Definitely agree here. I dont think many have a ton of rounds through *both* guns, so it's all subjective. I have owned both, but not experience enough to offer any more than a personal opinion on a comparison.Originally Posted by YVK
Definitely agree here. I dont think many have a ton of rounds through *both* guns, so it's all subjective. I have owned both, but not experience enough to offer any more than a personal opinion on a comparison.
Glock has the best aftermarket support of any gun on the market. Any sights you could want, any holster, any conceivable wizz-bag dodad is made for the Glock. So even if everything else was equal (and I don't feel it is) that is a very compelling reason to go for the Glock. And as far as handguns go Glock mags are pretty inexpensive.
Recently switched from my 17-4 to a 320 Xcarry. I am in the minority here in that, in spite of 20 years of using, and 10+ years of daily Glock carry, I seem to shoot the 320 a little better. I score perfect on our Agency qual with each one (our qual is easy, so that is not a boast), but I notice the group size is tighter with the 320. Same with my 365 vs my 26-4...
BUT, the 20 years of use and 10 years daily carry have made me TRUST my glocks. The are reliable and easy to work on if needed. I carry my Sigs now, but don't fully trust them yet. Not because hey have ever had an issue, (they have not), but because I don't have a long term track record with them yet.
Our agency roll out of the 320 seems to be going well, with several thousand in the field now. Of course, we have a special SKU gun, that is not sold to the public, and we cant use an off the shelf gun. How different is our gun from commercial? I was told it was internal coatings that we specify. AND they are afraid of someone trying to put a non drop safe commercial gun into duty use. There are still tens of thousands of original non upgraded 320s floating around, so I can see the concern.
Tough call to make. Glock is proven, Sig has regain the trust it lost when it shit the bed on the original 320 roll out. But the Sigs I have seen in service are running and running well. Still, if I had to get dropped into Tora Bora tomorrow, I would take the Glock.
SIDE NOTE, we still dont approve Gen 5 Glocks in our agency. They have been tested twice now, and both times have not passed. Trigger springs breaking like crazy.
Last edited by Gadfly; 01-31-2020 at 09:25 AM.
“A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.” - Shane
That's the first I've heard of Gen5 trigger spring issues (and for that matter, Glock trigger spring issues in general for quite some time).
Can you elaborate in greater detail? Causal factors?
Best, Jon
I would bet the little plastic guide rod on the trigger spring breaks.
All the reports I have on testing are labeled "For Official Use Only"... So I am hesitant to throw quotes out. But it is a consistent problem. We approve the 17-3&4 and 19-3&4, but have no luck with the Gen 5s. Strangely, the 26-5 performed flawlessly in the recent test, and the 43 (which is a Gen 5 type) has been Approved.
“A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.” - Shane
For better or worse, I don't believe this is going to continue to be true. Glock has dominated the service pistol market for years, for a number of compelling reasons. That is beginning to change. The military's adoption of the 320 platform, its adoption by several large federal agencies, and its continued winning of police service pistol contracts are already causing an industry pivot. I don't think they're going to stop making stuff for Glocks, but everything made for a Glock will also be available for a 320. And the modularity of the pistol means that some products like grip modules, etc., will pop up for the 320....things you can't do the same way for Glock.
I share the disdain for Sig corporate practices over the last several years.....but the product has evolved and improved, and continues to do so. I'm optimistic about its prospects.
As the world's first and only Chief Firearms Aesthetic Analyst (CFAA), the Glock 45 and P320 are not what I would call pretty guns. However, between the two I put my highly credible analysis in favor of the G45 of being more aesthetic pleasing to the eyeballs than the P320. Why, you ask?
I'm not sure who or what the first incidence of a company putting an accessory rail on a pistol was, but they make every pistol less aesthetically pleasing than without one. This is science. A neuroscientist Zanvyl Kreiger (real guy, I wouldn't put my credibility on the line as the worlds only CFAA) did a study entitled "Beauty and the Brain.' In this study he found that people like "gentle curves instead of sharp points." What we can deduce from this research test conducted by Mr. Kreiger is that a jutty (my word) dust covers that have a rail is going to be less aesthetically pleasing. The rail on the G45 is more subtle than the P320. It is there but appears to flow more seamlessly with the lines of the Glock than with the P320. Also one last point, the proportions are much better on the Glock versus the Sig. The Sig P320 looks like someone wearing a disproportionately tall hat and they're only five foot one. And, the Sig P320 just feels cheap kind of like a Chrysler 200.
So, there you have it. The Glock 45 is more attractive than the P320.
I asked some of the guys from the LE side at the Sig booth specifically about spec'ing the M17 type internal coatings for our SKU, should we end up going that route. I was told that so many agencies are asking for that, it's going to be standard for the LE Pro series guns.
I get that folks buying commercial line Sigs are pissed about buying a second tier product. I probably wouldn't buy one myself for that reason. I agree it's a crappy way to do business. Market demand does seem to be moving them on this stuff, though. The Pro Optics cut, for example, is becoming standard for all commercial products going forward. Let's hope they continue to improve the whole product line.
I barely have given the P320 a thought since it hit the market. Frankly I am at the point that plastic 9s basically all do the same thing and when I shoot one for a month or two the performance is roughly the same.
But I finally fingered several configurations of the P320 at the gun counter and I was really suprised by a few things.
1. The full size is very heavy for a plastic 9.
2. The thunb safety was superb on the 15 round 4" version, really good safety setup.
3. The total trigger travel was really short.
I am suprised that these guns have done so well in law enforcement sales with the weight and short tigger travel because I imagine that the non thumb safety models are the ones selling.
Reply With Quote