Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner
1 - 20 of 169 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,239 Posts
Honestly? APX
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoComp

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,040 Posts
We own a copy of each; and we are compelled to agree with the mostly useless actor in the meme. Other than the color of the G19X slide (which, in our judgement is awful) the 19X gets our vote over the P320.

We trudge on.
 

·
"Tactical Elf"
Joined
·
2,987 Posts
From a financial standpoint I see why the M17 was picked. Despite quite a few detractors, it really isn't a horrible platform, there are worse. I am actually quite fond of the X carry series, and haven't had any issues with mine.

I do agree they feel cheap compared to other poly guns, and that could be fixed with a better polymer frame. The frames overall are junk and are easily torn up. Of course Sig touts that as a plus for the modularity. The ability to change out frames....Blah Blah Blah.

I personally think it is a way for them to make money, like buying a video game and having to purchase the ad ons along the way. If they made it more durable in the first place, you wouldn't need to purchase new frames as often. Marketing 101 folks, and that along with almost cutting their own throats to underbid Glock, they have gotten pretty good at it.

Now with that being said, and as a veteran and LE, I would without hesitation any day and twice on Sundays pick the 19X over the 320. My 19X's are in my holsters everyday on and off duty. Simply put, the glock platform, is easier to maintain, and has a proven record in all types of environments and has has been used by Military and Police for many, many years.

From the mindset of one who will be using the equipment possibly to save another or my own bacon, I don't care about cost. I want utter reliability, and dependability, period. Glock has a much, much better long term proven record for those attributes.

I know someone out there is thinking, but the 320 has better ergonomics. Yes it does, but trust me when I tell you when the sphincter needle is pegging 10, you won't give two squirts about ergos.

Ergos are for playing with paper targets at the range, competitions, or feeling them up at the fun shop. The reality is when the time comes, you will use the tool you have and the more you practice with it, the better you will be. The mantra I live by when training, " One Mind Any Weapon".

I do have my preferred platforms, but overall, I can use just about anything should the need arise.

The flip side of that is also that the proven Glock platform, started out at the bottom and was the new design on the block once long ago. They had their fair share of issues and growing pains as well, NYPD G19 phase three malfunctions, 357 Sig models shearing of frame rails, 3rd gen G22's jamming with WML attached 4th gen G19 malfunctions with the new guide rod spring rates, and so on.

I think in the end, the 320 will become a vetted platform, and will prove itself. Glocks and the 320 will likely sit at the top of the heap when the dust finally settles, and the 320 has actually been used in an "Embrace the suck" combat situation.

Then again, the 320 may defecate all over the sheets when that times comes....Only time will tell.


TXPO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
569 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
From a financial standpoint I see why the M17 was picked. TXPO
Unlike most government contracts that must go to the lowest bidder, this contract was using the "trade-off method." Its reward does NOT have to go to the lowest bidder. The following is from the MHS RFP:

"M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

"M.1.1 The Government intends to make up to three (3) base awards as a result of this RFP. Each contractor will receive an order for the Weapon System Component Package requirements in accordance with CLIN 1001 of the base contract and Statement of Work C.3.1 which will satisfy the minimum quantity guarantee of each of the ID/IQ contract. The Government will select for award the proposals that are most advantageous and represent the best value to the Government using the trade-off method, with the Source Selection Authority (SSA) giving the appropriate consideration to the nine (9) evaluation factors: Bid Sample Test - Technical, Bid Sample Test - Other, Written Technical, License Rights Ammunition, License Rights Handgun and Accessories, Production/Manufacturing, Price, Past Performance, and Small Business Participation. The Government will weigh the relative benefits of each proposal and award will be made based on an integrated assessment of the results of the evaluation. In making the integrated assessment of the evaluation results, the SSA will give due consideration to all of the Factors and Sub- actors and their relative order of importance. Offerors that receive a final rating of Red/Unacceptable at any Factor/Sub-factor level are ineligible for award."

The Code of Federal regulations says the following about the trade-off process:

48 CFR 15.101-1 - Tradeoff process.

15.101-1 Tradeoff process.
(a) A tradeoff process is appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.

With the problems that have been documented BY OUR GOVERNMENT alone, there is no question Glock should have won MHS. They weren't even given the opportunity. As Glock pointed out in their protest, the testing was never finished, nor had Glock failed any part of the testing before the contract was awarded to SIG.

