View Full Version : FAMs adopt Sig P250 in .357 Sig
Dave Williams
10-23-09, 13:26
Evidently the FAMs have adopted the Sig P250 in .357 Sig. Quite a shocker! This is not a secret:
http://sigforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/430601935/m/789105851
From all accounts I've read, the Sig P229 in .357 Sig was a very durable and shootable package for the FAMs. I saw a guy in a class loaded with awesome shooters take top shooter with one and everyone was pretty impressed by it.
WTF?:confused:
Is this a case of the IBFAM (Itty Bitty Federal Air Marshal) taking priority over combat effectiveness? Ie interchangeable grip trumps crappy reset. PC wins again?!
Todd, do you think a sub 5 second FAST/555 can be done with this gun?
Or in reality is it tactically equivalent to a P229?
Is the P250 now "on the map"?
Dave Williams
DW -- It's funny you ask that about the Triple Nickel drill. I posted the same thought on my site a little over a week ago: Triple Nickel's Future? (http://pistol-training.com/archives/2019)
I'm sure it's possible. The P250 has an incredibly smooth trigger which is fairly light. Accuracy with the gun, in my experience, was always easy to achieve. But with the full reset, high-speed standards are going to be tough.
Between the two, I'd definitely opt for the P229, especially if it was with the Short Reset Trigger.
Ill have to talk to the FAM's next time I have them on my airplane and see how they like it.
My question though is why pick a gun capable of multiple calibers and then lock it into one? The first time I saw a 250 I thought it would be a great gun for the average owner because it was able to be changed into a few different calibers for relatively little cost. However for a LEO gun that is locked into one caliber, I wouldnt think it would be the best gun for the job, but honestly, what do I know.
Have they finally worked out the problems with the P250?
I think the P250's biggest problem was that no one would buy it on the agency/department scale. This is huge for SIG. The P250, with all of it's faults is the future of the company. They cannot survive selling 1980's technology P Series guns when competing against HK, Glock, and the resurgent S&W. You watch, SIG will be trumpeting this sale (although not a huge one) as a huge one in the hopes it will persuade other department/agencies to buy it.
Dave Williams
10-26-09, 01:43
Thanks for the info.....saw the article on your sight, got me to play internet detective and a google search popped up the sigforum thread.
Will the P250 be as durable as a P229?
Dave Williams
I honestly wonder why, in the face of the studies that Doc GKR has conducted, which show 357SIG to be inferior to 9MM+P, that the FAM cling to the round?
ChicagoTex
10-26-09, 17:17
Will the P250 be as durable as a P229?
In theory it could be more durable, as polymer frames are much tougher/more resilient than aluminum frames, but that assumes that the steel-housed firing control unit SIG has devised for the P250 is engineered well enough to stand up to the kind of volume of fire the P2XX series has endured. I also have some big questions on the durability of the springs in the fire control housing on the P250, but only time will tell on these issues.
I honestly wonder why, in the face of the studies that Doc GKR has conducted, which show 357SIG to be inferior to 9MM+P, that the FAM cling to the round?
That subject is covered at length in this thread (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=22265) and probably quite a few others. Suffice it to say that one person's tests in ballistic gelatin doesn't really constitute compelling evidence, particularly when that evidence defies intuitive logic.
"I honestly wonder why, in the face of the studies that Doc GKR has conducted, which show 357SIG to be inferior to 9MM+P, that the FAM cling to the round?"
I'll tell you why. The FAM management is comprised of all former Secret Service retirees and rejects; an "old boys club". The Secret Service is wedded to the .357SIG. Nothing the Secret Service does is wrong; just ask them. Thus the FAMs are saddled with the ridiculous .357SIG and the monstrous, not very concealable P229 instead of Glock 27's or another similarly concealable sub-compact.
NinjaMedic
10-27-09, 02:52
"I honestly wonder why, in the face of the studies that Doc GKR has conducted, which show 357SIG to be inferior to 9MM+P, that the FAM cling to the round?"
I'll tell you why. The FAM management is comprised of all former Secret Service retirees and rejects; an "old boys club". The Secret Service is wedded to the .357SIG. Nothing the Secret Service does is wrong; just ask them. Thus the FAMs are saddled with the ridiculous .357SIG and the monstrous, not very concealable P229 instead of Glock 27's or another similarly concealable sub-compact.
Wow I had no idea the leadership of our federal law enforcement agencies were so incompetent. Luckily we have you to impart your unbiased knowledge upon us. Oh well at least the .357 SIG works fairly well for the Texas DPS Troopers.
At the end of the day most modern pistols, provided you have a reliable example, coupled with quality ammunition in the common service calibers (9mm, .357, .40, .45), in the hands of an average law enforcement officer will exhibit similar lethality and reliability for the 5-20 rounds fired from a realatively clean and well lubricated state.
Each agency selects their weapons and ammo from what they like, want, or percieve to be more effective and I would argue that most agencies exhibit similar levels of prefessional competency or incompetency amongst their leadership. You seem to hold a lot of animosity towards one single agency, did they kick your dog?
That subject is covered at length in this thread (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=22265) and probably quite a few others. Suffice it to say that one person's tests in ballistic gelatin doesn't really constitute compelling evidence, particularly when that evidence defies intuitive logic.
yeah Tex, if you'll look, you'll notice I was a little involved with that discussion.
I'm not going to criticize any of the testing done which shows the various 9MM penetrate and expand equal to the 357SIG. but it does leave my question still unanswered...
-- if it essentially has no performance advantage, with less capacity, greater recoil, report, and muzzle flash, as well as being more expensive, then why are a large number of some very sophisticated agencies advocates of the round?
