Army Selects Sig Sauer

[kgain673]

They should have kept the 1911.

Why do people keep saying this!!!! 1911 has reduced capacity, under preforming rounds, and a complicated user interface for a combat application. Takedown is complicated compared to its polymer competition. The ammo is heavier then 9mm. And it requires its user to treat it with a high level of maintenance. Service weapons get minimal attention and need to be user friendly for the average issued soldier. Your average Polymer pistol in .45 caliber would be light years ahead of any 1911 as an issued service pistol in 2017

 

[kgain673]

If you're cutting a check for a contract, Sig will build guns in just about any config you want.

True

 

[JTH20]

I rented the P320 Carry at Silver Eagle today. I wasn't crazy about it. I also think the Army made a poor choice.

Based on the lack of actual practice that soldiers get with their primary weapon I think that choosing a pistol without a safety, a relatively fat grip, a high bore access and lightweight frame is going to be problematic. I'd expect a big increase in misfires at minimum.

It's one thing if you get to practice regularly, but most don't. I also think that the grip size and muzzle flip is going to be difficult especially for female soldiers.

I shoot a lot and it took me a few mags to feel like I had any real control and a bunch more before I'd even attempt any rapid fire drills. If I owned one a P320 I'd want to put in a bunch of range time and I just don't think our warriors get nearly enough to master a weapon that their life may count on.

My wife has small hands and has no issue with her 226 after I chaneged out the grips. The 320 looks to have similar grips and bore axis height so I imagine it wouldn't be too bad.

I might pick one of these now that the Army has selected it. Their weapons qualification testing is brutal.

 

[Mark S]

My wife has small hands and has no issue with her 226 after I chaneged out the grips. The 320 looks to have similar grips and bore axis height so I imagine it wouldn't be too bad.

I might pick one of these now that the Army has selected it. Their weapons qualification testing is brutal.

Be interested to hear her thoughts. I've owned a lot of pistols and currently run M&P 9 Pro and Pro with a CT laser grip. The Sig felt 'fatter than the CT laser grip. Then again, I've got a lot more time in on the M&P platform and numerous others including the Sig 2022. Without the P320 having any grip adjustment it'll be interesting to see how it works out.

 

[Hawkeye]

Based on the lack of actual practice that soldiers get with their primary weapon

This isn't a "primary weapon." That would be the rifle.

I think that choosing a pistol without a safety,

The version the Army selected has a 1911-style thumb safety.

a relatively fat grip,

First of all, the 320 has a slimmer grip than the M9 does. Second of all, that's the whole point of the 320. You can swap the grip modules in about 30 seconds to customize the gun for each shooter. Women or those with small hands will likely be issued a smaller grip module. (SIG offers small/medium/large sizes in each frame size.)

Right now they have the M9, but issue the M11 (SIG P228) for certain uses where a smaller gun is needed (investigators who might carry undercover, etc). Now they have a single weapon system that they can just customize for whatever role it has to serve. All the internals and operating parts are the same, the manual of arms is the same, etc.

I also think that the grip size and muzzle flip is going to be difficult especially for female soldiers.

Again, see the above. This weapon will be worlds better for people like that than the M9 was. Sure, swapping the grip modules and slides won't change the bore axis, but the 320 in 9mm doesn't exactly have punishing recoil to start with.

An individual shooter may not love the gun, and that's fine. For the Army's purposes, though, there's just not anything better on the market right now.

 

[Mark S]

This isn't a "primary weapon." That would be the rifle.



The version the Army selected has a 1911-style thumb safety.



First of all, the 320 has a slimmer grip than the M9 does. Second of all, that's the whole point of the 320. You can swap the grip modules in about 30 seconds to customize the gun for each shooter. Women or those with small hands will likely be issued a smaller grip module. (SIG offers small/medium/large sizes in each frame size.)

Right now they have the M9, but issue the M11 (SIG P228) for certain uses where a smaller gun is needed (investigators who might carry undercover, etc). Now they have a single weapon system that they can just customize for whatever role it has to serve. All the internals and operating parts are the same, the manual of arms is the same, etc.



Again, see the above. This weapon will be worlds better for people like that than the M9 was. Sure, swapping the grip modules and slides won't change the bore axis, but the 320 in 9mm doesn't exactly have punishing recoil to start with.

An individual shooter may not love the gun, and that's fine. For the Army's purposes, though, there's just not anything better on the market right now.

Right, the rifle is the primary for most soldiers and they hardly get enough practice with that. A number pf MOSs have the pistol as their T/O weapon.

I didn't realize there was a version with a safety, but the Army purchase makes a great deal more sense with it.

I thought the only difference in the 320 grip was grip length not width.

No the 9mm isn't a punishing recoil, but I thought the the muzzle rise was noticeably snappier than my M&P 9, 2022 or 1911.

 

[71Chevelle427]

Went to Freestate this morning with my son to try out his new Sig P320, his first gun. He loves it, and has shot everything I own. I must admit I'll probably be getting myself one as well.

I thought it was very easy to shoot, feels well balanced, and I was a bit surprised how accurate I was able to shoot it right out of the box, having never shot one before. Zero issues in its first 150 rounds.

I experienced the complete opposite, as far as muzzle flip...I think it shoots pretty soft, actually.

 

[Hawkeye]

I thought the only difference in the 320 grip was grip length not width.

Yeah, they don't advertise that part as much as they should, but for each grip module version (full size, carry, etc) there are three different "sizes" with respect to circumference and overall size.

 

[traveller]

As predicted earlier, Glock has filed a GAO protest against the award:

https://www.armytimes.com/articles/glock-protests-armys-choice-of-sig-sauer-for-new-handgun?

 

[Xshot]

As predicted earlier, Glock has filed a GAO protest against the award:

https://www.armytimes.com/articles/glock-protests-armys-choice-of-sig-sauer-for-new-handgun?

Wah.

Sore losers.

 

[traveller]

Wah.

Sore losers.

It is one of the cases where the RFP was written to ensure a particular outcome. The way the process is set up, the losing bidder can only protest the award after the award has happened, even if the RFP itself was faulty.

I can pretty much predict that GAO will dismiss the protest and simply decide that the Glock submission was 'nonresponsive' to the RFP. There is no good redress against the kind of abuse of the procurement process that is at work here.

 

[Decoy]

Apparently Marines & Navy are also going To the Sig P320 (XM17).