EsxPD319 said:
Take a rope and tie it around the Smith & Wessons and use them for boat anchors, that is all they are good for. Sigs and Glock are more comparable in shooting and reliability. I, myself prefer the glock and then the sigs. Smith & Wesson are notorious for feeding jams and etc, :x
Just my two cents,
Ed
Oh Jeez!!!!
Actually it's guns like the High Point 9mm/40 pistols, and Raven or Jennings .25's that are "Notorious" for jams etc.
O.K. so Glock is made in heaven by God's gunsmith. Before 1987 most of us sat at home while our Smith's colected dust because we were too afraid to pull them out of their holsters. Come on!
:shock:
Fact is there are few pistols manufactured today that are perfect out of the box from the factory. Don't take my word for it. Ask any department armorer, or check out gun tests magazine. Glock is dealing with an issue of slide/frame rail contact defects on recent .40 cal models that has caused full failure of the product. Does this mean Glock is suddenly junk?
Of course not. But sixteen years of "Glock Perfection" just went down the tubes when a large Georgia S.D. and other departments experienced their new Glocks binding locked/open after first shot recently.
Beretta had a problem with cracked slides years ago. Smith 59's had a reputation for not being reliable. Even Kimbers and others have failed.
If you want to knock a brand of Pistol, try RUGER. (their revolvers are rock solid) Again, how many departments issue, or individual officers carry a Ruger auto?
Bottom line is any firearm needs to be fired, cleaned, broken in with about 500 rounds to identify if it is really an anchor or a pearl. Then if there is a problem, it needs to be seen by the armorer or the factory.
I personally own a Glock 23 and like it. My issued weapon is a Smith Sigma 40E. It has never jammed and I shoot 92-100 every three months at range. It's not a scientific comparison, however, I could say that the Glock and Smith are "comparable" (just my $.02)