"I honestly wonder why, in the face of the studies that Doc GKR has conducted, which show 357SIG to be inferior to 9MM+P, that the FAM cling to the round?"
I'll tell you why. The FAM management is comprised of all former Secret Service retirees and rejects; an "old boys club". The Secret Service is wedded to the .357SIG. Nothing the Secret Service does is wrong; just ask them. Thus the FAMs are saddled with the ridiculous .357SIG and the monstrous, not very concealable P229 instead of Glock 27's or another similarly concealable sub-compact.
well then that "old boys club" must have some pretty long legs as there are several high profile agencies who choose to use the 357SIG.
do you think it's possible that it might do something that the other calibers don't?
"do you think it's possible that it might do something that the other calibers don't?"
As noted in the other thread (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=22265), I don't...
As noted in the other thread (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=22265), I don't...
hahahaha, I wondered how long before you showed up.... :p
but as long as I got you on the line, let me ask you a question - in your tests, are you able to measure the total volume of the permanent cavity?
There are several ways to theoretically measure it, however, we don't as it is a general waste of time...
Well it's good to know that in case I am attacked by a block of ballistic gelatin my 9mm +P will be just as effective as a .357.
I honestly wonder why, in the face of the studies that Doc GKR has conducted, which show 357SIG to be inferior to 9MM+P, that the FAM cling to the round?
There are several ways to theoretically measure it, however, we don't as it is a general waste of time...
ok, I did not know that. so what do you measure, total penetration and expansion of the projectile?
is that how you would theoretically make calculations on permanent crush cavity volume?
I honestly wonder why, in the face of the studies that Doc GKR has conducted, which show 357SIG to be inferior to 9MM+P, that the FAM cling to the round?
Perhaps the .357sig offers better accuracy at greater distances due to a flatter trajectory. Imagine a senario where a threat is engaged while still on the tarmac. FAMS may be the first to respond and may not have rifles available for immediate deployment. In this instance a handgun round with a flatter trajectory may be an advantage to a FAM who has to make a shot at distances far greater than encountered in most handgun fights.
By no means do I claim that this is the reason the FAM's carry the .357sig round. It's just my attempt at an edjucated guess.
"I honestly wonder why, in the face of the studies that Doc GKR has conducted, which show 357SIG to be inferior to 9MM+P, that the FAM cling to the round?"
I imagine that it has to do with their sharing the DHS contract with the USSS for the .357 Sig round. But I may be mistaken. That, and the FAMS ties to the USSS as already mentioned.
"I honestly wonder why, in the face of the studies that Doc GKR has conducted, which show 357SIG to be inferior to 9MM+P, that the FAM cling to the round?"
I imagine that it has to do with their sharing the DHS contract with the USSS for the .357 Sig round. But I may be mistaken. That, and the FAMS ties to the USSS as already mentioned.
I know two Air Marshals and they told me the Air Marshals piggybacked on the Secret Service order and Secret Service picked the pistols chambered in .357 SIG several years ago because they got a deal on them. Sticking with a caliber that is already in the supply chain makes sense. -People need to disabuse themselves of the notion that the government is looking for the "best" when it comes to purchasing massive quantities of anything. If it's adequate and a good price, they're on it.
So far, most of the purchasing I've seen the government do via its LE agencies just makes me shake my head. One of the Air Marshals I know showed me the Fobus holster he was issued along with a mismatched (as in for different make and model magazines) Safariland mag pouch. He told me that it allows them to check off that the gear was issued. It's up to the individual to get a better holster and mag pouch.
Robb Jensen
11-28-09, 22:08
From what I've witnessed the 9mm+P and +P+ are equal to the .357SiG up until you introduce all barriers into the mix. At which point the .357SIG really shines...
To paraphrase: In the naked man / ballistic gelatin perfect circumstance world the two are equal.
I know two Air Marshals and they told me the Air Marshals piggybacked on the Secret Service order and Secret Service picked the pistols chambered in .357 SIG several years ago because they got a deal on them. Sticking with a caliber that is already in the supply chain makes sense. -People need to disabuse themselves of the notion that the government is looking for the "best" when it comes to purchasing massive quantities of anything. If it's adequate and a good price, they're on it.
So far, most of the purchasing I've seen the government do via its LE agencies just makes me shake my head. One of the Air Marshals I know showed me the Fobus holster he was issued along with a mismatched (as in for different make and model magazines) Safariland mag pouch. He told me that it allows them to check off that the gear was issued. It's up to the individual to get a better holster and mag pouch.
I have nothing to dispute what you are saying but hasn't the 9mm, .45, .40, and heck, even the 10mm, already been "in the supply chain" at the federal level?
it may be true what you say, but frankly, it sounds farfetched...
He is absolutely correct. The FAM pistol purchase was piggybacked on the Secret Service purchase before the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The SS got DA/SA P229's in .357SIG, so the FAMS did too. The purchase had absolutely nothing to do with what was right for the job, but everything to do with an old boy's network. Pistol purchase and approval was so upside down and backwards that at one time the smaller, more concealable P239 was authorized for OFF-DUTY carry but not duty carry. DHS now has two pistol calibers in the inventory. .40S&W and .357SIG. I am sure that NFTTU in Altoona would prefer one and I agree, one would be better but the SS is entrenched and the FAMS are stuck with the pre-existing supply pipeline. For what it is worth I smell a connection between certain SIG pistol contracts and .357SIG. I think that without sales contracts of a certain size, several thousand pistols to agencies that shoot several thousand rounds per pistol annually as a way to keep a terminally ill caliber on life support.
