why aren't there more posts for sig? - Page 3

alan c. · 07-13-2002, 09:39 AM

Thanks Klaus, I will eventually take you up on the offer. Ammo is not a problem.

FEG · 07-13-2002, 02:23 PM

Glockguy23,

As you well know, I don't like Glocks much. I'm pretty biased. I will say that they are EXTREMELY reliable, and I would trust my life to them. I am one of those people that has to be contrary. If it weren't for the hundreds of people that have even less handgun experience than myself, singing paeans of praise for the Glock day and night, it wouldn't be an issue.

1) You are a firearms instructor! You probably shoot more on any given day than I do in a week. Glocks don't really fit my hand. When trigger control also proved a problem with their system (at least for me), that was it. I'll probably never put enough time into one to "get over the hump." I know quite a few people with the same problem. As I said before, new shooters never seem to have this problem; obviously, the trigger can't be that bad then.

2) The Glock 17 has something like 34 parts. I believe that is about 10-20 less than a typical CZ 75/85 series pistol, which are considered "simple" designs. Glocks are deliberately designed to be somewhat "modular" and easy to work on. HOWEVER, someone like me (little exposure, no training) is pretty lost. I am familiar with traditional Browning-derived designs (I'm talking about general concept and appearance too, not just the lock-up). When something goes wrong with a 1911 (DOES happen, believe me), I may not be able to do much about it, but I can usually tell what the problem is.

Also, I could be dead wrong, but I have always seen the potential for the same type of situation you see with revolvers. That is, a robust, "foolproof" design tends to fail spectacularly when it fails. Glocks have been taken to task for KB, but that seems to be operator error/ammo selection in all cases. Maybe people begin to trust the gun more than sound judgement.

3) I've never doubted that the Glock 17 is suitable for military use (wouldn't say that about the smallest models, but that's not specific to Glock either). Remember when I asked if anyone really thought that there was an easier pistol to shoot than a full-size 9mm service pistol at CZF? I was thinking along these type lines too. I would have to say that the Glock 27 is one of the best carry pistols available. At the same time, it seems like their most difficult model to shoot well.

My point is this: Glock's military presence is pretty small compared to their civilian/LE presence. Why? Price must be part of the picture. Glocks really aren't that expensive, but some of our NATO allies are ridiculously underfunded, etc. Historically, the world's militaries are fairly conservative; for example, Colt went broke twice because the US Army would not (could not) spend the money on obviously superior weapons. When you are looking at retraining and equipping several thousand field grade officers, rather than a few hundred LEOs, inertia is a real problem. As someone pointed out at TFL, handguns account for such a tiny percentage of combat casualties that they are also a fairly low priority.

Still, Glocks really aren't that common as military handguns. Isn't Austria the largest military to use them? I wouldn't be surprised if someone proved that the California State Police issue more handguns than the Austrian military. I think that you're right; political and economic factors certainly cloud military procurement. However, I think that Glocks are seen as gimmicks to many military types. In the military context, some of the Glock's perceived advantages, such as the "safe action," aren't really considered very important.

I didn't want to sound that harsh about Glocks in the first place. One of these days I will stop writing checks with my mouth at 2:00 AM. My point is that you can make a fairly strong argument that Glocks are NOT in the top echelon of military pistols, even if they are suitable for that purpose and ought to be.

GlockGuy 23 · 07-14-2002, 09:27 PM

FEG,
Just yanking your chain, buddy...
Yes, I do shoot a bit (2000 - 4000 rounds a month, at present), and yes, it is 99.9% with a Glock. They are certainly not for everybody, as you've learned. They don't fit everyone, and the trigger is an acquired feel. That said, they are still one of the finest defenseive handguns out there. And that's not Glock hype, that's over 100,000 rounds worth of experience...

BTW, I can teach you to completely rebuild a Glock (like that would ever be necessary) in about 10 minutes...

Cyclops · 07-16-2002, 02:25 PM

I'm not much of a Sig fan. I owned a P220 that was just a lemon. Sent it back to the factory for warranty work & it still wasn't right. Sold it after only 2500 rounds. Only up side was that it was an easy sale because of the rep they had built up over the years.
Since that experience, I've tried a few other Sigs...239 & 226. They were okay, but after the bad experience I already had, I've found better

04-01-2005, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FEG

At any rate, the big firms end up telling us what to buy; instead of us telling them what to make.

I will say this about many of the European firms. Several seem to be taking the attitude that they are NOT going to "dumb down" their entire line in order to sell a few hundred guns in Massachussets. Would the Clinton agenda have succeeded if certain major domestic concerns hadn't seen this as a perverse form of protectionism?

couldn't have said it any better myself ! :right:

07-13-2002, 09:39 AM	#41
alan c. Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Pasadena,Tejas - also known as Texas Posts: 3,757 Trader Rating: (0)	Thanks Klaus, I will eventually take you up on the offer. Ammo is not a problem. __________________ God Bless. From Tejas -- formerly known as Texas.

