U.S Army picks Sig.

[Fiv3r]

I'm not too surprised. SIG sort of pioneered the modular chassis thing with the P250. The P320 makes sense if they wanted a heavily modular pistol. With Glock you can swap back straps if you want. The FNS line is about the same.

The SIG is a Lego gun, almost. That said, I'll be keeping my Glock 19. One striker fired 9mm is enough for my needs, and the Glock handles it fine.

 

[wally]

If we were smart we'd do the same thing the Russians are doing. Their new pistol is chambered for 9mm, but built to take much hotter than standard rounds while still functioning with standard 9mm ammo.

I doubt the Russians have such an industry of product liability lawyers chomping at the bit to sue. Doing such a thing in the USA would be asking for lawsuits on the ammo makers if the "hot" ammo damaged existing guns -- especially if someone gets injured.

Maybe if they made it 9x20 so it wouldn't chamber in 9x19 and beefed up the extractor so 9x19 would "headspace" on it sorta like firing a .380 (9x17) in a 9mm, But the few times I've "accidentally" done it (actually tried it once to see if it'd work ) wasn't reliable at picking up the next round from the magazine. Other feeding issues can occur if the mag is "long" for the rounds inside and I think a tapered case like the 9mm aggravates the situation.

All and all, IMHO a new pistol will be a hard enough sell, a new pistol and ammo caliber to go with it seems too much of a change to be very likely. I'm not expert at contracts and procurement, but it seems if the chosen caliber were anything other than what was submitted (requested) for the trials the losers would seem to have grounds to protest the award.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I can't wait to get the .mil version soon, with the safety and other odds n' ends.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Before people go off on how this contract is a waste of taxpayer money, consider just the details we know right now (or at least, those that I could find so far):

This is a ten year contract. It purchases 280,000 P320s for the Army, plus anbadditional 7,000 compact, plus up to 212,000 additional for the other services. That's 509,000 P320s.

Assuming the Army pays the same amount as the current civilian model (call it $600 each, for round figures), that works out to $305.4 million.

Now, included in this contract will be magazines, which is certainly to be more than 2 per pistol, as well as repairs and repair parts. Now that $305,4 million has gone up a significant fraction more.

Someone else has mentioned ammunition as part of the contract. If true, now that value has gone up even more.


If you simply divide the total number of pistols into the contract cost, that works out to $1,140 per pistol.

That's one heck of a deal.


For those who would argue "Well, I can get a P320 for $500!"

Yeah? Well, for starters, you AREN'T getting the Army's modular version, because it ain't out for civilians (yet). And you AREN'T getting the service contract for a weapon that's intended to see combat, and you AREN'T getting the ammunition for it, either.


The part that I think is a waste of taxpayer money was the time and money invested in the years leading up to the purchase of the P320.

 

[tahunua001]

sierra makes their self defense bullets but those are illegal for military use. not sure if anyone else loads it for them.

 

[Martowski]

Need to consider as well the long term cost, which will likely be much less than the cost to maintain the current M9s. One person's individual ownership cost is vastly different than the cost of maintaining a system in service for a long period of time.

On a more obvious note, remember that the P320 can easily be made into a variety of configurations without any special training. Compact, full size, multiple calibers, suppressor ready, etc.... all like putting together legos. That in itself may easily save a lot of money that would have been required to maintain the M9 and a host of other weapons to fill various roles.

 

[herrwalther]

As if Glock has never made a pistol with a manual safety for a government contract before.

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/thumb-safety-glock/

And this is relevant how? Just because they made Glocks with safeties in 1982 in bids around the world does not mean they would do it now. I would wager the main reason Glocks have not been largely adopted across the DOD is because they do not have a thumb safety per request of the DOD. If they want to be stubborn and stick with their "Perfection" load of crap that is their poor decision to miss out on a very large contract.

 

[M1key]

Google P320 malfunctions. Not sure if this pistol is the right one for the military. Several new owners had to send they back for either light primer hits or failure to extract/eject. The M9 worked fine.

M

 

[Phaedrus/69]

Google P320 malfunctions. Not sure if this pistol is the right one for the military. Several new owners had to send they back for either light primer hits or failure to eject. The M9 worked fine.