A few points to take in perspective:
The FAM Service, along with just about every other 357 SIG carrying agency in the country, is very happy with the terminal performance they've seen in their own shootings and those of sister agencies utilizing the same round.
Prior to 9/11, the FAMs' inventory of pistols was less than 100. There was no legitimate reason for them to expend budget on testing and selecting a sidearm.
The agency had always been tied very closely to USSS in terms of upper management & supply chains.
The FAM Service was issuing P229 SIGs in 357 prior to 9/11.
When Congress mandated the agency grow by more than a hundredfold practically overnight, there was no time to spend on a complicated procurement process. A 'national emergency' exception to the normal federal acquisition rules was granted and the agency simply ordered a gazillion more P229s... because it's what they already had, and they'd seen good service from the weapons.
When the FAM Service decided it was time to look at replacing the P229, discussions within both the working group and upper management were held regarding possibly changing calibers. Some of the more savvy folks tried to champion a switch to 9mm, but it was shot down. A move to .40 was also considered solely from a cost-savings standpoint (the ammo is cheaper, even at government contract prices). In the end, for a variety of reasons, the decision was made to stick with the 357.
Currently there is a ton of controversy at the local levels of the FAMS highly disputing the selection of the P250 as a reliable duty weapon. I would not be surprised if they end up sticking with their 229's which they have been more than happy with reliability and durability wise. The 239's on the other hand have had tons of problems. The testing procedures of the P250 were some of the hokiest I have ever heard of. Also....rumor is that all tests inclusing durability were performed in 9mm for the selection of 357sig. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The 357sig apparently is not even currently available for delivery nor was it available during testing.
All members of the testing staff assigned to the pistol selection at HQ in NJ had to sign NDA's about their test methods and procedures. There definitely appears to have been some good ol boy back scratching going on. Several of the FAM training staff, rangemasters, ASACs and ATSACs are doing what they can to prevent the gun from coming into service. Field level FAMS are pissed about the selection.
S&W continued to be in the running with the M&P in 357sig but they somehow kept getting their pistol written out of the specifications. they were even doing a feasibility study into designing a FAM specific pistol with a compact slide on a full size grip frame. But the method of disassembly kept getting it written out on the spec requirements. So S&W finally just realized they were not wanted and basically threw in the towel.
All members of the testing staff assigned to the pistol selection at HQ in NJ had to sign NDA's about their test methods and procedures.
There is absolutely nothing unusual or sinister about that. I've been working as a consultant on a similar procurement all year and everyone who has been read in on the project has had to sign an NDA. There are also federal regulations related to the dissemination of test results... very restrictive regulations.
From what I've witnessed the 9mm+P and +P+ are equal to the .357SiG up until you introduce all barriers into the mix. At which point the .357SIG really shines...
To paraphrase: In the naked man / ballistic gelatin perfect circumstance world the two are equal.
So......what other barriers would you commonly encounter on a typical battlefield?
FBI Test Protocol:
Bare Gelatin = covered with T-shirt, Shot at 10ft
Denim = 4 layers shot at 10ft
Heavy Clothing = shot at 10ft
Steel = 2 pieces of 20 gauge, shot at 10ft
Wallboard = 2 pieces of 1/2" gypsum board, shot at 10ft
Plywood = 1 piece of 3/4" AA fir plywood, shot at 10ft
Automobile Glass = 1 piece of 1/4" laminated safety glass set at a 45 degree angle with an offset of 15 degrees, shot at 10ft
Winchester Ranger Talons:
9mm+P+ 127gr(1250fps): (Penetration/Expansion)
Bare Gel: 12.3”/.64”
Through Denim: 12.2”/.68”
Through Heavy Cloth: 12.2”/.68”
Through Wallboard: 12.1”/.66”
Through Plywood: 12”/.68”
Through Steel: 20.5”/.40”
Through Auto Glass: 9.4”/.48”
9mm 147gr(990fps): (Penetration/Expansion)
Bare Gel: 13.9”/.65”
Through Denim: 14.5”/.66”
Through Heavy Cloth: 14”/.66”
Through Wallboard: 15”/.67”
Through Plywood: 14.8”/.62”
Through Steel: 17”/.45”
Through Auto Glass: 10.8”/.52”
.357sig 125gr(1350fps): (Penetration/Expansion)
Bare Gel: 12.2”/.63”
Through Denim: 12.4”/.66”
Through Heavy Cloth: 10.7”/.69”
Through Wallboard: 15.4”/.48”
Through Plywood: 12.2”/.66”
Through Steel: 23.4”/.41”
Through Auto Glass: 10.3”/.49”
.40S&W 180gr(990fps): (Penetration/Expansion)
Bare Gel: 13.6”/.71”
Through Denim: 13.9”/.68”
Through Heavy Cloth: 13.3”/.67”
Through Wallboard: 13.4”/.67”
Through Plywood: 15.3”/.65”
Through Steel: 15.8”/.58”
Through Auto Glass: 12.3”/.60”
My thoughts are if you are going to use the .357sig/.40S&W platform.....go with .40S&W so that you have the advantages of the larger hole and the greater momentum to punch through COMMONLY encountered barriers such as a windshield, bone, or wood. .357sig does well against thicker steel, but it doesn't give you a huge leap forward. Againt a dumpster the .357sig will still only punch through one layer and if someone is using it for cover you're just as SOL as you would be using 9mm or .40. When it comes to other car parts, the .357sig won't punch through a engine block, tranny, or wheel either........so it's kinda a moot point. I believe the .357sig to be superior to the 9mm, but not to the .40S&W or .45acp.
