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

Go Back   Gun Hub > Gun Hub Forum > Gun Talk

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-19-2017, 06:56 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Northern NV
Posts: 237
US Army chooses M17 service pistol.

A version of the SIG 320.
Army Picks Sig Sauer's P320 Handgun to Replace M9 Service Pistol | Military.com
GunGeek is offline  
Old 01-19-2017, 09:08 PM   #2
Forum Admin
 
SpecialEd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Wilmington, DelaWhere?
Posts: 6,905
Looks a lot like the old H&K USP. (at least externally)
SpecialEd is offline  
Old 01-19-2017, 09:36 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 1,165
A grown up Sig 250. Actually quite a good choice. It will be easier to fit a person to their issue gun that the M9.
threefeathers is offline  
 
Old 01-20-2017, 02:26 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Skeptic49's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Posts: 2,265
The SIG 320 comes highly rated and is a modern poly-pistol, with interchangeable everything.

I like the idea of issuing a compact version to every Officer, Warrant Officer and Senior NCO to be carried at all times.

Recent shootings at Fort Hood and other places around the world come to mind.
Geoff
Will will heigh himself down the the local SIG shop and buy one...If and only if I won enough in the Lotto to cover the price, especially the $40 magazines...sheesh the mags for my Walther Creed were $20 and my SWaMPy 9 $23!
Skeptic49 is offline  
Old 01-20-2017, 04:35 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
CaptainGyro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Greater Waxhaw Metropolitan Area
Posts: 1,191
IMHO the Army could not have made a better choice. I acquired a P320 last year and it immediately became my favorite (non-1911) semi-auto handgun. My previous favorite had been the H&K USP Compact, but when I picked up the 320 for the first time it just seemed to speak to me. It feels great in the hand, and the modular frames (as opposed to backstraps) are a great idea. Since only the fire control group is serialized, almost everything else on the gun is interchangeable too, including caliber. Takedown couldn't be simpler, and you can essentially rebuild it into a different pistol every time you take it apart.

The striker system means that every trigger pull is identical (although the hammer-fired USP with it's LEM trigger is very good; I just prefer a striker). The reset is short and crisp and the gun is easy to shoot well. Reliability goes without saying.

All-in-all I'm very impressed with the Army's choice, and I think soldiers will be very happy with the P320.




Last edited by CaptainGyro; 01-20-2017 at 04:37 AM. Reason: Fixed photos
CaptainGyro is offline  
Old 01-20-2017, 05:59 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Northern NV
Posts: 237
My only complaint with the 320 is the grip/bore axis, it's pretty high. That's because it's fundamentally a DA pistol that's been converted to a striker fire. Okay, that's my ONLY complaint, and it's a pretty minor complaint in the grand scheme of things.

For the US military, I personally thought their criteria laid out was well thought out. The modularity of the Sig 320 will be a big boon to an organization the size of the US Army. However, such modularity is of much less use to a the personal owner, and because of that I'm betting there are a lot of people wondering why their personal favorite wasn't picked.

I personally thought the Beretta submission was the more promising gun, but it was just too new, whereas the 320 has been around for nearly 5 years. Nothing has been made public yet, but my bet is during function and endurance testing, the Sig probably trounced the brand new Beretta submission.

The 320 is not my favorite pistol out there today, but I think the US Army chose the right pistol for their next sidearm; it's a VERY good choice.
GunGeek is offline  
Old 01-20-2017, 06:37 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Northern NV
Posts: 237
The actual version of the 320 selected. I suspected the Army would require a safety, and it looks like they did.



From Sig's press release...
The MHS Program provides for the delivery of both full size and compact P320’s, over a period of ten (10) years. All pistols will be configurable to receive silencers and will also include both standard and extended capacity magazines.
GunGeek is offline  
Old 01-24-2017, 03:03 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Skeptic49's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Posts: 2,265
Many moons agone, I was a 45B20 at Post Maintenance Fort Hood Texas. Most of the damage to 1911A1s was damage to the frame, sights were regularly replaced.

I think this is a good choice, but I think the compact should be the most common.

As I have said before, I once went to a focus group at Fort Hood. I went in with the opinion that a full size gun with a big magazine was the solution. I came out liking the SIG 225 aka P6.

Geoff
Who likes the idea of a pistol which can be carried everywhere at all times.
Skeptic49 is offline  
Old 01-24-2017, 03:15 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
stand watie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,325
Skeptic45.

AGREED 100% = I wouldn't take love or $$$$$ for my P225/P6, that I paid 300.oo for & surplus from the German Forest Service.
(It appeared to be "much carried but seldom fired". - I received the holster & magazine leather with it & all 3 pieces were essentially WORN OUT.)

yours, sw
stand watie is offline  
Old 01-24-2017, 03:32 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
WaltGraham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,461
Good choice, but in all fairness I would have looked approvingly on a couple of sharp sticks duct taped together.

