Is the sig p320 a meme gun? Its cheaper than most of the other

>>33358055
>Is the sig p320 a meme gun?

We will see soon enough, all the LARPers are jumping on it so soon enough there will be some unbiased torture tests and lifespan tests

>>33358055

The Army adopted it because it met certain tests and was more affordable than other competitors. If you look at the tests and think it works with what you think a good gun, then yes. But you might think the tests they did are stupid and not mean anything.

Just about every gun made these days is going to be good. It'll be reliable, last a long time, and be accurate enough for most shooters. Everything else is preference. You're comparing a striker fired gun to metal framed DA/SA guns. If you want a striker, the P320 is a fine choice. But so is the Glock, XDm, FNS, and most other guns from reputable manufacturers.

if you want a DA/SA gun, those choices are fine too. Some guns cost more because they want to be seen as better. In reality you probably couldn't tell the difference between them.

>>33358112

>In reality you probably couldn't tell the difference between them.

Thats what i was kinda figuring, still a hard choice

>>33358055

Tried a 320 two days ago alongside a CZ SP01, a VP9, G19, a civillian puke "M9A1" and a couple other pistols. The army was better off with the M9A1, and I expect some general`s wife is going to get some really awesome stock options from SIG in the near future.

It felt like a glock with a fuckhuge slide and really REALLY high center of gravity. It wasn't what I would call a "Bad" gun because it did work and it did shoot accurately, but everything it does the VP9 and G19 did better. The only thing that it did better than the M9A1 was not have a slide mounted safety.

The CZ SP01 knocked the everloving fuck out of everything else fired that day.

>>33358161
I'll second the other guy, all the guns coming out right now are virtually the same, or at least fit one of two paradigms. Just create a list of features you want and find the gun that fits that best. The P320 already looks like a loser to me because of the mass and bore axis. It sounds like you're interested in duty guns, I would suggest the SP01 over the 75 if you're looking for something modern.

>>33358224
>>33358300

Im really considering the cz 75, but is the tactical version with the decocker worth the extra $200-$300 dollars?

Or maybe a p226, they're in the same price range

>>33358354

The one I tried had a safety instead of the decocker, which I would prefer because cocked and locked bby.

I also like lights, so the rail is almost mandatory for me.

TL;DR Yes, if I was going to buy a CZ I would flip burgers for one more week so I could afford the SP01.

File: GUN-000858_2.jpg (19KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 400x400px

>>33358438
Theres also the CZ 75 SP-02 Shadow II

looks sexy af

>>33358300
I own an SP-01. Decocker is life. Definitely worth.

>>33358224
The modular system is a big plus for the military armourers thats for sure, much easier to replace parts

>>33358066
Didn't Dugan drive over it and throw it in the mud and shit?

>>33358842

I'm not sure how saving 10 seconds removing the FCG during an infrequent down-to-the-screws strip outweighs being a mediocre handgun overall, but OK.

I could maybe see the point if there were replacement frames that didn't amount to "Same fairly crappy grip with a different length" and went to a replacement front/backstrap setup, but they don't. And even if they did, I doubt whatever fuckface gets issued the thing will be getting to choose.

>>33358848
Yeah he did, BUT the video never showed him picking it up after running it over and throwing mud all over it with the tires and THEN shooting it. The video just cut to him shooting. He couldve easily rinsed it off between filming.

As far as running it over, if he did that on hard packed ground and not in thick mud, I have no doubts the P320 wouldve broke. The plastic used on them is just so cheap its not funny. Hell, it can be scartched with a fingernail.

MAC did a torture test on them as well and despite the gun having a significant amount of malfunctions and light strikes, he considered it as passed, and blew off the light strikes as problems with the ammo. That said, he later posted in the comments he was reading other reviews and found that there were many, many more people having the same issues and retracted his passing grade to the P320

>>33359337
>flunked the VP
>flunked the P320
>called the 2.0 a meme
Will he give a passing grade to the P10-C and prove the superiority of czechgeneering?

>>33359244
Being able to completely replace the receiver of the pistol is a massive plus, especially when on the civilian market its coming out to be 50 dollars a receiver.

