US Army picks Sig 320

[Abuhin]

The United States Army just announced that the Sig Sauer P320 MHS has won the Modular Handgun System contract.

The handgun will enter Army service with the nomenclature of M17.


https://www.armytimes.com/articles/army ... -sig-sauer

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017 ... istol.html

Thoughts?

[12_Gauge_Chimp]

Only thought I have is I wonder how long it'll be before we start seeing surplus M9's hitting market.

Well, that and why did the Army choose the 320 instead of the Glock 17 or 19 like some of the other branches of the US military ?

[teotwaki]

Only thought I have is I wonder how long it'll be before we start seeing surplus M9's hitting market.

Well, that and why did the Army choose the 320 instead of the Glock 17 or 19 like some of the other branches of the US military ?

For the same lame reasons they waste money developing camo patterns?

http://gizmodo.com/the-strange-sad-stor ... 1616285708

[12_Gauge_Chimp]

Only thought I have is I wonder how long it'll be before we start seeing surplus M9's hitting market.

Well, that and why did the Army choose the 320 instead of the Glock 17 or 19 like some of the other branches of the US military ?

For the same lame reasons they waste money developing camo patterns?

http://gizmodo.com/the-strange-sad-stor ... 1616285708

Yeah, that's probably why.

As for when we'll see surplus M9's on the civilian market, I'm thinking it'll be a few years while the Army tries to find them all and goes through them to weed out the mechanically unsound ones. Well, that or they'll just toss them on the civilian market and let us do that for them.

Not holding my breath on that, though.

[flybynight]

Only thought I have is I wonder how long it'll be before we start seeing surplus M9's hitting market.

Well, that and why did the Army choose the 320 instead of the Glock 17 or 19 like some of the other branches of the US military ?

For the same lame reasons they waste money developing camo patterns?

http://gizmodo.com/the-strange-sad-stor ... 1616285708

Yeah, that's probably why.

As for when we'll see surplus M9's on the civilian market, I'm thinking it'll be a few years while the Army tries to find them all and goes through them to weed out the mechanically unsound ones. Well, that or they'll just toss them on the civilian market and let us do that for them.

Not holding my breath on that, though.

Just a thought. When did the government last sell surplus pistols?

[12_Gauge_Chimp]

Only thought I have is I wonder how long it'll be before we start seeing surplus M9's hitting market.

Well, that and why did the Army choose the 320 instead of the Glock 17 or 19 like some of the other branches of the US military ?

For the same lame reasons they waste money developing camo patterns?

http://gizmodo.com/the-strange-sad-stor ... 1616285708

Yeah, that's probably why.

As for when we'll see surplus M9's on the civilian market, I'm thinking it'll be a few years while the Army tries to find them all and goes through them to weed out the mechanically unsound ones. Well, that or they'll just toss them on the civilian market and let us do that for them.

Not holding my breath on that, though.

Just a thought. When did the government last sell surplus pistols?

It's been awhile from what I've heard. I know the CMP is supposed to be getting surplus 1911s at some point, but I'm not entirely sure when.

Like I said, I'm not holding my breath on the M9s hitting the surplus market. It probably won't happen for a very long time or at all. More than likely, the guns will be put in storage until the Army sees fit to either sell them off or dispose of them.

[jor-el]

Considering the change that just occurred today, selling the "outdated" pistols might be a lot easier now.

[The Twizzler]

I agree, just because it hasn't been done in a while doesn't mean it won't come back. That said I have no interest as the Berreta 92 grips are just to big for me.

Considering the change that just occurred today, selling the "outdated" pistols might be a lot easier now.

[JeeperCreeper]

For what it's worth, I love my SIG 250. Pretty much the same thing as the 320 but DOA instead of striker fired.

My 250 shoots really nice, easy to be accurate with, and breaking it down is so simple. Plus it's design is so simple that I'm shocked it wasn't invented years and years ago. I've never had an issue with reliability but that's common for shooting range guns.

Logistically, the 320 will be a dream for logistics and armorers (until they screw up all the grip and slide sizes and have odd mixes left over)

That being said, I still think a general-issue-combat-pistol should have a hammer. Easy for non-gun-nuts to visually see and the first long trigger pull will help against negligent discharges. Yes, training should eliminate that, but gotta remember E-0's will jack stuff up...

[KnifeStyle]

As for the secondary market, do recall that those 50s-era 1911s will be sold for a starting price of $1,000 for the rack-grade models. If they can mark up beater-barrel 1911s to cost more than a high-end Springfield sporting model, expect these M9s to be less than convenient to obtain.

