I'm sure there was some senior SNCO that was absolutely losing his damn mind, and probably making armorers polish the parts clean to a shine just so they were uniform.Originally Posted by JSGlock34
I'm sure there was some senior SNCO that was absolutely losing his damn mind, and probably making armorers polish the parts clean to a shine just so they were uniform.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
Mercy.
Reminds me of the days after the first run of 226 Navy's (the special ones with the NSW prefix, donation to charity, certificate, etc). They were such a hit that SIG decided to make 226 Navy's as a part of their regular production line.
Man, the forums were full of talk about real vs fake, contract overruns vs false marketing.
There were people out there who firmly believed that their particular pistol was crated up and headed off to the SEAL's, only to be stopped and sent to them instead.
They were ready to pay handsomely for such a pistol as opposed to one which was just called Navy.
Guess SIG learned from that and is looking to profit from it.
cc
Offer the Army a no cost swap of a <$200 pistol so SIG can sell the exchanged gun at 3x to 4x more ? That’s just capitalism.
Why do you think that after the 1994 AWB Glock swapped Police Depts brand new .40 calls for used, pre-ban 9mms ? Give $200 worth of guns and new mags, re-sell the gun with one mag for double that, then sell the two or three additional mags for $50 to $100 each, even at $50 @ mag that’s $300 profit on a $200 gun.
I have one of the M45's. It's a fun gun for a recovering crayon eater.
The NSW 226s were legit. They had all the correct parts and coatings like a mil gun.
The early MK25s did too, but some of the later ones I saw had blued MIM trigger bars and sears, and Nitron hammers, some even with no chrome lined barrel.
There's Sigs and there's Sigs.
Anywhere else other than Proven selling them to non LE/mil?
Osage County is getting them as well.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
So let I get this straight. The military was OK with a mix of M9s, M9A1s, and M9A3s, but having different colored safeties on <2yo pistols is a problem. Anything is possible in the military, but when SIG talks I presume they're lying.
"Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA
Beware of my temper, and the dog that I've found...
As I recall, the change in slide lever, etc. from coyote to the same black finish as commercial guns was made to speed up production and issue of the M17s.
Having been a former Army company commander and group XO, I'm not real enthused about getting a issued M17. Let's just say it's unlikely they received much more than rudimentary care and likely suffered from indifferent at best handling...
Best, Jon
Which makes sense, but doesn't really explain why they needed to trade back in the pistols which they already received.
Whole thing seems strange to me. Bizzaro world indeed.
We're going to sell you a USGI pistol, but which was turned in within 2 years of getting it so they could get a model with different colored controls. So now it's not really the pistol issued to the .mil. If you want one of those, you will have to get one with the black controls. And we've set an MSRP at what a completely new pistol would cost.
Also, don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist; but given the 320's history, some are going to wonder if other changes have been made behind the scenes.
cc
Reply With Quote