Nice to see that agencies are beginning to issue RDS to the rank and file, not just special units.

 

Author doesn't know that most Glocks sold in the US now are made in the US not in Austria?

I think the Sig P320 series will give Glock a run for their money, but Glock still seems to come in cheaper. Our local cops are in the process of switching from Sig P226 and P229 to Glock 19's. I'm pretty sure the deal is trade in your old guns and we'll give you brand new Glocks. Kinda surprised Sig didn't offer the same kind of deal.

 

Author doesn't know that most Glocks sold in the US now are made in the US not in Austria?

I think the Sig P320 series will give Glock a run for their money, but Glock still seems to come in cheaper. Our local cops are in the process of switching from Sig P226 and P229 to Glock 19's. I'm pretty sure the deal is trade in your old guns and we'll give you brand new Glocks. Kinda surprised Sig didn't offer the same kind of deal.

I'll take the 226/229 any day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Sig is definitely making a move in LE. Glock really hasn’t innovated enough in my opinion

 

I will wait on the old/used Sig PD trade ins. They can have their new plastic pistols.

 

In my opinion the popularity of the P320 is primarily driven by the military's poor choice adopting it. In the Glock v. SIG question, if we're talking Glock vs. Classic "P" SIG, no question, SIG wins six ways to Sunday. If we're talking Glock vs. SIG P320, Glock wins handedly so long as Glocks are all you shoot (it's more reliable, and I have written extensively in the past as to why). SIGs, however, point more naturally for me. When I am only shooting Glocks, I like locking my wrist for stability. But when I go between Glock and non Glock pistols, I will occasionally shoot high with a Glock more often than I'd like. With a P226 or P229, it always points perfectly, it is uber reliable, and it's also a better weight and balance for me than a Glock. I've owned six Glocks, so I know many of their pistols like the back of my hand, and I'd take one over a P320 as a primary, but I will always choose a classic SIG (or Beretta).

 

You are biased. Sigs have been very reliable. I’ve seen Glock fail many times. I still consider that reliable. You opinion isn’t gospel. I personal think the 320 is a better pistol based on my experience with both. Glock is solid though.

 

While some have an issue or two with the SIG M17 it needs to be said again that it was not a firearms exclusive bid. The contract called for the handgun, holsters, spare parts, and ammunition, too. The firearm characteristics desired also stated a method of changing the grip sizes that a unit armorer could perform, hence the FCU/Grip unit .It was specifically titled the Modular Handgun System. Unit armorers are not allowed to perform some activities as they are reserved for Depot level technicians - the guys who rebarrel and reassemble M16's into A2's, etc.

When Glock offers an FCU/Grip unit construction then they will be competitive. There is no doubt that Glocks are reliable, but we are comparing apples and oranges - if both were Gen 1 the history would be much more alike, and we have yet to see Glock's engineering answers to the challenges of a separately serial numbered firing group which drops out of the grip unit. They haven't had to demonstrate how they deal with the constraints or advantages.

Comparing a 45 year old design going into it's 5th generation vs a first Gen with other contract requirements and declaring one better than the other without including all the factors isn't a broad view of the issues involved, but it is very common. It's exactly how people addressed the 1911 being replaced by a new generation gun. Americans are extremely conservative when it comes to self protection with firearms and only the proven guns are trusted. That takes time, and none of them are when they first come out.

I seem to remember some issues with the M16 as it was introduced, and none of them were original to the Stoner design. It was Colt and Command monkeying with it that caused the problems. So far this time we've seen a lot more oversight by the subject matter experts and those firearms they choose do the job, military or police. They are distinct and different, especially when compared to the 50 year difference in tactics and technology they were invented to address.

 

Comparing a 45 year old design going into it's 5th generation vs a first Gen with other contract requirements and declaring one better than the other without including all the factors isn't a broad view of the issues involved, but it is very common. It's exactly how people addressed the 1911 being replaced by a new generation gun. Americans are extremely conservative when it comes to self protection with firearms and only the proven guns are trusted. That takes time, and none of them are when they first come out.

Valid observation, for sure. And no doubt, whenever the U.S. Army moves on from the M17 to something else, everyone will complain that they miss their 'trusty' M17 and don't like whatever the new choice is, just like they did with the 1911, the Beretta, etc. The Army has a history of always thinking the last gun was superior to the current option.

 

When I was in law enforcement, we carried Sig P 226 and P 239 in .40 When Sig began competing for the military contract, they started sub contracting parts overseas and our armorers could not get parts in a timely manner. Our agency switched to Glock. When I retired, I received my Glock from my agency. I own both brands and like both brands.

 

That website was horrible. More adds then content. I didn't make it far enough through the article to make any sort of judgement on it.