I really hate Berettas.
WaltGraham is offline  
Old 01-25-2017, 06:26 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,136
meh- a 9 is a 9 is a 9- as long as u stick to that cartridge, there's no improvement- and i'll be sticking with my beretta m9a1 for a few years to come- I do hope the us army selection board doesn't become like the SEALS and change pistols every second week or so- I've got about 3-4 9mms, and to tell the absolute truth, still prefer my suppressed uzi if I had to do clandestine work again- but that's operator preference, not real world with thousands of operators envolved
t-star is offline  
Old 01-25-2017, 09:57 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Diamondback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Seattle area--Sodom & Gomorrah on Puget Sound
Posts: 1,782
Meh. Still not worth giving up my trusty 1911 for.
Diamondback is offline  
Old 01-25-2017, 10:53 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
stand watie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,325
Diamondback,

TRUE. - I see NOBODY who's suggesting that private citizens change what they own/carry.

Personally, I'd sooner that the armed Forces have something better than 9mm FMJ for self-defense. - I don't know of ANY general issue military handgun that is superior to the .45ACP handgun in STOPING POWER. - The Army's REAL problem was that the 1911 handguns by the mid 1980s were MOSTLY worn-out & not "economically repairable".

yours, sw
stand watie is offline  
Old 01-25-2017, 12:45 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Diamondback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Seattle area--Sodom & Gomorrah on Puget Sound
Posts: 1,782
That and the fact that the politically-correct "zero risks taken" Manager Officers piss their frilly pink panties at the idea of Single Action cocked-and-locked...
Diamondback is offline  
Old 01-25-2017, 03:10 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
CaptainGyro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Greater Waxhaw Metropolitan Area
Posts: 1,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamondback View Post
That and the fact that the politically-correct "zero risks taken" Manager Officers piss their frilly pink panties at the idea of Single Action cocked-and-locked...
There's not much difference between "safety off and pull trigger", and "safety off and pull trigger".
CaptainGyro is offline  
Old 01-25-2017, 05:05 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Diamondback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Seattle area--Sodom & Gomorrah on Puget Sound
Posts: 1,782
Higher bore axis yielding increased muzzle flip... probably baseline set at a heavy trigger pull... lots more moving parts to break... lots of fiddly bits not readily conducive to self-servicing in the field...

Do I sound like the Old Guys back when the Brassholes decided to ram the M9 up DOD's ass like a Suppository From Hell yet? LOL

On the upside, no nasty-ass Block weird grip angle...
Diamondback is offline  
Old 01-26-2017, 03:09 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Northern NV
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by stand watie View Post
Diamondback,

TRUE. - I see NOBODY who's suggesting that private citizens change what they own/carry.

Personally, I'd sooner that the armed Forces have something better than 9mm FMJ for self-defense. - I don't know of ANY general issue military handgun that is superior to the .45ACP handgun in STOPING POWER. - The Army's REAL problem was that the 1911 handguns by the mid 1980s were MOSTLY worn-out & not "economically repairable".

yours, sw
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.
GunGeek is offline  
Old 01-26-2017, 03:16 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Northern NV
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamondback View Post
Higher bore axis yielding increased muzzle flip... probably baseline set at a heavy trigger pull... lots more moving parts to break... lots of fiddly bits not readily conducive to self-servicing in the field...

Do I sound like the Old Guys back when the Brassholes decided to ram the M

9 up DOD's ass like a Suppository From Hell yet? LOL

On the upside, no nasty-ass Block weird grip angle...
I disagree with you a bit.

The Sig 320 really doesn't have a ton of parts (Unlike any of the 220 series Sigs; they typically have a jillion parts)

The modular makeup of the Sig 320 would make field repair much easier. If there's anything wrong with the fire control parts, just swap out the fire control unit and you're back in the game. Send the old one back for depot level repair. Anything wrong up top, swap slides and send the broken one for depot level repair. There's really nothing that couldn't be fixed by the end user.

For armorers things are simplified as well. Full size, suppressed, 11compact, sub-compact, etc. Regardless of configuration the armorer is trained on ONE pistol. As it is now, at a minimum armorers have to be trained on the M9 and M11, two pistols that are VERY different.

I think the concept around the modular pistol is absolutely PERFECT for an organization the size of the US military.
GunGeek is offline  
Old 01-27-2017, 02:00 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
M118LR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: 29.62 N 81.219 W
Posts: 207
Do Y'all think that the Navy will give up on the P226 MK25 and switch to this new P320?
What about the USMC and the M45? Will the USMC just follow the Army move for training and lower acquisition?
M118LR is offline  
Old 01-27-2017, 03:59 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Northern NV
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by M118LR View Post
Do Y'all think that the Navy will give up on the P226 MK25 and switch to this new P320?
What about the USMC and the M45? Will the USMC just follow the Army move for training and lower acquisition?
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.
GunGeek is offline  
Reply

  Gun Hub > Gun Hub Forum > Gun Talk


Search tags for this page

army m17 pistol

,

us army m17

,

us military m17 pistol

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 18 04-13-2017 06:10 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.