M17 / M18 acquisition by USAF, USMC, USN
- Thread starter simonrichter
- Start date
Glocks qc has been abysmal imho worse than Sig. While Sig is pretty bad at least they are churning out new models. Glock has been making basically the same thing for 30 years and still can’t get things right. Have we already forgotten the reliability issues with 4th gen springs and ejectors. And 5th gen crooked sights and mismatched slide and frame? Letting S&W beat them in their game to the single stack after years of not listening to their customers (and make it worse by introducing G42 first, which also had feeding/ejecting issues) That is just plain LAZY on their part.
Glock is losing their long term game just look at their current lineup....a frankenstein of a catalog.
Glock is losing their long term game just look at their current lineup....a frankenstein of a catalog.
Yeah, again I'd disagree. I've had far worse luck with SIG QC than Glock, and I say this having owned over a dozen pistols from each company (and also training at the SIG Sauer Academy and seeing students have issues with SIG products that were on loan). I also don't know that I'd call the mismatched frame a QC issue. That was them likely using existing molds whole getting the others ready. I say this as someone that owns Gen 5s with and without a beveled frame and there's no difference in function (and my Gen 5s have performed very well, even the one I got right when they came out).
Gen 4 absolutely had some issues, but no more than SIG across a variety of their product lines. And again the assertion that it hasn't been right in 30 years is to me disconnected from reality. I'm also not sure how their current catalog is a Frankenstein. They seem to offer the same things as everyone else, meaning every catalog would be a Frankenstein. The argument that they haven't been innovative in a long time certainly holds true. That said they continue to sell, even the 19X at numbers that seem to boggle the mind. While they definitely have more competition now, their market share seems relatively solid. I don't seem them disappearing any time soon.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Gen 4 absolutely had some issues, but no more than SIG across a variety of their product lines. And again the assertion that it hasn't been right in 30 years is to me disconnected from reality. I'm also not sure how their current catalog is a Frankenstein. They seem to offer the same things as everyone else, meaning every catalog would be a Frankenstein. The argument that they haven't been innovative in a long time certainly holds true. That said they continue to sell, even the 19X at numbers that seem to boggle the mind. While they definitely have more competition now, their market share seems relatively solid. I don't seem them disappearing any time soon.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Because it works and it sells, despite your arguments to the contrary. But that doesn't make their product line a "Frankenstein". I also think it's a bit odd to say a company only makes one gun and then accuse them of having a Frankenstein catalog. If the argument is because they use the same base gun in different roles, that same argument could be made against S&W as many of their pistols are just modifications to or different sized M&Ps. Which is also true of other pistol lines from other companies.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
if you look at the evolution of Glock it’s one underlying design with primarily patchwork of cosmetic changes across generations. At the current state Glock is in, its a frankenstein lineup. Remember how much a fuss that raised when Glock couldn’t decide between square nubs vs pyramid pattern on the grips or fishgills vs straight serrations vs front serrations
All the other companies have different platforms. You can’t even remotely compare S&W catalog to Glocks...have to have at least more than one design to say that.
All the other companies have different platforms. You can’t even remotely compare S&W catalog to Glocks...have to have at least more than one design to say that.
I actually can. Glock produces full sized, compact sized, sub compact sized, and now some single stack semi autos. That's it. How is that so dramatically different than the M&P line and the Shield? It's the exact same concept. Just slightly scaled up or scaled down versions of the same thing. Glock didn't even start that process. I'd argue S&W really pioneered it with the 3rd Gen Autos where you could get essentially the same gun in different calibers and different sizes. And it's a good idea because it means any training on one translates to the other and it likely simplifies production. It's bizarre to me to argue against this and consider it a bad thing. Why, just because they don't look different cosmetically? Does Glock make rifles or revolvers? No they don't, and I don't particularly see the need for them to do so. As SIG has shown in a number of designs, a number of their more recent rifles, sometimes specialization is a good thing as trying to do something that isn't your bread and butter can have negative consequences. Again, I never claimed they were innovative. Glock's initial product was and frankly we likely wouldn't even have a P320 had Glock never existed, but that doesn't excuse current laziness. That lack of variety doesn't somehow make their product line a Frankenstein affair (I think pointing out textures and slide serration types is a bit silly, as you complain about them never changing and then if they change something suddenly they're Frankenstein). Or if Glock's product line is Frankenstein then so are the product lines of many companies that use the same philosophy of the same base pistol in different sizes and calibers.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
One creature with a patchwork of changes across 30 years. Minor functional differences between latest generations and yet botched up the 4th and 5th gen release.
