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

joppaj said:

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.

Click to expand...

The plastic parts on the m16/m4 are stock and pistol grip. The hand guards have mostly been changed to alum.quad rails. The old ones had been known to crack. The stock is solid and has the buffer tube inside. I'm not a fan of a plastic frame on a military sidearm. The M9 was a fine back up weapon.

Racer Doug14 said:

The plastic parts on the m16/m4 are stock and pistol grip. The hand guards have mostly been changed to alum.quad rails. The old ones had been known to crack. The stock is solid and has the buffer tube inside. I'm not a fan of a plastic frame on a military sidearm. The M9 was a fine back up weapon.

Click to expand...

Handgun in the military IS a backup weapon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rbird7282 said:

Handgun in the military IS a backup weapon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Jimbob2.0 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The M9 cracking issues were traced to the original Italian made M9 pistols prior to production starting in Accokeek. Beretta used substandard steel leftover from a French contract that failed under constant use with the NATO spec cartridges. The slide would suddenly and without warning fracture and separate with the rear half of the slide ejecting rearward into the shooter's face. Several suffered facial injuries including at least one lost eye to my understanding. The problem was not repeated with US made M9 pistols.

Whether the Beretta should have been picked as the M9 is a moot point...the fact is it was. That it was a political pick is also a moot point...it was still picked. The problem is the way the system operates for acquisitions...politics shouldn't be a part but it is.

While this is not a scientific and objective statement...merely my personal opinion. I own both a Beretta 92FS...a M9 in civilian dress and a Sig P226. In my personal experience with them the Sig is the better pistol...more accurate, more comfortable (in my hand), more accurate, more ergonomic (I really dislike slide mounted safeties)...but each is equally reliable...neither has ever had a malfunction. While my experience is not scientific nor all that relevant to military needs, I do believe the military missed the boat by selecting the Beretta regardless of the reasons behind it.

I also think we should have hung onto the 1911...maybe a new buy to replace the worn out ones in the service at the time...but that was also a moot point. The requirements to standardize with NATO to the 9mm was the driving force behind that. Maybe the better question was why didn't NATO standardize on the .45 ACP than stay with the 9mm?

The p226 is the better of the two. With the ergo grip and Short reach trigger,it addresses the small hands issue some what. The 45acp debate is too big to easily debate. Back to the M17. Sig will field a serviceable pistol in due time. But, with modern processes it should already be doing that.

Racer Doug14 said:

The p226 is the better of the two. With the ergo grip and Short reach trigger,it addresses the small hands issue some what. The 45acp debate is too big to easily debate. Back to the M17. Sig will field a serviceable pistol in due time. But, with modern processes it should already be doing that.

Click to expand...

Not for women with small hands it's not. Just because they are used by women doesn't mean they are "ergonomic" for them. I've known women in my agency who used their middle finger for their trigger finger with our 229s. This is the primary reason we looked at the crappy ass P250 years back, to accommodate hand sizes. Fortunately it was a shitty ass pistol when we tested it and we ended up just staying with the 229.

Racer Doug14 said:

The plastic parts on the m16/m4 are stock and pistol grip. The hand guards have mostly been changed to alum.quad rails. The old ones had been known to crack. The stock is solid and has the buffer tube inside. I'm not a fan of a plastic frame on a military sidearm. The M9 was a fine back up weapon.

Click to expand...

Explain what "plastic" part on a glock will fail through use before one of the metal parts. Modern polymers are plenty durable for what a frame needs to do. The original article had me scratching my noodle about how much was operator error and how much was an actual mechanical defect. Negligent discharges....because people were pressing the triggers when they weren't supposed to, or did the gun just go self-aware and start firing? The "ejecting live cartridges" part has me wondering what they're talking about. Do they mean they were getting light-strikes and the cartridges were manually ejected to clear the malfunction?

The nature of the malfunctions are important.

Beretta made a statement recently about how the M9 smoked the SIG in testing.

There will be MUCH more of this and it wont be from Manufacturers that lost a bid. SIGs current offerings cant touch the M9.

Things have changed considerably since my day. During the late 70's/early-80's, the only guys who carried sidearms in my unit were those of us assigned to Weapons Squad. That would be 60 gunners and AG's, 90 gunners and AG's. Everyone else, including officers, carried an M-16A1.

Training consisted of a one-hour class taught by our Armorer and 50 rounds for familiarization. Then, we learned how to field-strip and clean it before qualifying on silhouette targets at 25 yards. Beyond that, we didn't give our sidearms a lot of thought, other than them being an additional 5 or 6 pounds to carry on our belts, along with gas masks, canteens, e-tools, etc. We made sure they worked and could hit what we pointed them at from a reasonable distance but, the Army didn't spend any time on tactical training and safety.

boundlessdyad said:

Ahhh, no we wouldn't. Glock arms probably around half the world's military and police. If they put out junk it would be known quickly.

