Army selects Sig P320 as offical replacement

[Robenstein]

Originally Posted By: BigD1
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.


The US made sig 226 and 220 pistols don't seem to have the consistent reliability that the German ones did.

As for the cost, making alloy framed guns will always result in a more expensive product than polymer which is just molded. As for "junk" I honestly cannot see how anyone can say that about a weapon with such a proven track record. The Glock has over three decades of good service to its name. You may not like it or shoot it well, but the gun functions very well.

For me the thing about the 226 and 220 that I never liked was the relatively high bore axis as well as the fact you can bump the slide lock a bit too easily while shooting. I am actually really impressed with the Sig inspired Arex guns out there. They seeem to be quite the shooters for the money. In one famous YouTube test the Arex eats a 226 Legion for breakfast.

 

[Robenstein]

Originally Posted By: hatt
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.



That or just adopted the M9A3. You don't have to retrain armorers or users extensively, it share most parts compatibility, and it fixed most of the gripes about the gun. Only thing I would have done if I was Beretta was put a frame mounted safety on it. Sort of like the original 92 had and the Taurus pt92 has (combined with a decocker).

 

[Ramblejam]

Originally Posted By: hatt
The army needed a simple 3rd gen-ish Glock 19s without finger grooves.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein



That or just adopted the M9A3. You don't have to retrain armorers or users extensively, it share most parts compatibility, and it fixed most of the gripes about the gun. Only thing I would have done if I was Beretta was put a frame mounted safety on it. Sort of like the original 92 had and the Taurus pt92 has (combined with a decocker).
I agree with that. M9A3 would have been fine and an easy transition. Simply start replacing worn out and beat up M9s. I think Beretta offered that pistol to the army for a great price.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: billt460
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.


I don't think we know that. We don't know that each individual service member wouldn't have a choice of grip assemblies. They can have two different grip lengths for different scenarios and concealability/weight requirement, and each service member can swap this out for his/her gun without tools and without an armorer. It's like having a G19 and a G17 in one firearm, configurable to meet the mission of the day, or of each service member. It's also likely that Sig will furnish different grip sizes in terms of palm swell/hump dimensions to fit a variety of hand sizes. All of this can be done without having to manage additional firearms -- it's all just plastic grip frames and magazines.

I wonder if Sig will deliver the fire control assemblies completely separate from the rest of the "gun", and allow each branch to build and customize them with the grip/slide length/caliber that meets their mission.

Modularity is rarely a negative thing.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: hatt
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 couldn't agree more.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Modularity is rarely a negative thing.


Perhaps. But it's rarely needed either. Especially in this case.

 

[sw99]

We love our P320's. My full size 320 is every bit as accurate as my G34. The high bore axis is different than what I am used to. The wife has the subcompact and she really likes it.

 

[KCJeep]

I have carried (and very much like) Glocks for decades on duty. But if I had a choice of what I could carry (I don't) it would be the Sig P320. I find it points much better, much like a 1911 you bring it up and it's there. Trigger is much better than a Glock as well.

With much concentration I can shoot qualification 100's with the Glock, but the Sig is far more inherently shootable.

JMO.

 

[bubbatime]

Interestingly, almost the entire US special forces community has transferred to the Glock 19 in the past year (Seals, Delta, Force Recon, and others)

The P320 is a good gun. It should serve the military well. As a plus, it will be beat up and spit out by Private Snuffy's in short order. Any shortcomings will be found and fixed, which is a good thing. I predict that the P320 will be a hugely successful civilian gun as well, especially after this announcement.

I'm not so sure that .40 will be chosen. There is a lot of talk of issuing 9mm hollow points. (Muslim terrorist are not enemy combatants from a nation state, and as such, expanding ammo can be used on them legally) Almost all of our wars nowadays are against Muslim terrorists and not actual soldiers from an actual nation.

https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2015/07/08...tol-ammunition/

 

[billt460]

I wonder why we didn't use it, (hollow points), years ago?

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: billt460
I wonder why we didn't use it, (hollow points), years ago?


Hague Convention.

 

[Robenstein]

Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: billt460
I wonder why we didn't use it, (hollow points), years ago?


Hague Convention.


Of course we have violated those and the Geneva accords before. I mean we did bomb the heck of civilian populations from the air in WW2, in clear violation of articles of the 1907 accords. We also ignored the 1899 agreement on poison gas (ww1).

Of course, once one nation breaks them, everyone seems to. Maybe we don't want others following our lead. Our loophole is as mentioned previously, that we could use them against non government fighters like ISIS or the Taliban.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: spasm3
Hague Convention.


The United States never ratified the Hague convention that prohibits the use of hollow point ammunition.

http://taskandpurpose.com/argument-us-military-switch-hollow-points/

"Thirty-four nations to date have ratified this section of the Hague Convention; however, the U.S. only ratified the first three articles of the 1899 Hague Convention. Representatives of the U.S. never signed Article IV, and the Senate didn’t ratify any part of Article IV. Further, Article IV, Section 3 states that the prohibition on the use of hollow-points only applies in a conflict between two signatories; even if the US had signed and ratified it, the provisions wouldn’t apply against many current and potential adversaries."

 

[totegoat]

I bet gov contracts for equipment built in other countries get cancelled.

 

[Robenstein]

Originally Posted By: totegoat
I bet gov contracts for equipment built in other countries get cancelled.


Sig makes all its pistols in New Hampshire. They moved production out of Germany after getting slapped with an export ban by the German government in 2014. They have only a small skeleton crew in Germany now. They are just as American as Beretta USA or FN USA.

If you were right we would be in deep [censored] because our small arms are supplied by "foreign" gun makers.

 

[Yah-Tah-Hey]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Should have went with Glock.
Sister Ann Patrice would have had a little nun fit for using wrong tense. Regards

 

[Al]

Choosing a new pistol is much ado about nothing. The number of combatants likely to be shot (on purposes) with a pistol has and always and will continue to be insignificant. The great amount of ado over a mostly unnecessary weapon of which a dozen pistols could accomplish (mostly nothing) is overrated

 

[bubbatime]

Originally Posted By: totegoat
I bet gov contracts for equipment built in other countries get cancelled.


All of these (large) weapon contracts require that they be built in the USA.

 

[KCJeep]

Originally Posted By: Al
Choosing a new pistol is much ado about nothing. The number of combatants likely to be shot (on purposes) with a pistol has and always and will continue to be insignificant. The great amount of ado over a mostly unnecessary weapon of which a dozen pistols could accomplish (mostly nothing) is overrated


Not very insignificant if you're the one shot.