Most over-rated firearm on the market, IMHO. Far too much fanboyism attached to them, weird grip, and they’re boxy and uninteresting in general, IMHO. I also don’t like the trigger pull on them.
Mechanically they’re fine and they shoot well, but I’d rather have a Browning Hi-Power or a Sig P226 if I was going down the semi-auto route.
Also Springfield has a polymer gun, the Springfield XD, that you might want to look into. It was my first handgun purchase and I was not disappointed.
If you’re uncomfortable with the Glock grip, and want a “Browning Style,” you’re far better off going with the CZ-75 line, in has many marked improvements over the Browning Hi-Power.
As for the grip, I like it, and I think that people who don’t are a bit crazy. 
I don’t like the stock Trigger, but the Trigger on the 17L is a bit lighter and crisper, and I’m really rather fond of it.
The Springfield gun is a Glock Knock-off (Glock-off, colloquially), and has multiple disadvantages.
Namely, more recoil due to the higher barrel-to-grip (think of the gun as a lever), and far less reliability. As well as lacking the internal safety mechanisms of a Glock, although some would prefer to sacrifice those for external safety mechanisms.
Not a fan of the CZ-75; I don’t like “small” slides. There’s also no history behind the CZ-75; the IPSC shooters seem to love them but they just don’t do anything for me.
In my personal and professional opinion there’s nothing special about Glock handguns. That doesn’t make them bad guns, but there’s no way I’d buy one.
The fact that they’re more reliable and more durable don’t do anything for you?
Perhaps you’re not objective.
You seem to discredit, or not factor, reliability and durability into the equation, both the CZ75 and Glock are more reliable and more durable than the Browning Hi-Power.
Raises hand 
I won’t deny the incredible durability of a Glock, but IMHO they look and feel more like bricks than pistols. I’ve fired Glocks on a few occasions, and they just feel so damn uncomfortable. I felt like I just couldn’t get the grip to sit right in my hand, in stark contrast to the contours of a 1911, which have suited me perfectly ever since I first picked one up.
YMMV, of course, but I’d definitely recommend trying out a gun before you decide to buy it.
It’s a comfort thing, I can completely understand that. Although, cosmetics have never meant anything to me, so I’m fine there.
The Glocks, even 10mm, have always seemed to fit fine in my hands… even since I was a small kid. I was poppin’ off shots with the 10mm when I was a weeee lad.
Most definitely. Always try before you buy.
I got the 17L because I knew I liked the 17 (my dad owns one), but I wasn’t a fan of the trigger. I knew I liked the lighter trigger, so I was going to just do the 3.5er in mine, but when I saw the extended mag and slide releases… I was sold. Not to mention the Increased Sight radius and extra barrel length (for even less recoil… 9mm… what recoil?).
Nope.
Why should I be?
A handgun is a personal choice. I should perhaps list some of my qualifications here. I’ve been shooting for over 15 years. I am a qualified Range Safety Officer, and I am a published firearms historian here in Australia. I’m not just speaking based on what I’ve read on the Internet or picked up from computer games, in other words.
The only handguns I’ve ever seen suffer from reliability issues are Ruger P85s and 1911 Raceguns.
Regardless of whether the CZ-75 and the Glock are “more reliable” than the GP35 (an IMO they aren’t), they’re still uninspiring guns, IMHO. They don’t do anything for me. You’ll note that I have at no time derided the quality of the guns- just stated my personal opinion on them, which is that they are over-rated and have too much hype attached to them.
I do like the 1911 a lot; like Stealth Potato says they do fit comfortably in my hand, they point well, and they shoot straight. But they’re not perfect and I don’t consider myself a 1911 fanboy.
No history behind the CZ-75? It’s only Rally Vincent’s personal weapon. Geez!
Who?
Hmm, okay, we use different measures, then.
… The question seems to answer itself, really.
Nor am I. I’ve been shooting over 10 years. I already qualify to be an NRA safety instructor, minus the age issue.
Then you don’t have nearly the exposure to firearms to pistols that I do.
Your IMO is contrqadictory to absolutely everything published on the subject. As to whether they’re inspiring or not, no one is asking you to write a novel with them as your muse.
That’s fine, but when recommending a pistol or giving a review of a pistol, you need to make it clear that you’re allowing your personal bias to sneak in – less they be confused. Your addition of IMHO onto otherwise factual statements without the qualification that you don’t know what you’re talking about makes it seem as if… you know what you’re talking about.
I agree with him too – however the comfort issue is, once again, one of personal preference.
Glocks are not the end all and be all of pistols, nor did I say they were – however they are more reliable & durable than CZ75’s, which are in turn more reliable & durable than Browning Hi-Power’s (which isn’t to say they’re superior, there are comfort issues for some people). The fact that you do not acknowledge this fact alone puts you into the “creationist” category. Those who choose not to see obvious facts to either serve an agenda or protect a world view.
