SIG210 versus Beretta 92FS versus Glock 17DK

[Universal 2.0]

I really like this posting (the original one) and it is very informative. If I may, I would like to comment on something you mentioned about the Glock not being a good choice for military and police use. I disagree. In the case of military use, one could simply require the weapon be carried without a round in the chamber if one was concerned about NDs. In the case of police work, a premium duty holster is the best safety when choosing a Glock as a duty weapon. I really liked the Pro-3 which I believe the Danish police also uses. Once the weapon leaves the holster the officer simply needs to keep his finger away from the trigger and the weapon is completly safe. I understand that this come down to training and that often is lacking due to budgets and such. In modern law enforcement, there is no better sidearm than the Glock, mainly due to the ease of teaching a new recruit to shoot it well. Having the same trigger pull on each shot is also a major benefit. The lack of a traditional safety also makes it a great choice. I have seen officers with manual safety weapons forget to disengage it and then coming up short in training when trying to fire the weapon. This has also happened several times in real encounters, sadly. My department had a policy to carry any weapon that had a safety with it off.

Once again, great information in your post and thanks for sharing it.

[Gunnut]

I really like this posting (the original one) and it is very informative. If I may, I would like to comment on something you mentioned about the Glock not being a good choice for military and police use. I disagree. In the case of military use, one could simply require the weapon be carried without a round in the chamber if one was concerned about NDs.

I'm assuming you read Danish but just to be on the safe side, I'll try to comment in English.

Yes I agree but of course I'm only taking the Danish army in consideration. Our regulation requires that we do load all weapons (used in guard duty etc.) with a round in the chamber. With this in mind I find the Glock more "un-safe" then traditional automatic pistols. Of course "we" could buy the Glock and change regulations but I'm pretty sure "someone" did their homework when they "commanded" that all guard personnel carry a round in the chamber.

Personally I would any day prefer the Glock to the SIG 210 we now use. I actually "hate" SA (old time) automatics like the SIG 210 and the 1911A1. Carrying a SA like these two with a round in the chamber, (especially the SIG) requires the "hammer" to be in the cocked position. This gives dirt etc. great opportunity to "Place itself" over the firing pin, and we all know what a covered firing pin can result in. Worse case scenario the hammer won't hit the firing pin directly and hard enough because there is dirt between the firing pin and the hammer. Also some users, who by birth are not "gunnuts" have a tendency to say: "Crap the hammer is cocked. This is dangerous. I better put down the hammer." With a 1911A1 it is not a big problem because the hammer has two positions and therefore it can be caught/locked "down" with out resting on the fringing pin. However doing this with a SIG 210, one is asking for trouble to happen.

Sorry got VERY sidetracked. But maybe a gun like the Glock actually is more safe then the SIG 210, because the user has no choice to F..k-up, except putting the finger on the tricker in situations where the finger should be along the slide and not on the tricker. On the Glock there is no safety and there is no hammer that can be put down.

My biggest concern based on 25 years as a weapons instructor is that even experienced cops and soldiers who actually has been in combat, for some reason can't keep their finger off the tricker. A large percentage of all hunters also, from time to time, can't seem to keep the finger away fro the tricker.

In the case of police work, a premium duty holster is the best safety when choosing a Glock as a duty weapon. I really liked the Pro-3 which I believe the Danish police also uses.

Yes they do. And by the way their regulations states that the cop himself can decide if he wants to keep a round in the chamber or not. My concern is when a soldier has to clear the chamber. When stationed in for instance Iraq, we do not allow rounds in the chamber, when entering a friendly camp. Only guard personnel have loaded weapons inside camps. This is based on years of experience (many discharges inside camps). And we all know (or can imagine) how every one inside a camp, in a hostile environment, reacts, if a gun shot occurs. Everyone things someone with bad indentions has managed to get inside the camp. In darkness this can result in friendly fire inside the camp. Any way the Danger is when a cop or soldier has to empty the camber or actually load his/her weapon.

Danish cops do not have to clear their weapon after duty etc. they decide themselves. Soldiers have to. Also both cops and soldiers have to clear their weapon before going on the range and of course when cleaning their weapon.

So my concern is "all" this gun handling. As long as the weapon is in the holster I couldn't agree more. No danger, especially if a Pro-3 holster is used.

Once the weapon leaves the holster the officer simply needs to keep his finger away from the trigger and the weapon is completly safe.

