Mossberg introduces the MCI-Subcompact Pistol

[mattallamerican]

how much does it cost in the real world if its 75.00 close to a glock ill buy the glock

 

[Echo40]

Because the Sig is lighter, smaller, has better sights (night sights) and holds 10+1 in the same sized gun that is +P rated. The Sig's metal is all Stainless with a Nitron coating (very tough) and has full sized rails. There are also 12 round Mag's available for it if you live in a less restrictive State. So why would one want to carry another gun that is the same size or slightly larger that holds half the amount rounds?

I will agree that maybe the word (obsolete) was not the correct one to use, because obviously the Glock 43 can still be used if already owned, however a Pistol with double the rounds and +P rated pretty much makes the Glock & Mossberg in a different class - at least IMO.

Alright, as long as you weren't literally saying that it somehow rendered it obsolete, which has sadly become extremely common these days. Worse yet, it's usually not even an exaggeration, there are folks who honestly believe that minor disadvantages equate to complete obsolescence.

That being said, the SIG P365 is rather significantly more expensive than the Mossberg MC1sc, at least in terms of MSRP, so it seems to be aimed at a different market. If they were sold at an equal price then the advantages of the P365 over the MC1sc would be more meaningful, but as is, it's a more expensive gun, so it had better be, well...better than the MC1sc.

 

[chief38]

Alright, as long as you weren't literally saying that it somehow rendered it obsolete, which has sadly become extremely common these days. Worse yet, it's usually not even an exaggeration, there are folks who honestly believe that minor disadvantages equate to complete obsolescence.

That being said, the SIG P365 is rather significantly more expensive than the Mossberg MC1sc, at least in terms of MSRP, so it seems to be aimed at a different market. If they were sold at an equal price then the advantages of the P365 over the MC1sc would be more meaningful, but as is, it's a more expensive gun, so it had better be, well...better than the MC1sc.

I don't have a clue to what the Mossberg will actually sell for (I see they are listing for $425), but the Glock is about the same as the Sig. If one wants the better metallic night sights on the Glock (to evenly compare to the Sig), it makes it about $100 bucks more than the Sig. I paid $525.00 ($75 under list) for my Sig just 7 weeks ago.

Mossbergs are typically less than comparable guns and I would bet it will sell for $100 - $140 less. That said, these are all SD EDC CCW guns and the fact that the Sig has double the capacity, standard night sights, Nitron coated Stainless Steel all standard - makes it a great deal IMO. NOT saying the Glock and Mossberg are not great guns, just saying the Sig has a leg up on the Mossberg and Glock right out of the gate. While I don't mean to sound snobby, when it comes to a SD gun I'll spend the extra coin to get the best in class as long as it's not totally outrageous or out of my league. Buy once - get it right. Buy price, you buy twice.

 

[Echo40]

I understand, it makes perfect sense to spend more for a better product if you have the money, especially when it comes to something as important as a self-defense weapon, but for some folks a price difference of say $100 makes the difference between a weapon being affordable or not.
Sure, you could always save up a bit longer to cover the difference, but for folks looking to get a quality firearm as quickly as possible without spending too much money, the MC1sc could perhaps make a good choice.

Now personally I'd sooner opt for something cheaper, lighter, and of proven reliability, ergo I'd choose something like the Ruger EC9, but I'm assuming that such is the demographic Mossberg is targeting with the MC1sc.

At any rate, Mossberg's decision to dive into an already saturated market puzzles me, especially when their last firearm (the Shockwave) was aimed at a previously untapped market and they even went through the trouble of designing a firearm to get around a law to do so. You'd think that they'd stick with such a strategy of trying to offer new things with mass market appeal, but whatever, guess they want to try to break into a successful market regardless of how dominated it already is.

 

[Philadelphia Patriot]

At least it doesn't say "grip zone" on it. I do applaud Mossberg for their choice of a flat face trigger with flush fitting safety tab.

 

[dr. mordo]

At the very least, it seems like Mossberg should have make their version of the P365 instead of their version of the G43. Or like I said on another forum, their version of a Keltec P11, but striker fired.