07-13-2002, 02:23 PM	#42
FEG Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Behind the Iron Curtain Posts: 517 Trader Rating: (0)	Glocks et al. Glockguy23, As you well know, I don't like Glocks much. I'm pretty biased. I will say that they are EXTREMELY reliable, and I would trust my life to them. I am one of those people that has to be contrary. If it weren't for the hundreds of people that have even less handgun experience than myself, singing paeans of praise for the Glock day and night, it wouldn't be an issue. 1) You are a firearms instructor! You probably shoot more on any given day than I do in a week. Glocks don't really fit my hand. When trigger control also proved a problem with their system (at least for me), that was it. I'll probably never put enough time into one to "get over the hump." I know quite a few people with the same problem. As I said before, new shooters never seem to have this problem; obviously, the trigger can't be that bad then. 2) The Glock 17 has something like 34 parts. I believe that is about 10-20 less than a typical CZ 75/85 series pistol, which are considered "simple" designs. Glocks are deliberately designed to be somewhat "modular" and easy to work on. HOWEVER, someone like me (little exposure, no training) is pretty lost. I am familiar with traditional Browning-derived designs (I'm talking about general concept and appearance too, not just the lock-up). When something goes wrong with a 1911 (DOES happen, believe me), I may not be able to do much about it, but I can usually tell what the problem is. Also, I could be dead wrong, but I have always seen the potential for the same type of situation you see with revolvers. That is, a robust, "foolproof" design tends to fail spectacularly when it fails. Glocks have been taken to task for KB, but that seems to be operator error/ammo selection in all cases. Maybe people begin to trust the gun more than sound judgement. 3) I've never doubted that the Glock 17 is suitable for military use (wouldn't say that about the smallest models, but that's not specific to Glock either). Remember when I asked if anyone really thought that there was an easier pistol to shoot than a full-size 9mm service pistol at CZF? I was thinking along these type lines too. I would have to say that the Glock 27 is one of the best carry pistols available. At the same time, it seems like their most difficult model to shoot well. My point is this: Glock's military presence is pretty small compared to their civilian/LE presence. Why? Price must be part of the picture. Glocks really aren't that expensive, but some of our NATO allies are ridiculously underfunded, etc. Historically, the world's militaries are fairly conservative; for example, Colt went broke twice because the US Army would not (could not) spend the money on obviously superior weapons. When you are looking at retraining and equipping several thousand field grade officers, rather than a few hundred LEOs, inertia is a real problem. As someone pointed out at TFL, handguns account for such a tiny percentage of combat casualties that they are also a fairly low priority. Still, Glocks really aren't that common as military handguns. Isn't Austria the largest military to use them? I wouldn't be surprised if someone proved that the California State Police issue more handguns than the Austrian military. I think that you're right; political and economic factors certainly cloud military procurement. However, I think that Glocks are seen as gimmicks to many military types. In the military context, some of the Glock's perceived advantages, such as the "safe action," aren't really considered very important. I didn't want to sound that harsh about Glocks in the first place. One of these days I will stop writing checks with my mouth at 2:00 AM. My point is that you can make a fairly strong argument that Glocks are NOT in the top echelon of military pistols, even if they are suitable for that purpose and ought to be. __________________ WARNING: CZs MAY BE HABIT-FORMING (Consult a doctor if nursing or pregnant).

07-14-2002, 09:27 PM	#43
GlockGuy 23 Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Cajun Country Posts: 34 Trader Rating: (0)	FEG, Just yanking your chain, buddy... Yes, I do shoot a bit (2000 - 4000 rounds a month, at present), and yes, it is 99.9% with a Glock. They are certainly not for everybody, as you've learned. They don't fit everyone, and the trigger is an acquired feel. That said, they are still one of the finest defenseive handguns out there. And that's not Glock hype, that's over 100,000 rounds worth of experience... BTW, I can teach you to completely rebuild a Glock (like that would ever be necessary) in about 10 minutes... __________________ Glock Director Feliciana Firearms Training Center http://www.ballisticreview.com/images/marvin.gif .....Martian Certified!.....

07-16-2002, 02:25 PM	#44
Cyclops Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: California Posts: 231 Trader Rating: (0)	I'm not much of a Sig fan. I owned a P220 that was just a lemon. Sent it back to the factory for warranty work & it still wasn't right. Sold it after only 2500 rounds. Only up side was that it was an easy sale because of the rep they had built up over the years. Since that experience, I've tried a few other Sigs...239 & 226. They were okay, but after the bad experience I already had, I've found better __________________ Don't tread on me!