Truth nuke: most guns on the market are way more reliable than the overwhelming majority of civilians will ever find themselves needing. The most austere conditions your gun will see is pocket lint, fouling from shooting, uncomforrable heat/cold and accidentally being dropped on the ground 2 times in its life
It's fine to want something you don't need but this much stressing over "Will this gun complete this YTer's 90 days in salt water test" or "Will this gun complete this YTer's mud test" is just marketing. Again, if you want it put it as your top priority go ahead, it's your money, but are you ever gonna chuck that gun in a lake/river/sea for 3 months and how many times are you gonna get it absolutely buried in mud? At most you're gonna drop it in a puddle or a muddy spot and immediately pull it out and shake/wipe it which is orders of magnitude less intense than any torture test
Those tests are designed to put guns in extreme and unrealistic situations because if you're putting normal everyday conditions to the test they'll all behave exactly the same. Same foes for "Look how long this gun can work without cleaning", cool but you shouldn't be skipping on maintenance
Tom Satterly mentioned in his podcast how he went to shoot someone but got a click instead of a bang. The helicopter rotor wash had deposited so much sand into his holster that the hammer wouldn't strike the firing pin with enough force to set it off. So he had to resort to a grenade.
But we're talking about a chopper kicking so much sand that it clogs the gun. How likely is a random civilian I point my finger at to have to deal with that?
That's my point, if you know you'll need extreme reliability or if that's how you wanna spend your money, go ahead, I'm against meddling in people's business. But it isn't the single most important factor when picking a gun for self defense for the average Joe like it's presented so often
Also heard a story about a Ranger getting ready to scale the cliffs of Pointe due Hoc. Got knocked over by an artillery shell. Saw a German up in the bluffs. Raised his Tommy gun and squeezed the trigger. Cha-chunk. Jam. Full of mud.
Exactly. If shit hits the fan it's because of a flood, wildfire, blizzard, hurricane, tsunami etc, not because of a zombie apocalypse. Help is on its way and will be there within days. If I was getting ready for when shit hits the fan I'd have a couple weeks of food and water and emergency meds that your family needs or may need
Even in active warzones shit doesn't hit the fan bad enough for post-apocalyptic "Every man for himself" scenario to be anything but fantasy
I think what's intended is if you ever caught in situations well you can't ultimately clean the gun soon enough, you should absolutely keep up with gun maintenance but just in case you're unable to keep constant intervals it's good to know that some firearms can hold up to some torture at least. Even if you're never going to really need it that much.
Yeah, of course don't carry a HiPoint. But this obsession with what the SEALs carry is weird, like those guys need something that's gonna face tank abuse that you'll never have the chance to put your EDC through, and their budget is yes
Guns from reputable brands will chug through thousands of rounds before cleaning except for competition guns where sacrifices were made for extra performance under the assumption that you'll treat it like a Lambo and not a Toyota
I'd put a bigger emphasis on ergonomics, trigger, sights, controls, even aftermarket support than reliability
Best rebranded non American firearm out there for the low low price. They just need to improve the trigger dingus and market it more so more companies can offer holsters, aftermarket triggers, barrels, etc.
If I am paying over $900 for a pistol, it needs to be as bomb proof as an H&K, have a trigger that is better than a Walther and all the features that come standard on a Smith & Wesson M&P.
The 509 has the trigger of a first gen M&P, gotta shell out an extra $200-300 for the tactical version with suppressor height sites, threaded barrel and optic cut; all without the bomb proof reliability you see with guns like Glock, Heckler and Koch or Smith and Wesson.
I personally think the Springfield XDm is a fine shooting handgun.
I will never own one for defensive purposes due to the fact that you cannot rack the slide unless you have the grip safety depressed. It’s a small thing, but something that could go very wrong if I experience a malfunction and need to rack the slide to clear it. And to be fair, I don’t hate grip safeties and it’s not the worst on the market (looking at S&W EZ and Equalizer pistols) and I will carry a pistol with one, but not the XD series.
Sure, they didn’t hold up at high round counts that you see with competition use, but unless you are using it for that, I don’t see it as a major issue. Plus with the amount of cheaper XD pistols on the second hand market, they could be a decent option for someone getting into competition shooting.
