It was another full day beginning with the typical traffic jam at the entrance of the Sands Convention Center. I caught a taxi from my hotel to Sands in order to save time and it was a good call in the end because I had an 8:30 appointment with Jan Brasseur to go over the MCX, MPX and 516. This one’s gonna go deep—with info no one else outside of SIG has, so if you’re not interested in either of those three platforms, feel free to skip those sections.
But first, some housekeeping with regard to SIG pistols.
The European SIG SAUER Master Shop is closed. There will be no more European Master Shop guns. The operation was not moved to the United States, neither were its employees.
There will be US X5 and X6 guns, possibly mid-summer 2016. They had to be reverse engineered not due to the master shop’s unwillingness to share design information but due to manufacturing differences (as well as metric/inch pattern differences). Jon explained that, for example, a process that the master shop took two passes with on a machine would only take one at Pease.
There will be definitively no P229 Legion SAO for the foreseeable future unless P226 Legion SAO sales skyrocket.
The P210 American uses a “SIG” lock-up, not the Browning-Peterson lockup scheme. This was done for machining efficiency, accuracy, and price.
In conversation with Tim Butler, P210 Americans would likely come with printouts of targets as opposed to the actual shot test target. The P210 Carry will come with night sights, and there are plans for a P210 Legion, an all-stainless P210, and P210 Two-tones.
There is no P227 Stainless as of now. What is being mis-identified as a “P227 Stainless” is actually the P227 ASE (Stainless slide, Aluminum frame).
Compact and Fullsize P320s with manual safeties are slated for release February 2016. There are plans for 320RXs with manual safeties—no dates yet.
Finally there are also plans for a stainless elite P225A, no hard dates on any of that though.
Back to my talk with Jon Brasseur on the MPX. And for that, we start with a big, heaping serving of crow. Vegas style, all for me: I’ve been misidentifying MPX magazines. The mags with the V-shaped feed lips are Gen1, mags with the straight feed lips are Gen2. The reason why the Gen1 magazines have v-shaped feed lips was so that the magazines would feed a round chambered slowly from the inside of a tilting helicopter. No BS. This is the scenario that was envisioned, as told to me by Jon Brasseur himself. The round had to be completely controlled throughout its path into the chamber (slide out, angle up, constant feed pressure, chamber). At some point SIG came to their senses and said “Loading your 9mm subgun in a helicopter is stupid. The real deal would already be loaded before getting in the air!” So the new feed-lips allow the round to pop up and "float" into the chamber rather than be completely guided.
Y’all sure y’all don’t want none of this crow? Sure tastes good? Yummmmmm! [Ack! Ack!]
Recent MPX carbines have been released with tinny three prong flash hiders. This proved to be unpopular with many users. Going forward, MPX carbines will all have closed end flash hiders (elongated A2 style). Additionally Jon wouldn’t garuantee function on 15” bbls that were cut down due to the smaller gas port sizes on the carbine bbls. Also, suppressing a 15” bbl would also cause gas pressure issues. I asked if he had a figure for how shoort the bbl could be cut before encountering issues and he asked me to email him and he’d try to get the figures, so that’s on my list. This unfortunately means that the MPX-Carbine is not a shortcut to SBRing (I had to explain the form 1 vs form 4 timing issue to him, but he got it once I laid out the wait and dealer transfer timing issues).
The MPX-K will debut in March. That will also be when Gen1 and Gen2 4.5” bbls become available. There will not be any Gen1 short handguards—Gen1 guns will accept Gen2 keymod handguards, but the Gen2 handguards are scalloped on top, so there will be that aesthetic transition where the handguard rail meets the upper receiver rail.
I talked to Jon about triggers for the MPX and he stated that SIG is not keeping any sort of “acceptable trigger” list. As far as SIG is concerned the stock trigger group is the only one that works in the MPX. They are developing a gas valve that can slow down the bolt speed. If a valve will not work, the solution might evolve into an entirely new bbl and valve assembly.
