SIG P320

>>33251981
Because they're too poor for the Glock 19.


The Seals and us had the right idea, again.

>>33252007
>Because they're too poor for the Glock 19.
That wasn't even it. The Sig system costs more per unit than the Glock does.

The problem is that one of the main specifications was "modular", in which glock shit then bed and decided to completely ignore and hope for the best. And they still got second place. Why modular? Who knows. Glock, however, failed to meet the specifications, so they got rejected. Get over it, take your already cheap G19s, and enjoy life.

>>33252062
Is the military going snowflake?

>>33252062
Are you saying the Army plans on using multiple calibres for their P320s?

>>33252062
>>33252112
Army wanted one pistol that could be both full size for combat use and compact for CID conceal carry use.

>>33252146
I thought the compact and full size had different frames.

>>33252170
Not sure what youre getting at, but the "gun" in this model is the trigger and some other stuff inside. Unlike other pistols, you then take that "gun" and can switch it at will between slides and frames, which are items that you can just order online. In other pistols the "gun" is usually the lower frame, which is where the serial number is stamped. On these, its stamped on some metal touching the trigger.

>>33252170

The interior chassis is the "gun".

The frames and slides are all interchangeable.

>>33252097
Sig P320 is far from snowflake, it's no worse than the M9. It also out-performed glock in short term reliability and was similar in performance for long term reliability. So all in all, it's a great pistol and should perform well for the next 40 years.

>>33252170
Everything si replaceable except the frame inner metal frame. The polymer grip and everything else can be swapped out without worrying about serial numbers.

How do these compare to the Glock 19?

>>33252273
about the same.

con
>sig lel bore axis

pro
>modular gimmick

>>33252205
>>33252215
>>33252243

It's also extremely easy to remove the chassis.

The whole thing comes out as one piece and can be placed in another frame/slide combo in seconds.

>>33252273

I love mine. Better trigger and ergos than the glock 19.

Bore axis is higher on the sig but I can't detect any additional muzzle flip (it has a nice beavertail).

Both guns are the same functionally though. Can't go wrong with either on your hip.

>>33252301
>>33252279
Cool. I opted for the Glock 19 purely for cheap PMags and the shorter barrel length. We can't get compact P320's here, unless SIG decides to produce a threaded barrel mode.

>>33252330

Glock 19 is a fucking champ, that is for sure.

>>33251981
It met or exceeded all requirements set forth by the selection trials at a price the government was willing to pay.

>>33252389
and for some reason the Army still wants a manual safety.

>>33252229
Do you have a link to the results of the MHS testing? I would be interested in seeing the numbers.

File: 1484940115-16143281-10154911256707603-8655241124918313736-n.jpg (57KB, 960x816px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 960x816px

>>33252146
They're only buying the carry frame (compact length, full grip) and they're using both full length and compact slides.

>>33252229
It did not "out-perform" the glocks in any way, the military was deadset on choosing a sig for whatever reason, and therefore biased ALL the testing exclusively for sigs to get the contact just because of the so called "modular aspects" of being converted from a compact to a full-size handgun. Which still makes no sense, but money talks and logic walks, so the military ended up with these plastic shells with a chassis inside that they call a "gun"

Trigger is also absolute shit btw

File: B8ECKSDEE.png (28KB, 910x600px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 910x600px

>>33253692

The program is called Modular Handgun System.

They were obviously already locked into SIG because it is the one and only modular frame system available. A system that will not be employed by the military in any way.

The biggest advantage I can see, is that the 320 doesnt require the trigger to be pulled in order to disassemble for cleaning.

While that doesnt mean shit to the average gun owner or even the dimmest /k/ommando on the block, I imaging it will avert hundreds or more negligent discharges by dumbfuck average military enlisted shitheads.

Personally, I fucking hate the 320 trigger, the two I have fingered (one being a half hour rental) had abysmal triggers. I am a sigfag, and love my 226. I was expecting to see the best striker fired trigger yet, but it doesnt stack up. its maybe marginally better than the stock Smith M&P9. Its about par with glock triggers and a bit worse than rugers striker fired SR9.

