Sig M17 / 18

B

Bucksnort1

New member
You know what they say about opinions, "they are like ...and every body has one". This holds true with the Sig M17. I'm not an expert on the subject but I will say the M17 looks like a military pistol, unlike its predecessor.

During the lengthy procurement process, and with a list of requirements by the Army a mile long, the NRA reported that Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley became frustrated with the time involved. He said, "You give me $17 million on the credit card, I'll call Cabela's tonight, and I'll outfit every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine with a pistol, and I'll get a discount on it for bulk buys".

I guess four star generals can say things like that.
 
I'm not an expert on the subject but I will say the M17 looks like a military pistol, unlike its predecessor.
Click to expand...

Because it's brown?

The Beretta 92FS/M9 saw wider military adoption than the M17 is likely to ever see.
 
I'm with Fishbed on this one. The Beretta 92 series has seen use by various nations in both military and police usage. It's been a relatively solid design for decades, drawing its lineage from the Walther P38. It did have its issues, but so have some M17s. I don't think the M17 is a bad pistol, and I don't think the Beretta was either. In US inventory it's well at the end of its life and often not very well maintained.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
FWIW we did the right thing going to 9mm in 1985. But I thought, and still think, the Sig 226 was the better option. But I've owned and shot enough Beretta's to trust the pistol to work and to be reliable. I just think it is a bigger/heavier gun than it needs to be and I don't like DA/SA designs. It served well, but it was time to upgrade.

I like the M17 quite well,enough to buy one. But honestly the military would have saved a ton of money just buying a bunch of G17 and G19 pistols off the shelf. The testing had already been done.
 
I like the trigger on the M17/18 better than the DA/SA of the M9. Also, I absolutely prefer the frame mounted safety than the slide mounting of the Beretta.

As far as durability, I guess we'll have to wait a decade or so to really know.
 
General Milley was correct. The procurement for the M17/M18 was a travesty and tremendous waste of tax payer dollars.

The modularity of the P320 will not filter down to the end user. PVT Joe will use whatever pistol in whatever configuration he is issues. Armorers and Company Commander will drag out all the different frames for quarterly inventory and then they will be squirreled away until the next inventory.

Guys in SOF are already using pretty much what they want and that comes from a different budget than normal procurement.

And it's basically like General Milley said; buy COTS guns and roll with them.

DOD should have just made the M-11A1 standard issue and been done with it.

Or bought new Berettas. Which would have saved money in regards to loads of ancillary equipment.
 
The Beretta M9 doesn't LOOK like a military pistol? It's probably the coolest looking handgun ever made. It's a big all metal handgun. Looks and feels pretty military to me.

The M17 on the other hand looks like some ████ Taurus or Bersa would make. A cheap plastic piece of Tupperware. Now it might be a better handgun, for whatever miniscule military tactical advantage that might provide in a war in say Korea, but it doesn't LOOK any more military to me.
 
DOD should have just made the M-11A1 standard issue and been done with it.
Click to expand...

Why the M11-A1? This would be no different than adopting the P320/M17 in that respect, as it's not a current-issue military pistol, and would be all-new in service.

The M11-A1 is just a civilian commercial 9mm P229 with some aesthetic changes and a name to make it sound like an adopted pistol (it isn't). It's not the same thing as the actual adopted M11 (P228) pistol.

If you are worried that the M17 is waste of money (don't get me wrong - it is), the M11-A1 would be an even greater waste.
 
jmr40 said:
But honestly the military would have saved a ton of money just buying a bunch of G17 and G19 pistols off the shelf. The testing had already been done.
Click to expand...

That wasn't gonna happen, because there's no way they were gonna buy two pistols that required two different magazines. One or the other would've been fine, I suppose, and I suspect the Glock 17 would've been the off-the-shelf choice (and still be significantly smaller and lighter than an M9).

In regard to size and magazines, the SIG M17/M18 seemed like a slick choice to me: one frame, common set of magazines, two barrel/slide options.
 