I talked to him about the gripes I have with the A3 slider and its intermediate position. On range day, I asked four different SIG Academy guys and only one had ever shot the MPX with the stock in the intermediate position. Jon seemed to like my idea of having a commercial two-position stock and an LE-focused 3-position. Because few civilians will ever want a ~7” length of pull, and it just gets annoying having to hold the release button till it gets past that second catch notch. Additionally, Jon commented that SIG is looking at migrating the release from the top of the assembly to the bottom (where it can be activated with your dominant hand thumb instead of reaching over the top, thus leaving your hand at fire control position).
Bolts (Gen1 and Gen2, they are not interchangeable), handguards and hinge assemblies/stocks are available for order now.
The sight towers on the MPX are short because the original AR fold-downs that SIG had did not have enough downward travel to compensate for the drop of the 9mm round. Thus the decision was made to keep the post/detent assembly as-is, and shorten the tower into which they were built. That is why I can’t see the front sight post over my Eotech (EXPS-2) even when the sight is flipped up.
I did request that the factory assemblers use less Loctite on the barrel screws. Jon was aware of the spinning nut/receiver gouging issue as well.
.357 SIG and .40 calibers by late Q4 at the earliest.
On to the MCX. The octagonal “CAG” handguard that we originally saw on the MCX with SIG’s add-a-rail system will not be a production item. I also mis-identified an MPX rail as an MCX rail in my range day article (LDD, going back for seconds on that crow)—there is no octagonal Keymod MCX rail. The rail in the photo above is known as the “SD” rail and is available for order, now, in three lengths: PDW (8”), CARBINE (10.25”), and RIFLE (11.75”).
The self-adjusting gas piston bbl assembly (a.k.a. “Cabela’s MCX”) is dead. Owners of that early model can use the two-position piston bbl assemblies, but need to change the position of their piston rods when they install the 2-pos bbl/piston assembly.
SIG expects to release a 7.62x39 MCX by this summer.
There was no word on the MCX-MR coming to market, although back room consideration has been given to making 6.5 Creedmore and .260 bbl versions when it does come to market. The MCX-MR was not displayed at all during the show and might not have made it to range day either (but I found where it was hiding later, dangnabbit!)
The 516 will now ship with an ambi-charging handle, as well as a skeletonized gas block. The new keymod handguard is retrofit-able to older 516s.
I asked Jake Rita at Lancer Systems about their MPX magazine production. They currently have no plans to sell MPX magazines under their own branding. Lancer also released a 25 round .308 magazine and featured carbon fiber M-Lok handguards at the show.
This kind of shows Lancer’s competition background, but they did not think about having a rail on their handguards that abutted against the rail on the receiver of the MPX. Their handguard only had slots on top for optional M-Lok rail pieces. A continuous rail is important for NVG users who would mount their DBAL-type devices right behind the front sight to avoid interference from the support hand.
IWI displayed its new “X95” this show, as well as a .300 BLK SAR (1st gen American Tavor). The new X95 has a number of differences from the Gen1 SAR. Starting from the front to the back: the first change is that the forearm of the gun has built in pictinny rails hidden under removable rail covers in 3, 6, and 9 o’clock positions. Next, the position of the charging handle is moved down and back, in a similar fashion to the Israeli X95 MicroTavor (a.k.a. MTAR, the real one with the 13” bbl). It still can’t be locked back with one hand.
Supposedly in response to American critique, IWI moved the magazine release to a more AR-ish position. While it’s true that this makes the magazine easier to release for those trained in the M16/M4 family, I’m not so sure this wasn’t a simple import of the same feature which already existed for years in the X95 MTAR. IWI also flattened the bolt release so that it doesn’t protrude from the bottom of the gun and deleted the paddle magazine release feature (it cannot be added in retroactively).
Unlike the MTAR, the American X95 has a customizable grip module—so you can change backstraps and even go from the “knuckle duster” style AUG-ish trigger guard to a more traditional pistol grip and trigger guard that only goes around the trigger itself, starting on instead of below the pistol grip.