M

Interesting. I googled P320 malfunctions and got 17,000 hits. I googled Beretta M9 malfunctions and got 96,000 hits.

 

[Jeff White]

Someone needs to explain to me why it is necessary to spend $520 million of our tax dollars to replace one 9mm semi auto for another?

The modularity? Really? Don't think for one minute they will issue those pistols as kits. Maybe SOCOM will get the complete modular package, but the MTOE writers at TRADOC will decide what units get what configuration. It took about 15 years to field the M9 through the total force. So for the next 15 years we are going to support the M9s and M11s currently fielded and the new pistols.

The M9s we have are nowhere near worn out or close to the end of their useful service life. Many of them are relatively new as we bought a lot of them after the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and it was discovered that Iraqi civilians responded better to a soldier who was carrying a pistol instead of just a rifle. This was due to the fact that in that part of the world pistols were badges of rank and they guy wearing one was seen as someone to fear. So we distributed pistols to a lot of people who normally wouldn't be authorized one.

Most of the M9s in the system we carried much and fired little. The only ones that got more then a hundred or so rounds a year through them were the ones in SOCOM units and the ones in weapons pools at the training centers.

Of all things our military needs, new pistols are probably 10,862,912 in priority.

We've got aircraft that can't fly because of spare parts issues and we just dropped $520 million dollars on new pistols the day before the new Secretay of Defense who expressed dismay at the whole process was confirmed.

It may be great for Sig. it's certainly going to give the firearms press fodder for a couple years worth of articles and it will burn a lot of electrons here and on other forums.

But our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines are still going to be armed with a 9mm semi auto that offers no real improvement over the 9mm semi auto it's replacing.

Oh the firearms enthusiasts and hobbyists will point to a dozen things that they think make it better. But to Private Snuffy who spends his off duty time playing video games and isn't a firearms enthusiast it will just be another pistol.

And to the taxpayer it's just another example of the military/industrial/congressional complex raising their middle finger to him.

Someone explain to me why our soldiers will be better armed with the Sig 320 then with the M9.

 

[M1key]

Interesting. I googled P320 malfunctions and got 17,000 hits. I googled Beretta M9 malfunctions and got 96,000 hits.

I guess you win then...

M

 

[tarosean]

Interesting. I googled P320 malfunctions and got 17,000 hits. I googled Beretta M9 malfunctions and got 96,000 hits.

One has been out for 40 years the other only one or two.

Give it time Kemosabe, soon it will become the object or internet hate and lore.

 

[Dog Soldier]

There was a time before the 1960s gun control mania this would have been good news. The NRA/DCM would receive all the Milsurp Beretta 9mm Military pistols to sell to civilians.
Ah, those were the days.

 

[rskent]

Ah, those were the days.

These are the days. If you want a Beretta, just go buy one. They are good pistols, and not very expensive.

 

[rskent]

Someone needs to explain to me why it is necessary to spend $520 million of our tax dollars to replace one 9mm semi auto for another?

I kind of wondered about that too. I personally don’t shoot Berettas well, or the P22? Sigs. I have never shot that Sig.

Is it that much better? If it is, fine. But it does seem like a lot of money to change from a 9mm auto to a 9mm auto.

 

[ROCK6]

Someone needs to explain to me why it is necessary to spend $520 million of our tax dollars to replace one 9mm semi auto for another?
Someone explain to me why our soldiers will be better armed with the Sig 320 then with the M9.

Of all the wasted tax-payer funded programs, this is a drop in the bucket. I completely disagree with your assessment Jeff; you're entitle to your opinion but your view is why the Army should be in constant evolution. Is this a necessity? No, it's really not, but change is as much mental as it is physical. Our mission has changed over the past decade plus, the face of our enemy has changed, our TTPs have changed and our equipment has changed exponentially from when I first enlisted over 28 years ago. It's easy to look at change from a fiscal standpoint, but you're missing the big picture and it's why we rotate leaders in the Military. Static, closed-box-minded, stuck-in-their-ways leaders and mindsets don't lead to flexible or dynamic problem solvers. I understand your point, but this is a positive move from a broader perspective and holistic viewpoint; this isn't the Cold War (at least not yet, again).

