Sig 320 vs Glock

[bear13]

A Beretta 92FS has 64 parts because every individual piece has its own part number. So instead of having "mag release assembly", it has 4 parts so you can replace what is broken. A Glock trigger assembly is 5 parts, but is sold as one. So if you want to talk about mechanical complexity, you have to count the pieces, not SKUs. A 92FS has two kinds of trigger pulls and removable grips. So if you want to compare a Glock to a 92 pistol, the DAO 92D is a better comparison.

Apples to apples, the Glock 17 Gen 3 has 42 pieces. A Beretta 92D has 58 parts, and 10 of those are grips, bushing and screws. Since the grips just sit there, if you don't count them, the actual comparison is a Glock with 42 parts and the 92D has 48, or only six more despite having a hammer, firing pin, disconnector, push button take down latch, locking block pin, etc. Which is why I think saying that Glocks are so simple is baloney. A Makarov is simple.

As far as hammers go, if you know of a test where striker guns creamed the hammer fired guns in reliability tests, let us know. Hammers, despite often being external are more reliable than strikers because they don't oppose the action closing and strike the primer harder. You won't find a Glock style RSA test for a hammer fired gun. Hammer guns chamber with authority.

Strikers in blowback/delayed blowback guns were much less problematic because they didn't have to allow the pin to retract for ejection and had stronger recoil springs. The fact that Glock type pistols work as well as they do despite the ugly combination of Browning recoil operation and a striker is a testament to modern design.

I am in complete agreement with the hammer vs striker reliability. Over and over again in tests when they go down. The striker is usually out of the game. Once the crud gets in the striker channel or the trigger assembly. On a hammer gun you can rinse the thing out good and they are back in the fight. I also agree on the simplicity of a 92 beretta. Yes hammer guns can be more "complicated" but does it matter in the middle of a gun fight? Are you going to have the time to completely disassemble your glock? Probably not. So I will take the gun that takes the least effort to get back in. If I am breaking em down I most likely have time for the extra effort.

I am not knocking striker guns, I just think that a tda gun is more inherently reliable when put through adverse situations. I think Glock is top of the leo food chain and for a good reason. Inexpensive and easy to maintain. They also have less issues then other brands. Are big enough to fill a ton of orders. Do I think a striker trigger is ideal for leo not really. But it is easy for everyone to shoot well. And in a day in age when departments are not willing to pay for proper training it is what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JHC]

Makes you wonder how many drop fires there have been. There's got to be a fair number of people that would simply assume that a dropped gun would go off and not even contact SIG if it happened.

I hope this gentleman could at least make a buck as a material witness in the Stamford lawsuit.

Any more you can keep writing about the complexity of this design ("like clockwork") and resulting inherent vulnerabilities is welcomed. It's fascinating stuff. (my apologies if its here or there somewhere and I've missed it)

As you understand this intricate design and the proposed upgrade, have you formed an opinion as to whether this is a final final fix?

Is there vulnerability from pure wear and tear, esp spring wear?

[JHC]

My understanding is that SiG semi-resolved the issue between the FBI guns and the Army guns, but only succeeded in reducing the likelihood of a discharge, not totally fixing it.

My understanding is that the issue is not being dropped on the pistol's muzzle, but being dropped on the breach-end of the slide.

If the firing pin safety is locked against the striker somehow and SiG's solution was a stiffer/stronger striker spring, it would suggest that if the striker/firing pin is able to retract rearward a small amount that the firing pin safety might disengage and - with the firing pin's travel no longer inhibited by the firing pin safety, moving forward under spring pressure - boom! But this is speculation, as I am not familiar with the particulars of the P320's operation (beyond the typical striker-fired, short-recoil operation).

Wow. From Feb this year.

[JHC]

My understanding is that SiG semi-resolved the issue between the FBI guns and the Army guns, but only succeeded in reducing the likelihood of a discharge, not totally fixing it.

My understanding is that the issue is not being dropped on the pistol's muzzle, but being dropped on the breach-end of the slide.

