SIG's suck, lol

CSB.

So the 320 is meant to replace the m9 and m11 in the Army, right?

Just out of curiosity was the Beretta compact in the trial with the 228? I don't think it's a significantly better gun even with my preference for beretta. I love 228s but wouldn't it have made more sense back then to stay with Beretta?

Then go with the m9a3 when it came out and holsters, parts, training would all be the same.

M9, M11, and numerous others procured under the premise that the existing contract was unsuitable to a specific requirement.

Beretta's entry: http://www.berettadefensetechnologies.com/pistols/apx-pistol

Maybe they should redesign it to get the bores axis a little higher and ride higher in the hand. You know, to make recoil and muzzle flip even more unmanageable.

Should have gone with the CZ P-07 or P-10.

Have you even shot a 320?

Nope, but I have shot a P-226, and did not like it for the same reasons, and the 320 looks to set even higher in the hand.

Does the 320 negate physics? Because it looks like it would be a snappy shooting POS.

So you made a biased opinion based on something you do not know about because you shot a totally different handgun?

Interesting.

Nothing negates physics but your argument is based on something pretty weak. JM's high bore revolver records has long put that to rest a long time ago.

I shot a totally different handgun that is heavier, and with better ergonomics, that otherwise matches up well with the subject.

JM sets records because JM is JM. He could set records with a Jennings  after a few weeks of training, because JM is JM.

JM pops ballons at 1000 yards with a freaking handgun the first time he tries, because JM is JM. JM is a God among pissants, and we all know it.

All Hail JM.

Is the 226 your carry gun, or something else?

I carry a either a Glock 19 or a CZ P-01.

What is odd is I really like the single stack compact P220 series of guns. I used to carry a 220 compact all the time.

No they don't. Thanks for playing.

Glock fan boys are kinda like never Trumpers/ Hillary supporters...

They can't accept the fact their favorite lost.

The G17 and the full size CZ's has less flip than the G19 and the P01, because the G19 and P01 cannot negate physics either. And many people here want the Army to have a G19 that will be a poor performer compared to the G17.

I've had G19 people here on arf at our shoots try the P320 Compact. They say it shoots the same as the G19 as they're the same size and mag capacity. Shoot the 320 first and see the difference between what you stated and what is actually happening.

Nothing negates physics, things designed with physics in mind are generally better products. I'll try a 320 before shitting on it further, but It looks all retarded.


I  like the P220 compact.

Yeah um, no.  Not saying the P320 compact is a bad gun (I've just said they're ugly    ).  But I have G19's, Sigs, and have shot other Sigs.  The recoil is NOT the same.  The amount of recoil should be similar since the weights are similar, but how it's imparted to your hand is different.  I haven't shot the 320, but with bore height similar to other Sigs I imagine it isn't a whole lot different than those other Sigs.  Also, the P320 compact is larger than a G19, but for the Army concealability probably isn't a big deal.

It is not snappy shooting.  ETA, less recoil and easier to manage than a P220.  I really liked the old P225s.

The 320 bore axis is not as high as the 226. I have both and did the comparison. It's not as low as, say, my M&Ps though.

Holy cow. Of all the things to complain about. Bore height?

Big Green is stupid

Wow, what a compelling argument.


Unsubscribe.

If I want to see children crying and stamping their feet because their favorite didn't win, I'll turn on CNN.

It's the most controversial topic to date when it comes to why any one pistol can't be a good sidearm.
I carry a 320 full size and I've got 4k rounds through it. Guys still ask me how I like the high bore axis. Like it matters. Like that is part of their criteria for what makes a quality handgun.

The only people that are really concerned about that non-issue are non-shooters and those who for whatever reason have an interest in seeing something else adopted.

I've never met a single person who shot a 250 or 320 who whined about how the "high bore axis" ruined their ability to make fast followup shots or otherwise curtailed accurate shooting.