The rail on the X95 bolts in the same way as the SAR so those who want to retrofit their rails can do so. Internals are the same as well. There are also more QD points on the X95 including two up front near where your support hand would be (probably to facilitate two point sling placement).
The biggest change the X95 brings to market, but not exclusively so, is the new 5lb trigger. While the trigger packs are interchangeable, SARs will not be fitted with them (even new ones), X95s will come with the new 5lb trigger as default. SAR owners wishing to purchase the new 5 lb trigger can do so at $199 per pack.
The X95 trigger, while lighter, is still long, and the reset is very long as well. A discriminating shooter is still going to want a Geissele Super Sabra. I always tell my customers that triggers should be judged by weight, smoothness, and reset. IWI’s newest trigger addresses only the first.
The X95 isn’t an Americanized Tavor, it’s simply an updated MTAR with rails on the front and a long bbl. The plastic felt cheap, totally unlike that of the SAR. This is particularly the case for the panels which cover the rails (where your support hand grips the gun). I was so bothered by this, I even asked the rep if the plastic was the same and the answer was “yes.” Well, if it is the same formulation, it has a totally different texture and feel to it. This is also consistent with a comment I’ve seen from an IDF soldier who was issued an Israeli X95 MTAR (the plastic had a cheap feel to it).
All in all, I am not a fan of the X95. The trigger is an improvement, but there is a better trigger for the platform. The magazine release placement is an improvement, but doesn’t outweigh the overall cheap feel of the gun. And it looks like it was made out of LEGOs. IWI expects the X95 to replace the SAR at a 9:1 sales ratio. But, in my opinion, it’s a good thing that the SAR will still be produced because I’d rather have a SAR than the new X95.
In a rather comical turn of events, I did talk to Lachausee. It turns out that they are a Belgian company and that they’d need to partner with another company in order to set up a .22 line. Their rep politely declined to give me an estimate on how much setting up a competent .22 operation would take. It seems my top hat, monocle, roll of Washingtons, and pimp swagger weren't enough to convince him that I was a man of significant enough means. Well, I’ll stick by the $10 million estimate Dan Powers gave me. Sometimes you ask the questions, but you don’t get the answers.
Silencerco showed off their new Hybrid centerfire can and Maxim integrally suppressed pistol. The Hybrid is the next step toward then evolutionary end goal of commercial suppressors—one can for all calibers. The Hybrid doesn’t quite get there, suppressing only centerfire rounds up to 45-70. In some cases Silencerco rates it as more quiet than their own caliber-specific cans (9mm, vs Octane IIRC), but it is louder than others (.300 Winmag vs Harvester). The Hybrid uses Silencerco’s ASR MAAD system for mounting to multiple fast-attach muzzle attachments. I spoke with Jason Schauble, Silencerco’s CRO about the Hybrid and the Maxim.
The Hybrid really is the same can on the inside and uses different end caps to customize itself to the caliber being used. So someone starting with a 9mm pistol can attach a piston and the nine millimeter endcap. Then attach a 51 tooth female mount, and a 5.56 endcap for use on an AR. Finally the same can body can be attached to a guide gun, and the endcap swapped with a 45-70 endcap. I asked what happens when you shoot the can with no endcap and the answer was that it was louder. This is answer troubled me, not because it’s not technically feasible. And not because it’s possible to shoot a 45-70 through the can while having a 5.56 endcap attached (which, we know will happen if the can reaches commercial consumption in large enough numbers). The problem is that the NFA defines a suppressor as:
By Silencerco’s own admission, the endcap reduces sound. This means that it’s not a three-lug attachment or piston spring, or something else innocuous that can have other uses. It specifically reduces the report of the firearm. If Silencerco can prove another use for the end cap (maybe on the end of a brake), then it wouldn’t be its own NFA item. As it is, someone with a Hybrid, a 9mm endcap, a 45 endcap, and a 7.62 endcap might actually have four different NFA items (if each part is counted separately), possibly two (the max number of “combinations” between four parts, “combination” with being two or more parts). I despise the pedantry of the NFA but it’s difficult to see how the law, as it exists, would not apply to Silencerco’s endcaps as they exist today.
