imfdb.org

imfdb.org (http://forum.imfdb.org/index.php)
-   Just Guns (http://forum.imfdb.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   SIG-Sauer P320 to replace Beretta M9 (http://forum.imfdb.org/showthread.php?t=2495)

Spartan198 01-20-2017 11:50 AM

SIG-Sauer P320 to replace Beretta M9
 
My eyes just about bugged out of my head when I saw the headline.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...ce-pistol.html

I did NOT expect anything to come of the MHS program.

funkychinaman 01-20-2017 01:26 PM

I wonder what the Army's reasoning is. I'm not for or against any of the entrants, I just want to know why they choose this and not one of the others.

SPEMack618 01-20-2017 02:23 PM

That's a good question. I'm not sure. In no,world I can,picture will the M-17 be any sort of modular pistol once it becomes standard issue.

Spartan198 01-20-2017 02:40 PM

I'll bet Beretta ends up contesting, or at least trying to contest, the decision.

Excalibur 01-20-2017 03:15 PM

It can still be awhile before this effects the entire Army and the rest of the branches. It used to be that all branches were forced to switch sidearms for the sake of being standard but this came right away the Marines officially adopted the Glock 19 as their pistol.

Spartan198 01-20-2017 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 43314)
It can still be awhile before this effects the entire Army and the rest of the branches. It used to be that all branches were forced to switch sidearms for the sake of being standard but this came right away the Marines officially adopted the Glock 19 as their pistol.

Only certain MARSOC units adopted the Glock 19, not the whole force. Rank and file still use M9s.

Nyles 01-20-2017 06:14 PM

Meanwhile we've announced our intention to define the requirements to replace our 1940s Hi Powers by 2020... and to have a new pistol in service by 2026.

That said the P320 actually looks like a good choice to me. Light, reasonably inexpensive and suited to use by troops with small hands. Because let's be honest, most people carrying a sidearm are support trades, not doorkickers.

SPEMack618 01-20-2017 06:25 PM

I'm sorry but I look at this like a thumbnail version of the F-35.

In no way will the modular features ever be used by any a guy in a line unit unless it as a SF type unit. And those guys like Glock. And will keep their Glocks.

For all that money I don't understand why we just didn't make the damn M-11 issue for the masses.

Hell, I'm gonna be that guy longing for my Beretta when I finally have to give it up.

Excalibur 01-20-2017 07:36 PM

Realistically, a firearm should be as simple as possible. A sidearm should just have no manual safety or a decocker. Just point and shoot and teach basic safety to the troops when handling them. A striker fire gun has a good trigger and is less problematic than a hammer fire gun

AdAstra2009 01-20-2017 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyles (Post 43322)
Meanwhile we've announced our intention to define the requirements to replace our 1940s Hi Powers by 2020... and to have a new pistol in service by 2026.

That said the P320 actually looks like a good choice to me. Light, reasonably inexpensive and suited to use by troops with small hands. Because let's be honest, most people carrying a sidearm are support trades, not doorkickers.

Yep, sidearms are not exactly decisive weapons. If your issued a sidearm its because your not expected to really use it.

Spartan198 01-21-2017 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPEMack618 (Post 43323)
Hell, I'm gonna be that guy longing for my Beretta when I finally have to give it up.

Why? I mean, the P320 does anything the Beretta can do, but in a smaller package.

AdAstra2009 01-21-2017 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan198 (Post 43329)
Why? I mean, the P320 does anything the Beretta can do, but in a smaller package.

Metal framed guns are better for pistol whipping! They also absorb more recoil.

Nyles 01-22-2017 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdAstra2009 (Post 43326)
Yep, sidearms are not exactly decisive weapons. If your issued a sidearm its because your not expected to really use it.

Truth. The main reason I had one in Afghanistan is that I worked at a desk and it saved me from lugging my C7 around for no reason. I even bought a Fobus holster so I could take it off and toss it on my desk without undoing my belt.

Mazryonh 01-22-2017 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdAstra2009 (Post 43326)
Yep, sidearms are not exactly decisive weapons. If your issued a sidearm its because your not expected to really use it.

