1st Pistol P320 Vs G17

[grinder08]

Can you say with certainty that you will never drop your gun? You are either psychic or shoot only from a bench. Regardless, any pistol should be drop safe and SIG made bold claims about "ten years in development" and claimed it was "drop safe". The truth is they weren't, and they hid that fact from the public until someone blew the whistle. Then SIG back peddled claiming they didn't know about the problem only to change their tune a couple days later saying they did know about the problem and that they miraculously had a fix for it. SIG f**ked the public with an unsafe product. When they got caught they offered a voluntary "upgrade". Not sure how making a firearm safe to use is an "upgrade" I kind of thought that was standard practice when selling firearms. Oh and there isn't ten years of development in the 320. It is nothing more than a SIG 250 with a striker mechanism rather than a hammer.

SIG rushed to market with a striker fired gun in hopes of winning the FBI trials and the US army trials. The FBI concluded that the 320 is a bag of sh*t. The FBI testing to regarded as the most stringent and thorough testing ever conceived for firearms selection. SIG under bid Glock(by $100 million) for the US army contract which was abruptly halted before all testing was complete. SIG played cheap as an attempt to save their name and reputation. Lots goobers out there will buy a 320 simply because it is the "issued" pistol for the US Army. SIG's rush to offer a striker fired gun also brings into question their own beliefs regarding hammer fired guns. If SIG truly believed in their 22X line and design then why offer a striker fired gun??



Most people change the sights and it is why Glock doesn't invest in serious sights on their pistols. Asesthetics have NOTHING to do with performance... If performance is something you're concerned about. The Hk like the SIG is also a single action striker fired gun. The Glock is double action. Accuracy is a function of the shooter, not the gun.

OK so you don't like Sig's and think Glock's are great. Fine good for you. I think you are talking crap about triggers. I own a Pardini (awesome trigger), 1911(excellent trigger), 2 Ruger Vaqueros (tuned triggers), Sig 226 (DA/SA), TT33, Browning Buckmark, CZ TS (great trigger). All of which I can shoot with decent accuracy (3" group at 10 yards). Compared with all of these the Glock's I have shoot have a poor trigger. A good trigger makes it easier to shoot well. Can you get used to the trigger of a Glock with the proper technique, of course you can, my point is in today's world when almost everything has a better trigger than a standard Glock why should you have to. It is not that the Glock is especially cheap and as I said in my original comments they are a good solid, reliable, accurate firearm just with a crappy trigger.

I doubt very much that striker triggers will ever be quite as good as the best single action triggers simply because of the way the mechanism works but they can be made very good. I guy I shoot with has a fully worked Glock race gun with a trigger upgrade and it is excellent. My experience is that the Sig 320 trigger is much nicer than the Glocks, your firearm may vary. Yes it has the typical striker long take-up but it breaks much more cleanly and it doesn't seem to drag as much as the Glock. The new CZ P-10 has a decent trigger as does the Walther PPQ and FNS. All of these triggers are better than Glock in my experience. If triggers don't matter, as you imply, why do the high level target shoots use fully upgraded triggers. Certainly I can shoot all my handguns pretty decently but there is no doubt that the better the trigger the easier it is to shoot well. My groups with the Pardini and CZ are noticeably better than the others. Obviously the trigger is not the whole story but in my view it is a big part.