home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!amdahl!rtech!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!bogus.sura.net!ra!mimsy!cbnewsb.cb.att.com
- From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
- Newsgroups: rec.guns
- Subject: Re: Glock vs. Sig!?
- Message-ID: <1993Jan27.214930.18481@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
- Date: 28 Jan 93 04:16:42 GMT
- Sender: magnum@mimsy.umd.edu
- Organization: Twilight Zone
- Lines: 31
- Approved: gun-control@cs.umd.edu
-
- In article <1993Jan25.233216.28456@netcom.com> pauly@netcom.com (Paul Yoshimune) writes:
- #In article <9301250428.AA28006@zippy.cs.UMD.EDU> kgk@martigny.ai.mit.edu (Kleanthes Koniaris) writes:
- ##In fact, there seem to reasons to suspect that the Glock is *better*
- ##built: I have heard that the Sig has welding, rivets, etc.;
-
- Welds, yes, rivets, none that I have seen. Glock better built?
- Doubtful.
-
- Regarding the formed steel slide of the SIG, it is actually superior
- to that of the glock, overall. It has the strength without the
- weight (not that it matters with a Glock :)) The clearances in the SIG
- are much larger than the Glock, which makes it a superior combat
- weapon. You can load em up with mud and crap and they will keep
- shooting. I am not so sure this is the case for a Glock.
-
- ##Of course, the Glock does have sloppy tooling marks, but the
- ##actual method of construction seems superior.
-
- Depends on how you view these things. I look at it the opposite way.
- I believe the nearly total absence of any toolmarks whatsoever on a
- SIG is clear indication of superior manufacture. SIG slides are
- very beautifully made. Even my P88 pales in comparison, what with
- all the sloppy machining done on the inside of the slide where I
- suspect they think it does not matter. BAH! HUMBUG!
- #
- #There is no slop, no funny tooling marks, etc.
-
- Amen to that!
- #
- -Andy V.
-
-