If a gun is a SEAL model will the serial code begin with a U? How else can I tell? Thanks
This is from the "Sig Forums" web site. The singe letters at the beginning of the serial number denote the pistol model and the double letters located on the slide underneath the muzzle denote the year of manufacture:
And date codes...
I am not sure of how you can tell if it was a "Seal" or "Navy" model. There was lots of talk about "Navy" designated 226's and it was all confusing to me.
This is the link to their site: www.sigforum.com/
The ones with the NSW prefix were the special editions with the anchor on the slide and phosphated internals.
There are contract overruns that have the anchor and the phosphated internals, and don't have the NSW prefix to the SN. All P226's begin with U.
Teknic is correct in everything he said.
This is not directed at Teknic AT ALL (so no offense intended Teknic). This is just in reference to the question that he mentioned that seems to be brought up on various boards...whether or not it was an honest-to-goodness contract over-run, or did they purposely set aside these 200-400 Navy Seal pistols with the intent to sell them to the public. It is my opinion that it doesn't matter if they intentionally produced a Seal over-run or unintentionally produced a Seal over-run. The fact is that the 200-400 "Seal over-runs" are THE EXACT SAME pistol as is shipped to the Seals. The "Seal over-run" that you are holding in your hand just as easily could have been in a Seal Team member's hand had the Sig workers decided not to pull your pistol off the line to sell commercially, but instead decided to pull a different pistol off the line to sell commercially.
The donation to fallen Seals aside (I admire that decision by Sig), I would much rather have a "Seal-identical pistol" (U-serial # prefix) than a "Seal-identical pistol w/ a commemorative serial number" (NSW-serial # prefix). I've never been one for commemorative firearms...give me the real deal, even if it is only a serial # prefix difference.
Again, this is not to attack Teknic at all, he simply mentioned that the question exists.