are HK and sig king?

[WESHOOT2]

Just other brands.

[Dave T]

In answer to the OP…No! When I still wore a badge a neighboring department when to HKs and within 2 years were fed up with problems and lack of support from HK. They switched to Glocks.

As for SIGs, I find all DA/SA semi autos objectionable and the SIG line has the axis of the bore to high above the wrist for me.

Dave

[balance]

HK cuts fewer corners by using absolutely zero MIM or investment cast parts.

Where did you hear this?

The factory sights, the hammer, the slide release levers, the decocker, and a few parts of the sear housing are all MIM on their P30, which is one of their newer 9mm pistols.

H&K is about to come out with a striker fired pistol that is supposed to be priced closer to the striker fired competition, priced between $600 and $750 according to rumors, so for those of you that say that they cut no corners, please explain how they could make a pistol that costs $250-$400 less than a P30, without cutting corners, while also explaining how the P30's higher price is justified.

H&K makes excellent products, but I feel too many people believe in H&K the same way they believe in religion, which gives H&K the opportunity to charge as much as they do. Personally, I feel the Walther P99 or PPQ are at the same level of quality as any polymer pistol that H&K offers, so I'd put Walther up there as well.

[AirCool65]

They're good, but they definitely are overpriced.

[Mystro]

I own them all. I would give the top nod to the Sig, simply because HK still hasn't perfected a smooth trigger. I also agree Walthers is right up there if you are comparing polymer guns and betters the HK in the striker fire category IMO.

[TunnelRat]

H&K makes excellent products, but I feel too many people believe in H&K the same way they believe in religion,

I feel the same about Walther.

[IMightBeWrong]

For those who say they are not the two top manufacturers, who do you believe ARE the better manufacturers? I place SIG and HK at the top because of their overall quality. I don't think "too expensive" is a valid complaint if you consider the higher quality associated with these guns both inside and out compared to guns half their price.

This isn't to say there aren't tons of great manufacturers out there, just that I think SIG and HK are the cut above the rest unless you buy custom.

I love CZ, Walther, FN, and some other pistols out there as much as the next guy, but the finished product from SIG or HK seems to me to be the best overall finished product.

[Theohazard]

HK and SIG make great guns; those two companies are definitely in the top tier of firearms manufacturers. But they no longer stand out significantly from any of the other top-tier gun manufacturers out there. Anyone who thinks those two companies are "hands-down the best" probably doesn't have much experience with the other top manufacturers.

Originally Posted by EvgeniBG

I love Sigs, especially their DA/SA triggers but the issues related to the unstable quality of production put them (IMHO!) slightly below HKs.

SIG has had a lot of quality issues over the last several years. I worked at a large LGS for a while and we were often sending SIGs back to the factory. Most of the issues were with fit and finish, but it was still annoying. Sometimes SIG would send the guns back to us without even fixing them, so we would have to send them back a second time.

I think SIG's issue is that they're trying to expand too much into other things, and that hurts their overall quality. And they've obviously shown a willingness to make cheap, gimmicky stuff that goes against their traditional high-end reputation. Has anyone used the SIG Adaptive Carbine Platform? It's a complete and utter joke; it makes the handgun worse in every way and it only sells because tacti-cool mall ninjas like them. And the SIG SB15 "arm-brace" is cheaply made and absolutely sucks as an arm brace; it's a joke also, except it lets you get around the SBR laws. The SB15 is only cool because it's a legal way to make an AR pistol function like an SBR, otherwise it's just junk.

Originally Posted by Dave T

In answer to the OP…No! When I still wore a badge a neighboring department when to HKs and within 2 years were fed up with problems and lack of support from HK. They switched to Glocks.

I've heard that from a few LEO friends who were issued HKs; they broke more often than some other law enforcement handgun brands. And that's also similar to my experience working at a very busy range that rented a lot of handguns: The HKs broke more often than many other handguns, even the handguns that were rented a lot more often than the HKs. Our gunsmith had to send a bunch back due to cracked frames.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Theohazard

HK and SIG make great guns; those two companies are definitely in the top tier of firearms manufacturers. But they no longer stand out significantly from any of the other top-tier gun manufacturers out there. Anyone who thinks those two companies are "hands-down the best" probably doesn't have much experience with the other top manufacturers.


SIG has had a lot of quality issues over the last several years. I worked at a large LGS for a while and we were often sending SIGs back to the factory. Most of the issues were with fit and finish, but it was still annoying. Sometimes SIG would send the guns back to us without even fixing them, so we would have to send them back a second time.

