This was never an issue for the M17/M18. I wonder if Sig will ever address this, don't you?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Sidearms & Scatterguns Army REJECTS Glock 19X, "It's a shitty pistol that is not worth the Army's time and money." - General James C. McConville, Army Chief of Staff
- Thread starter Fig
- Start date
This was never an issue for the M17/M18. I wonder if Sig will ever address this, don't you?
Not a good rumor on the AI beating the MRAD. The MRAD beat the AI across all KPP/KSAs to include accuracy. In addition, the MRAD is being adopted by every segment of SOCOM not just the ASR submission. I just wish I had $17k to buy one
0/10.....troll harder next time.....
idiots pack heavy rucks
low probablity of use item
light weight x reliable x fair cost
=not idiot
Didn't read the article but the reason they liked the Sig was because of how the Army liked the 'trigger pack is the pistol' aspect of it. It was an easier sell on fixing/maintenance at the armory level and they didn't want to repeat the teething issues they had with the Beretta.
With that said, I do NOT like Glocks. I never have. Any Glock I ever shot, I disliked it. However, the 19x forced Glock out of their 'next gen' bullshit evolution and actually made them produce an extremely well balanced pistol with a fantastic grip surface/angle that didn't make you choose between too big or too small.
I have both the M9A3 without the stupid slide safety (its heavy, but the main weakness in the pistol other than it has too many moving parts is that people dont actually learn how to use it) and the 19x that has been my go-to sidearm since I got it when they first came out. I've been wanting to try the SIG but can never find anyone I know that has one as I wanted to make sure it didn't suffer from the ill placed slide release like the 226 has, where if you have a proper high thumbs grip, the slide doesn't lock back 75% of the time.
With that said, I do NOT like Glocks. I never have. Any Glock I ever shot, I disliked it. However, the 19x forced Glock out of their 'next gen' bullshit evolution and actually made them produce an extremely well balanced pistol with a fantastic grip surface/angle that didn't make you choose between too big or too small.
I have both the M9A3 without the stupid slide safety (its heavy, but the main weakness in the pistol other than it has too many moving parts is that people dont actually learn how to use it) and the 19x that has been my go-to sidearm since I got it when they first came out. I've been wanting to try the SIG but can never find anyone I know that has one as I wanted to make sure it didn't suffer from the ill placed slide release like the 226 has, where if you have a proper high thumbs grip, the slide doesn't lock back 75% of the time.
The decision was based on data provided by Dominion servers and the vote conting software that gave Sig an extra 0.1 for each vote while only counting each Glock as a 90% vote. Glock was still beating the pants off Sig. Then, about midnight, everyone was told to go home while the machines continued with the count and by morning, the contract belonged to Sig.
How long do you think it will take before the same shit maintenance practices that gave the M9 a bad rep in the Army will do the same to the M17?
Same shit, different pistol.
ETA: according to @M8541Reaper looks like Army maintenance has already caught up to the M17. Either that or it's just typical SIG: make a few polished turds to win the bid/contract then send out unpolished turds.
The M9A3 was the right answer anyway
I am in the 99%th percentile when it comes to that thumb problem. 22x, VP9, P10-C, sometimes even Glocks. I grew up shooting 1911s and riding the thumb safety, so I imagine that is why it is so ingrained for me. I can't even make the P320 malfunction like that if I try. I think the very first ones had a different shaped slide release and some people had problems, but the current slide release is easy to use, but impossible to ride. I don't know if that is intentional, but I know the manual safety on the safety versions gets right up to the slide release, so all of the protrusion on the slide stop is forward facing rather than back. If that makes sense.
Yeah the slide release is impossible to ride, it’s tucked away nicely. You have to want to hit it. Easily the best design on a pistol I’ve ever used.
Sig M17= For amatuers that cant shoot glocks straight. And ive seen some of these Army testers shoot them.
I believe the Govt pays around 183 bucks a piece for them. How? Ask where all the MIM parts come from and broached barrels are much cheaper to make than CHF from Austrian or Aubert& Duvall steel.
Sorry not a glock fanboy either but ill take it over sig.
I believe the Govt pays around 183 bucks a piece for them. How? Ask where all the MIM parts come from and broached barrels are much cheaper to make than CHF from Austrian or Aubert& Duvall steel.
Sorry not a glock fanboy either but ill take it over sig.
I shot Glocks straight for over a decade. Shot IDPA and USPSA matches with them too. As of a few months ago I only had one Glock left, a full FDE gen 4 19 that I bought the day after Trump got elected and swore I'd never get rid of... Well a guy on Armslist had a M17 with a DPP and some other stuff that he wanted to trade for a G19 and it went down the road for another P320.