The market is flooded with single stack subcompact 9mms, but SIG has the only high quality double stack sub-compact.

 

[upcountry]

At least it's not a tactical lever action with rails and a collapsible stock.

 

[chief38]

I understand, it makes perfect sense to spend more for a better product if you have the money, especially when it comes to something as important as a self-defense weapon, but for some folks a price difference of say $100 makes the difference between a weapon being affordable or not.
Sure, you could always save up a bit longer to cover the difference, but for folks looking to get a quality firearm as quickly as possible without spending too much money, the MC1sc could perhaps make a good choice.

Now personally I'd sooner opt for something cheaper, lighter, and of proven reliability, ergo I'd choose something like the Ruger EC9, but I'm assuming that such is the demographic Mossberg is targeting with the MC1sc.

At any rate, Mossberg's decision to dive into an already saturated market puzzles me, especially when their last firearm (the Shockwave) was aimed at a previously untapped market and they even went through the trouble of designing a firearm to get around a law to do so. You'd think that they'd stick with such a strategy of trying to offer new things with mass market appeal, but whatever, guess they want to try to break into a successful market regardless of how dominated it already is.

I would think that the gun Mossberg just released has been in the works for some time and I'd bet it was on the drawing board prior to Sig Releasing their P365. More than likely had Mossberg known about the details of the new Sig they would have worked on something with a higher capacity, but since they had it ready for release, it's now on the market. More than likely they will discount it and some will sell, but they are in an extremely competitive market right here and I doubt it will break any sales records, to say the least.

Since over the last 15 years Glock has almost been the undisputed leader in reliable 9mm carry guns, I'd put money on them burning the midnight oil to come up with a Sig P365 like pistol for themselves. Knowing Glock, I'm sure they will do a terrific job at it as well. Ruger, S&W, Kimber, etc. are also probably hard at work on their own version. No matter what anyone owns or says, the new Sig P365 truly HAS been a "game changer" and is the new bench mark of Micro 9's - at least IMHO.

 

[hardluk1]

Not a lick of interest in this new pistol even it price was 300 dollars . Its simple far to late to matter .

 

[chief38]

At this time the "gun market" is relatively soft. Company's that have cash on hand are all trying to use cutting edge technology & R&D to out sell their competitors. Company' who don't have lots of R&D cash sometimes just jump on another's band-wagon if they can without any patent infringements.

Competition is EXCELLENT and better products, lower prices and more choices are what we get to enjoy as the result!

 

[oink]

Depending on final price point it might do well. I know it's probably sacrilege to mention it here but quite a few High Points are sold. A price that allows someone to take a solid step up from there without destroying their tight budget might do OK.

 

[bubbatime]

Look at the striker of this pistol. Its a flat out Glock clone. Almost the entire pistol is a Glock 43 clone, to include that it takes Glock 43 magazines.

The flat face trigger even looks like a popular aftermarket Glock trigger.

This pistol will flop hard UNLESS they get amazing reviews from the get go, and are very competitive on price. If they can undercut Glock by $150 or so, then this could be a competitive pistol.

If its a Glock clone, and is reliable as a Glock, then it will be a good pistol. Time will tell.

The clear mags, likely made by ETS group, are a fail and will likely suck about as bad as regular ETS mags do. Replacing the mag with a Glock 43 magazine will probably be a standard upgrade.

 

[Roller Delayed]

The subcompact 9 is a popular category, but also a problematic one. I've heard more weird problems with G43s than any other Glock model, for instance. It isn't easy to get a small gun with a powerful round to behave predictably. So if Mossberg puts a model on the market that doesn't get dead trigger, tear its rails out of the polymer, get weird jams, require recalls or otherwise break, they'll sell pretty well. It doesn't have to be awesome, just not suck.

 

[Borderboss]

This is one big yawner. As already noted, this is a saturated market that's been saturated for a few years. Who the heck at Mossberg thought this was a good idea? That's the kind of senior management that kills companies.

If they do end up offering the cross-bolt safety, then at least they have a differentiator. That at least addresses the AD issue with Glocks for people who don't seem to be able to keep their fingers off the trigger when holstering.