I think SIG's issue is that they're trying to expand too much into other things, and that hurts their overall quality. And they've obviously shown a willingness to make cheap, gimmicky stuff that goes against their traditional high-end reputation. Has anyone used the SIG Adaptive Carbine Platform? It's a complete and utter joke; it makes the handgun worse in every way and it only sells because tacti-cool mall ninjas like them. And the SIG SB15 "arm-brace" is cheaply made and absolutely sucks as an arm brace; it's a joke also, except it lets you get around the SBR laws. The SB15 is only cool because it's a legal way to make an AR pistol function like an SBR, otherwise it's just junk.


I've heard that from a few LEO friends who were issued HKs; they broke more often than some other law enforcement handgun brands. And that's also similar to my experience working at a very busy range that rented a lot of handguns: The HKs broke more often than many other handguns, even the handguns that were rented a lot more often than the HKs. Our gunsmith had to send a bunch back due to cracked frames.

I have owned all the major manufacturers. I don't think any of them have the same level of quality control as HK. I have seen issues with every brand. HK has had the fewest for me.

As for HKs breaking. Most people know the test Todd Green did with the P30. 90000 rounds is nothing to sneeze at. I have had no breakages with mine. But I am a sample of one man and a dozen HKs, that is not much. I certainly don't think they are worse than anyone other hammer fired gun. More parts means more parts to break potentially.

[IMightBeWrong]

^ Agreed.

I have never heard of a major HK quality problem that was actually DOCUMENTED. It's always "I know a guy who knows a guy that had these problems." All of the testing that has been documented with HK products has shown them to be on par or of a higher standard than their competition when it comes to reliability and durability.

Basically, I can't help but be skeptical when I hear of problems with guns without any documented sources because there are just too many people out there looking to make other firearms look bad to boost the status of their own preferred platform.

As I mentioned in my above posts, I love all sorts of guns. Some of them I like as much as SIGs and HKs (I really love the CZ P-01, one of my favorites ever). But overall, the finished product from SIG or HK comes across to me as being a cut above.

[balance]

I feel the same about Walther.

I don't know who you've been hanging around with, but I would love to meet these people. They are definitely not on the Walther forum, or in the city that I live in. The P99 never received the reputation it deserved here, and most people didn't even think of the brand Walther when thinking of purchasing a polymer pistol before the PPQ came out less than three years ago.

There are guys that are fanboys in every brand, but there seem to be more than usual with a few of these brands. As I said, H&K makes excellent products, but that doesn't mean that nobody else could ever make something that is just as good, or better, for you.

I'd say the same about Walther.

[TBT]

Even if someone, or some ten people can come into this thread and talk about first hand experiences with HK failures the fact remains that they have their reputation for reliability and quality for a reason: they earned it. If it's not your thing, cool. It's not my thing either. But HK makes one hell of a gun.

[TunnelRat]

I don't know who you've been hanging around with, but I would love to meet these people. They are definitely not on the Walther forum, or in the city that I live in. The P99 never received the reputation it deserved here, and most people didn't even think of the brand Walther when thinking of purchasing a polymer pistol before the PPQ came out less than three years ago.

If you're making the argument that die hard fans = sales then I suggest you take a look at HK's finances, because they're not that great. Moody's came out with concerns about the company and frankly I think their recent race for a striker fired pistol is a somewhat desperate grab for market share (and the latest rumor is that the reveal that was supposed to be at the NRA show is delayed once again). Frankly I think Walther is in a better state than HK, at least in terms of appeal to US civilians.

Your comment was about the near religious fervor people have for HK. I've seen the same fervor from Walther fans. Both brands have die hards, it's hardly just one or the other. That was my point.

[IMightBeWrong]

I don't know who you've been hanging around with, but I would love to meet these people. They are definitely not on the Walther forum, or in the city that I live in. The P99 never received the reputation it deserved here, and most people didn't even think of the brand Walther when thinking of purchasing a polymer pistol before the PPQ came out less than three years ago.

There are guys that are fanboys in every brand, but there seem to be more than usual with a few of these brands. As I said, H&K makes excellent products, but that doesn't mean that nobody else could ever make something that is just as good, or better, for you.

I'd say the same about Walther.

