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

[Amigo109]

Why didn't the army go with .357 sig over 9mm? I know you get a couple less rounds, but it seems it would be a good caliber for military. Feed issues are supposed to be less and it's got better stopping power.

I'm not an expert by a long shot so i'm generally curious here. Was it all about 2 extra round capacity in the magazine?

 

[Tracker]

Why didn't the army go with .357 sig over 9mm? I know you get a couple less rounds, but it seems it would be a good caliber for military. Feed issues are supposed to be less and it's got better stopping power.

I'm not an expert by a long shot so i'm generally curious here. Was it all about 2 extra round capacity in the magazine?

Other than the 9mm being easier to shoot well by most people I'm thinking NATO compatibility ??

 

[John from MD]

I remember when Baltimore County transitioned to Glocks. After a few "accidental discharges", they started a special training program. Above all the urinals and in the stalls in the restrooms they put signs about keeping your finger off of the trigger when gun handling.

I wish I had thought to take a picture of them, I thought it was hilarious.

 

[woodline]

Why didn't the army go with .357 sig over 9mm? I know you get a couple less rounds, but it seems it would be a good caliber for military. Feed issues are supposed to be less and it's got better stopping power.

I'm not an expert by a long shot so i'm generally curious here. Was it all about 2 extra round capacity in the magazine?

"stopping power" when it comes to handguns is a myth. The FBI officially acknowledged this last year in the memo where they justified going back to 9mm. Based on long term studies they had done, it turned out that "stopping power" (again, not a really a real thing) was best quantified as a modern JHP cartridge with adequate terminal ballistics and low enough recoil that a fairly light firearm would offer fast, accurate follow up shots.

My thoughts on the P320 having issues:

As to the military, a sidearm is just that: a secondary weapon. It needs to be small enough not to be a pain to carry along with all your other stuff, but otherwise meet similar requirements as to what the FBI suggests. People from 85 lb 4'10" with tiny hands all the way up to 300 lb WWE-sized gigantors need to be able to use the gun. The M9 failed at a lot of that, and insisting that the standard issue cartridge be .357 Sig would have guaranteed that for the Sig P320 too. The good news is that if something other than 9mm is needed, the P320 is pretty easy to change, and the Army did want that as a feature.

All that said, I am not surprised that there are hiccups with the P320 as far as overall DoD testing goes. DoD wide testing is a different animal from Army testing. Too many wide ranging requirements and wickets to meet. If you try to make everyone happy, you end up with the F-35. Ultimately I think everything will work out, though I am not sure Sig will be able to fulfill DoD's most desperate desire, which is to have a completely retard-proof gun with only one serialized to track on hand receipts (because reasons!). I'm not a big fan of Sig guns, but I'd still rather take a half proven P320 to war than an M9. At least it's not a boat anchor.

At least we aren't an EU country, where the populace is so anti firearm that any inherent body of knowledge regarding what makes a good weapon to go to war with is lost, and as a result they end up with weird guns with a bunch of newbie flaws: light to a fault, not durable, inaccurate over long strings of fire, boxy due to too many features, bizarre ergonomics, comically high sight over bore, lack of modularity or ability to add future capabilities, plastic mounting rails for items that must maintain zero, more expensive than just buying an M4, the list goes on.

 

[Racer Doug14]

Britains L85a1 comes to mine. I always thought they were cool as heck. They are ,but I watched "Forgotten Weapons". That thing was a turd. It's gotten better since.

 

[Pinecone]

FYI issues with M16 went beyond the powder issue.

Lack of cleaning kits.

Even making the receiver with 7075 rather than 6061 alloy, leading to serious corrosion issues.

Also, the already mentioned chrome barrels.

Lots of failures in the process.

 

[fred2207]

Glock didn't meet the basic requirements as I recall. The tax payer is who should be steamed as Beretta gave them a gun which met specs and was proven but they instead with with SIG. Sticking with Beretta would have saved millions in parts and training costs but instead they went with SIG.

This, on all points...

 

[fred2207]

"stopping power" when it comes to handguns is a myth. The FBI officially acknowledged this last year in the memo where they justified going back to 9mm. Based on long term studies they had done, it turned out that "stopping power" (again, not a really a real thing) was best quantified as a modern JHP cartridge with adequate terminal ballistics and low enough recoil that a fairly light firearm would offer fast, accurate follow up shots.

My thoughts on the P320 having issues:

As to the military, a sidearm is just that: a secondary weapon. It needs to be small enough not to be a pain to carry along with all your other stuff, but otherwise meet similar requirements as to what the FBI suggests. People from 85 lb 4'10" with tiny hands all the way up to 300 lb WWE-sized gigantors need to be able to use the gun. The M9 failed at a lot of that, and insisting that the standard issue cartridge be .357 Sig would have guaranteed that for the Sig P320 too. The good news is that if something other than 9mm is needed, the P320 is pretty easy to change, and the Army did want that as a feature.

