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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.