There have been attempts to bridge the gap between the portability of a sidearm and the ease of use of a long gun. One weapon, the B&T USW has the size and shape of a sidearm to allow holstering, but also has a buttstock and mini red dot sight to make longer-distance shots easier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdAstra2009 (Post 43331)
Metal framed guns are better for pistol whipping! They also absorb more recoil.

Sure, metal-framed guns can be used as improvised hammers, but those used to Glocks had best get used to the increased weight of all-metal guns.

I wonder if this contract means that SIG handgun parts will become more common. Or even if the price of P320 handguns will decrease or be available on the surplus market. SIG P320 has a .45 ACP option available, which is something they could adopt. Given how SIG-Sauer made a 10mm version of their older P220 handgun, there's a chance they could make a 10mm version based on their P320 frame too.

Jcordell 01-22-2017 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 43324)
Realistically, a firearm should be as simple as possible. A sidearm should just have no manual safety or a decocker. Just point and shoot and teach basic safety to the troops when handling them. A striker fire gun has a good trigger and is less problematic than a hammer fire gun

I agree so the Army should go with the S&W Model 10 M&P revolver - .38 Special. ;)

S&Wshooter 01-23-2017 03:11 AM

You guys are missing the fact that if the frame gets all wore out and loose you can just toss it and get a new one with no hassle or anything, as it is not the serialized part and is fairly inexpensive. Also now retards will stop bitching about the slide mounted safety

Excalibur 01-23-2017 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S&Wshooter (Post 43335)
You guys are missing the fact that if the frame gets all wore out and loose you can just toss it and get a new one with no hassle or anything, as it is not the serialized part and is fairly inexpensive. Also now retards will stop bitching about the slide mounted safety

Yeah, but they made SIG create a new variant of the P320 with a manual safety.

I also disagree that if you are issued a pistol, you're not expected to use it. I think the mindset is that it's for certain people in certain situations that it's better to have a gun and not need it, even if you are say a guy doing supplies on base and you're rifle is somewhere else, or you drive for a living. I mean, SF guys have sidearms and they are fully expected to use them in combat, but handguns are not the be all end all in any combat situation.

If something goes bump in the night, I'm reaching for a bigger gun.

Jcordell 01-24-2017 06:47 AM

In all seriousness I think it will be fine. Easy to maintain, simple in it's function, easy to teach personnel who have no prior experience with real firearms and ,one assumes, sturdy and reliable. Polymer pistols are the new reality and they're here to stay. For the Army to choose a polymer pistol says something. The Army resisted the trend for a long time. Hell I carry a Glock 19 on duty and I have no issues with it. When I retire my department will gift it to me and I'm a dyed in the wool blue steel and wood furniture kind of guy. Your average soldier (not Delta, SF or Rangers) doesn't really give a shit about what he/she carries as long as it goes bang when they need it and it isn't horrifically heavy.

Excalibur 01-24-2017 04:41 PM

I think most troops who are more trained would probably carry it with the safety off since it was designed without one and practice their draw to make sure the safety is off. I know some people who do that with guns that have manual safeties. Maybe they can get permission to get ones without the safeties or remove them.

Jcordell 01-24-2017 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 43343)
I think most troops who are more trained would probably carry it with the safety off since it was designed without one and practice their draw to make sure the safety is off. I know some people who do that with guns that have manual safeties. Maybe they can get permission to get ones without the safeties or remove them.

It's the Army. The Army is a big believer that if you give a soldier an anvil and then leave him/her alone on a deserted island for a few hours when you come back the anvil will be broken. I served with guys who were basically a big bag or rocks. I get it. Might not agree with it, but I get it.

AdAstra2009 01-25-2017 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jcordell (Post 43334)
I agree so the Army should go with the S&W Model 10 M&P revolver - .38 Special. ;)

You could do that and probably not notice any difference whatsoever in the capabilities of our military!

Excalibur 01-25-2017 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jcordell (Post 43334)
I agree so the Army should go with the S&W Model 10 M&P revolver - .38 Special. ;)



The US Army did use a .38 at one point, but then they fought in the Spanish American war and realized the .38 suck ass.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jcordell (Post 43351)
It's the Army. The Army is a big believer that if you give a soldier an anvil and then leave him/her alone on a deserted island for a few hours when you come back the anvil will be broken. I served with guys who were basically a big bag or rocks. I get it. Might not agree with it, but I get it.