Click to expand...

Not the same report, a worse one. We do know. Departments that adopt glocks and M&P see increases in problem, especially the worst kind -- accidental discharge with injury.
neither Sig or glock nor S&W "put out junk." No one is saying they do. But we certainly would be reading a report about problems as bad or worse with glock.

Has anyone actually read the report the article references? The major issue is old and fully fixed. The report is an encapsulation issues that came up earlier and which are known. The most dangerous thing was the drop test using a drop not done by normal testing methods, and which has been addressed, old news. The other issues are minor and as the report clearly shows the large majority are -- training issues for 5% of shooters who are holding the gun WRONG.
Mean time between failure is NOT elevated above RFP. Mean time between stoppage is elevated – but only among a specific group of 5% of the testers. Hmmm:

The predominant cause of stoppages was the failure of the slide to lock (FSLR) after the firing of the last round in the magazine (60 of 120 stoppages for the XM17 and 63 of 85 stoppages for the XM18). The purpose of the slide locking to the rear is to inform the operator that the last round has been expended, and that the operator needs to reload a magazine into the weapon. Operators who are trained in pistol qualification, as taught by the Army marksmanship unit, utilize what is known as a high pistol grip. This grip places the non-dominant hand along the pistol slide on top of the slide catch lever. Many operators stated that the placement of the slide catch lever caused them to engage it while firing the pistol, which resulted in the slide not locking to the rear when the last round was expended in a magazine. Sixty percent of all FSLR stoppages (75 of 123) were experienced by 8 shooters out of the 132 who participated in the IOT&E. The Army marksmanship unit experts stated that this is an insignificant problem that can be mitigated with training and experience with the weapon

Click to expand...

About 2/3 of all of the failures, stoppages and problems were failure to lock back,(50% on the XM17 and 75% on the XM18) were failure to lock back about 1% of the time. (once every 2,000 rounds, assuming average of 20 rounds in those 21 and 17 round mags they used). The clearly noted this was due to the way the pistol was gripped and felt this was more of a training issue.
The math shows the Sigs are within the RFP stoppage rate for 95% of shooters. Just like glocks which have worse problem when adopted by police departments, with certain shooter, ironically, but if you think about it this makes sense – the more experienced shooter with ingrained habits countiing for the great majority of elevated glock discharge with injury.
If the army had adopted the glock we would have been looking at a DoD report now showing elevated accidental discharge rates with injury, just as departments who bothered to test have seen when they move to striker

So old news, some new information on how 5% of the shooting team is riding a slide release with their thumb.

I got an SR22 a couple of years ago. My daughter who learned on it has never had a failure to fire, if I had that gun to a top shooter at my range, 25% of the shooters will have failure to fire half the time even after I explain the manual of arms. A 15 year old girl will fire it perfectly, and a top shooter has a very good chance of major problems. Why becasuse the safety is opposite of a 1911.They just naturally sweep the safety the wrong way

In my military experience, I don’t think I have ever seen where a new system or piece of equipment didn’t have some growing pains. This is no exception, many of the items identified will not doubt be corrected by the manufacturer. During my career I carried various hand guns, the S&W Combat Masterpiece of all them I loathed it the most. The M-1911 were great but that was due to the fact our armorers were very good at keeping them working, but like the S&W they were wearing out. At first I didn’t like the new M-9, it was in my opinion just as heavy as the M-1911 and wider. But it carried more ammo than the .45 so that was a plus, and though I wasn’t as good with it as I was with the .45 it grew on me. Remember at the time it was one of the “Wonder Nines”, so we adapted and overcame. Then I was fortunate to carry the M11, and I loved that one. It was like the thing was personally, made for me. I wish I owned one today, maybe someday.
I haven’t tried a Glock, so I have to assume it is a very good hand gun or many first responders wouldn’t be carrying it today. But, I have no doubt that if they were selected instead of the P320, there would be some sort of problem or problems as well. As I said earlier, there is always growing pains. I would like to point out that this weapon is also being issued to wider number of individuals in the Army. No doubt the more that it is used in the field, where unique situations will occur, the more issues will be found. The P320 is a modular system and the contract calls for much more that the delivery of the firearm (magazines, caliber exchange kits, barrels, handgun holsters, Optical Sights, and Tactical Light/Laser units). So I wouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. Training, will solve some of these issues. I view this discussion, like the ever raging debate regarding .45 vs. 9mm or Ford vs Chevy. Personally, I’m a MOPAR fan.

rascal said:

Not the same report, a worse one. We do know. Departments that adopt glocks and M&P see increases in problem, especially the worst kind -- accidental discharge with injury.
neither Sig or glock nor S&W "put out junk." No one is saying they do. But we certainly would be reading a report about problems as bad or worse with glock.

