Sig Sauer P320 Overtakes Beretta M9

[E4 No More]

8 hours ago, nightrunner said:

At least the Marines went with the G19.

I have to wonder about several aspects of this. From talking to many service members, in all branches, being issued a handgun isn't nearly as common as it use to be. Right now you aren't allowed to make any modifications to your weapon, it's done in the armory. Now all of a sudden they want this modular grip? I can see it as part of the SOCOM kit but not for standard GI.

Thumb safety has no place. If you can't trust someone not to have an AD/ND with a 5 lb trigger, they shouldn't have possession of a pistol in the first place.

 

ill be honest, I seriously doubt the long term reliability of this pistol. If nothing else, Sig just got a whole lot of beta testers.

My guess is that it's more about the ability to change grip sizes and barrel lengths for the soldier than anything else. I have 3xl hands so I appreciate the ability to put the large grip size on my P320's. Imagine a man or woman with small hands. I would imagine they'd appreciate being able to change to the small grip on a carry frame for their pistol.

[DaveTN]

I hate to see a foreign company get a military contract. That just makes no sense to me. But it says they will be made here. If that’s in the contract I guess it better than nothing.

Quote

In their statements, Army and Sig officials didn't specify what caliber the new Sig Sauer pistol will be.

If they stay with the 9; what did they gain?

[Wingshooter]

On 1/20/2017 at 9:44 AM, SWJewellTN said:

Well, I certainly like my P320's. I find it curious that one of the articles mentioned sticking with the 9mm but developing better ammo for it. How do you develop better ball ammunition?

Enlarge it and call it a .45

[ARO Matt]

14 hours ago, Erik88 said:

I don't have anything against the 320 but I personally don't think there was any need to switch. I will also say that I don't think Sig quality is what it once was but the same can be said for many other manufacturers I suppose. 

The M9 is over 30 years old, I'd say that's almost reason enough.  But this will take care of locking block problems and stoppage drills that cause shooters to put the gun on safe inadvertently.  

[ARO Matt]

1 hour ago, DaveTN said:

I hate to see a foreign company get a military contract. That just makes no sense to me. But it says they will be made here. If that’s in the contract I guess it better than nothing.

Beretta is a foreign company too.  And Glock.  And FN.  It's almost hard to get away from that these days, unless they would have picked the M&P.

[Wingshooter]

9 hours ago, kesava said:

What will they do with all of the berettas?

This is my question too. If we can just get the 1911's to the CMP maybe the M9's will follow some day

Just don't know if that will happen in my lifetime.

[Steelharp]

10 minutes ago, ARO Matt said:

The M9 is over 30 years old, I'd say that's almost reason enough. 

And the 1911 is...? 

[DaveTN]

19 minutes ago, ARO Matt said:

Beretta is a foreign company too.  And Glock.  And FN.  It's almost hard to get away from that these days, unless they would have picked the M&P.

I don’t own any foreign guns except a Mosin a friend gave to me; and I’m better armed than most.

It’s not totally bad as the story I read said they will be manufactured here. Unless that’s code for assembled here; it’s that’s better than nothing.

Smith & Wesson partnered with General Dynamics to produce the Military M&P; and it doesn’t make the cut? Nonsense, that’s simply politics or some behind the scenes shenanigans. Tell them what the problem was and let them address it.

But again, if they pick the 9mm they have accomplished nothing with this Sig except wasting a lot of money.

The best of the most important material things in life, Liquor, guns, cars and motorcycles, are still made here. 

Buy American, Hire American and America First. That’s the plan I heard yesterday. Let's roll with that.  

 

Edited January 21, 2017 by DaveTN

[Cruel Hand Luke]

17 hours ago, DWARREN123 said:

As for ammo even a good flat point round would be more effective than round nose bullets, in my opinion.

