"The Army's new handgun already has some serious problems"

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • wabbit

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 29, 2010
    5,203
    They did a study to find people who had used a pistol in actual combat in the last 10yrs or so. Oddly, almost 1/2 of the confirmed uses belonged to ONE guy who was CQB guy in SOCOM, he liked the Beretta and that was his go to. There were few negatives against it with people who were pistol guys.

    However, time was sort of up for it so they wanted something new.

    Should ditch the B52, the 50 cal, and the M16 as they all far outdate the Beretta!!!!!

    I don't know why this is such a big deal for some. I never used a pistol when I was in the Marine Corps, always a M16A2 that I checked out of the armory. Very few people will use a pistol so this isn't going to affect the majority of the people in the military. As for adopting the Sig, there was no need since the Beretta was just fine and replacing something that works just because it's old is stupid.
     

    Decoy

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 2, 2007
    4,926
    Dystopia
    Sig leaving a Sauer taste.

    latest


    :D
     

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    32,877
    If the bidding hadn't been rigged for geopolitical reasons , the P226 would have been the M9 instead of Berretta .
     

    Czechnologist

    Concerned Citizen
    Mar 9, 2016
    6,522
    I like the 226. Can you please elaborate on that?

    The M9 won a competition in the 1980s to replace the M1911A1 as the primary sidearm of the U.S. military, beating many other contenders and only narrowly defeating the SIG P226 for cost reasons.
     

    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,151
    Sun City West, AZ
    The real story that was allegedly behind the choice of the Beretta in the '80s was that the Italians would agree to allowing American theater based nukes in their country if we chose the Beretta as the winner of the trials for a new pistol. As events occured, we chose the Beretta and the missiles were deployed but withdrawn after not too long due to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
     

    tkd4life

    Ultimate Member
    Sep 10, 2010
    1,737
    Southern Maryland
    So sig is having developmental issues just like every major piece of military equipment bought in the last 25 years.

    Why did they replace the m1911? That’s easy, more than a 7 round magazine is nice to have and the "modern" day soldier would struggle controlling the 45 acp.

    Why did they replace the m9? Probably because the pistol is unnecessarily large and getting REALLY expensive to maintain.

    Sig won the contract over Glock because the Sig unit price was a fraction of the Glock. It was an easy decision.
     

    John from MD

    American Patriot
    MDS Supporter
    May 12, 2005
    22,728
    Socialist State of Maryland
    I don't know why this is such a big deal for some. I never used a pistol when I was in the Marine Corps, always a M16A2 that I checked out of the armory. Very few people will use a pistol so this isn't going to affect the majority of the people in the military. As for adopting the Sig, there was no need since the Beretta was just fine and replacing something that works just because it's old is stupid.

    The armed services have a changed since you and I were in. Now, more lower level leaders will be armed with sidearms. I'm only guessing but it may have something to do with all the house to house clearing they are doing. :shrug:
     

    Racer Doug14

    Thread killer
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Feb 22, 2013
    8,003
    Millers Maryland
    MHS was a flawed process, which seems common with these big contracts. Beretta had offered the M9A3 and a retro fit option. I don't think the troops are getting the best sidearm. The p320 is fairly new pistol and the Sig submission was not designed as a military sidearm. Plastic is not a good choice for the military. Glock, FN and Beretta (apx) would fail after 20+ years of deployments. A ton of IMO in there.
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    If Glock had won we'd be reading the same article about them.
    So sig is having developmental issues just like every major piece of military equipment bought in the last 25 years.

    Why did they replace the m1911? That’s easy, more than a 7 round magazine is nice to have and the "modern" day soldier would struggle controlling the 45 acp.

    Why did they replace the m9? Probably because the pistol is unnecessarily large and getting REALLY expensive to maintain.

    Sig won the contract over Glock because the Sig unit price was a fraction of the Glock. It was an easy decision.

