|
Quoted: It will need a manual safety. Quoted: Quoted: Glock will be out with the gen 6 soon. I bet that will be the new pick. It will need a manual safety. Good thing you can get a Glock with a manual safety. In reality, a manual safety is dumb since it seems to be SOP to not even engage the damn thing in the first place. |
|
Quoted: Yes, but with S&W being American owned, most feel that puts it above Glock. Quoted: Quoted: Glock is American made too. Yes, but with S&W being American owned, most feel that puts it above Glock. Point of order, the likes of black rock and vanguard own significant portions of S&W stock. When you buy S&W you’re supporting the left big time. |
|
Not for nothing but as a Glock and 1911 (Wilson 1911) guy I feel like we as a community were basically brow beat for several years about the 320 until I finally broke down and purchased a WCP 320 and remember anti Glock fudds I really felt like I was being that guy for shunning a "good gun". I want an answer and a fix or my money back at this point. I'd consider taking a credit only if if applies back to Wilson who I purchased it from. I did buy mine as a game gun, It has been bounced around a hell of a lot in my SxS on an empty chamber but cocked and never fired but wtf. If I was one of you guys who bought it to carry or worse is forced to carry it because it's issued I'd be mad as fk. |
|
Quoted: Not for nothing but as a Glock and 1911 (Wilson 1911) guy I feel like we as a community were basically brow beat for several years about the 320 until I finally broke down and purchased a WCP 320 and remember anti Glock fudds I really felt like I was being that guy for shunning a "good gun". I remember quite a few threads of SIG 320 vs Glock and 320 fanboys being all "the future is now old man".  |
|
Quoted: There are other major gun companies which use India as a source BUT the parts are made under strict supervision of these companies regarding quality control for their parts. The 320 issue isn’t a parts manufacturing quality issue, it’s a design issue. Quoted: Quoted: If this isnt the end, which it should be, it will be when their 22x series start failing due to shit made in india parts https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/473532/180E8A1F-ED5C-4699-B723-D122F4380152_jpe-2472009.JPG damn shame, however you feel about the 320, the 226, 229 and family are amazing guns with decades of proud service and reliability There are other major gun companies which use India as a source BUT the parts are made under strict supervision of these companies regarding quality control for their parts. The 320 issue isn’t a parts manufacturing quality issue, it’s a design issue. I agree that it is primarily a design issue But there is some evidence to suggest that parts QC is a significant contributing factor |
|
Quoted: Glock is American made too. They were until FRC got in there and fucked up the 229/226/228, sketchy parts, slack QC. They lost contracts, FBI/ATF black listed them. I think they even got fined. FRC is the worst human being in the big gun industry. I mean, there are a smattering of losers in the smaller companies, but at large, FRC is a piece of shit. He’s a convicted criminal in Germany, why Kimber or SIG would hire him is beyond me. Or retain him , for that matter. I hate him so much. A Kimber 1911 was my OG grail gun as a kid after seeing the one that one of my scoutmasters would always take on trips But by the time I was old enough to buy a pistol it was already known that they were a shadow of their former selves fuck be upon FRC, for what he did to both Sig and Kimber What a lot of 320 defenders dont understand is that a lot of the hate for sig comes from prior diehard fans who were abused and run off, not just glock fanbois |
|
Quoted: I don’t think it was greed. I think Glock actually presented an appropriate price for their guns. From what I’ve read, sig’s offering came out to $180 to $200 per pistol. There is no way they can make a profit on that price. I believe they purposely undercut the competition just to get the contract, even at a loss. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Glocks problem was greed. I don’t understand why this is even a factor. Cost shouldn’t matter. We send billions to other countries monthly, what’s a million here or there for a good safe weapon system for OUR troops??? I don’t think it was greed. I think Glock actually presented an appropriate price for their guns. From what I’ve read, sig’s offering came out to $180 to $200 per pistol. There is no way they can make a profit on that price. I believe they purposely undercut the competition just to get the contract, even at a loss. Which to be fair, is somewhat similar to the Glock strategy to break into the LE market Being THE cop or mil gun works brilliantly as a marketing / sales tactic unless you ship a turd that flares out on the national stage |
|
