I have the ICE Fed gun with etched bar code on the slide DAK with night sights 9mm 229 its been flawless how are they holding up ? I also had a Sig 229 in 40 DAK with the bar code Coast Guard issue over run I sold it here some time ago . How are they holding up ????????

My DAK P229 chambered for 40 S&W that I use for training has 5300+ rounds through it. My 9mm DAK P229 trainer has fired 6900+ rounds. Both perform as well as ever and other than a few due to bad rounds neither has experienced any malfunctions.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
My DAK P229 chambered for 40 S&W that I use for training has 5300+ rounds through it. My 9mm DAK P229 trainer has fired 6900+ rounds. Both perform as well as ever and other than a few due to bad rounds neither has experienced any malfunctions.

That real world information is extremely important. "If it is not broke don't fix it."

I would rather stay with a proven platform.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
My DAK P229 chambered for 40 S&W that I use for training has 5300+ rounds through it. My 9mm DAK P229 trainer has fired 6900+ rounds. Both perform as well as ever and other than a few due to bad rounds neither has experienced any malfunctions.

Have you ever posted pix of the rails on those guns?

quote:

Originally posted by 3/4Flap:
Have you ever posted pix of the rails on those guns?

I have not.

That might be a project, but it would be necessary to post any pictures with some caveats that I would hope everyone who saw them would read.

I’ve long believed, for example, that frame rail wear on SIG Classic line pistols develops rapidly, but then tends to slow. For example, I just looked at two of my training guns, a P226 and P229, both chambered for 40 S&W. (That cartridge and the 357 SIG round cause greater frame rail wear more quickly than the 9mm Luger does.) The P226 has had 15720 rounds of 40 and 357 through it, and the P229* has fired 8130 rounds of 40 and 357. Despite the fact that the 226 has had almost twice as much use, I wouldn’t consider the wear to be twice as bad.
*(That is the same gun I mentioned above as having 5300+ rounds through it. That referred only to the 40 S&W ammunition fired, not the total including 357 SIG.)

What’s more significant, though, is what my carry gun looks like. It’s a P229 chambered for 357 SIG and has been fired 583 times with 357 only. Based on a quick look and trying to peer through the lube that I didn’t want to wipe off just now, its frame rail wear is at least as bad as that of the 229 with 8130 rounds fired, including 2767 of 357.

Furthermore, there’s a statement floating around that once the anodizing on an aluminum frame is worn away and the base metal is exposed, the gun is “toast” (IIRC). I’m sure that’s not what the poster really meant because it’s a nonsense claim, but that’s how some readers interpret it.

I don’t, therefore, consider frame rail wear to be a reliable indicator of much of anything, much less how long a SIG Classic line pistol will continue to function reliably.

quote:

Originally posted by 3/4Flap:
A LOT can be learned from such testing in fact.

Yes, and I thank you again for the tests you conducted with aluminum car wheels some time ago. That provided important answers for me that I had not been able to find elsewhere despite all the other information that clutters up the Internet.

This is a timely thread. I recently had a sacred cow that was slaughtered. 10 years ago or so, we had a dude that was one of the pre-911 FAMS in class. After 9/11, he drove much of the bulk of the build up. A good guy, colorful character. Being curious, I ask a lot of questions to people like that. He told me that the adoption of the 357SIG by the service was a poor idea, and they were having a ton of guns go tits up around the 25k mark because of accelerated wear. Basically, he told us that the P229/357 was a 25k gun. He was a huge fan of staying with the 228, but got over-rode.

I repeated that a lot, here and abroad.

Recently, I got a look back inside that agency in current day. It slaughtered several of my cattle, as a matter of fact. It is has gotten to the point in the agency that they replace their guns on a time frame. Not a round count. Gun is in service X number of years and it gets replaced. Unless of catastrophic failure. They have guns in service that have documented over 50k down the pipe. A couple have went as high as 70k documented, with little or no breakage. They shoot the guns until they break. They then fix them and put them back out into the field.

They seem to be far more software centered, than hardware centered.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by 3/4Flap:
Have you ever posted pix of the rails on those guns?

I have not.

That might be a project, but it would be necessary to post any pictures with some caveats that I would hope everyone who saw them would read.

I’ve long believed, for example, that frame rail wear on SIG Classic line pistols develops rapidly, but then tends to slow.