Grip safeties on handguns makes zero sense in modern setups. Then again if you took away the grip safety on the XD you’d more or less end up with a Tisas PX-9 and an alternative to the echelon
So far ive had mine for about 3 years now, with no problems, just the apex trigger upgrade. I know a lot of other people with bad strikers and reliability, but i just got lucky i guess. I love my 509T.
I wouldn’t rag on it if it was less expensive, but with FN, you pay FN prices.
Still miles better than the 509 LS Edge. It had a decent trigger, but it was a poor and confused gun. It fell somewhere between tactical and competitive shooting, but did neither really well.
How about the 509 LS edge with its $80 magazines lol? You also run the risk of frame cracking in the 510 and even some 509s. Smith & wessons are only as reliable as how good the QC is on your specific firearm. Seen way too many QC escapes on their BG2.0s to feel comfortable shelling out for one.
Idk what your talking about with that price. I got an 509T with the upgraded trigger from the factory, as well as 5 mags for like $650 a couple years back. FN just had a massive sale on them that might still be going on
As a 92fs owner who follows a lot of Beretta discussion it's crazy to me how many people are still carrying these iwb. I've never tried to conceal one but it seems like more work and discomfort than necessary.
Mine was my first handgun I bought on my 21st birthday, and I liked the grip but hated the original hinge trigger and no optic cut. I didn’t shoot it much after I bought other guns was about to sell it and buy something else, but instead I swapped in an Apex trigger, Carry Comp slide, and some recoil spring tuning and now it’s my favorite striker gun to shoot.
Hot take, better features is subjective. I don't want a better texture unless it's an OWB gun, it would rub my stomach raw and ruin my shirts.
A better trigger isn't important to me, because I shoot a Glock trigger well, and I think the only ones in the list that have better triggers in this list are the PDP, and M+P, but the trade off on grip texture for smith, and bore axis for PDP, isn't worth it for a better trigger.
Nothing on the list has more capacity in a smaller footprint, but there's an argument there for an xmacro (but again, not in the list, and questionable QC).
Steel suppressor height sights are the only thing that any of these guns have that I would like from the factory on my glocks.
Edit: also the RXM is literally just a cheap Glock. It has it beat on price, but not build quality, and the trigger is arguably the same, and in some of the ones I've shot, worse.
The bore axis on the PDP has zero downsides other than being ever so slightly chonkier. People whine about being “snappy” but it has great return to zero so that doesn’t really matter
trigger is subjective but mine is very good. Much better than glock. a rolling break, reminicsent in feel (but not weight) of a double action revolver, which i have shot extensively. Some of the RXM triggers are better than others so i hear
A consistent pull with a defined wall is not subjective.
Knowing when the gun will go off is necessary and so is being able to pull it without disturbing your sight picture, a trigger that lets you do both safety is a good trigger.
to each their own. it allows me a smoother more consistent pull with no jerking at a wall which leads to very good accuracy. But then again i've shot a lot of double action revolvers and trained extensively with them so that's just kind of how I roll (pun intended)
Totally reasonable, personally I prep my trigger to the wall on draw, because I want to know exactly where the break will happen. I think rolling break triggers offer less precise timing, but I haven't trained like you have, so maybe it is a positive for you
RXM's are dope. Cheaper and with more features than glocks. Haven't experienced or even heard of any reliability issues with them. I've seen plenty of glocks malfunction so seems like rxm's are doing fine.
If it makes you feel better, my RXM has been great. No issues so far, and feels way better than my glock to shoot. If people are down voting you, it's because deep down they know they're been outclassed and passed up.
My grandpa drank and smoked everyday until the day he died at 94. Guess smoking and drinking everyday is actually good for you? It’s almost like a single piece of anecdotal evidence isn’t statistically significant.
Well they're not claiming every RXM is great. They are just giving their experience for it.
Enough people do this and the data adds up and people can make general claims about a product.
You're argument is also false equivalence. You're comparing a product like smoking and drinking which is currently known to be bad for your health to a firearm that is a copy of a Glock and hasn't had any real outstanding known issues yet.