Regarding the switch itself, I had a feeling they'd go with a modified Smith personally because the lack of a manual safety scares them away from the Glock. I was not expecting this. Good for Sigg, hope they add something new to the mix. Also, this may be the end of the old range guys bashing plastic guns because their cousin's roommate heard about one exploding back in 1992. I've heard 'the army doesn't use it' as a support for this time and time again by guys using old steel guns.

[12_Gauge_Chimp]

As for the secondary market, do recall that those 50s-era 1911s will be sold for a starting price of $1,000 for the rack-grade models. If they can mark up beater-barrel 1911s to cost more than a high-end Springfield sporting model, expect these M9s to be less than convenient to obtain.

Regarding the switch itself, I had a feeling they'd go with a modified Smith personally because the lack of a manual safety scares them away from the Glock. I was not expecting this. Good for Sigg, hope they add something new to the mix. Also, this may be the end of the old range guys bashing plastic guns because their cousin's roommate heard about one exploding back in 1992. I've heard 'the army doesn't use it' as a support for this time and time again by guys using old steel guns.

Well, if I'm spending a grand or more on a pistol, I'm going with new-in-box instead of well-used and not-so-nicely taken care of.

[raptor]

Is my math correct here? We are paying $1,178 per pistol acquired? I hope that includes a bunch of spare magazines, parts and such.

$580 million / 492,000 pistols = $1,178 each

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sig-p320-u-a ... 31061.html

Cabellas has them for $599 each retail.

[quazi]

I'm not sure about this specific deal, but from what I understand in the past it hasn't been uncommon for militaries to sign contracts with super duper warranties. So they might not be paying $580 million for just 492,000 handguns and accessories, but also for the guarantee that they will have 492,000 functioning handguns for the next thirty years without having to pay anything extra when parts break.

[ManInBlack316]

That being said, I still think a general-issue-combat-pistol should have a hammer. Easy for non-gun-nuts to visually see and the first long trigger pull will help against negligent discharges. Yes, training should eliminate that, but gotta remember E-0's will jack stuff up...

You mean O-1s? Oh yeah, we're talking about the nurses and psychs in the army having pistols here, it can be pretty funny in my experience. Most of the officers in my unit couldn't hit anything....


Also, does Sig have a politician's brother working for them?

[JeeperCreeper]

That being said, I still think a general-issue-combat-pistol should have a hammer. Easy for non-gun-nuts to visually see and the first long trigger pull will help against negligent discharges. Yes, training should eliminate that, but gotta remember E-0's will jack stuff up...

You mean O-1s? Oh yeah, we're talking about the nurses and psychs in the army having pistols here, it can be pretty funny in my experience. Most of the officers in my unit couldn't hit anything....


Also, does Sig have a politician's brother working for them?

No I was being facetious and meaning it as "Enlisted-Zero" meaning low on the totem pole troops... that way I wasn't talking trash on quality junior enlisted. There are plenty of morons in the military, just like everywhere in life (see "carl" memes), so when you need to arm troops, especially not top-tier-operating-operators, you need to take into account for Murphy's Law and dumbshits doing dumb things.

Hence, I believe a service gun needs a safety and a hammer for the general issue. Needs to be idiot proof. But that's just me.

But on a side note, I'm slowly changing that opinion as the more I teach newbies to shoot, the more I realize how hard it is for the unexposed to comprehend a hammer DA/SA trigger.

[ManInBlack316]

That being said, I still think a general-issue-combat-pistol should have a hammer. Easy for non-gun-nuts to visually see and the first long trigger pull will help against negligent discharges. Yes, training should eliminate that, but gotta remember E-0's will jack stuff up...

You mean O-1s? Oh yeah, we're talking about the nurses and psychs in the army having pistols here, it can be pretty funny in my experience. Most of the officers in my unit couldn't hit anything....


Also, does Sig have a politician's brother working for them?

No I was being facetious and meaning it as "Enlisted-Zero" meaning low on the totem pole troops... that way I wasn't talking trash on quality junior enlisted. There are plenty of morons in the military, just like everywhere in life (see "carl" memes), so when you need to arm troops, especially not top-tier-operating-operators, you need to take into account for Murphy's Law and dumbshits doing dumb things.

Hence, I believe a service gun needs a safety and a hammer for the general issue. Needs to be idiot proof. But that's just me.

But on a side note, I'm slowly changing that opinion as the more I teach newbies to shoot, the more I realize how hard it is for the unexposed to comprehend a hammer DA/SA trigger.

