TexasCHLforum.com

bblhd672 wrote:[SEAL's have been using Sigs for a long time.

Sig P226, I have one by my bed in .357 Sig. Not sure if they are still using them though.

Not sure how the 320 compares to the Sig 229. The Coast Guard switched to the Sig P229R-DAK about 12 years ago, chambered in .40 S&W. I personally don't care for the 229, a bit more snappy compared to the M9 Beretta.

jrs_diesel wrote:Not sure how the 320 compares to the Sig 229. The Coast Guard switched to the Sig P229R-DAK about 12 years ago, chambered in .40 S&W. I personally don't care for the 229, a bit more snappy compared to the M9 Beretta.

I think the problem there was the .40 cal....not the 229 (and maybe the DAK trigger)

The Annoyed Man wrote: As far as the P320 not having one either, the one time I handled one, it seemed that the trigger was a LOT like a Kahr trigger — quite long, but light and very smooth. The length of pull IS the safety. The Sig is a good gun. I almost bought one once. The main reason I was surprised that Glock didn't win is the recent adoption of the G19 by both Army Special Forces, and the SEAL Teams. If Special Forces likes 'em, why not the regular Army?

I agree about the length of the pull being a safety factor for both the Kahr and the P320. The Kahr has about 3/4 inch pull, about like a DA revolver. The P320 is about 3/8 of an inch, so just a little more ready to go.

Carrying a P320 is as safe as the carrier, just like any gun. With any firearm, for gosh sake be careful and work out techniques for handling the gun safely. Never draw from a holster for speed without lots of muscle memory programming in slow motion practice to hard-code the four big rules.

AndyC wrote:I'm going to make a prediction: those aluminum frames are going to take a beating.

Doesn't the M9 have a aluminum frame?

AndyC wrote:Yep.

So the aluminum frame of the Sig will have to go through the same beating as the aluminum frame M9

This is the 'frame' of the 320. The serialized part.



The slide is steel, the grip module (what you'd be tempted to call a frame) is polymer.

AndyC wrote:

patterson wrote:

AndyC wrote:Yep.

So the aluminum frame of the Sig will have to go through the same beating as the aluminum frame M9

Yep.

Well, would have if they'd gone with the aluminum frame, but they haven't - now it appears they're using a polymer model with a steel insert, so it's a moot point.

That's what is so smart about this. If the grip/ frame of any other pistol gets torn up by being banged around, dropped, run over...you're done. If the grip module of the 320 gets trashed, but the steel action core is fine, plug the action into a new (comparatively inexpensive) grip module and carry on.

I think the 320 was a solid choice. This is coming from a guy that carries/shoots Glocks, but I've shot the 320 competitively a few times. I personally don't like it because the higher bore axis is uncomfortable to me (but I feel the same way about all SIGs).

Reasons why the SIG 320 was a better choice than the Glock 19 (for the Army's needs):
1) There was an existing, and well used, SKU for a 320 model with a manual safety
2) The 320 is already seeing service in various DHS and military departments to great success
3) The serialized chassis means that the external parts (slide, frame, etc.) can easily be field replaced without detailed chain-of-custody requirements
4) Control systems easily accommodate RH and LH shooters
5) (subjective) The grip angle is more naturally inclined to a better shooting grip
6) The frame is more rigid and durable than the Glock, allowing more reliable use of attachments (being added/removed frequently)

I think the choice was a good decision.

Kinetic Energy = 0.5 x Mass x Velocity ^ 2.

ScottDLS wrote:

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....

If the Navy was allowed to sell those old 1911's on the market at collector's prices, they would be able to buy new pistols at a 3 to 1 margin. Meaning 3 new pistols for each antique.