Army selects Sig P320 as offical replacement
- Thread starter Robenstein
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: totegoat
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Originally Posted By: totegoat
I bet gov contracts for equipment built in other countries get cancelled.
All of these (large) weapon contracts require that they be built in the USA.
Excellent!!
It is primarily due to national security reasons. One of the reasons we saw the FAL turned down here (and produced via license in places like Britain and Canada) was because Belgium was one of the first nations to be overrun in both world wars. If you don't produce your own arms you are vulnerable to supply disruption.
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Originally Posted By: totegoat
I bet gov contracts for equipment built in other countries get cancelled.
All of these (large) weapon contracts require that they be built in the USA.
Excellent!!
It is primarily due to national security reasons. One of the reasons we saw the FAL turned down here (and produced via license in places like Britain and Canada) was because Belgium was one of the first nations to be overrun in both world wars. If you don't produce your own arms you are vulnerable to supply disruption.
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Not very insignificant if you're the one shot.
lol..you got me there
Not very insignificant if you're the one shot.
lol..you got me there
Originally Posted By: Al
Choosing a new pistol is much ado about nothing. The number of combatants likely to be shot (on purposes) with a pistol has and always and will continue to be insignificant. The great amount of ado over a mostly unnecessary weapon of which a dozen pistols could accomplish (mostly nothing) is overrated
Here I agree. Since we've gone to the collapsible stock M-4, in 237 different configurations, the military pistol has become a much less formidable weapon of any direct necessity. All of these short, maneuverable, moderately powered carbines can be used much more effectively indoors, and at very short ranges. Especially when they are compared to other service rifles like the M1 Garand, and the M-14. Both of which were far too large, powerful, and unwieldy for that purpose. A military pistol is of far less consequence now, than it was 5 decades ago.
Choosing a new pistol is much ado about nothing. The number of combatants likely to be shot (on purposes) with a pistol has and always and will continue to be insignificant. The great amount of ado over a mostly unnecessary weapon of which a dozen pistols could accomplish (mostly nothing) is overrated
Here I agree. Since we've gone to the collapsible stock M-4, in 237 different configurations, the military pistol has become a much less formidable weapon of any direct necessity. All of these short, maneuverable, moderately powered carbines can be used much more effectively indoors, and at very short ranges. Especially when they are compared to other service rifles like the M1 Garand, and the M-14. Both of which were far too large, powerful, and unwieldy for that purpose. A military pistol is of far less consequence now, than it was 5 decades ago.
While I tend to agree that the significance of a pistol is not all that much, I do want our troops to have good equipment. While I do like and appreciate the Beretta M9, we've had it for 32 years now and there are better options out there. And if the govt can waste 50 million dollars on the mating habits of the red bellied swallow, and hundreds of millions of dollars for soda/cigarettes for those on welfare, etc, then they can find some money to give our troops better, more modern weapons.
A lighter, polymer frame pistol does make sense in this day and age. When soldiers are carrying 80-100 pounds, or more, on their missions these days, if they could cut a pound or two off of their load out by issuing a new pistol, that is huge. Ounces equal pounds, and all that.
Also, the latest pistol contract required that the ammo that be used be at least 10% more effective than the current 9MM ball ammo. I BELIEVE, although could be wrong, that they intend to comply with this part of the contract by using hollow points. Its too early to tell, and I'm sure we will hear more in due time. Perhaps they have a new 9MM ammo design in the works or are intending to issue .40 caliber.
And while some folks can argue the significance of the pistol in modern battle, I know of several cases where a pistol saved a soldiers life, because it was all they were carrying at the time or was quicker to access than a slung carbine.
Also, look at the service pistol of almost any western country, and most will be some sort of flavor of polymer pistol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_pistol
A lighter, polymer frame pistol does make sense in this day and age. When soldiers are carrying 80-100 pounds, or more, on their missions these days, if they could cut a pound or two off of their load out by issuing a new pistol, that is huge. Ounces equal pounds, and all that.
Also, the latest pistol contract required that the ammo that be used be at least 10% more effective than the current 9MM ball ammo. I BELIEVE, although could be wrong, that they intend to comply with this part of the contract by using hollow points. Its too early to tell, and I'm sure we will hear more in due time. Perhaps they have a new 9MM ammo design in the works or are intending to issue .40 caliber.
