SIG selected as new service handgun

[Trigger Time]

So now a bunch of turds will go out and buy sig p320's and be rocking them in drop legs at the mall.
cool
cant wait for the next "ingo member sighting" thread

 

[Expat]

So now a bunch of turds will go out and buy sig p320's and be rocking them in drop legs at the mall.
cool
cant wait for the next "ingo member sighting" thread

I had mine already, before they became cool.

 

[BE Mike]

Well this was due to price and modularity. Bad choice in my opinion but the guys who will actualy use their sidearms in combat are carrying GLOCKS mostly and have been since around 2002

I didn't know that. I thought most of the troops were carrying M-9'S. Can you elaborate.

 

[Brad69]

Not to answer for Trigger Time but I am sure he would concur.
You average service personnel are issued an M9 most of which are wore out.
Elite units/Specialized units are issued a pistol based on mission I have seen G17/19, SIG P226/228.
This applies to most individual equipment issued for example I was in a Reconnaissance Company in the mid nineties.
We were issued the M4 that had a fixed carrying handle with open sights that was "high speed" for the time.
The Rangers already had flattop M4,s with red dot,s.

 

[drillsgt]

There is a lot of institutional inbreeding on thumb safeties. It won't be going away for a long time, and there are some legitimate reasons for it, actually. But mostly that one is stupidity.

Frankly, I couldn't be happier Glock didn't get the contract. Their **** poor triggers and one-of-a-kind grip angle are just bad designs, errr, umm, perfection. They make a cheap product for budget-conscious customers, and they work. Sig makes nicer stuff for people who aren't as tightly constrained. And I say this as someone who prefers other pistols to Sigs.

After the 'Gen 5' debacle they were probably glad they didn't submit anything.

 

[phylodog]

Lol

 

[Dean C.]

Well this was due to price and modularity. Bad choice in my opinion but the guys who will actualy use their sidearms in combat are carrying GLOCKS mostly and have been since around 2002

Well every once and a while better stuff comes out, look at Colt they got complacent with the military contracts as did Beretta. Glock has done the exact same thing for the most part, the Glock does not really have any major advantages over a PPQ, VP9 or a P320 at the basic infantry unit level. IMHO the P320 is a better choice as most grunts barley get any hand gun training at all so a pistol with a better trigger and a more "natural" point is better anyways. This is for the general Army not Delta or the SEALS they can still pretty much carry whatever they want

 

[Doublehelix]

I am a big fan of Sig Sauer, so I guess there is some pride in the fact that "my candidate won the election", but in all honesty, I think the P320 is a great firearm whether or not you are fan of Sig.

About 2 years ago, I was looking at buying a striker-fired pistol, and narrowed it down to the "big 3" (outside of Glock) of Sig P320, Walther PPQ and the H&K VP9. I shot all 3, and worked them pretty hard, and ended up with the VP9, and I love it to death still, even though I prefer hammer-fired.

The P320 was a great gun, and I really wanted it to be the one that won, but I had to be honest and say that I preferred both the Walther and the H&K over the P320.

I also tried to love the Glocks, and before I narrowed it down to the "big 3", I was leaning towards the Glocks (because everyone said they were the striker-fired gun to get) until I realized I could not shoot them well at all, and they felt terrible in my hand. Not a slam on the Glocks, they are fine for others, and they *always* go "BANG", which is a good thing, I just prefer something different.

 

[Trigger Time]

I'm a big fan of Sig personaly. Just not for my Army

 

[Trigger Time]

Lol

You can picture it can't you? Lol

 

[Woobie]

I'm a big fan of Sig personaly. Just not for my Army

Why the heck not?

 

[Bigtanker]

I got to coonfinger a 320 at my LGS today. It is nice. And the trigger........