Just to throw this out there......heavier projectiles have a distinct advantage in punching through internal bone structure as they retain more momentum and energy. Here's a comment from Dr. Roberts a while back regarding Dr. Lane's study on the matter:
"Don't forget about the tests Dr. Lane presented at the FBI 1993 Wound Ballistics Seminar. Dr. Lane is an orthopedic surgeon, he and Ted Hollabaugh performed testing where swine femurs were inserted into 8.5" blocks of 10% gel and then were shot with 9 mm 115 gr JHP and 147 gr JHP loads, as well as .45 ACP 230 gr JHP projectiles. The high speed video of the experiment shots demonstrated that the .45 ACP shots created significantly more damage to the bone and were the only ones to penetrate all the way through the bone and gel block, while all the 9 mm loads were stopped by the bone and failed to penetrate through the bone. Dr. Lane also presented a variety of handgun wounds to human limbs that he had treated. The proceedings of the conference have been published by the FBI."
My thoughts are if you are going to use the .357sig/.40S&W platform.....go with .40S&W so that you have the advantages of the larger hole and the greater momentum to punch through COMMONLY encountered barriers such as a windshield, bone, or wood.
I've always wondered about the whole "bigger hole" argument. the difference between a 357sig and a .40SW is about 1mm. or .045 inches. even with a .45 you're still only talking .096. less than 1/10th of an inch. by that logic shouldn't a 9x18MAK be superior? (.355 vs .365)
And even the penetration/expansion in ballistic gelatin stuff always left me kind of cold. All those numbers really show is that the ammo is performing as designed since they're engineered to perform to the FBI specs.
Is it the contention that a fully stoked 357sig 125gn bullet at 1450fps is equivalent to a 9mm 127g bullet at 1250? not for nothing but even if you're shooting off the shelf, Hornady makes a 147gn 357sig that pushes 1250fps.
I'm not saying nothing about nothing, just pointing out that you're talking about canning the whole platform because one +P+ load has similar numbers to one particular standard load.
I've always wondered about the whole "bigger hole" argument. the difference between a 357sig and a .40SW is about 1mm. or .045 inches. even with a .45 you're still only talking .096. less than 1/10th of an inch. by that logic shouldn't a 9x18MAK be superior? (.355 vs .365)
The 9x18mm has a sectional density comparible to the .380acp which makes it a very poor penetrator with modern JHP bullets. The layman's way of thinking about sectional density is that it is the mass concentration over a given area. A 9mm 135gr bullet has more sectional density than that of a .40S&W 135gr bullet thus it has better penetration abilities. This is the primary reason why the .380 is not recommended by Dr. Roberts as a viable defenseive caliber......because it only penetrates approximately half as much as a 9mm in testing gel. Penetration is the key component in handgun cartridge effectiveness, followed by hole size. Given desirable penetration, the only measurable way to increase effectiveness is by increasing the size of the hole made.
As to the bigger is better arguement, Agent Patrick sums it up well:
"Shot placement is obviously critical, and our test criteria presume that the shot is placed in the vital area of the body, which contains the brain, upper spinal cord, heart, and aorta/vena cava. This area runs from just above the eyes to the diaphragm, and is about 4" wide. But, as our experience in Miami amply illustrates, shot placement is only the first part of the equation. Jerry Dove placed his shot perfectly. Bullet performance is critical to translate shot placement into an effective, incapacitating wound. If shot placement was all that mattered, we could arm all Agents with .22's. Secondly, perfect shot placement may be difficult to attain in the stress and dynamics of a shooting incident. The larger calibers offer a "margin of error" in that where a smaller bullet may just miss the aorta, for example, the larger one in the same placement will damage it. A good example is killing a 400lb pig with a .22, something commonly done on the farm. If the shot placement is exactly right, the pig is killed quickly. If it is off less than an inch, the pig goes wild and the process of killing it becomes rather lengthy and involved, whereas a larger caliber would succeed with a larger margin of miss than an inch."
Agent Urey Patrick from "10mm Notes" briefing
The larger hole also gives you larger entrance and exit holes for bleedouts.
Oh well at least the .357 SIG works fairly well for the Texas DPS Troopers.
Well....not great.
One of the most recent shooting involving TDPS was when a Trooper, after a long chase into New Mexico shot the driver of the vehicle 6 times in the chest, through the windshield. That subject, last I heard is awaiting trial.
Dallas PD, one of the original LEAs to authorize the .357sig had an issue where their 125gr Winchester Ranger Ts didnt do so well against cars doors on a Chevy Caprice. This round has prompted alot, not all, but alot of officers to return to the department issue. That would be 147gr Winchester Rangers talons in 9mm.
As someone who has owned upwards of a dozen SIGs in .357sig, and sold every single one of them, I think its safe to say I know the round. I know what it does and doesnt do. I know alot of the claims of this round are generated from nothing more than hype and the lies of M&S. As I've said before, it isnt a bad round. Its adequate. It isnt any better than the other service pistol rounds.
Sorry to raise a moribund thread from the dead, but does anyone here have an update on if/when the FAMS will begin issuing the P250? If it's already begun, does anyone here have info on lessons learned on FAMS' P250 usage in training or operationally?
Last I heard, due to a variety of delays, they're not expecting guns until April at the earliest.
Last I heard, due to a variety of delays, they're not expecting guns until April at the earliest.
Todd, thanks. Maybe by sometime this summer or fall we'll begin to have a good idea of how the P250 stands up to service use.