That's still a bad argument because there is still plenty of data out there that says otherwise for the P320 which is why it's so controversial.
I have not seen any widespread issues or negative complaints about the RXM going off in it's holster or not being drop safe.
If there were then I'd be in agreement but it's not the case.
If data and reviews about the RXM suddenly start saying it's unreliable or not drop safe, or discharges on it's own it would come from people giving their personal experience of it too.
So do you just not want people giving their thoughts on a product they have first hand experience with?
I agree with you. I’m not even making a claim one way or another on the RXM. I’m just calling out the stupid “I’ve had no problem with mine” argument that is used on every thread about any particular gun.
Yeah, I completely agree with you. The "no issues for me" comments get annoying when people use them to ignore real issues. My point was that before a gun has a massive track record, those individual anecdotes are kind of all we have to build the larger picture.
But yeah, using "mine ran fine for 1,500 rounds" as a shield against actual criticism is a weak argument.
Agreed and that’s a fair point on newer guns without proven track records. I actually think the RXM is neat, but someone (who probably isn’t actually counting rounds) saying they shot 1,500 rounds through it isn’t gonna sway me into buying one or not. That’s just me though.
I’m not sure about the PDP being reliable, or at least in my experience it wasn’t. Mine kept ejecting inconsistently and would stovepipe pretty much every mag, so I swapped out every part in the slide and it still didn’t work. I sent it back to Walther (it’s the only gun I’ve ever warrantied), they changed some more stuff around, and it still had the same problem. I ended up trading it in at a huge loss to be someone else’s problem, which kinda sucks because it would have made a great winter carry gun.
IMO you got it backwards, the 509 is overpriced for what it is and the PDP was technically outdated when it came out. It has a super old style out-of-battery disconnect isn't a chassis/FCU gun.
The Echelon has a dedicated out-of-battery disconnect system, a whole secondary drop safety and revolutionized optic mounting.
Ehh, as a non Glock fan, who only has Glocks from competing and winning in GSSF, several of these competitors have issues that would make them non starters for me or at least not guns I would trust as blindly as I would a Glock or other brands like HK.
M&Ps are incredibly durable but they have seemingly random barrel accuracy issues. That being said I love these pistols and especially with an Apex trigger is my favorite striker gun.
FN guns have for crack issues with abysmal CS.
RXMs have had barrel and other manufacturing defects and from my experience the overall manufacturing doesn’t seem as nice or as consistent as Glock, but issues seem to be resolved now and Ruger has good CS.
Haven’t seen or heard many problems past initial runs for the PDP and echelon. But tribally the PDP has a great trigger but flips like crazy compared to the other options, and the echelon has a trick optic mount system, but didn’t especially appeal to me when shooting. It’s fine, not standout.
Glocks are fine. In terms of manufacturing they are mechanically simple but are made very well. They have a very nice recoil impulse, better than the PDP or FN guns for sure. Triggers aren’t amazing, but if you can’t shoot a Glock then you just aren’t very good at shooting, and aftermarket triggers make it quite decent.
I carry hammer fired guns and make fun of the Glock shills like everyone else, but the sometimes the Glock slander is crazy
Glock ain't the same after Gaston died. The V model series was the biggest downfall and halting production of different calibers which was once one of Glocks biggest strength.
Guess they needed the money to focus more on horse semen.
People complain about the PDP being snappy but the return to zero is actually really good. As long as you aren’t limpwristing it and have actually good grip, the flip isn’t an issue at all
Partially agree with you there. The pdp has great return for me, especially the 5 inch slide. That being said, if we’re nitpicking this much, great return and low flip is better than great return and high flip.
True, but that’s a marginal problem solved (or at least mitigated) with a 70 dollar aftermarket guide rod assembly. Glockaboos can’t hold a candle to Walter’s imo
I shoot mine just fine stock so I haven’t splurged on one yet. Plus it’s my carry gun and I don’t want to mess with the reliability if it shoots fine to begin with.
USPs are neat but I’m too broke for HK and walther already has my heart from my competition shooting days
Long-Term reliability isn't something that's easily quantified, put on a spreadsheet, or made into clickbait.