Has anyone actually read the report the article references? The major issue is old and fully fixed. The report is an encapsulation issues that came up earlier and which are known. The most dangerous thing was the drop test using a drop not done by normal testing methods, and which has been addressed, old news. The other issues are minor and as the report clearly shows the large majority are -- training issues for 5% of shooters who are holding the gun WRONG.
Mean time between failure is NOT elevated above RFP. Mean time between stoppage is elevated – but only among a specific group of 5% of the testers. Hmmm:

About 2/3 of all of the failures, stoppages and problems were failure to lock back,(50% on the XM17 and 75% on the XM18) were failure to lock back about 1% of the time. (once every 2,000 rounds, assuming average of 20 rounds in those 21 and 17 round mags they used). The clearly noted this was due to the way the pistol was gripped and felt this was more of a training issue.
The math shows the Sigs are within the RFP stoppage rate for 95% of shooters. Just like glocks which have worse problem when adopted by police departments, with certain shooter, ironically, but if you think about it this makes sense – the more experienced shooter with ingrained habits countiing for the great majority of elevated glock discharge with injury.
If the army had adopted the glock we would have been looking at a DoD report now showing elevated accidental discharge rates with injury, just as departments who bothered to test have seen when they move to striker

So old news, some new information on how 5% of the shooting team is riding a slide release with their thumb.

Click to expand...

The normal drop test method is absurd. It only test for muzzle first or a flat drop. Who can predict how a drop will land? The test procedure failed the military as much as the pistol did.

Riding the slide release? I have not shot this pistol. Does it have an extended slide release? If so maybe a low profile release is the solution. After all using the slide lock/release to chamber a round one handed accelerates wear on the lock/release as well as the slide stop notch.

tkd4life said:

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.

Click to expand...

The M16 only had problems because some idiot back in the states allowed the ammo supplier to use a different gunpowder than was specified in the contract. Those causing our brave soldiers to die.

In the early days of the M16 the military wouldn't listen to Colt about the propellant the 5.56 needed to use for the rifle to operate safely and within its mechanical and contractual limits. The military didn't care as there were huge stocks of powder for .30 caliber ammunition. They actually told Colt that they could test the rifles with whatever powder they wanted but once accepted into service the military would use whatever powder they wanted. Malfunctions and mechanical breakages followed in combat, men died and a Congressional investigation followed. Colt and others within the industry had their names dragged through the mud when the entire problem was known and ignored by the powers that be in the Pentagon. Fixes were made in the rifle but they simply weren't needed if the proper propellants had been used from the beginning.

Murphy's Combat Law - Remember, your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.

smokey0118 said:

Explain what "plastic" part on a glock will fail through use before one of the metal parts. Modern polymers are plenty durable for what a frame needs to do. The original article had me scratching my noodle about how much was operator error and how much was an actual mechanical defect. Negligent discharges....because people were pressing the triggers when they weren't supposed to, or did the gun just go self-aware and start firing? The "ejecting live cartridges" part has me wondering what they're talking about. Do they mean they were getting light-strikes and the cartridges were manually ejected to clear the malfunction?

The nature of the malfunctions are important.

Click to expand...

I don't need to explain. It's my opinion. I don't like polymer lowers on a military sidearm. I think wear would be more extreme than police would see. There I explained it anyway. Yes, I could be wrong or something. Maybe your k9 chews it?

I occasionally observe : Don't purchade a new model of handgun , until it has been out at least one year .

Biggfoot44 said:

I occasionally observe : Don't purchade a new model of handgun , until it has been out at least one year .

Click to expand...

I think that's a good philosophy for just about any product. Cell phone, automobile, firearm. You name it and 1st year production can be iffy at best.

boundlessdyad said:

Ahhh, no we wouldn't. Glock arms probably around half the world's military and police. If they put out junk it would be known quickly.

Click to expand...

Because Gen 4 Glocks didn't have problems?

And single pin .40 caliber Glocks didn't have problems?

And Glock with Weapon Mounted Lights didn't have problems?


I carry a Glock daily as my personal choice of firearms. I like mine a lot but they certainly have had their growing pains throughout. To assume they'd come up with a new offering after tweaking some of their platform and to think it would be 100% reliable isn't factual. The offering they brought to the table hadn't armed half the military and police in the world. It has new parts on it.

If Glock or FN won....we'd be reading the same articles.

"persistent problems, including accidental discharge, ejecting live ammunition, and relatively frequent stoppages when firing ammunition encased in a full metal jacket. "

user error, being in the army and around some of the chuckle heads who are expected to fire the pistols mostly I suspect lack of training, limp wristing, poor grips, etc as most of the cause for failures.

"Several videos posted online show the commercial Sig Sauer P320 firing when dropped"

commercial version, not the army version and has since been fixed anyway.