What is the most reliable pistol ever created?
Protip: It's the Sig Sauer P226.
>>29945581
I like the p229 better
>>29945600
How can you like something "better"?
You mean "more".
Anything made by browning?
>>29945600
P225 masterrace
>>29945581
glock cock 19
>>29945639
No.
>>29945600
the mk25 has a short extractor which is more reliable than the long extractors
so op is right
>>29945581
I might agree. Honorable mentions to modern Beretta 92 series and Glock 19/17.
>>29945650
>no
Anything made by Browning is reliable.
how can it be reliable if you can't even carry it anywhere concealed.
only reliable in making sure you're the first one to get shot.
>>29945581
>implying
>>29945613
the second half of the sentence is implied. I like the p229 better (than the p226)
are you autistic? is english your first language?
>>29945704
You're not some GROM, Night Stalker, Ranger, Green Beret, or SEAL. Shut up you fucking dork.
>>29945581
I'm interested in getting a 226 but can't decide between the Mk 25 or the Elite.
What do you /k/omrads think?
>>29945721
You can't like something better.
You like something more than you like something else. You're literally an idiot.
>>29945737
I have the mk25 and really like it a lot.
>>29945737
You can't go wrong with either motherfucker. Both will take out niggers just fine, but with mk25 you get +5 on sand nigger annihilation plus it glows faint green when you're close to an IED planted by a sand coon.
>>29945740
sure you can, faggot
your grasp of language is weird and your offense about it is autistic
imo autistics shouldnt have guns so you should probably leave
>>29945737
>>29945748
I also have a mk25. Would highly recommend.
>>29945775
No, you can't. Something can be better than something else and because of it, you can like it more than that something else.
You can't like something better, just as something can't be more than something else. Shut the fuck up with your dumb ass because you don't know what you're talking about. You're not even a native english speaker so why you're on here, let alone the weapons board, we can only wonder.
>>29945704
This.
The MK23 was torture tested in a way that no other pistol was before, or has been since.
Because no other pistol has ever been scientifically subjected to the same abuse, and passed or bested it, objectively, the MK23, is the most reliable pistol.
>>29945613
If there's anything I absolutely hate, it's pedantic grammar nazis who want to sound smart without having anything smart to say about the conversation, so they derail it. SAD!
>>29945704
>>29945815
I hope you realize that the MK23 is literally a match USP, and therefore useless unless you're a fucking legitimate operator on an offensive.
>>29945827
Remember to stay mad.
>>29945852
Usp confirmed for GOAT
Sigfags on suicide watch!
>>29945852
>literally
Nope. The Mark 23 and USP share a lot of design similarities, but they are two different guns.
And yeah, it's useless in most circumstances, but where not talking about that; We're talking about the most reliable pistol.
Because the MK23 was torture tested to the highest standards and passed, and no other pistol has been tested to those same standards, objectively, and scientifically, we can't say that any other pistol ever is more reliable than the MK23.
Therefore, it's the most reliable pistol, albeit, with limited applications.
>>29945737
MK25 all day every day
>>29945581
>>29945581
Anything with an exposed hammer is going to, simply by design, not be as reliable as a good striker-fired pistol under dirty/wet/muddy conditions, ya dingus
>>29945960
>i don't own any firearms.
>>29945581
That's not how you say Beretta M9, faggot.
Comparison of the USP Tactical and the Mark 23
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoWbKCeW21o
The Mark 23 is a different gun. It's built much better.
>>29945704
Has thing ever been actually put in service?
>>29945581
that's not a Mark 23
>>29946006
this. fucking chrome-lined barrel, much thicker, totally different engineering.
>>29946012
see >>29945729. it's basically used by those guys.
>>29946012
Absolutely. In limited numbers with special forces units, but it's seen field use.
>MUH MARK 23
fucking nobody carries this what's even the point
>>29945581
Any gun that you take care of.
Sig p229
>>29945804
I have literally never seen someone more autistic about such a tiny ass grammar mistake in my entire life.
>>29945960
Not true at all, anything that gets side the striker channel, like water, mud, or other debris, will cause failures to fire due to low striker velocity resulting in light primer strikes or will stop the striker from moving far enough forward to engage the primer.
>>29945929
What the fuck kind of goal post moving? In what kind of situation is a mk25 useful but a usp useless? Usp has been torture tested to hell way more than a mk25
>>29946041
just a bunch of noguns /v/irgins that only know about it from metal gear
It is literally irrelevant and has been for more than 20 years now.