More than that, all the testing was required. All throughout the contract it reads "Shall" over and over again making the subject of each use of the word mandatory (otherwise it's a breach in contract).

For example, "H.5.2.5.2: Sub-Factor 2: states Materiel Reliability in Extreme Conditions" states that the "Government shall evaluate the reliability of the Modular Handgun System in both extreme high temperature and extreme low temperature environments."

It also goes on providing specificity:
"The candidate Modular Handgun System will be evaluated as to its ability to meet the threshold Mean Rounds Between Stoppages (MRBS) reliability requirements of 1,600 MRBS. These requirements are outlined in the purchase description AR PD 177 when operating at temperatures of 130\'baF (AR-PD-177 paragraph 3.6.10.2) and 40\'baF (AR PD 177 paragraph 3.6.10.1). The closer a candidate system comes to meeting the objective requirement of 2,000 MRBS, the more favorable the rating will be received. The rating will be based on overall test results and the risk of unsuccessful performance of this factor."

Yet, in the RFP there was no mention of the typical rough handling procedures that all shotguns, rifles, and pistols undertake which would surely have uncovered the drop safety issue from last year:

"4.8.2 1.5 Meter (5 Feet) Drop.

a. Use three serviceable weapons for this test. Load each weapon with a primed but otherwise empty cartridge case to analyze the possibility of accidental firing. Place the safety switch in the “Safe” position.

b. Drop each weapon one time in each of the following orientations:

(1) Major axis horizontal (normal firing orientation).

(2) Major axis vertical, butt down.

(3) Major axis vertical, muzzle down.

(4) Major axis 45 degrees from vertical, butt down.

(5) Major axis 45 degrees from vertical, muzzle down."

A lot of YouTube personalities were suspiciously quick to come out and defend SIG about the unintentional discharges and claimed that drop tests only dropped pistols on their sides (e.g. TheYankeeMarshal), but that is clearly not the case, nor has it ever been in recent and not-so-recent history. I've read rough handling tests going back decades as well as one as recent as 2014. They all basically say the same thing (if not the same thing). Why was it omitted in the MHS RFP?

This stringent of a rough handling procedure, to my knowledge, was not performed; and by definition, any testing procedure the RFP states "shall" be performed—which is not—is a breach of contract in my opinion (Glock was correct writing their letter of protest to the GAO).

Anyway, the contract wasn't specifically targeting the lowest bidder, but apparently it was also not targeting the most reliable and effective firearms for our troops either in my opinion. Each of the companies who submitted product for testing had to invest considerable time, effort, and money to do so, yet, the government was allowed to bypass its own mandatory testing procedures to award a contract to a manufacturer for a gun that has been riddled with safety and reliability problems. If cost and quality were not factors, what exactly determined the winner of the MHS contract?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ScottR65 and bunk22

·
Registered
Joined
·
569 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I know someone out there is thinking, but the 320 has better ergonomics. Yes it does, but trust me when I tell you when the sphincter needle is pegging 10, you won't give two squirts about ergos.

Ergos are for playing with paper targets at the range, competitions, or feeling them up at the fun shop. The reality is when the time comes, you will use the tool you have and the more you practice with it, the better you will be. The mantra I live by when training, " One Mind Any Weapon".TXPO
I wholeheartedly agree, except I would use the word "comfort" or "comfortable" in lieu of "ergonomic" or "ergonomics". The gun world generally seems to misconstrue the meaning of the latter. Comfort is only one subcomponent of ergonomics, and it isn't necessarily much of a priority. For example, many of us sit at work in front of a desk on a computer in a way we feel is "comfortable", but if you have someone come in to evaluate the ergonomics of the workplace (like I did), they'll quickly show you a more "ergonomic" way to sit, or a chair with better "ergonomics." The way they teach you to set up you computer and chair won't be the most comfortable, but it will save you from undue eyestrain or carpal tunnel syndrome. Again, not the most comfortable, but the most ergonomic. Ergonomics is really about efficiency, not comfort.

Pistols are the same way. There's "comfortable" when holding the gun, but there is also "comfort" while shooting it. More important, there is the ability to get follow up shots on target as quickly and accurately as possible, so while a P320 feels great (I love the feel), it also has a much higher bore axis that it can only mitigate, not make up for, by the weight they've added to the pistol.

