Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by drop_point
Originally Posted by bellydeep
IIRC the US Govt had some problems with the 320 during drop tests or something.

I believe both Glock and Sig passed the military testing with flying colors, with a slightly higher MRBF for Glock.

Interesting. Do you happen to have a link to the study?

Regards

I don't have it handy, first hit on Google is here: https://www.ammoland.com/2019/02/si...rmys-mhs-reliability-test/#axzz7ganMX7xr

I didn't see the numbers for Glock listed at all there. Its been a few years since I read the article, but it was related to the Glock lawsuit over selecting Sig over them. Ultimately, that lawsuit was dismissed then appealed, and dismissed again.

I believe the report about the Sigs having trouble was post-adoption testing by another agency with a lighter load than the army specified for the MHS. Which isn't uncommon, the gun was designed for a rather hot load. Many firearms require a lighter spring for light loads. My competition Sig was shipped with a few different springs and instructions for tuning based off ammo being used. For competition, one wants to be just above the power factor required with a margin for error.

"Full time night woman? I never could find no tracks on a woman's heart. I packed me a squaw for ten year, Pilgrim. Cheyenne, she were, and the meanest bitch that ever balled for beads."