Quoted: I remember quite a few threads of SIG 320 vs Glock and 320 fanboys being all "the future is now old man". Quoted: Quoted: Not for nothing but as a Glock and 1911 (Wilson 1911) guy I feel like we as a community were basically brow beat for several years about the 320 until I finally broke down and purchased a WCP 320 and remember anti Glock fudds I really felt like I was being that guy for shunning a "good gun". I remember quite a few threads of SIG 320 vs Glock and 320 fanboys being all "the future is now old man". People get too hooked on "their" thing and want everyone to do the same. It's been this way for ever. Pick a tool, use it. I'm gonna probably keep my P320 in the safe 'til I hear more about what Sig is going to do. They seem hell-bent on not acknowledging the issues that are plaguing the system. Hey Sig, trade me my P320 for an optics-ready 226 and I'll call it good. |
|
Quoted: S&W M&P has this. It’s an American company and a great gun. I don’t see why they snub this gun? Quoted: Quoted: It will need a manual safety. S&W M&P has this. It’s an American company and a great gun. I don’t see why they snub this gun? Because it is nowhere as reliable or proven as a Glock. S&W is second tier at best. |
|
Quoted: Most Americans. S&W is an American owned company. Why wouldn’t the US military use a sidearm from an American owned company? The M&P is a better gun than Glock anyway, especially for use with multiple hand sizes. The Glock points unnaturally for most new users. It's weird that we sell so many to new users. We ( a large, regional gun shop) sell Glock 2-1 over everything else. |
|
Quoted: I remember quite a few threads of SIG 320 vs Glock and 320 fanboys being all "the future is now old man". Quoted: Quoted: Not for nothing but as a Glock and 1911 (Wilson 1911) guy I feel like we as a community were basically brow beat for several years about the 320 until I finally broke down and purchased a WCP 320 and remember anti Glock fudds I really felt like I was being that guy for shunning a "good gun". I remember quite a few threads of SIG 320 vs Glock and 320 fanboys being all "the future is now old man". I also remember that. People even off the internet were ridiculing me for continuing to stay all-in on my Glocks. “There’s no reason to own a Glock now that the 320 exists…” Well, all my Glocks are still working fine, and everyone I knew who switched to the 320 has now switched back to Glock or S&W. 
|
|
Quoted: That's because putting a manual safety on a Glock is retarded. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Military should have just picked glock. It's the best option. Proven reliable, proven safe. Already used by the military. Cheap. Glock “shot themselves in the foot” for obtaining many military tenders by refusing for decades to offer a manual safety. Glock did produce the “Tasmanian” model for a trial but never offered it afterwards. That's because putting a manual safety on a Glock is retarded. Then they lose the military sales. If you don’t want the safety on, then leave it off. Simple. |
|
Quoted: People get too hooked on "their" thing and want everyone to do the same. It's been this way for ever. Pick a tool, use it. I'm gonna probably keep my P320 in the safe 'til I hear more about what Sig is going to do. They seem hell-bent on not acknowledging the issues that are plaguing the system. Hey Sig, trade me my P320 for an optics-ready 226 and I'll call it good. This. I would take a very used 226… |
|
Quoted: This. I would take a very used 226… Quoted: Quoted: People get too hooked on "their" thing and want everyone to do the same. It's been this way for ever. Pick a tool, use it. I'm gonna probably keep my P320 in the safe 'til I hear more about what Sig is going to do. They seem hell-bent on not acknowledging the issues that are plaguing the system. Hey Sig, trade me my P320 for an optics-ready 226 and I'll call it good. This. I would take a very used 226… I love my PD trade-in (non-optic) P226. I have some, but I don't feel the need to put an optic on every handgun I own. |
|
Quoted: Good question - were there trials where the S&W was found wanting in some respect? Quoted: Quoted: S&W M&P has this. It’s an American company and a great gun. I don’t see why they snub this gun? Good question - were there trials where the S&W was found wanting in some respect? I'd be shocked if it was simply that S&W didn't want to be lowballed on price. The downselects I've read can be rough. Who knows. Maybe they weren't sleazy enough... |
|
Quoted: I love my PD trade-in (non-optic) P226. I have some, but I don't feel the need to put an optic on every handgun I own. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: People get too hooked on "their" thing and want everyone to do the same. It's been this way for ever. Pick a tool, use it. I'm gonna probably keep my P320 in the safe 'til I hear more about what Sig is going to do. They seem hell-bent on not acknowledging the issues that are plaguing the system. Hey Sig, trade me my P320 for an optics-ready 226 and I'll call it good. This. I would take a very used 226… I love my PD trade-in (non-optic) P226. I have some, but I don't feel the need to put an optic on every handgun I own. I don't either... I won't cut my older 226, just wouldn't mind a dot on one now. The P320 - misgivings aside - is an easy shooter and a good gun for an optic. I'd swap my Sig optic onto it. hypothetically, of course. I've checked my site messages and ... nope, nothing from Sig. 