Similarly, many people act is if Glocks are not ergonomic because they don't point naturally, but again, that is not true. The Glock grip angle IS ergonomic because it is designed to force the shooter to cant and lock his or her wrist for better accuracy and recoil management. Again, that is superior ergonomics.
 

·
Heart of the Rockies
Joined
·
2,491 Posts
I can’t stand canting/locking my wrists forward. It feels unnatural. When a person lifts weights in any direction, uses a closed fist to move any object, when a person pulls or pushes a lever, or when somebody uses a fist to strike... it’s always done with a neutral wrist.

Ergonomics is subjective. I prefer (and shoot better eith) the grip angle of the P320/1911 over Glock/Steyr.


These threads feel like Toyota vs Honda, Chevy vs Ford arguments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
569 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 · (Edited)
I can’t stand canting/locking my wrists forward. It feels unnatural.
Then why the hell are you in a Glock forum? lol

[/QUOTE] When a person lifts weights in any direction, uses a closed fist to move any object, when a person pulls or pushes a lever, or when somebody uses a fist to strike... it’s always done with a neutral wrist.[/QUOTE]

I don't agree with your analogies. When you mitigate recoil, you're absorbing force, you're not dishing it out. If someone pushes you, you'll fair much better leaning into him than trying to stand straight (think of the angle of the grip). Maybe a better analogy is blocking vs throwing a punch.

[/QUOTE]Ergonomics is subjective. I prefer (and shoot better eith) the grip angle of the P320/1911 over Glock/Steyr.[/QUOTE]

You're right, ergonomics is somewhat subjective, but not completely. Comfort yes, but mitigating physics? A larger person will benefit from the same things as a smaller weaker person (with a correct stance, for example, or as it pertains to this conversation, a locked wrist). I'm not saying there aren't exceptions, but I do feel confident stating people overuse the word "subjective" as much as the word ergonomics.


[/QUOTE]These threads feel like Toyota vs Honda, Chevy vs Ford arguments.[/QUOTE]

Then don't read them. I think the Toyota vs. Honda analogy has merit some of the time, but not in this case. I also think it's worth discussing because most people don't understand what happened with MHS. I read the entire RFP, not many people can say that, and I've kept up with information from other sources, including government sources, and I don't feel the Army chose the best pistol for our troops, nor do I feel it was an honest mistake. That's just my opinion, but there are a lot of facts to back that up.
 

·
"Tactical Elf"
Joined
·
2,987 Posts
I wholeheartedly agree, except I would use the word "comfort" or "comfortable" in lieu of "ergonomic" or "ergonomics". The gun world generally seems to misconstrue the meaning of the latter. Comfort is only one subcomponent of ergonomics, and it isn't necessarily much of a priority. For example, many of us sit at work in front of a desk on a computer in a way we feel is "comfortable", but if you have someone come in to evaluate the ergonomics of the workplace (like I did), they'll quickly show you a more "ergonomic" way to sit, or a chair with better "ergonomics." The way they teach you to set up you computer and chair won't be the most comfortable, but it will save you from undue eyestrain or carpal tunnel syndrome. Again, not the most comfortable, but the most ergonomic. Ergonomics is really about efficiency, not comfort.

Pistols are the same way. There's "comfortable" when holding the gun, but there is also "comfort" while shooting it. More important, there is the ability to get follow up shots on target as quickly and accurately as possible, so while a P320 feels great (I love the feel), it also has a much higher bore axis that it can only mitigate, not make up for, by the weight they've added to the pistol.

Similarly, many people act is if Glocks are not ergonomic because they don't point naturally, but again, that is not true. The Glock grip angle IS ergonomic because it is designed to force the shooter to cant and lock his or her wrist for better accuracy and recoil management. Again, that is superior ergonomics.
Your right, comfort fits there better than ergonomics.


TXPO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
I have both a P320 Compact and a 19.5. So not the exact MHS models. I like everything about the Sig - except it just a bit bulky for IWB. I like everything about the Glock except that grip angle. I plan to make the Glock 19.5 my EDC because of the compact size. If the Sig had that, it would be my choice.
I think both are outstanding pistols, but neither is perfect for me, so it’s about what trade off you make.
 