If anything, this will reemphasize training, something we've excelled at in theater, but we've dropped off a little stateside as the "garrison" Army tries to re-shift back to a readiness mode and not rotational deployment mode. So, it's easy to be negative, but as someone who has lived constant change, there is value outside just the face value of a large contract.

ROCK6

 

[jeff-10]

I kind of wondered about that too. I personally don’t shoot Berettas well, or the P22? Sigs. I have never shot that Sig.

Is it that much better? If it is, fine. But it does seem like a lot of money to change from a 9mm auto to a 9mm auto.

I was wondering the same thing also. Not to mention I think it took them 5+ years to figure out they want the same pistol they have except in polymer.

 

[Kendal Black]

The M9s we have are nowhere near worn out or close to the end of their useful service life.

Give this man a medal. Medals are most often for valor, but these days telling the truth needs courage.

The SIG 320 is doubtless a good system, and modular and all of that, but so far as pistols go--last ditch to protect your life--there is not a lot wrong with a Beretta. I do not like its safety catch. I do not like any safety catch, but here we have one again on the Army SIG.

A complaint about the Beretta was its long reach to the trigger in double action mode. I informed a complaining officerette that she could just cock it.

"I could have you up on charges for saying that, you know. You said 'cock'."

Sigh.

 

[PabloJ]

The U.S. Army on Thursday awarded Sig Sauer a contract worth $580 million to make the next service pistol based on the company's P320 handgun.

Sig Sauer beat out Glock Inc., FN America and Beretta USA, the maker of the current M9 9mm service pistol, in the competition for the Modular Handgun System, or MHS, program.

"We are both humbled and proud that the P320 was selected by the U.S. Army as its weapon of choice," Ron Cohen, chief executive officer of Sig Sauer, said in a statement to Military.com here at SHOT Show, the world's largest gun show, taking place this week in the city.

"Securing this contract is a testimony to Sig Sauer employees, their commitment to innovation, quality and manufacturing the most reliable firearms in the world," Cohen added.

The Army launched its long-awaited XM17 MHS competition in late August 2015 to replace its Cold War-era M9 9mm pistol.


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

Another example of fleecing of American taxpayer for benefit of large corporation. Hardly newsworthy.

 

[Martowski]

I would think the long term of cost of maintaning one platform that could serve multiple roles through modular parts swapping would be less than multiple platforms of more complex design.

 

[F-111 John]

And this is relevant how? Just because they made Glocks with safeties in 1982 in bids around the world does not mean they would do it now. I would wager the main reason Glocks have not been largely adopted across the DOD is because they do not have a thumb safety per request of the DOD. If they want to be stubborn and stick with their "Perfection" load of crap that is their poor decision to miss out on a very large contract.

And I suppose all of the changes they made to create the "17M" for the FBI contract is irrelevant to how much Glock is willing to accommodate a government contract today?

 

[tarosean]

And I suppose all of the changes they made to create the "17M" for the FBI contract is irrelevant to how much Glock is willing to accommodate a government contract today?

You do realize they recalled the FBIs new toy cause they didnt work?

 

[Dog Soldier]

These are the days. If you want a Beretta, just go buy one. They are good pistols, and not very expensive.

Maybe you are satisfied with the loss of our firearms freedoms? They have been chipped away a piece at a time. The idea of supplying the citizens "Militia", with surplus Military weapons goes back to the very roots of our Republic.
Maybe you should read the history of the once DCM. It says nothing about arming the populace at Walmart.

 

[PabloJ]

Maybe you are satisfied with the loss of our firearms freedoms? They have been chipped away a piece at a time. The idea of supplying the citizens "Militia", with surplus Military weapons goes back to the very roots of our Republic.
Maybe you should read the history of the once DCM. It says nothing about arming the populace at Walmart.

Let me help so that masses can understand you. 'Militia' = National Guard.

 

[wally]

'Militia' = National Guard.

Nope! That is the "modern" anti individual RKBA interpretation.

When the Constitution was adopted the militia was every "able bodied" man in the community who was expected to be well regulated (equipped), at his own expense, and ready to serve when called upon.