As someone who holds a Sig P-series armorer cert (but couldn't work on one right now to save my life) and has also replaced just about every part in my Beretta 92's, I disagree with this.Originally Posted by Robinson
As someone who holds a Sig P-series armorer cert (but couldn't work on one right now to save my life) and has also replaced just about every part in my Beretta 92's, I disagree with this.
Food Court Apprentice
Semper Paratus certified AR15 armorer
I know this may be blasphemous, but I'd put the GI 1911 ahead of Glock. Glock still requires a tool, a GI pattern 1911 has everything it needs onboard.
Was thinking about this the other day. Full disclosure: Don't currently own any Glocks, sold them all off years ago, but there is something to be said for the simplicity. As I was contemplating the need for a full detail strip of my range / host USP9c, I recalled how easy it is to strip a Glock. So I did the basic field strip, scrapped off the large carbon chunks (yes, only the large) and then hosed the rest out with degreaser. Upon further inspection, decided a full detail strip might be in order. The amount of fouling, powder flakes, and filth was impressive. I believe this is 2000 rounds of suppressed filth. My view on the ease of detail strip, is not one of difficulty, but of the time involved. Glocks are the winner here.
I snapped this pic and highlighted the build up after a thorough degreasing. Suppressors really pack in the gunk.
Taking a break from social media.
https://tangodown.com/vickers-tactic...ake-down-tool/
Taking a break from social media.
Glock, hands down. Then the M&P series, followed by the 1911 and M92.
I would put the following in the "don't try it if you're not handy and patient, with a good work bench with a monitor/tablet to watch Youtube videos repeatedly" - hammer fired HKs, CZs of any stripe, Sig "Classic" pistols.
I would put the following in the "don't ever try it" category for fear of not being able to rebuild: HK VP series, Sig P320/P365
Keep in mind, detail stipping a pistol, for some manufacturers (lookin' at you, SIG!) voids your warranty. In fact, unless you're a Sig factory certified armorer, taking the GRIPS OFF a "classic" Sig voids the warranty.
You don't think having to remove the M&P rear sight to strip the slide is a bit of over-kill?
Food Court Apprentice
Semper Paratus certified AR15 armorer
It's sub-optimal, I'll grant that, but it's not hard.
Fair enough, at least on the full-size guns. Shields (at least early ones) were their own kind of special.
Last edited by ASH556; 03-29-2019 at 09:25 AM.
Food Court Apprentice
Semper Paratus certified AR15 armorer
Glock is the easiest, no real dispute.
1911 is easy once you've done it a few times, though not as easy as a Glock, since sear-disconnector alignment on the 1911 takes at least a little fiddling, while Glock reassembly is just fitting pre-cut puzzle pieces into place.
My vote for "most difficult" goes to H&K P7M8.
Even after having owned two of them for decades, I have never yet fully disassembled the receivers!
"Therefore, since the world has still... Much good, but much less good than ill,
And while the sun and moon endure, Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
I'd face it as a wise man would, And train for ill and not for good." -- A.E. Housman
Glock, followed by the M&P. The 1911 is pretty simple assuming its USGI-esq, then the beretta 92, trailed by the p.38, thanks to the PITA recoil springs
I wouldn't even rate the PPQ, some parts of the gun are considered to not even be end user serviceable.
Nothing I've taken apart touches the glock. The M&P isn't too bad, but the trigger spring and needing to remove the rear sight to access the firing pin safety holds it back, not to mention you can't just plop the pins out without a hammer amd punch.
I don't know where I'd put the sig 320. I'd rather deal with a beretta 92 than deal with the FCG, but thats probably just due to familiarity.
But I've never worried about breaking a part on a 92...
Reply With Quote