I meant it as a joke bro, chill. But I agree with the DA/SA being more difficult for newbies.

[Hiroshima_Morphine]

You all know I'm a self-identified Beretta fan-boy. So I was disappointed to hear this news.

Only thought I have is I wonder how long it'll be before we start seeing surplus M9's hitting market.

Thanks, Chimpy, for showing me the silver lining.

[12_Gauge_Chimp]

You all know I'm a self-identified Beretta fan-boy. So I was disappointed to hear this news.

Only thought I have is I wonder how long it'll be before we start seeing surplus M9's hitting market.

Thanks, Chimpy, for showing me the silver lining.

No problem, Hiro.

[JeeperCreeper]

I meant it as a joke bro, chill.

Oh, I'm chill... super cool, in fact

[majorhavoc]

Is my math correct here? We are paying $1,178 per pistol acquired? I hope that includes a bunch of spare magazines, parts and such.

$580 million / 492,000 pistols = $1,178 each

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sig-p320-u-a ... 31061.html

Cabellas has them for $599 each retail.

It's more than that. The procurement contract includes spare parts including whole change-out kits, enabled by the Sig's modular design (slides, barrel lengths, frame sizes and even grip diameters are all swappable to suit mission needs and individual service member's physical size). The contract also includes armorer training and many, many thousands of additional magazines. Plus the mil-spec version supposedly has a few additional design features not found on the retail civilian model, features specified by DOD.

Not saying that $1,178 per unit is necessarily a great price. But comparing it to the unit cost of the civilian retail version with two magazines (or knowing Sig; just one ), and a flimsy paper users manual is kinda apples to oranges.

[ROCK6]

Yeah, the total contract will include training, parts, field representatives, etc.

Not to downplay half a billion dollars, but that's really not a big contract. My unit alone has that for its annual budget. Now, as a tax payer as well as a service member, I've seen gross (in my opinion) misuse of tax payer's money. Purchasing a replacement handgun isn't a bad investment. Consider the Beretta has served for 32 years; that's a pretty significant lifespan for any weapons system. It wasn't perfect, but it served its purpose well and I really have no complaints against reliability and accuracy.

The Army's choice for Sig makes sense. The modular platform allows one "pistol" to serve several purposes. We had to adopt the Sig P228 as the M11 in 1989 because some individuals and units needed a more compact handgun. I personally don't care for the add on external safety, but understand the purpose. There are only about 10% of the Army (probably less) that actually carry a pistol on a daily basis. Issued handguns are typically reserved down to Company Commander and Senior NCOs (SGMs) and certain field grade officers. There are few occupations for enlisted who would get issued a pistol, but there aren't many. Also, for conventional forces, those that get issued a pistol typically have no experience of handling a pistol unless they own their own and have a hobby of shooting. Add in that current PMI, or "instruction" is very rudimentary and designed to keep the individual from shooting a friendly or themselves and hopefully keep most rounds in the general direction of the enemy. There are pockets of excellence and I've know some great instructors, but those are not that common outside your more mission-specific units. I attended a few MP qualification courses and those are the closest to a civilian "tactical" class I've taken on my own dime, but most conventional troopers will never (or rarely) get that level of training.

Back to the Sig P320. It's a good choice and solid design. I like the idea of no DA/SA. As simple the manual of arms was for the M9, people still struggled (again, non-shooters). Hopefully the new curriculum will imbed more functional handling procedures and reinforce more dynamic marksmanship training...I'm hoping this based on the fact Sig does have their own academy and curriculum...I'm being optimistic.

Now is $580 million a waste of money for a new handgun that is pretty much a blip on the radar for the Army's overall mission? My opinion is that I would rather have us "waste" money on weapons and related training than the million-plus spent on social issues training like "transgender transition training" or "unconscious bias training". The cost of training materials and classroom time on these social issues are what I would consider a waste, not a new handgun. Don't even ask my opinion on the whole beret and digital ACU decisions. The cost shouldn't be underestimated, but neither should the focus and actual value. I am much more supportive of fielding a new pistol than I am spending resources, "real" training time and money on feeding Soldiers all the touchy-feely social issues and agendas for those that forget what the military's mission really is.

ROCK6

[raptor]

It's more than that. The procurement contract includes spare parts including whole change-out kits, enabled by the Sig's modular design (slides, barrel lengths, frame sizes and even grip diameters are all swappable to suit mission needs and individual service member's physical size). The contract also includes armorer training and many, many thousands of additional magazines. Plus the mil-spec version supposedly has a few additional design features not found on the retail civilian model, features specified by DOD.