I don't believe they would have saved money, and I say this as someone that has owned multiple P320s, sold them, and stuck with Glocks. There was going to be a competition. Military procurement almost always involves a competition. Some people see that as a waste, but it really isn't. You want to evaluate multiple options to be sure what you're getting works as you demand and that you're not missing something better about a competitor. In addition, one person just picking one option by himself leaves you open to both personal bias from that person and potentially outside influence as well. SIG's bid was well below Glock's and while the second battery of testing wasn't completed, from the first battery in terms of reliability they performed essentially equally. I think the M17 will be fine in the end and there are other programs on which the money saved could be spent for greater return.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Um...the modular design is for parts/replacements.

The benefit of the Kel Tec design of taking out all the important parts, to put into a non busted grip makes sense to service active platforms.

Slides, mags, different grip sizes...that's missing the point. Broken frame on a M9 is significant. A broken grip is replaced by removing the modular FCU and putting it into a $20 grip replacement. Chassis/FCU is easier to work around than an complicated built grip.

For a weapons platform, is this obvious.
 
I rented an M17 yesterday and found it to be extremely accurate. I like the trigger and shot it better than my G17. Think it will prove to be an excellent weapon. Time will tell. The only thing I don’t like about the pistol is the lack of more options in terms of optics.
 
Since this thread seems to be mostly opinion based, I'll have I go...

In regard to the OPs observation about appearance: It seems to me the m17/18 look exactly like what every civilian military fanboy wants it to look like, high testosterone/bad to the bone... mass produced to the least common denominator. Seriously, I feel like the past several years, Sig has marketed themselves to every "bruh" who will throw on a Don't Tread on Me Tee shirt and jack up his steeply financed Rubicon. The M17/18 doesn't seem like a deviation to me.

Not that I don't see the purpose to its many, modular features. But when you choose the lowest bidder, you still get what you pay for. Saying the modularity makes replacing parts easier is kind of like saying Vortex is great because of their warranty. A 320 isn't a 226/229 just because it's parts swap out like legos, and a Vortex isn't a Leupold just because they'll fix it when it breaks.
 
Not that I don't see the purpose to its many, modular features. But when you choose the lowest bidder, you still get what you pay for. Saying the modularity makes replacing parts easier is kind of like saying Vortex is great because of their warranty. A 320 isn't a 226/229 just because it's parts swap out like legos, and a Vortex isn't a Leupold just because they'll fix it when it breaks.
Click to expand...

Well except that Sig met the proposed requirements a bit better than Glock did. Often overlooked as well is that Sig was ready to go with another part of the biddding requirements. It had partnered with Winchester on the ammo requirements. It was ready to go with this as well.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/ar...rt-us-xm17-mhs-it-s-the-hollow-points-stupid/

Sometimes the lower bid is a better deal. Especially when you get what ya want.

The M9 will continue to be used for quite some time as well.

Glocks will also be used.

tipoc
 
Valid points... and I don't think the Sig is a bad choice, just not the best choice.

My original comments really are just my opinion. I am fully aware of my biases.
 
Seriously, I feel like the past several years, Sig has marketed themselves to every "bruh" who will throw on a Don't Tread on Me Tee shirt and jack up his steeply financed Rubicon. The M17/18 doesn't seem like a deviation to me.
Click to expand...

This is the correct take.

Not that I don't see the purpose to its many, modular features. But when you choose the lowest bidder, you still get what you pay for.
Click to expand...

Remember that public solicitation requirements/specifications are a minimum requirement. Not to say there is anything wrong with that. That's the way public bids are supposed to work.

Valid points... and I don't think the Sig is a bad choice, just not the best choice.
Click to expand...

If it met the minimum solicitation requirements/specifications at the lowest cost, it IS the best choice. There can be no argument here.

Now whether the solicitation was justified, or the requirements were sound, is of course open to debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top