I feel like the Glock and the AR-15 are kind of a 'pair' like the 1911 and the Garand, in that they make a very practical and reliable and useful handgun/rifle combo, and I would not hesitate to grab the pair if I needed to deal with something unpleasant. The 1911 and M-1A I think ARE prettier, and just
seem to be more solid, though I would expect 'torture tests' to show both Glock and modern AR's to be tougher than I am.
When I had a Glock years ago, I disassembled it and saw lots of the itty-bitty parts made of thin steel, vs. the few beefy chunks of the 1911. That just bugs me, even though I've seen the videos where the Glocks are basically indestructable.
Interestingly I have the SAME feelings about the Garand...
![Surprised :o](./images/smilies/icon_surprised.gif)
All those fragile-looking parts related to the clip-loadable magazine just give me the creeps. I know they seldom break, and I love my Garand, but I like the simplicity of the M-1A far better (most people assume the latter is better due to higher magazine capacity, but even if it had a regular internal 8-shot magazine, I'd prefer the M-1A over the Garand.
Unfortunately, I don't see any way the Glock could be 'improved' in a similar manner, so I guess I'll have to go on being a
Glockophobe. Maybe someday I'll try one again, if I find one in .45 ACP (
but then I'll want another 1911 for the 'spare parts' factor), or 10mm (
but then I'll hesitate to get into yet 'another round to reload for').
The Para Ordnance "LDA" gave me the same feelings, by the way, even though it looks like a 1911 from the outside. Too many little linkage parts inside, though the DA trigger was seriously as good as a SA Contender trigger, and felt about as easy to pull.