- Joined
- Jun 9, 2016
i've been a SIG armorer for over a decade, and have used old and new SIG pistols, as well as several flavors of Beretta 92 pistols. there is a slightly quality difference between older and newer SIGs, but overall the pistol has improved over the years:
1. moved away from stamped and welded slides with a pinned breech block in favor of one piece milled ones
2. better material for grips (laminate and glass filled nylon resin vs bakelite or the very thin early ABS)
3. no longer using bushings because of heat treatment issues in the frame
4. a better trigger bar spring that doesn't wear a groove on the frame and cause a trigger return failure, plus several more things like sights, better barrels, improved magazine design, et c
you are correct in that the Beretta 92F and the SIG P226 both passed all XM-9 trials, however Beretta beat SIG on the price per unit. regardless of any controversy, Beretta already had a plant in the US making Beretta parts and could delivery a slightly cheaper price. in the end, the SIG was adopted by various branches anyway.
i have large hands and find both pistols to be comfortable, but they are not "small hand" friendly like the Glock 17 or S&W 59. the Beretta 92 is a full sized pistol and should be compared to the Glock 17, not the 19. Beretta makes high capacity magazines for the 92SB and later variations as they are leftover from the Beretta 93 Raffica, much like high capacity 33 round magazines are from the Glock 18.
the Glock 17 does have far fewer parts, and those parts are simpler, however the Glock 17 could not meet the tender requirements in time for the trials, which required a hammer-fired firearm with manual safety and a drop-free magazine (at the time, the glock magazine would stick with powder between the magazine well wall and the magazine body wall and would need to be removed with a shake or by hand, a slightly redesign of the magazine in the early 80's fixed this).
retention holsters were not commonplace prior to the 90's. securing a handgun back in the day was to use a strap and clasp, physically rest a hand on the top of it, or use a clutch holster (that had a large flap that anchored to a stud on the bottom of the holster, you see this in some magazine pouches even today).
the Israelis did not originate this, nor did they teach this for those reasons. both the IDF and the Israeli police forces needed to be taught to use handguns from many sources expediently in large classrooms in order to develop an armed police force quickly. the easiest manual of arms that is also a safe transition from revolvers as well as quick to learn via muscles memory is the "Israeli Draw" using an automatic where you must quickly rack the slide (safety is always off) to chamber a round during the draw and presentation. this technique was popularized and developed for the Hong Kong police forces in the 1950's and didn't get to Israel until the 60's when Jordanians were constantly caught infiltrating the new country.
for reasons stated above, the "grab a gun" theory is flat out not true. it's a side benefit, and someone intending to attack police are usually already armed or are focused on dealing blunt force trauma and running away; not seizing the weapon except in a grapple, which is equally very unlikely for all but fanatic attackers. fanatic attackers tend to prefer bombs over pistols anyway.
as for the use of combatives, no. first, it's extremely rare for a general rifleman to have a sidearm of any kind. secondly combatives are used to bring an opponent to the ground and dispatch them quickly. in no circumstance is the knife or combatives used to secure a rifleman's supposed pistol. both my personal and professional experiences in the military and with various branches in several countries bears this out. someone grabbing a soldier's (presumably an MP guarding something) pistol after engaging a grapple is going to be engaged with a grapple to control the weapon, then beaten thoroughly by the other guards within eyesight.
at the time the USAF was conducting the trials, the Glock had no such reliability or service life as it was a very new gun (militarily speaking) and polymer striker fired pistols were very much outside the norm.
as for the P320, i find it a pretty nice handgun overall. the military version is a little pants, and largely wasted on features that no soldier will encounter (no rifleman will ever be allowed to swap out the frame since that's yet another part that has to be accounted for). i kind of wish the military had settled on a modified Glock or the 92A3, which was a handsome gun with the features requested in a package that was cost effective and already familiar to logistics.
Glock claims a 20,000 round service life prior to major parts replacement (recoil spring assembly). actual service lives vary depending on duty cycle and you will equally find absurdly high numbers in some select pistols; but they are the exception not the rule. it is very difficult to flatly say one pistol's service life is vastly greater than another for pretty much any reason. how about the spat of Glock gen 4's that have a failed extractor - is that service life measured to the first major parts breakage/replacement in a matter of hours?
no. polymer striker pistols are robust because the frame is more elastic and can bend or squeeze as needed for the operation of the action. likewise, the simple design of a striker system with fewer parts lends itself to a more robust handgun. on top of a low price point due to mass manufacturing and no need for overly complicated machining steps, and you have a very nice inexpensive handgun that will handily work in most conditions. that does not mean it has a spectacularly long service life. it merely means it has the possibility to have one.
you have clearly not fired the "wonderful" Colt 2000 All American. an originally good design that had corporate people meddle with it combined with fine machining and a fanfare introduction. what a flop.
any company can have a horrible product. it's best to evaluate each product in a vacuum to ensure it performs to your needs.
the locking block is a fitted part to the barrel. when you change the locking block you either fit it properly to the old barrel or replace the barrel at the same time. this is true of any falling block action. the fitting should be done so that even contact is experienced by each lug, as if they are uneven, the forces involved can shear a lug or crack the block.
Glock warranty is 1 year long. the exceptions are commemorative editions, certain very old SKUs that were sold for lifetime warranty. that being said, Glock will generally honor the warranty for the lifetime of the product provided it was not abused.
the Mossberg MVP feeds best with dry film lubricated magazines like NHMTG or ASC or the like.