I agree with that for the most part, which is why training is important. That's why the Marines are some of our best shooters. If you want to truly test a piece of equipment, give it to the Marines. They'll find a way to break it...on purpose.

S&Wshooter 01-25-2017 07:53 PM

The .38 the military adopted as it's main pistol caliber was the .38 Long Colt, which was black powder and due to the design of the bullet tended to exit the barrel undersized


.38 Special has a pretty long history in the US military, with various revolvers chambered in it being substitute standards (off the top of my head, the US military has issued S&W .38 Hand Ejector, the S&W Victory, the S&W Model 10, Colt Commando snubs, Colt AND S&W patten M13 Aircrewmans, Ruger Service Sixes, S&W Model 12's, and S&W Model 15's). Also a loooooot of people that privately purchased sidearms (when one could get such a thing allowed) bought .38's, mostly Colt and S&W


https://www.americanrifleman.org/art...ary-revolvers/

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-rev...w-vietnam.html

Spartan198 01-27-2017 02:07 PM

Looks like they're sticking with 9mm, but looking at new types of ammunition.

http://kitup.military.com/2017/01/mo...un-system.html

Excalibur 01-27-2017 02:53 PM

They should try hollow points. I don't believe the US actually has signed any treaties that prevents them from not using them. I think we don't use them because of our allies, the same reason why we adopted the 9mm way back

S&Wshooter 01-28-2017 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 43361)
They should try hollow points. I don't believe the US actually has signed any treaties that prevents them from not using them. I think we don't use them because of our allies, the same reason why we adopted the 9mm way back

Even if we had signed treaties saying we couldn't use them, those treaties only ever apply to other signatories. Also terrorists are un-uniformed unlawful combatants so basically whatever needs to be done can be done no issue

Mazryonh 01-28-2017 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jcordell (Post 43351)
I served with guys who were basically a big bag of rocks.

I thought the US armed forces administered IQ tests to filter out new recruits. "Private SNAFUs" aren't highly desired commodities now, are they?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan198 (Post 43359)
Looks like they're sticking with 9mm, but looking at new types of ammunition.

http://kitup.military.com/2017/01/mo...un-system.html

It seems the original MHS requirement that a new caliber, more effective than 9mm Para, be adopted for the MHS handgun was dropped. But if the P320 compact does get a 10mm version (based off its .45 ACP frame size) than it'll probably be the first commercially-produced "compact-size" semi-auto handgun in 10mm.

Apparently SIG-Sauer also discontinued its previous modular handgun, the Sig P250, now that the P320 was accepted.

Jcordell 01-29-2017 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazryonh (Post 43364)
I thought the US armed forces administered IQ tests to filter out new recruits. "Private SNAFUs" aren't highly desired commodities now, are they?

They administer the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) and the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT). They do filter out the worst, but the Army is large and Pvt. SNAFUs get through. They get into the more selective branches as well like the Air Force and the Coast Guard.

StanTheMan 01-29-2017 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jcordell (Post 43339)
In all seriousness I think it will be fine. Easy to maintain, simple in it's function, easy to teach personnel who have no prior experience with real firearms and ,one assumes, sturdy and reliable. Polymer pistols are the new reality and they're here to stay. For the Army to choose a polymer pistol says something. The Army resisted the trend for a long time. Hell I carry a Glock 19 on duty and I have no issues with it. When I retire my department will gift it to me and I'm a dyed in the wool blue steel and wood furniture kind of guy. Your average soldier (not Delta, SF or Rangers) doesn't really give a shit about what he/she carries as long as it goes bang when they need it and it isn't horrifically heavy.

Pretty much with this. Though I do think SPEMack has something of a point, the whole 'KISS' deal. I too don't think the modular bits will really make much difference. Ease of replacement on the frame I think will be a plus, however.

That said I find it funny the SIG deal has kinda come full-circle. I really think they should have gone with the 226 before. Guess they'll get their turn now though.