 

[BE Mike]

Not to answer for Trigger Time but I am sure he would concur.
You average service personnel are issued an M9 most of which are wore out.
Elite units/Specialized units are issued a pistol based on mission I have seen G17/19, SIG P226/228.
This applies to most individual equipment issued for example I was in a Reconnaissance Company in the mid nineties.
We were issued the M4 that had a fixed carrying handle with open sights that was "high speed" for the time.
The Rangers already had flattop M4,s with red dot,s.

I don't understand the different mission/ different handgun idea. In my day (ancient history) most handguns issued were pretty worn, but all were serviceable. The handgun has never been a big concern for the armed services, except for maybe the MP's who used them as primary weapons much of the time. As someone who carried a handgun as a primary weapon in combat, I never considered it as much of a factor in defending myself from enemy troops, but it was better than nothing. The two soldiers I knew who actually used a handgun (in the late 60's) in combat, each used an old WWII 1911a1. Although old, the pistols performed as advertised.

 

[Thor]

And the .45 performed as advertised...without needing any fancy ammo.

 

[Trigger Time]

I don't understand the different mission/ different handgun idea. In my day (ancient history) most handguns issued were pretty worn, but all were serviceable. The handgun has never been a big concern for the armed services, except for maybe the MP's who used them as primary weapons much of the time. As someone who carried a handgun as a primary weapon in combat, I never considered it as much of a factor in defending myself from enemy troops, but it was better than nothing. The two soldiers I knew who actually used a handgun (in the late 60's) in combat, each used an old WWII 1911a1. Although old, the pistols performed as advertised.

Thank you for your service and sacrifice.
the mission and tools needed have changed since then though.

 

[NyleRN]

Guess I'm kinda dumbfounded. The Army chooses a pistol that is newer design and probably more expensive than the Glock 17. No dig on Sig and I'm not a glock fanboy. I have several of each manufacturer in the safe. But if we know that troops hardly rely on pistols in combat AND they'll be placed in a drop leg holsters, why in the heck not purchase the least expensive proven handgun like the G17? Why modular? So a soldier is gonna have a full load out and cc his P320 in the subcompact configuration in the small of his back? Who the hell is gonna carry anything but a full size service pistol in a drop leg holster? The fall and rise of Ron Cohen

 

[Woobie]

Guess I'm kinda dumbfounded. The Army chooses a pistol that is newer design and probably more expensive than the Glock 17. No dig on Sig and I'm not a glock fanboy. I have several of each manufacturer in the safe. But if we know that troops hardly rely on pistols in combat AND they'll be placed in a drop leg holsters, why in the heck not purchase the least expensive proven handgun like the G17? Why modular? So a soldier is gonna have a full load out and cc his P320 in the subcompact configuration in the small of his back? Who the hell is gonna carry anything but a full size service pistol in a drop leg holster? The fall and rise of Ron Cohen

I can see a use for a modular design. There are a number of different units within the Army that might need to conceal a handgun. They could use it as a compact, but if they were going to be doing overt combat, would prefer a larger pistol. Also, if you disbanded a unit that hand compacts, you could inexpensively convert them to full size. And it just provides more options in general.

 

[NyleRN]

I can see a use for a modular design. There are a number of different units within the Army that might need to conceal a handgun. They could use it as a compact, but if they were going to be doing overt combat, would prefer a larger pistol. Also, if you disbanded a unit that hand compacts, you could inexpensively convert them to full size. And it just provides more options in general.

Is there really enough of these "other units in the Army" to justify the logistics of the pistol in several configurations when probably the supermajority of them will stay in the full size configuration in the hands of the common soldier in a drop leg holster. Maybe I'm missing something

 

[Woobie]

Actually, there are a decent number of them. Not only do you have various SF organizations that sometimes need to conceal, you also have, well, others.

And outside of MP units and those listed above, they really aren't issued to entire units. Key leadership will have them, as well as machine gunners and a few others. Most of the noncombatant types are assigned rifles that sit in racks.

 

[jd4320t]

How much will they actually use the modularity?