Not saying that $1,178 per unit is necessarily a great price. But comparing it to the unit cost of the civilian retail version with two magazines (or knowing Sig; just one ), and a flimsy paper users manual is kinda apples to oranges.

Yeah, the total contract will include training, parts, field representatives, etc.

The article quoted has a link to the 350+/- page bid specification.
I downloaded and started read it but decided after a few pages I decided I would rather go read the 2016 income tax code. It was easier to follow.

I was hoping (& really assumed) assumed it was for a lot more than just the pistols but I still view the retail price as a relevant approximate price point for the pistol. Any purchaser buying in bulk should be able to beat Cabella's every day price. That said I agree that you do have to include all of the other items in the value equation to make it more of an apples to apples comparison. So to that Cabellas price the many extras would of course increase the cost; for instance 6 magazines alone would bump the price $200, throw in a spare firing pin, ejector/extractor, spring kit and similar routine consumables and the price gap narrows still further. All of the things we typically purchase for new pistol are likely needed in even greater quantity per unit acquired here due to issues of distance and supply delay.


For the record I believe that the US military should have high quality tools for any task that involves life and death activity. A pistol for self defense IMO falls in that category.

Still I cannot help but note the tome that is the bid and many and vocal criticisms the bid process form within the military including this person. Granted he could not buy 492,000 pistols with the $17mm but his point I think is valid although clearly hyperbole.

https://www.armytimes.com/story/militar ... /82132450/


What is not included in the contract price and where the $17mm above came from was the cost of testing and "spec'ing" for the replacement firearm.

Still in the world of fiscal waste, IMO, this does not even move the needle.

[Bud]

The Army started talking about replacing the M9 ten years ago after numerous complaints from the field starting way back during Desert Storm in 1991. There were two major identified problems with the M9 and that was size and its reliability when it got dirty.

The M9 is a big pistol. It's no problem for most men but it's a huge problem for most women. When you consider who actually uses a pistol, then it becomes obvious that a change had to be made.

To explain, when I retired from the Army in 1999, I was dual qualified as both an Infantry 1st Sgt and also as a Platoon Sgt of a UH60 assault helicopter company.

In an Army light Infantry company, there are only eleven pistols authorized; one each to the six machine gunners, one each to the three mortar gunners , the Company Commander and the Supply Sgt. That's it. The M9 is no problem there because there are no women allowed (yet) in Infantry maneuver units.

But as a helicopter assault company platoon Sgt, I did have a problem because of the M9. There are four crew members assigned to a UH 60 and all four are armed with an M9 pistol. There are 15 UH 60s in an assault company so there is 60 pistols right there and women are authorized to fill every one of those spots.

I had a constant problem getting the women soldiers qualified with the M9 because their hands were just too small.

Anyways, Soldiers Systems took all the complaints and came up with a specification for a new pistol. Sig read the specification and designed a new pistol based on their modular P250. The specs called for a pistol that could be easily adapted both to size, and to configuration. The P250 already did that but Sig went ahead and moved over to the "dark side" and re-configured the P250 as a striker fired pistol.

If you want to read the original proposal for bids, here it is:

http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploa...tion_Final.pdf

It's kind of lengthy but going through it, you'll see that Sig nailed the requirements exactly.

As far as the ammo, it's going to be 9mm. The US isn't going to turn their back on the commonality of calibers within NATO but the prohibition against hollow point bullets is a thing of the past.

It is the 1898 and 1907 Hague Convention agreements that ban the use of 'dum-dum' or hollow point ammo and here's a surprise for some of you, the United States never signed and the Senate never ratified the treaty. And the Army started using hollow points a number of years aho starting first with the Special operations units. Here's a discussion on the US and hollow points from "The Gun Zone":

http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

The actual cost per pistol is $207. All of the additional costs are replacement parts, adaptive kits, magazines and instructional support and manual development. The XM17 with have a frame mounted safety unlike the civilian models.

I have a Beretta M9 that I bought after I retired and I like it just fine. I also have a full size P320 TACOPS and a compact P320 and I like both of them much better. The M9 is based on a design way back in the early fifties and while a great pistol, the design is dated.

Hope it helps and apologies for being so wordy
__________________

[quazi]

It is the 1898 and 1907 Hague Convention agreements that ban the use of 'dum-dum' or hollow point ammo and here's a surprise for some of you, the United States never signed and the Senate never ratified the treaty. And the Army started using hollow points a number of years aho starting first with the Special operations units.

I didn't know that the U.S. wasn't signatory to the Hague Conventions. Interesting.