And then there's the other stuff, like getting rid of the finger-grooved frontstrap, changing the proprietary Glock flashlight slot dimension to standard M1913 Picatinny, converting the (I only ever saw one or two break) trigger reset spring (also mostly redundant) into something pretty much totally unbreakable, upgrading the slide stop spring to be equally bomb-proof, putting all of the models that will take G17-pattern mags on the same trigger bar assembly and locking block (there used to be a couple), and making the frame EVEN EASIER to disassemble.
Yeah...I like the Gen 5's A LOT.
The critics complain about grip angle, or how it can't be manicured to fit their hands, or a trigger that they can't manage with their slap-happy technique, but what part of a gun that pretty much never breaks and rarely malfunctions no matter how much you neglect it are you so eager to gripe about? Oh yeah, you can't hit anything and aren't willing to practice even when the ammo's free. Must be the gun's fault.
Rolling this back to the Sig discussion. . .
A lot of the really good designs from history brought a lot of overkill to the party, so that if you had to make it cheaply under press of war, they'd still run - at least safely, if not like a Swiss watch. The Glock is kind of a monument to this: other than the slide and barrel, it's pretty much all MIM, stamped sheet metal, or plastic, but it manages to be a very safe tank in spite of this due to engineering with that in mind.
One of the leading theories with the P320 issues is that it isn't "cheap proof" - at least not from the cheap that it's encountered. You can think of design compromises like a package of sliced Swiss cheese - - USUALLY you can't see through the stack to the other side, but SOMETIMES the holes line up and you can push a problem through them.
Funny. . .I'm referencing Swiss watches and Swiss cheese when discussing problems with a gun from what was originally a Swiss company. . .