And while some folks can argue the significance of the pistol in modern battle, I know of several cases where a pistol saved a soldiers life, because it was all they were carrying at the time or was quicker to access than a slung carbine.
Also, look at the service pistol of almost any western country, and most will be some sort of flavor of polymer pistol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_pistol
The chief reason polymer pistols are dominant has little to do with weight in my opinion. The difference in weight between a light alloy frame and a polymer frame is almost negligible.
However
Polymer does not corrode and the color is molded in instead of a surface treatment (although finish wear is at the bottom of the list of concerns I am sure)
And....expense. Molding a frame is cheaper than machining one, especially when the molds have paid for themselves. For a bottom tier weapon in terms of importance, cost is a major selling point.
However
Polymer does not corrode and the color is molded in instead of a surface treatment (although finish wear is at the bottom of the list of concerns I am sure)
And....expense. Molding a frame is cheaper than machining one, especially when the molds have paid for themselves. For a bottom tier weapon in terms of importance, cost is a major selling point.
Originally Posted By: billt460
Should have went with Glock.
I agree.
I was excoriated on the thread on the 1911 Forum for airing this exact opinion.
To me, it would only have made perfect sense, with the commonality with other branches already using it (Marines, etc.). Not to mention every other advantage, proven track record, interchangeability, etc.
And I think the 9mm is the right round for the job. You don't need a larger caliber, because a pistol is only a backup weapon for an Army soldier.
Should have went with Glock.
I agree.
I was excoriated on the thread on the 1911 Forum for airing this exact opinion.
To me, it would only have made perfect sense, with the commonality with other branches already using it (Marines, etc.). Not to mention every other advantage, proven track record, interchangeability, etc.
And I think the 9mm is the right round for the job. You don't need a larger caliber, because a pistol is only a backup weapon for an Army soldier.
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Polymer does not corrode and the color is molded in instead of a surface treatment (although finish wear is at the bottom of the list of concerns I am sure)
And....expense. Molding a frame is cheaper than machining one, especially when the molds have paid for themselves. For a bottom tier weapon in terms of importance, cost is a major selling point.
True and true, However the level of importance for pistols is slowly rising, in the Army at least. I finished my time in the Army in 2009 but still keep in close contact with my friends that are active duty. I also have close friends and co-workers that are still in the Army national guard and reserves.
Even before I ETS'd out of the Army, M9 were's issued to every MP, almost anyone remotely related to SOCOM (special operations command, IE airborne, rangers, SF, Delta, ETC) and almost every type of combat or even combat support soldier over the rate of E-5 to E-7, depending on the unit (active duty anyways). I had read articles that the generals wanted more pistols to be issued with the hope of maybe even every deployed soldier to be have a pistol in the future. My understanding of the thought process was that if the standard rifleman's rifle or main weapon suddenly broke or was inoperable, he was basically dead; having to reply solely on hand to hand combat at that point. Bayonets or any type of serious combat knife are not issued to most units and any sort of training with said edged weapons is all but non-existent these days. All of that is not to mention the fact that we have women and lowering physical standards for our troops, making any sort of edged or unarmed fighting even less viable than it was in years past. The army felt that it would actually be easier, faster and more effective to teach our combat troops how to use a pistol than it would any other type of backup weapon. All other options being considered, issuing pistols was thought to be a very effective way to increase each individual soldier's survival rate when they are down range.
That was slowly coming into fruition as I was leaving in 2009 and from what I am hearing, it is still holding true. I am not sure how long or if we will ever get to the point that EVERY solider deployed to a combat zone will have a pistol but who knows, it could still happen. I don't see the Army ever getting to the point of issuing a pistol to everyone deployed but I can tell you the prominence of pistols is rising, albeit slowly.
As far as the P320 being chosen, hmmm OK, I guess. There is almost no track record for that gun yet and what track record there is, isn't all that great. A few of my close friends have them and almost every single one of them has either light strikes or trigger re-set issues. One of my range buddies even had to send his back because the trigger stopped re-setting, completely. He had to take his finger off the trigger and push it forward after every shot it was so bad. I offered to look at the gun for him but he decided on sending it back to SIG instead. A thumbs up for Sig's customer service though, The gun was sent back less than 4 weeks later and had a much improved trigger, an extra magazine, a bottle of gun lube, some bumper stickers and an apology letter.
