Military M12 holster non-compatibility with new M17 handgun

Status
Not open for further replies.

AlexanderA

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
10,572
Location
Virginia
The military M12 holster, also known as the Bianchi UM84, won't work with the newly-adopted Sig Sauer M17 (P320) pistol. I found that out today. Yes, you can cram it into the holster, but it's too tight to be drawn easily. The M12 holster was primarily intended for the Beretta M9, but it also works well with the M1911. The Sig is chunkier in the slide.

The army is adopting the plastic Safariland 7TS as the official holster for the Sig. This will leave more of the gun exposed than the old flap holsters, and, well, it's plastic. It's hard to find a quality ballistic nylon flap holster that fits the Sig and that also works with the MOLLE attachment system. I don't even know if any are made.

There's a Sig Sauer-branded holster for the P320 made by IMI in Israel. It's also plastic, but it's considerably cheaper and simpler than the Safariland. I may give that a try and see how it works out. (Online reviews don't give it good marks.)
 
The M12 hasn't been the standard issue holster for the military in a very long time. In 8 years of service I never even saw one. The issued holster for my M9 was a Safariland ALS drop leg holster. Not sure the exact model because I hated the thing. I replaced it with a Blackhawk SERPA, quick change kit, and STRIKE plate for my armor. Safariland now makes MOLLE attachment holsters. And while the SERPA may not be the favorite holster anymore, many companies still use the 3 hole mounting plate that Blackhawk designed.

http://www.safariland.com/products/...ts-als-military-kit-DG_17.html#sz=12&start=56
 
Yes, that's the Safariland holster I was talking about. It's expensive, and doesn't seem to be any better than the Sig Sauer branded IMI Israeli holster. Also, now it seems that the default color for all new accessories is Desert Tan. Do the services assume that all future fighting is going to be done in deserts? Even the Israelis, who are in a desert, offer their gear in black or OD as well as tan.
 
The military periodically updates and upgrades all sorts of equipment, from things like individual items and clothing up to vehicles and aircraft. When these upgrades happen, it changes the Basic Issue Items that are issued with the major end-items. If you were to look at my entire issue of gear from 1987 and compare it to what I received in 2010, the 2010 pile would look much different, it would be a much larger pile, and the price would be much higher. The M12 holster has seen very little use over the last 20 years- other designs like those made by companies like Safariland, Blackhawk, and so on have been more common. Some were issued by units, and some were procured by service members out of pocket. These
"non standard" holsters are sold on bases in the US in "specialty shops" in the PX, by various vendors on bases overseas, and in the "gear stores" that exist outside every major base in the US at places like Ft Bragg, Ft Benning, Camp Lejune, and so on. The plastic Safariland holsters were standard fare in my unit even before 9-11, and have performed as designed in every environment on the planet under any conditions imaginable, with different versions made for several different handgun designs.
 
Interesting reading here. I'm totally uninterested in the "M17" as I was opposed to the change from the beginning. However, what I find interesting in this notion of the M12 holster not being used/issued in the last 20 years, etc. I never saw anything but the M12 holster, but that was around 1994, and I wasn't in the combat arms.
 
Last edited:
I'm totally uninterested in the "M17" as I was opposed to the change from the beginning.
I didn't like the M9 Beretta because it was clunky (compared to the M1911) and didn't fit my hand well. From all the hype surrounding the M17, it appeared that the army was finally addressing this issue. That's one reason why I bought one. Well, guess what? The M17, at least with the "medium" modular grip, is clunkier than the M9! And I defy you to find anything other than "medium" size grips on the market.
 
I didn't like the M9 Beretta because it was clunky (compared to the M1911) and didn't fit my hand well. From all the hype surrounding the M17, it appeared that the army was finally addressing this issue. That's one reason why I bought one. Well, guess what? The M17, at least with the "medium" modular grip, is clunkier than the M9! And I defy you to find anything other than "medium" size grips on the market.
Yeah I never understood what all the complaining was about on the M9 grip.
 
The M9 fit my hand well enough to carry it and qualify expert with it. It sure could have fit better though. Much of the weight complaints could have been taken care of if we were allowed more leeway on belt choice for around-the-base carry. Added to a plate carrier I didn't notice my M9 at all.
 
The only way I can fire the M9 accurately is by cocking it and firing it single action. The long double-action trigger pull, combined with the fat grip, is too much for my smallish hands. (By comparison, the M1911 -- especially the A1 version with the short trigger and relief cutouts in the frame -- is perfect for me.) Oh, I can fire the M9 double action, but I can't hold it steady while doing so. I thought the M17 would be an improvement, considering all the hype surrounding its adoption, but it really isn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top