Right on.

Very true {maybe excepting guns really abused and never lubed, etc, but I know that's not what you are referring to}. I think that many guys are obsessively worried about every scratch and ding on a pistol and your comments are very much appreciated vis a vis guns running 100% like yours, with known round counts that we can trust vs the claims made frequently by some that muddy up the waters.

As for the wheels, that was a very interesting test for me, too!!

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
This is a timely thread. I recently had a sacred cow that was slaughtered. 10 years ago or so, we had a dude that was one of the pre-911 FAMS in class. After 9/11, he drove much of the bulk of the build up. A good guy, colorful character. Being curious, I ask a lot of questions to people like that. He told me that the adoption of the 357SIG by the service was a poor idea, and they were having a ton of guns go tits up around the 25k mark because of accelerated wear. Basically, he told us that the P229/357 was a 25k gun. He was a huge fan of staying with the 228, but got over-rode.

I repeated that a lot, here and abroad.

Recently, I got a look back inside that agency in current day. It slaughtered several of my cattle, as a matter of fact. It is has gotten to the point in the agency that they replace their guns on a time frame. Not a round count. Gun is in service X number of years and it gets replaced. Unless of catastrophic failure. They have guns in service that have documented over 50k down the pipe. A couple have went as high as 70k documented, with little or no breakage. They shoot the guns until they break. They then fix them and put them back out into the field.

They seem to be far more software centered, than hardware centered.

That is very interesting.

For myself, growing up with wheelguns and the 1911/BHP/Luger and reading the tests done to prove the serviceability of those guns "back in the day", the life expectancy of modern pistols is truly amazing EVEN IF they only lasted for 25,000 rounds.

Truth is, in the competitive world today we have MANY guys {on this forum for sure} that have run guns to round counts I really don't think John Browning, Saive, Borchardt, Luger Walther and all the engineers in Suhl, Chatellerault, Oberndorf, Springfield and Birmingham ever thought possible.

Re: the article in the OP.

It is SOFREP reposting another sites article, which in turn is based on info from Blogger Weaponsman. While Weaponsman may have insight into .MIL weapons issues he has posted inaccurate and wholly incorrect info re: ICE firearms issues in the past. He is basically posting BS rumors and speculation off the Delphi forums posted by employees not involved with the firearms program.

As for long gun stuff:

The first thing to remember is most ICE LEO, like most other LEO's and .Mil Folks are not shooters or firearms experts.

ICE has tested the MPX - it did well. Whether the MPX will be purchased in any quantity and what role they will fill is still to be determined. The MP5's have been gradually withdrawn from service by attrition and replaced with M-4's. There's a faction, primarily former Customs Agents, who lament this and wants MP-5's.

Personally I believe going to a pistol caliber carbine would be a huge mistake. Why give up the range and power of a real rifle? The current issue 11.5" M-4 can do anything a SMG can do and more.


As for the P320, I don't think anything is settled yet.

ICE issued two pistol RFI's, one in January 2015 and one several months later which closely mirrored the FBI's RFI.

There were initially claims the ICE RFI was written to favor the S&W M&P then claims it was written to favor the P320. Similar claims were made about the FBI RFI and now they are adopting the Glock m series. Time will tell.


The P229R DAK 40s have been good guns. Most problems with them can be traced to lack of Preventive maintainence such as failure to change recoil springs at proper intervals and failures by users to lube the guns. You simply can't run an all metal gun dry like a polymer framed Glock or HK.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: HCM,

quote:

Originally posted by 3/4Flap:
Truth is, in the competitive world today we have MANY guys {on this forum for sure} that have run guns to round counts I really don't think John Browning, Saive, Borchardt, Luger Walther and all the engineers in Suhl, Chatellerault, Oberndorf, Springfield and Birmingham ever thought possible.

Definitely agree. When the Army CID Command adopted the M11 (P228) as a replacement for the S&W model 10 revolver we were issued when I was on active duty, the transition trainers were told that the M11 had an expected service life of 5000 rounds. When I heard it at the time in 1993 it didn’t seem unreasonable because I knew a lot more about guns then than about shooting them. I mentioned that statement here some years later, and needless to say many members were shocked. For some, 5K rounds is a lot; for others it’s hardly getting a gun broken in.