And hits on target is more effective than misses....that is the bigger issue. Why is it that the British SAS and SEALS don't complain about 9mm effectiveness putting people down but people who never actually train with pistols say 9 is useless.....maybe it has to do with actually hitting what they aimed at? In fact Bill Davison (former British SF) goes as far as to say that if 9mm doesn't work then all his ammo must have been defective as everyone he shot with it died.

A big part of it is simply that the military spends little resources on pistol training for the average soldier. Very few soldiers actually ever use a pistol. Unless they are an MP or in a specialized unit very few guys in the military use pistols AT ALL much less with any regularity. Pistols don't win wars and as such the military spends little resources on training for them with the exception of some specialized units. There are probably 100 support people for every trigger puller and those support people get virtually no training with pistols and the actual 11B (infantry) troops get very little . In fact a good friend of mine who was in the INFANTRY in Desert Storm said after basic training he doesn't even remember SEEING a pistol except on the hip of some higher level officers or MPs. So if few people carry them and even fewer get regular realistic training with them then no wonder there is little confidence in it. 

As to Sig320 getting the nod over Glock ....the army likes external safeties so that non dedicated personnel (who get little to no training)  are at least theoretically less likely to accidentally shoot themselves and others.  

 

 

[musicman]

6 minutes ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

A big part of it is simply that the military spends little resources on pistol training for the average soldier. Very few soldiers actually ever use a pistol. Unless they are an MP or in a specialized unit very few guys in the military use pistols AT ALL much less with any regularity. Pistols don't win wars and as such the military spends little resources on training for them with the exception of some specialized units. There are probably 100 support people for every trigger puller and those support people get virtually no training with pistols and the actual 11B (infantry) troops get very little . In fact a good friend of mine who was in the INFANTRY in Desert Storm said after basic training he doesn't even remember SEEING a pistol except on the hip of some higher level officers or MPs. 

I spend a few hours a week selling guns at a local shop, and this is something that surprised me.  I have no military experience, so when I first started talking guns with folks who identified as military I just kinda figured they knew handguns, etc.  I was surprised when some folks who had even seen combat did not know how to drop the slide after locking back on an empty magazine while handling guns in store.  I enjoy sharing about guns so I love the opportunity to introduce folks to something new, and I get to learn from them more info about M4s, etc.

Of course, there are "gun guys" in service as well, but I was not expecting that folks could go through years of enlistment with little to no handgun training.  

[gun sane]

12 hours ago, nightrunner said:

I have to wonder about several aspects of this. From talking to many service members, in all branches, being issued a handgun isn't nearly as common as it use to be. Right now you aren't allowed to make any modifications to your weapon, it's done in the armory. Now all of a sudden they want this modular grip? I can see it as part of the SOCOM kit but not for standard GI.

Caliber, frame and grip conversions will be hard enough to track.  But think of the headache it's going to be to satisfy the LGBT and women troops with color schemes.

[TGO David]

1 hour ago, gun sane said:

Caliber, frame and grip conversions will be hard enough to track.  But think of the headache it's going to be to satisfy the LGBT and women troops with color schemes.

Yeah I mean, look at all of the trouble the military already has with pink camo, rainbow camo, and all of the other LGBT equipment demands.

 

[SlapChopDonkey]

I wish they would have picked a Glock. And tons of federal guys who have no real shooting experience carry them every day without a significant ND problem.

I guess it is nice that the serial number part is the fire control group.  You can pretty much order a whole gun as spare parts. 

Edited June 25, 2019 by SlapChopDonkey
Spell Check

[Garufa]

9 hours ago, musicman said:

I spend a few hours a week selling guns at a local shop, and this is something that surprised me.  I have no military experience, so when I first started talking guns with folks who identified as military I just kinda figured they knew handguns, etc.  I was surprised when some folks who had even seen combat did not know how to drop the slide after locking back on an empty magazine while handling guns in store.  I enjoy sharing about guns so I love the opportunity to introduce folks to something new, and I get to learn from them more info about M4s, etc.

Of course, there are "gun guys" in service as well, but I was not expecting that folks could go through years of enlistment with little to no handgun training.  