All-told, I'm cool with this.

Excalibur 01-30-2017 03:19 PM

Realistically, there's nothing actually wrong with the Beretta design as a whole. It just had problems being maintained in the field and at the time, felt kinda heavy compared to other guns of the era. The only real problem currently one might have is if you are dead set with today's training that has you racking the slide during a reload and people would accidentally make the weapon safe because of the frame mounted safety/decocker.

I personally don't see a point in the DA/SA type of trigger for an automatic handgun. It makes sense functionally for a revolver because it relates to the hammer and cylinder but not for a handgun with a slide and even if it is hammer fired. I think it was one of those safety options out of fear of negligence, like how Browning originally intended the 1911 to have no safety of any kind, neither manual safety or grip safety until the Army told him.

commando552 02-02-2017 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 43376)
Realistically, there's nothing actually wrong with the Beretta design as a whole. It just had problems being maintained in the field and at the time, felt kinda heavy compared to other guns of the era. The only real problem currently one might have is if you are dead set with today's training that has you racking the slide during a reload and people would accidentally make the weapon safe because of the frame mounted safety/decocker.

I personally don't see a point in the DA/SA type of trigger for an automatic handgun. It makes sense functionally for a revolver because it relates to the hammer and cylinder but not for a handgun with a slide and even if it is hammer fired. I think it was one of those safety options out of fear of negligence, like how Browning originally intended the 1911 to have no safety of any kind, neither manual safety or grip safety until the Army told him.

If you go all the way back the first precursor to the 1911, the 1900, did have a safety catch but it was that awful one where it was actually the rear sight which was very hard to reach, and because of how it interfaced the firing pin had to have some material removed so kept breaking. As for the latter models that had no safety, the only way of safely carrying them was hammer down with an empty chamber, or with the hammer at half cock. The 1911 manual safety is a big improvement in my opinion as it allows you to carry it cocked with a round chambered, and the safety is easier to reach and manipulate than a half cocked hammer.

I'm personally a fan of DA/SA handguns with a decocker only. Out of the pistols that I have actually used a lot my personal favourite was the P226, then a Browning Hi-Power, than the Glock 17 coming in last. I get the argument that they require more training than striker guns so those are potentially a better option for a general issue weapon, but I just personally prefer how DA/SAs feel and shoot. The Beretta would have been OK if they went for the G model, but either way it would still have that open slide which seems like a horrific idea to me.

Mazryonh 02-03-2017 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jcordell (Post 43367)
They administer the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) and the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT). They do filter out the worst, but the Army is large and Pvt. SNAFUs get through. They get into the more selective branches as well like the Air Force and the Coast Guard.

You'd think that Pvt. SNAFUs would be kept out of the US Armed Forces since this is the age of public relations scandals, but it seems that things are pretty bad with "undesirable elements" getting in. At least with IQ you can test for it with a good degree of accuracy. Problematic attitudes is another thing.

Excalibur 02-03-2017 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by commando552 (Post 43387)
I'm personally a fan of DA/SA handguns with a decocker only. Out of the pistols that I have actually used a lot my personal favourite was the P226, then a Browning Hi-Power, than the Glock 17 coming in last. I get the argument that they require more training than striker guns so those are potentially a better option for a general issue weapon, but I just personally prefer how DA/SAs feel and shoot. The Beretta would have been OK if they went for the G model, but either way it would still have that open slide which seems like a horrific idea to me.

I think since I'm a civilian and only trained by guys from the military with what I call contemporary training that's always evolving, I wasn't indoctrinated in the way of thinking by any military or police institution in terms of what works. The military mindset is often very conservative and takes a long time for any meaningful changes to come about, especially the US military.

For me, personally, I like the ease of use of a handgun with no safety whatsoever because all civilians don't start off with the same military discipline when it comes to weapons training. The casual person, who wants a gun for defense only need to do is pick up gun, point at the danger and pull the trigger. You'd need a lot of time to train your body to draw, take safety off and shoot. An average person's flight or fight response will cause them to be confuse and forget, no matter how much civilian level training they get.

