Author Topic: Army service pistol to be Sig 320 variant  (Read 3981 times)

Offline Chemsoldier

  • Pot Stirrer
  • Global Moderator
  • Survival Veteran
  • ******
  • Posts: 5882
  • Karma: 550
Army service pistol to be Sig 320 variant
« on: January 19, 2017, 11:40:07 PM »
 BREAKING- US Army Awards Modular Handgun Contract to Sig Sauer | RECOIL
http://www.recoilweb.com/us-army-awards-modular-handgun-contract-to-sig-sauer-124688.html

Well...sig makes a good gun. Great. Now we have a different gun as SOCOM, and the brits. Per usual. Ah well, polymer is a good first step.

Offline NWPilgrim

  • Dedicated Contributor
  • ******
  • Posts: 1605
  • Karma: 114
  • New TSP Forum member
Re: Army service pistol to be Sig 320 variant
« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2017, 12:20:11 AM »
Should reduce the weight on officers and support personnel.  They already wear a on of gear so any reduction in weight while maintaining capability is a good thing. Not really much a change in war fighting capability since handguns are rarely used in wars, but good for morale. I liked the Model 92 except for the loonngg DA trigger pull, and the weight of an all steel pistol.

I like the serial numbered chassis concept. Makes the pistol as flexible in reconfiguring as the AR-15.  I hope SIG opens up its parts department so we can buy P320 parts as easily as we do Glock's.  That is one of the main reasons I standardized on Glocks (besides reliability, durability, inexpensive mags, and decent trigger). I loved the triggers on older SIGs so I hope the P320 trigger is just as smooth.  I wonder if it will be available in various modes such as DAO, DA/SA w/decocker, SA w/safety, etc.  So far from what I have seen the cost is competitive too.  That was a turn off for me that they were 50% more than a Glock and the mags were at least $35-$50.  Perhaps with the military contract we will get some volume that brings down accessory costs, too.

Offline Chemsoldier

  • Pot Stirrer
  • Global Moderator
  • Survival Veteran
  • ******
  • Posts: 5882
  • Karma: 550
Re: Army service pistol to be Sig 320 variant
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2017, 12:53:37 AM »
So.  I think the travel to polymer is positive.  I am trying to counteract the negative effects of being a staff weenie at the moment by using a standing desk and the all steel pistol is heavier than I would like.  Yeah, yeah its there to be comforting not comfortable...something something.

With the M9 right now that is 2.14 pounds of pistol, 1.4 pounds of ammo (roughly, 52 rounds of 9mm NATO)= 3.6 pounds of ammo and pistol plus three metal mags, holster and mag pouch...call it 4 pounds.  It doesn't sound like a lot but it adds up. The SIG 320 1.8 pounds. The Glock 19 empty is 1.3 pounds.

I am wondering how long it will take to field the weapon to a unit I am in.  I am not sure I am going to rush out and buy one on the civilian economy.  I have a buddy who is an FFL holder and he says SIG 320 sales are either through the roof or wholesalers are treating them as such.

Offline NWPilgrim

  • Dedicated Contributor
  • ******
  • Posts: 1605
  • Karma: 114
  • New TSP Forum member
Re: Army service pistol to be Sig 320 variant
« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2017, 01:21:08 AM »
I imagine it is take to take years to field this in any significant numbers.  Armorers have to be trained, training needs to be developed and deployed, supply pipeline has to ramp, supply sergeants have to tuck away their share, etc.  And unless the M9s in service are worn out, they will probably keep them in service and start by leaking the P320 into the system rather than wholesale replacement effort.

Working at a corporation we only had 100K employees and refreshed our laptops every 3-4 years.  It was a continuous rollout and just as one cycle finished the next one about started. So on "average" it could take 2 years for an employee to see a new machine once they were announced.  I suspect the military will be 2-3 times that long since there are lots more soldiers and it is govt run.  So I would guess we will start seeing units starting to be outfitted with the P320 in a couple of years, but it will be 5-6 years before a substantial number are in place.  I just can't see that this will be a super urgent project for the Army to roll out unless Russia comes barreling through the Fulda Gap!  More likely Trump and Putin will be golfing buddies and he will present Putin with P320 serial number TRUMP001.

Offline Smurf Hunter

  • Survival Veteran
  • ********
  • Posts: 7172
  • Karma: 334
Re: Army service pistol to be Sig 320 variant
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2017, 12:27:37 PM »
Since we're got a handful of active duty personnel here, I'd like to ask a candid question.

