And here lies the issue with most departments, they buy price and reliability first and foremost and not what fits the persons hand. Glock offers very low pricing to Law Enforcement so to some it is a no brainer and not that it is the best handgun for the officers. Sig's tend to be twice the price of Glock's so in many cases it is a pure financial decision..... Now here is where we totally disagree, I would take any Sig over any Glock without hesitation. Actually I would not even own a Glock even if given to me.Target1911 wrote:Not to mention longer sight radius and higher capacity as well as easier to control.C-dub wrote:This is the article I saw that said they are allowed to choose.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015 ... ayinmil.sm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Why wouldn't they go with the G17. With the larger grip it would be easier to hold with gloves.
I never have like the YOU CARRY WHAT I WANT YOU TO CARRY frame of mind. Not when it comes to pistols. Ft Worth PD was only allowed to carry Sigs for many many years. That was only because the chief was a huge sign fan. It wasn't until recently they were allowed to carry Glock. I agree that Sig is a well made gun but it is far from my choice of weapon.
As mentioned Special Ops has a choice of what they want to carry and many times it is mission related. Adding a Glock to the mix is a no brainer as many people really like them and shoot them well But they are one of many and really is no big deal.