Army adopts SIG P320

[T.O.M.]

Looks like Army is going with the SIG P320...

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/01/19/army-picks-sig-sauer-replace-m9-service-pistol.html

Interesting.  I've not handled or fired the SIG P320, but all I've read of it is good, and of course SIG's reputation is excellent.  Article says that Glock is expected to appeal the decision.  Read elsewhere that FN is also considering appealing the decision, and Smith wasn't commenting at this time.  Don't know how the appeals process works.  But with Glocks in the holsters of the FBI, the US Marshall's, MARSOC, and the SEALS, and with the new administration coming in, I wonder if Glock will be able to sell themselves as a cost saving measure for the entire .gov...  At the same time, with Trump's "make America great again" message, maybe S&W should consider appealing as well...

Should be fun to watch.

[Ben]

Huh. Immediately veering the thread from the pistol, it is interesting to me that there is such an appeals process. From the article, the losers kinda sound like certain people in the last election.  I can understand an appeal if there is some evidence of collusion, but if it's simply "they liked the Sig better", the other gun makers need to drive on.

[Perd Hapley]

Surprising. Interesting that they announced in the middle of Shot Show.

[MechAg94]

My only concern is I heard the process and the regulations/rules around it were somewhat convoluted.  I would hope the new Defense Secretary will review this and make sure the process was correct and the pistol meets their needs.

I have seen/handled the P320 Compact.  It seems like it wasn't a bad pistol.  Probably a big improvement over the Beretta.  Not sure it is really better than the current competitors.  I bought a CZ P07 instead which is my current carry pistol.  I haven't handled the full size P320.  

I don't really know why the Army would need a larger size anyway.  

[MechAg94]

The other comment I heard earlier this week was more a comment on priorities.  The Army spent a lot of money on this pistol competition.  Maybe that money would have been better spent on improving or replacing the Army's primary infantry weapon rather than the sidearm. 

[wmenorr67]

My only concern is I heard the process and the regulations/rules around it were somewhat convoluted.  I would hope the new Defense Secretary will review this and make sure the process was correct and the pistol meets their needs.

I have seen/handled the P320 Compact.  It seems like it wasn't a bad pistol.  Probably a big improvement over the Beretta.  Not sure it is really better than the current competitors.  I bought a CZ P07 instead which is my current carry pistol.  I haven't handled the full size P320.  

I don't really know why the Army would need a larger size anyway.  

Rubber band gun would meet that requirement.

I'm glad Glock didn't win, only thing I seem to shoot worse than a Beretta is a Glock.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't really know why the Army would need a larger size anyway.  

   Aren't military duty guns typically "duty-sized"? Besides, it's a modular gun. The size is negotiable.


As for the service rifle, didn't they just have rifle trials a few years ago? They decided to stick with what they had, as I recall.

[HankB]

Haven't handled the Sig 320 myself, but in the past, I've found that most Sig pistols (with the notable exception of the Sig P-210) just don't fit my hand very well - they don't naturally "point" where they should.

The Beretta fits my hand and "points" much better . . . but oddly enough, groups I've shot with a Beretta 92 Elite are appreciably larger than those I shoot with any other 9mm or .45 pistol. Go figure.

[French G.]

Nothing wrong with the Beretta, cheapest would have been to trade in the guns for credit on new ones and destroy\sell every old mag. M9 was reliable and very accurate I thought. I don't like da\sa but it is a lot safer in a combat environment than something like a glock.

[MechAg94]

 Aren't military duty guns typically "duty-sized"? Besides, it's a modular gun. The size is negotiable.


As for the service rifle, didn't they just have rifle trials a few years ago? They decided to stick with what they had, as I recall.

My point was that for something that is just a side arm, you can get the same 15 round capacity with a compact size handgun that is smaller and lighter than the duty size.  I am not sure what all their requirements are.

As far as the service rifle, I don't know what they would do myself.  The point was that the budget spent for this handgun competition was pretty high for a sidearm.  Maybe just complaining to complain.

[dogmush]

The budget wasn't actually that high as I recall.  It was like 17M for the entire selection and trials process.