Great post. I would personally consider buying another PPQ (shouldn't have sold my first one) far sooner than I would consider a Glock or XD(m). I would likely be split between the PPQ M1 and an M&P for a next striker pistol, and I'd probably lean toward the Walther by a little bit.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by IMightBeWrong

Basically, I can't help but be skeptical when I hear of problems with guns without any documented sources because there are just too many people out there looking to make other firearms look bad to boost the status of their own preferred platform.

You're right, I don't actually have any documentation. I just worked at an LGS/range for a few years and saw a ton of handguns get sold, and then I saw what got brought back due to issues. I also saw how well our rental guns held up. And I had a lot of coworkers who had been in the business for decades who had seen a lot more of it than I did.

But you're right: Many people bash some brands in order to prop up their own. But I'm not doing that; I still think SIG and HK are top-tier companies. I just think they have their own issues like any other company and they aren't significantly better than some other top brands.

[Wreck-n-Crew]

I feel the Walther P99 or PPQ are at the same level of quality as any polymer pistol that H&K offers, so I'd put Walther up there as well.

And people will put the M&P, or Glock's there as well. Not saying your wrong, just people have differing opinions on the subject and make the same claim with other brands.

The MIM thing has been covered a thousand times. Lack of Quality and the MIM process are not related. Poor QC and Materials can be however. When it comes to MIM parts it is done right the end result is just as good as a machined part for the purpose it serves. Remember when people said the same thing about polymer not being of high enough quality to make a durable and reliable gun? Same thing with MIM.

When I speak of their quality (HK) it means just that. They are great reliable and accurate guns with attention to detail and great QC before it ships. As with any gun, none are absolutely perfect %100 percent of then time so there will be imperfections and problems that exist and subject to personal scrutiny.

[IMightBeWrong]

My reasons for still standing against MIM and Investment Casting parts, at least for now, are as follows:

1. When a company moves from one process of manufacturing to MIM or Investment casting, there is OFTEN a hiccup in their quality while they adjust to the new manufacturing method.

2. It is correct to say that MIM and Investment Casting done well are just as good as any other part - However, it is common for MIM and Investment Cast parts to NOT be done right in many cases.

3. After moving from one method to another, companies often look to cut costs even further and make changes again. Glock is a good example. I'm not sure what they changed, but their metal parts became softer at roughly the same time that they launched the Gen 4 line of pistols. This prompted the change to the 30274 ejector because the old style was flexing with their new, softer metal.

In the end, I guess you could say that I'm less against MIM or Investment Casting and more pro-sticking with what works if possible so that users don't get stuck beta testing the new parts. HK hasn't made any major changes and I think it's safe to assume that as being the reason they haven't had a big slump in QC like many other companies have in the last decade or so.

[BigJimP]

Yes, I think Sig and HK are at the top of the production gun category ....and worth what you pay for them, in my view.

I favor the Sig over the HK personally ...( I own 5 Sigs - a pair of Sig 226's , a pair of Sig 239's and the X-Five L-1 model in .40 S&W )...but I'm still a Wilson Combat 1911 guy, for my primary guns in 9mm and .45 acp .

[Dragline45]

Originally Posted by thedudeabides

Sig has a reputation for only one thing: making great alloy guns derived off of the P22x platform (P220/6/9 and variants). The SP2022 is also cool. They sort of make a hash job off of everything else (P290, P239, P238, P938, P250, 1911 etc). They're run by an idiot who wants to compete on every front of the market and do everything half donkey instead of making a few guns well.

The 239, 238, and 938 are excellent guns, why you would lump those in a category of a hash job is beyond me. As far as them being run by an idiot who wants to compete on every front of the market, that is ludicrous. Ruger does the same exact thing by offering a wide variety of guns to cover the market, and they have more sales arguably than all the other major gun manufacturers. I will agree Sig does offer a few too many variants of the same exact model gun, but offering a variety of different pistols, especially when they are all quality, is by no means a bad thing. Granted, I am not a fan of the 250 or the 938. But as far as them doing everything half donkey and not making guns well, that is ridiculous.

[TunnelRat]

After moving from one method to another, companies often look to cut costs even further and make changes again. Glock is a good example. I'm not sure what they changed, but their metal parts became softer at roughly the same time that they launched the Gen 4 line of pistols. This prompted the change to the 30274 ejector because the old style was flexing with their new, softer metal.

There is a whole slew of theories as to why the ejection problems arose. Many of them seem valid but only Glock knows (hopefully) the truth.