    Agree 100%. The drop issue has been dealt with. As far as accidental discharge rates The idea that a glock entry would have less is meaningless since police departments that have switched from hammer to glock strikers have also documented increased accidental discharges. Why would the army be any different than the LASD?

    and it is not just 25 years, it is since forever that adoptions of what have turned out to the best equipment over the long term has generated articles and grips about how that equipment was the worst and most problem ridden from aircraft carriers to 556.
     

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    32,877
    What Mex Bob said . We wanted nukes stationed in Italy . The service pistol was a point of national pride even more than the actual $$ of the contract.

    The P226 was clear winner in shooting related tests .

    The factor that tipped the contract to Berretta came down to " cost of replacement front sight " . Which was a set up , in that the M92SB-F had a replaceable front sight , and the P226 didn't . So the however many cents for a sight blade vs the cost of a slide made the difference on paper.

    Was the M92 terrible ? No . ( I'm personally ambivalent at best about them , but they were more or less functional , as long as locking blocks were preventably replaced as a maintence item . ) But the P226 would have been more better-er .
     

    Jimbob2.0

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 20, 2008
    16,600
    This is stupidity:

    1. M9's cracking issues were overrated and its a failure very few servicemen/women would have really encountered in the field. Even at 10,000 rounds its long in the tooth and easily replaced. Not the best of its era but a fine shooting gun, probably the most accurate handgun I own.

    2. Aside from grips almost all handguns are modular, swap the slide and mag and you have a new caliber.

    3. Most new weapon systems have growing pains. Sure enough but with so many proven platforms why?

    4. If they wanted Sig they have other guns that are reliable. 226 is a classic and modular. 2022 has been used by the Army tank command for years.

    5. At least they didn't choose Glock.
     

    j_h_smith

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 28, 2007
    28,516
    This isn't new information. They knew Sig 320 pistols had problems all along. The trigger was found to be defective during testing. Sig said they would fix the problem before the pistols were distributed. Who cousin's, aunt, knew the father of the daughter to someone at Sig?

    If this contract came down to lowest bidder, this is unacceptable. Our military deserves the best, not the cheapest.
     

    redeemed.man

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 29, 2013
    17,444
    HoCo
    " selecting Sig Sauer’s entry due to its relatively lower price point for a two-gun proposal that offered “overall the best value to the government."

    Since when has the government ever been concerned with how much it spent? Smoking gun? Sounds like they skipped the testing...
    Sounds like someone got a kickback. The government is never concerned about saving money. Sorry Sig lover's, the 320 appears to be junk when stress tested.
     

    joppaj

    Sheepdog
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Apr 11, 2008
    46,451
    MD
    Plastic is not a good choice for the military.

    How's that M4/ M16 thingy working out?

    As for the M9, the gun was large and heavy. I personally couldn't hit a damn thing with one, but I know people who like them. I didn't.
     

    Tracker

    Active Member
    Aug 21, 2011
    587
    Anne Arundel County
    The armed services have a changed since you and I were in. Now, more lower level leaders will be armed with sidearms. I'm only guessing but it may have something to do with all the house to house clearing they are doing. :shrug:

    I read that pistols will now be issued down to the Squad Leader level in the Army. Not sure how accurate the information is. If correct that would be about 4 times as many as were issued back in the 70s when I was in the 39th Engineer Battalion
     

    tkd4life

    Ultimate Member
    Sep 10, 2010
    1,737
    Southern Maryland
    How's that M4/ M16 thingy working out?

    As for the M9, the gun was large and heavy. I personally couldn't hit a damn thing with one, but I know people who like them. I didn't.

    Exactly. The m16 had its issues at first, now it is the base for the most popular rifle in the country.

    The m9 is my least favorite handgun I own. It is the biggest in my hand by far and I own both 1911’s and the p320. I rarely shoot it, if it weren’t for the collection, I wouldn’t own one.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,916
    Messages
    7,258,551
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom