Report: ICE to switch from .40 S&W SIG P229R DAK to 9mm SIG P320

[U8395279]

Immigration and Customs Enforcement is said to be in the process of switching from their currently issued .40 S&W SIG P229R DAK to the 9mm SIG P320.

The heavy weight and heavy trigger pull of the P229R DAK are said to be the two top complaints that agents had about the pistol.

Interesting, too, that yet another Federal agency is dropping .40 S&W in favor of 9mm. The transition is supposed to be completed before the end of next year.

ICE has also decided to equip its agents that serve warrants with a SIG MPX submachine gun in 9mm as well. Those guns are scheduled to be issued to agents in 2018.

Rumors that ICE will adopt the Sig P320 and MPX | SOFREP

.

Read More

 

[tacticalgunner]

I don't think this is a big surprise, IMO (which means nothing) all government will go to a basic caliber. It makes logistic sense and in time of war, I can see the military can pull from other organizations in need instead of waiting for a company to manufacture. All in all, its an easy ammo storage for the government

 

[B5Ben]

Sounds like there will be some CPO sig 229's on the market soon

 

[Medic!]

Well. They don't arrest anybody.
So .22 revolvers should do.

 

[rdb241]

Is this really a news worthy story? Who cares?

 

[Medic!]

Don't you know with new BB technology we don't need large caliber handguns anymore.

Daisy is gona be busy filling all those contracts.

 

[tacticalgunner]

Sounds like there will be some CPO sig 229's on the market soon

Really, I would be in the Market as a collector

 

[mkwerx]

What I am getting out of this whole story - our Federal Government is once again pissing away massive amount of cash on new toys and not properly managing our money. The special snowflakes who think the DAK trigger is too heavy need to, as Colonel Cooper would put it "go out and come back in again" - I like the DAK trigger and find it much better than Sig's traditional 12lb DAO.

Someone just decided they needed new toys. And what about all the billions of .40S&W ammo that the .gov was said to be buying a couple years back - now they're switching from .40's to 9's - they're not going to be giving free ammo to us taxpayers who bought that sh!t - they're not even going to sell it to us on the cheap.

While I'm not the biggest fan of the .40 - at least in a gun like the P229 which was designed around the .40 - it's not a heavy recoiling gun. Again - the special snowflake agents need more basic marksmanship training, and not new guns. That $500 per gun, plus the new holsters, and all that new ammo could have gone a looong way toward paying for range time for the agents to get better at handling the gear they already have.

As a tax payer we should be pissed that they're wasting money in this way. And MPX submachine guns for "warrant service" - once again I will say that Civilian Law Enforcement does not need automatic weapons. As the anti-gun crowd likes to say "weapons of war have no place on our streets" - government should lead by example!

 

[tacticalgunner]

What I am getting out of this whole story - our Federal Government is once again pissing away massive amount of cash on new toys and not properly managing our money. The special snowflakes who think the DAK trigger is too heavy need to, as Colonel Cooper would put it "go out and come back in again" - I like the DAK trigger and find it much better than Sig's traditional 12lb DAO.

Someone just decided they needed new toys. And what about all the billions of .40S&W ammo that the .gov was said to be buying a couple years back - now they're switching from .40's to 9's - they're not going to be giving free ammo to us taxpayers who bought that sh!t - they're not even going to sell it to us on the cheap.

While I'm not the biggest fan of the .40 - at least in a gun like the P229 which was designed around the .40 - it's not a heavy recoiling gun. Again - the special snowflake agents need more basic marksmanship training, and not new guns. That $500 per gun, plus the new holsters, and all that new ammo could have gone a looong way toward paying for range time for the agents to get better at handling the gear they already have.

As a tax payer we should be pissed that they're wasting money in this way. And MPX submachine guns for "warrant service" - once again I will say that Civilian Law Enforcement does not need automatic weapons. As the anti-gun crowd likes to say "weapons of war have no place on our streets" - government should lead by example!

I agree with the waste of money. I don't know the history behind it all, but it looks like they started a transition to the Glock 26 last year.

Concerning the MPX, I always believe the use of force to be one above what the civilian population has. If there is a drug dealer with Fast and Furious Auto weapons in the house and the authorities are taking that place down, they dang well better have something of the same or better.

 

[mkwerx]

I agree with the waste of money. I don't know the history behind it all, but it looks like they started a transition to the Glock 26 last year.

Concerning the MPX, I always believe the use of force to be one above what the civilian population has. If there is a drug dealer with Fast and Furious Auto weapons in the house and the authorities are taking that place down, they dang well better have something of the same or better.