[Wreck-n-Crew]

My reasons for still standing against MIM and Investment Casting parts, at least for now, are as follows:

1. When a company moves from one process of manufacturing to MIM or Investment casting, there is OFTEN a hiccup in their quality while they adjust to the new manufacturing method.

2. It is correct to say that MIM and Investment Casting done well are just as good as any other part - However, it is common for MIM and Investment Cast parts to NOT be done right in many cases.

3. After moving from one method to another, companies often look to cut costs even further and make changes again. Glock is a good example. I'm not sure what they changed, but their metal parts became softer at roughly the same time that they launched the Gen 4 line of pistols. This prompted the change to the 30274 ejector because the old style was flexing with their new, softer metal.

In the end, I guess you could say that I'm less against MIM or Investment Casting and more pro-sticking with what works if possible so that users don't get stuck beta testing the new parts. HK hasn't made any major changes and I think it's safe to assume that as being the reason they haven't had a big slump in QC like many other companies have in the last decade or so.

I can't blame a man for feeling that way.

Ruger does the same exact thing by offering a wide variety of guns to cover the market,

I think they stopped production on the P series didn't they? Not really a dent in their lineup but thought worth noting. S&W has similar lineups. With the SD series going up through the shield, to M&P, then the CORE and PC series. Though ideally the Core and PC are using the M&P as well as other models as a baseline with the exception being the 1911 PC which is Custom machined, fitted, and assembled by just a few guys.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by Dragline45

Ruger does the same exact thing by offering a wide variety of guns to cover the market

Yeah, but SIG takes it to the extreme. It feels like they offer a hundred different versions of each model they make. Some of the versions aren't even listed on their website. Once our store got in a weird P226 MK 25 (the SEAL version); it had the distinctive frame of the MK 25 with the picatinny rail, but the slide didn't have the anchor marking and it had rosewood grips. We couldn't figure out what it was until we found out that SIG had had some extra MK25 frames lying around so they combined them with normal P226 uppers and shipped them out.

I'll be honest: Many people who work at gun shops hate SIG simply because they offer so many different versions that it's almost impossible to learn them all, and it also can be very difficult to track down a specific one for a customer.

It also doesn't help SIG's image that they make absolute garbage novelty products like the Adaptive Carbine Platform.

[SHE3PDOG]

I will gladly admit that the biggest reason I like HK is the USP. That gun is everything I could want. If Glock, Sig, Walther, or anyone else had made it first, I'd probably be a bit biased in favor of their company. I'm also not saying there aren't guns LIKE the USP that are out there, but it just happens to have hit the perfect storm of qualities to make me a huge fan.

I like the P22X series as well, they are certainly on par with quality, I am simply partial to the USP. I think that a lot experienced gun owners cling to their brands because those guns just happen to fit them best, not necessarily because of quality, perceived or real.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Theohazard

Yeah, but SIG takes it to the extreme. It feels like they offer a hundred different versions of each model they make. Some of the versions aren't even listed on their website. Once our store got in a weird P226 MK 25 (the SEAL version); it had the distinctive frame of the MK 25 with the picatinny rail, but the slide didn't have the anchor marking and it had rosewood grips. We couldn't figure out what it was until we found out that SIG had had some extra MK25 frames lying around so they combined them with normal P226 uppers and shipped them out.

I'll be honest: Many people who work at gun shops hate SIG simply because they offer so many different versions that it's almost impossible to learn them all, and it also can be very difficult to track down a specific one for a customer.

It also doesn't help SIG's image that they make absolute garbage novelty products like the Adaptive Carbine Platform.

I think part of it is SIG trying to put out new products as, like you said, their best sellers were designed before a lot of new shooters were born. Some of those ideas really shouldn't have made it past the planning room. That said I picked up a 2010 P239 the other day and the fit, finish, and function are excellent.

I will agree that for some reason I think SIG is much more guilty of spamming products than Ruger. Ruger has a lot of products but each is itself unique for Ruger's line. There are more P226 variants than I have digits. It is good to give the customer variety, but so many products has a tendency to lessen the quality across everything.

[Slamfire]

I have an SIG P220, it is an excellent pistol. Accessories are too expensive, and SIG customer service are a bunch of smug know nothings. Never give them the serial number of the gun or your credit card number. Their customer service attitude is that their guns are perfect, if they don't shoot to point of aim, it is because you don't know how to shoot, not because they deliberately sight the guns to shoot high, and they will charge ridiculous amounts of money to examine a gun for problems they created.