- Joined
- Nov 13, 2011
- Messages
- 19,711
- Reaction score
- 5,946
- Location
- kekistan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
I am referring to the sig 320, a firearm I am worried about due to even now being unproven in military situations unlike it's older cousin the sig 229, vs it replacing a tried and true m9, which is aging but has time and time again proven itself in battle. Bow my concerns come from what I have researched on the armies tests, they only did 12500 rounds even though the army life for a handgun is 25000, there was no extreme testing, or even any real human testing on the range before this contract was awarded.
The army cut testing short and has refused to finish the testing, and the gao has admitted the glock 19 outperformed the sig in nearly every area. The tests done were at only half the rounds expected, in controlled environments, and no extreme durability testing, Which leaves one wondering how it will perform in the deserts of the middle east, or the freeing cold of alaska, or the jungles of africa and asia. The first real human testing not done controlled environment was earlier this year in august, months after the gun was already awarded the contract.
The is also the fiasco of sig being sued and many police departments banning it's use due to how easily they go off if dropped, they claim the army version has a different setup and does not suffer this problem. Sig is also being sued for blatent patent infringment by steyr over the modular frame they have patented, so if steyr wins both sig and the army could be in deep trouble. Also the glock 19 mhs has a manual safety, while the 320 has no safety.
This contract reeks of corruption, the gun awarded did poorly compared to it's competitor, the gun was chosen with very little proper testing, almost as if the gun was chosen before the contest began, and the 320 is a new design, one that is unproven, vs the glock 19 which is a modular version of a proven platform, as well as beretta's modular platform as well. It reminds me of the acu uniform that was chosen and was later admitted it performed poorly, causing the army to have it's shortest lived combat uniform.
In my opinion the glock, beretta, hk etc mhs systems should have been chosen over the sig, they all performed better in every area except cost.
The army cut testing short and has refused to finish the testing, and the gao has admitted the glock 19 outperformed the sig in nearly every area. The tests done were at only half the rounds expected, in controlled environments, and no extreme durability testing, Which leaves one wondering how it will perform in the deserts of the middle east, or the freeing cold of alaska, or the jungles of africa and asia. The first real human testing not done controlled environment was earlier this year in august, months after the gun was already awarded the contract.
The is also the fiasco of sig being sued and many police departments banning it's use due to how easily they go off if dropped, they claim the army version has a different setup and does not suffer this problem. Sig is also being sued for blatent patent infringment by steyr over the modular frame they have patented, so if steyr wins both sig and the army could be in deep trouble. Also the glock 19 mhs has a manual safety, while the 320 has no safety.
This contract reeks of corruption, the gun awarded did poorly compared to it's competitor, the gun was chosen with very little proper testing, almost as if the gun was chosen before the contest began, and the 320 is a new design, one that is unproven, vs the glock 19 which is a modular version of a proven platform, as well as beretta's modular platform as well. It reminds me of the acu uniform that was chosen and was later admitted it performed poorly, causing the army to have it's shortest lived combat uniform.
In my opinion the glock, beretta, hk etc mhs systems should have been chosen over the sig, they all performed better in every area except cost.