So I believe for a civilian just getting into shooting a handgun, should get used a gun without extra things like a manual safety or a decocker to worry about. All they need to do is know the safety rules - have that drilled in their heads and learn to shoot straight.

Once you transition to shooting something like a rifle, it's a different type of mindset.

StanTheMan 02-05-2017 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 43390)
For me, personally, I like the ease of use of a handgun with no safety whatsoever because all civilians don't start off with the same military discipline when it comes to weapons training. The casual person, who wants a gun for defense only need to do is pick up gun, point at the danger and pull the trigger. You'd need a lot of time to train your body to draw, take safety off and shoot. An average person's flight or fight response will cause them to be confuse and forget, no matter how much civilian level training they get.

So I believe for a civilian just getting into shooting a handgun, should get used a gun without extra things like a manual safety or a decocker to worry about. All they need to do is know the safety rules - have that drilled in their heads and learn to shoot straight.

In other words, revolvers. :)

Seriously this is what I would recommend here, and partly why I myself would use wheelguns as my primary carry and go-tos honestly - I'm quite sure I could operate a DA/SA gun if the need arose, but again, all about KISS, especially when shit gets terse and tense. You can indeed evolve from there. That being said -

Quote:

Originally Posted by commando552 (Post 43387)
I'm personally a fan of DA/SA handguns with a decocker only. Out of the pistols that I have actually used a lot my personal favourite was the P226, then a Browning Hi-Power, than the Glock 17 coming in last. I get the argument that they require more training than striker guns so those are potentially a better option for a general issue weapon, but I just personally prefer how DA/SAs feel and shoot. The Beretta would have been OK if they went for the G model, but either way it would still have that open slide which seems like a horrific idea to me.

Mostly this.

Excalibur 02-06-2017 02:56 PM

I actually don't recommend revolvers for new shoots on the sole reason is that their legendary reliability over semi autos is a myth.

We can get on a whole other debate about automatic handguns vs revolvers, but the crutch of my argument is that new shooters need to learn how to use a gun and for a new shooter, especially one who isn't a gun guy like we are, will most likely fumble with reloads on a revolver, have a harder time getting on target and shooting well with a double action trigger pull. For an automatic, you have more bullets, an easier trigger pull and ease of reloading, which an average joe might be doing if his or her aim isn't that great. If you're an expert, it's one mind, any weapon, but if you're just that one guy or gal who just wanted to get a gun for protection and don't even read the gun's manual or even clean it...don't go revolver.

StanTheMan 02-20-2017 02:28 AM

Without going too far into it, no wheelgun has a decocker or safety (well there are rare instances of the latter, and I emphasize rare) - They're still practically the most idiot-proof in terms of pointing and shooting. I do grant the reloads is an issue, but then again, it can be one anyway. Indeed that and the rest of your points I could argue to varying levels in regards to semiautos. But in interests of not derailing this, I'll not for now.

So where were we? :confused: Oh yeah, new SIG adoption. :D I had heard one of things was the modularity and thus easy allowance of the use of different calibers, though as I understand it, 9mm will still be the standard, so honestly I'm not seeing too much the point of having a whole new/other sidearm, in that regard. Unless I'm mistaken about something here.

Jcordell 02-20-2017 05:49 AM

Quote:

I had heard one of things was the modularity and thus easy allowance of the use of different calibers, though as I understand it, 9mm will still be the standard, so honestly I'm not seeing too much the point of having a whole new/other sidearm, in that regard. Unless I'm mistaken about something here.
Good point. I found a review of the 320 by Tom McHale on http://www.ammoland.com/2017/02/sig-...#axzz4ZCYX2nkh

He does a pretty job explaining the reasoning behind the switch. He seems to think it's all a little squishy as well, but at least it's an explanation. You know there have been many in the military who haven't been happy with the switch to an "Italian' pistol since it was announced in 1985. Most (if not all) of those folks are now retired and more than a few are dead, but the ill will directed at the Beretta have been inherited by the succeeding generation. Despite all the explanations I think that's the ultimate motive for selecting this new pistol.Personally I like the Beretta 92FS. I own one and back during my Army days I carried the M9 for awhile. I preferred it over the beat to hell 1911A1 that I started out with at the beginning of my Army career in 1986