I rather think I do, just in different areas. The guns I deal with are being shot on a shooting range as part of fairly standard competitions; not IPSC or anything fancy. And for that sort shooting (which might involve 50-100 rounds a week max), I’ve yet to see anything except Ruger P-series and pimped out 1911 raceguns have noticeable reliablity issues. We could probably add Lugers to that, but you can’t use them for competition shooting here, so I haven’t. There are complicated laws regarding calibres and barrel lengths here, so I will admit to having very little experience with pocket pistols and derringers etc.
By “Uninspiring” I mean “Boring”.
I usually do, FWIW.
OK, that’s insulting and I will ask you to retract that. I know you’re new here, but it’s not the done thing to go around insulting well-established posters who are recognised on the boards to know what they’re talking about. (Why the hell do you think Cicero paged me to join in here?)
Look, I deal with historic firearms; generally 19th Century and Pre-Korean war. I don’t claim to be an expert on “Modern” guns but I do have a large amount of experience with them I am entitled to state my opinions on the subject. You’re entitled to disagree. You’re not entitled to insult me or anyone else for disagreeing with you.
I’d like to amend this statement, as I’m not sure I qualify, or I may qualify completely and just not be certified. I do need to look that up. Either way, I do act as a gun safety instructor from time to time.
I’m pretty familiar with the gun laws in Australia (although not as much in the US, Canada, Mexico or England… but the latter-most is pretty simple… “No. :p”).
No, I’m not talking about pocket pistols, or derringers.
And no one is asking you to watch them on the Silver Screen.
While that remark may have been cutting, it was by your own admission, correct. I do apologize for wording it in a snide way, and that was inappropriate and I do wish to clarify that it was written in haste and overly harsh.
As for whether or not you are recognized on the forums as an individual who knows what they’re talking about, I couldn’t care less; You are not familiar with the subject at hand, obviously. You fail to acknowledge certain, basic and fundamentally accepted, facts about these firearms. You deny, even after extensive discussion and claims to know about pistols, what is a gun anatomical fact (one of the many, many things I learned when I actually studied gunsmithing). While this doesn’t excuse my snide remark, I’m sure that bearing that in mind you may or may not have a greater understanding as to why I made it.
In this part of the world, a gun is a significant investment, both in time and money. I, personally, do not want to invest my time and money in firearms that are uninteresting to me. Most other shooters I know feel the same way.
There’s a gigantic difference between “Not being an expert on” and “Not knowing what you’re talking about”. THAT is what I take issue with, as well as the snide tone. I’ll accept your apology over the tone, though.
No, I believe I have acknowledged those facts. I’m not denying for a moment that Glocks are supremely reliable firearms, for example- I don’t recall saying otherwise anywhere. I don’t recall saying the Glock wasn’t more reliable than the CZ-75, and I certainly don’t recall saying the CZ-75 was unreliable. What I did say was that, IMHO, the Browning Hi-Power is not spectacularly less reliable than the Glock or the CZ for what the “average shooter” is doing with it.
I don’t want this conversation to get unpleasant- there’s enough of that on the boards as it is.
Would I be correct in assuming that you’re of the “A Gun is a tool” school of thought? Not a criticism, but an observation that might help me see where you’re coming from.
Jeezus, a pissing match.
32 years of shooting behind me and I have to say that there really aren’t very many crap guns on the market, at least not the ones people take seriously (HiPoint is debatable) - Glock is no more or less reliable than an unmodified 1911, Sig P2xx, Springfield XD, Hi-Power, etc. They all have some problems and none are perfect, some are better than others for some people.
I’m tempted to have this put on a plaque in the social area at my shooting club. 
Yes, yes you would.
While I am terse, I do not mean – generally… – to be insulting.
While I recognize people enjoy guns for other purposes, as I do with certain ones, I am, first and foremost and without question, a utilitarian individual.
I own a tool, and I may (and am planning on) purchasing Range-puppies (an S&W .357, probably 686+, maybe others as time goes on) at a later date.
However, My range puppies need not be as reliable or durable as my Primary firearm, because they’re unlikely to ever take as much of a beating.
Ah, there we go, the source of our misunderstanding.
Handguns here are not tools- they’re sporting equipment or collectible pieces of history. I like mine to be both, which is why I shoot Metallic Silhouette with a Boer War-era vintage Webley service revolver and, incredibly, manage not to came last on the leaderboard.
The 686s are excellent revolvers, and I’ve been very impressed with the Ruger Security Six and the GP-100 too; I can’t see you going wrong with one of those.