An interesting interview with Andy McNab in the Nov. 2011 issue of the American Rifleman. He was formerly with the SAS. Says they tested both the SIG pistol and the Glock for several years and decided the best choice was the SIG. Said the No.1 consideration is that the gun go "bang" every time even after lots of time and neglect in the jungles of SE Asia.
I've always heard good things about the SIG pistols but never thought or heard they rivaled the Glocks in reliability. So this was an eye opener for me. E

SIGs are popular among SEALS.

In every �test� or comparison that I�ve read, the Sig has been preferred over the Glock. There are some tests where it was reported that reliability was better in the Glock, some where reliability was better in the Sig, but for the most part, most just say that the reliability requirements were �met�. Once that requirement is met, it comes down to personal preference, and I tend to think most would prefer the Sig over the Glock since I�ve never seen a Glock outshoot a Sig; ever. For a small elite unit this is fine. For a very large military force, the Sig just doesn�t make a whole lot of sense in light of the clear advantage the Glock gives a military logistically.

I know I prefer my Sig 1911 over any other I have owned.

That's what I've noticed too Kevin. Never saw a comparison where a Glock won against a SIG. But I've never seen any endurance testing about the SIG. Apparently they can fire 10,000 rds. in one day w/o a hitch.
I've kind of become reinterested in the SIG 220. Which is a he!! of a comment from a die hard 1911 man. But the 220's just feel better in my hand. And shoot well too. For some reason, I don't get that with the lighter, smaller 1911's. The only exception is the Colt Defender. That one at least shoots well in my hands.
Heck, I've handled the "Carry", and "Combat" versions. I've shot the standard 220. While some of the testing done in some articles claims it doesn't recover or handle recoil as well as the steel 1911's, I've not found that so. It seems, if anything, to handle better in my hands. Both in pointing, coming on target and handling recoil. The alloy frame 1911's don't do these things as well for me.
So, I may well wind up buying one for carry purposes. E

Seals and other special forces have the opportunity to carry whatever they want. Seals have carried HK, Sigs, Glocks ect. Look at the HK SOCOM built specifically for Special Operations. They don't carry it every mission but its available if they want it. Personal Preference and needs of a mission dictate what they use. All are great firearms that are capable in a combat enviroment. Lastly, The perk to being in special ops you get whatever you want usually.

Sigs are not the same guns they used to be.
The made in Germany Sigs were/are excellent, sadly they are no more-used is the only way to get them.

The new Sigs have had a lot of problems/fallen from favor by those in the know.

But Glock has had a lot of problems with their 4th gen guns too.

Sigs are wonderful guns. My 226 tacops has never had a failure yet. A few of my friends that have them have reported the same ultra reliability. I also like the fact that other than their poly version, they are actually metal. Nice to feel that in your hands. To me you cant buy a better pistol! Accurate as heck too.

Not true. There are occasional runs that are imported into the States. The latest that I've seen were a run of 226's a few months ago. They had carbon steel instead of stainless slides.

I doubt that was the Sig being tested here, since it's not a Sig design. More likely, it was a P-226, or some such.

I think there's some truth to that. However, mostly due to the 'budget' models Sig has introduced in recent years and the Sig 250 is an answer in search of a question, IMO. The upper crust Sigs are as good as ever.

totally agree!

Sigs have been around in the Army since the early mid 90's. CID had them, my former SOCOM Avn. unit had them. I've carried the 229 & other models in civilian LE. They're very good weapons.

As far as US Army SF is concerned, that is simply not true. You will use what the rest of the Army uses, a damned Baretta 92, even the CIF company guys, use Baretta 92's. I don't think that has changed since I retired in 2003.

Now, "behind the fence" they do get to play, but they ain't talkin' about what they use.

Also, that damned SOCOM pistol was NEVER issued to any Army unit.

Yes, CID, certain intel positions, and, I've been told, certain females whose job required a handgun and couldn't grip a 92 were issued Sig 229's. I even saw a crack troop in the mess hall on Victory with an M16A2 with an M4 stock one time.

The 228 was procured and issued as the M11. I don't believe the 229 was ever purchased as part of the general military procurement.

Just because one unit chose a certain gun doesn't make that the best gun. It just means that they got the best "deal" on it.

