have this conversation over a beer it would be SO much better. 
I can't afford custom built guns anymore. Just getting the tuning, finishes, barrels and tweaks on the ones I own now is plenty for a retired guy.   
A "custom mass produced" like NightHawk or STI is out of my reach. Forget about true custom guns. My SIG 1911 & Colt GCT are the only 'higher' dollar 1911s I have currently with the work done on them. Sending them off for a full blown custom redo is out of the question unless I sell some guns - and that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Both are EDC reliable but due to weight, size and summer sweat, I carry a G27 for EDC/CCW.

After shooting all my SIGs today (SIG forum get together) my first SIG, the 226 9mm was by far the one that I shot best with in moving/shooting/reloading drills. It's like running home to momma when I pick up that gun.
Tie for second was the P225 due to it being so much like the 226 and the SIG GSR 1911 due to it just being so damn accurate.
Like an idiot, I left the range bag with the Colt 1911 at home.

More frequent service/tuning needed in a custom built 1911 or anything else for that matter is not where I'm at right now. It's kinda like asking the Jag owner, "So, how long have you had it out of the shop?"
I want dead nuts reliability, have it on hand, and accuracy...in that order.

[bafsu92]

Understood.
I didn't mean for my post to be as snarky as it read...my bad. If we were able to have this conversation over a beer it would be SO much better. 
I can't afford custom built guns anymore. Just getting the tuning, finishes, barrels and tweaks on the ones I own now is plenty for a retired guy.   
A "custom mass produced" like NightHawk or STI is out of my reach. Forget about true custom guns. My SIG 1911 & Colt GCT are the only 'higher' dollar 1911s I have currently with the work done on them. Sending them off for a full blown custom redo is out of the question unless I sell some guns - and that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Both are EDC reliable but due to weight, size and summer sweat, I carry a G27 for EDC/CCW.

After shooting all my SIGs today (SIG forum get together) my first SIG, the 226 9mm was by far the one that I shot best with in moving/shooting/reloading drills. It's like running home to momma when I pick up that gun.
Tie for second was the P225 due to it being so much like the 226 and the SIG GSR 1911 due to it just being so damn accurate.
Like an idiot, I left the range bag with the Colt 1911 at home.

More frequent service/tuning needed in a custom built 1911 or anything else for that matter is not where I'm at right now. It's kinda like asking the Jag owner, "So, how long have you had it out of the shop?"
I want dead nuts reliability, have it on hand, and accuracy...in that order.

I hear you, the only place worse to misunderstand someone's tone is a text message. As far as custom 1911's go if you get in the market take a serious look at Les Baer. I've owned some of the "higher end" guns like Wilson, Knighthawk (I think are highly overrated) and Ed Brown that are good guns but a lot of money. Both Les Baer's I've owned (still have one) were every bit as well made and accurate for less than half the price. Every one of their pistols are still 100% hand fitted and you can buy a new one for under $1500. I've seen models advertised new for $1299 and I bought one on gunbroker (they usually have a bunch) for right at a grand. I know its still a lot of money to spend on a pistol but you're in the Springfield, Kimber price range, even cheaper than Dan Wesson. I think you get a lot more gun for your money and I've been a Kimber person for almost 15 years. I still own more Kimber's than any other 1911 brand but I'm really sold on the Baer pistols.