Sig Sauer P320 Handgun

First and foremost, the P320 does away with the double-action / single-action operation that’s been in use the past 22 years. That’s neither a benefit or a drawback, it just is. There are great reasons to choose a double-action / single-action. There are great reasons to choose a striker-fired design like the P320. They’re just different.
So, just to be clear, the P320 as a striker-fired gun has the same trigger pull sensation from first to last shot.
The one sitting on my desk as I write this has a 6.25-pound trigger weight each and every time. In theory, when your business is teaching hundred of thousands of people to shoot a handgun, that constant trigger press makes things easier. It’s heavy enough to minimize the risk of an inadvertent discharge but light enough to facilitate accurate shooting.
The other big visible difference from the Beretta M9 is that the Sig Sauer P320 is made of plastic, or at least the frame is. In fact, most of the MHS entries from Beretta, Smith & Wesson, and Glock were polymer-frame guns. Not only are they lighter, but they’re also cheaper and easier to manufacture and less finicky about environmental concerns like rust. Of course, the bang-bang stuff like barrels and slides are all steel, it’s just the support infrastructure that’s made of polymer. You’ll also notice a mil-spec rail up front and ambidextrous slide release levers.


Those two things are the big visible differences, but what really drove the choice was the modular nature of the Sig Sauer P320. Unlike most pistols, the “gun” portion, at least in a legal sense, is a self-contained fire control system chassis. This central assembly contains the trigger, striker, ejector and other fire control gizmos and simply lifts out of the frame. The grip frame, barrel, recoil spring, and slide are just non-serialized parts.
Why is that a big deal? The “gun” has no caliber, length, height, or weight. All of that depends on the parts you use around the “gun.” For example, once you have the fire control chassis, you can use it to assemble a 9mm full size, .40 S&W compact, or perhaps a .357 Sig Sub Compact, or virtually any other combination of frame size, barrel length, and caliber.


Not having been on the Modular Handgun System selection committee, I can only guess, but I’d bet lunch that the idea of having interchangeable plastic frames had a lot of appeal for the Army folks. Some people have big hands while other Presidents, I mean people, have small hands. Sure, there are solutions on other pistol platforms that adjust grip size with insert grip panels attached by pins. But if you’re buying a billion guns that are going to get abused in the worst of conditions for a couple of decades, I would think that having whole frames with different grip sizes would be an appealing thing. No loose parts, no pins, and no grip panels to track and reconfigure. Plus, if one gets destroyed, you can just pull another whole frame out of the parts bin and swap it out.

I suspect there’s going to be a big administrative advantage to the modular idea too. When eleventy-billion HumVee loads of serialized items are purchased by a big bureaucratic behemoth like the U.S. Department of Endless Bidding Procedures, inventory management, and tracking becomes a really big deal. In theory, the modular system can make this a lot simpler as there is no “hard coded” association between a “gun” and it’s size, shape, or caliber. The serialized gun is the internal fire control chassis that works with any grip frame, barrel, and slide. It’s also not caliber specific (at least for 9mm, .40 S&W, and .357 Sig), so if the Army wants some of them to be configured in .40 S&W for a while, it’s no big deal.
All of the components required to reconfigure guns for different applications are just non-serialized parts. Armorers are going to be busy, but at least the configuring job is simple.



Spartan198 02-28-2017 01:55 PM

https://kitup.military.com/2017/02/m...-system-2.html

Here we go.

Spartan198 05-04-2017 10:54 AM

The Navy, Air Force, and Marines have decided to follow the Army and replace their M9s with M17s.

https://kitup.military.com/2017/05/m...-system-3.html

funkychinaman 05-04-2017 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan198 (Post 43553)
The Navy, Air Force, and Marines have decided to follow the Army and replace their M9s with M17s.

https://kitup.military.com/2017/05/m...-system-3.html

According to the article, the full sized pistol will be the M17, while the compact will be the M18. But isn't the trigger module the only serialized unit here? Isn't the frame a non-serialized component that can be easily swapped out? If so, why the different designations?


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.