The Glock has some serious benefits that I think truly hold an edge over the competition. For starters it is extremely customizable and shooters can select from a variety of readily available options that cater to their needs. They perform well in the various categories; i.e. recoil, accuracy, trigger, grip, sights. It’s a good pick-up and go pistol as is. The Glock is extremely reliable and robust, you can shoot the hell out of it and it runs just fine.
That all being said, the Glock does everything just good enough. It’s a little on the expensive side nearing $600 for a newer model. You should probably buy better sights at a minimum because the base model polymer sights are kind of weak. The grip is bulky and not the most ergonomic shape. The trigger is spongy and a little long to break. If you don’t suck at the fundamentals then none of it really matters admittedly, but there are guns available that come better set-up for less. Really the gun is just OK, and that leaves room for the new kids on the block.
Many more recently produced striker fired pistols have come on to the scene in the last decade (I won’t name them). Many of these pistols are $100 or so cheaper than a Glock and come with tritium sights while sporting excellent designs. Better triggers, sights, and ergonomics are enough of a selling point for me. When it comes to a modern fighting pistol I expect a few things to be inherent in its design. The gun should conform to the human hand without being overly specific to an individual. The sights should be more than cheap plastic with white spots. Lastly, I expect the trigger be crisp and manageable out of the box. The problem with a bare bones stock Glock, is that it handles these requirements only just well enough to pass for a slightly higher retail cost. The Glock is not outdated and is an excellent pistol but, in my mind, it’s not perfection anymore.
Feature image: The author’s Glock 17 with Inforce APL