All that said, I am not surprised that there are hiccups with the P320 as far as overall DoD testing goes. DoD wide testing is a different animal from Army testing. Too many wide ranging requirements and wickets to meet. If you try to make everyone happy, you end up with the F-35. Ultimately I think everything will work out, though I am not sure Sig will be able to fulfill DoD's most desperate desire, which is to have a completely retard-proof gun with only one serialized to track on hand receipts (because reasons!). I'm not a big fan of Sig guns, but I'd still rather take a half proven P320 to war than an M9. At least it's not a boat anchor.

At least we aren't an EU country, where the populace is so anti firearm that any inherent body of knowledge regarding what makes a good weapon to go to war with is lost, and as a result they end up with weird guns with a bunch of newbie flaws: light to a fault, not durable, inaccurate over long strings of fire, boxy due to too many features, bizarre ergonomics, comically high sight over bore, lack of modularity or ability to add future capabilities, plastic mounting rails for items that must maintain zero, more expensive than just buying an M4, the list goes on.

I was under the impression that JHP cartridges are not allowed for general warfare under the Geneva Convention. If that is in fact, the case the, .45 is a better round, IMO.

 

[Tracker]

I was under the impression that JHP cartridges are not allowed for general warfare under the Geneva Convention. If that is in fact, the case the, .45 is a better round, IMO.

Many/most people think it is a Geneva Convention of 1949 rule but actually it's from the Hague Convention of 1899. The US never agreed to it but has followed along with it until now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(from the internet)

"The United States is one of few major powers that did not agree to IV,3 of the Hague Convention of 1899, thus able to use this kind of ammunition in warfare. The US Army has mentioned that they consider using the ammunition for stock sidearms, plans set in 2018.[9]"

 

[Biggfoot44]

The MHS proposals included both actual combat ammo , and practice ammo . The RFP did Not specify 9x19 , it specified terminal performance substantially improved over current ( M882 ) .

The two finalists happened to both use ( different flavors of ) new & improved ammo . Glock also submitted a .40cal entry based upon the G23 , presumably to cover their bets in case the Army was open to the "bigger is better " approaches.

SIG partnered with Winchester , and their ammo flavor is reported closely based from the Ranger T . Glock partnered with Federal , and reportedly their flavor is closely based upon the technology of the M855A1 projectiles .

Other than observing than improved over 9mm fmj is a low bar , we don't know enough to judge the relaative merits of the two different ammo approaches. But I would certainly think Federal's entry required a lot more R&D , and more expensive to mfg . Thereby I suspect the ammo portion of the total contract was a big chunk of the lower bid .

 

[Biggfoot44]

Tying to to other tangents in this thread and elsewhere speculating about 9x19 vs ( others) . Historically this discussion has been fmj vs fmj, aka apples vs apples . Now that the comparison is fmj vs ( various medimum to high tech bullet designs ) , the conversation has changed . Not stating a conclusions at this time , but the conversation is irretrievably changed.

Does take a chunk out of the " because we already have a zillion rounds of M882 in storage , and in the supply pipeline " meme .

Yeah, yeah , I understand ( and roll with ) the concept of * Kinda close to adaquate performence , from a handgun & ammo platform with moderate recoil , such that lightly trained individuals/ lower common denominator of larger group , who have minimal refresher/ requal once a year , can maintain not total suck skills * .This includes full size 9mm , and previously also 4in medimum frame .38spl .

For me personally, if talking fmj vs fmj , I want ( somthing that starts with 4 ) . Just because .

 

[Baccusboy]

The MHS proposals included both actual combat ammo , and practice ammo . The RFP did Not specify 9x19 , it specified terminal performance substantially improved over current ( M882 ) .

The two finalists happened to both use ( different flavors of ) new & improved ammo . Glock also submitted a .40cal entry based upon the G23 , presumably to cover their bets in case the Army was open to the "bigger is better " approaches.

SIG partnered with Winchester , and their ammo flavor is reported closely based from the Ranger T . Glock partnered with Federal , and reportedly their flavor is closely based upon the technology of the M855A1 projectiles .

Other than observing than improved over 9mm fmj is a low bar , we don't know enough to judge the relaative merits of the two different ammo approaches. But I would certainly think Federal's entry required a lot more R&D , and more expensive to mfg . Thereby I suspect the ammo portion of the total contract was a big chunk of the lower bid .

So military handgun ammo will be expanding, now?

Cool beans.

 

[Shooter_Drew]

After reading almost all 10 pages of this thread and learning a few things I figured I'd throw in a bit of info pertaining to the actual P320 and the issue.

After going to a few different gun shops in the last few days I noticed there were a few stores tgat still had old stock P320's and one store had them price dropped in my opinion to move them. I ended up finding a lower quoted price at my regular GS but he had to order it. It showed up the next day and upon inspection it was the redesigned trigger mechanism - or what is being done to the guns when they are sent in for the Voluntary Recall.

Personally I would have ended up sending the gun in for the modifications if it would have been old stock, but since it's already done I don't have to send my brand new gun out for a week or two after just buying it.