·
Heart of the Rockies
Joined
·
2,491 Posts
Then why the hell are you in a Glock forum? lol


I don't agree with your analogies. When you mitigate recoil, you're absorbing force, you're not dishing it out. If someone pushes you, you'll fair much better leaning into him than trying to stand straight (think of the angle of the grip). Maybe a better analogy is blocking vs throwing a punch.



You're right, ergonomics is somewhat subjective, but not completely. Comfort yes, but mitigating physics? A larger person will benefit from the same things as a smaller weaker person (with a correct stance, for example, or as it pertains to this conversation, a locked wrist). I'm not saying there aren't exceptions, but I do feel confident stating people overuse the word "subjective" as much as the word ergonomics.




Then don't read them. I think the Toyota vs. Honda analogy has merit some of the time, but not in this case. I also think it's worth discussing because most people don't understand what happened with MHS. I read the entire RFP, not many people can say that, and I've kept up with information from other sources, including government sources, and I don't feel the Army chose the best pistol for our troops, nor do I feel it was an honest mistake. That's just my opinion, but there are a lot of facts to back that up.


How is something “somewhat” subjective, but not completely? If you're going to debate definition and critique the proper use of a word, then be precise. You may say something is objectively ergonomic as it applies to the human race as compared to chimpanzees, such as the correct sitting position of a chair. However, as it applies to an individual, ergonomics is 100% subjective. There is no chair that can fit everybody, nor take into consideration spinal/pelvis issues an individual may suffer from. There is no correct squatting position, as the angle of an indvidaul’s knees, pelvis, and joints may cause specific tendicies. Likewise, when gripping a pistol, has anybody ever done an actual analysis/study on speed, accuracy, or strength of different grip angles? No. Then this isn’t an objective argument; we are both speculating. The two fastest shooters alive today, Jerry Miculek and Max Michel, are breaking records with upright pistols (and I’m sure they’d be breaking records regardless of grip angle).

Further, there is more to grip angle than trying to mitigate recoil. Even if an angled wrist was better at absorbing recoil, it is my belief, and something I’ve learned about myself during training, that I “punch” the pistol out when under stress. Uprights pistols come out of my holster and into my stance with their sights aligned.

Lastly, if we’re going to be precise, the grip angle of a Glock does not cause one to “lock” his wrist, as you’ve eluding to multiple times (and so have I). It’s something that’s repeated so often that we all stop thinking about what it actually means. When you point a Glock, can you continue to point the pistol downward? If you can, then the wrist joint is not “locked.”




Edit to add:

As a mental exercise, when it comes to "mitigating recoil" and "absorbing force," I'm trying to think of natural situations in which a person would absorb force with his hands. When a baseball players catches a ball, when a receiver catches a football, and when a weightlifter catches a heavy medicine ball, they are all doing so with neutral, somewhat relaxed wrists, which perhaps allows the wrist to act as a shock absorber, rather than trying to fight against the force. I don't know; I'm not a physicist. This is anecdotal, but I shoot best when relaxed, as do most people I observe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
The whole thing (and yes I agree Glock should have prevailed...) is a big payback from when Beretta won the contract in the 80s and SIG put up a big ***** stink! Beretta kicks ass. SIG is good. Glock is innovation and constant improvement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
407 Posts
Beretta won the contract because Italy said they wouldn't host NATO missiles unless we picked their pistol. It was quid pro quo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RocNRoll

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,418 Posts
Honestly, I’d pick my USP Tactical 9mm with the Jet funnel kit over both especially going into a hostile environment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,096 Posts
Glock's "safe action" has been kicking ass and taking names since the 1980's. Given the crucible of law enforcement use for over a quarter-century, and given FIVE generations of constant improvement, NO HANDGUN can go toe-to-toe against Glock. SIG makes good stuff, but the 320 isn't proven yet. It may be regarded as a great handgun 25 years from now, but it ain't there yet. And, I wouldn't want to drop one with a round in the chamber............
 
  • Like
Reactions: tango44

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,853 Posts
Actually, all of them did compete on a level playing field, and the best one won.

Crying about it for the next 10 years only makes one look silly.

And, I wouldn't want to drop one with a round in the chamber............
I would not want to drop any gun - loaded or not. But that's just me.

Just to interject some reality here, which is sorely missing in most of these crybaby threads, not one of the XM/P320's shipped under the MHS contract had a drop issue. Not one. There is a lot of mythology circulating out there that gets repeated so much that it creates its own "reality".
 
1 - 20 of 169 Posts
Top