Sig P320 announced the winner of US MHS contract

My only reason for getting one is as a military collector (I already have enough plastic fantastic for general use), so yeah I too will be waiting until SIG releases a commercial version of whatever the Army just ordered.
 
I wouldn't go salivating over a glut of M9s hitting the civilian market. We're still waiting for the old M1911s to hit the market through CMP, and it's been quite some time.
 
Hoping the other branches eventually swap offer as well. I haven't been all that impressed with the M9. It's just a bit too big and heavy for a 9mm. The grip doesn't fit me too well. But they are tough and pretty fun to shoot. Still I'd much rather pack one of these lighter poly striker 9s.
 
I like the 21 round mags as well. Lots of capacity but not obnoxious. I'm liking the DOD's choice more and more.

I'd LOVE to own the M17 version as soon as it's available. I sure wonder if it won't be fore some time, considering SIG will be filling that Army order!

PS: Is this going to be brown/tan? I saw a picture labeled "XM17" and it was brown. Not cool! I hope the one that is delivered to the Army is black in it's colorization pallet scheme.
 
For me personally, the idea of being able to take the trigger out of the full size and putting it into a sub-compact, but only really buying one gun, I have two. Glock can't do that, so it's an innovative feature and it allows me to have the same exact trigger pull and feel in the small sub-compact as it is in a full size.

BUT, I don't see how this feature is so great for a military.
 
I just don't get it. If the 320 is anything like the 250 I'm definitely not interested. I had one for just long enough to realize I didn't want to keep it. After owning Glock and M&P pistols, the Sig seemed cheap and was VERY difficult to move the slide release lever.

Edit: By 'slide release lever' , I'm talking about the take down lever that releases the slide from the frame. Sorry for any confusion. :)
 
Last edited:
I'm a little disappointed. The Glock has an unreal record of reliability and service around the world, while the P320 is fairly new without the same proven track record. They've also been the cheapest when providing guns to law enforcement and military. And going by how expensive the extra slides and frames for the P320 are, I'm sure the Army could have just purchased Glock 17s, 19s, and 26s instead, for probably about the same price. That'd also make for less little parts for the armorers to keep track of.

But, it is what it is, and the government isn't known for always making the best decisions. We'll see how it goes. But I was always of the opinion that the M9 was fine for the job.
 
TruthTellers said:
BUT, I don't see how this feature is so great for a military.
Click to expand...

Logically, it's saves from having to keep completely different inventories for different platforms. The M9 has been a commendable service pistol, but is too large for CID agents and others who are authorized concealed carry for their duties. My assumption though, they won't order a "kit" they will purchase the service-sized frame for the majority of the military and then a few thousand of the compact or sub-compact for those requiring a concealable firearm.

Sadly, the cynics about any helpful modular pieces getting stuffed in the arms room for inventory accountability and not used properly for those requiring a different sized frame are unfortunately spot on. I hope I'm wrong, but after the initial contracted training wears off, typical brass mindset goes into CYA mode.

I was issued a M1911 as a young Soldier serving as my platoon sergeants driver and I was a little disappointed about giving my favorite "rattle trap" up for our newly issued Beretta M9s. I've never been the biggest fan of the Beretta, but it served its purpose well; I never had any complaints.

My very first handgun I purchased was Sig's P228, right after the newly adopted (limited issue) M11's, when I was commissioned as a 2LT (still have it) and thought that the Army should have just went the route fully.

I would have been happy to see Glock or the Sig; both are good choices but I think it came down to modularity and discomfort with Glock's disassembly procedures. I'm not shocked but disappointed that the new M17/P320 will have an external safety. For a DA/Striker pistol, I just think this causes more problems and avoids the necessary attention on proper handgun handling.

I do hope the large contract includes instruction and not just for the armorers. This is a good opportunity for the Army to change some the mindset about the handgun tactics; it's not about mostly static qualification ranges and the threat to service members will increase with the emergence of ISIS and the wanna-be's. Of the 80 or so handguns I own, ironically, I don't have a P320:D I will probably pick one up, but I will avoid the M17 version with safety as I just don't care for it.