Soli Deo Gloria

 

It was very interesting to see the shift in 40 S&W support in the private sector. I liked 40 since it was introduced. Not because I thought it was necessarily better than other service calibers, simply because I liked it. So I saw the definitive shift away from that caliber as prime time to jump even deeper into it. The deals available were too good to pass up. And, many 40 platforms are easily converted to 9mm whereas the reverse is less true. And of course 357sig. So to me it was a more versatile platform.

But very interesting to see the ebb and flow of things.

 

Having used the 40 in real time, I am convinced it is the round to have. I still EDC it to this day and will continue to do so. Sig designed the P229 for the 40. Glock has been playing catchup ever since with their own caliber variants and now the modularity race. Which as of this writing they are losing sterlingly. Not to mention they just don't look good, unless you're doing a drive by.

 

And the debate continues.. in the gun world to many people get wrapped up in this debating which gun, manufacture or caliber. Now days, the top brands are all pretty darn good.

I’ll admit, I bought my first Sig in 40 because the FBI shot it. But that was my first handgun purchase in 10 years. So I picked what I liked and it worked just fine. Then as I became more knowledgeable I started picking up other types, brands and calibers. They all work and do a job well. Knowing what job to employee which gun, or caliber is a big help and having multiple choices is nice.

We are all different and in part that’s one thing the government was trying to solve. 1 gun, 1 caliber to fit everyone. Sig managed that better than everyone else with it’s modularity and accessory capability for that 1 gun.

 

The aspect of being able to tear down a Sig P320 without having to pull the trigger (as much as that makes me roll my eyes) was likely a strong factor in the consideration vs Glock.

 

Then you lack gun clearing skills. Practice at that. You won’t have to roll your eyes 👀 anymore. I love the 320 but it has nothing to do with take down

 

I would be far more interested in a discussion comparing Sig with CZ, for example.

I couldn't care less about Glock.

 

This debate will go on. I think it boils down to personal preference. Glock definitely points differently than most other pistols. However the overriding factor for me is Sig is modular and can easily be customized with drop in parts to suit the individuals taste. Not only true for civilian market but some LEO departments have special requirements.

 

Did you all know the military is moving to 6.8 for their rifles?? Just found this out.

 

Note the part that states the priority of the evaluation: "The System Accuracy Shooter in the Loop factor and the Reliability and Service Life Factor are equally important, and are more important than the License Rights Ammunition, which is significantly more important than the License Rights Handgun and Accessories, which is significantly more important than the Other Characteristics Factor, which is significantly more important that the Price factor."

The MHS trials were designed to be carried out over two phases. The first phase was to weed out the majority of submissions. This did NOT involve shooters in the loop. Preliminary accuracy and reliability testing was conducted on computer operated equipment (sophistic Ransom Rest-type machines). Then phase two was supposed to commence with shooters in the loop (which, among other things, allows the military to test modularity as detailed in my post before this). The contract was instead awarded to SIG at the end of phase 1 after both SIG and Glock were the only survivors (both in position according to the rules to proceed to phase two a.k.a. PVT [production verification test]). This is why Glock had a problem with the outcome. Many many more rounds (tens of thousands more) were supposed to be fired with shooters IN THE LOOP to test all the parameters (accuracy, MRBS, MRBF, elemental testing, rough handling testing (dropping the pistols), ergonomics, etc.). Price was prioritized last over everything else in that quote, but it was settled first, because the real testing hadn't begun.

When the real testing commenced (just on the SIG), they uncovered its drop safety issue. When SIG came up with their alleged fix, the Department of Defense's one year follow up report stated they believed the "fix" caused triggers in XM17 pistols to "split". Interestingly enough, the double ejection problems and failure to lock back on the last round (more of an ergonomic concern) were experienced in the first phase of testing the XM18 (compact). None of these pistols could go 500 rounds without a stoppage. Unlike the full-size XM17 which required thousands of rounds (I believe 10k for phase 1), the XM18 was only required to fire 500 rounds each. Since Glock didn't have a compact version, they were required to submit extra pistols to match all the compact pistols tested by SIG. All their pistols functioned flawlessly.

Here's where it gets fishy. With the XM18 failing to fire 500 rounds from each pistol without a malfunction, that should have been the end of it, but as Glock's lawyers point out in their protest to the GAO, instead of disqualifying SIG and awarding Glock the MHS contract (after all, "the System Accuracy Shooter in the Loop factor and the Reliability and Service Life Factor are equally important" and the first priorities listed in the quote above"), they instead changed the rules midstream. The initial rules called for only 500 rounds for the compacts because the assumption is that reliability should be essentially the same as the full-size pistols and vice versa. When the XM18 failed, the army said 500 rounds per pistol was not a large enough sample to test the 2,000 round MRBS goal the pistols were expected to make (which Glock alone did). While it is possible that had each pistol had fired say 4,000 or more rounds, for example, the failures in the first 500 rounds could have averaged out. But every sample allegedly failed to go a full 500 rounds, so this tells me it is unlikely that SIG would have averaged 2,000 rounds for the remainder of testing (which was to occur in phase 2).

