Sig Sauer Wins US Pistol contract

[Arik]

. I find it
sad that a American company can't come up with a winner in
these trails. The Sigs are quality pieces no doubt. Any combat
side arm should have visible hammer.

Been going on for over a hundred years

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[LVSteve]

I found pictures. Is the missing hammer internal, or is this thing striker-fired? Not something that I like...


When I was in the AF, we said of things that look this bad that someone must have run through her barracks with an ugly stick. The compact and subcompact aren't quite as ugly, but Georg Luger or John Browning would be appalled at the appearance of many modern auto pistols. Even Bill Ruger would!


I presume that the 7,000 compacts will replace the SIG M-11 (P-228) now in us by investigators.


As for AD's, the P-320 may have fewer than the Glock, but I bet there'll be more than with the Beretta M-9.


I'm sure not going to trade my M-92FS in for a P-320! Alas, I fear that Beretta will now drop the M-9 series.

Striker fired polymer pistols are the way to go with a military weapon. Robust, requires minimal maintenance and it has no controls or odd protuberances (like hammers) to get caught on stuff.

Yes, rails on pistols are not all that elegant, but in a military weapon form often follows function.

The modular aspect of the P320 allows the armed forces to configure small batches of weapons for special purposes, too. Don't think 9 mm will get it done where you are going? Slap in the 40 S&W or (better) the 357 Sig parts.

 

[Ozark Marine]

I never did like the Berreta, I herd from a Military source that there was pressure from State Dept. to adopt the 92. I find it
sad that a American company can't come up with a winner in
these trails. The Sigs are quality pieces no doubt. Any combat
side arm should have visible hammer.

Sig P250 is hammer fired.
Restrike capable.
I really like those guns.

 

[Drm50]

Sig P250 is hammer fired.
Restrike capable.
I really like those guns.

I know Sig is hammer gun, a plus for it in my book. Service wide
pistol choice means very little. For combat teams and the special
Ops guys, that would be the ones to use a pistol, what do they
think of the 9mm? These guys get special issue anyway, so sticking with NATO 9mm wouldn't be a big deal.

 

[Brasky]

I guess the army wants to pay more for a worse pistol.

Guess they can have the sigs and I will keep my glocks

 

[Cardboard_killer]

It's not to impress your friends at BBQ or make you feel good about yourself.

Considering the lack of utility on the modern battlefield a handgun has, a military side arm probably would be better served if the choice was based on how it makes you feel about yourself. The choice of combat knife is more important, as at least one can help dig a foxhole.

 

[Mister X]

I never did like the Berreta, I herd from a Military source that there was pressure from State Dept. to adopt the 92. I find it
sad that a American company can't come up with a winner in
these trails. The Sigs are quality pieces no doubt. Any combat
side arm should have visible hammer.

Considering they chose a striker-fired Sig, what gun would have been a better choice in your opinion?

 

[mattallamerican]

the 320 doesn't do any thing for me if it wasn't for the contract you would see them going at dirt low prices but good for sig and good for economy made in the usa

 

[Ozark Marine]

Like I said, Sig P250.

 

[Drm50]

I think they should have kicked back promising US models to
companies, to bring to wanted specs. If they must go with Sig
the hammer fired model. The reason a 1911 was so dependable
was the tolerances in its mechanism. I would think a striker fired
pistol would be more prone to jams from dirt, sand, ect.

 

[Arik]

Considering the lack of utility on the modern battlefield a handgun has, a military side arm probably would be better served if the choice was based on how it makes you feel about yourself. The choice of combat knife is more important, as at least one can help dig a foxhole.

Well if I'm out of rifle ammo or in a small room I'd rather shoot someone from a distance than get into a knife fight. I'd rather keep my enemy as far away as possible. You can dig a fox hole!

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[Leatherman-Cowboy]

The Company is world wide for sure. And all it's people here are American. That is great.

Wonder why the 1911 was not chosen, as we have a fine history with various makes that are US maker's. The contract look's to be around 500+ million dollars.

Extra round's etc will be brought up, but many 1911's have mags that will hold plenty.
Just my two cents.

Thank you,

 

[WVSig]

The Company is world wide for sure. And all it's people here are American. That is great.

Wonder why the 1911 was not chosen, as we have a fine history with various makes that are US maker's. The contract look's to be around 500+ million dollars.

Extra round's etc will be brought up, but many 1911's have mags that will hold plenty.
Just my two cents.

Thank you,

NATO deploys with 9mm. It makes no sense to field an ammo that is not compatible with the other fighting forces. I cannot say it enough time civilians are very hung up on handguns and treat them as if they are primary weapons.

For the military they are a back to a back up and capacity and commonality are king. 9mm makes a lot more sense than 45 ACP.

 

[S&W Coastie]

I think the Army made a good choice. The Coast Guard switched to the Sig P229 DAK in .40 cal back in 2006. For law enforcement missions, hollow points are used. When conducting a DOD mission, we always had your switch to a ball round in .40 cal.

I like the Sig and think it's a great gun. It fits my hand much better than the old Beretta M9 we carried before that. I will admit the DAK trigger on the Sig took some getting used to when we switched over.

 

[Leatherman-Cowboy]

I understand the 9mm for Nato. And all can use the same ammo if need be. I guess I have never read about the need of allies to use other countrys 9mm.

I would think if the 9mm was key, simple change's to parts from US makes would do the trick.

It's a big dollar amount, would rather it went to a US maker.

Your point is correct. It's just that so many from our Military always had the 1911 45cal. And they always served well.
My 1911 has never failed me, so I guess I'm more of old fashioned type fellow.

Thank you,

 

[Mister X]

I'm still perplexed why they didn't go with Glock.

The SIG Sauer P320 has only been out for a couple of years. I believe it is SIG's first and only striker-fired pistol and is simply not yet proven.

The Glock has been around for over three decades and has seen hard use by countless military and police around the world and proven itself time and time again.

 

[Seven High]

If I remember correctly, the DoD just ordered a large quantity of M9s last year. IIRC the total amount in service was in excess of 600,000. I wonder what will happen to them?

 

[LVSteve]

I guess the army wants to pay more for a worse pistol.

Guess they can have the sigs and I will keep my glocks

The Sig is worse than what, exactly?

 

[LVSteve]

I'm still perplexed why they didn't go with Glock.

I suspect that Glock failed to meet the "modular" requirement.

 

[Cardboard_killer]

Well if I'm out of rifle ammo or in a small room I'd rather shoot someone from a distance than get into a knife fight. I'd rather keep my enemy as far away as possible. You can dig a fox hole!

I'd rather get trapped in a small room with a naked playboy model. But reality has a way of working out differently than our fantasies.