To put it this way one example...at the 5th generation the design team could not differentiate a mismatched slide to frame fit. They beveled the slide but forgot to bevel the frame, when they have been making matched slide/frame on the subcompacts. It’s either incompetence or just straight laziness. That’s why I’m saying they are worse than Sig.
To put it this way one example...at the 5th generation the design team could not differentiate a mismatched slide to frame fit. They beveled the slide but forgot to bevel the frame, when they have been making matched slide/frame on the subcompacts. It’s either incompetence or just straight laziness. That’s why I’m saying they are worse than Sig.
I don't see what you're describing as "botching" the 5th generation release. It's a cosmetic issue that yes would have been nice to have right from the start, but it in no way affects function of the pistol itself or even it's fit in holsters. Unless I stare at the muzzle end of my pistol I don't even notice it. I imagine you'd say I'm letting it slide, and maybe I am but I really think you're overselling this one. The 5th Generation has been pretty good overall, and definitely better than the 4th Generation at release. And that frame "issue" no longer exists if it did bother you. We can also point out that the recoil springs of the 4th Generation were changed too.
None of this, imo, compares to the functional issues that were noted with the earlier P365s, the relaunch of the 550 series of rifles and the numerous issues with those rifles, the notable design changes to the MCX after release, the finish problems of the Legion series that often retail for $1000+, and obviously a "voluntary upgrade" for a pistol that would fail a drop test that I fully admit wasn't standard but was passed by similar such pistols put through that test. And this happened despite the basic concept of such a pistol being well established in the marketplace and in essentially copying it and adding modularity SIG couldn't achieve the same level of safety as the design that, as you've pointed out, is decades old. How is that not laziness or incompetence, by your definition?
I'm sorry but when you put that against what you're describing with Glock I fail to see how SIG would rate noticeably better. What you've brought up has also been fixed. At worst they're no worse than SIG in that regard, as SIG has had a number of rolling changes across its products. I get that you don't think Glock is innovative (as you keep mentioning their lack of design changes even though I never disputed that), but on the issue of QC I feel like you're fighting a losing battle.
I'd also point out that none of this, QC issues or our opinions of those issues, changes who won the M17 competition, which is what this thread is supposed to be about. The competition is over. Arguing about it, on both sides, is IMO pointless.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
None of this, imo, compares to the functional issues that were noted with the earlier P365s, the relaunch of the 550 series of rifles and the numerous issues with those rifles, the notable design changes to the MCX after release, the finish problems of the Legion series that often retail for $1000+, and obviously a "voluntary upgrade" for a pistol that would fail a drop test that I fully admit wasn't standard but was passed by similar such pistols put through that test. And this happened despite the basic concept of such a pistol being well established in the marketplace and in essentially copying it and adding modularity SIG couldn't achieve the same level of safety as the design that, as you've pointed out, is decades old. How is that not laziness or incompetence, by your definition?
I'm sorry but when you put that against what you're describing with Glock I fail to see how SIG would rate noticeably better. What you've brought up has also been fixed. At worst they're no worse than SIG in that regard, as SIG has had a number of rolling changes across its products. I get that you don't think Glock is innovative (as you keep mentioning their lack of design changes even though I never disputed that), but on the issue of QC I feel like you're fighting a losing battle.
