Sig 320 vs Glock

[WillBrink]

I feel pretty much the same - but I have found every SIG USA designed product wholly ridiculous and their quality spotty. Not a company that I would assume would go above and beyond for anything when they can't consistently make a 40 year old gun design reliably. But they have embraced the Cohen/Kimber pump out the flashy crap philosophy and had great success with it because people no longer care about much of anything besides the availability of a picatinny rail and how light the trigger feels.

That seems to be a common comment and one of various reasons I have never had any interest in Sigs personally. Seems to me they have been surviving almost exclusively off old designs and rep from their early days and ever since, doing the also ran thing by getting into 1911s, ARs, etc.

Personally never understood the Sig thing as I didn't like any of the designs and the DA/SA triggers, etc but that's what makes horse racing

PS, no one should mistake me for an expert on this topic. My personal experience with some of their 1911s left me unimpressed and I don't like DA/SA triggers from any manufacturer.

[Gödel]

Posted over at PF.

A guy back in Feb '16 dropped his P320 45 and it went off... of course no one believed him at the time...
Attachment 47057

Attachment 47055

Attachment 47056

In the press thing Cohen did SIG claimed all "unintentional drops" that they know of were only in the past year. This is 18 months old. So that's 5, and either a lie or a short memory on SIG's part.

[Naphtali]

See below for the story of Sig's typical failure in manufacturing quality pistols (to the Dutch police in ~2011) (this is not my original research, but I will not assign credit unless the original author wishes). This involved the P250, which the P320 was designed from:

______________________________________________________________

The P250 is the predecessor to the P320. The 250 was the first sig polymer frame with a modular firing assembly. Sig later converted the p250 from a hammer fired to a striker fired pistol:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_Sauer_P320

"The P320 chambered in 9×19mm Parabellum was introduced in the North American market on January 15, 2014 followed by the .45 ACP compact model at the SHOT Show in January 2015.[1] The P320 is a further development of the SIG Sauer P250 utilizing a striker-fired mechanism in lieu of a double action only hammer system."

------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_P30

"The P30 NL (H3) variant was being considered for Dutch police service. This pistol finished second in a European tender, after the winning SIG Sauer P250 was rejected in November 2011, and before the Walther P99Q NL (H3) and Beretta Px4 Storm. When minister Ivo Opstelten concluded that SIG Sauer could not deliver the requisite quality in a mass production setting, he chose the P30 NL (H3).[6][7][8] However, Walther and Beretta appealed to court, insisting that a new tender procedure should be started. On 24 January 2012 the court decided that a new tender process should be organized. Opstelten chose to initiate a quick and rigorous new tender process that allows to choose another product if the winner should be rejected. This will delay the introduction of a new police pistol by 1 to 1½ years according to the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice.[9][10][11] In October 2012 it became clear that the P99Q NL (H3) will succeed the Walther P5 and Glock 17 pistols in 2013-2014.[12][13]"

-------------------------
"Opstelten besluit overeenkomst SIG-Sauer over nieuw politiepistool te beëindigen (press release), www.rijksoverheid.nl (Dutch)". 2011-11-08. Archived from the original on 2012-03-05. Retrieved 2011-11-08.
^ "Ontbinding overeenkomst aanschaf nieuw dienstpistool politie (letter to the Dutch parliament), www.rijksoverheid.nl (Dutch)" (PDF). 2011-11-08. Retrieved 2011-11-08.
^ "Nieuw politiepistool afgekeurd, www.rijksoverheid.nl (Dutch)". 2011-11-09. Retrieved 2011-11-09.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_Sauer_P250

"On 8 November 2011 the Dutch Minister of Security and Justice formally declared SIG Sauer in default and immediately dissolved the order following the fourth negative production sample test of PPNL pistols firing Dutch police issue RUAG Action 4 NP ammunition by an independent German testing institute (Beschussamt Ulm). Minister Ivo Opstelten found that SIG Sauer could not deliver the requisite quality in a mass production setting and had some harsh comments on SIG Sauer: "On the basis of the results of these tests I no longer find it responsible to continue with this pistol. There is no longer enough confidence in the quality of the pistol, nor in the capacity of the manufacturer to improve the quality or safeguard it. All this brings a risk to the safety of police officers on the street." (The Minister delegated a (legal) review to examine the possibility of coming to an agreement with one of the other suppliers that has had their pistol operationally tested in the procurement procedure.) [25][26][27]"

-------

"Opstelten besluit overeenkomst SIG-Sauer over nieuw politiepistool te beëindigen (press release), www.rijksoverheid.nl (Dutch)". 2011-11-08. Archived from the original on 2012-03-05. Retrieved 2011-11-08.
^ "Ontbinding overeenkomst aanschaf nieuw dienstpistool politie (letter to the Dutch parliament), www.rijksoverheid.nl (Dutch)" (PDF). 2011-11-08. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2012-03-03. Retrieved 2011-11-08.
^ "Nieuw politiepistool afgekeurd, www.rijksoverheid.nl (Dutch)". 2011-11-09. Archived from the original on 2012-03-05. Retrieved 2011-11-09.