|
|
Quoted: It's weird that we sell so many to new users. We ( a large, regional gun shop) sell Glock 2-1 over everything else. I don’t doubt that. Sadly it has nothing to do with how good of a gun it is. Music, movies, “my uncle said it’s the best” sales more guns than any objective measure. The Taurus G2/G3c outsells Glock by miles in the public sector, guess it’s a better gun.??????? |
|
Quoted: Because it is nowhere as reliable or proven as a Glock. S&W is second tier at best. Based off what objective testing? I can post videos where the M&P did much better than Glock in testing. How many rounds thru how many guns, under what conditions would M&P have to go through to deem it “proven”? |
|
The US mil held tenaciously to the M16/M4 platform for 60+ yrs & the “new & improved” SIG rifle is finally working in as a replacement. When the “advanced projectile” zips through skinny, non-obese non-Americans, like the M855 did, there will be….drama. But the SIG rifle on paper & early testing offers some things over the 5.56 NATO: Uber-ballistics; uber-pressure; fewer rounds, etc. alleged “uber points” re: range, terminal ballistics, armor penetration. Whether tactically relevant when bomb-dropping drones are en vogue remains to be seen. But what was a double-stack 9mm SIG going do that a Beretta 92 didn’t do? I don’t understand why $$$ millions are spent for a 9mm handgun that is a different 9mm handgun. Where’s DOGE? |
|
Quoted: S&W M&P has this. It’s an American company and a great gun. I don’t see why they snub this gun? I agree brother. I own 6 different M&Ps. None of them have let me down. Granted the one with the highest round count is only slightly north of 7k down the pipe. Still, they're an excellent pistol and highly underrated for some reason |
|
Quoted: Based off what objective testing? I can post videos where the M&P did much better than Glock in testing. How many rounds thru how many guns, under what conditions would M&P have to go through to deem it “proven”? Quoted: Quoted: Because it is nowhere as reliable or proven as a Glock. S&W is second tier at best. Based off what objective testing? I can post videos where the M&P did much better than Glock in testing. How many rounds thru how many guns, under what conditions would M&P have to go through to deem it “proven”? To Glack guys nothing will ever measure up to their beloved precious. |
|
Quoted: I agree brother. I own 6 different M&Ps. None of them have let me down. Granted the one with the highest round count is only slightly north of 7k down the pipe. Still, they're an excellent pistol and highly underrated for some reason Quoted: Quoted: S&W M&P has this. It’s an American company and a great gun. I don’t see why they snub this gun? I agree brother. I own 6 different M&Ps. None of them have let me down. Granted the one with the highest round count is only slightly north of 7k down the pipe. Still, they're an excellent pistol and highly underrated for some reason B/c everyone remembers the Sigma as soon as you say S&W. |
|
Quoted: I’ve noticed this. It’s 2025, not 1982. Engineers know how to build a plastic pistol. It’s really not that complicated from an engineering standpoint. Quoted: Quoted: To Glack guys nothing will ever measure up to their beloved precious. I’ve noticed this. It’s 2025, not 1982. Engineers know how to build a plastic pistol. It’s really not that complicated from an engineering standpoint. Do they really though? I mean this thread is all about how the sig engineers got it wrong. I think the “glock guys” are advocating for it because it’s beyond a well proven system that is simple, safe, and reliable. That’s really all you need out of a military pistol. Why reinvent the wheel when you know the Glock has been proven in military service for decades? |
|
If they were to start over NOW Dump the safety lever requirement. Walther P99 (best overall gun) Ruger RXM (best value, latest design features) S&W M&P (very good value - combined with proven and solid) Glock (proven, but expensive) M9A3 (Good gun, backward compatible - but dated) CZ-75 (it's old, but hey it's a good gun with a safety) .. 1911 (new production) ... .. HiPoint Lorcin ... 1911 original old stock NORINCO Tokarovs Sig (P226 that is) |
|
Quoted: Do they really though? I mean this thread is all about how the sig engineers got it wrong. I think the "glock guys" are advocating for it because it's beyond a well proven system that is simple, safe, and reliable. That's really all you need out of a military pistol. Why reinvent the wheel when you know the Glock has been proven in military service for decades? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: To Glack guys nothing will ever measure up to their beloved precious. I've noticed this. It's 2025, not 1982. Engineers know how to build a plastic pistol. It's really not that complicated from an engineering standpoint. Do they really though? I mean this thread is all about how the sig engineers got it wrong. I think the "glock guys" are advocating for it because it's beyond a well proven system that is simple, safe, and reliable. That's really all you need out of a military pistol. Why reinvent the wheel when you know the Glock has been proven in military service for decades? Exactly. Why fuck with something as proven as a Glock. Add the manual safety and be done with it. |
