Sig 320 vs Glock

[call_me_ski]

You realize you can't mix shorter frames with longer slides with the 320 series. You need a conversion kit with a barrel and slide as well as frame to go from full size to compact etc etc. The only modular portion is the fire control unit/chassis. If a more concealable handgun is needed then start there and stay there. At the price of a conversion kit it would be easier to buy a compact or sub compact if you felt the need for options.

A compact frame will work fine with a full sized slide with the 320.

[Kdubya]

You realize you can't mix shorter frames with longer slides with the 320 series. You need a conversion kit with a barrel and slide as well as frame to go from full size to compact etc etc. The only modular portion is the fire control unit/chassis. If a more concealable handgun is needed then start there and stay there. At the price of a conversion kit it would be easier to buy a compact or sub compact if you felt the need for options.
MM

Um...I hope all the people out there running a Compact Slide with SC frame don't find out. Their guns might stop working all of the sudden. There are even some holster makers who have an option specifically for the Compact/SC combo. In fact, I've seen people report that a SC slide works with a FULL SIZE frame. It looks dumb as hell, but it apparently functions.

[RHINOWSO]

You realize you can't mix shorter frames with longer slides with the 320 series. You need a conversion kit with a barrel and slide as well as frame to go from full size to compact etc etc. The only modular portion is the fire control unit/chassis.

Just plain wrong.

[austinN4]

You realize you can't mix shorter frames with longer slides with the 320 series.

I believe I have seen Carry/Compact grip modules with FS slides on them. Edited to add: replied before I went to the next page and found the other replies, LOL.
But I'll leave my 2 cents worth in place anyway.

[Gödel]

There are not five separate parts in a Glock trigger, the trigger comes as a COMPLETE unit and cannot be disassembled any further. I agree that the grips on a Beretta just sit there, but parts count is parts count and they can still fail. The tiny springs and multiple tiny pins are numerous. The design as a whole is outdated. An exposed trigger bar is a dumb idea, a slide mounted safety is a dumb idea, a three piece locking block is a dumb idea, the exposed barrel/slide is a dumb idea. The potential for debris to prevent the hammer from striking the firing pin or otherwise obstructing it are significant. The ingress points on a Glock are minimal. The Beretta armourers manual I have states that locking blocks should be changed every 6000 rounds and a service life of 36,000 rounds. That's a pathetically low number. The DA/SA is a horrendous affair and requires a lot more range time to master both pulls than a pistol with a consistent pull.

I'm not sure what you mean by "have to allow the pin to retract for ejection.." There is no pin to retract, if you mean the striker it has already returned back into the slide before ejection.

I don't think you understood my point. The claim that a Glock is more reliable from the standpoint of the number of parts has nothing to do with how those parts are pinned together or how you order new ones. The idea is that each additional moving piece is an additional point of potential failure. A replaceable spring in a Beretta is no more likely to fail than the plastic spring powering a Glock trigger safety. That's a false paradigm.

The rest of your claims about the open slide and locking block would be interesting if the Beretta wasn't already known as one of the all time most reliable 9mm handguns - dirty or not. Locking blocks means the barrel doesn't have to tilt, which improves both the cartridge feed path and decreases cycling friction. The open slide allows easier ejection and debris to get out of the gun.


And yes, the firing pin tip of the end of the striker has to retract for a Browning lock up gun to function, so Glock and other guns have to use strikers that are inertial for the 1/8" of travel. Another disadvantage.


I think you also know full well that Beretta's don't need new locking block every 6000 rounds or that the gun wears out at 36,000. The current blocks are rated to 35,000, and many competitive high volume shooters have gone over 100,000 rounds on the original block and a lot longer on the frame. The Beretta design appears to be one of the longest lasting aluminum framed guns you can buy.

And yes, DA makes it harder to pull the trigger. Which has something to do with the absence of the term "Beretta leg".

[Mysteryman]

Um...I hope all the people out there running a Compact Slide with SC frame don't find out. Their guns might stop working all of the sudden. There are even some holster makers who have an option specifically for the Compact/SC combo. In fact, I've seen people report that a SC slide works with a FULL SIZE frame. It looks dumb as hell, but it apparently functions.