To add... Last info I received had them cycling through Field Offices getting fitted for grip and whatnot. Nobody seems especially excited. FWIW.
They had a hookie stand with the three frames sizes small, med and large to get ones fit. Just a not a real gun to see how it really feels. I got a p-250 in 9mm in trade just to get use to the dam trigger. I hope they will see the mistake they are making and do what is right for once, but this is the FAM service............:(
John_Wayne777
08-17-10, 16:05
Some interesting info on another federal agency's encounter with the Sig P250:
http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/4023393.htm
Some interesting info on another federal agency's encounter with the Sig P250:
http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/4023393.htm
Not looking too good for the P250. I'm not sure what Sig's problems are, but it doesn't seem that they are very good at pulling off new designs. Sorry Sig Sauer.....I've been using your pistols for almost 10 years on duty and even became an armorer.......but I've become less impressed with your products over time. Especially that Sig rep that talked about "stopping power" and one shot stops with Sig's proprietary .357sig. Makes me want to go with a gen 4 Glock for my next .40.
From what I've witnessed the 9mm+P and +P+ are equal to the .357SiG up until you introduce all barriers into the mix. At which point the .357SIG really shines...
To paraphrase: In the naked man / ballistic gelatin perfect circumstance world the two are equal.
do you really want good barrier penetration in an aircraft? :confused:
also, not to knock FAMs, but when was the last time one of those guys fired a shot in anger?
Thanks for the info on the ATF testing.
They stopped issuing them out last week. I have heard that they are taking back the ones that were issued out and reissuing 229's.
No word on what happened but it seems like someone pulled there head out of the Sand.
I shoot the 250 about 3 weeks ago and had 1 ftf and 1 fte with our duty load, 125 gdhp. Also the mags kept comming apart when they hit the deck doing reloads I had this happen 4 times and wittnessed it more times than I can remember. The base plate came off and the spring went flying........had to call a cold range to go get all the parts.
I HOPE that they scrap the plan and do some real testing without bias next time.
Alpha Sierra
08-17-10, 17:29
do you really want good barrier penetration in an aircraft? :confused:
It doesn't matter. Aircraft, including transport-category aircraft, are flimsy as hell and ANY service handgun cartridge from .38 Special to .357 Magnum and every single auto pistol cartridge in between will penetrate just about everything it might encounter in an airplane.
I tried REALLY hard to make the P250 work for me. I love the ergonomics, especially with the "Compact - Small" grip module. Size efficiency wise, it's a contender with the G19 or G23 - tough company to fight.
I spent nearly a year carrying, training, and shooting the P250 exclusively. At the end of that time, I was STILL short-stroking the trigger at least once per range session (maybe once ever 50 rounds or so) when I was trying to run the gun at speed.
I never had any reliability issues with mine, except when I installed the .40 S&W conversion kit. The first magazine through that was ejecting brass straight back into my face so hard it actually chipped my Oakley shooting glasses. After spending several weeks at Sig for "adjustment," it still ejected brass nearly straight back, only higher (usually clearing my head, but, when I wore a ball cap, the brass would ding it pretty regularly...)
In the end, I went back to Glocks, and couldn't be happier.
Regards,
Kevin
Bulldog7972
08-18-10, 08:39
He is absolutely correct. The FAM pistol purchase was piggybacked on the Secret Service purchase before the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The SS got DA/SA P229's in .357SIG, so the FAMS did too. The purchase had absolutely nothing to do with what was right for the job, but everything to do with an old boy's network. Pistol purchase and approval was so upside down and backwards that at one time the smaller, more concealable P239 was authorized for OFF-DUTY carry but not duty carry. DHS now has two pistol calibers in the inventory. .40S&W and .357SIG. I am sure that NFTTU in Altoona would prefer one and I agree, one would be better but the SS is entrenched and the FAMS are stuck with the pre-existing supply pipeline. For what it is worth I smell a connection between certain SIG pistol contracts and .357SIG. I think that without sales contracts of a certain size, several thousand pistols to agencies that shoot several thousand rounds per pistol annually as a way to keep a terminally ill caliber on life support.
I thought that the FAM's were allowed to carry the 239 on duty now?
For what it is worth I smell a connection between certain SIG pistol contracts and .357SIG. I think that without sales contracts of a certain size, several thousand pistols to agencies that shoot several thousand rounds per pistol annually as a way to keep a terminally ill caliber on life support.
Makes sense. Just about every rep I've talked to in regard to the .357sig has a sales pitch for it. There is nothing concrete about it either. Usually the words "stopping power" or "knockdown power" come out of their mouth somewhere, and they will cite departments/agencies that are happy with it. However, they will never reference a shooting, or give me the name of an officer that they got this information from. All hear-say.
Greatness needs no introduction. You can recognize it at face value.
John_Wayne777
08-18-10, 10:52
Thanks for the info on the ATF testing.
They stopped issuing them out last week. I have heard that they are taking back the ones that were issued out and reissuing 229's.
No word on what happened but it seems like someone pulled there head out of the Sand.
...so the only US agency to adopt the weapon is now backtracking on it.
Awesome.
do you really want good barrier penetration in an aircraft? :confused:
It's obvious you aren't in aviation. Planes leak air like sieves. An extra 9mm hole (or a 20mm one for that matter, or 10 of them) isn't going to compromise the structure of the aircraft or its pressurization. Any belief that it would is founded on a imagination based on Hollywood movies.
GermanSynergy
08-18-10, 13:02
...so the only US agency to adopt the weapon is now backtracking on it.
Awesome.
