PDA

View Full Version : To Hell and Back Reliability - Sig Sauer???


njtrigger
August 28, 2007, 01:36 AM
I recently saw an advertisement with the words "To hell and back reliability" and then I looked down below the words...much to my surprise was a p226 lieing in some sand and mud.

Now come on. We all know that Sig Sauers are great range guns and the Secret Service carries them around under their nicely tailored jackets away from the elements. A Sig dropped in some mud simply will not work. I know that the Seals carry them, but military folks are taught to keep their weapons away from the elements. Isnt that funny? Instead of providing the American soldiers with reliable weapons, they simply tell em to throw a plastic baggy over them or hold them above their head.

If you want to know the truth, and a lot of people dont want to know, the truth is that the Glock should be the pistol in that advertisement. Somehow Sigarms should be sued for misleading advertising. Throw that thing in a little mud and you now need to go back to the store to purchase yourself another weapon.

The Glock was carefully designed by European military experts. Foreign armies choose weapons that will weather the elements and that work. The American military's choice of the P226 is just another bad decision in a long line of bad decisions. The M16s that always jammed, the Bradley fighting vehicle that wasnt quite a fighting vehicle, etc.

I wouldnt trust the government to choose my weapon. They will simply give me something that will rust, jam and shoot sideways because Senator X received a good bribe. My trust, my faith is in the Glock. I bet that if I stored it in a pail of salt water each day then it will still fire. The Sig will rust real quick and you'll need those plastic baggies that the Seals use to keep em dry. Real soldiers dont need plastic baggies. Real soldiers are equipped with the weapon that does the job. While our forces carry around the weapons that bust and jam, others carry around the ones that actually work.

So I say to put away that chrome plated sissy pistol and get yourself a glock.

oldbillthundercheif
August 28, 2007, 01:57 AM
Sigs and Glocks are both newfangled sissified pistols. I would understand if you were preaching for old iron, but screeching about an Austrian cube being far superior to a Swiss rectangle makes me wonder about your booze consumption tonight.:D

All jokes aside, I really don't see much of a difference.

MadMax2012
August 28, 2007, 02:07 AM
"Somehow Sigarms should be sued for misleading advertising. "

followed by..

"Throw that thing in a little mud and you now need to go back to the store to purchase yourself another weapon."

Hypocrisy... thy name is njtrigger.

You could have kept your good name had you just said.. "I love Glocks above all pistols and I don't need a reason to because the 2nd amendment protects my right to have it and the 1st amendment protects my right to that opinion."

ranburr
August 28, 2007, 02:18 AM
This is a pretty stupid arguement. I am not a fan of Sigs (or Glocks), but they both work well. I am guessing njtrigger was never in the military. I was. Let me assure you, weapons get dropped in the mud, snow, sand, whatever happens to be around. In five years and serving on two Joint Task Forces, I never saw anyone carry a weapon in plastic bag in a combat zone (and that includes SEALS). My M16 worked, even when it got more than a little dirty. You have obviously never been around a Bradley. There are plenty of dead Iraqis in BMPs and T-72s that were lit up by Bradleys. In fact, the only weapon that I ever experienced any significant issues with were the early M9s. Personally, if I had to choose between a SIg and a Glock, I would take the Sig. But, I wouldn't feel bad if I had to use a Glock.

varoadking
August 28, 2007, 03:38 AM
So I say to put away that chrome plated sissy pistol and get yourself a glock.

I say put down the bourbon and get yourself some sleep...

zoomie
August 28, 2007, 04:24 AM
http://www.statefansnation.com/images/troll.jpg

Desert01
August 28, 2007, 04:43 AM
The Glock was carefully designed by European military experts. Foreign armies choose weapons that will weather the elements and that work.

European military EXPERT's, darn. I thought the Glock was designed by some guy named Glock that had never made a firearms before:eek:. Just an engineer or something. Kind of like those guys that designed the what is it, AR-15/AR-10 or something.:p The same AR Platform that is being used by top level fighting units from several nations, even European:mad:. Obcviously they must choose it becasue it sucks so much better then their own rifles.

As for the military taking care of weapons and plastic bags.... If you are are were in a unit that put their weapons in plastic bags or did it yourself, that was one lame outfit. I may have tried to take care of my M-16A1/A2, M-60:(, M-249 and finaly M-4. but there were pleanty of days they were covered in mud and functioned just fine.

Silvanus
August 28, 2007, 05:40 AM
I agree with zoomie...

http://i16.servimg.com/u/f16/11/50/35/28/donotf10.jpg (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=15&u=11503528)

Wiskey_33
August 28, 2007, 07:26 AM
"Sigs and Glocks are both newfangled sissified pistols."

My Glock being 100% more reliable than any 1911 I've ever owned...oh, and yea, for about half the price. Newfangled, in meaning "different from what one is used to", perhaps, sissified, no way. If someone wants to see something sissified, go check out the new Kimbers. Terms like "Covert", "Tactical" and "Raptor" are slapped all over these things these to make them look a lot cooler than they really are. Talk about "newfangled." Or, you could cut the BS, get right to the point, with something like a Glock...no frills (yea, they're ugly), but they're going to work.

But hey, to each his own.

auto45
August 28, 2007, 08:20 AM
Foreign armies choose weapons that will weather the elements and that work. The American military's choice of the P226 is just another bad decision in a long line of bad decisions. The M16s that always jammed, the Bradley fighting vehicle that wasnt quite a fighting vehicle, etc.


