Replies

I think CP's point is that it is a weapon where the "safety/combat readiness" decisions went as far as possible to "combat readiness."

I like the Glock, but I have to agree with Chancellor Palpatine and Charles Martel--it is NOT a weapon for carriage by less-than-excruciatingly-well-trained persons. I had eight years of weapons safety training beaten into me by the Marine Corps--but I wouldn't run out and buy a Glock without spending an entire weekend performing the Manual of Arms (Pistol) with it.

I'd be curious if you could explain the distiction. I'm not sure I see it.

Ironically, the Glock is a police weapon (it was designed to be as such, so no surprise), and something like a Sig or USP is a military weapon. There are a handful of design differences due to the different operational focus. Some differences, which are evident in various contract trials:

Accuracy standards for combat firearms are higher than for police firearms, because there is a reasonable expectation that combat pistols will be regularly used at distances far exceeding "self-defense" range.
Re-strike capability, which is something most civilian and police users never have to think about. Some ammo (e.g. originally intended for subguns) has very hard primers, and in some places around the world this is the only ammo you tend to get, particularly if it is military ammo. The military requires pistols that allow you to pull the trigger twice ("re-strike") a hard primer. I know soldier whose ass was once saved over in Africa because his Sig could re-strike.
Very strong action. Military pistols are expected to be able to shoot through blockages (e.g. squibs) and digest proof-level rounds repeatedly without a catastrophic failure and preferably still stay functional. Some actions, such as the USP, have been known to still meet military accuracy standards after shooting through squibs.
Magazine design. Military pistols generally have ambidextrous, spring-assisted magazine release -- an optimization for efficient mag-swapping in a firefight. Many pistols designed for police use have passive systems since mag swapping in a firefight is not a principle use scenario.

These are just some of the things off the top of my head. There ARE important differences between police designs and military designs, with the military pistol designs being more rigorous generally. A nearly perfect embodiment of a military combat pistol is the H&K USP, which was specifically engineered to meet US military standards and preferences perfectly in almost every detail. A really good example of a police pistol is the Glock, which WAS specifically engineered as a police pistol to the specs of a police contract.

Most people would do very well with a police pistol for self-defense purposes, since that is the primary function of that pistol. "Offensive" military pistols tend to be really nice, but you are unlikely to see any additional benefit from them as a pragmatic matter.