How long till Hong Kong ditches theirs? :confused:
do you really want good barrier penetration in an aircraft? :confused:
also, not to knock FAMs, but when was the last time one of those guys fired a shot in anger?
FAMs come from many different backgrounds but don't assume anything.
During the late 70's hijackings they pulled some of us from MSG (Marine Security Guard), i.e. Embassy Guards to act as FAM's. We used the same .38 Smith and Wesson's we were issued as as watchstanders and NCOIC's. I had quite a good time with the stewardess population. Of course I was much younger, fitter, and had more hair back then...
Why they would use a Sig 250 is beyond me. HK P30..that would be nice.
It's obvious you aren't in aviation. Planes leak air like sieves. An extra 9mm hole (or a 20mm one for that matter, or 10 of them) isn't going to compromise the structure of the aircraft or its pressurization. Any belief that it would is founded on a imagination based on Hollywood movies.
oh i know the plane won't come apart, but i was thinking that a round with more cover penetrating ability might be more likely to hit vital electronic or hydraulic equipment.
357 sig's only advantage over 9 being barrier penetration, and planes being as lightly built as they are, i don't see any upside to 357, and i do see a potential downside.
Heavy Metal
08-18-10, 17:19
After reading that ATF evaluation, I would have to conclude that if that P-250 were any more of a dog, you would have to feed it Alpo instead of Ammo.:laugh:
I just about spit my drink out laughing so hard............That was great....Made my day.
After reading that ATF evaluation, I would have to conclude that if that P-250 were any more of a dog, you would have to feed it Alpo instead of Ammo.:laugh:
GermanSynergy
08-18-10, 19:23
I wonder how SIG is going to handle this- seriously....
After reading that ATF evaluation, I would have to conclude that if that P-250 were any more of a dog, you would have to feed it Alpo instead of Ammo.:laugh:
John_Wayne777
08-18-10, 19:51
Once the GAO rules against them there's not much left in terms of a remedy. They challenged the testing claiming it was unfair, and the GAO says it was just fine. They could try and sue ATF in court, but odds are judges won't be in any hurry to insert themselves into these sorts of proceedings. In general, the courts tend to defer to agencies when it comes to administrative determinations.
oh i know the plane won't come apart, but i was thinking that a round with more cover penetrating ability might be more likely to hit vital electronic or hydraulic equipment.
357 sig's only advantage over 9 being barrier penetration, and planes being as lightly built as they are, i don't see any upside to 357, and i do see a potential downside.
As you pointed out, even a .22 would punch through most areas of the fuselage, as well as most components. In fact, most FOAD/debris deflected from an engine would do the same. In light of this, control wires/cables/systems are positioned and arranged in areas that minimize this (i.e. under, over, and around the main cabin areas and away from engines).
In addition, most systems are redundant, so even if a hydraulic line was cut, others are in place to replace it. The chance of a stray round or 3 rendering the aircraft uncontrollable is one in millions. There's a higher chance of the plane crashing during takeoff or landing than of that.
Summarized, aircraft are designed with the knowledge that damage to the airframe isn't uncommon. A stray bullet is of more danger directly to the passengers than the aircraft itself. In fact, the only real "weak" area is the cockpit where the control interfaces are... and that was remedied after 9/11, so it's really a relative non-factor.
wouldnt it have been easier to go with the '32?
My thoughts are if you are going to use the .357sig/.40S&W platform.....go with .40S&W so that you have the advantages of the larger hole and the greater momentum to punch through COMMONLY encountered barriers such as a windshield, bone, or wood.
Does the 40 S&W have the same level of reliability or accuracy of 9mm, 357, or 45? That is a factor also.
Lately I am back to 9mm, [no longer] have no interest in 40, and like 45 but I have not found a good platform for it for a carry pistol.
My two favorite carry pistols at the moment are HK P7 and Glock 19. If I could have just one handgun, it would be a Glock 17.
Does the 40 S&W have the same level of reliability or accuracy of 9mm, 357, or 45? That is a factor also.
Lately I am back to 9mm, [no longer] have no interest in 40, and like 45 but I have not found a good platform for it for a carry pistol
I think that you'll be hard pressed to find an accuracy difference between the calibers given that you're using quality ammo, and have equally as good of a platform setup. I used to have a CZ competition model in .40S&W and I could shoot 1" groups at 25yrds with Speer Lawman 180gr. If the pistol isn't getting the accuracy you want, and it isn't related to the shooter, it is much more likely to be the platform and not the caliber.
When it comes to reliability, I once again point to the platform and magazine design. Right now I carry a P229 .40 on duty and with the hundreds of Sigs that I've worked on over the years for the DOI, the .40s have generally been the most trouble free. The weakness of our 9mm Sigs tend to be the magazines. Since the 9mm has a tapered casing, it needs a curved magazine for maximized feed flow. When you stuff it into a straight pistol magazine, you have spacing between the cartridges in the front. When the magazine springs get weak, you get more and more nose diving on the feed ramps or jumbled rounds if you bump the butt of the pistol on something. This has been a big problem with DOD and their M9s when the magazines get old. Glock magazines however tend to stay stiffer longer. Don't even get me started on the frequent problems we've had with P220 .45s........
As you pointed out, even a .22 would punch through most areas of the fuselage, as well as most components. In fact, most FOAD/debris deflected from an engine would do the same. In light of this, control wires/cables/systems are positioned and arranged in areas that minimize this (i.e. under, over, and around the main cabin areas and away from engines).
In addition, most systems are redundant, so even if a hydraulic line was cut, others are in place to replace it. The chance of a stray round or 3 rendering the aircraft uncontrollable is one in millions. There's a higher chance of the plane crashing during takeoff or landing than of that.