Just wait until the thing is adopted and on issue for a few years and it'll be used much more than it is today in various disciplines and competition and the issue won't make nothin' but topics of discussion for the noobies and the guys that come in last.

For those guys really fearful of the "high bore axis" and all that violent and scary and tumultuous muzzle flip, hang a light under it and your problem is solved.

Yes, Beretta competed in the M11 trials with the 92 Compact. Interesting historical note, the original plan for pistols in the 70s/80s was to acquire full size and compact variants of the same pistol. But trials, protests, and politics dragged things out and the decision was made to split the program in the hopes of successfully aquiring at least one new pistol.

Everytime someone mentions bore axis Sweet Firearm Baby Jesus kills a kitten.

I'll echo that sentiment. I have a G19, and a friend of mine bought a P320 Compact last year. Shooting them back to back, I can't tell any real difference between the two in terms of performance.

The modularity requirement is likely intended to make sure that the Army can (in theory) track down the components in inventory and use them to assemble whatever configuration of pistols that are required without having to buy new ones and therefore have to ask Congress for money.

The Army is just taking a technical trend and going full retard with it because modularity is a concept that the Army as an organization can't make proper use of. A modular pistol design is exactly what the Army does NOT need and shouldn't get. Fact is the compact pistols will have a certain cache (because they're just nicer in every way) and everyone who can get a pistol will want the compact version. If actually adopted the modular pistol will lead to helicopter pilots flying around with huge full size pistols squashing their balls (or tits or whatever) while people in the rear who will never ever fire a weapon in combat have all the compacts. Hopefully someone in the incoming Trump administration is reading this, is in a position to force the Army to get compact pistols only and more of them for the same money, and does so.

I can. I own both and they are my primary carry pieces...and had both at the range yesterday.

The Sig is far more comfortable to shoot for me. The ergos are better and the trigger doesn't beat the fuck out of my trigger finger because of an unnecessary trigger dick. High bore axis? Whatever.

Other things I tend to notice -

The Glock sights are pretty intuitive. The stock Sig sights require you to blackout the target. If I haven't shot the Sig in a while, my first couple shots are usually low until I remember. The Glock is far easier to conceal. The Sig is far easier to reconfigure.

If I try, I can make the Glock fail to feed by limp wristing with certain ammo.  I have never been able to do the same with the Sig.

So wait the Army can have a modular rifle that it configures and upgrades for unit needs ie turning M4 into M4a1 or Mk18, but it somehow can not do the same with a pistol? Just because the changes do not happen in the unit arms room, does not mean modular is not an important consideration for the Army.

At the risk of taking the middle of the road, I shot my son's 320 Carry in 9mm and the higher bore axis did not impact my ability to shoot it well. I love the bore axis and everything else about Glocks (own all sizes in all calibers) and carry a 23. But I also own several Sigs. For whatever reason I can shoot his 320 as well as my compact Glocks.

Who gets issued what will probably stay the same since this is just a product acquisition and not really changing the MTOE or whatever actually prescribes who is eligible for the weapon. From a logistics/O&M perspective this should save a fuck ton of time, money, and space. What happens in reality is yet to be seen especially with the actually phase out of the M9/M11 and the phase in of this new system.

Man, this is a big army program. The "big green weenie" is a Marine made up word for their own Marine Corps. 

I never heard that phrase while I served. Until I seen that dumbass movie Jarhead or Marines on this site use it.

I couldn't tell much of a difference between shoot my USP .45 Tactical versus my Dad's m&p 9mm. I don't think bore axis is that big a deal. 

It's not. Except on this forum.

Well it's apparently life or deal, when Glock'ers are pissed the Army didn't select it. LOL

I guess Glock should have met the requirements better then. The #1 reason for a loss outside of a pure LPTA acquisition is not listening to or understanding what the customer wants/needs both in and out of the actual RFP. Hubris is an expensive motherfucker in government acquisitions and I see it all the time.