Polymer does not corrode and the color is molded in instead of a surface treatment (although finish wear is at the bottom of the list of concerns I am sure)
And....expense. Molding a frame is cheaper than machining one, especially when the molds have paid for themselves. For a bottom tier weapon in terms of importance, cost is a major selling point.
True and true, However the level of importance for pistols is slowly rising, in the Army at least. I finished my time in the Army in 2009 but still keep in close contact with my friends that are active duty. I also have close friends and co-workers that are still in the Army national guard and reserves.
Even before I ETS'd out of the Army, M9 were's issued to every MP, almost anyone remotely related to SOCOM (special operations command, IE airborne, rangers, SF, Delta, ETC) and almost every type of combat or even combat support soldier over the rate of E-5 to E-7, depending on the unit (active duty anyways). I had read articles that the generals wanted more pistols to be issued with the hope of maybe even every deployed soldier to be have a pistol in the future. My understanding of the thought process was that if the standard rifleman's rifle or main weapon suddenly broke or was inoperable, he was basically dead; having to reply solely on hand to hand combat at that point. Bayonets or any type of serious combat knife are not issued to most units and any sort of training with said edged weapons is all but non-existent these days. All of that is not to mention the fact that we have women and lowering physical standards for our troops, making any sort of edged or unarmed fighting even less viable than it was in years past. The army felt that it would actually be easier, faster and more effective to teach our combat troops how to use a pistol than it would any other type of backup weapon. All other options being considered, issuing pistols was thought to be a very effective way to increase each individual soldier's survival rate when they are down range.
That was slowly coming into fruition as I was leaving in 2009 and from what I am hearing, it is still holding true. I am not sure how long or if we will ever get to the point that EVERY solider deployed to a combat zone will have a pistol but who knows, it could still happen. I don't see the Army ever getting to the point of issuing a pistol to everyone deployed but I can tell you the prominence of pistols is rising, albeit slowly.
As far as the P320 being chosen, hmmm OK, I guess. There is almost no track record for that gun yet and what track record there is, isn't all that great. A few of my close friends have them and almost every single one of them has either light strikes or trigger re-set issues. One of my range buddies even had to send his back because the trigger stopped re-setting, completely. He had to take his finger off the trigger and push it forward after every shot it was so bad. I offered to look at the gun for him but he decided on sending it back to SIG instead. A thumbs up for Sig's customer service though, The gun was sent back less than 4 weeks later and had a much improved trigger, an extra magazine, a bottle of gun lube, some bumper stickers and an apology letter.
Originally Posted By: john_pifer
I agree.
I was excoriated on the thread on the 1911 Forum for airing this exact opinion.
Surprising for that board
... I have been a member there for 15 years.
I agree.
I was excoriated on the thread on the 1911 Forum for airing this exact opinion.
Surprising for that board
Originally Posted By: hatt
What do soldiers that have to hump all this gear around think of adding a few more lbs? For just a couple more added lbs you could carry a lightweight Commando instead of a pistol.
That is older information and not necessarily true either. Thanks to improved logistics and short range supply routes via helicopters and other newer technology, invidual soldiers don't need to carry as much.
Of course it is different for every unit but most units at Fort Bragg, including mine (18th airborne corps), the standard load out was as follows and pretty much "standard" I.E. not that bad. Here is what I had, ranks E-2 through E-5.
Standard uniform and boots. Molle vest / body armor carrier with armor inserts, (I had the Interceptor, don't know what the standard is now. This is the part that makes things heavier than in the past when this technology was not available), ballistic helmet, M-4 rifle with 7 magazines (210 rds) M-9 with 3 magazines (45 rounds), 2 quarts minimum of water, first aid kit, land nav kit / compass, weapon cleaning kit (CLP, bore snake, toothbrush and patches / rags) and that is about all. Additions would include m203 and grenades for team leaders, m249 saw and 800 rounds of ammo for machine gunners, AT-4 (rocket launcher), radio kit for the RTO / cherry lieutenants, and then whatever M.O.S. specialty equipment, mortar kits (poor [censored]), patriot boxes, etc....
In simpler terms, it isn't really as bad as you might think and in the heat of Iraq or Afghanistan, the top brass knows the troops need to carry as little as necessary. Almost anyone who spent any real time in the Army in the past 10 years will tell you that you will actually carry more weight on training missions stateside then you ever will down range on a real mission. The added weight stateside is for training and worst case scenario preparation, not necessarily to be as a realistic as possible.