And thanks to you, HCM, for your information, especially about the P229s. The importance of regular recoil spring replacement and proper lubrication was stressed in my first factory armorer course, and I’ve followed that guidance ever since.

The information from jljones and FAM weapons was also very interesting.

Thanks for all the good contributions to this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by 3/4Flap:

quote:

Originally posted by Fuego220:

quote:

Originally posted by Shackelford:
I have no clue who FAMAS is, I thought that was a rifle.

Anyway, the interesting thing to me is the choice of the MPX. The past twenty years has seen a near complete shift to the AR for LE rifles. Is the MPX in addition to ARs, or is this a shift from AR to 9mm subgun? Is there any indication as to why? If they just wanted to give Sig business, they coulda gone with the MCX. So, why the MPX? Is it just that 9mm subguns/carbines are the trendy thing this year? Or is it because of a desire for suppress-ability? Are there other factors at play here?

The story I've usually heard in the shift from MP5/9mm to the AR is that ammo in the AR tumbles and doesn't overpenetrate in typical US residential construction. Is there a shift away from that thinking?

Being a Fed myself, I'm guessing that they are planning on using MPX 9mms for the sake of logistics. ICE/CBP/BP employee the largest number of commissioned officers than anyone else in the USA. Over 60k. That's a lot of guns, and ammo to keep up on. Back when they were running .40S&W sidearms, it wasn't that big of a deal to run a long gun in a different caliber(5.56). .40S&W SMGs were very difficult to control, and most designs were fairly unreliable due to the cartridge dimensions. Before the switch to .40S&W for many Feds in the early 1990s, most were using either military surplus M16s, 9mm SMGs. Sharing one caliber between handgun and long gun makes a lot of sense for large agencies.

I've used MP5s, and they are great for what they are......close range multi hit systems. Once you get beyond 25yrds it becomes progressively harder and harder to make those multi hits and that SMG becomes a semi auto carbine that hits like a pistol.....not a rifle. At 100yrds a skilled perp with an AR15 or AK will eat your lunch if you are running a subgun. Then of course there is the problem with facing suspects wearing body armor now days..... Either way, I'm not a fan of SMGs unless they are for engagements that push CQC such as indoor work, or night work.

I'm really interested in why exactly the interest in a 9mm carbine, too. As you say, the ballistics of the 9mm fall apart at fairly short range.

I suspect the 5.56 carbines will not be done away with but rather some officers might get 9mm carbines? I cannot imagine a wholesale switch away from 5.56 for 9mm in longarms! Such a move would be just plain stupid.

As noted, moving to a pistol caliber carbine is certainly against the trend. Surely, it would be to supplement AR's.

Could it be for inside work where the blast of the AR is too much? Without a suppressant 8" 9mm is a lot more tolerable than a 5.56mm. And a suppressed MPX retains a lot of handyness that a suppressed AR loses.

Thoughts?

quote:

Originally posted by ScotP7:
Could it be for inside work where the blast of the AR is too much?

jljones once said, “[D]on’t pick the best round by what the best round to miss with is.” I would add, “Don’t pick the round that’s the least obnoxious to shoot in a confined space.” If we did that, we’d be using guns chambered for 22 Long Rifle (or 22 Short).

There are any number of legitimate reasons to not use the most powerful round available for certain applications such as close quarters combat: difficulty with recoil control and follow-up shots; excessive penetration; overly large and/or heavy weapon; limited magazine capacity; etc. It’s all a matter of balance and the compromises we must always make. There are, however, limits at both ends: We hear time and again how ineffective handgun cartridges are for self-defense purposes. That’s usually highly exaggerated, and some ballistic advantage is gained by going from 4.4 to 10 inches, but a handgun cartridge is still a handgun cartridge.

Handguns are actually usually very effective in their self-defense roles involving home invasions, store robberies, kidnapping attempts, and so on. When a SWAT team member or other LEO grabs a long gun, though, it’s usually because the situation is very bad: the bad guy is heavily armed, has hostages, has already shot people and threatening to shoot more, is highly motivated to not be taken alive and had plenty of time to prepare for the police, is far away, is wearing armor, has accomplices, etc. In such situations the police need every advantage they can get, and that includes having a good weapon chambered for an effective cartridge.