Good point.

how to tell someone doesnt know wtf they are talking about


"bore axis"

I never bought a pistol based on bore axis.
I could shoot xds, Sigs and berrettas just as well as a glock.
To me it'll always be the trigger and grip that sway me from one pistol or the other.
the whole bore axis thing sounds like fan boi talk

We should really be talking about the bore axis, it's an important issue that hasn't yet been brought up in every.other.post.in.this.fucking.thread.

Every time I see a Sig thread, I just know it'll draw tactical Timmys spouting the phrase 'bore axis' like ants to sugar. This thread hasn't disappointed that expectation.

LMAO at the ants and sugar reference. You ain't wrong tho.

Grip angle.

Re: Height over bore/"bore axis" or whatever - i just did an informal comparison with one of my 1911s. The 320 is not appreciably "taller" than the 1911. I never hear complaints about the 1911 being too tall. Heavy, big, unreliable,  yes, but tall, no.

Spoken like a Sig circle jerker. Bore axis isn't the end all be all consideration for a handgun, but physics (you know...science) proves that lower is better... to entirely dismiss it because you're a Sig fan girl is no different then falling on the other end of the retard spectrum and claiming it's a garbage handgun just because it has a high bore axis.

The 1911 bore axis is pretty high. So are Sig and HK. I'm no pro speed shooter but I am slightly slower with those than Glocks, M&P's, CZ's.



1945 Rem Rand 1911A1, H&K HK45C, and Glock G21SF

Attached File

Mah bore axis because I do not know how to shoot a pistol unless it's mah precious!

Have you folks ever watched a video where shooters are negating your BS because they've learned how to control muzzle rise by using a high grip? Because I know you haven't shot with an actual shooter in person who could teach you how to actually do it.

Good grief. Learn how to properly shoot.

bore height.

If with CZs you mean CZ 75 pattern, then it has the same bore axis as 1911, Sig P-series and HK hammer fired pistols. CZ 75 has a higher frame than most pistols, while a lower slide. The bore axis compared to the grip is still the same. Shadow and Shadow 2 frames have trigger guard undercuts and higher beaver tails that allow for a higher grip (= lower bore axis), but so do Sig's competition models (X-Serie, including the new P320 X-Five).

The basic rule of thumb is that a hammer fired pistol has a higher bore axis than a striker fired pistol, provided that the striker fired pistol is made to take advantage of the space saved in the frame without a hammer and sear there.

The reason why P320 has the bore axis of a hammer fired gun is P250, the frame dimensions being almost identical and the P250 being hammer fired. It would have been possible for Sig to make the P320 with a lower bore axis, but commonality with P250 was apparently more important to them.

Bore axis is not without value as indeed it's a pure matter of physics (see the law of the lever in On the Equilibrium of Planes, Archimedes ca. 220 BC). Lower is better for recoil control purposes.

However, often overlooked is that how the pistol is shaped provides the lower limit of effective bore axis. IOW, how high you can comfortably and consistently grip the pistol and for it to still work (without biting your hand or causing a stoppage). The biggest variable is still individual users and especially their skill in gripping the pistol.

Simply put, a n00b who grips a Glock as low as being able to put their thumb on the dumb thumb rest recess, is going to have a much higher effective bore axis than a shooter of P320 who puts his thumbs on the frame just below the slide and wraps the support hand just below the trigger guard to the strong hand side, thus having the fulcrum point inch+ higher and to the front compared to the beginner without formal teaching on the most effective two handed grip.

I would be very wary of anyone who dismisses the bore axis issue by stating they can feel no difference between pistols of very different frame designs. Just because you can't feel the difference simply means you are the n00b, not that you couldn't be taught to take full advantage of each pistol and appreciate the differences.

On the issue of physics, the frame weight, total weight and weight distribution are still much more important than the bore axis differences in the total recoil control equation. But given two pistols of about the same overall weight, frame material and configuration, the one with the lower achievable bore axis is indeed better for shooting speed at the same level of accuracy.