Congrats to Sig and thank you to Beretta for your 30 years of Service. As I hang up my boots a little later this year from my own service, it will be a fitting retirement as my son just enlisted last year in the GAANG and will finish his Infantry AIT this summer. An older generation moving aside and a newer generation taking up the baton, or P320...

ROCK6
 
Last edited:
I just don't get it. If the 320 is anything like the 250 I'm definitely not interested. I had one for just long enough to realize I didn't want to keep it. After owning Glock and M&P pistols, the Sig seemed cheap and was VERY difficult to move the slide release lever.
Click to expand...

That's my complaint about the Sig and the Glock, I really hate the slide release lever on both of them, to the point I don't even use it. I just pull the slide with my off hand to release it on a new magazine. On the flip side, the lack of a more pronounced slide release lever makes them easier and more comfortable to carry concealed.

Right now, I'm going to assume the pistol that is carried by regular Army troops would be different from a more specialized role, so a P320 as a "modular" combat sidearm hopefully will not be handicapped with a low profile and difficult to operate slide release, at least that is what I would expect from a modular design.
 
Last edited:
How will this affect the market on their accessories? Will mag prices drop and become more abundant? I've been set on buying a sp2022, but given this new development the p320 is getting another look.
 
stonewall50 said:
Sigh


9mm

No hopes of cheaper .40 cal.
Click to expand...
Forget .40. The .357 Sig is the same size bullet as the 9mm, but it's driven to a higher velocity and is bottlenecked, so feeding issues are virtually non-existent. Why wouldn't the Army go that route? The military has a stick up their rear on using 9mm +P because it's "more powerful" but .357 Sig is literally a magnum powered semi auto pistol cartridge.

The .357 Sig is built for use on the battlefield. Sure, it's not NATO standard, but the US is likely pulling out of NATO, so there's no point in choosing a pistol to accept the same ammunition as what the Eurotrash uses.
 
TruthTellers said:
Forget .40. The .357 Sig is the same size bullet as the 9mm, but it's driven to a higher velocity and is bottlenecked, so feeding issues are virtually non-existent. Why wouldn't the Army go that route? The military has a stick up their rear on using 9mm +P because it's "more powerful" but .357 Sig is literally a magnum powered semi auto pistol cartridge.



The .357 Sig is built for use on the battlefield. Sure, it's not NATO standard, but the US is likely pulling out of NATO, so there's no point in choosing a pistol to accept the same ammunition as what the Eurotrash uses.
Click to expand...



Built for use on the battlefield? Not really. It's built in an attempt to replicate 357 magnum performance in a semiautomatic. It's really a niche cartridge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The .357 Sig is built for use on the battlefield.
Click to expand...
The .357SIG was designed to replicate the performance of the 125gr JHP .357Magnum loading which had an excellent reputation as a fight stopper in the LE arena.

I suppose it could be adapted for battlefield use but it was designed for personal defense and LE use in the U.S. where expanding rounds are the default. Sort of the opposite of battlefield use.
How will this affect the market on their accessories? Will mag prices drop and become more abundant?
Click to expand...
I would expect for there to be an initial surge in price and drop in availability. After the initial buying surge is over and manufacturing catches up; accessory prices should come down and availability should go up. Might take awhile though.
 
The .357SIG was designed to replicate the performance of the 125gr JHP .357Magnum loading which had an excellent reputation as a fight stopper in the LE arena.

I suppose it could be adapted for battlefield use but it was designed for personal defense and LE use in the U.S. where expanding rounds are the default. Sort of the opposite of battlefield use.
Click to expand...
The US never ratified the section that banned expanding bullets and frankly, restriction of bullet types during war is a silly notion. Most of the enemies the US armed forces fight now are not members of a nation's military anyway.

Pistols are a soldier's next line of defense, so the .357 Sig and it's power is well suited to the task.
 
Considering all the stats say that all pistol rounds considered suitable for defense use perform very similarly...

I don't see the need for 357sig...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top