>>29945929
>and no other pistol has been tested to those same standards
This means the exact opposite of what you're claiming. You'd have to subject other guns to the same test standards to say the Mk23 is objectively better. Without testing other guns with the same standards all you can say is that the Mk23 has passed those tests, which is useless information without other results to compare it to.
>>29945613
Both are correct. Kill yourself.
If you're going to be pedantic about something, be pedantic when you're actually correct.
>>29946107
idiot, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything like that. Literally
>implying
The USP is definitely more useful, but again, it's a different gun. As far as "official" testing on the USP, no, it was not put up to the same standards as the MK23.
It's definitely been fielded more, and has plenty of anecdotal evidence to back up it's street cred. I would have no doubts about it if I was in DEVGRU and they gave me one as a sidearm. But that's not something we can quantify and log as scientific results.
As far as official military and factory testing, hell-fucking-no, you cannot say that it beats the MK23, that is, in terms of reliability.
ITT
>>29946123
yes and no
>>29946181
I'm talking about the sig mark 25, not the hk's mark 23
>>29946193
No, not both. That is literally how experiments work. You can't say say something is "better" than something else without comparing the two, and without subjecting both things to be compared to the same tests, there are no results to compare.
I'm not the anon arguing with you about the USP/mk23/whatever, but your argument is a logical fallacy and not sound.
Wtf?
Usp had most of the same testing the mark 23 had. This isn't even up for debate.
http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=2894
>>29945613
You can love something better too
Like how I love your mom better than your daddy does
>>29946209
Hold on
>Me
The MK23 was torture tested in a way that no other pistol was before, or has been since.
Because no other pistol has ever been scientifically subjected to the same abuse, and passed or bested it, objectively, the MK23, is the most reliable pistol.
>You
I hope you realize that the MK23 is literally a match USP, and therefore useless unless you're a fucking legitimate operator on an offensive.
>me
Nope. The Mark 23 and USP share a lot of design similarities, but they are two different guns.
And yeah, it's useless in most circumstances, but where not talking about that; We're talking about the most reliable pistol.
Because the MK23 was torture tested to the highest standards and passed, and no other pistol has been tested to those same standards, objectively, and scientifically, we can't say that any other pistol ever is more reliable than the MK23.
Therefore, it's the most reliable pistol, albeit, with limited applications.
>You
What the fuck kind of goal post moving? In what kind of situation is a mk25 useful but a usp useless? Usp has been torture tested to hell way more than a mk25
_____________________________________
I thought MK25 was a typo for MK23. We started by comparing the MK23 and the USP. How did we get the SIG in there?
>>29946257
>most of the same
But not the exact same. The USP test guns were beat to shit, but not to the same rigor as the MK23.
>>29946334
And?
>>29945737
Mk25, and then install the short reset and GGI S-PAIT, and sig Xray sights, and get a Gray Guns action job.
>>29946253
fair enough.
I'll concede that we can't 100 percent objectively say that the MK23 is the most reliable pistol.
But the claim has a strong theoretical back up.
>>29945729
That wasn't the question now was it faggot
>>29946107
Are you too retarded to follow the conversation?
>>29946115
>What is the most reliable pistol ever created?
Not what's the best cc peice
Not what's the prettiest
Not what the best bang for the buck
Try to follow along
>>29946184
>p2000
>USP
>>29946783
OP was obviously asking because he wanted to use whatever the answer was AKA carry it. you're fucking autistic.
On a side note, I just had a customer say to me
"No I dont like Glocks"
So I asked, WEll what do you like?? Sigs? H&K?
and he goes "no... Ruger."
When i asked why just ruger he explained to me how every Glock he ever had he was able to make fire by dropping it. I wanted to reach over the counter and slap his dick right off his fucking face.
>>29946802
I noticed that too.
Also,
>glock 19
>fullsize glock
>>29946425
Geez, is that all? Why don't I just spring for the tacops instead?
>>29946883
>no....ruger.
Ruger. Just Ruger. A company. Not a specific design or model. Just a company. Why the hell didn't you hurt him?
>Glock 17
>Sig 226
>HK USP
>CZ75
in no particular order.
>>29947105
>Glock 17
Most reliable incendiary device, maybe.
I've owned around 30 pistols in my time and the most reliable were Sigs and Glocks with the P220 being my favorite
>>29947114
Oh the last glocknade shitposter.
Glock 17.
No bells or whistles to the design, just pure business.
>fires almost all loads
>favored by military and law enforcement
>ergonomic whether you like it or not
>can be dragged through mud, water, sand, AND still fire reliably
>smoothest action over any other pistol on the market
>jams and "glocknades" only by owner negligence
Prove me wrong, faggots.
