TexasCHLforum.com

1911 10MM wrote:Besides being ugly as sin, Glock has a penchant for being involved in "Friendly Fire" incidents.

Yeah, but the Glock they were offering had a safety .. That would have addressed some of the problem.

The safety of a round in the tube shouldn't matter because the military (unless it has changed tactics) does not allow one in the tube. Most military police are not even allowed to carry with a magazine in the firearm and where they are allowed to have the magazine in, none in the tube.

Pawpaw wrote:

crazy2medic wrote:

johncanfield wrote:Also surprised Sig significantly under bid Glock. On a tangent, I'm disappointed they are staying with 9mm, maybe a NATO issue. .357 Sig caliber has much better ballistics than 9mm.

The main reason they won't switch from 9mm is the same reason they wouldn't switch from 5.56 to the 6.8, they have way to much in warehouses as part of strategic stockpile!

Considering that it will take about 5 years to phase in the new pistol, that stockpile would not be as big an issue is you might think.

I agree and im sure there is a stockpile of .45acp and that didnt keep them from switching to the 9mm

IMHO, Sig outsmarted Glock with their low ball bid. They will more than make up the difference since they can now sell the gun the Army chose to everyone else.

Liberty wrote:

1911 10MM wrote:Besides being ugly as sin, Glock has a penchant for being involved in "Friendly Fire" incidents.

Yeah, but the Glock they were offering had a safety .. That would have addressed some of the problem.

Wasn't that after the fact?

Honestly, this is a big waste of money all around. When does the Army ever use their pistols anyway? The cheapest thing avaliable that works is what they should get. Focus on the battle rifles and equipment that actually gets used. As far as special Army unites using pistols, well they usually get what they want anyway. So again, a big waste of money. But that's the Army for you.

The P320 seems like a departure from all of the things that made the older generation of Sigs great pistols. I love my X5, Trailside and my P232, but I don't see anything in their catalong that reminds me of those guns. It's as if they view the P22x series as legacy models.

The triggers on my Sigs are phenomenal; the SA break on my P232 is among the best triggers that I have ever felt on any type of firearm, and it's the only gun I own for which I couldn't justify a trigger job. The X5 and Trailside aren't far behind (though ironically they're the target pistols and both have honed sears). How will Sig maintain that quality with plastic, striker fired guns?

My guess is that they admitted that Gaston Glock was right about combat sidearms and simply decided to abandon accuracy and feel for cost. It seems that they have beaten him at his own game.

Frankly, I am surprised that this is even a discussion.......and I like my Glock pistols. Did not the specification call for a MODULAR handgun design? Did Glock submit a modular design? No. Did Sig submit a modular design? Yes. Now, if the Sig were a crappy pistol, it might be worth arguing the point. But no matter how much I like my Glocks, and no matter how much I think that a Glock 19 would be the perfect military sidearm, Glock did NOT submit a pistol meeting the design requirement of modularity. Sig did, and the Sig is also a decent pistol. So.......what's the fuss about?

I finally picked up a P320 compact model recently. I was impressed by the modular design. You can field strip the pistol and pull the guts out of the grip frame in seconds. If you have the parts, you can convert to subcompact or full size and change caliber in a few more seconds. The trigger is pretty good IMO. No reliability issues whatsoever.