GUN STUFF

[Bick]

Sig it is...

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/01/19/army-picks-sig-sauer-replace-m9-service-pistol.html

[Kopfjager]

The dudes that actually use' their secondary won't carry them. 

[Bick]

The dudes that actually use' their secondary won't carry them. 

I was really hoping for Glock, but it is still a huge improvement over the Beretta.

[Charlie98]

What is it with the Sig anyway?  It's just another klunky DA auto... just like the M9.

[Kopfjager]

What is it with the Sig anyway?  It's just another klunky DA auto... just like the M9.

Some 'zero' at the head shed, that's never really run a pistol before. It's ok, like I said the guys who really use them have other choices.

[ducatiz]

What is it with the Sig anyway?  It's just another klunky DA auto... just like the M9.

The SIG is not a DA auto, it is a striker fired system, not unlike the Glock.  One click, and then you have to work the slide to re-cock.  No hammer.

One of the big requirements in the spec was modularity.  The SIG is completely modular -- even the frame is removable from the stock. 

When the original req was put out, the modular requirement was "looser" in that they did not require a removeable frame.  At that time, the M&P was a very strong contender because it met all the requirements.  Glock was never a serious contender for {reasons}.  I think a huge part of that was that the Glock platform is perceived as "old" (no sneering at the Browning link on the 1911). 

Many people thought they would stick with a hammer fired pistol (also for {reasons} ) but the early feedback that S&W got (which was reflected in their shareholder report in September) was that the M&P was not picked because of the frame issue, not the striker system.  The rumor was that S&W has been developing an "MHS version" of the m&p with a modular frame system to match the early feedback, but they haven't gotten it out the door enough to be tested.  It would be interesting if they pursued that as a new version of the M&P but I doubt it will happen.

It's also interesting to me that the SIG won especially given this pistol is SIG's FIRST striker fired handgun.  They don't have a lot of experience with these guns, all the P series have been hammer fired.  The M&P was more mature (on the market) but not TOO mature (i.e. Glock).

The other platforms rejected (Beretta, HK, Detonics, etc) all had concerns about their level of modularity.  The testers want the gun to be completely dis-assemble-able in the field and without tools (ahem, glock).  That means EVERYTHING comes apart, and even the slide rails in the frame come out. 

I think SIG USA saw that spec and then proceeded to build a gun based off that spec -- essentially copying the M&P (which of course is an updated copy of the Walther whcih is an updated copy of the Glock etc etc etc etc).

SIG won by tailoring the gun to the game. 

I have SIGs.  Don't have that one.  I like the SIGs I have, i don't think I'll bother buying this one.  I've never liked the Beretta and this P320 does nothing for me.

Disclaimer:  I own stock in S&W.

[red baron]

I was really hoping for Glock, but it is still a huge improvement over the Beretta.

Glock don't make a .308.

[Charlie98]

The SIG is not a DA auto, it is a striker fired system, not unlike the Glock.  One click, and then you have to work the slide to re-cock.  No hammer.

Didn't know that... bad on me because I didn't look, first.  TBH, I scratched my head when they adopted the M9.  Given the design features you outlined, a entirely new pistol had to be designed to meet the criteria.

I don't care for Glocks, don't own one, but they aren't bad pistols, I don't really see how it could be perceived as an 'old' design... like the 1911, the Glock features continue to be copied.  They certainly have a valid track record.

[ducatiz]

Didn't know that... bad on me because I didn't look, first.  TBH, I scratched my head when they adopted the M9.  Given the design features you outlined, a entirely new pistol had to be designed to meet the criteria.

I don't care for Glocks, don't own one, but they aren't bad pistols, I don't really see how it could be perceived as an 'old' design... like the 1911, the Glock features continue to be copied.  They certainly have a valid track record.

I think "old" just means "we have seen that before."

The Glock suffers from the fact that other companies have now used the Glock system and improved on it.  Glock's patent ran out years ago, so everyone is free to copy it.

The M&P incorporated most of the Glock firing system and came out with adjustable grips before Glock did.  That's the kind of thing the MHS was doing -- looking at current designs and making a list of the features they think they can use.  I question the "modular frame" feature, but the description showed a concern with a plastic-frame gun sustaining damage and then it is unusable if the frame is integral.

With a modular frame (like the SIG, and unlike the Glock or M&P) you drop a couple of pins and the frame comes out of the grip.  The grip thus becomes a feature that can be swapped in the field or even customized (think in terms of customizing a Glock grip -- legally, it's the "regulated" component).  However, on the SIG, you can fully remove the grip from the regulated component (frame) and mail it all you want to be customized.

What the mil use for that feature is, I dunno, but then again, I don't have the budget to fook around with toys that they do.

[Kopfjager]

[Kopfjager]

Vogel shooting the Ohio PD qual course, with a twist.

[GK]

Outstanding shooting. ðŸ'ðŸ»ðŸ'ðŸ»

[Zaster]

Damn and with a practically stock handgun, that's some badass skills! Thanks for posting

[Zaster]

New toy?

[Kopfjager]

New toy?

No, it's not mine. I got another one in the works though.