Army's new SIGs ejecting live rounds, can't handle standard ball ammo.

[MarkC]

I stand by the 96D not being the touch stone of durability. Even if other .40s were worse at the time frame the testing was done (early 90s, I'm guessing?), you're still looking at a gun that the manufacturer calls for 1/3 the service life of the parent platform. You're still looking at a gun that's been phased out by most, if not all, entities of any size that adopted it...with many reporting longevity issues as the reason.

I'm glad you guys got good service out of them, but they simply aren't as durable as many other choices...including the M9/92 it was designed around.

I have to agree on the Beretta 96; ISP was issued 96G's (decocker only), and they simply did not hold up, with significant slide cracking issues. That is one of the few service weapons I did not buy back from ISP when we traded them in.

 

[searpinski]

Wow, I had no idea there was so much Sig hate going on. I know several people with Sigs (including myself) that have not experienced problems with them. That being said, I doubt any of these people fire 2000 rounds through without cleaning. In my mind however, I would think Glock, HK and Beretta would be the leaders in reliability. Really interesting article!

 

[phylodog]

I think there is a misconception that everyone who disagrees with the selection process/decision is a Sig hater.

 

[searpinski]

I think there is a misconception that everyone who disagrees with the selection process/decision is a Sig hater.

If there is a misconception, that's not what I was referring to. I'm referring to the people saying Sig needs to get it together and make better guns. They may be right, but I haven't been keeping up on my gun topics unfortunately.

 

[Dead Duck]

I think there is a misconception that everyone who disagrees with the selection process/decision is a [STRIKE]Sig hater[/STRIKE] Glock Humper.

FIFY

 

[Expat]

I think there is a misconception that everyone who disagrees with the selection process/decision is a Sig hater.

I think there are a couple of different groups. There are some people that are objective about it and have some criticisms and concerns. There are some that are Sig bashers and do so on a regular basis. Then you have the Glock fan boys that would be angry no matter who was picked as long as it wasn't Glock. It is obvious in some cases which category they fall into.

 

[BE Mike]

I stand by the 96D not being the touch stone of durability. Even if other .40s were worse at the time frame the testing was done (early 90s, I'm guessing?), you're still looking at a gun that the manufacturer calls for 1/3 the service life of the parent platform. You're still looking at a gun that's been phased out by most, if not all, entities of any size that adopted it...with many reporting longevity issues as the reason.

I'm glad you guys got good service out of them, but they simply aren't as durable as many other choices...including the M9/92 it was designed around.

Yes, it is no wonder that, at the time, many of the .40 S&W caliber pistols weren't holding up, as you pointed out, most of them were designed around the much lower pressure 9mm cartridge. Goes pretty much for any gun. If one continually shoots the hottest loads, it will wear any gun much faster and cause failures, eventually. I was surprised that the Glock had catastrophic failures before reaching 10,000 rounds. I tried Glocks and they aren't for me, but they do have a good reputation, although the ISP did trade their Glock .40 S&W caliber pistols in to Glock for 9mm pistols, supposedly because they weren't holding up. I know a retired ISP trooper, that might have some insight. I need to ask him.

 

[MarkC]

Yes, it is no wonder that, at the time, many of the .40 S&W caliber pistols weren't holding up, as you pointed out, most of them were designed around the much lower pressure 9mm cartridge. Goes pretty much for any gun. If one continually shoots the hottest loads, it will wear any gun much faster and cause failures, eventually. I was surprised that the Glock had catastrophic failures before reaching 10,000 rounds. I tried Glocks and they aren't for me, but they do have a good reputation, although the ISP did trade their Glock .40 S&W caliber pistols in to Glock for 9mm pistols, supposedly because they weren't holding up. I know a retired ISP trooper, that might have some insight. I need to ask him.

There was some kind of problem with the .40 caliber Glocks and the particular ammunition we were using then where more than a few rounds would tumble and leave keyhole-shaped holes in the targets. Glock seemed unable to replicate the failure, but I saw it first hand (mine was one of the malfunctioning weapons). Then-Superintendent Whitesell made the decision to trade in the .40's for the very reliable and proven 9mm's, and we ended up carrying Glock 17s for several years.

If I recall correctly, we were shooting Federal Hydra-shok ammunition at the time (I know we had for the 9mm Berettas), but I do not recall specifically if we stayed with the Hydra-shok when we transitioned to the .40s.

Again, very much like with the Beretta 96G, I think the Glock 22 was an unreliable .40 caliber adaptation of a really successful 9mm.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Yes, it is no wonder that, at the time, many of the .40 S&W caliber pistols weren't holding up, as you pointed out, most of them were designed around the much lower pressure 9mm cartridge. Goes pretty much for any gun. If one continually shoots the hottest loads, it will wear any gun much faster and cause failures, eventually. I was surprised that the Glock had catastrophic failures before reaching 10,000 rounds. I tried Glocks and they aren't for me, but they do have a good reputation, although the ISP did trade their Glock .40 S&W caliber pistols in to Glock for 9mm pistols, supposedly because they weren't holding up. I know a retired ISP trooper, that might have some insight. I need to ask him.

