I've got a question in regards to this discussion.

I have shot a Glock or two over the years but never owned one.. I do own both a Sig P320 as well as a FNH and FMK... all three striker fired.

The Sig breaks down just like any other Sig P series pistol.. lock the slide flip the lever and that's it...

The other two both FNH and FMK you have to do some kind of special magic with the trigger and little tabs to get it to come apart and for me the planets have to be lined up just right too.

My question, how do Glocks compare with breaking down for standard maintenance?

quote:

My question, how do Glocks compare with breaking down for standard maintenance?

Theyre extremely easy. Clear the pistol, point it in a safe direction, pull the trigger, pull the slide to the rear a couple of milimeters, and then pull down on the takedown tabs....release the slide and it comes right off.

The only problem with this procedure is when idiots forget go do steps one or two or both. But thats more of an idiot problem than a gun problem. The sig design makes idiots have to try a little harder to put unintended holes in themselves or other objects, but IMO if someone is dumb enough to ND a Glock while taking it down, they're an accident waiting to happen with any design.

quote:

Originally posted by Xer0:
What's up with the magazine base plates sticking out front so far? Is it some new option? I haven't bought a new Glock mag for a decade, so maybe I missed it..

Probably a solution to everyone moaning about the cutout on early gen 5.

Correct. The FBI wanted the ability to easily strip magazines while clearing jams, so the FBI 17M/19M series (which led to the Gen 5s) brought back the Gen 1/2 front grip cutout and also introduced an elongated mag floorplate to facilitate this. This carried over into the early Gen 5s.

Then after then Gen 5s debuted, owners began complaining about the front cutout. So it was eliminated from newer Gen 5s, leaving the elongated baseplates, which was now flush with the front of the grip.

Now, it appears that CBP also wants to be able to easily strip mags while clearing malfunctions, but don't want the front cutout, so Glock has elongated the front of the baseplates even further on the CBP contract guns.

Frankly, a better solution than increasingly elongated baseplate noses would probably be to either slightly recess or cut out the bottom of the sides of the grip like on some other handgun models, or slightly extend the sides of the baseplates like the Vickers Glock baseplates.

quote:

Originally posted by dpadams6:
I'm shocked at no love for the p229. In 357/40, it has to be one of the best pistols for ccw in existence.
I get the whole glock being about half the price of a p series Sig. But, you get what you pay for in quality. Taking a Sig and glock apart and looking at the individual parts, is not even close in terms of quality.
But then again, I'm old school and appreciate a metal hammer fired pistol.

LOL!

Apparently you are unaware of the ENUMERABLE quality gaffes coming out of SIG Sauer in the past couple or three decades. Then there was that time when SIG lost out on a BATFE contract to Glock and SIG protested because they felt the BATFE put too much emphasis on reliability.

No, Glock doesn’t win contracts solely because they are cheaper. They win because they are cost effective AND they work.

The terms SIG Sauer (the new ones) and quality shouldn’t even be used in the same paragraph. Anyone who believes otherwise is delusional.

Sig makes some high quality firearms.

Glock has had its share of problems too, as have other manufacturers.

A consideration for water borne law enforcement is how well it performs when submerged. Among other considerations, the Glock with special striker spring cups will fire reliably when the gun is full of water. That was a consideration with SEALS and Florida Marine Patrol. I have seen some videos of backyard tests of the M17 being fired under water but do not know if it has been tested for that by DoD or Homeland Security.

I am a SIG Sauer fan through and through. I spent the overwhelming majority of nearly 2 decades carrying issued P220 pistols, and my last year as an LEO carrying an issued Glock 17 Gen 5. I greatly prefer the SIG pistol over the Glock.

With that said, there are two things that come to mind with regard to this decision by the USCG. First, I believe they made a good choice although as a private citizen who lives nowhere near saltwater, I don’t have the same concerns that they do when selecting a handgun. I may not like the Glock as well as the SIG (P229, or P320), but I couldn’t keep a straight face while arguing that they made a bad selection.