I have no military experience either but I don't think recruits get much more handgun training than what a Tennessee HCP applicant does.

Edited January 22, 2017 by Garufa

[chances R]

45 minutes ago, Garufa said:

I have no military experience either but I don't think recruits get much more handgun training than what a Tennessee HCP applicant does.

Exactly.....that is why the exemption of HCP training for military is a bad idea.  Now you have the 18 - 20 yo exemption as well.  The military has a different mindset for firearm use vs. civilians.  Additionally the exposure to State law is very important.  Now if one was a MP, would be a little different.

[JoeCorrado]

Very little training is done with handguns. Like what was previously mentioned, very few are issued handguns. I was issued one and told to qualify with it or I would be given a different mission. With very little instruction I qualified (barely) and worked with convoys in Iraq and Kuwait. Mostly driving guntrucks or uparmored Suburbans because I was also a command staff driver. Very few people ever handle an M9 because mostly officers or MP's carry them. Most have missions that don't require a firearm so they're issued an M16 or for combat arms units, an M4. Things are probably different now. I've been out 7 years this past Dec. My buddies that are still in seem intrigued about the 320 though but realistically know they probably won't get issued one. 

[ARO Matt]

11 hours ago, Steelharp said:

And the 1911 is...? 

...not being used as an Army sidearm anymore.

Don't get me wrong, it's my favorite pistol platform for sure.  But they're not as easy to maintain in a harsh environment and have less capacity, which are two things the Army apparently wanted when they switched to the Beretta.  

 

[graycrait]

I got to transition from the 1911 to the M9.  We used to groan, laugh, shake our heads at the 1911s that were in unit arms rooms, generally rust prone rattle traps.  I would think that someone in the Army got decent handgun training, but I never saw it from 1973 - 1998. Includes enlisted and officer time. The best handgun training I ever received while in the Army was when I was in a year long course at Bragg and my SF classmates took pity on me.  Maybe Army handgun training has improved in the past 20 yrs?

[ma6907]

On 1/20/2017 at 11:17 PM, Parrothead said:

100% agree! I think a very wise man said to carry a gun that matches law enforcement or military. Also, pick a service caliber. I can't place the quote but it was made in order to provide an extra level of protection if you were in court justifying your choice of weapon.

In that regard, I think you statement might be on target. Many may check out the p320 now that it has been deemed reliable and sensible for military use.

Massad Ayoob teaches that.  Since he writes for most of the gun magazines that we all read, I suspect that you read his quote.  He sells and teaches classes on what to to AFTER a shooting and he constantly preaches this.  He says that on the witness stand (which he does for free if you take his class) that he can easily debunk that you were "out to kill and mame" if you use the exact same ammo as your local cops.  He has very concrete, real world examples of people who have lost in court after justified shootings due to using the "wrong" caliber/brand ammo.  Most notably Harold Fish. (briefly--Fish was a schooteacher who was attacked by a deranged man and justifiably shot the attacker with a 10 mm that he was carrying for bear/mountain lion  protection in Arizona.  Fish was convicted of 2nd degree murder (based on the prosecution successfully proving that 10mm is SO hyped up that even the FBI couldn't handle it) and spent the rest of his life and several million dollars getting the case overturned, which he did after around 15 years mostly in jail and (I think) 5 million dollars.  He died right after he was exonerated, broke and having spend his last decade in and out of jail.  Ayoob says not to be like him.  Carry what your local cops carry and this will not happen.)
Fish's story
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/terrifying-and-true-harold-fish-story

 

DISCLAIMER--I was just answering @Parrothead's question.  These are not my opinions, they are Massad Ayoob's and I am just reporting them.  Yes, i think we should all be able to carry cannons if we choose to.  Yes I would have shot the deranged attacker with whatever I had on me.  No it is not fair.  But I also have no desire to spend 15 years in and out of jail and 15 million dollars!

[E4 No More]

All due respect to Ayoob but we are in Tennessee. He's speaking to the US as having to address the least common denominator as far as the law is concerned.