Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Should The US Military Have Ever Switched To The Sig?

THIS. The S HIT you read on these forums. The reason Beretta won is they were cheaper AND threw in a factory here in the US (Maryland) for manufacture. SIG now has a plant here in the US. I still say the P-226 would have been the way to go.

I'm rather partial to the P226 as well.

All military small arms are required to be built in the US. Sig, fn, and beretta all have plants here.

A us beretta plant had nothing to do with it. More mis information.

Beretta was the same price…replacement parts were cheaper. End of story…both pistols passed phase two testing.


Guys…this is public information. Don’t take my word for it.

What ?? No CZ75 in the testing ??

kwg

It failed to meet program requirements.

From the article. Yes, Beretta had a small factory here but agreed to obviously increase production, Sig (nor any of the other competitors or so it appears) had plants here:

The Winning Bid
Beretta held a distinct advantage over SIG when bidding was opened: It already had a fully functioning small arms factory operating in the United States. Despite this advantage,

CZ did not submit a pistol for trials.


I love the CZ75. Of the wonder nines, my favorites in no particular order are the 92FS/M9, Sig P226, CZ75, Glock 17, and HK P8/USP. Hard to go wrong with any of them.

One could make an argument for the Glock 19 over the 17 but I feel the 19 grip is ever so slightly too short, and the shorter barrel leads to more muzzle flip over the 17. One of the funny things about the 19 is that it recently replaced the sig P226 for use by the Navy Seals. As I understand it, they were able to sneak it in without going through regular procurement channels because its was a "compact". Compact in name only LOL. Good gun regardless.

Army should have adopted the Glock...not the abortion Sig that has already had issues. A glock is the single most tested handgun in the world at this point imho.

+1
The 226 for general issue and the 228 for aircrew and plain clothes LE. The M9 is an overly large pistol.

This: Glock 17 was the obvious choice

I had a West German marked P 228 throughout the 1980s and early '90s. Sorry I sold it, even if only due to the collector value it would demand today. I wasn't a huge fan, though, as a shooter, due to the high bore axis making the recoil impulse noticeable verses other designs.

Don't see a manual safety on the G19X: https://us.glock.com/en/pistols/g19x

Let's face it, most military personnel can't hit the broad side of a barn with a handgun, and that's from inside the barn.


Same solution that worked in the 1940's would work today, just re-issue the M1 carbine only chamber it in .357 Magnum Rimless (which is what it should have been back then anyway).

Did you miss "...that later became..."?



My favorite part is that it isn't modular in any way at all but they still roll marked it MHS. Takes balls.

I always wonder about the source of the butthurt when a military selects something other than a person's favorite firearm. Is it because the butthurt genuinely believe their choice is better, and wants troops to have the best? Or do the butthurt need the external validation?

I think the latter.

I saw this first hand during my Navy time. Our unit had a pistol team which consistently won the admiral's cup and other awards in the area military competitions. The worst group we shot against was the Cubi Point Marine Separate Guard Company team. This is bullseye shooting we're talking about, with High Standard .22's and 1911's. When we got to the 50 yard events some of the Marines struggled to keep it on the paper.

Fast forward a. number of years, when my son was in the Navy on his Middle East deployments he was required to be armed up 24/7 and had a choice of sidearms he was allowed. He always stuck with the Beretta. Stateside, when doing personnel protective services he again had a choice of sidearms, but stayed with the Beretta. Being a pretty good sized young man he had no problem keeping it concealed under a suit coat.

All this gun gack talk about military/defensive handguns, stopping power, reliability, accuracy is all well and good, a lot of fun to talk about but pretty much meaningless in reality. How often are handguns ever really used in combat situations outside of movies and adventure novels? Let's face it, the primary purpose of a handgun in the military is as a security blanket for those whose jobs preclude their carrying a rifle or as a last ditch means for officers to enforce discipline.

Kinda puts me in mind of a guy I used to work with when asked why he carried a .32 automatic when deer hunting. His words, "In case I get charged by a bear and my rifle jams."

How does that work?

I have shot a M92, Only two beefs with that gun, the grip is to big for my hand and the overall size of the weapon, Just seems overly large to me. Otherwise it works. Many of them went to war and were used under tough conditions. When pointed correctly, that gun killed bad people.

The 92 grip has always been too large for me as well. Never been a fan because of that.