He, he in your dreams (when talking about Danes). For some people (even professionals) a tricker is a magnet to the trickerfinger. Especially to young 19 year old soldiers going to Iraq etc. etc. for the first time, and with out very much pistol experience. Of course training and experience is the answer to solve accidental discharges. You have to understand Denmark does not have a gun culture like USA have. In Denmark guns are No-No" so kids does not handle guns, except when their father is a "gunnut" ;-) .

I understand that this come down to training and that often is lacking due to budgets and such.

He, he sorry I should have checked out everything you have written before I started commenting. I can se we are in total agreement regarding training.

In modern law enforcement, there is no better sidearm than the Glock, mainly due to the ease of teaching a new recruit to shoot it well. Having the same trigger pull on each shot is also a major benefit. The lack of a traditional safety also makes it a great choice. I have seen officers with manual safety weapons forget to disengage it and then coming up short in training when trying to fire the weapon. This has also happened several times in real encounters, sadly. My department had a policy to carry any weapon that had a safety with it off.

Once again, great information in your post and thanks for sharing it.

I'm then one who is thanking! ;.;< It is always nice that someone likes what you write. Especially when the "article" is not only a "story" but is actually is a description of hours of testing (AND FUN).

And once more for the record: I would be super happy with the Glock for armed personnel that are gunnuts (gunnuts: meaning people who like guns and know how to handle guns). So the Glock would easily become my first choice (especially after testing it), however a H&K USP without a safety (FOR ME, NOT FOR THE DANISH ARMY) or a SIG 228/229/226 would also be a great alternative to the Glock. Maybe one day I'll have the chance to test these weapons.

[Universal 2.0]

I agree, we are indeed very much on the same page so to speak.

When a sidearm is used in a more traditional manner in the military I assume it is as a back-up weapon i.e. "crap, my rifle is out of ammo". In that case having a sidearm where the slide simply has to be racked would not be so bad. When doing guard or MP duty, I would say that a round should be in the chamber and a high quality holster should be used.

In law enforcement the weapon should never be unloaded. There you are much more likely to have to quick draw (like in the Wild West :) ) and fire.

I have seen my share of poor weapons handling here but we genrally get most of the bad habits out of the recruits during basic training. That being said, I have seen my share of scary stuff on the range.

I should have said that in the perfect world where everyone who carries a gun gets enough training the Glock is a great military/police weapon. I do agree that something like the USP or Sig Sauer would be a good choice. I like the decock on the Sig very much. That long first trigger pull is hard to "defeat" by accident.

Last but not least, I could not agree with you more regarding the single action weapons like the the 1911, the Sig 210 and the Browning High Power. Although they are fun to shoot they are outdated designs for modern military and law enforcement. I can see a little bit of logic in using them in an offensive tactical manner i.e. room entries but as a defense weapon I would never choose one.

I could never have written that last part on an American forum. Everyone here seems to be in love with the 1911 and the .45ACP. :)

[Fast Fumble]

I could never have written that last part on an Americna forum. Everyone here seems to be in love with the 1911 and the .45ACP. :)

LOL, Jeg er nu også ret vild med 1911 designet (eller 2011), men no offense taken, jeg bruger jo kun mine pistoler til at nedkæmpe psykotiske, fjendtligtsindede, brune papskiver. ;-)

[Universal 2.0]

O.K. undskyld, jeg skulle da have lagt maerke til dit foto. :)

1911 are fun to shoot and if I was a full time SWAT or Special Forces kind of guy, I can see how they can be useful.

I went to an IPSC shoot here once and it was so funny. Almost all of the shooters were big, fat Americans with $2000 custom 1911s and extra super-duper speed holsters etc. All they did was stand around and talk about shooting and how great their new titanium, 24K gold recoil buffer systems worked. When it came time to shoot, most of them could not hit a thing. Not to brag (which would be very un-Danish of me), but I outshot half of them using my Glock 22 and my regular duty belt. It ended up being four hours of standing around and 2 minutes of shooting.

I am not knocking IPSC by any means, by the way.

For resten, havd er et IRL som du sage noget om i en anden post?

[Fast Fumble]

For resten, havd er et IRL som du sage noget om i en anden post?

In Real Life. Sorry, I'm a nerd.