The second thing I think of with this is how I have never understood the tendency of people to place so much stock in what equipment any particular military or law enforcement organization are using. I used to have people come up to me in Quik Trip when I was working and ask me what pistol I carried for duty. As soon as I answered them it was like their mind was made up... they simply had to go buy themselves a P220 because that was what the largest LE agency in the county was carrying. It was like they didn’t care that the gun might be too heavy/large or their CCW needs, or that the low capacity .45 might not be ideal when you don’t have a select fire M4 in the car along with a short barreled shotgun and a radio to call a bunch of other guys who are similarly armed.

My point being that for what it’s worth, I think the USCG selected a pistol that will serve them well, even though it isn’t what I choose for my own handgun needs. Ultimately though, I really don’t care what pistol the USCG chooses to carry because I don’t work for them, and their decision has zero bearing on the P229 I happen to be carrying right now.

quote:

Originally posted by Belgian Blue:

quote:

Originally posted by dpadams6:
I'm shocked at no love for the p229. In 357/40, it has to be one of the best pistols for ccw in existence.
I get the whole glock being about half the price of a p series Sig. But, you get what you pay for in quality. Taking a Sig and glock apart and looking at the individual parts, is not even close in terms of quality.
But then again, I'm old school and appreciate a metal hammer fired pistol.

LOL!

Apparently you are unaware of the ENUMERABLE quality gaffes coming out of SIG Sauer in the past couple or three decades. Then there was that time when SIG lost out on a BATFE contract to Glock and SIG protested because they felt the BATFE put too much emphasis on reliability.

No, Glock doesn’t win contracts solely because they are cheaper. They win because they are cost effective AND they work.

The terms SIG Sauer (the new ones) and quality shouldn’t even be used in the same paragraph. Anyone who believes otherwise is delusional.

And why all my p226’s and p229’s are all old school German made guns when they were top notch quality.
For striker fired plastic, I’d put hk vp9 and Walther ppq ahead of a Glock. And maybe the sig p320.

I have carried firearms in a marine environment for almost 30 years now in a municipal police department. (OK...just a little over 29, but who's counting...). I have carried Glocks, 1911's, HK's, and Sigs over that time. Without question, the Glocks fared the best, with a close second to the HK's.

I have seen Glock's submerged and even fired underwater. I can't say the same for any of the other guns mentioned. The Glocks are far easier to maintain in this environment (I've been an armorer for both Sigs and Glocks...). I have seen even Glocks become a science experiment but even those were relatively easy to fix.

Sigs definitely have style and innovation. Glocks keep doing the same thing over and over...but they do it very well.

Glocks work reliably because their design adheres most closely to the KISS principle. It's as straightforward as that. It's not to say that you can't jam up the workings of a Glock (I certainly have), but overall the simpler a working gun design is (or any working mechanical device for that matter), the less things there are to go wrong. And for me and a LOT of others who are far more demanding about such stuff, that's what makes Glocks so great.

Are they the proverbial "best"? Well that all depends upon how a person defines the term 'best'. Glocks certainly DO NOT have a great trigger right out of the factory box. For most experienced non-Glock shooters the grip angle sucks, as does the grip's blocky ergonomics (excluding the 42/43/48 family). People get all whiny and piss all over themselves about the plastic placeholder sights. And haters certainly lose their collective lunches over the rather banal aesthetics. But for those dedicated enough to work through those perceived weaknesses, they get to a point where they finally understand and even come to appreciate the inherent goodness of the gun's simplicity in design and execution.

And in the end that's why I've stuck with Glock for these past 30 years, despite occasional dalliances with other brands and types. Nothing else has done it more right than that brilliantly simple design that Gaston and Co. came up with in the early 1980s. That's why I personally would NEVER put my VP9 nor my PPQ ahead of a Glock, or my P320 for that matter.

So there.

I had a USCG Sig 229 DAK 40, with the etched bar code it was bought as a over run came in plain brown box ,one mag brand new . I liked it seemed real smooth like a Smith K frame D/A . I traded it and got boot money for it some time ago . I also picked up the Gov ICE gun 229 DAK , night sights .has the etched Gov bar code on it , in 9mm still have it new in the Sig box which is G marked blue box .I like the DAK guns .