The M17 and M18 is a superior firearm in every way.
Sig Owners: "lol, glock fanboys are in a cult, the glock isnt that great
Also Sig Owners: "THE 320 IS THE MOST SUPERIOR FIREARM EVER MADE, THE GUN WAS CRAFTED BY MICHALLENGALO TO PERFECTLY FIT THE HUMAN HAND AND THE GOVT BUYING THEM IS PROOF OF HOW GREAT IT IS!!!"
Also Sig Owners: "THE 320 IS THE MOST SUPERIOR FIREARM EVER MADE, THE GUN WAS CRAFTED BY MICHALLENGALO TO PERFECTLY FIT THE HUMAN HAND AND THE GOVT BUYING THEM IS PROOF OF HOW GREAT IT IS!!!"
Last edited:
I don't care for Sig pistols and don't understand the hype.
I've never handled the M17, but most of their designs place the bore axis WAY too high.
The decocker is funky and is placed in a funky spot.
I have a bit of time on the 226, not much, didn't care for it.
Of course, I don't care for Glocks and don't understand the hype there either, shitty ergo's, shitty feeling grips.
The same shit applies, the fan boys like to trot out the "more police departments, blah, blah, blah" Blue label glocks are cheap, if M&P's were 350 bucks, more departments would carry them.
The manual of arms is simple (which is a good thing), they are reliable, they are accurate.
They have some extremely shitty triggers.
Luckily, I don't have to carry either one.
I've never handled the M17, but most of their designs place the bore axis WAY too high.
The decocker is funky and is placed in a funky spot.
I have a bit of time on the 226, not much, didn't care for it.
Of course, I don't care for Glocks and don't understand the hype there either, shitty ergo's, shitty feeling grips.
The same shit applies, the fan boys like to trot out the "more police departments, blah, blah, blah" Blue label glocks are cheap, if M&P's were 350 bucks, more departments would carry them.
The manual of arms is simple (which is a good thing), they are reliable, they are accurate.
They have some extremely shitty triggers.
Luckily, I don't have to carry either one.
Some of my associates and I have bumped into you before in NOVA years ago...Your opinions mean jack and shit in the professional world.
Ok, so since by your own words M17’s are for amateurs that can’t shoot Glocks, and I can shoot Glocks straight, but apparently I’m not a professional, where does that put me then?
Also what about the professionals that chose the M17 and M18 for the contracts?
.
Just FYI I can by m&p cheaper than Glock on department contracts. That being said the m&p is every bit as good as a Glock or the sig. I would fight with any of them any time, or until I could get back to a long gun
hahaha, having shot handguns over 30 years, i get a kick out of these "debates".
high bore axis? heavy trigger on DA/SA to hard to shoot well?
everyone has a decent amount of excuses for why they can't shoot for shit.
high bore axis? heavy trigger on DA/SA to hard to shoot well?
everyone has a decent amount of excuses for why they can't shoot for shit.
I had a Gen 5 19 it was a good pistol but I sold it and bought a 320 X carry and I will not sell it. I have shot 2500 rounds without a failure to date, love the straight trigger and sights. It is a sample of 1 but it’s my sample
Last time Army picked a pistol they picked Beretta over Sig. Top Israeli units that work in Judea and Samaria picked Glock for guys whose life seriously depends on the pistol. And they had plenty of choices, including some pretty decent choices produced right there, in Israel. Sig CEO Ron Cohen is an Israeli guy, and was more than willing to cut Israelis a pretty good deal. But the Israelis liked the Glock better and money is no object for them when lives are at stake. Their mantra is that they can't afford to lose people.
i don't own one, but i found it very easy to shoot well, like a glock or most striker fired pistols.
as far as unsafe, i'll take your word for it, but i would never own a striker fired pistol anyway.
i mean i get that they are easier to shoot well compared to da/sa, but imo, that is about the only thing going for them, unless you like nds.
Striker-fired pistols are not any easier to shoot well, in fact most times they're harder, and there are many different reasons to pick one pistol design over another depending on it's purpose.
As somewhat of a pistol aficionado, it just was a terrible decision to go with the brand new Sig over the Glock for our soldiers. They can go off by themselves. That. Sucks.
Glocks have been around forever and have been proven beyond, well, really even bothering, as they are the standard. The design is simple, it's like a rubber-band gun, there's just not a lot to go wrong.
