[Deputydave]

And there is nothing wrong with a factory stock Glock trigger unless you are looking to go into serious shooting competition or are just plain anal retentive.

On this we are in complete agreement. The stock Glock trigger is perfectly serviceable and perfectly capable of solid COM shots at 50 yards and head shots at 25 yards as long as it is within the shooters skill set.

 

[Jester@249]

That's your opinion. Gen 4 Glocks and above do come with various beaver tail backstraps to change the circumference of the grip. And there is nothing wrong with a factory stock Glock trigger unless you are looking to go into serious shooting competition or are just plain anal retentive.

Say, isn't this just "your opinion" too? I mean ANY revolver has MORE modularity that what you mention about the Glock. Glock simply made less than a half-assed attempt to get the US military contract. Hell, Glock didn't even submit the number of guns required for evaluation.......

 

[Blanton]

Where was the outrage when Glock was taking over the US LE market, and when all SOCOM forces adopted Glocks ?

The double standard here is comedy.

And everyone talks about the lowest bidder, I think our military would be swimming in Rugers, KelTecs, and Smithies if they truly went with the cheapest gun. The MHS contract came down to Glock vs. SIG, not Ruger vs. Kel Tec.

SOCOM, FBI, USSS, CBP went Glock
US General military, ICE, VA Police, NPS went SIG
And the US LE market now is about 60% Glock, 30% SIG.
Both are great brands, both brands are the most popular handgun brands at the global level, especially with 1st world militaries.

As far as garbage weapons, well an explanation would be helpful.

Your points are spot on. Explanations are rare during a rant....

 

[seanmac45]

Sorry pal, I am not onboard with what Sig offers these days with their questionable quality control practices. We can argue shady business practices all day long. One thing that is clear is that Glock made some pretty successful marketing strategies way back in the day you will have to admit.

Yup, hookers and blow are successful marketing strategies. In any language.

 

[walkinguf61]

Yup, hookers and blow are successful marketing strategies. In any language.

I’m just jealous that I wasn’t on the selection committee-lol

 

[Night Train]

Say, isn't this just "your opinion" too? I mean ANY revolver has MORE modularity that what you mention about the Glock. Glock simply made less than a half-assed attempt to get the US military contract. Hell, Glock didn't even submit the number of guns required for evaluation.......

Well Glock did make a legal effort to question the final decision so I would not say that it was that much of a half-assed attempt, otherwise they wouldn't have spent the money in court. As a consolation, they sold a sh&t ton of the civilian version when it was offered to the public and its still quite popular. The bottom line is Sig undercut Glock with a much lower price point for the military and we all know the military is all about cost rather than quality along with the shady practices inherent in these decisions. And that's just my opinion. 😉

 

[checkyoursix]

That same rational is one of the main reasons Sig won the MHS contract, they out Glocked, Glock.

The King of the low bid/buy back programs that got them on the map got beaten at their own game. It’s so sad, never the lamentations of their women have been so loud.

Proof? Like I am on the inside and have access to the real facts?

No, you are very much on the outside and make up your own facts. I am proud of you for stating that much clearly and succinctly. Leave it at that.

This thread summarized :

Man this is so true, I cannot believe an American company gets all this hatred from fan of THE pistol that for years fed tons of strippers/hookers to the our finest to get police contracts. Perfection is indeed in the eyes of the stripper holder .


Glock perfection to me means utter stagnation, they have created NOTHING new in the past 20 or more years. In the meantime Sig has created amazing new designs, has grown into a powerhouse producing rifles, PCC’s, new handgun designs, ammunition, optics, creating thousands of jobs and our Austrian apologists are crying over a slightly updated 40 years old design the Army should have adopted to validate their huge collection of identical guns.

Glock has one design that works. Congratulation, really.

 

[Night Train]

At the end of the day, Glock is America's gun. Deal.

 

[Deputydave]

That would be an opinion, not an actual fact.

 

[Night Train]

That would be an opinion, not an actual fact.

Correct, just like the Dallas Cowboys are America's Team.

 

[Maccabeus]

Correct, just like the Dallas Cowboys are America's Team.

Who?

Oh yeah, welcome to the 1990s. I haven't thought about them in decades.

 

[DirectDrive]

At the end of the day, Glock is America's gun. Deal.
I can dream, can't I ?

Fixed it for you

 

[BDM71]

Say, isn't this just "your opinion" too? I mean ANY revolver has MORE modularity that what you mention about the Glock. Glock simply made less than a half-assed attempt to get the US military contract. Hell, Glock didn't even submit the number of guns required for evaluation.......

Do you really think Glock made a half-assed attempt to get the military contract, or were you just joking?

