U.S Army picks Sig.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anyone recall the 535 million taxpayer dollars that the Obama administration pissed away on the failed Solyndra "green energy" debacle?
 
It might be a drop in the bucket - but half a billion here and half a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

I can't see the point of replacing the M9 either, unless switching to the P320 is going to be cheaper than continued M9 procurement. Otherwise, why bother?
 
pblanc wrote:
Anyone recall the 535 million taxpayer dollars that the Obama administration pissed away on the failed Solyndra "green energy" debacle?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do. But what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

In remembering Solyndra, I also remember that even counting the losses from Solyndra, the renewable energy investment loan program that it was a part of has ended up being a money maker for the Treasury.
 
tarosean said:
You must not of got the memo that they shut down their shooting team last year.. Max might be the only member left... (?????? havent really kept up if he is still employed by sig or not)
Click to expand...
I did, that was just the expanded team accessible to mere mortals. Sad to see it turn out like that. They still have a small team of sponsored Pros.
 
Jeff White said:
I enlisted in the Army on 6 December 1974 and retired on 1 November 2003. I have just a tiny bit of experience to draw on here. I am quite familiar with what is going on in the Army now as my middle son enlisted in 2002 and is also a career Infantry NCO (just like I was) with multiple deployments under his belt. He is going back to Iraq this Spring. TTPs are changing back to preparing for a mid to high intensity conflict with a peer opponent.

We don't need a new pistol to change our mindset. It wasn't the fielding of the Abrams and Bradley in the 80s that broke the Army out of it's post Vietnam identity crisis. It was leadership. It was the young thinkers at the service schools who abandoned active defense and created Air Land Battle. The Army would have excelled had we kept the M60s and M113s. It wouldn't have been as capable, but it still would have excelled. It was leadership not equipment.

How is this going to reemphasize training? Units will send officers and NCOs to a short class on the new pistol. Those officers and NCOs will present a short block of instruction to the people in the unit who are issued pistols and then they will fire the same pistol qualification course they have with the M9. Some units, mostly in the special operations community will continue to conduct meaningful pistol training, because they are resourced for it and everyone else will put them in the arms room and break them out when they go to the field and conduct their bi-annual qualification. Little changed in training when we switched from 1911A1s to M9s. Changing from M9s and M11s to Sig 320s will require even less change.

Explain why this is a positive move from a broader perspective and holistic viewpoint. It's a 9mm semi auto pistol that doesn't do anything significantly different then the 9mm semi auto pistols we already have in service. What can we do with the new pistol that we can't do with the M9? This isn't a great leap in capability like mounting our mechanized units in M2 Bradleys instead of M113s. Adopting a new pistol is not going to require any change in doctrine. Our units aren't going to fight any differently with Sig 320s in their holsters then they do with M9s and M11s in their holsters.

Pistols ceased to be important battlefield weapons when we took the horses away from the Cavalry and eliminated the need for a trooper to be able to fire a weapon on horseback.
Click to expand...

Sorry Jeff if you're thinking of just a new pistol; that's all it is but it's a positive step (even if small) in the right direction. I just see this as a catalyst for our focus which must be flexible, constantly evolving, mission-oriented, and this is a small token for that. We now have new leaders at the national level and this is a small manifestation of change that (I hope) will continue. I would rather have us put our efforts on a new handgun, training, and logistics support than the hundreds of man-hours (and likely millions) we spent forced to implement and execute the Army's "transgender transition training". I whole-heartedly agree that change is spearheaded by leadership, not equipment. TTPs evolve from innovative leaders married with experience; however, technology does play a significant role.

I have been living an Army at war for the past decade-plus and I knew the drought we had in the 90's. We have been up and down on policies and inconsequential changes. I gladly welcome the change of a new pistol even if it is not a significant equipment change. That's a focus I would rather have our units and Soldiers spend their efforts vice the hundreds of hours of training that has zero to do with unit missions. We may disagree with the importance of this new handgun for the Army, but I both think we agree that our Soldiers would be better off learning a new pistol on a range than spending time in the classroom spending priceless time receiving Powerpoint training on social issues that are irrelevant to the purpose of the military.

ROCK6
 
I used to own a Sig 220 in .45 many years ago. Great gun. Seemed very solid and precise. I had buyers regret almost immediately at the range when it proved a little too small for my hands. Ended up selling it to a friend. Settled on a Glock 20.

Mike
 
Seems like a solid pick by a reputable brand. Totally different pistol, but I loved the M11 I carried.

At the very least, all the staff officers, senior NCOs and other rear echelon types will have a cool status symbol. It will remain to be seen whether the groups who really require a combat pistol will embrace this one or keep buying other stuff - either to have their own status symbol or for functional reasons.
 
herrwalther said:
17M was a Gen 4 frame with a mag well and minus the finger grooves. And a slightly different taper on the slide near the barrel. Oh wow. Glock really thought out of the box for that one. The dimensions for the polymer cast without finger grooves are probably still on file because of the Gen 2 Glocks. So the only real change there was keeping the RTF texture and backstraps of the Gen 4 frame while adding a mag well. Once again, I am astounded at Glock's innovation. I am sure it would be more difficult for Glock to add a manual safety to a Gen 4 frame than the changes they did to make the laughable failure we call 17M.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the all important ambi slide stop. I think both of our points have been made.
 