That would never happen in a "competition". Glock was eliminated after phase 1 (before shooters were even brought into the loop), and phase 2 only involved the SIG P320. It was during this phase that both the XM18 (compact) and the XM-17 failed to achieve their 2000-round MRBS goals as detailed in the DOD report. Specifically, the DOD said, "Both the XM17 and XM18 pistols experienced double‑ejections where an unspent ball round was ejected along with a spent round." This is in addition to 50% of the stoppages that were caused by the slide failing to lock back on the last round. Specifically, the DOD said "Slide stoppages accounted for 50 percent of XM17 stoppages, and 75 percent of the XM18 stoppages observed during IOT&E. In these stoppages, the slide failed to lock after users fired the last round in the magazine."

If people have trouble swallowing what I am saying, take it up with the army and the Department of Defense. Unlike other people who are just claiming what they heard, I am giving you the actual quotes from the RFP and DOD reports.

This all tracked with all the initial P320 videos on YouTube. I would say more than half of the dozens of videos I watched had at least one failure (stoppage) all those years ago before MHS. I remember thinking the P320 could not compete against the Glock because of this even back then. It's not that Glocks don't fail, I've choked one of my Glocks using bad ammo, but it's relatively rare (compared to SIG). Sure, you can see a Glock fail in a torture test like virtually every other gun, but how many videos do you remember seeing where a Glock just failed to cycle a round (compared to videos where it doesn't)?

I'm not bashing the P320. I'm sure it's a great gun now and they've worked hard to get the bugs worked out. Every pistol has them show up sooner or later (usually sooner), and it is certainly reliable enough on average for concealed carry. Heck, I will even go as far as to say the Glock—had it been permitted to go through phase 2 testing—would have also demonstrated failures due to the slide not locking on the last round as the newer thicker ambi slide stops cause malfunctions for me and at least a few others I've heard from (including Mr. Gunsngear), but that's different than having double ejections, drop safety issues, and splintering triggers. The DOD report also said that "During the PVT testing [phase 2], the MHS with ball ammunition demonstrated significantly more stoppages than with the special purpose munition." FMJ is the bulk of rounds used by the military.

This also brings up another misconception P320 apologists often raise. They say these failures don't mean anything because a pistol is not a soldier's primary weapon as if the army and DOD were only concerned with rifles. This is again patently false. This is what the DOD has to say about it:

"Military personnel conducting collateral activities use the MHS as their primary weapon system. Collateral activities include foreign and U.S. humanitarian assistance, counter‑terrorism, and counter-narcotics, all of which may involve military operations in urban terrain/operations, close quarters battle, and other operations on the battlefield."

It still doesn't matter. People will continue to make excuses for what happened and claim the P320 is the greatest pistol on the market today simply because they believed the military picked the best pistol. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think the military already made it's mind up it was giving SIG the contract before MHS occurred, and it may have even been something worked out since the mid-1980's when the shoe was on the other foot. When Beretta "won" and the SIG P226 "lost", it wasn't too long before SEALs and others adopted the P226 anyway (and the P228). Similarly, it wasn't long after Glock's protest that the Secret Service, like the FBI, adopted the Glock 19.

Curiously enough, the DOD never resolved the MHS update in their annual reports. They started out recommending that the army investigate the reliability further. The next report basically said they were continuing it. The third report mentioned MHS but didn't update us on what was going on. The last DOD report, release in January of this year, didn't even mention MHS. Actually, it did, but they started using the acronym for something entirely different that had nothing to do with handguns. Then a few months later the ARMY awarded a contract to Glock for thousands of pistols including full-size, compact, and subcompact Glocks.

Are we connecting the dots yet?

 

@Sheepdogged do you happen to own a majority share in Glock? I'm kidding you, of course.
Hopefully everyone is actually aware that government business is conducted in dark alleys with handshakes amongst shady characters. Everything from base closures to food service vendors are based more on deals between politicians than on actual cost/benefit.
I am not a Glock person. I respect the firearm as a superb weapon but it just doesn't work for me. I am wondering how the 320 will stack up in 20 or so years after many revisions. The Glock has been around a lot longer and has gone through many revisions. I only have one 320 and it will likely be the only one. I am much more fond of the classic P series.
I am very impressed with the time you have spent researching the MHS program. Lots of interesting information.