The fact that Sig stepped up and took care of the necessary things to fix a rare but repeatable malfunction only further satisfies and supports my decision to make the P320 my next handgun.

I was able to hold and dry fire both a modified/corrected p320 and a non corrected p320 and the trigger is still a nice crisp break and a pretty short reset. I do still plan on getting either the Apex or the Grey Guns flat faced trigger but I'm waiting to see if either one will offer the adjustable trigger to reduce the pre take up or slack as its still there.

 

[Zorros]

Army ought to assemble 100 experienced users, give them a budget, and let them try out the contestants and make the decision.

 

[Racer Doug14]

I think in the end, the Army will have a good pistol. The issues will get fixed, they don't seem enormous. It is a secondary weapon. The M9a3 would have been a more affordable choice, given it was already in service as the m9a1. Size, weight and MOA were already known. I think the only omission was the optic mount.

 

[K-43]

Seriously here, not being a Smart Alec, but in 30 years people will be saying the new X brand pistol is no good - that the SIG is the Holy Grail of military pistols.
Some will still be saying the 1911 is bestest. Some will be crying for the Beretta 92 again. And others will have a favorite they want.
The Gov will pick X brand based on a test program that those not involved and who have never tested anything in a Gov contract will say isn't any good.
Whatever our Allies want to shoot will be the round, like 9mm Electronic Ignition or 22 Rail pistol.
Glock and Beretta will protest the award.
History repeats itself.
1880s 45 is too big, single actions are old fashioned so buy a 38 double action.
1900 Oh, 38 is too small and revolvers are old fashioned, so buy a 45 auto.
1980s 45 is too big and the single action auto is old fashioned, so buy a 9mm double action auto.
2017 The old pistol is too big and old fashioned, buy a modular pistol.
204x Modular pistols and the old fashioned and centerfire rounds are old fashioned ..............

 

[DownRange]

Sig Testing

Well I haven’t read every single post regarding this topic. I do however have intimate knowledge of the testing involved that went towards the selection of the Sig. I can assure those that think it’s just a dollars and cents issue, or someone who has no knowledge of shooting or weapons, that that is not the case at all. The Army brings in top tier shooters to test all the applicable weapons EXTENSIVELY. They bring in personnel from many Active Duty units and do comprehensive testing.

Without going into too much detail, because I do not have the authority, they put all of the weapons submitted for the contract through rigorous testing. Much of which is conducted at APG and after crunching numbers and data, they made a decision.

In fact all of the data is typically presented with findings and then someone way up the chain, probably some 4-Star general, makes a decision based off of that. It’s not to say that one gun is more appealing by reputation, or looks, but when you look back, how often is there any mechanical device that doesn’t at some point have issues or shortfalls that weren’t necessarily known at inception?

 

[K-43]

Well I haven’t read every single post regarding this topic. I do however have intimate knowledge of the testing involved that went towards the selection of the Sig. I can assure those that think it’s just a dollars and cents issue, or someone who has no knowledge of shooting or weapons, that that is not the case at all. The Army brings in top tier shooters to test all the applicable weapons EXTENSIVELY. They bring in personnel from many Active Duty units and do comprehensive testing.

Without going into too much detail, because I do not have the authority, they put all of the weapons submitted for the contract through rigorous testing. Much of which is conducted at APG and after crunching numbers and data, they made a decision.

In fact all of the data is typically presented with findings and then someone way up the chain, probably some 4-Star general, makes a decision based off of that. It’s not to say that one gun is more appealing by reputation, or looks, but when you look back, how often is there any mechanical device that doesn’t at some point have issues or shortfalls that weren’t necessarily known at inception?

+1 !!
It's been over 2 decades, but I was involved in trying to replicate failures in automatic weapons. The sole purpose was to identify a problem. Brand allegiance, personal preferences, and pressrue to make it pass had no place in the tests. It's cold engineering. You do a test, approved by a board of engineers who try to eliminate any error and bias from being introduced. This includes any fixtures and methods, ammunition, and test recording equipment. The signing authorization comes from at least a CAPT/Col or SES Director. A few guys don't just get together and say I like Brand "X", let's make it pass.

 

[Pinecone]

+1 !!
It's been over 2 decades, but I was involved in trying to replicate failures in automatic weapons. The sole purpose was to identify a problem. Brand allegiance, personal preferences, and pressrue to make it pass had no place in the tests. It's cold engineering. You do a test, approved by a board of engineers who try to eliminate any error and bias from being introduced. This includes any fixtures and methods, ammunition, and test recording equipment. The signing authorization comes from at least a CAPT/Col or SES Director. A few guys don't just get together and say I like Brand "X", let's make it pass.

I had a friend who did that.

His job was take out a firearm, lots of ammo, and shoot. He would shoot until it was time to go home or until it broke.

If it broke, he brought it back with a rounds fired count, and started with another firearm.

If it did not break, he repeated each day until it broke.

I kept asking if I could help.

 

[joma352]

the next issued handgun better be shootin frickin laser beams