Why would a civilian care what pistol the army uses? 


Does it imply a product endorsement for civilian consumers?  I don't think any pistol the army or any branch would evaluate would "suck", but likely there'd be some mission specific attribute (safety, decocker, etc.).  Cartridge choice might indirectly matter as it could influence manufacturing supply chains (more 9mm means cheaper 9mm).

Offline Chemsoldier

  • Pot Stirrer
  • Global Moderator
  • Survival Veteran
  • ******
  • Posts: 5882
  • Karma: 550
Re: Army service pistol to be Sig 320 variant
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2017, 12:39:31 AM »
Since we're got a handful of active duty personnel here, I'd like to ask a candid question.

Why would a civilian care what pistol the army uses? 


Does it imply a product endorsement for civilian consumers?  I don't think any pistol the army or any branch would evaluate would "suck", but likely there'd be some mission specific attribute (safety, decocker, etc.).  Cartridge choice might indirectly matter as it could influence manufacturing supply chains (more 9mm means cheaper 9mm).
Well, in the case of a modular pistol I would think the answer is self evident.  The legacy "Duty" sized pistols were not terribly useful to a civilian carry wise who is not willing to carry a full sized, all steel pistol.  However, in the case of the modular pistol, the gun can be configured into a compact version for carry.  It can be configured duty sized for competition or home defense.

A military pistol should be durable and reliable, which the 1911 and M9 were (when fed with proper magazines).  So, after a year or three that should be figured out with the 320.  Low information gun owners (new or not interested in spending lots of time gathering information about various pistols can be relatively assured that the service pistol is a solid choice).

Also, by and large, gun people to care what the military carries just like most have an opinion on guns they don't even own.

Offline Smurf Hunter

  • Survival Veteran
  • ********
  • Posts: 7172
  • Karma: 334
Re: Army service pistol to be Sig 320 variant
« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2017, 02:34:28 PM »
Thanks for the response.





Offline NWPilgrim

  • Dedicated Contributor
  • ******
  • Posts: 1605
  • Karma: 114
  • New TSP Forum member
Re: Army service pistol to be Sig 320 variant
« Reply #7 on: February 14, 2017, 05:46:41 PM »
I was surprised that with all the talk about it needing to be modular that the actual purchase authorization is mainly for the full size and a small number of compact versions.  Why not P226 and P229?  Doesn't sound like they will being stocking the various lengths and grip frames, and probably only one set of controls.  So what was the point of it having to be modular?  Or, was that to help out other services or govt agencies that might piggyback off this?

It would seem the modular aspect might be more useful to an individual than for the Army.  I like the idea of one "firearm" but able to configure it for anyone in the family, or house gun or carry.  Not that I would ever want to own just one!

Offline Chemsoldier

  • Pot Stirrer
  • Global Moderator
  • Survival Veteran
  • ******
  • Posts: 5882
  • Karma: 550
Re: Army service pistol to be Sig 320 variant
« Reply #8 on: February 14, 2017, 11:45:45 PM »
I was surprised that with all the talk about it needing to be modular that the actual purchase authorization is mainly for the full size and a small number of compact versions.  Why not P226 and P229?  Doesn't sound like they will being stocking the various lengths and grip frames, and probably only one set of controls.  So what was the point of it having to be modular?  Or, was that to help out other services or govt agencies that might piggyback off this?

It would seem the modular aspect might be more useful to an individual than for the Army.  I like the idea of one "firearm" but able to configure it for anyone in the family, or house gun or carry.  Not that I would ever want to own just one!
I think you will see the modular bits ordered in SOF, CID and aviation circles where there will be a mix of needs.

Offline Chemsoldier

  • Pot Stirrer
  • Global Moderator
  • Survival Veteran
  • ******
  • Posts: 5882
  • Karma: 550
Re: Army service pistol to be Sig 320 variant
« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2017, 10:58:47 PM »
...and Glock is protesting the M17 contract being awarded to SIG.  Hardly surprising, but even as a Glock pistol it feels unseemly.  Considering the Beretta, I cant argue that there are huge stakes from the user end of this.  As long as the pistol goes bang and is roughly accurate I can't get too worked up.

https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2017/02/28/glock-files-protest-armys-decision-select-sig-armys-next-pistol/