AWG issued the Glock 19.
ACE/CAG/Delta, Glock 19 and 22. With FDE magazines and a red dot for some of the 22s.

At that level some units have particular favorites. The Glock has a longer service life than the Sig BTW.

Don't know much about the army? I have heard rumors that certain SF units in the Army do carry 45's? Don't know just a rumor, as for the rest of the Special Operations yes dependent on mission and preference they get what they want. A pistol is the least concern as it is a defensive weapon and not the primary weapon! I knew of one army ranger that while in Africa one of his troops carried two 357 magnums while being deployed, this was during the vietnam era. I tend to believe this to be true.

Based on this thread I just negotiated with an old friend of mine to trade me his Sig P220 SAO for my S&W Scandium Commander. He assures me his P220 has been 100% reliable for him, and I assured him my S&W Scandium Commander has likewise been 100% reliable for me. That leaves me without a lightweight commander (I sold my Colt Lightweight Commander over the summer), but I gave up carrying lightweight commanders years ago. My view is that if I want to drop down in weight from an all steel Commander or an all steel Government Model, I'll go with my Kahr P9, which is an awesome little gun. The lightweight commanders kick a bit much for my liking in a "self-defense against humans" sidearm. The felt recoil of the Kahr P9 and of the all steel 1911s are about the same. I guess I'll discover now how the Sig feels for me in the recoil department.



PS I had three Sigs (including a German-made P228) in the 1980s before I developed my position against traditional double action autos. Since developing that position, I sold all three, but otherwise liked them very much. Wanted one of the Single Action Only P220s since they first came out.

The .45s are pretty much gone, except for some in USMC use. The so called MEU(SOC) pistols, and Force Recon and MARSOC are supposed to still have some. Rangers have M9s and G22s now.

Yeah, way back when. Clinton made that against the UCMJ.

Don't know what units but I did see a few guys with G17's running around Camp Victory in 05

Clinton was a moron when it came to military policy all the way around. I wouldn't doubt it. I know their are official designated sidearms and unofficial sidearms. It happens.

When I worked the gun counter at Herman's Sporting goods back in the early 1980s, my boss (department manager) was a Vietnam vet who saw lots of combat. On quiet days, he'd sometimes tell us stories. One included his personal S&W Model 29 .44 Magnum, and using it to shoot Vietcong out of their positions up in trees.

I tend to think the Glock just seems to thrive in an environment of abuse. If you put pistols in a test environment you tend to see very similar results with the top tier guns, that includes the Beretta. The problems come when the weapon becomes general issue for line soldiers; who are incredibly hard on equipment since they have no vested interest in them whatsoever. Pistols are not well documented as to how many round they�ve had through them, and maintenance (in the field) can be awfully spotty. Another hindrance to the Beretta (and Glock would have had the same problems) is the �developmental� aspect of learning what makes the pistol tick, and what kills it. Bad magazines and the learning curve of the locking block have really hurt the Beretta. Too bad, any idiot who actually knew a thing or two about handguns could have told you the locking block on the Beretta would be a wear part; just look at the history of the P-38.

Glock has had their share of issues, so had the Glock been chosen as the US service pistol, there�s no doubt it would have suffered in reputation just like the Beretta. One of the issues would have required replacement of all the frames; that�s a big deal. Most other issues would have been very easily dealt with since the Glock is so darned easy to work on.

The big problem with the M9 is the lingering doubts the end user had. Is this one TRULY up to date? How many round has that locking block had? Am I using an after-market magazine? Hand me a brand new M9 and I�d have a lot of confidence. Hand me an M9 out of inventory and I�m a bit concerned, and it will take more than a few rounds and weeks for me to have much confidence.

I really can�t stress the value of military service for a small arm, the learning curve is sharp, and the lessons learned are extremely valuable. There are very few small arms that have entered military service and had no significant issues. The 1911, BAR, and M1 Carbine are perhaps the most shining examples of trouble free service. The 1911 has not required any meaningful changes in manufacturing or design, the BAR, while requiring good maintenance to remain reliable, didn�t require much in the way of changes to manufacturing or materials. The M1 Carbine is truly amazing because not only did it never have any issues, but the whole project went from drawing board to line service in less than a year. The M1 Carbine also featured a whole new gas system that hadn�t really been tried before; truly amazing.