Had the competition not specified modular, the bullshit alarms would be too loud to ignore because most striker fired pistols made by reputable companies are at least equal, and most have been proven for years, if not decades longer than the 320.

>>33253692
Hey do you have any proof of this? I'd love to see more information about the trials.

>>33251981
because cost, as with every military and govt contract procurement it's made by the lowest bidder. same reason we're still using the old ass m16/m4 weapon system. the patients are up and can be made by numerous contractors for cheap and the reason the 92fs beat the p226

even tho I don't like glawk brand glawk if you're going to adopt a tuppershit firearm your two good options are glock or hk since every nato country uses them and they are always beating their chests about small arms compatibility in the field between allies

>>33251981
They cheap like the budgery.

>>33253946
t. glock fanboy

>>33252170
Frames are different but the internals are the same and drop right out.

It's Battle Tech Clan Technology.

>>33251981
Because it actually meets all of the requirements of the contract.

File: 1487888628003.jpg (59KB, 500x456px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 500x456px

>>33254729
>same reason we're still using the old ass m16/m4 weapon system
Here we go

>>33252453
Is there really that much of a difference between the full and compact? just an inch? is there a reason to even have full size pistol?

File: Sig-p320-45-acp-18[1].jpg (186KB, 900x928px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 900x928px

>>33252170
That bit with the trigger is the actual firearm. The frames go for about the same price as the magazines and are interchangeable with the P250's.

Army models will be a bit different, with a cutout for the manual safety.

>>33254869
If you're going to carry it on your hip, you might as well go full size.

>>33253692
>Glock didn't meet requirements
>Hurr dey feyburred Zig

>>33254729
Lowest bidder is kind of a meme. There are always tons of requirements for these contracts. Sometimes written to select a single competitor.

I think in this case, SIG probably met all the requirements and had the lowest bid. SIG also makes a lot of the related components of the bid like sliencers. Glock would have to source them and prove that their source could meet the bid, etc...

t. Glock faggot

>>33254883
Should I carry a 6 inch Ruger Redhawk over a 4 inch Ruger GP100 just because I wear a revolver on my hip.

>>33254961
Do what you want

>>33254729
>same reason we're still using the old ass m16/m4 weapon system
t. pistoncuck

File: securitysixstainless.jpg (39KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 640x480px

>>33254961
Whatever is comfortable.

4" might be slightly easier to draw, depending on how you carry.
It also looks fucking sick with a polished stainless finish and rubber grips (the kind without finger-grooves)

>>33252062
It may be true that the Sig costs more. Doesn't mean the army is going to pay that much for it though. I think Sig won the bid at just over 200$ per unit

>>33252007
Glock bid lower than SIG did. The reason the SEALs replaced the P226 was because the Glock was cheaper and the vast majority of SEALs carry their own sidearms so it was a smart idea to pick the cheapest option if you're just going to keep it on a shelf.

>>33251981
>Army asks for modular pistol
>Glock submits a bar of soap without any of the requirements
>Still somehow nets 2nd place

The fact that Glock came as far as they did is the real issue.

>>33254961
Yes

>>33252411
Tradition and it's easier to teach Idort McIdiotface to flip a safety switch than to tell them not to fingerfuck the trigger.

>>33256790
>army asks something fucking stupid
>ignore army, do your ownthing
>your thing is good enough tha5 it gets second place before they realize 'Oh wait, we can't take this thing because of our retarded requirements'
>a million cracked frames later
>glock wins anyway

>>33251981

Money. The Beretta APX also met the modularity component and didn't win either. If the Ruger American Pistol was entered, which it wasn't because Ruger smelt a rotten deal and backed out, it wouldn't of won either. It was pretty obvious that Sig would undercut the competition with their bulk pricing and accessory discounts.