Sig hit the nail with the p320, especially now that they have Army funding, it will basically become the AR15 of pistols, at least, one can hope.

>>33358055
>Is the sig p320 a meme gun?
Yes
>Would I be better off spending more and getting a cz 75 or a p226?
Yes
>Theres a reason the army adopted them right?
Yes, because they werk and are cheaper than other guns that werk.

Cz 75 sp01 $899 to 999. (tactical $1300)

Sp02 shadow 2 (1300)

Basic sig p226 $1150 (navy is 1300)

Wat do

And before you look up prices where you're at, I'm in Canada we get fucked on everything

>>33360183

Pistols don't get shot enough in the army to wear out receivers, and they don't give af about civvie laws like "le reciever is the gun xd". And other anon pointed out the frame change is over blown, it will never be a true full size like a sp01 or a true compact like a g43, it's glorified back straps.

The barrel change gets you from 9mm (fine) to 40 (shit) or 357 sig (shit and their own invention). It will never hold it the hand like a vp9. It will never have a trigger like a walther. It will never have the low bore axis of a steyr. If you haven't already, time not face to bloody facts, the army is corrupt at the higher levels and looks for ways to blow our money on shit of dubious value.

Get a cz 75, or an sp01 (cheaper than ricing a 75 usually). Or one of many fine polymer striker fired pistols on the market, they are several and many.

>>33358066
>Larpers going all in

Yeah no shit. Since the contract was announced threads about this gun (not within the context of its new service role) has increased like a million percent

>>33358300
>SP-01
Fucking this, I thought there was a lot of hype for this before I turned 21 and got my hands on one and boy is this thing magic. I'm so glad I picked this over a Glock as my first. Also decocker is lyfe

>>33360545
You hit the nail on the head. Full modularity makes for a universally mediocre gun. Pistols don't need to be perfectly-customized workhorses, they need to fit comfortably in the hand and easy enough to aim that you can draw, point, and magdump as quickly as possible because the only reason a soldier is pulling his pistol out is if there is an emergency.

I have had mine for well over a year now. I chose it for its price as well as the reliability it was being recognized for by multiple enthusiasts who had taken the time or had the chance to seriously us it. As you always hear the slide is heavy at first but like anything else you get used to it without much else but practice. I enjoy it personally and i have fired about 800 ( give or take) rounds out of it. I vary the types of ammo constantly to gauge tolerances for mine and so far i have had only one malfunction ( failure to feed) but it was my fault for not seating the magazine properly. I would say that if you do get it its a solid investment and practical to boot.

File: 1484746318429.jpg (180KB, 1598x929px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1598x929px

what are the chances of them selling the rx parts separately in the future or that new setup they recently showed off>

>>33359337
MAC reviewing anything is a joke. He shills anything as long as the check clears.

>>33360545
>the army is corrupt at the higher levels and looks for ways to blow our money on shit of dubious value.
darn tootin bro. BIG ARMY is the reason we didnt have the AR10 or the FAL, the SCAR, or what we should have had in the first place in the 80's which was the sig, and now the Glock 19. there is money getting shuffled somewhere to someone who made the choices.

watch over the next year or two for which generals are getting onto the board at sig or as advisers.

>>33358224
Except being modular, which is what the Army was looking for. The VP9 has better ergos, but I'd consider the 320 better than a Glock. Glockfags will be mad, but they always are.

t. A Glock owner that doesn't need to ride the Perfection train

I suppose the interchangeable frame sizes/slide lengths is a notable feature for some.

However, the caliber conversions are not useful given a lack of compatibility with .45 as originally intended (same issue occurred on P250) as the same is acheived with a .40SW Glock/M&P/USP/etc slide

I personally would not change my Glock 17 size on a situational basis... I would change the gun.

I have a few friends with P320... they ended up just buying a P320C in addition to full size.

I don't think much of the trigger.

I love my OEM minus connector with NY1 spring. I like HK light LEM.

It is overall a firearm that does not interest me at all.

>>33361125
Useful is the wrong word... however I think I got my general point across.