In europe, IPSC is not the preferred sport by the overweight, underskilled shooters. They shoot other disciplines. I'll be among quite a few of them in my gun club tonight :)

[Universal 2.0]

Mit "Internet Nerd" er ikke saa godt. :)

I U.S.A er der mange "strange types" som godt kan li' at gaa i skyde klubber. Som sagt, saa tror at mange af dem bedre kan li' at side der hjemme og aere (pet) deres pistoler, eller snakke om dem end at skyde dem.

[Gunnut]

When a sidearm is used in a more traditional manner in the military I assume it is as a back-up weapon i.e. "crap, my rifle is out of ammo". In that case having a sidearm where the slide simply has to be racked would not be so bad.

(Det bliver på dansk for efter vi har PB'et har jeg jo fundet ud af du hersker det danske sprog helt super.)

Alt er relativt. Både i Kroatien og Irak havde jeg ofte min pistol som primær våben.

Eksempel: I køretøjer, som ikke var åbne. Det vil sige almindelige køretøjer. Her er selv en karabin for lang til man kan skyde hele veje rundt, hvis nogen kommer op til bilen. Både min kører "buddyguard" og jeg sad altid med pistolen fremme når vi kørte. Jeg havde min i hånden og karabinen lå så over lårene. Han sad med sin pistol mellem benene, altså sad halvt oven på den (han skulle jo køre bilen).

Eksempel: I omgivelser hvor man ikke selv vil virke for truende. Det kan være et møde, eller en forhandling på gaden. Pistolen kan ofte "gemmes" (altså man har den i hånden under vesten etc.).

Eksempel: Hvis man i enkelte tilfælde skal være i civil (det sker yderst sjældent), så er pistolen at foretrække.

De er mange andre eksempler.

Soldater er ofte i mange andre situationer, hvor pistolen pludselig bliver primæret våben.

I alle ovenstående tilfælde hjælper det ikke at man ikke har en patron i kammeret. Pistolen SKAL være klar, men du har ret i at i de MANGE tilfælde hvor pistolen kun er secondary, er der i princippet ingen grund til der er patron i kammeret....eller er der? Hvis man pludselig skal trække sit secondary våben, så er det ofte fordi man er helt og aldeles under pres. Det kunne være en fjende, som rykker din karabin ud af hænderne af dig. Sådan et eksempel oplevede vi i Irak. Her har man ikke tid til at tage ladegreb Og VIGTIGST, hvis man har en pistol, hvor man ikke har en patron i kammeret, skal man bruge BEGGE HÆNDER. Hvis man IKKE har begge hænder fri, i den situation, hvor man skal trække sin pistol, så er den lige så anvendelig, som en feltflaske eller en fyldt karabin magasin.

[Universal 2.0]

Ja men nu har jeg laert noget. I never really thought much about the fact that a lot of the situations that you describe remind me much more of what I would think of as law enforcement tactics. When i think military, I think open fields of people running at each other. Very naive' it appears. If I were to be on partol in an urban environment with a M4 or M16 (M9 somthing in the Danish Army, right?), I would want a sidearm with me as well. I would want that sidearm loaded and ready to go.

I must admit that something else came to mind. When some of the British SAS guys did plain cloth work in Northern Ireland, I believe they would simply stick their pistols in the front of their pants. I would never do that with a Glock. In that case I would want something like a Sig Sauer P226.

When you carried a sidearm, was it a Sig 210 or a H&K USP? If it was the Sig, did you have one in the pipe, the hammer back and the safety on (Cocked and Locked)?

[Gunnut]

(M9 somthing in the Danish Army, right?),

M/95 (standard version) M/96 (carabin).

When you carried a sidearm, was it a Sig 210 or a H&K USP? If it was the Sig, did you have one in the pipe, the hammer back and the safety on (Cocked and Locked)?

SIG 210 and it was Cocked and Locked. Det er sådan de danske forsvar går med SIG 210. I Danmark gælder det, når vi taler bevogtning.

Som nævnt bryder jeg mig ikke om denne måde. Jo jeg gør, men jeg ville laaaaaaangt foretrække at det så blev med en SIG 226 eller for den sags skyld en Glock. Det faktum at hanen er spændt, gør at alt muligt snavs og skidt kan lægge sig oven på slagstiften. Ok hvis man bruger et Tumphbreak hylster, hvor "strappen" ligger hen over slagstiften, så er problemet delvis løst.

Bedste løsning ville være en automat pistol med DA/SA (eller DA only) og uden sikring. Personligt ville jeg foretrække en Glock eller en SIG 228/229/226, måske en H&K USP.