|
Quoted: Do they really though? I mean this thread is all about how the sig engineers got it wrong. I think the “glock guys” are advocating for it because it’s beyond a well proven system that is simple, safe, and reliable. That’s really all you need out of a military pistol. Why reinvent the wheel when you know the Glock has been proven in military service for decades? So because Sig cut corners and modified an already existing hammer fired pistol, that’s a failure, therefore no other manufacturers can produce a reliable auto loader? That’s seems very irrational to me. There is much that can be improved on a Glock, hence the reason for the massive aftermarket. Nobody is trying to reinvent the wheel here, just make it better. Remember when Glock cut corners and had massive extractor issues? The Glock 19 had a period of issues and the .40 cal Glocks were weaker than other designs and blew up on people, because Glock cheated out and made a 9mm design into a .40. Fanboi’s love to forget about all of Glocks shortcomings. |
|
Quoted: As much as i hate the vertec grip, should have went with the m9a3. Yep, I'm also a fan of the 92 platform but not the Vertec abomination. I would also offer the Sig SP2022 was more tried and true, with prior Navy contract, and use by some decent sized LE agencies and the Gendarm(erie?). I owned one (SP2340) and had a lot of exposure to deputies at a medium sized Sheriff's Office that issued them. All good. |
|
Quoted: I love my PD trade-in (non-optic) P226. I have some, but I don't feel the need to put an optic on every handgun I own. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: People get too hooked on "their" thing and want everyone to do the same. It's been this way for ever. Pick a tool, use it. I'm gonna probably keep my P320 in the safe 'til I hear more about what Sig is going to do. They seem hell-bent on not acknowledging the issues that are plaguing the system. Hey Sig, trade me my P320 for an optics-ready 226 and I'll call it good. This. I would take a very used 226… I love my PD trade-in (non-optic) P226. I have some, but I don't feel the need to put an optic on every handgun I own. They are great. I bought and sold them at my gun shop in the late 1980s. I have no need for dot optics on my handguns either. |
|
Quoted: S&W M&P has this. It’s an American company and a great gun. I don’t see why they snub this gun? If I remember correctly, I think Smith teamed up with General Dynamics at the start of the handgun evaluation. They pulled out of the competition right after it started. I always wondered why. I ran a handgun evaluation at work in 2015. I really liked the M&P but they didn't even submit a response to my bid. |
|
Quoted: Yep, I'm also a fan of the 92 platform but not the Vertec abomination. I would also offer the Sig SP2022 was more tried and true, with prior Navy contract, and use by some decent sized LE agencies and the Gendarm(erie?). I owned one (SP2340) and had a lot of exposure to deputies at a medium sized Sheriff's Office that issued them. All good. Quoted: Quoted: As much as i hate the vertec grip, should have went with the m9a3. Yep, I'm also a fan of the 92 platform but not the Vertec abomination. I would also offer the Sig SP2022 was more tried and true, with prior Navy contract, and use by some decent sized LE agencies and the Gendarm(erie?). I owned one (SP2340) and had a lot of exposure to deputies at a medium sized Sheriff's Office that issued them. All good. I dont know about the A3, but the A4 comes with an extra set of wraparound grips that make the vertec the same shape as the traditional M9 grip. Thats another check in the Beretta box, grip customization. |
| I hope I'm wrong, but I think they're just going to "inspect" handguns at the unit level, determine that they are just fine, and return them to duty because our military seems to be speedrunning retarded decisions. Also, if we abandon 320 platform, the Aussies and the Canadians might have to do something about it too. |
|
Quoted: It will need a manual safety. They’re issued all over the world without one and we have supplied them to SOCOM and even allied forces in underdeveloped nations. A modular pistol is stupid anyway, for all the parts and bits to alter their form you could likely just issue two firearms and be done with it. |
|
Quoted: I remember quite a few threads of SIG 320 vs Glock and 320 fanboys being all "the future is now old man". I wonder who Sig bribed to make modularity the main component of the pistol trials, they were the only truly modular entry, it was basically written for them. |