The Sig design on the other hand is in it's infancy, and they're still debugging it using the end-users as their beta testers (like Sig does these days... I own an MPX lol). It's a lot more complicated than a Glock's design with more things that can go wrong. It's a 100% cocked-design which inherently makes things more interesting... as far as administrative handling, safety in the holster, everything... makes a cocked n' locked 70-series 1911 seem safer to me personally.
The whole armorer-level thing being in favor of the Sig is dumb too, the Glock is easier than most children's toys and all an armorer needs is a punch and nothing.
As an aside, I think configurable grip thing was/is all crap, smediums for everyone would've been fine lol!
I think that anytime somebody comments on a pistol thread, it should be mandatory to also include a video of them shooting their preferred pistol. Any drill of choice as long as it includes a reload, is done on a shot timer, and shows the time and hits on target. Or better set, shooting a set course of fire with all those elements plus movement. I'll wager that 95% of people claiming a pistol is trash are probably just trash at shooting and their opinions can be safely ignored.
if you say so.
certainly not worth arguing over, but 9/10 people i know that prefer striker fired pistols say it is because they can't shoot a heavy DA trigger very well, or transition well to single action. oth, i can shoot groups all da almost as well as all sa.
i've shot all kinds of pistols, from .22lr derringer to a ruger .454 casul, and i wouldn't consider myself an expert or even an aficionado, but i have can shoot decent groups with pretty much anything you hand me (if the firearm is capable).
for me personally, i only own 3 handguns now. my first P226 from bought in 1992, my newer P226 and P229.
Last edited:
If Glock had produced a modular handgun like the Army had asked for maybe we would be rocking them. Other than Sig, I think Beretta was the only other pistol manufacturer to make a modular handgun.
The G19 is the finest combat pistol ever made. I like Sigs, too. I love 1911’s. G19 for the real work.
PFFT I shoot better groups with my LC9 than almost anyone I've had to watch in the military at the range with that damn M9 so anything is an upgrade lol.
I vote the Glock 17/34 shoulda been the winner. Or that new Walther it's schnazzy.
I vote the Glock 17/34 shoulda been the winner.
Or that new Walther it's schnazzy.
When I was stationed in San Antonio I got be be friends with this old Coast Guard guy at the civilian range I shot at. People would be complaining about a gun not shooting well, or the sights being off. He would ask them if he could shoot it. Normally he would put one round through the x on the target, give the gun back, and say "yeah, your right."
Does the Glock grip angle suck? Yes
Does the trigger suck? Yes
Does it look like Gaston cut it out with a jigsaw? Yes
Does it go bang EVERY FUCKING TIME? Yes
Is it practically indestructible? Yes
Is it the weapon of choice for the vast majority of people who earn their living with a weapon? Yes
Does it go off when dropped? No
Is it more than sufficiently accurate? Yes
Is the Glock 19 the best universal pistol ever made? Yes.
Does the army choose testers who actually know what they are doing with a pistol? No
Will SOCOM, JSOC, and others continue to use their Glocks? Yes
Does the trigger suck? Yes
Does it look like Gaston cut it out with a jigsaw? Yes
Does it go bang EVERY FUCKING TIME? Yes
Is it practically indestructible? Yes
Is it the weapon of choice for the vast majority of people who earn their living with a weapon? Yes
Does it go off when dropped? No
Is it more than sufficiently accurate? Yes
Is the Glock 19 the best universal pistol ever made? Yes.
Does the army choose testers who actually know what they are doing with a pistol? No
Will SOCOM, JSOC, and others continue to use their Glocks? Yes
It's a personal thing but I've come to appreciate how the angle and the hump near the bottom of the backstrap force you to rotate and lock your wrists downwards to get the sights on target.
It's one of the reasons Glocks are noticeably easier to control than other pistols.
I have always thought it was a little humorous how people would proclaim the MILSPEC is the standard by which everything else is judged. Then I mention the MILSPEC standard is sort of like making at least a D, could be an A but we won't know because all that needs to be meet is the minimum standards. Sort of like that private that walks up to the PT line and asks what the minimum to pass is then proceeds to do exactly that.
Thing about Mil Spec is at least you have a standard you can look up.
By something "just like mil spec" its probably made to meet a price point picked to be stamped "Olympic".
When shit exceeds mil spec thats desireable unless....
It equates to reliability issues.
When it absolutely has to go bang in bad conditions maybe tightest tolerances are not all that desireable.
The AK was designed to be cheap, suitable to be manufactued by people using their big and middles toes as the vice and most of all reliable.
Every day the AK does what it was designed to do.
By something "just like mil spec" its probably made to meet a price point picked to be stamped "Olympic".
