You can get 17 round mags that fit flush in the Beretta, did you not know that? Also there are models of the 92 (Vertec, Elite 1, 90two, M9A3) that have a smaller grip for those who need it/want it etc. Hopefully we can get over the grip now.
Yes, most of the time a plastic framed gun will be a bit lighter than an aluminum framed one. And yes hammer fired handgun will have more parts than a striker fired one. So what? Are those 2 only deciding factors between good and crap?? lol. Also I DO in fact think that in this day and age a duty sidearm should be made of polymer to reduce the weight considering all the other gear solders have to carry. Do I care what gun they picked? NOPE! But Ive shot thousands of rounds thu Beretta's and I know they're a solid reliable gun with a proven track record, internet myths and rumors notwithstanding.
You can get a 33 round magazine for the Glock. The point of capacity vs size is that the Beretta is a taller, longer, fatter, and heavier gun than a Glock 17 and carries two less rounds. It has twice as many parts, two crappy trigger pulls, a manual safety in a poor location and fixed front sight and no rail(older models). If you can get 17 round flush fit mags for the Beretta then why wouldn't/didn't the US mil adopt them? The weight savings on a Glock over a Beretta is retarded! over a half pound is not a slight change in weight it's huge. Your range level shooting experience has no bearing on the durability of a service pistol, one which only big green used. Polymer is the future and striker fired is as well. No need for a hammer or manual safety.
Here we go with the Glock fanboys. Maybe you guys can start a thread that's says...
"Why didn't my amazing Glock win"
Sour grapes. That's all it is. You can talk #### all you want about how amazing Glocks are. But for the next ten years, the army will be using the Sig.
Cheers.
I'm not a fan of Glocks, I'm a fan of simple reliable designs that work, the leader in those categories just happens to be made by Glock. Like I posted above there's no reason to design a pistol with excessive parts counts, exposed barrels, hammers, manual safeties, huge dimensions, etc etc. Name me a pistol that is close to the specs of a Glock without being a wannabe copy. No one makes a gun with as few parts, no one makes a gun with as small a profile vs capacity, no one makes a gun with the same or better capacity at equal or less weight. The ones that come close are simply wannabe copies.
Well that's the great thing about this thread and hearing everyone's options right or wrong. And it's also great that we can own and buy guns that we like and sell them if we don't.
I own Beretta, Sig and Glock pistols and love them all. I don't have blinders on Like a lot of you here do. I love all firearms. And am lucky to live somewhere I can own them.
Cheers.
You talk of blinders but apparently you can't see the downfalls to other designs, especially those with DA/SA actions with hammers and manual safeties.
I know a fair number, albeit mostly in their 40's, who would choose the M9 or 92FS over any other pistol. It was the handgun they got trained on and rode on their hip through service, they know it inside and out, and it never failed them.
There's a lot of comfort in that, and there will be a lot of pushback from that crowd, it's to be expected.
For me personally? If it ever comes down to my life riding on my handgun, things have gone terribly pear shaped, and my skills are far more likely to let me down than the pistol. I don't have a dog in this particular fight, but I am interested in seeing how it all plays out.
If history is any indication, once the 320 reaches mass adoption, a few hidden flaws will be discovered and within a short time of adoption, there will be a "Version 2 upgrade" of it. That's not a knock against the gun, it's the trajectory all new platforms take.
Right, the brainwashed service members who have little training and even less experience with other makes and models.
No, the CDN Navy chose the 225 because it is slightly smaller, weighs a little less and is easier to ditch IF their boarding parties find themselves in the water instead of being in their boat. JTF use whatever they want or need, as it should be.
On a wider note, SIG opened a factory in the US and received contracts from specialized units of the US Military. You have not brought up the widely held belief the Italian Gov't offer of a US Naval base clinched the deal for the Beretta. You might run across this myth in your reading.
Incidentally I own the 226 NAVY, I like the anchor, and the 92A1. The 226 has a very high bore relative to the grip compared to the 92. The 92 is much more comfortable to shoot for me. Both are excellent guns. Though close, the Beretta was the better gun and it was chosen get over it.
The SIG 320 will be the Beretta's replacement. Great choice. It was the best gun in the minds of the US Army.
Take Care
Bob
I don't think Scarecrow was talking about the Canadian Navy, I'm pretty sure he was talking about the US Navy, SOCOM elements to be specific. Although I'm curious how you come to the conclusion that a 225 is "easier" to ditch than a 226, or easier than any other pistol for that matter.
The SIG Navy 226 is an overpriced show piece with a silk screened anchor on the slide. The special maritime coating is a joke. More commercial marketing gimmicks.