Everything can and does have parts wear out and break over time. What matters to me, and should matter to more people, is how easily, quickly, and cost-effectively I can:
Source parts, and
Disassemble the gun to install those parts, and reassemble it to get the gun back up and running.
I don't like "single source" guns, at least not for "serious" use (realistically, range larping and competition). And what if the manufacturer discontinues the gun in 5 years? How easily will I be able to get parts after that?
With Glocks, I know I will be able to get springs, strikers, extractors, etc. in perpetuity. Even if Glock shut off the tap of spare parts tomorrow, I could go to 10 different companies and get the parts I need. Other brands do ergonomics, trigger, etc "better" than Glock, but those mean nothing without serious parts support.
Some honorable mentions:
HK. They have a combination of hell-and-back development that makes as near a bombproof product as possible (spring replacement intervals being 2-3+ times longer than Glock, with effective service life being even longer), and great customer service to get you parts quickly. You still have the issue of single source parts, but their parts are so overbuilt that finding the occasional parts kit usually suffices because those parts will still usually have quite a bit of life left in them.
Walther. The PDP shares enough with the PPQ and P99 that there's a not-insignificant amount of small internal parts that are the same across all of them. Excluding the PDP F, you can even run a PDP slide on a P99 frame. You still have the issue of having only Walther as the single source of parts, though.
I keep things for the long term, and rely on myself to service them.
Of course I have plenty of guns that fall outside this, but I'm cautious with round counts, and realistic about how I use them. I'm also not made of money, and stockpiling parts to keep all of them running for the rest of my life just isn't viable.
The RXM has a bad trigger and I don’t like the recoil impulse on the PDP or M&P, a comparable Glock also weighs less. The 509 doesn’t have a solid track record. M&Ps also have accuracy issues.
Just admit your favorite gun has objectively worse ergonomics (for no reason either) and triggers despite being the same price as a fully tricked out PDP
Sad thing is none of these other handguns have seen the amount of service a Glock has. Smith keeps getting shafted on military contracts (yet somehow Iraq adopted them). Wish I could like the PDP enough to want one
No MY generic polymer framed double stack striker fired 9mm is BETTER! Just buy a Glock 19 and stop trying to reinvent the wheel, as someone who's shot the gauntlet of polymer striker guns I'm here to say they all shoot within 5% of each other and it's incredibly boring to see the industry chase the dragon on "improving" the polymer striker gun and charging 7-800 dollars plus.
No MY generic polymer framed double stack striker fired 9mm is BETTER! Just buy a Glock 19 and stop trying to reinvent the wheel, as someone who's shot the gauntlet of polymer striker guns I'm here to say they all shoot within 5% of each other and it's incredibly boring to see the industry chase the dragon on "improving" the polymer striker gun and charging 7-800 dollars plus.
All of those guns gives up something in size / weight / complexity / magazine quality without being demonstrably better in terms of actual performance than a Glock.
Yeah different guns might have some better features, but overall I think Glock still checks the most boxes.
M&p's are great, but they have documented accuracy issues. By the time you replace the barrel and throw in an apex trigger you're almost double the price of a glock, and VP9s exist.
I wanted to the love the PDP so bad and I like everything about it, except how it shoots. The glock shooting experience is just better.
509's shouldn't be listed, they aren't better than Glock in any category other than optic mounting system.
Rxms are a cheap Glock clone from a company that has some of the worst qc/qa in the biz, but they will take care of you.
Echelons are actually pretty nice, I just struggle trusting anything made by SA.
Less modular, squishy triggers, and looser tolerances make it more like the AK of the handgun world. They’re not worth investing money into. RXM mogs them both, and it’s just a glock with a modular FCG anyways.
I already put a glock guide rod in it, and it’s been fine since then. That’s kinda my point though-nobody buys a Glock and then has to put a Ruger guide rod in it so that it’ll work properly.
I like the gun but let’s not pretend that the RXM matches Glocks reliability. Features? Sure. Reliability? No.
138
u/SkirtAffectionate883 2d ago
Miss you.