Glock Talk banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

US Army Says "No" to Glock, "Yes" to Sig

22K views 176 replies 85 participants last post by  strambo 
#1 ·
  • Like
Reactions: Mikial
#16 ·
Glock would have made more sense.
Not to the people who actually engaged in the testing protocol and selection process.

I guarantee you they are easier to maintain and work on for the armorers than a Sig.
Again, the people who matter did not think so. Have you have had your hands on a P320? The entire fire control system pops out in about 6 seconds. You are right, though, about hammer-fired Sigs being a pain to detail strip. But that's not the P320.

Glock only made a half hearted attempt to get the order.
You don't really believe that, do you? According to military.com, "Glock is widely expected to protest the decision." That does not sound like Glock didn't care if it received a half-billion dollar order. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/01/19/army-picks-sig-sauer-replace-m9-service-pistol.html

Interesting (to no one but me) that I own about 15 Glocks, but have a P320 on my belt as I learned about this. The P320 is a pretty dang good gun, guys. What a poke in the eye to Glock, though, for Sig's first striker fired gun to take the prize. I love them all, so I'm not too butt hurt about this. But I also get that this is a Glock forum.
 
#9 ·
I suspect Glock stayed in the running as long as they did, the S&W M&P got cut early, because they said they would consider adding a manual safety and at the last minute said nah.
 
#12 ·
I wish that were true. Unlike many people I like the forty and consider it superior to the nine. Armed forces adoption of the forty would mean TONS of mil surp ammo in that caliber. The 9mm is a great concealed carry chambering but for military use with FMJ's? I don't think so. Maybe army ordinance will start producing ammo with those "Phillips Head" penetrator bullets.
 
#18 ·
This article from July 2015 lists the major requirements to be met by the XM17 MHS:

https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2015/...litarys-xm17-modular-handgun-system-contract/

It seems strange that a weapon for general service issue is required to have capabilities well in excess of those required by the various special operations commands. "Everyday folks" in the military today must be doing things with their service handguns that are way way way beyond what we did when I was in the service 45 years ago. :)

Glock products as they currently exist would not meet many of the XM17 requirements, but I'd still choose a simple Glock in .357SIG ahead of anything else anywhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blackshirt
#20 ·
To date, the P320s I've handled and shot have not really impressed me. However, I'm open minded, so I'm certainly gong to try them some more. One in particular I'd like to get my hands on is the P320 X Carry Mega-Annihilator. (OK I added that last part :p).

It can be seen in the very beginning of this video.

 
#23 ·
They had lots of viable options to choose from. The modular control system has to have appeal to people who deal in logistics and inventory. While I can live with or without a safety, I do understand that some may feel better with a guard in a shack (who shoots very little) having a safety on the gun.

Big win for SIG. But in the end, it is just a backup side-arm. As was widely noted when the FedBizOps specs were released, on paper it looked a lot more like a SIG 320 than a Glock. Those guesses were correct.

The incremental gain of going from a Beretta to a SIG (or anyone else) was probably fairly negligible from a performance standpoint. But the ad "We'll take it from here..." just got a bit more punch and power...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Toby196
#96 ·
Think specs aren't written to favor one manufacturer over another?

Ask someone who's worked in govt' / military procurement and you may reevaluate that comment.

Modular chassis is what they wanted, and what they got. Who knew?

Some good news out of this?

With our new administration, all these Beretta's may flow to civilians via the Civilian Marksmanship Program.

Supposedly, retired 1911s are going to be available to us that way as well.

I got two M1 Garands that way, it's a great program.
 
#28 ·
As to caliber, the 9mm is still and probably always will be a NATO cartridge. When abroad, ammo is far more likely to be available than sticking with the American cartridges. With the advent of modern hollowpoint designs, I don't know that I see it as a negative, per se.
 
#30 ·
According to the Article they haven't even started operational testing yet and the 1st time joe takes apart the slide to clean there is a spring in there that will fly. I used to own one had three spares sent free of charge by SIG. But the had a stinging trigger redesigned it and wanted to charge current owners 80.00 for new adverse trigger that was the end for me.
 
#31 ·
What I read said the operational testing is over (12,500 rounds through three guns, multiple guns with 58,300 total). Now is the rolling out to the field. Perhaps the news is being written differently in different reports.

Can you elaborate on the trigger issues you described for the 320?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 72Cheyenne
#32 ·
Regardless, John McCain is right when he stated "The Army's effort to buy a new handgun has already taken 10 years and produced nothing but a more than 350-page requirements document micromanaging extremely small unimportant details." .

The incremental performance gain over the M9 is small, and given it is a secondary weapon, we sure put a lot of focus on this.

We reach decisions on F22-A and F-35 fighters that cost $400M each (or more) faster than this! Politics and money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: halfmoonclip
#37 ·
IMO, the selection requirements will get the army an inferior pistol. The 320 is certainly reliable, not as much so as the G17 (which would be my pick). Glock's reliability and simplicity, to me, make it the obvious choice. Re-train around not having a safety, and run the better gun.

But I digress. What ya gonna do?
 
#39 ·
Sig makes a great pistol. The Glock is my preference, but I believe the striker-fired Sig Sauer will succeed in its role. I know that the lighter weight will be appreciated by every grunt who has counted every ounce they put in their ruck. A single trigger-pull should also make this pistol an improvement over the M9. Now I'm anxious to see what ammunition is selected to replace FMJ...
 
#44 ·
I agree but i bet many inoperative guns when Joe starts to disassemble slides there is a small spring in the slide that flies out very easily. SIG sent me 2 replacements but when you open slide it's apt to go flying never to be found it's tiny
 
#47 · (Edited)
Yeah, the one thing is that unlike a lot of striker-fired guns, the P320's has a pretty intricate striker-assembly that's kept together by the walls of the stiker channel. You have to be careful taking the back cover off so the assembly doesn't come all the way out of the little striker-block safety blade and its spring will come off, and they are a pain. You don't really have to take the striker out since its finish is self-lubricating, but just have to be careful not to let it fall. Everything else in the pistol is pretty well secured.
 
#48 ·
My time with a P320 was ok. Primarily a Glock guy since they are cheap to buy. But the P320 is about the same price. It just takes more effort for me to get stuff from the SIG LE dealer.

I prefer my VP9 over the Glock and SIG. I have a CZ P10C incoming to test out.

Still waiting for confirmation on caliber chosen. I hope it's not 9mm again. I know the USCG has been using .40 for a while now.

Then again I hope the army didn't pick 357sig since that will dry up supply for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top