US Army selects the Sig P320


#1

It looks like the news broke today that the US Army is going with a variant of the Sig P320 as their new sidearm. I know we’ve not seen the actual pistol that’s been adopted, and it has some obvious external changes from the commercial pistol, but how do you feel about this move?

I look forward to getting my hands on the actual service pistol for some of my own testing. :smile:


#2

Mainly just surprised anything came from the MHS program. Usually they just window-shop at the taxpayers’ expense haha


#3

Surprised that they reached a decision. I am not sure that the advantages outweigh the consequences. How often are pistols actually used?


#4

Looks like they couldnt let got of the manual safety but it should be interesting.


#5

Meh… The “real” soldiers don’t carry one anyways…


#6

Maybe we can get some cheap surplus Beretta mags now…


#7

I’m gonna have to agree with most of the other posters, when i saw that they had actually selected something for once i nearly spat my drink


#8

Agreed, I’m also wondering if they’ll start selling “retired” pistols to the general public. Hey, a guy can dream!


#9

The aftermarket for 320s is gonna explode which I’m excited for


#10

Here’s my only problem with the selection. It doesn’t have the option for a heavy double-action trigger pull.

Some people like single-action with no manual safety–Glock. Some people like single-action with a manual safety–1911. Some people like double-action with no manual safety–Beretta 92.

They went from a firearm that allowed all three options to a firearm that does not allow a heavy, double-action first pull. Some people do not like a manual safety, but also don’t want to walk around with a round in the chamber and a 5 lb trigger pull. The Beretta allowed all three options. Now soldiers get safety or no safety. No heavy, double-action option. I believe there were a few other firearms submitted that allowed all three scenarios.

Personally, I’m not a Glock fan. I don’t like having a light trigger pull and nothing slowing down the pull. As we’ve seen, defective holsters can pull the trigger and little kids can pull the trigger.

I’m not a fan of manual safeties since that’s another step required in a high stress situation.

I prefer double action. A heavy pull that helps prevent accidental/negligent trigger pulls and no manual safety to disengage. That was possible with the Beretta (or a CZ or other models of SIGs), but it is not possible with the P320. In that way, to me, it is a regression.


#11

Let me preface this by saying that I’ve loved my CZ-75B since the day I purchased it in it’s original SA/DA form. That said, DA or heavy triggers don’t prevent negligent discharges. NYPD still has ND’s with their 12# triggers, people still have ND’s with DA revolvers. It’s a training issue, not an equipment issue. A spasm of the hand, as when being startled or bumped, can generate over 20# of force from the trigger finger. If you can pull a trigger smoothly, jerking it by accident is easy. If your finger(or something else) is in the trigger guard when you holster, a typical 8# DA trigger pull is still easy to overcome.

The advantage of a DA-ONLY trigger, a SA-ONLY trigger or striker fired trigger is consistency. The trigger pull is the same from first to last shot. That is why I switched to a Glock as my go to pistol and converted my CZ to SAO. I also have a Kahr which, despite their striker fired appearances, are like a DAO hammer-less revolver.


#12

There will always be negligent discharges. You just have to put more effort into a 12 lb pull than a 5 lb pull. That means, in some cases, the discharge is less likely. For example, when a police officer was at a school talking to the kids. They were all around him. A five year old reached up and pulled the trigger on his Glock. I know people will say, “He shouldn’t have had a round in the chamber in that environment” blah, blah, blah. But accidents happen. It is possible a heavier pull could have prevented that from happening.

I know MAC tested double action pulls on his children to see if they could pull the trigger in that mode. They could not. He said he had no intention of leaving a loaded gun laying around where a kid could get it, but he also knows humans aren’t perfect and accidents happen.

The man whose G19 was fired by his deteriorating holster may not have had the same problem with a heavy pull. It’s possible.

It is completely fine with me if people want to carry a handgun with no safeties of any form and a 3-lb single-action trigger–appendix carry. If that’s what they like fine. That’s just not me.

