My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.
Any idea what it costs Beretta to make a 92fs?
Also would be interesting to know how much it costs Wilson to make their most basic 1911.
You're right, Sig is going to sell a lot of guns because of that US Military contract. Additionally, people don't understand is how much companies like Sig and Glock spend on marketing and how that impacts unit cost. On pistols headed for retail channels it wouldn't surprise me if 25-30% of the final cost is built in specifically to fund marketing.
You mean the M9?
Where exactly are you reading/hearing this? In DOI we have 3-4 full day trainings each year just for handgun, and we issue out 100rds of handgun ammo a month for individual training. Some of our guys shoot competition, and get additional special team training. We are in a slow process of transitioning from classic DA/SA Sigs, for P320s. We've been fielding the P320s for a couple of years now, and so far they have been better overall guns for us than our classic Sigs which we have been using since 1992. I have trained with a number of other Federal agencies(some with bigger firearms budgets than DOI) that have made the move to the P320, and the reception from the instructor staff is similar to our experiences with Glocks. I'm content with our agency switch to the P320, just as I would have been equally content if we had switched to Glock.
The biggest thing that should bother you is the abysmal state of pistol training in most of the Army. It makes the state minimums for LEOs look high speed.
If it’s an actual shooting war take an M4. Given the current train and advise state of most current military ops, a pistol is preferable given the rates of green on blue and blue on blue incidents.