I can see why some would see how the company marketed the M-11A1 as deceptive. This is how SIG has been advertising the pistol the past few years:
Designed to meet, and exceed, rigorous military standards, the M11-A1 Compact performs like no other 9mm available. This pistol features the black hard-coat finish on its alloy frame and SIG's Nitron finish over a stainless slide. Internal parts and controls are phosphated for extreme corrosion resistance and reduced friction while the barrel is finished in Nitron which easily passes the military's accuracy requirements, even after 20,000 rounds. This pistol also passes the military's 240-hour salt spray corrosion test. Additional features include vertical front strap serrations and SIGLITE night sights.
I see where you're coming from but don't fully agree. Most buyers of the A1 knew full well that they were not getting an "original" P-228. SIG certainly implied the A1 was the successor to the M-11, but never stated that it'd been adopted by any agency, simply that it was designed to meet and exceed military standards. A "deceptive" advertising practice? Isn't most advertising deceptive? Isn't it the consumer's responsibility to educate himself/herself?
In the end, though, all I'm saying is that I don't get the outrage. (And I still like my M-11A1, but I did take the sticker off)
View attachment 905264