I'd ask him to specifically list the reasons the HK is (supposedly) better than the Glock.

Throw out the one about it "being a HK". If that was a real reason, then there would be no need for other guns on the market.

After he lists the reasons, give each one an actual test or at least a BS smell-test. Trust your gut. Ask questions.

If any of the reasons seem legitimate, then ask yourself if those reasons are worth the price difference TO YOU. They may be worth it to him, and not worth it to me, but that doesn't matter; you should only pay for things YOU can use. Example: long-term durability is often a selling point for certain guns, but if it was your intention to shoot one magazine of ammo through the gun to function-test it and then drop it in the nightstand forever, long-term durability should not really be worth anything to you.

I'll mention that parts availability for HK weapons sucks, and when you CAN find them, they're always expensive. Spare magazines also usually cost more, but not always. Although they MAY be very accurate, many folks do not personally shoot HKs all that well (based on my experience), although I cannot say why with any level of confidence. Glocks are easy to work on, parts are plentiful and cheap, and enough folks shoot them well in competitions like IDPA that a person can't really argue that they are hard to shoot well. If any of this is important to you, take it into account when you make your decision. If not, or if you don't think it's inaccurate or might be biased, then don't use it in your decision-making process.

Good luck!

Originally Posted by DJ Niner

I'd ask him to specifically list the reasons the HK is (supposedly) better than the Glock.

Throw out the one about it "being a HK". If that was a real reason, then there would be no need for other guns on the market.

After he lists the reasons, give each one an actual test or at least a BS smell-test. Trust your gut. Ask questions.

If any of the reasons seem legitimate, then ask yourself if those reasons are worth the price difference TO YOU. They may be worth it to him, and not worth it to me, but that doesn't matter; you should only pay for things YOU can use. Example: long-term durability is often a selling point for certain guns, but if it was your intention to shoot one magazine of ammo through the gun to function-test it and then drop it in the nightstand forever, long-term durability should not really be worth anything to you.

I'll mention that parts availability for HK weapons sucks, and when you CAN find them, they're always expensive. Spare magazines also usually cost more, but not always. Although they MAY be very accurate, many folks do not personally shoot HKs all that well (based on my experience), although I cannot say why with any level of confidence. Glocks are easy to work on, parts are plentiful and cheap, and enough folks shoot them well in competitions like IDPA that a person can't really argue that they are hard to shoot well. If any of this is important to you, take it into account when you make your decision. If not, or if you don't think it's inaccurate or might be biased, then don't use it in your decision-making process.

Good luck!

Thanks for the good input DJ. When pressed, the gentleman basicly said that the HK was made with superior metal and more accurately machined and therefor more reliable and accurate than the Glock. He also touted the grip as 3 finger vs. 2. Well, I got no way of comparing down here, but your remarks on the HK parts thing was very relevant. I was checking it out and found that the Glock has far fewer parts and is less complicated than the HK. I like that. Also, I am pretty sure I had a Pearce ext. on my 26, so whether it was 2 or 3 fingers, it felt good. Thanks again for your post, hell, I loved that little Glock and really don't need to spend any extra $$$ unless the HK was truly that much better, which I now doubt it is.
Eli Thanks for the slap upside the head!