Silencerco’s Maxim debuted this year—and it’s a true Silencerco firearm. The original proof-of-concept was based off S&W’s M&P 9mm. The current Maxim features a Glock-ish trigger (actually looks similar to an Agency flat-trigger, but has sharper, less comfortable edges). The rest of the gun is entirely Silencerco except for its magazines, which are from a Glock 17. When used with 147 grain 9mm, the suppressor stack can be reduced in length by 3/4” (like the Salvo and Osprey Micro, sections of the suppressor are removeable/modular). The barrel is fixed and the back 1/3 of the slide is what kicks back, almost like some .22 designs. I’m glad Silencerco is pushing the industry in different directions, but as for the Maxim itself, it’s hard to see this pistol as more than a novelty at this point.
I asked Jason Schauble what he thinks is responsible for Silencerco’s explosive growth. Only a few years ago they were a tiny upstart struggling in the shade of such giants as AAC and Surefire. Now they’re they top suppressor manufacturer. Jason’s response was that Silencerco’s core values are vertical integration, innovation, customer service, education/advocacy, and transparency. The money they make is rolled back into the company itself instead of being drawn off in the form of share-holder dividends. Additionally the leadership team is three people—so the company itself is very agile. Silencerco, at least from the outside, absolutely appears to be a model for success in this industry.
Up next, the Desert Tech MDR. I know there’s a lot of interest around this rifle, so I’m going to be spending some time on it. As a sign of extent, I think I scribbled out more notes in my hieroglyphic shorthand about this rifle than any other firearm from SHOT. It’s an ambitious design to say the least.
We’ll start from the front to the back. The MDR in .308 features a standard 5/8x24 threaded bbl (brake on this gun, but another one on the wall had an OSS suppressor on it). The barrel is shrouded largely by a plastic handguard with M-lok slots. The handguard had a railed section on top that comes back to the gas block (short stroke piston). The 5.56 MDR is threaded 1/2x28. The rifle in both calibers features a 16.5” bbl and an over all length of 27.5”. Both 5.56 and .308 MDRs are scheduled for a Q2 release.
The MDR’s gasblock is the blackish protrusion under the MRDS in the photo. In 2015, DT debuted a several prototypes of the MDR that had front sights attached to the bbl/gas piston assembly. This was done to preserve zero (so when you changed between bbls/calibers, you wouldn’t have to rezero the gun). The current arrangement is a different execution of the same idea, but done with an MRDS (the MDR comes with an MRDS base). The mount can be removed (e.g., if one wants to mount a long range optic), but the gasblock will always be there interrupting the rail between the handguard and the actual receiver itself. The top of the gas block is shaped like a rail, but you probably owouldn't want to bridge and optic over it.
Next, the charging handle. You’ll note that the CH slot is vaguely C shaped. The CH will lock “up” in the forward position when the gun is in battery and can be manually locked “up” at the rear of the stroke (manual bolt lock). The front lock insures that the CH, which is not reciprocating, does not flop around or inadvertently catch on something (web gear, twigs, etc) and pull the gun out of battery. So the sequence to rack the bolt and lock it back manually is: extend folding CH, push down, pull back, push up. Although there is another bolt lock/release behind the magazine well (a la X95), manually locking the bolt to the rear using the bolt catch notch will override the rear bolt release (i.e. with the bolt manually locked back, hitting the bolt release does nothing—to release the bolt, one must HK slap the CH down out of the catch notch). It’s an idea that wasn’t present in 2015’s MDR and I’m glad DT integrated it. I’m sure I’m not the only one who told them their gun needed this feature.
The two forward magazine releases are ambidextrous, on both sides, and again, are placed similarly to an AR and the IWI X95. If you’re looking at the trigger and thinking “That’s weird” it’s because it is. It’s a two stage trigger, 1.5 lb on the first stage, 6.8 lbs on the second stage. There is currently no “match trigger” offering.