 

Thank you, and like you, Glock doesn't work for me either. I've owned six Glocks to give it the old college try, but I don't like the grip angle and the Gen5 slide stop issue did it in for me. My favorite pistols are also the classic SIGs. But if they military is going to adopt a striker-fired polymer pistol, they might as well adopt the most reliable one.

 

Better article;

 

This is gun industry business in my opinion. I just said I don't like the grip angle of a Glock, however, if that's is the only firearm I use it is NOT a problem, so if I was active LEO or military carrying a Glock standard issue, that would not even be an issue. They're stretching the truth. Sure, if you're new to Glock and have been firing SIG and/or Beretta up to now, yes, you're going to shoot high. But if Glock is all you're going to use in your job and you train with it, it is not going to be an issue and canting your wrist to mitigate recoil on a lighter pistol is why the grip angle is welcome (as the canting of your wrist mitigates recoil in lieu of relying on the extra weight).

Similarly, it's the same thing with the classic SIG they're disparaging. Sure, if you're new, most people have to get used to the DA in DA/SA, but do you want to appease the newbies? I mean, come on, do we really think someone became a Navy SEAL who can't get used to the trigger? Personally, I wouldn't want to hire someone whose job is to carry a gun who can't train to be proficient with a DA/SA.

Again, this is typical industry fodder in my opinion. It's taking known advantages and disadvantages and magnifying them out of context in my opinion. That said, it's just my opinion, and that alone can't count for much.

 

I may not be choosing to carry Glock these days, but I do have to make one exception about Glock. I love the G26/G28/G33 (the original Baby Glock). I still think it's one of the best concealed carry firearms ever produced. I know the P365 is a great gun, it is, it's an excellent firearm; but the G26 IS a better shooter, and it conceals well enough and can take larger magazines. The S&W M&P9 M2.0 Subcompact is similarly awesome. Those are too phenomenal pistols. Because SIG and Beretta can't seem to make a DA/SA subcompact that small, the Baby Glock and Baby M&P are still among the best in my opinion. I have the latter, but if a Gen5.5 or Gen6 Glock returns the finger grooves to the subcompact and takes care of the slide stop issue for people like me, I will buy another. The G26 is a phenomenal carry pistol.

 

Agreed!

 

All the HK sk’s are simply fantastic!! Yes, they are larger, thicker but…… so darn solid, ultra reliable and such high quality. The standard p2000 is my EDC 90% of the time though.

 

The HK p2000 LEM is a G19 on steroids!!! 😎

 

Big time!

I had one in 40 & 357sig and it was awesome. The grip doesn't look like it would be as comfortable as it actually is (to me). Basically a modern USPc. Beautiful trigger as well.

 

I shoot various guns and I don't consider myself to be a "fanboy" of any brand. My favorite pistol to shoot is my CZ SP-01. It's heavy, accurate, and feels great in my hand. The action is class smooth, the Cajunized trigger is as close to 1911 good as you can get in a pivoting trigger, and the gun has been very reliable. But it's much too heavy to EDC. Most of the guns I love to shoot, be it my Beretta 92X, Sig 226, Sig 229, IWI Jericho, CZ 97B...are all too big and heavy to carry. I do EDC a Beretta PX4 storm, as it's a great plastic fantastic....the action from a 92 with the dimensions and weight between a G19 and G17. It's a fantastic carry gun, even if people think it's ugly.

I've owned several Glocks. A G17, G19, G34, and a G40. I still have the G40 as I love that 10mm beast, but the others have all been sold. I just didn't enjoy shooting them. They never felt good in my hands. The triggers were not very good (even after polishing and putting in trigger kits). They were fairly expensive and always seemed cheaply made. That said, I never had any issues with the guns, I just personally didn't like them.

I got into Sigs when I bought a P320 FCU and built my first one from parts. I enjoyed picking all the components even though it's the most stupidly expensive way to buy a gun. I have collected several grip modules, barrels, and slides. I can make a full size X5 Legion or I can make a 3.6" compact carry gun....from the same FCU. I can compete with a full size P320, then carry with the same trigger group I practice with. If I don't like how the gun feels, I can buy a different grip module, in a size that fits my hand. To me, this is the advantage the P320 has over the Glock. While you can get aftermarket grip modules for Glock, it's not as easy as with Sig.

 

By the way folks............carry what you shoot well. Isn't that in the most basic analysis the primary consideration?

 

If all other critical factors namely reliability are equal, I agree with the above. Parts availability and adoption do count for something too. A tool in wide circulation with easy-to-find spare and aftermarket parts deserves consideration.