Stop parroting what you read online and seek some real facts, this is a public organization, the selection testing, bidding process and contract award are all publicly accessible.
Stop parroting what you read online and seek some real facts, this is a public organization, the selection testing, bidding process and contract award are all publicly accessible.
All LEA Pistols sold are discounted. Glock has no monopoly on that.Originally Posted by spinmove_
Serious question - do you work for, or are you associated with Sig in any way? Your constant unwavering defense of the company seems odd to me. But maybe you’re just their number one fan?
As for agency purchases I imagine we’re all aware that isn’t always an indicator of a true vetting process. Plenty of instances where the adopted gun is merely the favorite of the chief/sheriff/head FI. Even when agencies have a selection committee, there’s no guarantee you’ll see technically proficient shooters involved. Lots of LE admin types think they know what’s best. They seldom do however.
It's their business what they select, and they have their reasons I'm sure.A lot of agencies buy, issue, or approve Serpa holsters. I'm not going to run out and buy one of them because some large agency did. The FBI tested the 320 and didn't select it. I trust their firearms training unit more than the military or any other municipal agency.
I've laid out why I dont trust them: Personal observation and negative experience with the company (pre 320). If they fixed it, fine by me. If an agency not supported by my my tax dollars wants it, fine by me. If an individual wants to buy them for carry, again, fine by me. With plenty of other choices out there that are as good or better that dont have the fleas this one has or the corporate culture of Sig, I choose not to carry new offerings from them. Not happy that my tax dollars bought them for the military, especially after some conversations I've had with people I'm satisfied have legitimate insight into that selection the rest of us aren't privy to, but there is nothing I can do about that. I'm not a brand loyalist. I do expect honesty. If Sig fessed up and fixed the problem instead of covering it up, I'd be in the "nothing to see here, move along" camp. They didn't. So I dont trust them, which was the question posed by the OP.
huh?
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
JBP55 is spot on here. All LE Agency pistols are sold discounted. They all cut deals on price, trade ins on guns and ammo etc. and now that everyone else has polymer framed striker guns Glock has no monopoly on low price.
The SIG 320 has done well in several large agency tests. It passed the testing by the TX DPS, US ICE and US CBP. It was also the last competitor to Glock in the FBIs testing. Although CBP wound up adopting the Glock, the fact that the P320 was the only other gun to pass CBPs testing, which was conducted by an outside lab to minimize the biases @El Cid referred to is significant. It proves the current P320, properly executed, is a viable design.
The modular pistol concept and the fact it avoids the Glock “Achilles heel” of pulling the trigger to disassembled make it attractive to Agencies. Especially those who are anti Glock.
The question is not whether the current P320 a viable design when properly executed, but rather, do we trust SIG to properly execute it ?
I never said other manufacturers didn’t sell at a discount. My understanding, from reading the posts of the people in the know here, is that due to Glock’s low manufacturing costs, they can offer some pretty deep discounts which make them attractive. But, given that I don’t have first hand knowledge of that, I fully admit that I’m stepping out of my lane. I’ll cease and desist and, if I’m incorrect, please feel free to correct me.
Glock doesn't have any lock on that these days. The bid is usually to take all the old guns at $X value, then provide all new guns at $Z-$X. For us, officers have the option of buying their gun at $X as well since it's a wash for the department. We write a check and the gun takes a little trip but ends up back at a local FFL for us to do the transfer. Sig threw in new duty leather for the Indiana State Police when they switched from Glock 21s to Sig P227s. I don't know what ISP paid per unit but I have a good idea of what new leather costs and doubt Sig made much of a profit on that. They did get to claim a large contract for the then-new P227s, though. Some speculate that these early contracts can be loss leaders for the advertising value.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
How do I feel? Well, I feel like having a cup of coffee. Oh, this is a pistol forum; OK, uh, SIG? Well, with so many other good choices, I think I’d rather trust another product.
My personally-purchased 2004-manufactured P229 DAK, carried as a duty pistol 2004-2015, did well. Two SAS (factory carry-beveled) non-railed DAK P229 pistols, that I added for better off-the-clock concealability, did well. I stopped using them because .40 muzzle flip becoming too much for my aging hands, so I switched to a lower-bore-axis system. A P220, personally-purchased in 1991, and carried on duty 1991-1993, also did well, except for the heel-clip magazine retention device snagging on things, allowing a partial mag drop, about four times. So, I have trusted SIG in the past. Not generally being a collector, for the sake of collecting, I have only kept the P229R DAK that rode so long in my duty rig. I am unlikely to shoot it again, unless I convert it to a kinder, gentler cartridge. Having said that, I trust this one SIG pistol, now, as much as I ever did.
One could say that I was a SIG “fan,” in the past, and I would not dispute that.
It has been reported, by people I trust, that SIG had, and is having, some significant problems. A variety of problems. Based upon an abundance of caution, I would not spend money on anything SIG, in 2019, and, perhaps, never again.
Fully-cocked strikers give me an uneasy feeling. When I started handgunning, in the early Eighties, striker-fired handguns were considered unsafe for carry, unless carried in Condition Three. Glocks popularized striker-fired carry guns, but the Glock striker is not fully-cocked, as the pistol rides in one’s holster. The user finishes cocking the striker, during the trigger pull. The little tab on the face of the Glock trigger adds a further prevention to the possibility of inertia-firing. I trust a Glock to be drop-safe. I understand that the OP is in a non-Glock state, so am not recommending Glock, but simply using an example with which I am familiar.
That is how I “feel.”
Last edited by Rex G; 12-08-2019 at 09:30 AM.
Retar’d LE. Kinesthetic dufus.
Don’t tread on volcanos!
The Sig makes the short list of striker fired guns I would trust. I was given a choice between a Gen 5 Glock, SW MP9 2.0 and a P320. I chose a Glock but a majority of my coworkers chose Sig. No one went with SW. As expected there were few problems across the board.
I am partial to the MCX and think Sig has a winner on their hands despite my previous reservations with the company and leadership. They are an industry leader and thousands of professionals rely on their products and out side of some small bobbles that every company experiences, their professional products seem to work. Just ignore their gimmicky Spartan P238 SAS bullshit and their optics line.
Reply With Quote