Similar to the forward magazine release, the safety/selector is also ambidextrous. Behind the pistol grip are the two screws that lock the barrel in, in the same fashion as DT’s bullpup precision rifle, the SRS.
Before we get any further into the gun, I should mention that 9mm is no longer a part of the design spec for the MDR. Current calibers are 5.56 and .308, with .300 BLK and 6.5 Creedmore to follow. I think the deletion of 9mm, at least for the time being, is an understandable one given the difficulty in engineering a chassis that will properly index and headspace both a 9mm chamber and four other rifle chambers. I’m not saying DT can’t do it, but I’d understand if they didn’t. One also might wonder if some efficiencies within the bullpup design were being lost by ejecting a short 9mm casing out of a chassis that is built to accommodate the much longer .308 cartridge. It would be like shooting .22 out of a long action bolt gun and complaining that the gun’s OAL was too long. In a bullpup, you’d be adding at least two inches LOP that you wouldn’t need for the 9mm.
DT’s MDR retains an index-finger magazine release at the front of the magazine well (rear magazine release), for those used to Tavor-SAR/AK style magazine changes. The button is fairly low profile though, so hitting it with the back of your shooting hand might be tricky at best.
The 2016 MDR no longer features a see-through window on its magazine well. This was a feature that depended entirely on transparent magazines for effect. And since there is only one manufacturer of transparent .308 magazines, this again, seems like a reasonable cost cutting measure. Additionally most folks are going to use PMAGs in these guns and unless you are using the 25 rounders, there are no windows in the current or former generations of PMAGs, so the benefits of a clear window on the magazine well would be moot.
In order to convert from .308 to 5.56, one would need the 5.56 barrel, 5.56 bolt, and 5.56 magazine well sleeve which attaches to the inside of the .308 magazine well. With impeccable attention to detail, all three magazine releases for the MDR work, even with the sleeve in place. The price for the conversion kit is $999 for either caliber, even though the conversion from 5.56 to .308 would not require a sleeve. Nick Klein, [title] explained that the 5.56 magazine sleeve was the least expensive of all the parts, so DT will not be charging extra for it.
Above the magazine well is the ejection port. As you might expect, there are two ejections ports on the MDR and two ejection port covers. One has an obligatory kicker protrusion which tosses the round out during the firing sequence. There is another port cover that does not have the kicker on it. The gun can be run without the second cover. Which side the gun ejects from depends on which side you install the kicker port cover on. There is a port door on each port cover so if you need to “unload and show clear” you can look into the chamber (the hole is not very big, it’s the ½” x3/4” squarish grey hatch at the front of the non-kicker port cover).
Above the ejection port is a plastic cheek piece. Nick didn’t know if there was a metal shield under it to protect your face from kB!. This was one of my complaints about the 2015 MDR prototypes: freezing your cheek to the gun, so I like the plastic cover, but I do hope there’s more than plastic under it.
Immediately behind the magazine well is the bolt release/catch button (profile and placement again, similar to the TAVOR X95). This button can be used to send the bolt back into battery by rocking the magazine loading hand up and back.
At the back of the rifle is molded rubber buttpad that is permanently attached to the gun. The angle of the buttpad is contoured specifically to allow the shooter to elevate the gun without changing LOP.
My overall impressions: DT employs a talented group of engineers and has built a rifle with a lot of thought put into. It feels solid, a lot of it makes sense, but there are some issues.
Let’s be honest. It is an ambitious project, possibly too ambitious. The gun works conceptually as a 5.56/.300 BLK/.308 battle rifle. As a 6.5 Creedmore, it has problems. And this is where DT’s trans-genre ambition might come back to bite them. No one in the precision shooting community is going to want a rifle with 8.3 lb trigger that has 6.8 lbs on the second stage, a bipod supported by a plastic handguard, and no LOP or cheek adjustment—not for $2,500. You might shoot 5.56, .308, 300 BLK for rapid fire fun, but there is only one reason to shoot 6.5 Creedmore—precision accuracy. And this rifle, as is, is going to work against you in that regard.