So weapons that just enter service and work perfectly are the exception, not the rule.

Carrying a privately-owned weapon was against the UCMJ well before Clinton was in office, but different commanders would allow different degrees of latitude.

You are wrong, it was not against the UCMJ prior to Clinton. Yes, commanders did have the authority to say no to POW's prior to that and any lawful order carried the force of law but they no longer have that option to allow it.

Perhaps I mis-spoke in saying "UCMJ" rather than Army Regs and General Orders, but please tell me what part of the UCMJ Clinton changed that concerns POWs.

No. Not even close. The problem with the M9 is that it is a heavy chunk of steel chambering a wimpy round.

You're critique might carry more weight if you actually knew what it was made of.

"Wimpy round" sounds like a lingering doubt to me.

Jamie, that's hilarious! Now I understand those Glock "ka-booms".

Long time service life has always been as issue with Sig's. The Glock beats them hands down there. I ran an indoor range (Kevin Gibson used to work there some too) and we had range guns for rental. We kept great records on the guns. The P220 never made it 20K without cracking in the frame....P226's rarely made 30K without one of the frame rails starting to peel. Glocks lasted 50K plus with no real issues. That said the Sig is a much more refined, accurate and reliable gun IMHO than the glock right out of the box, but not by much. I still would not hesitate to own or carry either gun.

I have one of each and I always liked Sig better.

My son's service / duty gun is a SIG.


Snake

Hawk

You will Love the P220.

That is what i have and mine has been 100% with all ammo.

I did put adjustable sights on it and it is very accurate.

BUT

My Gold Cup and Briley are a bit more accurate.

I've had the 220 (2) and a 228 (.357 Sig). Glocks 23C, 27, 30, and my duty pistol the 17. Never liked the long pull trigger with the Sigs, and despised the trigger in the Glock until I was trained. As I grow older, I've found I don't like a heavy pistol and I don't like decockers, manual safetys, grip safetys, etc. I want something much like a DA revolver, where I can draw and shoot without worrying about the above. As for the accuracy issue, its as not important to me anymore than it used to be, and is plenty accurate for self defense. The Glock 17 has plenty of capacity, easy on the back, decent sight radius, and a ok trigger. Even with +P+ loads recoil is not objectionable.

Nothing is going to beat the way a 1911 feels in the hand or the pull or reset of a quality 1911 trigger. The Sig DA autos never felt good in my hand, but to be fair neither does the Glock. For me the best guns were a high end 1911, Browning Hi Power, and just about any S&W revolver chambered for .357 with at least 2.5 inch barrel. Each have their problems, and the Glock in my mind is the best for me right now. I haven't had a chance to play with the S&W MP series, or the XD. But I'm convinced a medium weight weapon with a high capacity, and with decent sights is the way to go. (My Glock 17 currently wears Trijicon night sights, and my 23C I'm going to install Trijicon's RMR sight.)

Thanks. Looking forward to getting it.

How long ago was that James ? I understand they SIG's have been tweaked and improved over the years. E

Yeah, I can back James up there; the Sigs didn't hold up like Rugers and S&W Gen 3's. Slides tended to crack just forward of the breech face, then the extra stress would pull the fram rails up and off. Now admittedly, this was back when the slides were stamped. Newer slides are completely milled and may be tougher.

Still, we're talking failue after a service life far beyond what most would put their guns through. Where longevity is concerned, I've yet to see anything match the Glock.

I figure you're talking Sig alloy frames. I'd put the steel frame, forged slide Sigs against anything.

SIG claims their 220 Combat model "easily passes military accuracy requirements even after 20,000 rds." That and the model withstands 240 hrs of salt spray w/o corrosion due to the internal parts being phosphated and the barrel chrome lined, etc.
I've played with and want one. E

SOCOM has it's own procurement budget. The rest of the military has either the M9 Beretta or the M11 SIG. Both in 9mm NATO.

The Marines has issued M4 carbines instead of the M9. A wise choice IMO.

The Coast Guard uses SIG pistols in 40 S&W. The USCG comes under Homeland Security because it has an official law enforcement mission.