If the firing pin safety is locked against the striker somehow and SiG's solution was a stiffer/stronger striker spring, it would suggest that if the striker/firing pin is able to retract rearward a small amount that the firing pin safety might disengage and - with the firing pin's travel no longer inhibited by the firing pin safety, moving forward under spring pressure - boom! But this is speculation, as I am not familiar with the particulars of the P320's operation (beyond the typical striker-fired, short-recoil operation).

Wow. From Feb this year.

[blade_68]

My take on Glock vs Sig 320.
I was a hold out on "poly" handguns for long time. My first handgun was CZ 75 my opinion on it is one of best handguns designed. My reason for my no polymer handguns a Ramline Extractor 22 LR. (break firing pin after 500 rnds. and so on at that interval)
Now with that said, my first polymer one, a XD in 45ACP. It works. Next on to 9mm Glock gen 2 19 RTF. been working with out fail only replace sights and guide rod and spring, other than reloads. Been a good to go as carry gun for long time. I shot few different Sigs didn't like them. Tried a 320 like grip came with good sights got it... fire's any 9mm fed in it...check. I was starting to use it for my carry gun less wear on skin (note) the "RTF" finish G19. Now with the possible A. D. effects with the 320 that is being shelved awaiting "SIG's" up grade. Other negative's high cost of magazines and less selections for holster so far.
So my 2 regrets firearms purchased, the Ramline and the Sig 320.. I'll see how the Sig Sauer situation ends.
Note to comments on military 1911 and M9.. I was still being issued 1911 in 90s. (11B. M60 gunner) the problem with the 1911s was worn out. The M9s are starting to have the same problem.. I've starting to see locking blocks breaking often. Interesting 1911s still working 50- 80 years after made, M9 30 years? Aluminum. With that the M17 life cycle maybe 15-20 years? But it is modular design, repair parts for main wear out items at lower maintenance levels?

[Gödel]

Any more you can keep writing about the complexity of this design ("like clockwork") and resulting inherent vulnerabilities is welcomed. It's fascinating stuff. (my apologies if its here or there somewhere and I've missed it)

As you understand this intricate design and the proposed upgrade, have you formed an opinion as to whether this is a final final fix?

Is there vulnerability from pure wear and tear, esp spring wear?

Ultimately, springs can't fix a problem like this because springs have a fixed output, but the inertia of dropped part climbs with the velocity at impact.

I don't know if the changes will cause the system to "balance" out, but the lightened parts could decrease the impact forces to the point that only a very high fall would be problem. Dunno.

[southswede]

My take on Glock vs Sig 320.
I was a hold out on "poly" handguns for long time. My first handgun was CZ 75 my opinion on it is one of best handguns designed. My reason for my no polymer handguns a Ramline Extractor 22 LR. (break firing pin after 500 rnds. and so on at that interval)
Now with that said, my first polymer one, a XD in 45ACP. It works. Next on to 9mm Glock gen 2 19 RTF. been working with out fail only replace sights and guide rod and spring, other than reloads. Been a good to go as carry gun for long time. I shot few different Sigs didn't like them. Tried a 320 like grip came with good sights got it... fire's any 9mm fed in it...check. I was starting to use it for my carry gun less wear on skin (note) the "RTF" finish G19. Now with the possible A. D. effects with the 320 that is being shelved awaiting "SIG's" up grade. Other negative's high cost of magazines and less selections for holster so far.
So my 2 regrets firearms purchased, the Ramline and the Sig 320.. I'll see how the Sig Sauer situation ends.
Note to comments on military 1911 and M9.. I was still being issued 1911 in 90s. (11B. M60 gunner) the problem with the 1911s was worn out. The M9s are starting to have the same problem.. I've starting to see locking blocks breaking often. Interesting 1911s still working 50- 80 years after made, M9 30 years? Aluminum. With that the M17 life cycle maybe 15-20 years? But it is modular design, repair parts for main wear out items at lower maintenance levels?

I'm thinking this was a big reason for the modularity requirement. It will increase the longevity of the design and is quite possibly the reason for backlash from other makers: P320 will remain the issue pistol for far more than just 30 years.....

[Gödel]

[/B]

I'm thinking this was a big reason for the modularity requirement. It will increase the longevity of the design and is quite possibly the reason for backlash from other makers: P320 will remain the issue pistol for far more than just 30 years.....