From what I find on SIG's site this is not how they intended the pistols to be swapped/used. This really is no different than putting a Glock 19 slide on a Glock 26 frame, sure it can be done but it isn't recommended... After some more searching I have found pics of these mixed pistols. The full size and carry frame are the same height and differ only in length. The compact frame is a whopping 0.20 inches shorter than either the full size or carry frames(assuming we are using a full size slide as length has little effect for carry). The sub compact frame is 0.80 inches shorter than the full size and 0.60 inches shorter than the compact frame. I see no benefit to the full size frame if you desire a shorter grip for concealment. The compact is marginally shorter and comes at the expense of 2 rounds capacity and yet it is 0.30 inches taller than a Glock 19 with equal capacity and only 0.13 inches shorter than a Glock 17 with a 2 round advantage. The sub compact frame is 0.29 inches shorter than a Glock 19 but gives up 3 rounds. The Glock 26 is a full 0.52 inches shorter than the 320 compact and only gives up 2 rounds. The difference between a SC and C barrel length is a whopping 0.30 inches and the perceived gain in "sight radius" is grossly over hyped. The compact looks to be the best all around selection much the same way the G19 has become the sweet spot.. Except the Glock won't fire when dropped.

I don't think you understood my point. The claim that a Glock is more reliable from the standpoint of the number of parts has nothing to do with how those parts are pinned together or how you order new ones. The idea is that each additional moving piece is an additional point of potential failure. A replaceable spring in a Beretta is no more likely to fail than the plastic spring powering a Glock trigger safety. That's a false paradigm.

The rest of your claims about the open slide and locking block would be interesting if the Beretta wasn't already known as one of the all time most reliable 9mm handguns - dirty or not. Locking blocks means the barrel doesn't have to tilt, which improves both the cartridge feed path and decreases cycling friction. The open slide allows easier ejection and debris to get out of the gun.


And yes, the firing pin tip of the end of the striker has to retract for a Browning lock up gun to function, so Glock and other guns have to use strikers that are inertial for the 1/8" of travel. Another disadvantage.


I think you also know full well that Beretta's don't need new locking block every 6000 rounds or that the gun wears out at 36,000. The current blocks are rated to 35,000, and many competitive high volume shooters have gone over 100,000 rounds on the original block and a lot longer on the frame. The Beretta design appears to be one of the longest lasting aluminum framed guns you can buy.

And yes, DA makes it harder to pull the trigger. Which has something to do with the absence of the term "Beretta leg".

More parts means more points of failure, Beretta has 69 of them(just checked my armorers manual) it's really that simple. The complex design is unnecessary and no the open top slide doesn't aid in debris evacuation, it aids in introducing debris FIRST. Concerning yourself with easier extraction/ejection can only be relevant if the gun fired in the first place.

The firing pin/striker does not remain in contact with the primer after striking it, as you noted it rebounds under inertia and is also beveled which permits the barrel tilt/slide movement under recoil to easily force the firing pin/striker back inside the slide.

Beretta service life is far from the standard which others are measured by.

If you're referring to the DA as a quasi "safety" device to avoid negligent discharges then you're wrong. ND's are the result of NEGLIGENCE which is often the result of sh*tty or absent training. No firearm is at fault for an ND when a human has control.

MM

[Slater]

One knock against the Beretta M9/92 series is/was "it's just too damn big for a 9mm". Haven't heard that said much lately - maybe some of the more current full size designs are not exactly small?

[Gödel]

More parts means more points of failure, Beretta has 69 of them(just checked my armorers manual) it's really that simple. The complex design is unnecessary and no the open top slide doesn't aid in debris evacuation, it aids in introducing debris FIRST. Concerning yourself with easier extraction/ejection can only be relevant if the gun fired in the first place.

The firing pin/striker does not remain in contact with the primer after striking it, as you noted it rebounds under inertia and is also beveled which permits the barrel tilt/slide movement under recoil to easily force the firing pin/striker back inside the slide.

Beretta service life is far from the standard which others are measured by.

If you're referring to the DA as a quasi "safety" device to avoid negligent discharges then you're wrong. ND's are the result of NEGLIGENCE which is often the result of sh*tty or absent training. No firearm is at fault for an ND when a human has control.

MM

The bottom line is that if more parts means more failures, guns with more parts would break more, and they don't.

And if open slides and hammers caused more jams, then Berettas would jam more in sand - and they don't.


Theories are fine if they predict what happens in the real world. It doesn't sound like that is the kind of theories you're offering. They are good marketing, though. You certainly sound convinced.

[Tokarev]

Found on sigtalk



Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Mysteryman]

The bottom line is that if more parts means more failures, guns with more parts would break more, and they don't.

And if open slides and hammers caused more jams, then Berettas would jam more in sand - and they don't.


Theories are fine if they predict what happens in the real world. It doesn't sound like that is the kind of theories you're offering. They are good marketing, though. You certainly sound convinced.

More parts means more points for failure and in my experience the more complex the firearm the more often it breaks. A plastic knife has the same parts as a steel one but we both know which one is more likely to fail. That's a result of the quality of materials not the design. All things being equal the tool/machine with more parts has a higher chance for failure than one with fewer parts.

The open top slide design is just stupid and serves no useful purpose. Offering more slide to grasp for working the action is far more valuable than the ability to easily single load the chamber...

MM