[Mysteryman]

The trigger is part of the striker system. Talking about them separately makes no sense.

Long term contracts like being the service pistol to the US for 30+ years as well as the primary service pistol to 18 other countries probably doesn't hurt.

Hammers don't have to be exposed, and many aren't. DAO guns with exposed hammers aren't any more of an issue than an exposed extractor. But they do offer an advantage for safety while holstering and are parts compatible with DA/SA and SAO versions.

Glocks don't really have that many fewer parts. They don't have grips and many of their parts are actually multiple parts pinned together. The mechanical complexity of a Glock is not that different from many other pistols when you look at the moving parts.

SIG sells quite a few sporting arms including target pistols, .22s and even airguns.

The trigger and trigger bar are part of the firing system but the trigger itself is being changed as in lightened. The striker mech is also getting changed and a trigger disconnect installed. All are part of the firing mechanism but the trigger is in fact a separate part.

A long term bogus contract means nothing when it has a long term hatred to go along with it. Oh and it is being replaced so it can't be that great.

Exposed hammers provide another point of entry for debris. Why have a hammer hit a firing pin when a striker can do the same job with at least one less part?

Glock pistols sport 34 parts including the 5 in the magazine. Tell me what other gun has so few parts? Beretta 92 has 64, SIg 226 has 55, a 1911 has 52, SIG 250 40 parts. There are no parts pinned together, if you're referring to the trigger and its tab then yes they're offered as a single unit.

Mr. Vickers never said it was 'well liked', he said it was "hugely successful". Most people forget firearms is a business as well as a profession or hobby.

What Tier 1 unit has ever constrained themselves to the Mark 1 Mod 0 issue weapon, in any category? Rifle, pistol, etc? But maybe they were rocking bone ass stock 1911A1s, M16s, and M60s the whole time and I just didn't know it?

Sure Beretta has been destroyed by Glock over the years with LE (local, state, and Feds) - but so has SIG, S&W, and the rest.

Commercial success due to dirty gov contracts is hardly a glowing review. Remember the US army once bought the Chauchat machine gun, the worst firearm of all time. I guess you could say it was successful as well.

Did someone take a poll on whether or not the Beretta was "well liked"? I missed it. I love the Beretta. It was (and is) a fantastic sidearm. It did its job. In over 20 years I saw one, ONE, instance of a Beretta fail. Some kid was cleaning it on the bench in the DSESTS van and could not get the slide back on. I was watching him (and a movie on my laptop) and I finally told him to give it to me. Dammed if I couldn't get the slide on either. Then I noticed a very bent guide rod. Showed him, and then told him to find the armorer and get a new one.

The Beretta is an awesome sidearm. Sure it was 70's tech, but it worked. Is it time to get something newer? Possibly.

Functioning and being user friendly are not mutually exclusive. The Beretta is over sized over weight overly complex with a crappy trigger and a horribly placed safety.

"Stepped up and handled this extremely well and honorably". "Sig has simply gone to work and set the example".

I do not think those words mean what you think they mean. Especially since Sig DID "send out an army of flacks to deflect and deny". They skirted the truth and responsibility until they had no choice; given the mounting evidence.

Again, not a Sig hater or whatever lover. I honestly really like the 320. From the feel in the hand to the trigger, I probably like it more than my G30s. I'd intended to buy a 320 at some point. The drop issue is something I could live with if corrected. But, Sig's handling of this fiasco is what's shelved my 320 purchase for the foreseeable future. If it took this much evidence to force their hand, how are consumers supposed to trust their customer service in a scenario where an issue doesn't receive this level of exposure?

Well said!!!

I don't think it is an indication of any sort of specific guilt, but maybe a general awareness that drop safety with that type of trigger is a challenge the higher the mass of the parts involved.

Not a challenge, a failure.

Gray and Sig, Vickers and Glock, Langdon and Beretta. I read anything in that regard with a huge grain of salt...when there's money involved there's always an ulterior motive.

Absolutely.

And how many people will actually use the chassis system. IMO, the chassis system offers some logistics benefits to militaries and large LE departments, but the average civilian shooter is not going to see any benefit from it.

Total gimmick.

Okay. Then I like Toughy twice as much.
I don't know why people need every gun drop tested at 30° now. You can see what the problem, or at least difference, is between a P320 and nearly every other gun. The inside is like clockwork.

Way too complex!

