I'd have to go with TC on SIG's. As far as ergonomics go the SIG's are first rate in my opinion. USP's (especially the .45 tactical) are like ouija (sp?) boards. You put your hand on them and they do the rest. I have alot of time on the m-9, I own a 229 but have fired my buds 228 alot, I own a USP compact but have fired the .45 tactical, the SOCOM, .40 compact, and have had a fair amount of time on the 9 fullsize, I've fired glock 17's whenever they are around to shoot. I personally hate glocks (I blame rap music and holliwood and not to mention the nice 2 year buy back deal with local law enforcement that glock offered a few years back.
For military use I'd have to go with either the beretta (its heavy can stand to field use), the USP tactical (good tactical pistol for lack of a better discription), or the sig simple to take down and a good accurate shooter on the fly. But I'd never in a million years go with a glock. Jaunty you can spout off way more data then I ever could on guns and I respect that, but that "order of the world" you posted gave me a chuckle. Sometimes bro you are just out there.
As for the Draganouv its not a bad system but it isn't by far the greatest... it works but any and I do mean any semi-auto "sniper" system just isn't going to cut it. Bolt actions have historically proven more accurate. As for the M-4 I know your not a fan but lets face it, in my experience with them they are easy to use and are well suited to a myriad of situations. I personally don't go with .308 in battle rifles. Oh sure go into "knock-down" power and all this but I can put more rounds out accurately with .223 in a row. Don't get me wrong I love the G-3 but can't reaquire as fast with it. Also I'd rather carry an M-4 50 miles then an m-14 or G-3 or FAL etc.