I can't speak for everyone but I really want a secondary weapon and will gladly carry the few extra pounds to have it.
What do soldiers that have to hump all this gear around think of adding a few more lbs? For just a couple more added lbs you could carry a lightweight Commando instead of a pistol.
That is older information and not necessarily true either. Thanks to improved logistics and short range supply routes via helicopters and other newer technology, invidual soldiers don't need to carry as much.
Of course it is different for every unit but most units at Fort Bragg, including mine (18th airborne corps), the standard load out was as follows and pretty much "standard" I.E. not that bad. Here is what I had, ranks E-2 through E-5.
Standard uniform and boots. Molle vest / body armor carrier with armor inserts, (I had the Interceptor, don't know what the standard is now. This is the part that makes things heavier than in the past when this technology was not available), ballistic helmet, M-4 rifle with 7 magazines (210 rds) M-9 with 3 magazines (45 rounds), 2 quarts minimum of water, first aid kit, land nav kit / compass, weapon cleaning kit (CLP, bore snake, toothbrush and patches / rags) and that is about all. Additions would include m203 and grenades for team leaders, m249 saw and 800 rounds of ammo for machine gunners, AT-4 (rocket launcher), radio kit for the RTO / cherry lieutenants, and then whatever M.O.S. specialty equipment, mortar kits (poor [censored]), patriot boxes, etc....
In simpler terms, it isn't really as bad as you might think and in the heat of Iraq or Afghanistan, the top brass knows the troops need to carry as little as necessary. Almost anyone who spent any real time in the Army in the past 10 years will tell you that you will actually carry more weight on training missions stateside then you ever will down range on a real mission. The added weight stateside is for training and worst case scenario preparation, not necessarily to be as a realistic as possible.
I can't speak for everyone but I really want a secondary weapon and will gladly carry the few extra pounds to have it.
Trigger miles ahead of any known factory glock and modularity. Glocks come with horrible stock sights, mushy triggers, and poor ergos compared to modern day offerings. They need to get with the times. I wished the FNS got the nod as I feel it's even better than the P320 but oh well.
Originally Posted By: JDM396
Trigger miles ahead of any known factory glock and modularity. Glocks come with horrible stock sights, mushy triggers, and poor ergos compared to modern day offerings. They need to get with the times. I wished the FNS got the nod as I feel it's even better than the P320 but oh well.
Ergos are often subjective. For some, a glock points well and feels good, for some they don't. And they cannot be all too bad if pretty much every special ops branch adopted them over the past year and change.
As for FN, from what I understand they came in second, being notified just before the news release hit that SIG won. The FNS is a decent gun for sure, they make a hinged trigger I don't hate (unlike S&W), however the FNS pistols I shot were a bit heavy on the trigger pull. But nothing that a decent marksman could not find totally serviceable.
Trigger miles ahead of any known factory glock and modularity. Glocks come with horrible stock sights, mushy triggers, and poor ergos compared to modern day offerings. They need to get with the times. I wished the FNS got the nod as I feel it's even better than the P320 but oh well.
Ergos are often subjective. For some, a glock points well and feels good, for some they don't. And they cannot be all too bad if pretty much every special ops branch adopted them over the past year and change.
As for FN, from what I understand they came in second, being notified just before the news release hit that SIG won. The FNS is a decent gun for sure, they make a hinged trigger I don't hate (unlike S&W), however the FNS pistols I shot were a bit heavy on the trigger pull. But nothing that a decent marksman could not find totally serviceable.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: JDM396
Trigger miles ahead of any known factory glock and modularity. Glocks come with horrible stock sights, mushy triggers, and poor ergos compared to modern day offerings. They need to get with the times. I wished the FNS got the nod as I feel it's even better than the P320 but oh well.
Ergos are often subjective. For some, a glock points well and feels good, for some they don't. And they cannot be all too bad if pretty much every special ops branch adopted them over the past year and change.
As for FN, from what I understand they came in second, being notified just before the news release hit that SIG won. The FNS is a decent gun for sure, they make a hinged trigger I don't hate (unlike S&W), however the FNS pistols I shot were a bit heavy on the trigger pull. But nothing that a decent marksman could not find totally serviceable.
Glocks point well, I prefer it's bore axis to the the Sig's. The Sig just shoots lights out for me, and I shot glocks for years. The trigger in stock form is phenomenal.