When shit exceeds mil spec thats desireable unless....
It equates to reliability issues.
When it absolutely has to go bang in bad conditions maybe tightest tolerances are not all that desireable.
The AK was designed to be cheap, suitable to be manufactued by people using their big and middles toes as the vice and most of all reliable.
Every day the AK does what it was designed to do.
I own a 19x and it shoots much better than any 320 I’ve shot, but not better than my vp9.
In my opinion the FN FNP9m is far superior to all of them. I had one, bought it new for like 379, shot the piss out of it and sold it. I regret that for sure. Good sa/da pistol.
In my opinion the FN FNP9m is far superior to all of them. I had one, bought it new for like 379, shot the piss out of it and sold it. I regret that for sure. Good sa/da pistol.
I really get a kick out of the "the best combat pistol" "innovative" horsecrap the seems to flow from the glock boys.
The only thing "innovative" about the glock was the development of the polymer frame.
It certainly was innovative at the time, and he should rightly be commended for it.
However, the tilting barrel design used in the Glock is 100% John M. Browning.
Gaston SHOULD have copied the grip angle as well, but he chose that uncomfortable, non-ergonomic shitshow.
I used to recommend Glock's, especially to new buyers that aren't familiar with firearms, but there are so many well made polymer frame, striker fired pistols now, I tell them to go to a store and pick the one that feels the best. That being said, I don't discourage the purchase of Glock's either, because they are very good firearms.
Glock fanboys =1911 fanboys, two sides of the same coin.
I love to fuck with the Glock boys, because, for some reason, (like the 1911 boys), they tend to get emotionally vested in their tools.
The only thing "innovative" about the glock was the development of the polymer frame.
It certainly was innovative at the time, and he should rightly be commended for it.
However, the tilting barrel design used in the Glock is 100% John M. Browning.
Gaston SHOULD have copied the grip angle as well, but he chose that uncomfortable, non-ergonomic shitshow.
I used to recommend Glock's, especially to new buyers that aren't familiar with firearms, but there are so many well made polymer frame, striker fired pistols now, I tell them to go to a store and pick the one that feels the best. That being said, I don't discourage the purchase of Glock's either, because they are very good firearms.
Glock fanboys =1911 fanboys, two sides of the same coin.
I love to fuck with the Glock boys, because, for some reason, (like the 1911 boys), they tend to get emotionally vested in their tools.
Honestly, is anybody saying any pistol is trash in this thread? It seems like most people are just trashing each other.
The 19x, and all other variants of Glock, are great pistols. That doesn't mean that the 320 system isn't inherently a step up. I think that beside the modularity etc, the big difference, the trigger bar and trigger moving in opposite directions, allows for a better trigger system in general for a number of reasons. Obviously, Sig overcounted its perfection in misjudging the inertia issue, but it should also be pointed out that none of the military guns had that problem. As far as I can tell, it has been remedied.
The modularity is obviously great as well, but not really a Sig feature. The Steyr pistols are arguably a Glock with a more refined trigger system and generally better ergonomics and fitting, but their attempt at modularity got fucked by the ATF this year, so their new modular pistol is non modular in the US. Their insistence on every size having the large frame is also odd.
Bottom line is there are plenty of really, really good pistols, and many of them that have no place in the military because of logistics, price, ergonomics, ease of maintenance etc might be a better pistol for any one individual than a pistol that every special operations force in the world carries. The two discussions are barely even related.
ETA: There are a couple of really bad systems out there that look like they ought to be good. Most notably would be the FN striker series where the frame pins are not readily removable or reinsertable without a jig and/or some screaming. The idea that maintenance should require leave of a weapon is crazy.
Instead of buying new guns the army ought to have dedicated those funds to bullets and range time. Most infantry soldiers get no time with a pistol on the range. It’s hard to be confident in a skill that is never practiced.
Last edited:
Yeah, I think I'll stick with my Glocks.
I wouldn't mind another pistol, FN maybe, I don't know, but I got the shooting tool category covered and that's about all a pistol is to me.
I wouldn't mind another pistol, FN maybe, I don't know, but I got the shooting tool category covered and that's about all a pistol is to me.
Most infantry soldiers don't get time with a pistol because most infantry soldiers don't get issued a pistol.
HK had the VP70 a decade before Gaston developed the Glock, so not sure the polymer frame can be called innovative. However, Glock did succeed at making the polymer frame commercially viable.
Yeah, the VP70 was the original innovation, there was a lot of development in polymers between then and the Glock release.
Your point is well taken, he took H&K's idea, coupled with John Browning's design and viola!
He created nothing new.
