I'm going to have to disagree with that video, its not even close to the glock torture test. That mainly just showed how strong the body of the pistol was, hell my 92fs could do that without even trying. Let it sit over night in water and sand with teh slide open and then try to shoot it. http://www.theprepared.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90&Item I'm normally not a defender of glocks but i had to on this one.
When we built real guns back in oh say 1911, we had real torture tests. The goal wasn't to monkey around with freezing the thing and then dropping it; our tests had to do with shooting it over and over and over to see if the parts would fail. Now you may routinely drop your gun in the mud and leave it over night, but we would stick lanyards on the main spring housing for guys like that. -John Moses Browning.
Ever wonder why the Navy SEALS carried the P-226 instead of the M92? They chose the gun that LOST out on the sidearm contract in the 1980's because they knew something that the Military Brass didn't. The SIG was better...... SIG's are just as boringly reliable as Glocks are. I have owned 2 Sigs and 1 Glock and never had any issues with either of them. I am confident that my SIG would still fire after being submerged like that. I not volunteering to try out my carry piece so don't ask NAWG.
The SIG 226/229 guns are absolutely some of the most reliable guns on the market. I would put one up against any manufacturers any day for reliability and that includes a Glock.
I currently own a Glock 23, however when I lived in Maryland I owned both a Sig 226 9mm and a 229 .40 cal. I never had a problem with either of those nor with my Glock so far. I chose the Glock over the 229 recently however based on the weight of the gun though. The capacity being +1 over the Sig doesn't hurt either. I still plan on buying another Sig at some point as these are my two favorite guns hands down. HK's are third in my eyes.
There is no question, IMO, that SIGs are very reliable and accurate guns. When someone else is footing the bill (like Military, Police, etc.), its a great gun to have but for those who can barely come up with $500 for a handgun, asking another 50% for marginal gain over a Glock or Springfield is tough to justify.
Someone else footing the bill? Taxpayers? If the marginal gain is so little, I think they should go with the less expensive option.
LE agencies don't pay what Joe Citizen does for Sigs though. There's a reason they go with the Sigs at the prices they get them for.
True, but all other things being equal, shouldn't Glocks or Springfields get the same percentage "bulk discount"?
I say Glock or SIG, who really cares. Get the one that you can afford and train with it. Oh yea, Glock gives a hell of a discount to Agencies and Individual Officer, new Glock at my cost $390.00. Agencies pay even less.
When the .357 Sig round came out, Delaware State Police were the first to adopt it with the P229. Why? Because Sig wanted someone to adobt the round so they could say that "Blah blah blah department was using this amazing new round." They gave them such a good deal on it they would have been fools to turn it down. And I agree Ramm. I'm still not sold on the Springfield XD for some reason. I'd take a Glock, Sig, or HK USP to defend myself and/or my loved ones. Anything else, and I'm mentally not sure.
Yep. I think they are fine weapons, but they have some time yet to truly prove themselves. But a big plus one on Glock/Sig/Hk. It's a weapon you can pick up with confidence and know it is gonna go bang every time. When I hear about a gun needing a "break in" period....that kills it for me. It either shoots or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, then I don't have a need for it.