Looks like the Sig 320 will replace the Beretta made M9.
I hope it works well....cause to me it is one aesthetically unpleasing firearm.
I hope it works well....cause to me it is one aesthetically unpleasing firearm.
Army selects Sig P320 as offical replacement
- Thread starter Robenstein
- Start date
- Status
They are excellent from everything I've heard on YouTube reviews.
Here's the link with more information
https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1054538
Here's the link with more information
https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1054538
Originally Posted By: CT8
The durability over the years will be interesting
Indeed, the gun has no real track record like the Glock it was competing against. There is already some rumblings that Glock will challenge the decision. Just like happened the last time we went to a new sidearm.
The durability over the years will be interesting
Indeed, the gun has no real track record like the Glock it was competing against. There is already some rumblings that Glock will challenge the decision. Just like happened the last time we went to a new sidearm.
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
They are excellent from everything I've heard on YouTube reviews.
Here's the link with more information
https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1054538
The only thing I saw that worried me some was a few reports of somewhat regular light primer strikes. I mean that is probably easily fixed if it rears its head in service.
They are excellent from everything I've heard on YouTube reviews.
Here's the link with more information
https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1054538
The only thing I saw that worried me some was a few reports of somewhat regular light primer strikes. I mean that is probably easily fixed if it rears its head in service.
Should have went with Glock.
I saw one comment that they chose a manual safety version of the P320. I guess that's not all that surprising, given that they've gone away from DA/SA now, but still interesting nonetheless.
Looks like a good choice to me, although it does baffle me that they can't find get an American company to build a pistol suitable for the Army.. No doubt S&W or Ruger could have come up with something just as good.
I strongly suspect .40 S&W will be the chosen round, though I was "wishing" .357 Sig would've won (as it would then make all .357 Sig ammo cheaper eventually)
From April 1, 2016 -
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/04/01/breaking-afp/
BREAKING: US Army Selects .40 S&W, Advances HK VP40, SIG P320, Canik TP40AF in MHS Trials
The US Army announced today that it is advancing the Modular Handgun System program ahead of its schedule. Due to pressure from Chief of Staff Milley, and a lack of entrants in the competition, the Army is dropping all solicitations for the existing 9x19mm NATO cartridge and focusing on the .40 S&W round. Further, program manager Colonel Scott Armstrong said to the press that only three packages submitted to the PEO Soldier office were complete enough to advance to the next phase of testing and evaluation:
“We are focusing on the 10x22mm .40 S&W round and have dropped consideration for the legacy 9x19mm NATO round, because our analysis indicates that the .40 caliber has the highest probability for improving lethality for the soldier. We have eliminated all but three handgun proposals as well, those being the Heckler & Koch VP40, SIG P320, and Canik TP40AF,” Armstrong said.
Up until now, the entrants to MHS have been unknown. The selection of Canik’s entry to advance is certainly surprising, as I was not even aware the Turkish arms company had made a proposal.
Armstrong said about the companies:
“All three companies we advanced submitted excellent proposals. All three manufacturers have a record of producing high quality firearms, and their proposals promise a great value for the Army, especially Canik’s.”
When asked about the Army’s decision, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter said:
“The Army is very impressed with Canik’s proposal. Value is especially important for this program if it is going to meet Gen. Milley’s mandate of a $17 million fleet cost. It’s also very important that we strengthen ties with our allies in the Middle East and in NATO, and a procurement deal with Turkey would be a great way to do that.”
