Army adopts SIG P320

[lee n. field]

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.

Mmmmm, OK.

What gun our military picks is interesting, but won't really affect my own buying decisions.  Heck, I only got around to my first 1911 in 2015.

I'm tempted to say "get a Glock and be done with it", but I know there's a lot more to the decision than a gun that goes bang reliably.  Logistics, armorer support.  Intellectual property issues, if you need to have more than one manufacturer making the thing.

And it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't some funkiness with the appearance of impropriety in the decision process.

[RoadKingLarry]

John Moses Browning is sad.

[Fly320s]

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

It is good.  Shoots better out of the box than any of my M&Ps, even the tuned one.  It is a bulky gun, but not large.  I would chose it over Glocks every day. 

[MikeB]

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?

I meant actual use in combat. What was really wrong with the previous models as it pertained to actual combat use; not who carries them or not. In other words how often is a pistol actually drawn and fired at the enemy.

[JN01]

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.

I'm a Glock guy and think they would have been a fine choice, but having two different size guns doesn't make either of them modular.  They didn't meet the criteria, they shouldn't have a basis for appealing the selection.

[Perd Hapley]

I meant actual use in combat. What was really wrong with the previous models as it pertained to actual combat use; not who carries them or not. In other words how often is a pistol actually drawn and fired at the enemy.

Who carries them is relevant information to that end. If they're all carried by Pentagon desk jockies, that tells you something about how frequently they're fired in anger; versus their being carried by combat medics and tank crews.

Just sayin'.

Then again, probably a better chance of needing a gat in D.C. than anywhere in country.

[MechAg94]

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.  

I never handled or shot an M9, but I did have a 92FS for a while.  I didn't like the grip.  The trigger kind of sucked.  And the pistol was larger than it needed to be for the capacity.  

The M9 size was actually about normal for that capacity in the 80's.  For 2017, it is over sized.  The grip had that palm swell that I absolutely hate.  That is more personal preference.  The trigger had a long pull and it didn't fire until you dragged it all the way back to the back of the trigger well.  That is how I remember the trigger anyway and I am not usually a trigger snob.  I have heard they can be improved a great deal, but I never attempted that.  It was very reliable for me.  My brother has that pistol now.

[French G.]

How many pistols does 17 mil buy?  Just think the money could be spent better. Don't get the Beretta hate either,  my personal one was quite accurate and never broke, was easy to max qual score with the best down M9s too. Army want a SIG? Great, it is in the supply system, M11, order a bunch. Good pistol, qual'd with that one once.

[Fly320s]

but having two different size guns doesn't make either of them modular.

Actually, they have nearly 12 sizes.

Frame sizes are sub-compact, compact, carry, and full size.  Then each frame size comes in small, medium, and large grip size.  It isn't as easy or cheap as the M&P line, but it is a good variety.

[MikeB]

I never handled or shot an M9, but I did have a 92FS for a while.  I didn't like the grip.  The trigger kind of sucked.  And the pistol was larger than it needed to be for the capacity.  

The M9 size was actually about normal for that capacity in the 80's.  For 2017, it is over sized.  The grip had that palm swell that I absolutely hate.  That is more personal preference.  The trigger had a long pull and it didn't fire until you dragged it all the way back to the back of the trigger well.  That is how I remember the trigger anyway and I am not usually a trigger snob.  I have heard they can be improved a great deal, but I never attempted that.  It was very reliable for me.  My brother has that pistol now.

This is sort of my point. I own an FS and Compact. I shoot both fairly well though I find the grips and triggers to not be ideal. I also own a couple Glocks and several SIGs. Now I do not own a P320; so I can't compare that particular model. I personally shoot best with the 1911 trigger and feel more comfortable with the width and grip of single stack firearms. I'm just trying to understand if a new firearm is really needed vs. just purchasing more of the existing at much less cost; or even possibly giving our soldiers/marines/sailors a choice as different people do better with different grips and triggers. I understand there is obviously issues with different supply chains. I guess I'm saying is it really about the best gun for each soldier or just a big contract that maybe we should rethink ...

[Perd Hapley]

This is sort of my point. I own an FS and Compact. I shoot both fairly well though I find the grips and triggers to not be ideal. I also own a couple Glocks and several SIGs. Now I do not own a P320; so I can't compare that particular model. I personally shoot best with the 1911 trigger and feel more comfortable with the width and grip of single stack firearms. I'm just trying to understand if a new firearm is really needed vs. just purchasing more of the existing at much less cost; or even possibly giving our soldiers/marines/sailors a choice as different people do better with different grips and triggers. I understand there is obviously issues with different supply chains. I guess I'm saying is it really about the best gun for each soldier or just a big contract that maybe we should rethink ...

If you want to know why they made this decision, I'm sure there are loads of articles and forum posts about it, out in the wide world of internet.

[dogmush]

This is sort of my point. I own an FS and Compact. I shoot both fairly well though I find the grips and triggers to not be ideal. I also own a couple Glocks and several SIGs. Now I do not own a P320; so I can't compare that particular model. I personally shoot best with the 1911 trigger and feel more comfortable with the width and grip of single stack firearms. I'm just trying to understand if a new firearm is really needed vs. just purchasing more of the existing at much less cost; or even possibly giving our soldiers/marines/sailors a choice as different people do better with different grips and triggers. I understand there is obviously issues with different supply chains. I guess I'm saying is it really about the best gun for each soldier or just a big contract that maybe we should rethink ...

