New Army Handgun: We're Really Doing This

Status
Not open for further replies.
true.

had some interaction with the Navy years ago....um....not all sailors are the same is a nice way to put it.

on the flip side, if they keep cutting troops, there are fewer you have to train. :rolleyes:
 
If it were tan colored like the new Colt M45 CQB 1911, and came with night sights standard, it would be untouchable for a new duty handgun.
Click to expand...
Untouchable? I need one! I have to touch all my guns and it cost me money most of the time :(
 
Seen a pick of the Sig 320 in the MHS setup...


Tan, thumb safety, and a few other small touches. The thumb safety was smallish, but ample enough to use easily. The fact it exists on the pistol suggests it is a requirement to have one.


I was also thinking about the 320 and its modular setup.

At first the internal frame modularity seemed a bit gimmicky, useful in some ways but overall limited in scope...

Then I started thinking about it from a controlled serialized component/weapon standpoint... Parts replacement... armorer tasks... and the need to have a paper trail for every "weapon"...

And then it kind of clicked... the 320 has a lot going for it when you take in account the logistics involved in the background.


The internal frame being separate from the rest means that any damage to the outer poly frame is an easy fix. You get a spare part, and there is minimum paperwork. As there is no serial number change, or need to scrap a serialized part. Irreparable damage to the frames of other pistols means an unserviceable weapon, as the serialized part must be scraped/retired. (for example, the accessory rails being an area that could see damage during training)

When a weapon is taken out of service, there is a process... logs of proper disposal... paperwork.

The internal frame is stamped steel, and pretty thick. The rails are part of that frame and are thicker than most other modern poly handguns by a good bit... Maybe twice as thick as a glock's rails, and three times as thick as the rails on an M&P... It is unlikely to wear out quickly. The mechanism is fairly simple and straightforward, so parts replacement and repair is easy. I could see an internal serialized frame lasting for a long time, requiring far less retiring of serialized "weapons" as damage and age take their toll on the rest of the parts.


Would it get picked? I don't know.

Pics here
 
Last edited:
The rails are part of that frame and are thicker than most other modern poly handguns by a good bit... Maybe twice as thick as a glock's rails, and three times as thick as the rails on an M&P
Click to expand...

I've got my M&P Compact and my P320 Carry field stripped in front of me, and there is no way the rails are three times the thickness of the M&P. Even twice is pushing it a bit. It's a robust gun and I agree with your other points, but as a statistician I'm OCD about these things.
 
I would need to measure to be sure... I was going off memory, as I haven't had mt 320 apart in a while, and I seen the M&P rails today when I had mine apart... They are thin.

Either way... The rails on the 320 are thick for a modern poly pistol.
 
I would need to measure to be sure... I was going off memory, as I haven't had mt 320 apart in a while, and I seen the M&P rails today when I had mine apart... They are thin.
Click to expand...

Use your eyes and you won't need to break out the calipers.

Honestly though, how important are thick rails to begin with? The rails on an HK USP are short little nubs by comparison and they work fine.
 
marine6680 said:
You are right... its not three times. Still... those rails on a 320 will not wear out quickly.
Click to expand...
I don't think they are going to wear out on any pistol I've owned. Unless we're talking the anodizing wearing off an alloy slide with a steel frame, it's normally a non issue (and even that is thousands of rounds on frame rails that haven't been properly greased).

P320 seems very rugged but the only long term history it has is the P250 that had mixed luck. Idk if the military will want an established handgun or not.
 
True, the rails are not really the point of it... its the overall long lasting nature of the internal serialized frame.

It will be interesting to see how it develops.

We can complain about expenditure of funds, need to replace or not, and what model all day... but ultimately, the military will do as they see fit to do.
 
I snorted coffee out my nose in the bullpen at work reading that.

In my opinion, if the Army does move forward, the contest is going to be between a version of the S&W M&P (the bottom feeder; not the Model 10 predecessor) and the M-9A3.
 
The Sig 320 has a good chance... Just looking at its features.

So far I know of sig and s&w submitting for this... Don't know of any others.

I doubt the m9a3 will get much serious consideration as the whole point of the MHS system seems to move away from the Beretta.

They may get a little leeway due to the compatability with current gear... But if the holsters and similar gear are universal enough, then that limits some of that advantage. Parts and magazines being the only other thing that the military has available that it would be compatible with. Unless the military is letting stock drop in anticipation of selecting a new pistol.
 
The Sig 320 has a good chance... Just looking at its features.

So far I know of sig and s&w submitting for this... Don't know of any others.

I doubt the m9a3 will get much serious consideration as the whole point of the MHS system seems to move away from the Beretta.

They may get a little leeway due to the compatability with current gear... But if the holsters and similar gear are universal enough, then that limits some of that advantage. Parts and magazines being the only other thing that the military has available that it would be compatible with. Unless the military is letting stock drop in anticipation of selecting a new pistol.
Click to expand...

Any bids will likely be a package deal anyway. I think Beretta was hoping, in fact they mentioned it, that the Army would do what they did with the M4 and revamp the M9 as opposed to replacing it. Army seems to think if they go through this they want something new.
 
For the record, I was never actually issued a holster to go with my M-9.

I borrowed my First Sergeant's holster until my sister sent me one to attach to my plate carrier.

I also bought a bunch of OEM magazines as well, because the Army isssued one s were wore slap out.
 
I'm still trying to figure out how we'd get our monies worth out of any poly pistol?

How many years did we get out of the 1911's and how many times were they stripped and refinished? Same for the M9 to some degree..
You just cant do that with a poly...

So hows it supposed to play out? Send the frame in to be ground up and they replace it with another having the same number?

Seems like the Glocks 31, 32 & 33 would fit the bill nicely with two changes...
Identical alloy frame that uses all of the standard parts, including the slide and magazine.
And add a manual safety.
 
Last edited:
So hows it supposed to play out? Send the frame in to be ground up and they replace it with another having the same number?
Click to expand...

On the P320 the serial number is on the fire control unit, so the frame itself is a $50 part that can be swapped with no problem.
 
Hunh... thats cool.
Wonder how they managed to deem an amalgamation of internal parts as "the gun", its sort of like putting the VIN on the engine instead of on the body?
Clever though, with obvious benefits in a gun.
 
Usually the part that holds the fire control group is the part that is classified as the gun...

Since the internal frame is a separate piece on the 320, the grip can be looked at no differently than a pistol grip on an AR... It attaches to the part that holds the trigger.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top