Avatar feed
Responses: 3
PO3 Steven Sherrill
3
3
0
SSgt (Join to see) I imagine that it was more the losing the contract than anything to do with a better product than Sig had produced.
(3)
Comment
(0)
SSgt Geospatial Intelligence
SSgt (Join to see)
>1 y
PO3 Steven Sherrill I'm leaning the same way, but I thought I remembered Glock coming back at the Army telling them they needed to strongly reconsider. I'm sure, if they knew of an issue, they weren't allowed to say anything, legally, in order to avoid a lawsuit.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MSgt George Cater
2
2
0
It isn't the same pistol exactly. The model adopted that won the MHS contract had an internal upgrade initiated by Sig that fixes the perceived drop issue that only happens at -30%. They are not upgrading the new Army pistol - no need to. The fix is to the 500,000 or so civilian P320s at Sigs expense initialed by Sig.

Gotta read all the articles to make a judgement on this. As I said earlier, anyone want to sell their P320, I'll take it off your hands.
(2)
Comment
(0)
SSgt Geospatial Intelligence
SSgt (Join to see)
>1 y
MSgt George Cater been looking for a new sidearm, myself, sir!
(1)
Reply
(0)
MSgt George Cater
MSgt George Cater
>1 y
Had my P320 Carry for just over a year. Still love it.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
PFC Mobile Gun System (Mgs) Gunner
2
2
0
It begs the question why would a police force buy up an expiremental handgun before it was released to the Army because the Army will put under review phase we can afford that but a police force doesn't have the funding for that and they should bought other handguns there are plenty out there that are proven and reliable.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close