The model Canik submitted to the MHS competition is called the “TP40AF”, “AF” standing for “Army Forces”, not “April Fools”. It is reportedly based on the decocker-model TP9 v2 shown below:
From April 1, 2016 -
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/04/01/breaking-afp/
BREAKING: US Army Selects .40 S&W, Advances HK VP40, SIG P320, Canik TP40AF in MHS Trials
The US Army announced today that it is advancing the Modular Handgun System program ahead of its schedule. Due to pressure from Chief of Staff Milley, and a lack of entrants in the competition, the Army is dropping all solicitations for the existing 9x19mm NATO cartridge and focusing on the .40 S&W round. Further, program manager Colonel Scott Armstrong said to the press that only three packages submitted to the PEO Soldier office were complete enough to advance to the next phase of testing and evaluation:
“We are focusing on the 10x22mm .40 S&W round and have dropped consideration for the legacy 9x19mm NATO round, because our analysis indicates that the .40 caliber has the highest probability for improving lethality for the soldier. We have eliminated all but three handgun proposals as well, those being the Heckler & Koch VP40, SIG P320, and Canik TP40AF,” Armstrong said.
Up until now, the entrants to MHS have been unknown. The selection of Canik’s entry to advance is certainly surprising, as I was not even aware the Turkish arms company had made a proposal.
Armstrong said about the companies:
“All three companies we advanced submitted excellent proposals. All three manufacturers have a record of producing high quality firearms, and their proposals promise a great value for the Army, especially Canik’s.”
When asked about the Army’s decision, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter said:
“The Army is very impressed with Canik’s proposal. Value is especially important for this program if it is going to meet Gen. Milley’s mandate of a $17 million fleet cost. It’s also very important that we strengthen ties with our allies in the Middle East and in NATO, and a procurement deal with Turkey would be a great way to do that.”
The model Canik submitted to the MHS competition is called the “TP40AF”, “AF” standing for “Army Forces”, not “April Fools”. It is reportedly based on the decocker-model TP9 v2 shown below:
Originally Posted By: nwjones18
Looks like a good choice to me, although it does baffle me that they can't find get an American company to build a pistol suitable for the Army.. No doubt S&W or Ruger could have come up with something just as good.
Did they even bother to submit a bid?
I really doubt Ruger would have (I don't really consider their stuff Mil-Spec anyway).
I don't think Smith & Wesson has the production capability.
Looks like a good choice to me, although it does baffle me that they can't find get an American company to build a pistol suitable for the Army.. No doubt S&W or Ruger could have come up with something just as good.
Did they even bother to submit a bid?
I really doubt Ruger would have (I don't really consider their stuff Mil-Spec anyway).
I don't think Smith & Wesson has the production capability.
Farming out military contracts has forever been a form of "foreign aid".
Truly, it's all connected. The foreign arms maker gets paid in US$-they buy some US made stuff and pay for "other nation sourced" stuff with US$.
We buy Chinese stuff. Red, white and blue 'Merikuns complain about China-China buys our funny paper and we don't get as much inflation.
The world makes disposable stuff-we keep buying it-it all goes 'round and 'round. It's a shame really. Kira
Truly, it's all connected. The foreign arms maker gets paid in US$-they buy some US made stuff and pay for "other nation sourced" stuff with US$.
We buy Chinese stuff. Red, white and blue 'Merikuns complain about China-China buys our funny paper and we don't get as much inflation.
The world makes disposable stuff-we keep buying it-it all goes 'round and 'round. It's a shame really. Kira
Originally Posted By: Linctex
I really doubt Ruger would have (I don't really consider their stuff Mil-Spec anyway).
Ruger played the military game back in 1985. It's why they designed and built the P-85 Pistol, and put up their Prescott facility to build it in. Since then they have become one of the most successful firearms companies in the world. Now they have no interest in pandering to the military for more business. Most all of their guns are aimed at the civilian market. .22 pistols and rifles, single and double action revolvers, bolt action and single shot hunting rifles, and even an O/U shotgun. Even their AR-15 was designed, built, and sold with the civilian market in mind, (piston driven). Their Mini 14 rifle was purpose built for the law enforcement market back in 1973. But after only 1 year they saw the civilian market for the weapon was far more lucrative. So they sold it as such. The result has been one of the most successful semi auto centerfire rifles ever produced.
