US Army chooses M17 service pistol. - Page 2 - Gun Hub
Gun Hub

Go Back   Gun Hub > Gun Hub Forum > Gun Talk

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-27-2017, 09:06 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,925
I am just surprised they didn't go "M9A1," because it means retraining so many armorers and so many troops. As another poster up the thread pointed out, if the cartridge is the same, there has to be some reason to make that big of a change, and I wonder if the expense in time and retraining is worth it.
DavidE is offline  
Old 01-28-2017, 04:20 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
Skeptic49's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Posts: 2,242
How much training is required? The manual of arms is different, there are some maintenance differences, but not many. A pistol is a very simple mechanism and the SIG is very simple.

Geoff
Who notes armorers training emphasized levels of maintenance and inspection of auto weapons.
Skeptic49 is offline  
Old 01-29-2017, 05:34 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 1,163
I already have a 229 and 226 in 357 Sig, I think I'll go the 320 in 357 Sig and put an RMR on it.
threefeathers is offline  
 
Old 01-29-2017, 07:43 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
stand watie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,286
GunGeek; All,

What I really don't understand is why the Armed Forces didn't just buy a lot more M11 pistols by Sig-Sauer, as everyone that I know who is issued one likes it very much.

yours, sw
stand watie is offline  
Old 01-29-2017, 09:09 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Northern NV
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by stand watie View Post
GunGeek; All,

What I really don't understand is why the Armed Forces didn't just buy a lot more M11 pistols by Sig-Sauer, as everyone that I know who is issued one likes it very much.

yours, sw
I think they really wanted to take military sidearms to the next level. Sure they could have bought more of the same (M9, M11, etc), or made the safe play and went with Glock.

The Sig 320 or the Beretta APX allows them to take things to the next level, and I personally think it's the right call. I liked the APX better, but the 320 has been out much longer so it was just more ready for prime time; not surprised Sig won.
GunGeek is offline  
Old 01-30-2017, 03:45 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
CaptainGyro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Greater Waxhaw Metropolitan Area
Posts: 1,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by stand watie View Post
What I really don't understand is why the Armed Forces didn't just buy a lot more M11 pistols by Sig-Sauer
I think because the keyword in "Modular Handgun System" is "Modular". I agree with Kevin: I think the P320 is a fine choice.

The first time I picked one up I wanted it (bought it!), and I've never been disappointed. With a single pistol I can take a full size .40 S&W to the range, then come home and put a compact 9mm with light attached in the nightstand. If I wanted to I could change it again in the morning and leave the house with a sub-compact carry gun. Swapping frame size and caliber literally takes less than a minute. Conversion kits are available for $300, which is considerably cheaper than buying a bunch of different handguns.

It's accurate and unfailingly reliable, but so are most pistols today. The thing that sets it apart is modularity.
CaptainGyro is offline  
Old 01-30-2017, 04:18 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
stand watie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,286
CaptainGyro,

And the US military NEEDS "modularity", exactly WHY??

We have enough problems with needing several sorts of spare parts & ammo without that.

yours, sw
stand watie is offline  
Old 01-30-2017, 04:32 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
CaptainGyro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Greater Waxhaw Metropolitan Area
Posts: 1,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by stand watie View Post
And the US military NEEDS "modularity", exactly WHY??
My guess would be to satisfy different missions. A good-sized male officer in the field could carry a full size, a somewhat smaller female NCO could carry a compact, and an OSI agent could conceal a sub-compact. Within each size, each could choose the grip size that was most comfortable.

I totally agree that this is a "nice to have" feature as opposed to "can't live without", but that's the flexibility we gain from modern polymers and manufacturing techniques. I for one think that, had John Browning lived to see the materials that are available to us today, he would have embraced them whole-heartedly...probably would have beaten Gaston Glock to the punch by several years. He was never one to shy away from the better mousetrap.
CaptainGyro is offline  
Old 01-30-2017, 06:32 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
stand watie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,286
Captain Gyro,

As I've said elsewhere, I see NO reason for any military pistol that's smaller than the M11.
(Even my last driver when I was on AD, who was a MPI, was 62" tall/weighed less than 110 pounds found the M11 easy to qualify with/conceal.)

yours, sw

Last edited by stand watie; 01-30-2017 at 07:26 AM. Reason: add
stand watie is offline  
Old 01-30-2017, 06:39 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by GunGeek View Post
The military isn't crazy about the barrier penetration of the .45 ACP. I personally think they put a little too much emphasis on barrier penetration...it's a handgun for God's sake. Not sure how it was just fine for 80 years, and suddenly now insufficient. In FMJ loadings, the .45 ACP is (IMO) the benchmark for performance. Sure it falls a little short in barrier penetration, but it excels or is superior in nearly every other category.

Now all that said, if I were going to war and could choose a handgun for backup I would take the highest capacity, lightest 9mm I could get my hands on. Something like the CZ P-09...32oz and 21 rounds.

I would choose the 9mm based on capacity, and while I would have a less effective cartridge, I would still have confidence because I know I can place my shots well.

For military use, the .40 S&W could be a good alternative. A 180gr .40 typically out-penetrates most 9mm's, and in FMJ produces a larger wound cavity.