Second, the placement and size of the CH. I would say that this is the biggest and most immediate problem with the MDR. I identified this issue to DT in 2015 and unfortunately, they did not address it in their latest iteration. I suggested an oversize CH to DT in 2015 and I made the same suggestion again this year.
Here’s the details: The receiver rail, which starts behind the gas block, is fairly short. The CH stroke runs almost the entire length of the rail. Unless you use the MRDS mount, or irons only, any optic you attach is going to sit right above the CH. You can’t mount anything behind the CH stroke, there’s not enough real estate for anything more than a BUIS or MRDS (and why mount an MRDS there, when you’ve got the gas block mount, which is doctrinally, a better placement for the MRDS anyways)—and your available eye relief would be about 1”.
Now, the charging handle, when fully extended, standing straight out away from the receiver is 1.5” (yes, I took a tape measure to it). One of the MDRs had an Eotech EXPS on it.
[This MDR’s handguards are experimental and not a production item—didn’t ask if suppressor heat vs plastic testing had been done]
I’m a righty so I charge from the left side. On the left side, the Eotech protrudes from the receiver about .75”. On this particular rifle, the Eotech was mounted at about the middle of the receiver.
As I deployed the CH with bladed hand stance, part of my hand ran into the Eotech. The Eotech overhangs the receiver on the left side by about .75”. Not that much, but .75” is 50% the surface of the CH (so you are not able to use half the CH). Someone under stress is not going to figure to grab only half the CH. They’re likely to slam the meaty portion of their hand against the receiver and pull back will full force. If you do that with a bladed, open palm stroke, your draw stroke is going to end at the optic, not the rearward limit of bolt travel.
You could try grabbing the CH with your fingers (and going under the optic), but then we’re talking fine motor skills, cold and gloves issues, and scrapped knuckles, if your hands are big enough. Any optic, particularly anything with big turrets (and you know how optics companies love knurling on them big turrets) is going to be an issue. Remember that the CH is only 1.5” long. How much of that can you virtually occlude with optics-overhang and still get a decent grip on the CH? With the Eotech, which isn’t that wide, you’re losing 50% of the CH. It’s not necessarily even an issue of surface area—although that does affect comfort. We work our AR CH with about the same real estate surface-wise that the MDR’s CH offers. The problem is that the MDR’s current CH scheme makes you have to work around an optic—and it doesn’t have to.
Off the top of my head: the solution is a larger CH with selectable position handstop. Imagine a CH that is the about the same shape as the one on the MRD, but about twice the size with a little nub built into it on the front side. This nub (handstop really) could be moved further in or further out on the CH simply by unscrewing it and putting it back in another pre-drilled hole. Install the nub so that it marks the farthest outside protrusion of your optical device when the CH is fully deployed (if your turrets stick out 1” from the receiver, you put the nub out at 1.1” from the receiver). When you go to pull on the CH, the handstop automatically guides your hand away from the receiver. Thus, you know that if you’re on the outside of the handstop, you will be able to sweep your hand past the optic on the back stroke of the CH, but if you get a finger on the inside of the handstop, well, brace for collision. The handstop would prevent improper hand placement and provide tactile feedback if it did happen.
Someone at DT is going to think “Who the hell does this guy think he is?” Honestly, I only think about it because I care. The Tavor X95 has its share of issues. I don’t like the gun, I’m not interested in fixing any of them: I just don’t care enough. But the MDR looks like a very viable gun with a lot of well-thought out features. If I bought one, this is an idea I’d draw out for my machinist and make a one-off of. I’m one of those people that doesn’t settle until I have what I want or know absolutely that what I want can’t be done. And I think this one can be done and would benefit any MDR user with bigger optics who is conditioned to rack the charging handle with a bladed hand.
Mega introduced a complete .308 “small frame” rifle that is DMPS G2 sized, and weighing in at 7.2 lbs with a 16” bbl. Impressive for a .308.