You can't miss enough with a full auto to defeat your opponent. Civilian government should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us civilians. The day they repeal the NFA, I'll reconsider government thugs having automatics, while we simple serfs may have only semi autos.

But again - you cannot miss enough with full auto to win. Spending less cash on semi-auto guns, and using the money on training people to properly use those semi auto guns, will yield better results than spray fire from autos.

I'm sure you've all seen the video of a SWAT team taking down a fat guy with a shotgun - where some SWAT cop opens up with his MP5SD and stitches Bubba right up his abdomen. Had he missed with any of those rounds - which is a lot easier to do with automatics than semi-automatics - he would've gotten off far easier than you or I if those errant rounds hit someone's property, or someone. Cops don't need full auto, even if the bad guys are dug in and have crew served weapons. A decent marksman with an AR and a half decent optic will do the job with less risk. And if sending multiple lead pills down range is the idea - a 12 guage with buck shot will still get the job done, and be less likely to travel far and kill Little Jimmy or Little Jane blocks away from the quarrantine zone when/if the cops miss.

I'm not anti cop - but I am anti-stupidity and believe the Government should abide by the regulations they impose upon us.

Another rather disturbing instance is the Dallas police using explosives now to take out certain threats, as we saw with the Dallas sniper a while back. I'm all for killing people who need killing - but civilian police using explosives is not something that sits well with me. The lines between civil law enforcement (who used to be Peace Officers, and not Law Enforcement) and military members is getting too blurred.

Again, using the anti-gun rhetoric against them - weapons of war don't belong on our streets so civilian police should not have weapons of war. To give them such is a clear indication that they are at war with those they are supposed to serve. That'd be us.

 

[tacticalgunner]

You can't miss enough with a full auto to defeat your opponent. Civilian government should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us civilians. The day they repeal the NFA, I'll reconsider government thugs having automatics, while we simple serfs may have only semi autos.

But again - you cannot miss enough with full auto to win. Spending less cash on semi-auto guns, and using the money on training people to properly use those semi auto guns, will yield better results than spray fire from autos.

I'm sure you've all seen the video of a SWAT team taking down a fat guy with a shotgun - where some SWAT cop opens up with his MP5SD and stitches Bubba right up his abdomen. Had he missed with any of those rounds - which is a lot easier to do with automatics than semi-automatics - he would've gotten off far easier than you or I if those errant rounds hit someone's property, or someone. Cops don't need full auto, even if the bad guys are dug in and have crew served weapons. A decent marksman with an AR and a half decent optic will do the job with less risk. And if sending multiple lead pills down range is the idea - a 12 guage with buck shot will still get the job done, and be less likely to travel far and kill Little Jimmy or Little Jane blocks away from the quarrantine zone when/if the cops miss.

I'm not anti cop - but I am anti-stupidity and believe the Government should abide by the regulations they impose upon us.

Another rather disturbing instance is the Dallas police using explosives now to take out certain threats, as we saw with the Dallas sniper a while back. I'm all for killing people who need killing - but civilian police using explosives is not something that sits well with me. The lines between civil law enforcement (who used to be Peace Officers, and not Law Enforcement) and military members is getting too blurred.

Again, using the anti-gun rhetoric against them - weapons of war don't belong on our streets so civilian police should not have weapons of war. To give them such is a clear indication that they are at war with those they are supposed to serve. That'd be us.

I understand your position, and of course its valid. The officers using said weapons did not make the laws, most of them agree with us on NFA laws, maybe with the exceptions of some certain city agencies wide spread across America. Most of the law enforcement officers believe in the civilian right to own and protect. I believe they do work for us, thats the good guys, and you can see that by the letters wrote to law makers from Sheriffs around the country that will not enforce or seek prosecution for new laws being amended.
Before I was in the Navy, I was a Peace Officer. And with peace, you have to dedicate part of your effort to war. I agree, training is a big part of what the LE world is lacking, but money and time for officers to be off the street to train is an issue. and when you train those folks, your training tactics, and precision weapon handling. I was shot serving a high risk warrant. I will tell you one thing, all the training in the world would have not stopped what happened in my mind. Speaking of training, we all preach training, as i do too, but one thing you can't simulate it the adrenaline that going on in the body, the in the moment situation.
And your not using their Anti-Gun rhetoric against them, your comments align with them when you say the certain weapons are weapons of war....
The only way a weapon is a weapon of war is when you use it in such a way..... Your comments make me wonder who side your on?

 

[mkwerx]

The weapons of war phrase is how the antis define it. They claim even a semi auto AR is one. Which is bunk, and you're right - a weapon of war is whatever weapon is in your hands when waging war - but to the anti gunners in power and public, they use that term to define the rifles and pistols we the public own and use, yet won't call those same guns by the same term when they are in the hands of a government official.