Glocks are great in their own right but honestly they've been surpassed by other brands in terms of trigger, sights and ergos. Which is why very few keep their Glocks stock if they are serious about shooting.
Originally Posted By: JDM396
Trigger miles ahead of any known factory glock and modularity. Glocks come with horrible stock sights, mushy triggers, and poor ergos compared to modern day offerings. They need to get with the times. I wished the FNS got the nod as I feel it's even better than the P320 but oh well.
Ergos are often subjective. For some, a glock points well and feels good, for some they don't. And they cannot be all too bad if pretty much every special ops branch adopted them over the past year and change.
As for FN, from what I understand they came in second, being notified just before the news release hit that SIG won. The FNS is a decent gun for sure, they make a hinged trigger I don't hate (unlike S&W), however the FNS pistols I shot were a bit heavy on the trigger pull. But nothing that a decent marksman could not find totally serviceable.
Glocks point well, I prefer it's bore axis to the the Sig's. The Sig just shoots lights out for me, and I shot glocks for years. The trigger in stock form is phenomenal.
Glocks are great in their own right but honestly they've been surpassed by other brands in terms of trigger, sights and ergos. Which is why very few keep their Glocks stock if they are serious about shooting.
Originally Posted By: JDM396
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: JDM396
Trigger miles ahead of any known factory glock and modularity. Glocks come with horrible stock sights, mushy triggers, and poor ergos compared to modern day offerings. They need to get with the times. I wished the FNS got the nod as I feel it's even better than the P320 but oh well.
Ergos are often subjective. For some, a glock points well and feels good, for some they don't. And they cannot be all too bad if pretty much every special ops branch adopted them over the past year and change.
As for FN, from what I understand they came in second, being notified just before the news release hit that SIG won. The FNS is a decent gun for sure, they make a hinged trigger I don't hate (unlike S&W), however the FNS pistols I shot were a bit heavy on the trigger pull. But nothing that a decent marksman could not find totally serviceable.
Glocks point well, I prefer it's bore axis to the the Sig's. The Sig just shoots lights out for me, and I shot glocks for years. The trigger in stock form is phenomenal.
Glocks are great in their own right but honestly they've been surpassed by other brands in terms of trigger, sights and ergos. Which is why very few keep their Glocks stock if they are serious about shooting.
I think FN would have won if the pistol had the removable, serialized, 1 piece, chassis style inner workings the Army had asked for. That is the other thing about this new pistol selection process, Sig basically won by default! No other company actually listened to the Army and their requirements! FN came close to satisfying the requirements because every frame component including the frame rails are replaceable but it is not 1 piece and serialized like the Army requested. What a bunch of idiots, I guess they didn't want the contract that bad did they? lol
As far as the other particulars such as ergonomics, sights, trigger, etc, most people would say that ANY of the offerings that made the cut here were better and more modern than the old Beretta 92. I bought a Beretta 92 because I just had to have one after having spent almost my entire 5 years in the Army with one issued to me and strapped on me at all times. When I compare it to any of my more modern autoloaders; CZ, Glock, or S&W, it really is such an 80's gun. Big, heavy, poorly balanced, long double action, and a very strange locking system. That being said there is something quite attractive, unique and intimidating about it. I instantly feel like Martin Riggs from lethal weapon when I pick the thing up. I even carry it occasionally and I just can't help but throw on a cheap button down shirt and leave a big cig hanging out of my mouth everywhere I go!
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: JDM396
Trigger miles ahead of any known factory glock and modularity. Glocks come with horrible stock sights, mushy triggers, and poor ergos compared to modern day offerings. They need to get with the times. I wished the FNS got the nod as I feel it's even better than the P320 but oh well.
Ergos are often subjective. For some, a glock points well and feels good, for some they don't. And they cannot be all too bad if pretty much every special ops branch adopted them over the past year and change.
As for FN, from what I understand they came in second, being notified just before the news release hit that SIG won. The FNS is a decent gun for sure, they make a hinged trigger I don't hate (unlike S&W), however the FNS pistols I shot were a bit heavy on the trigger pull. But nothing that a decent marksman could not find totally serviceable.
Glocks point well, I prefer it's bore axis to the the Sig's. The Sig just shoots lights out for me, and I shot glocks for years. The trigger in stock form is phenomenal.
Glocks are great in their own right but honestly they've been surpassed by other brands in terms of trigger, sights and ergos. Which is why very few keep their Glocks stock if they are serious about shooting.