The modularity requirement was only about ergonomics - being able to configure the pistol for different hand sizes.

The military doesn't have the problem you and I do of replacing a worn out frame with a serial number. If they needed to replace some Glock frames they'd just replace the frames - it is a relatively inexpensive part.

[call_me_ski]

On sigtalk people are talking about not sending their guns in to avoid worsening the trigger, stating that they don't want to be beta testers for the fix. WTF.

One guy even believes his pre-VU gun will be worth more in the future. So they were willing to beta test before, but now that there is a serious known problem they don't trust Sig enough to Be "beta testers."

I do anticipate that the P320 will become the most thoroughly drop test pistols in history. Youtube will make sure of it.

[Mysteryman]

A Beretta 92FS has 64 parts because every individual piece has its own part number. So instead of having "mag release assembly", it has 4 parts so you can replace what is broken. A Glock trigger assembly is 5 parts, but is sold as one. So if you want to talk about mechanical complexity, you have to count the pieces, not SKUs. A 92FS has two kinds of trigger pulls and removable grips. So if you want to compare a Glock to a 92 pistol, the DAO 92D is a better comparison.

Apples to apples, the Glock 17 Gen 3 has 42 pieces. A Beretta 92D has 58 parts, and 10 of those are grips, bushing and screws. Since the grips just sit there, if you don't count them, the actual comparison is a Glock with 42 parts and the 92D has 48, or only six more despite having a hammer, firing pin, disconnector, push button take down latch, locking block pin, etc. Which is why I think saying that Glocks are so simple is baloney. A Makarov is simple.

As far as hammers go, if you know of a test where striker guns creamed the hammer fired guns in reliability tests, let us know. Hammers, despite often being external are more reliable than strikers because they don't oppose the action closing and strike the primer harder. You won't find a Glock style RSA test for a hammer fired gun. Hammer guns chamber with authority.

Strikers in blowback/delayed blowback guns were much less problematic because they didn't have to allow the pin to retract for ejection and had stronger recoil springs. The fact that Glock type pistols work as well as they do despite the ugly combination of Browning recoil operation and a striker is a testament to modern design.

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.

While a large segment of average civilians may not realize any benefit from the modularity, I'm one who definitely saw that as a value add. When I was looking more seriously at the P320, I'd envisioned purchasing the Compact model; along with a subcompact frame. My EDC is a Glock 30s, and in most circumstances, I have no problems keeping it pretty well tucked away. However, there are occasions where I could really benefit from a smaller grip.

Slide length is pretty meaningless compared to grip length when it comes to concealment. So, having the ability to situationally swap to a more concealable grip/frame is an enticing feature. Especially when the end product is the same gun. The trigger, sights, slide, barrel, etc remain unchanged. At least for me, being able to put the majority of my defensive handgun training into one single firearm is big positive.

I'll admit that I'm likely in somewhat of a minority within the civilian market. But, I certainly don't think I'm alone in finding the P320 appealing for the above reasons.

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.

The other thing that happens is that a gun gets a lot of use, and that builds a good rep. The AR15's spotty start has led to a very long and broad adoption around the world, so we say "Hey, pretty good." The G3 rifle has a similar cache and stuck around much longer than any other .308 rifle in modern military service. Alright. Glock has made major inroads to military service, but for a long time it was just a cop gun and the military choice of a small neutral European country.



As far the P320 frame thing, I think the idea of modularity is always more attractive than the actual implementation. What is the actual advantage of being able to reconfigure your pistol into a different one? When do you do it, and why? What is the real cost to switch? Are the two or three configurations that you can build up the best representatives of their particular size classes, or would a different gun have made for a better subcompact choice? What does having a gun that works like a Micronaut construction set actually give you aside from a less expensive way to be uncertain about which firearm to carry?

The whole point to polymer (for consumers) is weight. We really aren't getting a good deal on polymer pistols, but they are at least supposed to be light. P320s are not particularly light because a chassis does not take the best advantage of polymer construction.

The AR had a spotty start due to bad intel and sh*tty ammo.

I totally agree with your 320 frame viewpoint.

MM