TexasCHLforum.com

Frankly, I am surprised that this is even a discussion.......and I like my Glock pistols. Did not the specification call for a MODULAR handgun design? Did Glock submit a modular design? No. Did Sig submit a modular design? Yes. Now, if the Sig were a crappy pistol, it might be worth arguing the point. But no matter how much I like my Glocks, and no matter how much I think that a Glock 19 would be the perfect military sidearm, Glock did NOT submit a pistol meeting the design requirement of modularity. Sig did, and the Sig is also a decent pistol. So.......what's the fuss about?

Liberty wrote:Just curious. Other than price, Is there any objectively hard advantage of Sig over Glock, or vice versa?
I know some people shoot better with one over the other, some like the feel or fit of one over the other. but both have a reputation as reliable good shooters. Just wondering if there is anything specific in design that either that the military would prefer over the other.

I don't think there is a specific performance advantage with Sig. What they brought to the table was modularity, with interchangeable frames so that the working parts can be used to service different sized pistols. After all, the product was called "the Modular Handgun System contract". And the ammo part was self explanatory. Sig has a relationship with Winchester Olins and can procure the required ammo more easily. Glock would have to outsource.