There is no SIG hate. Producing a non drop safe pistol in 2017 is unacceptable especially from a supposed premium pistol manufacturer.

AMEN!!!

MM

[RHINOWSO]

Commercial success due to dirty gov contracts is hardly a glowing review. Remember the US army once bought the Chauchat machine gun, the worst firearm of all time. I guess you could say it was successful as well.

Using an extreme case in an attempt to prove your point. Hehehehe, ok.

[Gödel]

The trigger and trigger bar are part of the firing system but the trigger itself is being changed as in lightened. The striker mech is also getting changed and a trigger disconnect installed. All are part of the firing mechanism but the trigger is in fact a separate part.

A long term bogus contract means nothing when it has a long term hatred to go along with it. Oh and it is being replaced so it can't be that great.

Exposed hammers provide another point of entry for debris. Why have a hammer hit a firing pin when a striker can do the same job with at least one less part?

Glock pistols sport 34 parts including the 5 in the magazine. Tell me what other gun has so few parts? Beretta 92 has 64, SIg 226 has 55, a 1911 has 52, SIG 250 40 parts. There are no parts pinned together, if you're referring to the trigger and its tab then yes they're offered as a single unit.



Commercial success due to dirty gov contracts is hardly a glowing review. Remember the US army once bought the Chauchat machine gun, the worst firearm of all time. I guess you could say it was successful as well.

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.

[Kdubya]

I do find the Beretta tangent that's surfaced a few times interesting; particularly the arguments put forth as justification for its merit.

First off, like the P320, I'm not a fanboy of hater when it comes to the Beretta 92. Personally, I just never liked the look of them. With so many other options out there, and being uninterested in the design, I never gave them a look. I did have a chance to shoot a friend's 92 recently, and I actually really enjoyed it. Looks aside, it felt good in the hand, trigger was pretty good, shot pretty soft, and was plenty accurate. Simply put, I think it's a good gun.

Now, onto the merit contentions. While some spend some time actually speaking to the quality of the 92's mechanics/design/components, the much more common argument relates to its historic and current use by professionals. The long running and widespread use by militaries, LE and agencies, is what's being used as the qualifier.

So, outside of some obscure exceptions, is this a fair and recognized litmus test when evaluating esteem & quality? That is, does widespread adoption by LE, Militaries, Special Forces, Private and Public Agencies indicate that a given firearm should be well regarded and accepted as having proven quality? If so, does a longer tenure of use further elevate its esteem?

It seems as though that's the argument being made. And, I can't say that I necessarily disagree with using that sort of barometer. I'm simply wondering if that justification is being used explicitly, coincidentally, or unknowingly.

And how many people will actually use the chassis system. IMO, the chassis system offers some logistics benefits to militaries and large LE departments, but the average civilian shooter is not going to see any benefit from it.

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.

[Gödel]

I do find the Beretta tangent that's surfaced a few times interesting; particularly the arguments put forth as justification for its merit.

First off, like the P320, I'm not a fanboy of hater when it comes to the Beretta 92. Personally, I just never liked the look of them. With so many other options out there, and being uninterested in the design, I never gave them a look. I did have a chance to shoot a friend's 92 recently, and I actually really enjoyed it. Looks aside, it felt good in the hand, trigger was pretty good, shot pretty soft, and was plenty accurate. Simply put, I think it's a good gun.

Now, onto the merit contentions. While some spend some time actually speaking to the quality of the 92's mechanics/design/components, the much more common argument relates to its historic and current use by professionals. The long running and widespread use by militaries, LE and agencies, is what's being used as the qualifier.

So, outside of some obscure exceptions, is this a fair and recognized litmus test when evaluating esteem & quality? That is, does widespread adoption by LE, Militaries, Special Forces, Private and Public Agencies indicate that a given firearm should be well regarded and accepted as having proven quality? If so, does a longer tenure of use further elevate its esteem?

It seems as though that's the argument being made. And, I can't say that I necessarily disagree with using that sort of barometer. I'm simply wondering if that justification is being used explicitly, coincidentally, or unknowingly.



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.

To address your first point about military and LE, there was a time when the adoption criteria of national LEAs and armies was treated very seriously, and the testing performed was exhaustive. The Beretta passed such testing many times in the US and abroad.

That cache is often applied to smaller LEAs, and it really shouldn't. The Milwaukee PD didn't conduct months of testing and there is no reason to believe that a gun adopted by a municipality is the greatest pistol ever unless you also want to believe that the Chevy Caprice is the greatest sedan ever. Police guns are bought on reputation, service and price.

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.

[austinN4]

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.

I doubt you are in a minority within the civvy market and you certainly not alone. Your reasons are the same as mine and lots of others that i know of.

[austinN4]

Double tap