Realistic training - force on force and role playing - is becoming a larger part of training in the civilian LE world. A friend of mine went through Oregon's police academy a few years ago, and along with increasing the length of the basic police academy, they're focusing a lot more on scenario training and FoF stuff according to him, trying to simulate as best they can what they'll face in the real world. I'd much rather see our tax dollars spent on this - so that the guys doing the job are getting the best experience, than to see them changing guns anytime something new and shiney comes along. I would be less irritated by it, if police agencies ditched the mandated, issued weapon in favor of the individual officer purchasing and providing his own weapon from an approved list, provided the list was large enough to let the officer pick something that works well for them. I'd rather see an issued rifle, if they're going to issue weapons, than an issued pistol. Rifles are easier to teach people to shoot and a basic AR-15 fits a much wider range of users than one specific model of pistol. The agency can still mandate caliber while letting the officer pick the right gun for them. The agency my friend works for, for example mandated a .45 - and allowed for any gun so long as you could get the dept. armorer to sign off on it as being well made and reliable. 1911's were very popular, as were Glocks, Sigs, and Smiths. They issued Bushmaster AR15s and I think they had a few shotguns in rotation too.

Paying for training is always going to be an issue, but that can come down to admin properly budgeting, scheduling, and prioritizing - and biting the Overtime bullet. You have to pay them OT for extra shifts, court, or training days. As a tax payer and citizen, I personally would view that extra cash as an investment - an investment in something that would actually (hopefully) make their job safer, and make *me* safer because the cop is less likely to miss and kill a bystander.

I remember when ICE switched from their old Berettas to the then new DAK 229's - the gun rags of the time gave that a lot of press. The new ICE guns (which I think were a joint purchase contract with the USCG, as this was right after DHS was formed and the CG along with customs and border patrol were brought under DHS, and Customs and Border Protection was renamed Customs and Immigration Enforcement) - they were buying DeSantis leather duty holsters for the new guns. Sig gave them a deal on the new 229's, and the troops were raving about the new better guns and how they loved the DAK trigger over the old Beretta 96's.

Funny how now, what, 15 years hence, the DAK trigger is too heavy, the gun recoils too much, and they want a lighter gun, with lighter trigger, and lighter bullet. In 10 years or so they'll say the 9mm isn't effective enough and they'll need something else. Or the coyotes will be wearing body armor, carrying AKM's - and they'll need FN 5-7's to punch through armor, with matching P90's and pintle mounted machine guns on their armored patrol vehicles.

In the end - the job of a cop, any cop, is dangerous and there is only so much that can be done to reduce that danger. Cops will still get hurt, some will get killed. It's a dangerous job, and most people are not cut out for it. A lot of guys wearing badges today are not cut out for it. I'm all for giving them good gear to do their dangerous job - but I also want to ensure that we're not wasting money by spending it unnecessarily, and that the roles of police officers are clearly separated from that of combat soldiers.

Sorry for the thread derail

 

[tacticalgunner]

The weapons of war phrase is how the antis define it. They claim even a semi auto AR is one. Which is bunk, and you're right - a weapon of war is whatever weapon is in your hands when waging war - but to the anti gunners in power and public, they use that term to define the rifles and pistols we the public own and use, yet won't call those same guns by the same term when they are in the hands of a government official.

Realistic training - force on force and role playing - is becoming a larger part of training in the civilian LE world. A friend of mine went through Oregon's police academy a few years ago, and along with increasing the length of the basic police academy, they're focusing a lot more on scenario training and FoF stuff according to him, trying to simulate as best they can what they'll face in the real world. I'd much rather see our tax dollars spent on this - so that the guys doing the job are getting the best experience, than to see them changing guns anytime something new and shiney comes along. I would be less irritated by it, if police agencies ditched the mandated, issued weapon in favor of the individual officer purchasing and providing his own weapon from an approved list, provided the list was large enough to let the officer pick something that works well for them. I'd rather see an issued rifle, if they're going to issue weapons, than an issued pistol. Rifles are easier to teach people to shoot and a basic AR-15 fits a much wider range of users than one specific model of pistol. The agency can still mandate caliber while letting the officer pick the right gun for them. The agency my friend works for, for example mandated a .45 - and allowed for any gun so long as you could get the dept. armorer to sign off on it as being well made and reliable. 1911's were very popular, as were Glocks, Sigs, and Smiths. They issued Bushmaster AR15s and I think they had a few shotguns in rotation too.

