SIG Talk banner
21 - 27 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
623 Posts
Just sticking to the technical stuff about one design or feature vs another gets gun geeks worked up.

Discussing which management is more evil we leave to our enemies. One has to ask, tho, why Glock keeps bidding on modular contracts requiring a FCU separate from the grip unit, yet four years after the first there isn't a hint they have anything in the pipeline other than another lawsuit.

Browning had a problem in his day - he sold the patents on the 1911 to Colt and when faced with a contract to invent the Hipower couldn't use any of those. He built a better gun which jumped auto pistol design ahead and which still affects guns being made today. Fans now expect Glock to Do Something, instead of resting on their laurels. They don't want Glock to follow in Remington's business model.

I don't think the OP's post proclaimed Glock superior, but it's dominance over the last 45 years has created an atmosphere of "high confidence" in it's owner base which is reminscent of an expensive Swiss watch. Hallway neener neener competition gets funny.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussing which management is more evil we leave to our enemies. One has to ask, tho, why Glock keeps bidding on modular contracts requiring a FCU separate from the grip unit, yet four years after the first there isn't a hint they have anything in the pipeline other than another lawsuit.

Any links to the contracts that require a modular FCU? The DOD one that Sig won had no such requirement. The modularity requirement covered the grip only.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
623 Posts
The Canadian contract for replacing the HiPower is the current conflict.

How an FCU would not be used when a changeable grip unit for size is required would be an interesting engineering feat. By requiring one it implies the other.

TL;DR There are a lot of foreign and LEO contracts now specifying an FCU type mechanism which Glock aren't winning.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,109 Posts
Firearm engineering represents the leading edge of innovation, and has for centuries. It impacts production design and manufacturing engineering - and probably has lead to more progress than most areas other than electronics.

Safety has always been a priority in firearms designs, and I suppose that it's also been the first thing for competitors to attack. That's likely why you see perceived weaknesses surface quickly, publicized and then stigmatized when it's possible.

SIG makes an outstanding firearm, which is why I personally prefer them. They exhibit precision and attention to both design and manufacturing detail that is generally superior to their competitors, and the customer service I've experience generally matches that. Nobody is perfect, but when it comes to firearms that I trust SIG has satisfied my needs.

I teach a number of classes from basic to more advanced tactical and our state concealed carry certification. I typically use SIG handguns for demonstrations in those classes. They perform well, and are reliable. A number of brand new handguns from other manufacturers that students have brought to class have failed in their first usage in these classes.

A number of the handguns that I own have been police surplus pistols and revolvers. The agencies that have used them have generally proven their reliability before moving on to newer designs. They are a great source for handguns at a good discount price.

Always take what you read in forums as input, but not as the final reason for rejecting a design as unsafe or unsatisfactory in some way. You need to use personal experience to make up your own decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
The Canadian contract for replacing the HiPower is the current conflict.

How an FCU would not be used when a changeable grip unit for size is required would be an interesting engineering feat. By requiring one it implies the other.

TL;DR There are a lot of foreign and LEO contracts now specifying an FCU type mechanism which Glock aren't winning.
The grip size can be changed on a Glock since gen4.


No manufacturer is going to waste money submitting a product for testing if it doesn’t meet the base line requirements. The manufacture increasingly has to pay for testing which is not cheap. They aren’t submitting firearms and waiting for a verdict.


Glock has designed new pistols for much smaller contracts, the rotating barrel for the German police comes to mind. If they need to design a removable fcu to compete in a contract they will.


Sig and Glock were the two finalist in the mhs program, a product that doesn’t meet a baseline requirement doesn’t get to the testing phase.
 
21 - 27 of 27 Posts
Top