 

[BDM71]

Well Glock did make a legal effort to question the final decision so I would not say that it was that much of a half-assed attempt, otherwise they wouldn't have spent the money in court. As a consolation, they sold a sh&t ton of the civilian version when it was offered to the public and its still quite popular. The bottom line is Sig undercut Glock with a much lower price point for the military and we all know the military is all about cost rather than quality along with the shady practices inherent in these decisions. And that's just my opinion. 😉

The story about SIG undercutting Glock is a myth in my opinion, and it was planted to make sense of the nonsense. I have a copy of the Army's MHS RFP, and in it, it explicitly says that price cannot be a consideration until all of the testing was completed and there was a tie. Other than that, any clear advantage (regarding actual requirements) one pistol had over the other would have won the contract. The Army did not complete the testing and allegedly awarded the contract based on price. We also know in Glock's protest to the GAO that they had no idea how the army figured SIG was cheaper because they would not disclose how they came up with that opinion. Now that we know the army never was able to get the XM17/18 to meet it's 2000-round MRBS goal, unless someone believes a Glock would similarly struggle while many other guns have achieved such feats (e.g. the CZ P-01, Beretta M9 and even the 1911 back in its day), Glock would have won MHS had it been permitted to continue.

MHS was decided before shooters were "in the loop" (computerized ransom rests only were used in phase 1 testing), before elemental testing was performed, and before the majority of bullets were fired.

Everything I stated is a fact so long as we're using the rules of the English language, save for the part about Glock would have won because it never had the chance to compete (and no one can predict the future). But the fact that SIG was awarded the contract before such testing I mentioned is exactly why we are stuck with a pistol that, in my opinion, is less reliable than a Glock. Any 9mm Glock can go 2000 rounds without a malfunction. Remember, they weren't burning 2000 straight rounds; they were stopping and stripping and cleaning each gun every 500 rounds, but SIG still couldn't make it to 2000 rounds on average. That's pathetic if you think about it.

 

[Will Beararms]

If you look back, these contract runs come and go and cycles. I remember when the smith and Wesson 4000 series was the gun for law-enforcement. Then came Beretta with the military contract. Then came Glock with the law enforcement business. Now it is Sig Sauer’s turn.

 

[BDM71]

If you look back, these contract runs come and go and cycles. I remember when the smith and Wesson 4000 series was the gun for law-enforcement. Then came Beretta with the military contract. Then came Glock with the law enforcement business. Now it is Sig Sauer’s turn.

I don't mind companies taking turns, but they've got to earn it.

 

[walkinguf61]

The story about SIG undercutting Glock is a myth in my opinion, and it was planted to make sense of the nonsense. I have a copy of the Army's MHS RFP, and in it, it explicitly says that price cannot be a consideration until all of the testing was completed and there was a tie. Other than that, any clear advantage (regarding actual requirements) one pistol had over the other would have won the contract. The Army did not complete the testing and allegedly awarded the contract based on price. We also know in Glock's protest to the GAO that they had no idea how the army figured SIG was cheaper because they would not disclose how they came up with that opinion. Now that we know the army never was able to get the XM17/18 to meet it's 2000-round MRBS goal, unless someone believes a Glock would similarly struggle while many other guns have achieved such feats (e.g. the CZ P-01, Beretta M9 and even the 1911 back in its day), Glock would have won MHS had it been permitted to continue.

MHS was decided before shooters were "in the loop" (computerized ransom rests only were used in phase 1 testing), before elemental testing was performed, and before the majority of bullets were fired.

Everything I stated is a fact so long as we're using the rules of the English language, save for the part about Glock would have won because it never had the chance to compete (and no one can predict the future). But the fact that SIG was awarded the contract before such testing I mentioned is exactly why we are stuck with a pistol that, in my opinion, is less reliable than a Glock. Any 9mm Glock can go 2000 rounds without a malfunction. Remember, they weren't burning 2000 straight rounds; they were stopping and stripping and cleaning each gun every 500 rounds, but SIG still couldn't make it to 2000 rounds on average. That's pathetic if you think about it.

Are you saying the Sig didn’t or couldn’t meet that round count ? The P320 has met such torture tests for other contracts.
If Sig cheated, a big IF, it was done when the military set the standard of what it wanted.
They outbid Glock . For the price, and if Sig’s performance was even close to the Glock. , the military made the right choice for their general needs.

 

[Jester@249]

Well Glock did make a legal effort to question the final decision so I would not say that it was that much of a half-assed attempt, otherwise they wouldn't have spent the money in court. As a consolation, they sold a sh&t ton of the civilian version when it was offered to the public and its still quite popular. The bottom line is Sig undercut Glock with a much lower price point for the military and we all know the military is all about cost rather than quality along with the shady practices inherent in these decisions. And that's just my opinion. 😉

I didn't realize Glock was selling the entry from the trials to the public. Any idea where I can get one of these Glocks with the external manual safety?

 

[Night Train]

I didn't realize Glock was selling the entry from the trials to the public. Any idea where I can get one of these Glocks with the external manual safety?

Yes, as they say, the devil is in the details.

 

[Will Beararms]

I don't mind companies taking turns, but they've got to earn it.

Being a salesman in corporate America for 32 years, you have to figure out a way to win. The other companies may have determined it’s not worth it. They may be sitting back and letting Sig drive themselves into the ground. I have seen it happen more than once.