ArchAngelCD said:
I don't know which world some of you live in but in my world a half billion is real money and a hell-of-a-lot of it!!!
Click to expand...


it's a lot. a massive mind blowing amount to many of us here myself included, but seeing how the army's budget alone for 2016 was 146.9 billion.........yeah i fact checked that amount...a 500+ million over 10 year contract is peanuts to their budget. let alone the entire dod's budget which is over 580+ billion this last year. yeah we have big spending issue problems to solve.....

i want to clarify i'm not for this new pistol spending, but there is nothing i can do about it. so of the choices i'm okay with the sig, as the winner.
 
PowerG said:
Huge waste of money IMO. Is this the most good $500M could do for the Army?
Click to expand...

Waste is relative despite the amount. I've seen the Army contract 1 Million to put a tower up in Iraq only to find out it couldn't be certified and then spend another half million to bring it down. I would also guess the Army spent well over a million on their new "transgender" training material that has been mandated. I would much rather see the Army spend money on weapons systems and training with weapons. I do agree accountability is just as important as making smart fiscal decisions. I do agree their is an enormous amount of waste in the military; much of it is redundant or poorly executed contracts. I don't think we should replace effectiveness with efficiency, but I do believe we should be more accountable to the tax payer's money and make smart decisions that are focused on equipping and training units for their missions.

ROCK6
 
All this hand-wringing about the pistol cost. It is for a new weapon system replacing a 30 year old gun with a crappy slide mounted safety/de-cocker that fit nobody's hand well. Long overdue, even if it could have been done more efficiently and sooner. To put it in perspective, the Army wasted about 4x as much on the ACU uniform fiasco. We had the "Multicam" -ish pattern back in '04 and could have just went BDU-OCP in 2005.
 
strambo said:
All this hand-wringing about the pistol cost. It is for a new weapon system replacing a 30 year old gun with a crappy slide mounted safety/de-cocker that fit nobody's hand well. Long overdue, even if it could have been done more efficiently and sooner. To put it in perspective, the Army wasted about 4x as much on the ACU uniform fiasco. We had the "Multicam" -ish pattern back in '04 and could have just went BDU-OCP in 2005.
Click to expand...

I agree. As a man who has used the M9 in uniform, I think the M17 will be a good replacement. A more consistent trigger pull, plenty safe, lighter, greater magazine capacity, and fits hands much better than the M9. I think this gun is a step forward. I think the whole "modular" thing will be a nice benefit for some, but the other benefits I mentioned will be what most of the force experiences in a positive way.
 
hdwhit said:
Yes, I do. But what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

In remembering Solyndra, I also remember that even counting the losses from Solyndra, the renewable energy investment loan program that it was a part of has ended up being a money maker for the Treasury.
Click to expand...
It doesn't have much to do with the topic, other than a reminder to those who are bemoaning the waste of this deal that our Federal government has done much, much worse in the past.

My hope is that a bit more research and thought went into this half-billion than it did for the Solyndra "investment".

I think it was inevitable that the Army was going to go to a lighter, polymer-frame pistol that required less training to shoot effectively and fit the various hand sizes of soldiers better than the Beretta. Was this the right time to do it? I am really not in a position to know, but if the alternative was to continue to make large investments in the M9 platform, it might have been. Was the P320 the best choice? Again, I don't know but I think it was a good choice. Should the selection process taken so long? No, but bureaucracy will be bureaucracy.

But at the end of the day, there will be something to show for this investment as opposed to the money having just gone poof and vanished into thin air.
 
Last edited:
Not real excited about this decision...

I carried the M9 on active duty and had no issues with it. I thought the M9A3 was probably the best way to go, especially with the improved grip.

At least the Army did not drink the striker kool aid too much and still insisted on a POSITIVE manual safety- a 100% absolute necessity given the P320 trigger. I still expect many commanders will opt for condition 3 carry in their units.
 
If this is a good pistol, then I'm fine with it.

As an aside, I'm a little sad, solely for nostalgic reasons. This will likely be a deathblow to reasonably priced metal-frame pistols.
 
Sig's facility in Exeter, NH has been going bonkers with hiring and expansion for a couple years now.

Also, they hatched a deal with Ionbond about 5 years ago, that they would use the Ionbond coating process on production guns (I believe they previously only used it on special order upgrade guns), but only if Ion Bond set up a factory nearby. So Ionbond set up a state of the art facility on the old Pease SAC base (now a big industrial park with the air strip used by both the NH Air National Guard and commercial and charter airlines).

So this deal will drive jobs right here in the good old USA and Trump should love it.
 
I just read on one of the online gun mags that Sig is selling them to the army for $207 each!:eek: The writer opined that the total cost of the new guns would be cheaper than keeping the old guns running, especially since the contract includes parts, service, holsters, etc. I'm not in a position to verify his conclusions but if that is indeed the price then it may well be cheaper than parts to keep the 92 going.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
Army wants a harder-hitting pistol
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
160
Views
10K
Sam1911
S
D
  • Locked
SIG SAUER, Inc. Secures a $306 Million Pistol Contract by the U.S. Army's Material Co
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Frog48
F
tarosean
  • Locked
Glock Files Protest ~ XM17
Replies
11
Views
1K
CNobbe
C
G
  • Locked
US Army to Seek New Service Handgun
Replies
2
Views
421
RustyShackelford
R
T
  • Locked
Is this old news already?
Replies
1
Views
763
ugaarguy
ugaarguy
Back
Top