TexasCHLforum.com

IIRC a manual safety was not a requirement. It was a requirement and Glock did not put one on, their proposal would have been thrown out almost immediately. If it was a requirement, the there was a safety on their someplace.

John Farnam at the SHOT show says the Sig guys are saying their modular system was the deciding factor.

Good for Sig! This should be a big feather in their cap.

This whole exercise highlights what is wrong with military procurement, specifically, and our government, in general. After 5 years and hundreds of millions of dollars, each of those $300 pistols will have cost the American taxpayers about $1,000. That is unconscionable.

Police departments and other agencies can order the 320 with a safety or even a tabbed trigger. They don't offer it for individual purchase.

Sigs are great guns, no doubt. All things being equal, I would prefer to see our troops carrying American weapons. M&P would have been a great choice too.

Sig Sauer Inc is an American company, now separate from Sig Sauer GmbH, and has really pushed the product line in interesting and fresh directions.

Scott B. wrote:Sig Sauer Inc is an American company, now separate from Sig Sauer GmbH, and has really pushed the product line in interesting and fresh directions.

Indeed. Based up in New Hampshire.

https://www.sigsauer.com/company/contact/

Scott B. wrote:Sig Sauer Inc is an American company, now separate from Sig Sauer GmbH, and has really pushed the product line in interesting and fresh directions.

Yeah. Also, current Army pistol is by Beretta an Italian company, though I'm pretty sure all the govt contract guns are made in US.

So once the Army, Marine Corps, and Air force get their SIGs, the Navy can start replacing their 1911's (which saw action against the Kaiser) with the left over Beretta's....

ScottDLS wrote:

Scott B. wrote:Sig Sauer Inc is an American company, now separate from Sig Sauer GmbH, and has really pushed the product line in interesting and fresh directions.

Yeah. Also, current Army pistol is by Beretta an Italian company, though I'm pretty sure all the govt contract guns are made in US.

So once the Army, Marine Corps, and Air force get their SIGs, the Navy can start replacing their 1911's (which saw action against the Kaiser) with the left over Beretta's....

SEAL's have been using Sigs for a long time.

So, I guess it's official the army is giving up on hammers.

bblhd672 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Scott B. wrote:Sig Sauer Inc is an American company, now separate from Sig Sauer GmbH, and has really pushed the product line in interesting and fresh directions.

Yeah. Also, current Army pistol is by Beretta an Italian company, though I'm pretty sure all the govt contract guns are made in US.

So once the Army, Marine Corps, and Air force get their SIGs, the Navy can start replacing their 1911's (which saw action against the Kaiser) with the left over Beretta's....

SEAL's have been using Sigs for a long time.

And newly minted Ensign OOD's on Destroyers have been using WWI leftover 1911's since the late '80's....

dlh wrote:The timing of all this is quite interesting.

A few days back at General Mattis's hearing on Capitol Hill they made a big deal about how slow the Army was at deciding this and how much money they had spent then....whatta ya know! :)

An interesting observation! I wonder how much the Army was worried that, after all the wasted time and taxpayer dollars, the decision would be taken away from them if they waited beyond noon on 1/20/17 to make the decision.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

dlh wrote:The timing of all this is quite interesting.

A few days back at General Mattis's hearing on Capitol Hill they made a big deal about how slow the Army was at deciding this and how much money they had spent then....whatta ya know! :)

An interesting observation! I wonder how much the Army was worried that, after all the wasted time and taxpayer dollars, the decision would be taken away from them if they waited beyond noon on 1/20/17 to make the decision.

It is awfully convenient timing.

Jago668 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

dlh wrote:The timing of all this is quite interesting.

A few days back at General Mattis's hearing on Capitol Hill they made a big deal about how slow the Army was at deciding this and how much money they had spent then....whatta ya know! :)

An interesting observation! I wonder how much the Army was worried that, after all the wasted time and taxpayer dollars, the decision would be taken away from them if they waited beyond noon on 1/20/17 to make the decision.

It is awfully convenient timing.

Yep!

That acquisition program took some heat recently. Sounds like they...got off the pot.

Oddly, calls for the 320 were way up today. Wonder why?