I think FN would have won if the pistol had the removable, serialized, 1 piece, chassis style inner workings the Army had asked for. That is the other thing about this new pistol selection process, Sig basically won by default! No other company actually listened to the Army and their requirements! FN came close to satisfying the requirements because every frame component including the frame rails are replaceable but it is not 1 piece and serialized like the Army requested. What a bunch of idiots, I guess they didn't want the contract that bad did they? lol
As far as the other particulars such as ergonomics, sights, trigger, etc, most people would say that ANY of the offerings that made the cut here were better and more modern than the old Beretta 92. I bought a Beretta 92 because I just had to have one after having spent almost my entire 5 years in the Army with one issued to me and strapped on me at all times. When I compare it to any of my more modern autoloaders; CZ, Glock, or S&W, it really is such an 80's gun. Big, heavy, poorly balanced, long double action, and a very strange locking system. That being said there is something quite attractive, unique and intimidating about it. I instantly feel like Martin Riggs from lethal weapon when I pick the thing up. I even carry it occasionally and I just can't help but throw on a cheap button down shirt and leave a big cig hanging out of my mouth everywhere I go!
I personally always loved the tilting block locking system on Walhters and Berettas. No barrel tilt helps it recoil with more linear force versus a tilting barrel system. Also really helps cartridges feed well. Some of its competitors are not much newer, such as glock for instance. Beretta just did not bother to keep updating the system and somewhat rested on its laurels with the design or shifted to the rotating barrel principle on Cougars and PX4's.
Only problem with the tilting block is it makes the slides wider, and you have to make sure everything is well thought out on metallurgy or you can have slides crack or locking blocks shear (The Helwan copies of the Beretta 1951 are well known for lugs shearing, and Walther had slide cracking issues on P1 slides especially until they beefed them up)
Only problem with the tilting block is it makes the slides wider, and you have to make sure everything is well thought out on metallurgy or you can have slides crack or locking blocks shear (The Helwan copies of the Beretta 1951 are well known for lugs shearing, and Walther had slide cracking issues on P1 slides especially until they beefed them up)
Last edited:
Of the big the 3 aluminum framed duty pistols designed the 70's, Beretta 92, CZ 75 and Sig 226, The Beretta is probably my least favorite and seems the most old school for some reason. That being said, I do like all of them and I trust all of them. I carried the 92 for basically 5 years straight in the Army. The Sig 226 was my first assigned duty weapon at my civilian career once I was out of the Army. I personally love the CZ 75 and it was the first handgun I ever bought. They all have their quirks and they all strengths. Interestingly, the magazines will almost interchange between all of them. They all were very high tech when they first came out, so much so that all of them are still very viable pistols for almost any use.
Originally Posted By: AMC
Of the big the 3 aluminum framed duty pistols designed the 70's, Beretta 92, CZ 75 and Sig 226, The Beretta is probably my least favorite and seems the most old school for some reason.......
The CZ-75 is an all steel handgun. Both frame and slide.
Of the big the 3 aluminum framed duty pistols designed the 70's, Beretta 92, CZ 75 and Sig 226, The Beretta is probably my least favorite and seems the most old school for some reason.......
The CZ-75 is an all steel handgun. Both frame and slide.
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: AMC
Of the big the 3 aluminum framed duty pistols designed the 70's, Beretta 92, CZ 75 and Sig 226, The Beretta is probably my least favorite and seems the most old school for some reason.......
The CZ-75 is an all steel handgun. Both frame and slide.
How could I be so silly! haha
I have an alloy framed version of the 75, the P-01 so I forgot about the regular 75 for a minute there.
That was one thing I was always impressed with about the CZ 75. Even though it is a steel frame, it is about the same weight as its alloy framed competition, the 92 and 226.
Originally Posted By: AMC
Of the big the 3 aluminum framed duty pistols designed the 70's, Beretta 92, CZ 75 and Sig 226, The Beretta is probably my least favorite and seems the most old school for some reason.......
The CZ-75 is an all steel handgun. Both frame and slide.
How could I be so silly! haha
I have an alloy framed version of the 75, the P-01 so I forgot about the regular 75 for a minute there.
That was one thing I was always impressed with about the CZ 75. Even though it is a steel frame, it is about the same weight as its alloy framed competition, the 92 and 226.
- Status
Similar threads