That's what no one that is complaining about the cost is getting.  The bolded was not the choice. It was spend this much on new pistols, or as much or more on M9's. M9's ain't all that cheap even at DOD prices.

[Scout26]

I shot the SIG320 in .45ACP.   Sweet gun.  I have been saving to get one simply because how much I liked the one I shot.  Now that the Army is going to them all the Fanboi's will now be driving up the price and making them scarce.  Bastages...


It's actually a good decision on the Army's part.  It is modular which means it can be customized to solider.  However, the Army neither has the time nor inclination to "fit" each soldier.  It'll be "You're a female, give her the small/compact frame.  You're a male, you get the full size frame."  and that will be it.

Most units only fire/qualify with side arms once, maybe twice a year.   Back in the 80's MP's and CID had to qualify quarterly.   Praciticing and qualifying with rifles and crew served weapons (to include major weapons systems like Bradleys and Abrams) were when we went into Gunnery twice a year.  We might sneak in some local range time or grab an unused range or two on MTA simply because it was in our backyard.

But other than MP's the attitude was "If you are fighting off the commies with your sidearm, you done *expletive deleted*ed up real bad."

And the ONLY reason we went with the M9 Beretta was because we had to go to 9mm to STANAG with NATO.  Otherwise the Army probably would have gone with new production 1911's

[dogmush]

Most units only fire/qualify with side arms once, maybe twice a year.   Back in the 80's MP's and CID had to qualify quarterly.   Praciticing and qualifying with rifles and crew served weapons (to include major weapons systems like Bradleys and Abrams) were when we went into Gunnery twice a year.  We might sneak in some local range time or grab an unused range or two on MTA simply because it was in our backyard.

My REMF Army Reserve Watercraft Company quals 2 or 3 times a year.  Some years quarterly (Depends on where we are in the ARFORGEN cycle).  For everyone whose weapon is an M9 and anyone with an additional duty that could carry one (Armorer, Armed Guard, etc) that means pistol quals.

The Army shoots more than it used to.  Or at least us REMF's do.

[lee n. field]

If you want to know why they made this decision, I'm sure there are loads of articles and forum posts about it, out in the wide world of internet.

Internet  -- Sturgeon's Law times two.

[MikeB]

If you want to know why they made this decision, I'm sure there are loads of articles and forum posts about it, out in the wide world of internet.

Yes. God forbid to ask such a Firearms question on a forum like Armed Polite Society.   

[just Warren]

Again this is much ado about nothing. Troops should be allowed to carry the pistol of their choice but with the knowledge that they and they alone are responsible for the maintenance, provision of spare parts and magazines, and ammo not otherwise in the logistics system.

That said if any particular branch wanted to have their own pistol as a default for troops of a less gun-bunny nature that would be fine. Those pistols would be taken care by unit armorers as today.

I'm not military so none of this applies to me anyway but if it did I have no idea what I would select. Way too many good choices out there.

[Perd Hapley]

Yes. God forbid to ask such a Firearms question on a forum like Armed Polite Society.   

Yeah, but this thread started yesterday. The pistol trials (and the internet discussion thereof) has been going on for years. Get to Googlin'.   

[MikeB]

Yeah, but this thread started yesterday. The pistol trials (and the internet discussion thereof) has been going on for years. Get to Googlin'.   

Actually the trials have been going on and off for over twenty years and the question still pertains and I would think it would be interesting to discuss with gun enthusiasts and many that at times are concerned with governments spending. Thanks for the so 'polite' response though.

[Perd Hapley]

Was your eye rolling "so 'polite'"?    We're talking about a military purchasing decision, so your drama is a little - odd.

[Devonai]

I'm ambivalent about the P320 as I'm no longer carrying the M9 professionally.  The former would have been useful for the seven years I was a gate guard just for the lighter weight, but thanks to my personally-owned 92FS (which turns 20 this year!) I never had any problem scoring expert on the Army and Air Force qual course (FWIW).  I'm a fan of the Beretta, probably always will be.

I had a P250 in 9x19 at one point, but I didn't care for it.  It was no fault of the pistol, I just couldn't get excited about it.  I think the P320 will be fine for its intended purpose.

[dogmush]

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/01/24/grapevine-us-army-pays-207-per-pistol-sig-sauer-m17-modular-handguns/

Another data point on the "Why did we spend this?" front.

P320 is going for about $200 a piece. As of the Dec 16 update to FEDLOG an M9 is $636.60 and an M11 (iron sights) is $385.00.  So this route was significantly cheaper then just going with our current line up.


Side note, the first M17 I get issued is getting an RMR bolted to it.

[Fly320s]

Side note, the first M17 I get issued is getting an RMR bolted to it.

Is that allowed?  Will it fit in the issued holster?

[dogmush]

Is that allowed?  Will it fit in the issued holster?

1. If I don't ask, who will say no? 2. I don't use issued holsters, and don't see myself starting.

[Firethorn]

1. If I don't ask, who will say no? 2. I don't use issued holsters, and don't see myself starting.

You don't have to turn it in to the armory when you go off shift?