Summarized, aircraft are designed with the knowledge that damage to the airframe isn't uncommon. A stray bullet is of more danger directly to the passengers than the aircraft itself. In fact, the only real "weak" area is the cockpit where the control interfaces are... and that was remedied after 9/11, so it's really a relative non-factor.
^This
I'll add to it -
Also keep in mind that when bullets start flying aboard an airliner, the issue of aircraft avionics/flight control penetration takes a far back seat to bad guy penetration. FAMS are not going to start shooting just because the jerk in 12A won't shut his iPhone off. If a FAM (or other airborne LEO) decides to start shooting, it is because the aircraft is in dire danger and the bad guy must be stopped at all costs, damn the 1in100,000,000 chance of of disabling flight controls (or for that matter, over-penetration of Hajji and the unfortunate penetration of Joe Shmoe in 4F).
I am not privy to why exactly the .357 SIG was chosen as the FAMS duty ammo, but I do know that there were some extremely high speed individuals who developed the post 9-11 training program and thus the reasons are more than just bureaucratic.
platoonDaddy
08-22-10, 04:57
I honestly wonder why, in the face of the studies that Doc GKR has conducted, which show 357SIG to be inferior to 9MM+P, that the FAM cling to the round?
The secret service anti-sniper team sidearm is P226 in .357. They claim it is far superior to the 9+
The secret service anti-sniper team sidearm is P226 in .357. They claim it is far superior to the 9+
It has a flatter trajectory and better barrier penetration. On the downside it costs more, has more recoil, and holds fewer rounds. So it depends on the goals.
They challenged the testing claiming it was unfair, and the GAO says it was just fine.
The requirement was for a DAO pistol. The Glock does not meet this definition because you cannot fully cock the striker by pulling the trigger. The M&P does not meet this requirement because it is single action - meaning, the striker is held at close to 100% preset and the trigger just releases it.
ATF responded and said that was academic, which is like saying "Well, we did not really mean DAO - we wanted the same heavy trigger pull on each shot. That is all we meant."
Sig was the only gun company that submitted a pistol qualified to pass Phase-1 and move on.
If other gun companies had known that they did not mean what they said, then they could have submitted other single-action pistols that had advanced safety mechanisms, such as the XD.
It seems possible that they only got three submissions because Springfield and other companies knew they did not have DAO pistols and so never bothered to enter.
MadcapMagician
08-22-10, 19:56
The requirement was for a DAO pistol. The Glock does not meet this definition because you cannot fully cock the striker by pulling the trigger. The M&P does not meet this requirement because it is single action - meaning, the striker is held at close to 100% preset and the trigger just releases it.
ATF responded and said that was academic, which is like saying "Well, we did not really mean DAO - we wanted the same heavy trigger pull on each shot. That is all we meant."
Sig was the only gun company that submitted a pistol qualified to pass Phase-1 and move on.
If other gun companies had known that they did not mean what they said, then they could have submitted other single-action pistols that had advanced safety mechanisms, such as the XD.
It seems possible that they only got three submissions because Springfield and other companies knew they did not have DAO pistols and so never bothered to enter.
Or knew their pistol wouldn't make the cut. :rolleyes:
Springfieldknew they did not have DAO pistols
Or they knew they were crap. lol.
davemcdonald
08-23-10, 20:00
You guys sure know a lot about the FAMs and their guns.
Evidently the FAMs have adopted the Sig P250 in .357 Sig. Quite a shocker! This is not a secret:
http://sigforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/430601935/m/789105851
From all accounts I've read, the Sig P229 in .357 Sig was a very durable and shootable package for the FAMs. I saw a guy in a class loaded with awesome shooters take top shooter with one and everyone was pretty impressed by it.
WTF?:confused:
Is this a case of the IBFAM (Itty Bitty Federal Air Marshal) taking priority over combat effectiveness? Ie interchangeable grip trumps crappy reset. PC wins again?!
Todd, do you think a sub 5 second FAST/555 can be done with this gun?
Or in reality is it tactically equivalent to a P229?
Is the P250 now "on the map"?
Dave Williams
Dave,
So the ATF says no but FAM's say yes? What's going on with this? Id put any FAM against any shooter from any other agency but still FAM's are moving forward with the P250
The ATF currently has a request for proposal ( RFP ) to switch to a new handgun for all of its agents. Sig Sauer submitted their new P250 pistol for this competition, but it was eliminated by the ATF from the competition after completion of the the first two stages of testing. Of the guns tested, only pistols from Glock and Smith & Wesson went forward to the stage 3 tests. Sig Sauer filed an appeal with the ATF about the Sig P250 being eliminated early from the testing. However, the ATF has now rejected their appeal, and only S&W and Glock are going to the final evaluation stage. In rejecting the Sig Sauer appeal, the ATF noted the following from their agent test results: "11 of the 20 test shooters experienced stoppages with Sig Sauer's handguns--in some cases, as many as 10 stoppages. The ATF simply found the Sig P250 to be too unreliable for the needs of their agency. If you want to read the full report denying Sig Sauer's appeal, you can do so here: http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/4023393.htm
I agree I know some of those same guys to bad many of those guys have been forced out by the SS mafia!
I am not privy to why exactly the .357 SIG was chosen as the FAMS duty ammo, but I do know that there were some extremely high speed individuals who developed the post 9-11 training program and thus the reasons are more than just bureaucratic.[/QUOTE]
I dont know if the FAMS are actually moving forward with the 250 or not. I had one on my plane a few weeks ago and I asked him what was going on with them and he said it is in a holding pattern. Some were issued, they stopped issuing, but as far as he knew, they had not requested any be turned in. He still had a 229. As far as he knew, the guys that got them were not impressed. Maybe they are the test group for them. Or maybe this ATF failure has prompted them to re-think things.
