https://www.americanrifleman.org/art...tols-unveiled/
Interesting. Is it just me or does the grip on those pistols appear to be G17/G22 length and shape?
Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy
https://www.americanrifleman.org/art...tols-unveiled/
Interesting. Is it just me or does the grip on those pistols appear to be G17/G22 length and shape?
Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy
Yes, it appears that you are correct.
Good catch.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do want, don't need the extra safety.
#RESIST
Given the popularity of the carry sized pistols from Sig there is definitely a market for this gun. Id pick one up in black. Not sure that I would want the safety but that is another hole in Glock's offerings and would serve as a meaningful expansion of their line.Originally Posted by LittleLebowski
With the lull in the market we are more likely to see these offerings as Glock needs to do more than simply make more Glock 19 pistols. I think we will see the FBI and the would have been Army guns in time.
Also of note is that a lot of people speculated that the "new" 2 pin design of the 17M/19M would limit the design to 9mm. Glock seems to feel otherwise as their 23MHS is of the same 2 pin design and the M guns.
Last edited by call_me_ski; 06-28-2017 at 09:14 AM.
Interesting pistol, but I can see why it was rejected...After all this was a "Modular" pistol contract we're talking about here. I'm not seeing anything modular about it. Still if they offered it for sale to the public, I'm sure they'd sell like hotcakes. Myself? I'll pass, I don't see how it does anything better than my g17..
MHS was just a catchy acronym for the solicitation. It actually met the demands of the RFP despite it not fitting the Internet's definition of modular. Also modular in this case if vastly over rated. Glock proposed to do with one pistol what Sig submitted two pistols for. The extra frames that ship with the Sig pistol will just be more for units to keep accountability over and add little to the readiness or combat effectiveness while still having duplicate parts for the M17 and M18 pistols in the system. I am not saying that this is a better option than the Sig but other than being under bid by 100 million dollars by Sig I don't see any compelling reason it should have lost on merit alone. But 122 million dollars is a very large hurdle when the two guns were very similar in performance. On that alone the Army picked the right pistol.
Last edited by call_me_ski; 06-28-2017 at 09:54 AM.
The entire point of a Glock pistol is to have a relatively inexpensive, basic service pistol. This will neither be basic or inexpensive ,and does nothing a currently sold Glock 17 can't already do.
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
How SIG is going to build m17's at a little over 200 bucks a pop is beyond me.
Gardone, what do you believe will be fundamentally more expensive than current pistols available? The pistol shown does not stray far from the Glock recipe.
And while I do agree that the entire reason for the Glock to exist is for an inexpensive service pistol, the current market for 1500 zev pistols of questionable quality is proof that the market as grown beyond the basic Glock.
People complain that Glock is stagnate and when they do change their products people complain too.
We shall see how Sig does with the actual contract pistols. Contracts have been canceled in the past due to production guns not living up to the test guns(Remington MK21 PSR is recent example that comes to mind) and Sig has a history of tinkering with long established designs for cost cutting measures resulting in new rounds of issues. I wonder what pressure engineers will be under to squeeze wider margins out of these pistols.
Last edited by call_me_ski; 06-28-2017 at 10:01 AM.
Don't really want (I like the finger grooves), don't care for the safety, but that lanyard loop/plug has me interested.
Reply With Quote