The fact is that LEOs use rifles chambered for 223/5.56 all the time in enclosed places and manage to not only survive the experience, but accomplish their missions. Patrol officers may not have combination hearing protection and communications headsets, but they are very common for special team members. Even my poor (not rich) small team uses them, and they work well to avoid the distraction of loud gunfire. For everyone else, AR type rifles firing the 223/5.56 round are still not “too much” when one is defending his life and the lives of others.

It'll be interesting IF they actually adopt it.

Remember all of the rumors before the FBI selection?

So just to update:

The ICE testing came down to two guns: the SIG P320 Compact and a variant of the FN MHS candidate similar to the recently released FN 509.

SIG was awarded the contract, however, FN has filed two protests of the contract award so everything is on hold.

Protests are common in these type of awards so it is likely SIG will keep the contract.

Whether is the P320 or FN509, both are an upgrade over the DAK equipped pistols. Note I maligned the DAK and not the P229 as IMHO, the P229 with a traditional trigger will long be a viable and effective pistol. As for the 40 S&W, it may not work for some but I still like it, just not in a sub gun

quote:

Originally posted by CQB60:
Whether is the P320 or FN509, both are an upgrade over the DAK equipped pistols. Note I maligned the DAK and not the P229 as IMHO, the P229 with a traditional trigger will long be a viable and effective pistol. As for the 40 S&W, it may not work for some but I still like it, just not in a sub gun

The 509 is not the exact pistol submitted for the ICE trials, that submission was designated 901.

Personally, I'm a fan of TDA guns, but they require more training than single pull guns whether striker or hammer fired. For people who don't get enough training to begin with, single pull guns make sense.

The DAK is not optimal for pure shooting performance but LE point guns at many more people than they shoot. For "threat management" the DAK and LEM are still relevant choices.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: HCM,

The 320 taking over isn't a surprise to me. The first time I shot it was alongside other gun writers. You might be surprised how little folks who spend their life talking and writing about guns actually practice shooting guns. The 320 was a very tolerant platform.

The MPX does surprise me though. I wonder if it's a combination of 1) SIG making DHS a package deal they couldn't refuse, 2) Budgetary concerns (i.e. "Shoots the same ammunition as our pistols" which is a good thing to the bean-counters), 3) Specialized use/suppressed.

I've often thought that a suppressed 7.5" MCX in .300 BLK would do almost everything the MPX could do, but better. Both platforms can shoot super and sub without manual adjustment, but the MCX is capable of tossing a 220 grain projectile while 9mm is mostly limited to 147 grains. That's nearly a 50% increase in mass without an decrease in capacity. And if you step up to super-sonic, the results only favor the MCX more. The only thing a 7.5" bbl'd and suppressed MCX can't do better than a 9mm MPX is 1) interchange ammo with the 320, and 2) be as cheap to shoot as 9mm subsonic.

2) isn't necessarily a big deal to civilian shooters and specific gov't units, but across huge agencies, it probably does have weight.

I actually like the LEM

quote:

Originally posted by HCM:

quote:

Originally posted by CQB60:
Whether is the P320 or FN509, both are an upgrade over the DAK equipped pistols. Note I maligned the DAK and not the P229 as IMHO, the P229 with a traditional trigger will long be a viable and effective pistol. As for the 40 S&W, it may not work for some but I still like it, just not in a sub gun

The 509 is not the exact pistol submitted for the ICE trials, that submission was designated 901.

Personally, I'm a fan of TDA guns, but they require more training than single pull guns whether striker or hammer fired. For people who don't get enough training to begin with, single pull guns make sense.

The DAK is not optimal for pure shooting performance but LE points guns at many more people than they shoot. For "threat management" the DAK and LEM are still reliant choices.

quote:

Originally posted by HCM:

quote:

Originally posted by CQB60:
Whether is the P320 or FN509, both are an upgrade over the DAK equipped pistols. Note I maligned the DAK and not the P229 as IMHO, the P229 with a traditional trigger will long be a viable and effective pistol. As for the 40 S&W, it may not work for some but I still like it, just not in a sub gun

The 509 is not the exact pistol submitted for the ICE trials, that submission was designated 901.

Personally, I'm a fan of TDA guns, but they require more training than single pull guns whether striker or hammer fired. For people who don't get enough training to begin with, single pull guns make sense.

The DAK is not optimal for pure shooting performance but LE points guns at many more people than they shoot. For "threat management" the DAK and LEM are still reliant choices.

Do you have an email address I could message you at?