I'd also point out that none of this, QC issues or our opinions of those issues, changes who won the M17 competition, which is what this thread is supposed to be about. The competition is over. Arguing about it, on both sides, is IMO pointless.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Ah I think you’re letting it “slide” 
The difference here is that it’s release issues on different/new models vs release issues on basically the same design that they’ve been making. I’m not propping up Sig terrible record but I’m not entirely convinced glock is better at least where they stand today. Anyway, tangent aside however this goes down history lane, I want p320 to succeed for the sake of our troops
The difference here is that it’s release issues on different/new models vs release issues on basically the same design that they’ve been making. I’m not propping up Sig terrible record but I’m not entirely convinced glock is better at least where they stand today. Anyway, tangent aside however this goes down history lane, I want p320 to succeed for the sake of our troopsQC is QC, whether on a new pistol or a modified older pistol. I'm less concerned that our troops get a pistol where the bevel on the frame matches the bevel on the slide than I am that they get a pistol that functions mechanically as expected.
None of what gets said on this forum has any implications for the success of the P320 or M17. The pistol is adopted. It's done. As for the troops, for the small percentage that use pistols I'll be curious if they really find any difference between this and the M9. At least the M17 is lighter and the grip circumference is less. In the scheme of actual conflict I feel confident in saying that in the years ahead pistols are way, way down the list of concerns for most of the military.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
None of what gets said on this forum has any implications for the success of the P320 or M17. The pistol is adopted. It's done. As for the troops, for the small percentage that use pistols I'll be curious if they really find any difference between this and the M9. At least the M17 is lighter and the grip circumference is less. In the scheme of actual conflict I feel confident in saying that in the years ahead pistols are way, way down the list of concerns for most of the military.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
simonrichter
New member
I beg to differ. With assymetrical warfare brought to our doorsteps, I reckon very small-scale tactical situations are going to be quite an issue in the future. Neither a USD 300 million air superiority jet nor a sophisticated SAW weapon will make a big difference with someone yielding a machete in a crowd - a pistol in the right (trained) hands might...
There are Under Secretaries of Defense and officers at the Pentagon that would disagree. The threat going forward isn't just asymmetrical warfare, and even then I can name any number of far more important technologies. Communications, intelligence gathering, the list goes on. You're thinking extremely small scale. I'm not worried about the guy with a machete in a crowd. I'm worried about the guy with a dirty bomb in the crowd or some biological agent. And before you wave off air supremacy, air aupremacy is how the Iraqi army was turned into scrap metal twice. When we're discussing the possibility of a full on war, with which the Army has to concern itself, air supremacy is certainly important.
Even in the event of a direct intervention by small units of soldiers, we have rifles, carbines, SBRs, SMGs, etc. Pistols are secondaries for a reason. As has been stated above, units in special operations, and David can chime in here I imagine, have and will continue to have access to pistols. The M9 being the standard sidearm didn't stop the SEALs from using P226s or Delta from using Glocks or MARSOC from using 1911s for a time. For the units where pistols are a critical part of their gear they have, to my knowledge, at least a degree more discretion than the standard US service member. If they deemed some other pistol was absolutely essential to their mission, I have some confidence they'd get it
And I'm sorry but I can't help but maybe see a degree of conflict of interest or at least pride when an Austrian seems confused that we wouldn't choose Glocks.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
simonrichter
New member
Making a point there
Though in fact, I don't quite like the idea of a gun lacking any manual safety...Yeah, maybe you're right about that. I'm with the Army Ready Reserve, light infantry (territorial), where we're quite focused on these scenarios, but of course you can't omit the big picture as well...
Last edited:
Right, and there's nothing wrong with thinking about that scenario either. But the US Army has a lot on its plate, for better or worse, all over the place. There's a long line of people that need funding for a myriad of reasons.
All that said, I don't believe having owned 3 P320s personally, seen them used extensively in courses and by instructors at the Sig Sauer Academy (where some of the instructors have put ludicrous round counts through their pistols), and having read the results of these trials that the P320 will really be noticeably deficient compared to most other things out there. I don't doubt there will be some teething issues, but frankly that's far more common that not when it comes to small arms procurement.
All that said, I don't believe having owned 3 P320s personally, seen them used extensively in courses and by instructors at the Sig Sauer Academy (where some of the instructors have put ludicrous round counts through their pistols), and having read the results of these trials that the P320 will really be noticeably deficient compared to most other things out there. I don't doubt there will be some teething issues, but frankly that's far more common that not when it comes to small arms procurement.
Last edited: