I think the Glock 34 with replacement sights, kydex OWB holster and mag pouches, and many case of 9mm ammo is the ticket for an entry competition shooter. You can get your feet wet and compete in USPSA, IDPA, 3 Gun, Steel, etc.
I think the Glock 34 with replacement sights, kydex OWB holster and mag pouches, and many case of 9mm ammo is the ticket for an entry competition shooter. You can get your feet wet and compete in USPSA, IDPA, 3 Gun, Steel, etc.
I guarantee that an M shooting a Glock will not be an M shooting a Hipoint
Likewise, a GM shooting a Hipoint won't be a GM
Some guns are legitimately better than others. In some cases, yes, the differences are more preferential and the changes are more lateral than pure upgrades, this can include ergonomic differences. On the other hand there are performance differences eg the accuracy from 1st gen M&Ps and things like heel mag releases...
Also, DA metal guns have been on the scene for a while now, and especially not just in the US.
Do you carry a gun for defense? If so, just having One Gun will allow for efficient training and stay away from possible screw ups stemming from different platforms. If it's a HK then I would say you are already down that road a bit, why not stick with that?
What you do right before you know you're going to be in a use of force incident, often determines the outcome of that use of force.
Replace HiPoint with a non-joke brand. If you believe Vogel can't wipe the floor with everyone here with a Glock as much as a random ass Walther...
He actually put time into getting good. The Glocks he used were completely irrelevant.
It's your money. All I'm saying is I'd be kicking myself for ever bubbling up the logic of bothering to buy a "competition" specific gun. But I also couldn't care less about shooting open or limited division where that's actually required to compete at a respectable level.
Last edited by Peally; 04-07-2017 at 05:55 PM.
Semper Gumby, Always Flexible
The Walther fits in (mostly) with lateral move on my list (I still consider it inferior to the Glock for a few reasons though)
Smith and Wesson is a non joke brand and they have been uncompetitive. Same for Springfield XD's minus in the hands of a single person.
There is also something to be said about buying a competition gun that is purely for competition- they tend to be fun to shoot. You are way more likely to have fun shooting your comp gun at a match than to need your carry gun so I think there is an argument to be made as to value in terms of usage. I am saying this and I am not even a fan of USPSA guns that lack "real world" utility, however I do understand fun.
If it motivates you to train on it I'm all for it
Semper Gumby, Always Flexible
I'll run with that photography metaphor, since I was a pro photographer in high school and college. You know those pistols so worn there's no finish left? I owned cameras like that. Here's how I'd sum it up: Quality gear matters because when you're shooting 60,000 frames a year, crappy gear will break. That's why top pro cameras are so expensive, they're strong and better sealed against the elements. The fancy features are largely irrelevant. The other thing that matters is the lens, because you can soften a sharp image, but can do only so much to improve a not-sharp one.
I'll let someone else figure out exactly how that translates to guns, but pretty sure most everyone here understands about the reliability thing. Beyond that, good tools maybe make the job a little easier for someone who already knows how to use them.
Last edited by Salamander; 08-26-2018 at 12:08 AM.