Sig P320 announced the winner of US MHS contract

Just a couple of days before the SIG was chosen, the MHS competition was under heavy fire for being wasteful and over complicated again. There's a good possibility that a lot of planned testing got skipped in order to push through a choice and salvage the project from being scrapped like the old Joint Handgun Program. That is, of course, just speculation on my part.
 
We don't have the results. I'm assuming it didn't really outperform the Glock in testing since none REALLY outperform it, and I'm assuming they didn't undercut Glocks pricing, as Glock is always the cheapest when it comes to mil/LE pricing.

I'm assuming it won based on the modular aspect (which I don't think will be actually used), as that aspect is what they primarily focused on for this round of testing.
Click to expand...
Pure speculation! The 320 may have trounced the 19/17 in every test or it may not have. What's the cost of a 19/17 for LE or Military? I thought the lowest bidder was usually the contract winner unless there were issues with the cheapest choice. The 320 is rumored to have a price of $207.00 per unit.

In the end, who cares. Shoot what you like the best regardless what any LE or Military uses.
 
Yes, I'm aware it was speculation. That's why I had so many "assuming"s in there. But, based on hundreds of unscientific individual tests done by youtubers, it doesn't seem the Sig outperforms the Glock at all. At least not in environmental testing.

I'm aware of price from Glocks Blue Label, but their prices for entire department are much cheaper. I'm not that high up on the chain of command so I wouldn't know exact prices. That's the reason so many departments use them though, they're always the lowest price. I just don't see how Sig could come in at under Glocks price.
 
First, its nice its a Sig, secondly its a striker and I have no fondness for those

I do note it has a "mud flap" to keep the striker from getting crud into it

https://warisboring.com/after-three...getting-a-new-handgun-170335372c32#.m1kzaoijk

And that's what most people do not realize, despite all the fall ra lah about the Glock and striker, its a very sensitive to grit mechanism.

Hammer fire is much better and does not need a mud flap.

Secondly: Its not price, its performance with price a factor. Glock may be cheap but it has to perform and as expected it did not.

Note its only Army and not Navy or Marines, USAF.

Some disagreement on caliber though the 9mm seems to be the likely choice.

Sans that it would be the 357 Sig. As the current thinking is it needs to do both barriers and people take out that would be the better choice, logistically it would take a while to convert.
 
Secondly: Its not price, its performance with price a factor. Glock may be cheap but it has to perform and as expected it did not.
Click to expand...

We know nothing of the performance of any of the handguns in the testing. And how is it "as expected", when Glock is the most common basis used for reliability?
 
I keep seeing this idea of the 357 SIG being brought up. I see no evidence of that happening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
suppressor capacity of the SIG320

All the pics I have seen so far show a muzzle ending plain with the slide. Doesn't the suppressor capability require a barrel that is protruding the front of the slide? Or is that going to be a modular feature, only employed if needed, by swapping the barrel?
 
All the pics I have seen so far show a muzzle ending plain with the slide. Doesn't the suppressor capability require a barrel that is protruding the front of the slide? Or is that going to be a modular feature, only employed if needed, by swapping the barrel?
Click to expand...

There is a greater than fair chance that any military unit who uses a suppressor on a pistol will have their pick of any current manufacture pistol they want to use... This is not so true with a rifle, plain jane infantry units may get cans for a rifle on occasion. Suppressors on a pistol? We probably don't officially recognize the unit.
 
But, based on hundreds of unscientific individual tests done by youtubers, it doesn't seem the Sig outperforms the Glock at all. At least not in environmental testing.
Click to expand...

Pure speculation again. Unless you were there for all of the YouTube tests, you don't really know what went into any of them. You have no idea of any of the motivation behind any of them. It matters not the brand/model.

The Army picked the Sig over the Glock and that's about the only fact we know at the time.
 
"...is an antique pistol by comparison..." Just like the 1911A1 before it. The whole thing is a non-issue anyway. Pistols are not primary weapons. They're primarily status symbols and last ditch, "OMG! I've made an extreme tactical error.", SD tool.
"...its performance with price a factor..." Performance isn't much of an issue either. The Berretta was selected for political reasons. Just like the M-14 and M-16.
 
1stmar said:
...like optics [suppressors] need to get smaller
Click to expand...
The problem with this assertion is that, with suppressors, there's a strong positive correlation between sound-reducing effectiveness and physical size. Look at engine mufflers as proof.
 
Technology is great. There was never any driving force to reduce the size of exhaust. It needs to extend beyond the car. Someone will figure it out.
 
1stmar said:
There was never any driving force to reduce the size of exhaust.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is (and was)—consumer expectations for greater interior and cargo space, along with the need to accommodate the other mechanical bits that go behind the doors. :) If carmakers could shrink mufflers down to the size of a coffee can while providing a reasonably quiet ride (and meeting EU drive-by noise regulations), they would have done so years ago.

I'm not going to make an extended thread hijack out of this. :) My basic point is that suppressors are like optics, radio antennas, or other acoustic devices such as speakers; if you want a certain level of performance, the laws of physics dictate that the unit needs to be a certain size and shape.
 
Thr DoD will slowly pull the M9s from service as the Sigs are issued. The DoD will put the M9s in storage for a future emergency. A big one is just ahead.
 
Yeah and maybe they will finally let CMP sell the old Remington 1911 that they announced last year to be getting from the military surplus to sell.
 
Yeah and maybe they will finally let CMP sell the old Remington 1911 that they announced last year to be getting from the military surplus to sell.
Click to expand...

From what I remember of the prices mentioned then they're not something I'm interested in personally as shooter, certainly not with the deals that can be had on new Colt 1911s or etc. in the current buyer's market. If you wanted it for collection purposes though I get it.
 
The problem with this assertion is that, with suppressors, there's a strong positive correlation between sound-reducing effectiveness and physical size.
Click to expand...
The problem is there are a bunch of engineering types making universal suppressors, partly due to legal restrictions and barriers to entry. You could greatly increase the size by using abnormal sizes tailored to specific models of firearms without sacrificing ergonomics and balance. Shape has an effect and in general this statement is a gross over simplification, but also has roots in truth.
 
The testing protocol and the requirements (what was pass, what failure, MRBF, etc.) haven't been revealed yet. We don't know why one gun was chosen over another, why one passed and the other failed. That will come out eventually.

When the M9 was chosen there were multiple lawsuits and congressional hearings into the testing procedures claiming unfairness, etc. So all about the process eventually came out.

The Army may announce why the Sig passed and reveal the procedures. Till then we don't know.

Not the first time Sig has been chosen by the U.S. It's past performance as the M11 may have been a factor. It's at least a leg up.

tipoc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top