Ha, funny guy!!

Foreign armies...like Austria, Germany, France? :rolleyes:

Tom2
August 28, 2007, 10:03 AM
I guess Sigs are about as good a gun as you can get with an alloy frame.....

smallshot
August 28, 2007, 10:47 AM
njtrigger: Wow it sounds like you're a regular expert on foreign armies and their wares. It's a good thing that you are still here beings as John Moses is not. Too bad you weren't there to help him perfect the 1911 - we could have had a decent design instead of that piece of crap that he did. I mean after all look at the numbers of kills that that weapon racked up vs. the great European designs. Look at the difference in production numbers, sales, aftermarket and clones of the two. I also see the the logic in the comparison of our military supply system vs. those of the rest of the world. That's probably why we're on the bottom of every battle on the planet. Also why nobody ever wants our help when they get their tits in the ringer. Gee, I think I'll move to Europe. Thank you for enlightening me.

Mark Milton
August 28, 2007, 10:58 AM
People who want to hell and back reliability buy revolvers.

People who buy automatics want to be trendy or "tacticool!"

Pull trigger, rotate, lock up, fire and repeat vs pulll trigger, fire, unlock extract, eject, rechamber, lock, etc....

The more stuff that can go wrong, the more stuff that will go wrong.

VirgilCaine
August 28, 2007, 11:04 AM
I know that the Seals carry them, but military folks are taught to keep their weapons away from the elements.

Hmmmm...I must have missed that training.....:confused:

cryption
August 28, 2007, 11:25 AM
Well, when my life depends on my gun I'm keeping my Sig.

Silvanus
August 28, 2007, 11:27 AM
The OP was bad enough, but things like this make it even worse:barf:

People who buy automatics want to be trendy or "tacticool!"

-CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED-:confused:

This thread is so full of BS I hope it will be closed soon.

MyXD40
August 28, 2007, 11:28 AM
what is up with these glocks? glock this, glock that..I just don't understand!!!

sig :)

BlondieStomp
August 28, 2007, 11:37 AM
shouldn't you be under a bridge somewhere?:barf:

Wiskey_33
August 28, 2007, 11:45 AM
Yea,
I bought an auto to be "cool." Or, I bought it to have 2x the amount of ammo in my hand at any given time....oh yea, and can reload 3x as fast...but hey...I guess when the Browning 1911 was created, they we're so concerned with being cool....nice thought though.

RsqVet
August 28, 2007, 11:57 AM
NJtrigger --

You so funny.

Seriously the Glock is a fine gun, among many choices, so to are the Sig P series pistols.

You know almost nothing about which you speak.

The Glock was designed by this guy, first name Gaston, last name Glock to compeate with other weapons for the service side arm of the Austrian military. It won and has had wide spread sucess, I'll say it again it's a good design, among many others. It was not designed by a comitee of experts, it was designed more or less by one man, borrowing the modified browning system of barrel lock up, to meet a specification of the austrian military.

The Sig P series in various forms has won a number of trials as well, including a tie for the US Military, they technically adopted both, the M9 and the M11 which is a sig P228 (current duty weapon of the NJSP BTW), as well as a number of military and police agencies over here and in Europe.

As for a Sig functioning covered in muck yes, it will has been done countless times. So will a decent 1911.

And if you are unlucky any gun EVEN A GLOCK will jam if not cared for, or if covered in crap. Maybe your odds are better with a glock or sig than a 1911 or maybe not, it's hard to do a really "controlled" trial of this sort of thing.

As to what you say of the Seals it's just funny, do you think the SEALS are stuck with any weapon? Why did the seals end up with the 226 anyway? Because they were managing to kill the M9 with a steady diet of hot (as in near proof load) 9mm and they and Beretta got mad at each other so they said screw it and went with the sig. Do you think for one nano-second that if they did not want to use the 226 (along with the mark 23, and a few other assorted small arms) they would have it in invintory?

The M16 could be improved or replaced, but it or the M4 is hardly a worthless weapon, and I bet if someone gave you one and a palleet of ammo for it you would not say no.

zeroskillz
August 28, 2007, 12:06 PM
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j271/zeroskillz2/misc%20crap/beatdeadhorse5.gif

evan1293
August 28, 2007, 12:15 PM
I think the curtain is going fall on this one :rolleyes:

Hallucinator
August 28, 2007, 12:44 PM
Sigs and Glocks are great guns. I've got both and they've been through a lot. I can't imagine that this is really something to argue about.

HappyGunner
August 28, 2007, 01:03 PM
If someone is looking for the real deal for firearm testing just watch this video that H&K has it's in German but you will understand it. Then you will really know the real deal about depending on your firearm to save your life.:)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ASSJuijmS-E

STAGE 2
August 28, 2007, 02:16 PM
This is just dumb.

But since were here, the OP forgot to add that Sigs will shoot circles around glocks in terms of accuracy. Not bad for a sissy pistol.

gandog56
August 28, 2007, 02:31 PM
I'll put my Sig P229 against any Glock.

Maybe we should coin a new expression, WHAT THE GLOCK IS GOING ON HERE!:D

ActivShootr
August 28, 2007, 04:40 PM
zeroskillz nailed it.

Mal H
August 28, 2007, 04:58 PM
This thread started off being pushed over the edge and continued to gain momentum on its downhill run.

Closed.