18 Dec 00

More comments:

>From a friend at SIG:

"Since the gun is the one variable that we can control, it makes sense to show up with one that is going to work, meaning that it is well maintained and is loaded with good ammunition. How often a gun needs to be cleaned is no measure of its quality. Ergonomics, reliability, and accuracy are far more important."

>From friends and students who are obviously SIG fans:

"I've carried a SIG 228 every day for eighteen months, putting about 20,000 rounds through it and surviving a couple of Farnam courses during that time. It never even came close to failing in any way. More than I can say for the operator!"

"When I went through the LFI Advanced Handgun Skills class, I shot 850 rounds over two days with my personal SIG 226, without cleaning, and it worked fine. I did keep it heavily lubricated. SIGs may be more maintenance sensitive than Glocks, but they rarely break."

"I've used a SIG P226 in a number of Farnam courses, firing thousands of rounds, often grubby reloads, with no problems at all. This is the first complaint I've heard about SIGs!"

"When I took your advanced pistol course we used your two, dueling spinners. Those ammo monsters (which we still use, though they have been rewelded numerous times) burned an enormous amount of ammunition that weekend! My SIG P220 personally ate 1,300 rounds with nary a hiccup and no cleaning. When I did clean it after the Course was over, the barrel and slide were caked with a grimy mixture of soot, grease, and sand."

"My SIG 226 was a mid-eighties model, and I was its fifth owner. One day, the frame rails cracked on both sides. I didn't know this until I disassembled the gun later that day. It continued to function normally, and accuracy was not affected. When I brought the incident to the attention of SIG, they immediately replaced the gun and asked no questions. I've carried the new one ever since."

"Granted the Glock is easier to use, but the reliability of either gun (Glock or SIG) would seem comparable. Longevity may be a different story. However, who wants to experiment with the limits of useful life of any critical equipment?"

>From a friend at S&W with regard to the broken trigger bow mentioned in my last posting:

"This sounds very much like the old style draw bar. Our Customer Service Dept will fix them if he sends them back, immediately and with no questions."

Assorted other comments:

"I have found only two truly durable, reliable handguns in over forty years of shooting: Ruger revolvers and Glocks."

"My Kahr P-9 has functioned flawlessly through heavy use. I carry it every day."

"My Beretta 92F developed a crack in the frame at the 25,000 round mark. I had previously replaced a broken locking block at 18,000 rounds. I purchased the gun in 1986. It was replaced by the factory at no charge in 1996, ten years later, no questions asked!"

"How many officers have you trained who have permitted such heavy lint buildup in their pistols that they bursts into flame on the first shot? We've seen it here!"

>From my friend who made the original comment:

"While proper maintenance may keep a SIG running just fine through fair weather and fowl, no maintenance at all and even outright abuse are unable to keep a Glock from functioning normally. And, while I have neither the data nor the desire to persuade anyone to forgo their favorite weapon, I do think that information like mine, even though anecdotal, should be taken in good faith and at least go into the hopper when one is trying to make an informed decision."

Lesson: It's important to distinguish between (1) reliability and (2) durability. All firearms benefit from a competent maintenance plan at both the user and the armorer level. I would surely not recommend neglect of any defensive firearm. How maintenance sensitive a particular firearm may be is a subject of lively debate, as we all can see.

Durability is a much more important issue. Guns with durability problems frequently break critical parts no matter how competent the maintenance program. This is a bad thing, because it is out of the control of the owner. Guns with serious durability problems are far less desirable than are those which can be said to be "functionally durable."

The other important element in the equation is the reputation of the particular manufacturer for taking care of its customers. I've seen every species of defensive firearm break parts at one time or another. When the factory immediately fixes the problem with no questions asked, they score big points with me!

/John