The GAO has thrown out a protest from handgun manufacturer, Sig Sauer, Inc., which has supplied the .40 caliber handguns currently used by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), after that agency eliminated Sig Sauer from the most recent procurement competition to supply new handguns to the ATF.
Three gun manufacturers, Sig Sauer, of Exeter, NH; Smith & Wesson Corp., of Springfield, MA; and Glock, Inc., of Smyrna, GA, competed for a contract to supply the ATF with a new “handgun system,” which would consist of two separate weapons of identical function and design, said the GAO, “a standard-size duty weapon for enforcement operations and a compact model for backup and auxiliary needs.”
During phase two of a three-phased evaluation process, the ATF asked 20 of its agents to put all three proposed handguns through identical “live-fire” tests.
“Based on the results of the shooting tests, the [source selection board] recommended to the contracting officer that Sig Sauer’s handgun be excluded from further consideration as unacceptable with respect to reliability,” said the GAO, in a decision document released on August 18. ATF agents had recorded 58 stoppages with Sig Sauer’s full-size and compact pistols, 13 of which were considered to be gun-induced and 45 shooter-induced.
Sig Sauer raised a variety of objections to the manner in which ATF considered various criteria during the evaluation process, but the GAO didn’t buy the company’s arguments.
“In sum, the record shows that ATF reasonably evaluated the firms’ proposals in accordance with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria and concluded Sig Sauer’s offer was not one of the ‘most suitable for performance to the Government’ to continue to phase III,” said the GAO, in a protest denial signed by Acting General Counsel Lynn Gibson.
The decision document did not make clear if the ATF has issued a procurement contract yet to either Smith & Wesson or Glock.
Sig Sauer is an ISO 9001 certified company with over 380 employees. It is the largest member of a worldwide business group of firearms manufacturers that includes J.P. Sauer & Sohn and Blaser, Gmbh. in Germany and Swiss Arms AG in Switzerland.
Cont:
http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/4023393.htm
Already posted and discussed in the another thread.
John_Wayne777
09-07-10, 14:02
And now by the power of my awesomeness it's in the other thread. ;)
Littlelebowski
09-07-10, 14:06
You guys sure know a lot about the FAMs and their guns.
There's FAMs on here. I know one personally and consider him a friend.
John_Wayne777
09-07-10, 14:20
Dave,
So the ATF says no but FAM's say yes? What's going on with this?
Note the date of the original post. The FAMS announcement came almost a year ago. A lot has transpired in the time since the announcement, including publicly accessible data that hints at the magnitude of suck that has been built into the P250.
There's also an interesting thread on LF about the ATF contract that folks should look at as further explaining how deep Sig's issues go of late.
While we're on the topic, it should be mentioned that the contracts have been announced. Glock and S&W were both awarded contracts for .40 caliber pistols. That means that the BATFE (and any agencies that piggyback on that contract) can order from either vendor, generally in case something goes wrong with one.
I'm just seeing this now, so:
The requirement was for a DAO pistol. The Glock does not meet this definition because you cannot fully cock the striker by pulling the trigger. The M&P does not meet this requirement because it is single action - meaning, the striker is held at close to 100% preset and the trigger just releases it.
ATF responded and said that was academic, which is like saying "Well, we did not really mean DAO - we wanted the same heavy trigger pull on each shot. That is all we meant."
On page 23 of the procurement document (found here (https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=a7eebb6f2e9f768a6a159d2639af04a6)) it says quite clearly:
The trigger mechanism must be either Double Action Only or Striker Fired. The trigger mechanism must
move the hammer or striker to a fully cocked position and release it to cause discharge of the weapon. There
must be no method of manually cocking the handgun other than by pulling the trigger.
Sig was the only gun company that submitted a pistol qualified to pass Phase-1 and move on.
'fraid not, chief.
If other gun companies had known that they did not mean what they said, then they could have submitted other single-action pistols that had advanced safety mechanisms, such as the XD.
The XD would have been a problematic submission since the procurement says, on page 24:
1. No manual safety lever permitted on the slide or frame. (safeties disengaged by finger pressure on the trigger
are allowed)
2. No grip safety.
3. No magazine disconnect safety. It must be possible to fire the handgun without a magazine inserted.
4. Internal safeties
a. Must have internal mechanism that prevents handgun from discharging out of battery.
b. Must have internal mechanism that prevents the handgun from discharging multiple times if the trigger is
held to the rear after firing.
c. Must have internal mechanism that prevents the handgun from firing without activation of the trigger.
d. Must have internal mechanism that prevents the handgun from firing if dropped.
It seems possible that they only got three submissions because Springfield and other companies knew they did not have DAO pistols and so never bothered to enter.
It may seem that way to you, but it's not true. In reality unless you were involved with the testing being done by BATFE it would be very difficult for you to know who submitted what and why it was rejected beyond what has been disclosed publicly. It's not at all uncommon for gun companies to submit a batch of test guns to a process even if they don't meet the specs outlined in the proposal. Glock, for example, tried to get into the M9 trials despite being completely outside the spec put out for the RFTS.
And now by the power of my awesomeness it's in the other thread. ;)
With the name "John Wayne" we'd expect nothing less!
You guys sure know a lot about the FAMs and their guns.
I added that T-shirt to the collection a couple of years ago.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.