And as far as the whole "Mil-Spec" thing, it's completely irrelevant in relationship to quality. Mil-Spec simply means that a product is manufactured to meet a certain military specification. It does not mean it is the highest quality product obtainable. Mil-Spec socks are no more the highest quality on the market, than MRE's are the highest quality food obtainable. It's no different with firearms. That's nothing but mall ninja myth that refuses to die.
I really doubt Ruger would have (I don't really consider their stuff Mil-Spec anyway).
Ruger played the military game back in 1985. It's why they designed and built the P-85 Pistol, and put up their Prescott facility to build it in. Since then they have become one of the most successful firearms companies in the world. Now they have no interest in pandering to the military for more business. Most all of their guns are aimed at the civilian market. .22 pistols and rifles, single and double action revolvers, bolt action and single shot hunting rifles, and even an O/U shotgun. Even their AR-15 was designed, built, and sold with the civilian market in mind, (piston driven). Their Mini 14 rifle was purpose built for the law enforcement market back in 1973. But after only 1 year they saw the civilian market for the weapon was far more lucrative. So they sold it as such. The result has been one of the most successful semi auto centerfire rifles ever produced.
And as far as the whole "Mil-Spec" thing, it's completely irrelevant in relationship to quality. Mil-Spec simply means that a product is manufactured to meet a certain military specification. It does not mean it is the highest quality product obtainable. Mil-Spec socks are no more the highest quality on the market, than MRE's are the highest quality food obtainable. It's no different with firearms. That's nothing but mall ninja myth that refuses to die.
Sig makes some very nice firearms. Personally if I had a choice I would choose the P226. I had one for many years and loved it. I could never get used to a glock. I prefer something a little heavier. I argue that sig and glock are both incredibly reliable.
Too bad S&W wasn't in the hunt. I have heard some good things about their M&Ps
Too bad S&W wasn't in the hunt. I have heard some good things about their M&Ps
This reeks more of politics than firearms. My wife hates Trump but hopes he will be a good president as that is what is best for our country. Likewise, I prefer other pistols over this Sig but hope it does what it's supposed to and our soldiers are pleased with it.
There are rumblings that Glock may seek to appeal the decision. Not surprising given the contract size.
Also S&W did submit the M&P in a combined effort with General Dynamics. It was weeded out early. FN was also in the running but was eliminated. Beretta submitted the M9A3, that was rejected, so they submitted the APX pistol design which was also not chosen.
Sig Sauer is mostly an American company these days in terms of production. They have moved most of their manufacturing out of Germany after getting into some pretty hot water with the government there. They were effectively hit with an export ban in 2014.
Also S&W did submit the M&P in a combined effort with General Dynamics. It was weeded out early. FN was also in the running but was eliminated. Beretta submitted the M9A3, that was rejected, so they submitted the APX pistol design which was also not chosen.
Sig Sauer is mostly an American company these days in terms of production. They have moved most of their manufacturing out of Germany after getting into some pretty hot water with the government there. They were effectively hit with an export ban in 2014.
I think the thing that put some makers aside this time was the requirement for modularity. Few pistols have a modular fire control unit like the P250 and P320 do, where you can take the fire control unit completely out of the grip and install a different grip. Out of one serial number, you can make a long side long grip gun, a long slide short grip gun, a short slide long grip gun, or a short slide short grip gun. And any number of combinations in between if they have more than two lengths of either.
The M&P has an internal steel chassis within the polymer frame, but you can't remove it once assembled. Glocks are also not modular in the sense that you can change them around. I don't know what design Glock submitted, but I would presume it to be something completely different from what they have now if I understand the contract's modularity requirement correctly.