Early Glock .40 did not have a good reputation. I'm not surprised at all they had catastrophic failures in your tests if they were the 2 pin frames. Glock went to the 3 pin frame because the .40/10mm was breaking 2 pin frames.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

There was some kind of problem with the .40 caliber Glocks and the particular ammunition we were using then where more than a few rounds would tumble and leave keyhole-shaped holes in the targets.

I don't think we ever had that particular issue. I know my Gen 3 was unreliable if you put a WML on the rail. Without a light it ran fine.

 

[phylodog]

IPD/MCSD/IMPD had a pretty long run with the .40 caliber Glock pistols. To say the .40 was unreliable is a bit of a stretch considering the millions of rounds of training ammunition, tens of thousands of rounds of duty ammunition fired during training and hundreds of rounds of duty ammunition fired during shootings without significant issues. Yes, our Gen3 G22 pistols demonstrated intermittent issues with some brands of weapon mounted lights and practice ammo but we found no examples which would malfunction with our duty load and a switch to a different training ammunition appeared to alleviate the issue. We switched to the Gen4 pistols before bring able to determine the issue 100% corrected by different ammo.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The three pin .40 was very reliable. Glock figured it out pretty quick and not many two pins exist. Someone better in tune with the history of such things can probably give better info, but seems like it was real early 90s just going from memory.

 

[MarkC]

IPD/MCSD/IMPD had a pretty long run with the .40 caliber Glock pistols. To say the .40 was unreliable is a bit of a stretch considering the millions of rounds of training ammunition, tens of thousands of rounds of duty ammunition fired during training and hundreds of rounds of duty ammunition fired during shootings without significant issues. Yes, our Gen3 G22 pistols demonstrated intermittent issues with some brands of weapon mounted lights and practice ammo but we found no examples which would malfunction with our duty load and a switch to a different training ammunition appeared to alleviate the issue. We switched to the Gen4 pistols before bring able to determine the issue 100% corrected by different ammo.

I can't say that .40 S&W Glocks were unreliable. I just know that the weapons delivered to ISP, coupled with the ammunition we were shooting then, was bad juju. Therefore, the boss made a decision to "revert" to the then-more reliable Glock 9.

Clearly they have whatever was the issue then figured out. Glock wouldn't even let us buy back the Glock 22's we traded in for the Glock 17's. Supposedly Glock traded ISP straight up, weapon for weapon, and then destroyed the "defective" batch. However, you know how those "supposedly" stories work out.

 

[MarkC]

The three pin .40 was very reliable. Glock figured it out pretty quick and not many two pins exist. Someone better in tune with the history of such things can probably give better info, but seems like it was real early 90s just going from memory.

I cannot remember exactly when it was that ISP tried the Glock .40, but it was sometime after 1994 (I was called to active duty for FAOAC and remember specifically having the Beretta 92G then), so it was sometime after that, long enough for us to get issued and work through the Beretta 96G's then try the Glock 22. So, mid to late 90's, likely. I suspect the sketchy weapons we had were two-pin, but I cannot say with certainty.

 

[Peacekeeper3073]

The three pin .40 was very reliable. Glock figured it out pretty quick and not many two pins exist. Someone better in tune with the history of such things can probably give better info, but seems like it was real early 90s just going from memory.

You are probably close. My first Glock was a Gen 3 23 .40 with three pins. If I remember correctly it was made around 97ish.

 

[HoughMade]

View attachment 64025

 

[BE Mike]

I cannot remember exactly when it was that ISP tried the Glock .40, but it was sometime after 1994 (I was called to active duty for FAOAC and remember specifically having the Beretta 92G then), so it was sometime after that, long enough for us to get issued and work through the Beretta 96G's then try the Glock 22. So, mid to late 90's, likely. I suspect the sketchy weapons we had were two-pin, but I cannot say with certainty.

Were the Beretta 96G's, Brigadiers?

 

[cayce]

In the past year I bought a 226 and a 228. Both were gone in a month. Learned my lesson the hard/expensive way. I previously owned a .22 Mosquito. Within a month it TOTALLY LOCKED UP. My gunsmith couldn't do a thing with it so I sent it back to SIG. Their reply why the slide was frozen shut was too much lube. I thought if you believe SIG's response

 

[Dead Duck]

In the past year I bought a 226 and a 228. Both were gone in a month. Learned my lesson the hard/expensive way.

err.... Gone?
Where'd they go?

 

[cayce]

err.... Gone?
Where'd they go?

Traded them for RELIABLE handguns.