Spyderco Forums

Glock came out with their design and continue to expand and improve it. For me every other gun company coming out with a new polymer framed striker fired pistol is just an attempt at copying another's success. Can't fault them for doing it but I have yet to fire anything else that would get me to utilize a different platform.

wrdwrght wrote:If I'm not mistaken, Glocks had the fewest user-serviceable parts of all pistol brands until the SIG 320's appearance.

SIG reduced the number of user-serviceable parts by gathering a bunch together in a user-swappable serial-numbered Fire Control Unit. This swappability opened the door to grip-frame and slide choices.

I'd like to see IV8888 do a 320 Meltdown. Then I might be convinced that the 320 is as reliable as Glock and thus worth considering for its tailor-ability.

The SIG does make it easier, but there are aftermarket frame options for Glocks too.

Can you even make a 320 full auto? I'm not sure you could fire one in semi fast enough and long enough to get the same effect.

Evil D wrote:

wrdwrght wrote:If I'm not mistaken, Glocks had the fewest user-serviceable parts of all pistol brands until the SIG 320's appearance.

SIG reduced the number of user-serviceable parts by gathering a bunch together in a user-swappable serial-numbered Fire Control Unit. This swappability opened the door to grip-frame and slide choices.

I'd like to see IV8888 do a 320 Meltdown. Then I might be convinced that the 320 is as reliable as Glock and thus worth considering for its tailor-ability.

The SIG does make it easier, but there are aftermarket frame options for Glocks too.

Can you even make a 320 full auto? I'm not sure you could fire one in semi fast enough and long enough to get the same effect.

I meant to say that until the 320's appearance (perhaps even the 250's?), a Glock had the "fewest parts" (34?), and thus was "simplest to fix".

I don't know whether a full-auto option was a requirement of the MHS competition. I suspect not. Imagine the training.

Did the Beretta 92FS ever have this option, BTW?

I know a Glock 18 can be fired full-auto without a pistol brace but how accurately? With a brace, it becomes an SBR...

It's no mistake that M16s in Vietnam were changed from a full-auto option to three-round bursts.

In any case, pistols are not typically used to create interlocking fields of fire. Use of a pistol in combat, as on the street, means "danger close". Best to proceed with it semi-automatically when absolutely every round matters, I do believe.

wrdwrght wrote:

Evil D wrote:

wrdwrght wrote:If I'm not mistaken, Glocks had the fewest user-serviceable parts of all pistol brands until the SIG 320's appearance.

SIG reduced the number of user-serviceable parts by gathering a bunch together in a user-swappable serial-numbered Fire Control Unit. This swappability opened the door to grip-frame and slide choices.

I'd like to see IV8888 do a 320 Meltdown. Then I might be convinced that the 320 is as reliable as Glock and thus worth considering for its tailor-ability.

The SIG does make it easier, but there are aftermarket frame options for Glocks too.

Can you even make a 320 full auto? I'm not sure you could fire one in semi fast enough and long enough to get the same effect.

I meant to say that until the 320's appearance (perhaps even the 250's?), a Glock had the "fewest parts" (34?), and thus was "simplest to fix".

I don't know whether a full-auto option was a requirement of the MHS competition. I suspect not. Imagine the training.

Did the Beretta 92FS ever have this option, BTW?

I know a Glock 18 can be fired full-auto without a pistol brace but how accurately? With a brace, it becomes an SBR...

It's no mistake that M16s in Vietnam were changed from a full-auto option to three-round bursts.

In any case, pistols are not typically used to create interlocking fields of fire. Use of a pistol in combat, as on the street, means "danger close". Best to proceed with it semi-automatically when absolutely every round matters, I do believe.

No, there was no requirement for select fire in the MHS profile.

I'd say a full auto variant is possible with the 320 but in all but the most skilled hands it would be useless.

Yes, Beretta has the 93R variant that is select fire.

BTW..... the M16 didn't have 3-round burst until the Marine Corps adopted the M16A2 in the early 80's. (with strenuous objections from the US Army.... They didn't like the configuration nor the change to burst fire).

OldHoosier62 wrote:BTW..... the M16 didn't have 3-round burst until the Marine Corps adopted the M16A2 in the early 80's. (with strenuous objections from the US Army.... They didn't like the configuration nor the change to burst fire).

Quite right, OH62.

I mistakenly thought the option for three-round bursts came to US troops in Vietnam some time after I left in May '69.

I hasten to say that the M16-equipped Vietnamese Rangers with whom I traveled as an Artillery FO had already begun the practice of burst-fire to conserve ammo. Full-auto was so self-evidently a waste, and the areas we searched were not easy to resupply.

Anyway, thanks for the correction.

Wasn't really debating the merits of a full auto pistol, just saying it'll be hard to replicate that kind of a torture test on a pistol without it being full auto.

Looking at these videos makes me all the more certain that Glock is the best handgun and the Army probably should have chosen it, following the lead of the Special Forces, SEALS, Marines, and etc.

Bugs wrote:Glock came out with their design and continue to expand and improve it. For me every other gun company coming out with a new polymer framed striker fired pistol is just an attempt at copying another's success. Can't fault them for doing it but I have yet to fire anything else that would get me to utilize a different platform.

I agree. I've always thought that too.

Evil D wrote:Wasn't really debating the merits of a full auto pistol, just saying it'll be hard to replicate that kind of a torture test on a pistol without it being full auto.

Not so hard, really. IV8888 is melting a Gen3 G17 equipped with a full-auto sear.

I imagine this sear was locally smithed rather than ordered as a G18 part from Austria. Regardless, I also imagine IV8888 has NFA approvals. With such approvals and smithing skills, a 320 could be similarly tested.

What would we learn? Something about performance falloff in a progressively impossible environment within the gun? At least the test would be apples-to-apples, if wholly unlike any situation likely to be encountered.

BTW, I did not read you as a full-auto advocate. I was merely musing about full-auto in light of IV8888's test and the fact that Glock, among SIG's MHS competitors, produces a full-auto version.

Rightly, IMO, full-auto pistols did not factor into the MHS competition, but a comparative test like IV8888's would still have been telling of something worthwhile.

It would tell us the same thing, you can't carry enough ammo to fire these guns enough to destroy them. What I found most interesting was how many rounds were fired without any major jamming or whatnot.

Yes, so I refer back to the mud test vids above. The Glock did noticeably better. I have seen, in person, Glocks overcome worse. When they were first introduced the Glock rep would drive up to our store dragging a Glock 17 behind his car via a rope. He would then proceed to fire it without a hitch. Then he would find a mud hole or fill a bucket with mud, completely submerge the Glock (not simply press) and then remove it, slap in a magazine and fire the full 17 rounds without a hitch and then repeat. I saw one run over by a loaded 18 wheeler and it still functioned (though it cracked the mag well). I know people who have fired them underwater, saw one dropped from an airplane that still worked, and one sheriff dropped his from a helicopter and the Glock hit a metal roof so hard it left a perfect imprint of the gun, yet it still worked flawlessly.

It remains to be seen if the 320 is up to that standard. My suspicion is that it is a fine pistol but will not compete with Glock on sheer reliable toughness.