Give me reliability over reducing my groups by less than half, it's not like I can't keep my M&P on target. In fact you yourself opined that Americans worried too much about accuracy in reference to the AK vs the AR. So why the difference?
The difference is one is a handgun, the most difficult of all firearms to hit with, and the other is a rifle. [/quote]
I'd love to get a 1911 to run 500 rounds without a hiccup but the fact remains that I've yet to make it through 100 rounds without some kind of failure. Again my main 1911's were the STI Ranger and my Colt Combat Commander. I've shot a few race guns that ran fine but why can't these stock pistols be in working order out of the box?
If that was my only experience, I'd probably feel much the same way as you.
What I cant seem to wrap my head around is this. I have two 1911's right now that are functionally box stock. Never had a single issue with either. 500 rounds in a day; piece of cake.
I've also competed and built competition 1911's. I've been on the range and seen 1911's go thousands of rounds without a hitch. I've also seen others that couldn't make it through a magazine.
I've watched the 1911 perform quite brilliantly for decades. Suddenly they've become a completely unreliable POS; that just doesn't compute.
I ascribe this phenomenon to the fact that since there are now pistols that are MORE reliable, the unknowing young-ins on the internet extrapolate "less" reliable to mean "un" reliable.
My point about the 500 rounds vs. the 5,000 rounds is very pointed, and doesn't carry over to an infantry rifle; two VERY different animals with VERY different roles.
No one has EVER fired 500 rounds from a handgun in a firefight; EVER.
You can't even count how many have done it with a rifle though, and then were re-supplied and fired another 2,000 rounds. VERY different sort of thing. (BTW I happen to think the AR has demonstrated about a bazillion times that it's more than sufficiently reliable).
A pistol that will go several thousand rounds without needing any maintenance at all is very inspiring. But that is a training convenience, NOT a battlefield necessity; do you see a difference?
So my pistol will go a good 10-20 times farther than my ammo supply without needing any maintenance, and still not exhibiting any malfunctions. I know this because I do it all the time. Would you agree that at that point, my pistol is sufficiently reliable for self defense purposes, and even has a good 300-400% reserve of reliability?
So that part of my criteria is done; I'm good. Now past that, I'm on to other criteria that I consider important, and it's that other criteria that moves me toward non-Glock pistols. Make sense?
Again, I have nothing against the Glock; they're great guns (as are the other synthetic frame pistols). But I have other wants and likes that are not fulfilled by a Glock.
