Heres some interesting comments on SIG's from a Navy Seal...
"I found this post over at tacticalforums.com under the the Navy SEAL forum. This forum is moderated by an active duty Navy SEAL and he is frequesntly asked questions regarding their firearms generally and SIG pistols in particular.
http://www.tacticalforums.com/
Here's the questions:
Sorry if this has been flogged to death already. But why does Navy Specwar use the Sig 226 instead of the Glocks? I am a Sig fan and own several. But as the finish wears they 'rust' particularly the mags. How do they maintain the finish in a salt water environment? Seems the Glock Tenifer finish is more resistant to that environment. Do they utilize a different finish than Sig offers???? Thanks for looking!
Here's the answer:
"We've used 9mm P226's exclusively since the spring of 1989. SEALs are very fond of them. The SIG P226 lasts longer in SEAL armories than any other weapon system in use (maybe the 686's stay longer...yeah, they do). These guns have really proved their worth to the NSW crowd, so my feelings are typical of that community. The gun works very well for the types of missions SEALs use them for. SEAL SIGs routinely cycle 300-500 rounds between cleanings. BTW, if dirt was a problem with ANY weapon, SEALs would detest it. Not true with a P-226. Our SIGs do not have chrome lined bores and this has never been a problem. I don't think it's very important, at least not in that handgun. Rem-dry-lube and Sentry solutions Marine cloth work well for seawater rust prevention. My only complaint is that the Navy doesn't have the pistol or the magazines coated with something impervious to seawater.
SIGs are accurate and reliable. I like them better for tactical ops than Glocks because of the DA first shot. I can sleep in the field with my SIG drifting around in my sleeping bag with me and not worry about shooting myself. I'd much rather tuck a SIG into my waistband than a Glock for hasty concealed carry. I like the ergonomics of a SIG better- they just point really well. A little more weight in a gun than the Glock is nice, too.
The only problem with Glocks is that no Frog would feel completely safe with one loaded and not in a retention holster. Frogmen are covered with webstraps most of the time and it is possible that one would get caught between the trigger and holster, thus firing the pistol upon complete insertion of the Glock into a holster. At least with a SIG you can feel for that possibility and control it by keeping a thumb on the hammer. Not so with striker fired weapons.
The new SIGs don't rust as bad as the old ones, but operators are still very reluctant to take them in the water because the magazines rust so badly. Mags have rusted badly (but they're disposable). I think that NP3 coated mags for the SIG would help tremendously. Would a Glock be a better option i.e., less susceptible to corrosion? Maybe, maybe not. SIGs and Glocks are both good sidearms. What works even better is taking a Mk 23 or 686 instead of a SIG for long water ops.
I can tell you the Glock is not as reliable a firearm for diving or amphibious ops as you may think. My Glock 21 would only reliably fire the round in the chamber after a dive op. Why? The metal stiffener in the magazine would corrode and cause too much friction for the mag spring to overcome and just wouldn't push the next bullet up high enough to be fed. In other words, the liner of the Glock magazine is susceptible to rust in saltwater and will cause enough internal mag "drag" on the bullets to prevent firing all but the chambered round. I stopped swimming Glocks after a few bad experiences like this.
The SOCOM Mk 23 OHG worked pretty well until the silt got heavy. 1911's with stainless mags were more reliable than Glocks, but any autoloader pales in this arena compared to a stainless wheelgun. That's why SEALs primarily dive S&W 686's for long combat swimmer ops and very silty areas."
I thought that was interesting and hope you did also."
So get yourself a SIG like I did now I own 2 P-220 and P-239
SIGS are the way to go.