Daniel Defense is continues to win in the lightweight game, following their DDV11 Keymod rifle (6.28 lb) with an even lighter DDV7 in M-lok (6.20 lb). The also introduced a new integrally suppressed rifle with a 9” bbl and long handguards.
Day 2 ended with an interview with Tom Taylor (Chief of Marketing, and Executive Vice President of Commercial Sales) and Rich Morovitz (Head of Corporate Training). I will do a transcript of the interview as a separate article possibly by next week.
One of SIG’s gun walls, this shot was only possible after the booth closed.
Tomorrow I’ll be flying home and try to finish Day 3, as well as requests—I think I got to all if not most (could not find Sphinx or Vector, they’re not listed on any vendor list and I asked Information twice). Rifle heavy this time, Day 3 has a little more in the way of pistols.
Nice write up for Day II! Did you get to see the P320 Longslide?
It's in Day 1's coverage.
Thanks so much for the write up! That was so much more informative than anything else I've read from Shot.
|An investment in knowledge |
pays the best interest
Thank you Sir, most informative! Hard to believe that SIG didn't snag any of the EU Mastershop talent. SIG has been hiring of late, so why not go with those who understand the platform? Maybe they weren't interested in being ex-pats or they're too expensive overall.
Looking forward to the Day 3 write-up. Thanks again and safe travels!
|Chilihead and Barbeque Aficionado|
Outstanding write up, LDD! I'm glad to hear that the X Series will be produced stateside. I'm a little surprised that SIG prioritized production of the P210 ahead of the X Series, but it's their show.
2nd Amendment Defender - Member - NRA - GeorgiaCarry.org
The Second Amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting.
Thanks for the insider coverage. It is great.
Does Sig plan to offer any additional P220 10mm models? I would like to see a standard size (i.e. 4.4" barrel) DA/SA version.
|They're after my Lucky Charms!|
Lord, your ocean is so very large and my divos are so very f****d-up
Dirt Sailors Unite!
Awesome report, best on the Internet. I appreciate your honesty in evaluating what you see; to often gun reporters gloss over issues. Keep up the work, I would pay for this kind of journalism!
Thank you. Excellent again.
I hate to be constantly negative about Sig at SHOT because they are one of my favorite pistol manufacturers but the following statement concerned me greatly:
So they are going to make X series pistols but they are not going to use any of the experienced talent at the Mastershop and they are not going to use the existing processes. They had to reverse engineer the X series like a clone manufacturer.
Thanks LDD for your in depth coverage, very informative as always. Hope you are able to cover everything you want to see.
outstanding as always LDD
sphinx and vector were at the KRISS booth
The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war. - Ludwig von Mises
Thanks again LDD for getting the answers to my P320 questions. I really appreciate it.
|The Once and Future SIG Shooter|
Awesome job, LDD! Thanks so much for doing this!
Thank you for the great photos and report!
"You can do it your own way, if it's done just how I say."
|An investment in knowledge |
pays the best interest
Yeah, a lost opportunity for SIG here in the States. I'm curious if it was due to the potential reasons I mentioned or the hubris of those in Exeter. Certainly solidifies GGI as the worldwide authority on customizing Sig firearms and their build.
Thanks, LDD. Very much appreciated, again.
tempus edax rerum
thanks for confirming no p227 stainless.
did he give any explanation for that? seems like it would be a logical move to have one.
I forgot Kriss is the umbrella brand for Vector and Sphinx
I did get the answer to Pulicord's question, but it includes a diagram, so I will post it with the other pickups/requests.
I didn't ask.
I think there will eventually be a 227 Stainless, but not this year. The entire ASE line is new in 2016, as are the P320 Manual Safeties and the P-series Emperor Scorpions, as well as additional P225As, and the P210 Americans. That's actually quite a few new SKUs.
Just because something is "out" doesn't mean the project doesn't still occupy corporate bandwidth. I don't think the pistol division is hurting for work right now.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3|