Like MAC, I prefer knowing it’s going to take some extra effort to pull that trigger. And “consistent trigger pull” is not an advantage for me personally (opinions vary). I prefer the first heavy pull. I have no idea why, but I am more accurate with the first heavy pull. I prefer the distinct first pull and lighter follow-up pulls.

There is no one right or wrong way. They are all personal preferences. Whichever way someone wants to carry their weapon is fine by me. I’m not saying my way is the right way. It’s just my preferred method.

My only problem with the SIG P320 is that it removed the ability to carry in my preferred manner. I know many others prefer to carry in that manner as well. So they went from a handgun that could accommodate heavy double-action, single-action/no safety, and single-action/w safety to a handgun that does not allow heavy double-action. I’m not saying everyone should carry that way. I’m saying it would nice if people had the option to carry that way.

So I will continue purchasing firearms with decockers and a heavy pull. Others will continue going cocked and locked with a 1911. Others will go with striker-fired polymers with no manual safeties or heavy trigger pulls. That’s fine. I just think it would be nice if the official sidearm of the army allowed all of the options (or at least as many as the M9).


#13

On most of your points I agree completely. Yes a heavier trigger pull can prevent children from pulling it. As to the officer whose pistol was discharged by a child, that was a failure of everything but the design of the gun. There is NO reason that a holster shouldn’t cover the trigger. Furthermore, what department approves non-retention holsters in this day and age? A retention holster that covers the trigger would be incredibly difficult for an unauthorized adult to discharge on purpose, let alone a child.

The man whose G19 was fired by his holster was, again, his own fault. Using substandard, worn or un-maintained equipment(the holster in this case) was negligence not failure of the pistol design.

My disagreement goes back to the original topic of the army adopting the pistol in question. In your first post, you stated “They went from a firearm that allowed all three options to a firearm that does not”. At issue is that soldiers aren’t given “options” of how they carry their sidearm. They carry it in a specific manner set out by army brass. In the case of the M9 it was chambered and decocked. In the case of this pistol it will likely be chambered and the manual safety engaged. That manual/mechanical safety is more likely to prevent an ND than a heavy trigger if used properly. As long as the safety is not disengaged the pistol is completely safe to holster and un-holster. Again, a training issue.

Also, you stated “they went from a handgun that could accommodate heavy double-action, single-action/no safety, and single-action/w safety”. Point of fact is that the current M9 variant being issued is not set up for “cocked and locked”. The safety lever acts as a decocker, only allowing DA/SA operation.

I understand that YOU prefer to carry DA/SA, and as you stated it is a personal choice. In the realm of military weapon use, they(the army) need things to be “universal”. That goes for weapon selection, training and method of operation.


#14

I think that for the criteria the US Army put out, and the contenders they had, the Sig P320 was the best choice. The Sig P320 is a great size, excellent modularity, and seems to have good enough reliability for Gov’t Work. The Ironic thing I find is that in 1985 Beretta won the M9 trials over the Sig Sauer P226, and now the Sig won over the Beretta (the M9A3 was immediately rejected by the US Army).

To the best of my knowledge the US Army Contract calls for 200,000 P320s with Full Size slides and Carry Size frames, full FDE finish and an external thumb safety; 7,000 P320s with Compact Size slides and Carry size frames, full FDE finish and external thumb safety; any and all parts, accessories, and ammo required; and a provision for a duplicate order, if needed, before 2027. That is all to the best of my knowledge.

As far as the trigger, I believe the P320 is DAO, but the way the striker is cocked allows for a lighter-than-normal DA pull around 6.5lbs. The fact that the Army demands an external thumb safety is a plus for all the safety sallys. However, I think the thumb safety (which is also offered on LE models) looks great on the firearm, and harkens back to a 1911 battery of arms, somewhat. Also, millions of Americans carry Striker-fired sidearms with DAO triggers without problem everyday, so I, personally think that the “trigger debate” is not necessary.

Overall, I think that the P320 was a great option, but not the best on the market. Like I said, the best of the choices submitted. Personally, I would like to see something akin to an FN FNX-9 or prehaps the Sig P227 get a Gov’t contract. I’m still optimistic that sometime in the future we’ll see another .45acp sidearm for widespread use, even if not as a Standard Issue sidearm. But I think the Sig P320 will serve very well for US troops.


