\The more in spec a gun is, it becomes inherently less reliable really? I have never heard/read the part in bold about the xdm anywhere else. I believe that statement is without merit, can you site some evidence?
@ OP, I love my glock and I love my XD. The glock angle is weird to me but it is a straight shooter and thats why i love it. My xd was my first gun and it has been 100% since the day I bought it a couple years ago, as I break it in it only gets more accurate. The grip on it is a tad robust but I have fairly large hands to grip it. This grip safety on it isn't noticeable to me or Mrs. Beast when shooting either.
To me it's a coin flip between the XD and Glock, BUT I would easily choose the XDm over the Glock. My only regret about buying the XD is that I didn't buy the XDm instead.
I didn't say more in spec, but built tighter. Tighter guns are inherently more accurate. However, tighter guns can also mean it may be more susceptible to dirt, dust, ect. Examples include AR's vs AK's, Glocks vs 1911's, and heck early GI 1911's vs custom target 1911's. Tighter guns need more break-in period and looser guns will function under a wider range of conditions, ammo, and variables. And I didn't necessarily say that XDm's even have that problem, but just a thought that this may be the case due to XDm's being a tighter gun out of the polymer guns.
Why I even mention that is because the reports I get from buddies who frequent tactical training courses do tell me that overall XDs and XDm "seem" to have more stoppages than Glocks or M&P's, but stoppages with these guns are very few and far between that it's not really worth using as a data point against the XD or XDm. Especially when you compare polymer guns to 1911's. Don't think I've met anyone who frequents defensive shooting courses or teach a course ever mention a 1911 making it through all the way without a malfunction.