We looked at just replacing the M9 with more M9's but the tech progression in pistols over the last 30 years is pretty significant, and while some folks do like the M9, the vast majority of users had issues.

I'm pretty stoked, myself.  I only carry a pistol anymore and I was hoping they'd choose the Sig.  I prefer the 320 to any of the other choices.

(of course we could just go old school and go back to letting officers buy and bring their own weapons.  THAT would save a ton of money)

[T.O.M.]

Just got an email from a buddy about this.  From this, and what I've read elsewhere, the Army was looking for a modular handgun system, something where they could adjust the size of the handgun to meet the needs of the user.  With the SIG system, they could conceivably change not only the grip size, but the overall size of the entire handgun.  Buddy says that is where Glock is complaining.  They offered 2 handguns (Glock 17 and Glock 19) to meet what they and others saw as two separate requests...full-sized duty gun and a compact gun for concealment needs.  Allegedly, they are saying SIG isn't playing fair offering a 2 for 1 option.  As a taxpayer, if they can get two handguns in terms of use for less than it would cost to actually buy two handguns, I'm all for it.  Though, with what I've seen locally from Glock deals with law enforcement agencies, I wouldn't be surprised to see Glock offer something like a "buy two Glock 17s, get a Glock 19 free" deal to the Army. if they can get the deal opened through some kind of appeal.

[Triphammer]

Without real knowledge, just from a rather low POV, there seems to be a problem with the GOV contract appeals process. For the last 3 years, I've been siting through appeals by my current employer stopped the awarding of a new contract. Three month extension after extension, appeal after appeal and no reason given. There doesn't seem to be any threshold to offering a protest.

[MikeB]

Putting aside Glock vs. Beretta vs. SIG; some people will always like one better than another. And stipulating I don't want our military not to have an effective weapon. How often are handguns really used in combat to justify all the expense. I don't understand why we didn't stick with the 1911 or just stay with the Beretta.

[dogmush]

Putting aside Glock vs. Beretta vs. SIG; some people will always like one better than another. And stipulating I don't want our military not to have an effective weapon. How often are handguns really used in combat to justify all the expense. I don't understand why we didn't stick with the 1911 or just stay with the Beretta.

People keep saying this.  The guns we have (and the ones we had in 1980) are wore the hell out.  Done.  Crap.  Lots of Frame wear. We need new pistols.  Since we're buying pistols anyway, why not look at what is available now instead of buying what was available 30 years ago?

When you wear your car out, you generally buy one of a newer design then the old one, right?  When you buy a TV you don't go looking for a 27" tube set just because the old one was, right?  Why wouldn't the Army look at new pistols?  Don't you want to get the best pistol for your tax dollars?

[dogmush]

Just got an email from a buddy about this.  From this, and what I've read elsewhere, the Army was looking for a modular handgun system, something where they could adjust the size of the handgun to meet the needs of the user.  With the SIG system, they could conceivably change not only the grip size, but the overall size of the entire handgun.  Buddy says that is where Glock is complaining.  They offered 2 handguns (Glock 17 and Glock 19) to meet what they and others saw as two separate requests...full-sized duty gun and a compact gun for concealment needs.  Allegedly, they are saying SIG isn't playing fair offering a 2 for 1 option.  As a taxpayer, if they can get two handguns in terms of use for less than it would cost to actually buy two handguns, I'm all for it.  Though, with what I've seen locally from Glock deals with law enforcement agencies, I wouldn't be surprised to see Glock offer something like a "buy two Glock 17s, get a Glock 19 free" deal to the Army. if they can get the deal opened through some kind of appeal.

Well we did name the program the "Modular Handgun System".  That might have given Glock a clue as to what one of the major features the Army was looking for was going to be.  It's right there in the name.

[HankB]

. . .

When you wear your car out, you generally buy one of a newer design then the old one, right?  When you buy a TV you don't go looking for a 27" tube set just because the old one was, right?  Why wouldn't the Army look at new pistols?  Don't you want to get the best pistol for your tax dollars?

