🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan25.233216.28456@netcom.com> pauly@netcom.com (Paul Yoshimune) writes:
#In article <9301250428.AA28006@zippy.cs.UMD.EDU> kgk@martigny.ai.mit.edu (Kleanthes Koniaris) writes:
##In fact, there seem to reasons to suspect that the Glock is *better*
##built: I have heard that the Sig has welding, rivets, etc.; 

	Welds, yes, rivets, none that I have seen.  Glock better built?
	Doubtful.

	Regarding the formed steel slide of the SIG, it is actually superior
	to that of the glock, overall.  It has the strength without the
	weight (not that it matters with a Glock :))  The clearances in the SIG
	are much larger than the Glock, which makes it a superior combat
	weapon.  You can load em up with mud and crap and they will keep
	shooting.  I am not so sure this is the case for a Glock.

##Of course, the Glock does have sloppy tooling marks, but the
##actual method of construction seems superior.

	Depends on how you view these things.  I look at it the opposite way.
	I believe the nearly total absence of any toolmarks whatsoever on a
	SIG is clear indication of superior manufacture.  SIG slides are 
	very beautifully made.  Even my P88 pales in comparison, what with
	all the sloppy machining done on the inside of the slide where I 
	suspect they think it does not matter.  BAH!  HUMBUG!
#
#There is no slop, no funny tooling marks, etc.

	Amen to that!
#
	-Andy V.