#15

If SIG would used for next 30 years (as m9), she could be lust GI firearms pistol in US Army… They say they around 2045 would be technological singularity, so it’s really possible, that next GI pistol could be 3D printed UDESAB “ultra dark energy self aiming blaster” :gun: =)


#16

When PD’s around the nation started adopting Glocks, and other striker fired pistols, their incidents of ND’s went up considerably. Due to lack of training and a fairly light trigger pull required to discharge the weapon, accidents started to skyrocket around the country.

I know how little training the average Marine gets with handguns. I suspect this is true in the Army as well. So, if the adoption of striker fired pistols in the Army mirrors the outcome of the adoption of striker pistols by American’s PD’s, we’re going to see a marked increase in ND’s.

The Army needs to adopt weapons for the lowest common denominator. The DA/SA pistol was a good compromise. I fear the new Sig, even with it’s manual safety which will likely be ignored by poorly trained troops, will contribute to ND’s becoming a real issue in the future.

Personally, I think the adoption of the M17 is a HUGE waste of taxpayer money. Given pistols aren’t primary fighting weapons and play a relatively insignificant role on the modern battlefield (outside of Special Operations and other MOS’s), adopting a modified M9 was the only sensible solution. Perhaps Trump will look at this colossal waste of money and reign the Army in.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-owens-glock-accidents-20150508-story.html


#17

Other than the manual safety fixation the Army has, I think they made a good selection. If they would have stuck with Beretta, it would have been a good selection. The brand wasn’t the issue in the candidates, just the Army’s insistence on adding things that aren’t part of the original design and were never needed.

They did the same thing with the 1911 and I think the Beretta.


#18

I think it’s a waste of money overall. The Average GI never uses a pistol. Only Spec Ops types need pistols and as such they should be limited exclusively to that particular branch of service. The pistol budget should be a JSOC affair. They are the ones that actually use them. There was zero need to replace the M9 other than them reaching the end of technical service life (although they can run forever with regular proper maintenance intervals because the M9 is an insanely high quality gun). I would have generally phased out hand guns and limit them to SOF inventory. But that’s my $0.02…


#19

Military Police and Security Forces of the various branches use them was well. I do agree that there was nothing wrong with the M9 beyond the use and abuse the military puts them through. They have to make a new contract to replace a system so as not to show favoritism, even if the current model of whatever the weapon system is has worked perfectly fine up until the end of it’s service life. That’s just how the system works. Blame the bureaucrats and politicians for making the rules. The military has no choice but to follow them.


#20

I’ve spoken with about 10 vets and current active duty soldiers, in both the Navy and Army, and they don’t/didn’t like the M9 at all, not just because of the wear on the models, but because of the battery of arms. Let’s face it: the current M9s in service are over-worn, they’re rattle-traps. The Civilian market has surpassed the Military market in technology, and the 15rd M9 has sort of been surpassed (Glock 17- 17rds; Sig Sauer P226- Aftermarket 18rds [flush-fit]; FNX-9 - 17rds; Sig Sauer P320/M17 - 17 or 21 rds). The slide-mounted safety is obsolete, a failure point, and is frankly just in the way of smoothest operation. In 1986, everyone who tested both the Beretta 92 and Sig Sauer P226 in the M9 trails preferred the P226 over the 92FS, because of the smoother and safety-less battery of arms. I’m sure that there are plenty of folks out there who can run the M9/92 very well, and that the gun fits them perfectly, but frankly, the battery of arms for the M9 is outdated as a Standard-Issue sidearm. Now many will argue the same abut the 1911 series, but I contend that the 1911 has been the primary influence on almost all modern handguns post-1911, and that the 1911, even in the technologically-surpassed SAO mode, is still relevant as a combat sidearm, because of the simple battery of arms, and design features. The M9 has a place as a combat sidearm, perhaps in Spec-Ops roles, but, I contend, not as the primary Standard-Issue of the US Military.