US army went with the 92's because it passed the test and other requirmants the army had. I find it funny how people come up with all the different reasons and of course they're all different.(fwiw I would want a DA/SA as well if I had to pick a gun for combat).
Why did the seals go with the Sig, can't say I know, but I bet Sig was pretty anxous to sell some guns after they lost the Army contract, wouldn't be surprsed if they gave them a hell of a deal.
Obviously you fail to see the lack of logic behind a pistol with second strike capability. A DA/SA pistol is an advantage when carrying a sidearm. The ability to draw and fire without operating an active safety device makes DA/SA a more streamlined system to operate without the risk of running a pistol with the hammer cocked like 1911's. The ability to strike the primer repeatedly is not an advantage, its a trait common to DA/SA guns. Anyone who champions the belief that striking the primer a second,third, fourth.. time when said round has already failed to detonate is either a salesman trying to sell DA/SA pistols or completely lacking in practical handgun skills.
I've covered this topic in a previous thread. Striking the primer more than once has the potential to solve only one problem. In most cases, the problem isn't bad ammo, its unseated mags, although I'm sure everyone already knew that.
TDC


















































