https://www.foxnews.com/tech/army-s...ipfqTTQPJiHokUoG7MVUSxC1TIGNA2MQMn9zaTYTpmNyY
I'm not pistolero but this seems like a waste of money to me. I am not the biggest fan of the Beretta but cannot deny its merits. I have also been issued a G19 and G17 and understand why those were issued to certain units.
I dont think this new Sig is anything innovative or special. I do not think it will give any soldier an "edge" over a soldier who is competent with the M9.
I felt more than comfortable belly crawling into a mountain crawl space with a surefire in my left hand and a m9 with a 20rd mec gar magazine. Luckily nothing came of it and the hardest part was getting back out. But having 20rds plus all metal construction made for a nice heavy piece of metal to pulp someone with if needed.
Some can argue the light rail thing but honestly there are few units that will ever get issued taclights. Most guys will buy their own lights and holsters. Personally I prefer not to have a light on my pistol so I am not flagging my face in the dark and less mass where I hump the thing. The ol' "look at the light, shoot at the light" does not bode well for guys clearing caves or crevices. being able to freehand the light away from your body so that if the bad guy gets a shot off first he is at least shooting away from your main body is better. especially since there is no point in armor if you are on your belly.
Anyhow in my humble opinion this change in sidearm is a waste of money and training time. Lets be honest not matter the service or unit you served, the amount of times you had to rely on your sidearm to save your butt has been few if ever. Im not talking the MP or support soldier that packed a pistol cause a carbine interfered with their jobs, I am talking about guys that relied on their long arms and had sidearms as a last resort.
I am all for modernizing cause we should keep up, but by that train of thought we should ditch the M4 in favor of a better rifle. Not saying it is a bad primary at all but if we are going to spend to marginally improve our small arms then we should change the pistol, carbine, saw platform, GP MG platform, HVY MG platform and auto grenade launcher.
Probably the best thing we have done lately is service wide adoption of the Carl Gustav and giving the infantry full auto capability again.
Just another ramble from a small arms fan.
I'm not pistolero but this seems like a waste of money to me. I am not the biggest fan of the Beretta but cannot deny its merits. I have also been issued a G19 and G17 and understand why those were issued to certain units.
I dont think this new Sig is anything innovative or special. I do not think it will give any soldier an "edge" over a soldier who is competent with the M9.
I felt more than comfortable belly crawling into a mountain crawl space with a surefire in my left hand and a m9 with a 20rd mec gar magazine. Luckily nothing came of it and the hardest part was getting back out. But having 20rds plus all metal construction made for a nice heavy piece of metal to pulp someone with if needed.
Some can argue the light rail thing but honestly there are few units that will ever get issued taclights. Most guys will buy their own lights and holsters. Personally I prefer not to have a light on my pistol so I am not flagging my face in the dark and less mass where I hump the thing. The ol' "look at the light, shoot at the light" does not bode well for guys clearing caves or crevices. being able to freehand the light away from your body so that if the bad guy gets a shot off first he is at least shooting away from your main body is better. especially since there is no point in armor if you are on your belly.
Anyhow in my humble opinion this change in sidearm is a waste of money and training time. Lets be honest not matter the service or unit you served, the amount of times you had to rely on your sidearm to save your butt has been few if ever. Im not talking the MP or support soldier that packed a pistol cause a carbine interfered with their jobs, I am talking about guys that relied on their long arms and had sidearms as a last resort.
I am all for modernizing cause we should keep up, but by that train of thought we should ditch the M4 in favor of a better rifle. Not saying it is a bad primary at all but if we are going to spend to marginally improve our small arms then we should change the pistol, carbine, saw platform, GP MG platform, HVY MG platform and auto grenade launcher.
Probably the best thing we have done lately is service wide adoption of the Carl Gustav and giving the infantry full auto capability again.
Just another ramble from a small arms fan.