Normally I try to avoid the “Brand A” vs “Brand B” debates, but maybe someone with experience with both guns can chime in.
My brother-in-law is in the market for a new .45 and, of all the options out there, the choice has come down to either the Glock 21 (standard fat-grip model) or the FNP-45. He asked me what I thought, and I don’t have any experience with the models in question. (This would be primarily a range blaster/HD weapon).
Going just on feedback from some folks here, the G-21 appears to be a generally accurate and reliable gun that’s had some past issues - which would appear to have been addressed by now?
I don’t know if the FNP has been out long enough to generate any kind of a track record. I’ve heard of a few feeding issues, but that may be just anecdotal.
Locally anyway, the Glock is the least expensive option.
So, would it be accurate to say that these two pistols are approximately equal in the categories of accuracy and reliability?
Glock 21; previous issues have been addressed for years (primarily involving a revised breechface cut, ejector angle, and a new triggerbar); if the standard size receiver is too large, there’s the Short Frame varient.
I have medium-sized hands, and index quite well with the standard size frame. I’ve had my G21 since 2006-it’s a current Generation 3 gun, and has performed flawlessly for carry, IDPA, and steel plate competition.
I have nothing against the other guns recommended, other than to say that the Glock has been fielded successfully for years, and they’re exceptionally well supported by the factory and aftermarket suppliers. I consider the HK USP .45 to have an equal-sized, if not larger receiver (the HK45 is an improvement over both, but about twice as expensive as the G21).
Try the Glock 21SF with the Glock rail, I have two, both have been 100%, one has an Insight M3X light installed, 4525 rounds before I stopped keeping track, 100%, this is my current Duty weapon of choice.