The M&P has an internal steel chassis within the polymer frame, but you can't remove it once assembled. Glocks are also not modular in the sense that you can change them around. I don't know what design Glock submitted, but I would presume it to be something completely different from what they have now if I understand the contract's modularity requirement correctly.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
I think the thing that put some makers aside this time was the requirement for modularity. Few pistols have a modular fire control unit like the P250 and P320 do, where you can take the fire control unit completely out of the grip and install a different grip. Out of one serial number, you can make a long side long grip gun, a long slide short grip gun, a short slide long grip gun, or a short slide short grip gun. And any number of combinations in between if they have more than two lengths of either.
The M&P has an internal steel chassis within the polymer frame, but you can't remove it once assembled. Glocks are also not modular in the sense that you can change them around. I don't know what design Glock submitted, but I would presume it to be something completely different from what they have now if I understand the contract's modularity requirement correctly.
From what I saw, Glock submitted the G17 and G19 with a manual safety. The FN pistol had some modularity to it, but not as extensive as the Sig.
I think the thing that put some makers aside this time was the requirement for modularity. Few pistols have a modular fire control unit like the P250 and P320 do, where you can take the fire control unit completely out of the grip and install a different grip. Out of one serial number, you can make a long side long grip gun, a long slide short grip gun, a short slide long grip gun, or a short slide short grip gun. And any number of combinations in between if they have more than two lengths of either.
The M&P has an internal steel chassis within the polymer frame, but you can't remove it once assembled. Glocks are also not modular in the sense that you can change them around. I don't know what design Glock submitted, but I would presume it to be something completely different from what they have now if I understand the contract's modularity requirement correctly.
From what I saw, Glock submitted the G17 and G19 with a manual safety. The FN pistol had some modularity to it, but not as extensive as the Sig.
Originally Posted By: Bgallagher
Sig makes some very nice firearms. Personally if I had a choice I would choose the P226. I had one for many years and loved it. I could never get used to a glock.
I can't say how a Glock 17 compares to a Sig P226 today, but approximately 15 years ago the Glock was junk compared to the Sig P226. Sure the Sig cost $300 more at the time, but you got what you paid for too.
Sig makes some very nice firearms. Personally if I had a choice I would choose the P226. I had one for many years and loved it. I could never get used to a glock.
I can't say how a Glock 17 compares to a Sig P226 today, but approximately 15 years ago the Glock was junk compared to the Sig P226. Sure the Sig cost $300 more at the time, but you got what you paid for too.
I'm not seeing where this "modularity" is such a big plus. By the time the trigger groups are worn out on these weapons, most everything else is going to be coming up on the end of it's service life as well. It's not much different with vehicles. By the time the engines are finished, steering, suspension, wheel bearings, and transmissions are all shot as well. And it's not like the armed services are going to be custom fitting these guns to every soldier carrying them. They're not boots or pants.
Originally Posted By: billt460
I'm not seeing where this "modularity" is such a big plus. By the time the trigger groups are worn out on these weapons, most everything else is going to be coming up on the end of it's service life as well. It's not much different with vehicles. By the time the engines are finished, steering, suspension, wheel bearings, and transmissions are all shot as well. And it's not like the armed services are going to be custom fitting these guns to every soldier carrying them. They're not boots or pants.
It's the new buzz word I guess. The army needed a simple 3rd gen-ish Glock 19s without finger grooves. Cheap, simple, effective, with a track record that spans decades with massive numbers in service. Plenty good enough for support troops who will never fire their weapon.
I'm not seeing where this "modularity" is such a big plus. By the time the trigger groups are worn out on these weapons, most everything else is going to be coming up on the end of it's service life as well. It's not much different with vehicles. By the time the engines are finished, steering, suspension, wheel bearings, and transmissions are all shot as well. And it's not like the armed services are going to be custom fitting these guns to every soldier carrying them. They're not boots or pants.
It's the new buzz word I guess. The army needed a simple 3rd gen-ish Glock 19s without finger grooves. Cheap, simple, effective, with a track record that spans decades with massive numbers in service. Plenty good enough for support troops who will never fire their weapon.
- Status
Similar threads