Paying for training is always going to be an issue, but that can come down to admin properly budgeting, scheduling, and prioritizing - and biting the Overtime bullet. You have to pay them OT for extra shifts, court, or training days. As a tax payer and citizen, I personally would view that extra cash as an investment - an investment in something that would actually (hopefully) make their job safer, and make *me* safer because the cop is less likely to miss and kill a bystander.

I remember when ICE switched from their old Berettas to the then new DAK 229's - the gun rags of the time gave that a lot of press. The new ICE guns (which I think were a joint purchase contract with the USCG, as this was right after DHS was formed and the CG along with customs and border patrol were brought under DHS, and Customs and Border Protection was renamed Customs and Immigration Enforcement) - they were buying DeSantis leather duty holsters for the new guns. Sig gave them a deal on the new 229's, and the troops were raving about the new better guns and how they loved the DAK trigger over the old Beretta 96's.

Funny how now, what, 15 years hence, the DAK trigger is too heavy, the gun recoils too much, and they want a lighter gun, with lighter trigger, and lighter bullet. In 10 years or so they'll say the 9mm isn't effective enough and they'll need something else. Or the coyotes will be wearing body armor, carrying AKM's - and they'll need FN 5-7's to punch through armor, with matching P90's and pintle mounted machine guns on their armored patrol vehicles.

In the end - the job of a cop, any cop, is dangerous and there is only so much that can be done to reduce that danger. Cops will still get hurt, some will get killed. It's a dangerous job, and most people are not cut out for it. A lot of guys wearing badges today are not cut out for it. I'm all for giving them good gear to do their dangerous job - but I also want to ensure that we're not wasting money by spending it unnecessarily, and that the roles of police officers are clearly separated from that of combat soldiers.

Sorry for the thread derail

Again, Valid response and i don't think its derailing. I think that the bad guys has made an elevation of weaponry, not the officers. I think that what has happened is a shift in who we and the media portrays as the bad guys. And I think we must, no, its crucial to understand the facts of every elevated threat and the method that the enemy was taken down. We must also remember that a few bad officers does not represent the law enforcement world. Again, I am going to be partial to the LE folks. But I will tell you this my friend. I don't want to be behind the badge and under gunned.
I get your rifle idea, but, i don't know if you can carry a rifle on a traffic stop

 

[mkwerx]

Again, Valid response and i don't think its derailing. I think that the bad guys has made an elevation of weaponry, not the officers. I think that what has happened is a shift in who we and the media portrays as the bad guys. And I think we must, no, its crucial to understand the facts of every elevated threat and the method that the enemy was taken down. We must also remember that a few bad officers does not represent the law enforcement world. Again, I am going to be partial to the LE folks. But I will tell you this my friend. I don't want to be behind the badge and under gunned.
I get your rifle idea, but, i don't know if you can carry a rifle on a traffic stop

SBR on a single point sling 10.5 inch barrel. No one is going to give you lip when you've got 10 and half inches of cold hammer forged steel hanging between your thighs when you're asking for license and registration But you might have some ladies (gun bunnie, holster sniffers, badge bandits) asking for your phone number.

 

[tacticalgunner]

SBR on a single point sling 10.5 inch barrel. No one is going to give you lip when you've got 10 and half inches of cold hammer forged steel hanging between your thighs when you're asking for license and registration But you might have some ladies (gun bunnie, holster sniffers, badge bandits) asking for your phone number.

There goes your militarized police force theory!

 

[mkwerx]

Never said it had to be an AR. Could be a chopped down Winchester 1894. That might garner a higher class of badge bunny too.

 

[Certaindeaf]

They need coal shovels and a spine and actually do their job.
feh

 

[U8395279]

I don't think this is a big surprise, IMO (which means nothing) all government will go to a basic caliber. It makes logistic sense and in time of war, I can see the military can pull from other organizations in need instead of waiting for a company to manufacture. All in all, its an easy ammo storage for the government

But this is internal law enforcement within our own country, not our military.

Does this mean that War is expected to break out inside America??

.

 

[tacticalgunner]

But this is internal law enforcement within our own country, not our military.

Does this mean that War is expected to break out inside America??

.

No, saying if they are overseas, they could possibly requisition from inner government. Or within the country. In one respect, do you think that another country will not invade us on our own homeland? Its possible, some thinks its already happened or happening.

 

[mkwerx]

No, saying if they are overseas, they could possibly requisition from inner government. Or within the country. In one respect, do you think that another country will not invade us on our own homeland? Its possible, some thinks its already happened or happening.

WE've been getting invaded via our southern border for decades and little has been done to stop it. And it's not just Latinos doing it - they've caught lots of jihadi-would-bes sneaking across too. Funny how they're all doing it down there, and you don't hear about rampant invasion via Canada.