My thoughts on the Armys pick of the SIG 320

[bearcreek]

One report I read is the Army is ordering caliber change parts to support 9mm, .40, .45, and interestingly 357Sig. A conflicting report was for 9mm, .40, and 357 Sig since the 45 P320 uses a different grip module for the longer round and magazine.

Could you post a link?

I read somewhere that the P320 will cost us $206 each.

I am not sure about this "modularity" stuff. If it supports easy repair, great. But I have this picture of troops taking their guns further apart than field stripping and wondering how to get them back together.

The P320 is no more "modular" than the M4 or M16. I can't see any reason it'd be any more of a problem with the pistol than it is with the rifles.

 

[12Bravo20]

The MTOE for combat engineer units was a little different (at least in early 90's). Even the Bn. motorpool had plenty of pistols issued. Basically if you were issued a 1911 or M3 grease gun, you were issued a M9 when we transitioned over. I was a combat engineer for the first few years then re-classed to machinist (still assigned to engineer units). I was usually issued a pistol since I was either the 60 gunner or part of a M88 crew. Even the TC for the Hemmit recovery vehicle was issued a M3 then a pistol.

 

[herrwalther]

Could you post a link?

I get the updates across my FB feed. I did check the usual sources just now from Army Times, TAG, TFB. None of them currently say anything about the Army ordering caliber conversions for the M17. While I do like the idea of caliber conversions based on mission role, I don't think a young private would pay attention enough to not put the wrong ammo in their service sidearm. Even now we have leaders not paying attention. There are instances of live ammo being issued instead of blanks for training use. A soldier from my old brigade was killed fairly recently by a live round on a blank training exercise.

 

[MAKster]

All the people who are saying why waste money on a new pistol have the mistaken belief that the military bought all their Berettas in 1985 and have been using those same guns for the past 30 years. The military has been continually buying new Berettas to replace worn out ones so even if they stayed with the Beretta they would still be buying new guns. If you are going to buy guns why not buy one that has all the latest features instead of another one with a 30 year old design.

 

[george burns]

Well they are going to do as they choose, but on the other hand, I also felt that all of the branches of the Military should have a common pistol, "as the 1911 once was" just so that everyone was on the same page. Of course special units like Seals can pick and choose what they want, but why have 2 or even 3 9mm, semi auto Hi-Cap handguns, that are pretty much the same? I could see it if one was better than the other, but to the average soldier, it realy won't matter, other than cost to the military. I get the interchangable frame concept, but I don't buy into it as the reason they went this route, it has to always be money right?

 

[MCMXI]

I think the Army made a good choice. I bought my girlfriend a P320 for Christmas and we're both impressed with it. Her Carry model came with the standard medium grip module but I ordered her a FDE small grip module yesterday. I've owned SIG pistols since '92 starting with a P220 and never owned a GLOCK but have shot many. The SIG trigger is better and I've always found that SIG pistols feel good in the hand. I'm planning on buying myself a P320 soon.

 

[PabloJ]

Was there really anything wrong with the old tryed and true 1911.

Maybe it can't be made for just over $200 like something with plastic and metal stampings plus steel barrel & slide?

 

[Hokkmike]

Was there really anything wrong with the old tryed and true 1911.

Magazine capacity maybe ?

 

[PabloJ]

By extrapolation from price the Government pays for these standard Glock should cost civilian about $300.

 

[Mainsail]

Was there really anything wrong with the old tryed and true 1911.

It's not a matter of wrong, it's a matter of fulfilling the contract. The contract lists features and specifications of the design the Army wants, the 1911 may have a few and the P320 has them all. It doesn't make the 1911 wrong, just inadequate to the contractual requirements.

 

[9mmepiphany]

By extrapolation from price the Government pays for these standard Glock should cost civilian about $300.

You're leaving out the cost of going through a distributor and a vendor. The Army is buying directly from the manufacturer