The new Sig 320 gives the military the option to change from 9mm to .40 S&W or .357 Sig.
like that would happen with all the 9s and subs in circulation- the only thing wrong with the 45 is the head-in -the -sand stance of the army procurement board= back in nam we had a similar Penetration problem until someone supplied with hollow points and someone got a bright idea to put allen screws in the hole- no more penetration problem
t-star is offline  
Old 01-30-2017, 07:00 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
CaptainGyro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Greater Waxhaw Metropolitan Area
Posts: 1,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by stand watie View Post
As I've said elsewhere, I see NO reason for any military pistol that's smaller than the M11.
Fair enough...I'll give you one:

Combat aircrews that sit on ejection seats are issued handguns to carry as part of their survival gear. Currently Air Force jocks are given the Beretta and Navy jocks the Sig M11, both fairly hefty all-metal pistols that weigh a comparative ton, poke you in the armpit, ribs, or elbow, and make an already extremely tight cockpit even more uncomfortable. Furthermore, Newton's First Law being what it is, they want to stay in the cockpit while the rest of you is ejecting and give parts of you a beating as you exit into the slip stream, undergo seat separation, opening shock, and ultimately contact with the ground.

Because of these realities, many combat pilots elect to just leave the stupid things in the equipment room rather than lug them along on the mission. Now, given the opportunity to opt for a compact (or smaller) polymer-framed pistol that weighed less, was more comfortable to carry, and didn't become a bludgeon during the ejection process I'm betting some of those studs would opt to bring it along. And that goes double for the studettes, as we now have quite a few women flying combat missions.
CaptainGyro is offline  
Old 01-30-2017, 07:24 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
stand watie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,286
CaptainGyro,

I just looked up the weights of both pistols. - The M11 weighs 2.4 ounces more than the M17, aka: P320.

yours, sw

Last edited by stand watie; 01-30-2017 at 07:24 AM. Reason: typo
stand watie is offline  
Old 01-30-2017, 07:35 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
csmkersh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 9,699
I'm just glad I retired before the Army phased out the 1911. I carried one all over the German battle box in '87.
csmkersh is online now  
Old 01-30-2017, 07:48 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
stand watie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,286
csmkersh,

I have no clue as to when you retired but I retired in NOV 2006 & when I was last a PM (1988-91) the 1911A1 pistols that we still had were WORN-OUT, to the point that I issued Korean War-era Colt's & S&W .38SPL revolvers to our DoD Police/Game Wardens/MPs on post.
(All but ONE of the over fifty 1911Ai pistols that we sent in for DS/GS maintenance were SCRAPPED as "unrepairable". = I issued that single 1911A1 to the Post CDR.)

When I rotated OCONUS (to work for the OAS's Mobile Standardization TF) in 1991, we still had NO M9 pistols at Ft Pickett.
("Way Down There" I carried a pair of BHP.)

yours, sw

Last edited by stand watie; 01-30-2017 at 12:13 PM. Reason: add
stand watie is offline  
Old 01-30-2017, 07:48 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
CaptainGyro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Greater Waxhaw Metropolitan Area
Posts: 1,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by stand watie View Post
I just looked up the weights of both pistols. - The M11 weighs 2.4 ounces more than the M17, aka: P320.
Actually, we're talking about almost three pounds. You live at 1 g, but pilots don't.

According to Sig, the M11 weighs 29.6 oz. The compact P320 (the one I was talking about) weighs 25.8 oz. for a difference of 3.8 oz. If crews are allowed to opt for the sub-compact, that drops another ounce.

Now, a quarter pound may not sound like a lot when you're humping over hill and dale, but when you're getting launched by a rocket at 12 g's it's a whole 'nother ball game. At 12 g's, that extra quarter pound becomes and extra three pounds, and that's enough to make a huge difference.
CaptainGyro is offline  
Old 01-30-2017, 07:52 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
stand watie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,286
CaptainGyro,

Personally, I don't want to become "rocket-launched" with/without a pistol.
(In my case, I jumped once & "got pushed" 4X.)

yours, sw
stand watie is offline  
Old 01-30-2017, 07:55 AM   #37
Senior Member
 
M118LR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: 29.62 N 81.219 W
Posts: 175
While it's been along time since I cinched up an SVU, actually using that Survival Pistol was contrary to all the training. Perhaps the most consideration for using a secondary firearm should be placed on the end users on the door kicking teams. So does the P320 offer any real advantages for a rank & file 11B?
M118LR is offline  
Old 01-30-2017, 08:27 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by GunGeek View Post
The Sig & 1911's are used only by special ops, they're not general issue. And I expect that special operations will continue to buy what they feel best meets their needs.

The 320 is a very good pistol, but it's not my personal favorite...I mean, I didn't buy one when I was recently looking for a compact polymer 9mm. But the 320's modularity brings much to the table of an organization the size of the US Military. Where myself, those features are far less meaningful.

I'm sure the various special ops will test drive the 320 and if it makes sense for them then they'll probably use it. If it doesn't make sense, then they'll just continue to use what they prefer.
ie the h&k mk 23 , mod 0
t-star is offline  
Old 01-30-2017, 10:35 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
csmkersh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 9,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by stand watie View Post
csmkersh,

I have no clue as to when you retired but I retired in NOV 2006 & when I was last a PM (1988-91) the 1911A1 pistols that we still had were WORN-OUT
I retired after coming back stateside in '87. And all of the unit's 1911s were worn out. Stateside I managed to carry my own 1911 and everyone from the CO down to the company clerk knew it. Yes, according to the ARs I was in violation but not many felt like challenging the CSM.
csmkersh is online now  
Old 01-30-2017, 11:15 AM   #40
Senior Member
 
M118LR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: 29.62 N 81.219 W
Posts: 175
Is it really and improvement to remove hammer spurs and rely upon a single striker?
SIG P226 | SIG P228| US Special Operations | Weapons
Both the M11 and MK25 retained the ability to perform a second strike without re-racking the slide. Is the P320 driven by convince for the Army Supply System vice an upgrade for Army end users?
M118LR is offline  
Reply

  Gun Hub > Gun Hub Forum > Gun Talk


Search tags for this page

us army m17

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Army Ditching 1911 but None to CMP csmkersh Gun Talk 17 06-25-2016 09:01 AM




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2002 - 2017 Gun Hub. All rights reserved.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.