testtest

New Sig XM7 6.8 gets bad reviews by Army Capt

Does anyone else think it’s bad optics that “supposedly “ the General overseeing the M17 tests after Sig gets it goes to work for Sig and now they get every contract thrown around?

As far as the new rifle not sure why the hoopla they have had the 308 for years and. The one item I did like was the 338 Machine Gun as that does fill ina. Gap from the 7.62 to the 50

And as far as the 320 drama it seems Sig went to crap around 2005 and close to the time their current CEO took over which was later pled guilty to a German court for a felony and apparently spared jail time in key of a 600K fine


www.nhpr.org

SIG Sauer CEO Avoids Jail Time For Role in Illegal Arms Shipment

Court officials in Germany announced Wednesday that Ron Cohen, CEO of Newington-based gun maker SIG Sauer, will avoid jail time for his role in an illegal…
www.nhpr.org www.nhpr.org
 
“The gun’s manufacturer, Sig Sauer, has strenuously pushed back on Trent’s assertions and outright denied a number of them.”

Say it isn’t so! Personally, I’ll take the word of folks actually using the weapons in the field over those testing in a sterile laboratory type setting.

Full disclosure, I dumped all my Sigs (3 - P320 variants, 4 - P365 variants, and one P229 Legion) after they refused to accept responsibility for their unsafe P320.

They HAVE recently changed the P 320 manual to state “The most effective safety is to carry your pistol without a round in the chamber…”, though they still claim it’s a safe platform.

So glad there are LOTS of other choices.

IMG_0433.jpeg
 
that is what modern generals do all the time - it's called the revolving door. No surprise there. Guess we'll see on the rifle(s) and the odd ammo
 
“X” = Experimental!
I remember going through the evaluation fielding of the M249 SAW. The monthlong evaluation was spent on a range complex. We shot thousands of rounds. We did daily written evaluations. The folks that took us through the fielding were very knowledgeable and listened to our concerns.
We got the improved M249 fielding a little over a year later. The issues we had were rectified. The 249 has gone through more changes and improvements over the years.
The Captain didn’t bother to do any real follow up before reaching his conclusion. Sounds like this “First Lieutenant 2nd Award”. Only did half a thesis🪖

​

 
Last edited:
So if it is experimental, don’t you want to hear about the shortcomings. For example the barrel cracking or deformation whats up with that? Does it make sense that a Captain and the armorers that showed him the damage would just outright lie about something that can be verified?
 
xdman said:
So if it is experimental, don’t you want to hear about the shortcomings. For example the barrel cracking or deformation whats up with that? Does it make sense that a Captain and the armorers that showed him the damage would just outright lie about something that can be verified?
Click to expand...
I’m not saying that. What I think he should have done is use the Chain -of-Command.
As a retired Senior NonCommissioned Officer I would have placed the safety of the soldiers ahead of some new “Do-All Weapons system” and stood on the desks of the Brass to get the issues resolved. Not write a thesis for my class and then go find a reporter to air my complaints.
If it don’t work in a peacetime training environment it sure in the hell won’t work in real world combat conditions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top