>Protip: You motherfucking can't
>>29945581
I'd have to say, a Ruger Single action revolver with transfer bar will be the most reliable.
>>29945998
Agreed, mines a 92F from the 80s and I've never had so much as a hiccup, I shoot federal 115 grain range ammo mostly. I've put around 500rnds through it though, so not a lot, with Italian factory magazines. I bought the gun used it's probably had thousand a round through it, the only thing i changed was the recoil spring, though I'm also going to order a locking block to play it safe, since it's the most likely part to fail, and it is my carry piece.
>>29947327
>gen 4
>reliable
>>29945804
>You can't like something better, just as something can't be more than something else.
I think you're more autistic than I am.
>>29945581
As a Sig fan, they are no where close to the most reliable. Glock enjoys that. What sigs are is one of the nicer shooting guns you can get. Reliability isn't as good as Glock though. For example, the 938 is known to have problems as is the 238. I personally had damage to the slide stop spring. You specifically mentioned the 226 though, it has full Metal trails that prefer to be wet, it's also got a high bore axis and grip angle that make limp wristing much easier which is a bad thing. If the user does his part, keeps it clean and well lubed and uses a good grip, then sure the 226 is a great shooting. On the other hand you can hand your average LEO a dry Glock and will go bang for them every time.
Hi-Power I guess?
>>29945950
Get your "MannLicker" out of here
>>29946276
LOL
>>29947607
>Reliability isn't as good as Glock
And what source was that opinion derived from my autistic friend?
All of the well built modern handguns are pretty equally reliable. They all use the exact same action for fucks sake.
Glock was probably the most reliable pistol in the 1980's, but nowadays pretty much everything is the same damn gun with only a few minor differences
So what the fuck was the point of of bringing of stupid as point like "nobody carries it" besides having a weak ass argument?
>>29945775
He is correct. You like something more. Ask your mother/sister whatever you call her
>>29947327
>smoothest action over any other pistol on the market
>jams and "glocknades" only by owner negligence
Should have quit while you were ahead. you know about search engines right?
>>29947838
>And what source was that opinion derived from my autistic friend?
Myself.
I've been shooting about 14 years (yes old fag) and these are the handguns that I have owned in no particular order: ppk, bersa 380, HK p2000, S&W 686, S&W 629, S&W 629 performance center, Ruger sp101, Walther p22, Springfield 1911, Kimber 1911, AR pistol,
and relative to this thread
Glock models 26, 27, 36, 19, 29 and 17
Sig Sauer models p938, 320 and p229
Of the Glocks and Sigs I've owned a combined count of 9.
Glocks -
Through the various Glocks there have been problems. The Glock 36 was a piece of shit and if you google Glock 36 lawsuit you should find the page [pic related] where they lost a lawsuit. It's the same problem mine had. So that gun was not right from the start and I'm calling it an outlier. My Glock 17 shot high. I don't know why but it was 6 o'clock aim. That was not the case with any other Glock and I think it probably came with the wrong front sight installed. So that's 2 out of 6 Glocks that did not come right from the factory. However, no counting the Glock 36, I never had a single malfunction that was the guns fault. Probably a combined 20k rounds through those guns and there was one round that got stuck halfway in the chamber due to a bad casing that folded over itself at the mouth. Given that and all the torture tests, Glocks score basically a perfect in reliability, assuming they aren't fucked up from the get go.
Sigs -
My 938 almost immediately kept having the slide lock back on me while shooting. I did some research and found out there's a problem with the slide stop spring getting damaged easily. Further research led me to find out about the recall on the 238 and a lot of other problems that both the 238 and 938 seem to have. Then after about 200 rounds in on my 229 I had a failure to eject with attempted double feed. This was my fault but the point I was making is that I've never had limp wristing problems with any other gun.
>>29949241
continued...
So if I'm still getting to know the 229 but if I'm not careful the brass lands in my shirt collar (never a problem with other guns) and I've had that double feed (never had before with any other gun). At first I thought it was the gun but I left the RO shoot it and all his shots were perfect with brass going nearly straight to the side of the gun. Okay so its' me but what I said here >>29947607 was that the high bore axis and grip angle make it easier to limp wrist the gun, I still believe that because I don't know what else to attribute the change to, like I said, it was never a problem before.
So in my experience, Glocks are more reliable than Sigs. The 320 may prove to be an exception but it isn't time tested yet.
The reason I like Sigs so much is that the bullets pretty well go where I want them to. The targets in pic related were all at 21'. For myself those are good groups. Others can do better, I can not, nor could I consistently do that well with the Glocks.
>>29949289
Here is the 7 yards target from yesterday.