I wish I could get a car like my folks' 1964 Pontiac Tempest or 1968 Sedan DeVille . . . and at the same price.

[dogmush]

I wish I could get a car like my folks' 1964 Pontiac Tempest or 1968 Sedan DeVille . . . and at the same price.

The Beretta is more like an '82 K car.

[Brad Johnson]

The Beretta is more like an '82 K car.

But with better movie cred

Brad

[MikeB]

People keep saying this.  The guns we have (and the ones we had in 1980) are wore the hell out.  Done.  Crap.  Lots of Frame wear. We need new pistols.  Since we're buying pistols anyway, why not look at what is available now instead of buying what was available 30 years ago?

When you wear your car out, you generally buy one of a newer design then the old one, right?  When you buy a TV you don't go looking for a 27" tube set just because the old one was, right?  Why wouldn't the Army look at new pistols?  Don't you want to get the best pistol for your tax dollars?

Again. How often are handguns actually used in combat? The best pistol for the tax dollars may not be the latest and greatest. If a 30 year old design is functional and the actual use in combat is approaching zero we shouldn't be spending so much for the latest and greatest. Also note that was a question, I don't know if the use in combat approaches zero or 100, but I suspect it is closer to zero.

I have hundreds or Firearms, probably over a hundred pistols including many of the most modern designs. I still mostly carry a 1911 type or a revolver. Now I'm not going into combat likely when I leave the house, but I'm guessing very few soldiers are actually using pistols in combat. Maybe I'm wrong, hence the question.

[T.O.M.]

Again. How often are handguns actually used in combat? The best pistol for the tax dollars may not be the latest and greatest. If a 30 year old design is functional and the actual use in combat is approaching zero we shouldn't be spending so much for the latest and greatest. Also note that was a question, I don't know if the use in combat approaches zero or 100, but I suspect it is closer to zero.

I have hundreds or Firearms, probably over a hundred pistols including many of the most modern designs. I still mostly carry a 1911 type or a revolver. Now I'm not going into combat likely when I leave the house, but I'm guessing very few soldiers are actually using pistols in combat. Maybe I'm wrong, hence the question.

Okay, military use of handguns.  I'll talk Army, since that was what I did.  Issued to MP and CID personnel, of course.  Flight crews. Tank crews and some other vehicle crews.  A lot of medical personnel.  A lot of REMFs that get sent in harms way (a lot of JAG officers get issued a handgun if they are going into theater for some reason).  Dogmush, Scout, Fitz, who else am I missing?

[wmenorr67]

Okay, military use of handguns.  I'll talk Army, since that was what I did.  Issued to MP and CID personnel, of course.  Flight crews. Tank crews and some other vehicle crews.  A lot of medical personnel.  A lot of REMFs that get sent in harms way (a lot of JAG officers get issued a handgun if they are going into theater for some reason).  Dogmush, Scout, Fitz, who else am I missing?

Crew served weapon team members, snipers, staff officers and NCO's

[MechAg94]

From what I hear, the Sig P320 appears to be a pretty good pistol.  I hope it serves our troops well. 

[lee n. field]

Again. How often are handguns actually used in combat? The best pistol for the tax dollars may not be the latest and greatest. If a 30 year old design is functional and the actual use in combat is approaching zero we shouldn't be spending so much for the latest and greatest. Also note that was a question, I don't know if the use in combat approaches zero or 100, but I suspect it is closer to zero.

I have hundreds or Firearms, probably over a hundred pistols including many of the most modern designs. I still mostly carry a 1911 type or a revolver. Now I'm not going into combat likely when I leave the house, but I'm guessing very few soldiers are actually using pistols in combat. Maybe I'm wrong, hence the question.

Fitz should weigh in.  Didn't he take his own personal XD with him to the bad sandy place?

[Tuco]

Thread veer- what's with the Beretta hate?  To big and heavy?  Outdated?  Goofy decocker?
I always thought that the Beretta just felt right in the hand.
A little big, but it seemed to connect with what I was looking at, regardless of the sight picture.