I think that the fact about the trigger module rather than the frame being serialised is kind of irrelevant in this case, as the M17 and M18 will use the same frame anyway with the slide being changed. As for the different designations, I imagine that individual pistols will never actually change between being full size or compacts. I suspect that the modularity of the frames and internal chassis is more of a manufacturing and maintenance benefit rather than being something that individual soldiers will ever do anything with. If in the long term it was decided that fewer M17s were needed and they wanted more M18s, I doubt it would be much of a problem for them to do the conversion and just redesignate them as M18s (guns have changed designation before when they have been upgraded, and they have also converted existing weapons into different weapons with a different designation). Also, if they didn't have a different designation it would be pretty confusing from a logistics standpoint as nobody would actually know what pistol was being referred to without qualifying it.

Glock has released photos of their MHS entries, for anyone interested.

https://kitup.military.com/2017/06/glock-inc.html

It seems Glock just won't accept that they were passed over.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...kly+Newsletter

65% of the global law enforcement market just isn't enough for them?

SIG is no slouch, though. SEALs have been using the 226 with zero complaints for over 20 years now. And besides, what did Glock expect when their bid was effectively double what SIG's was? That they'd get picked just for being Glock? This isn't a contract to outfit a few thousand police officers, it's all four main branches of the armed forces, meaning probably over a million individual units easily.

Actually, NSW switched over to the Glock 19.

I like SIGs, but the P320 is not one of my favorite SIG pistols, and I think the Army's requirements were misguided. Personally, I would have gone with Glock, given existing customer base in SOF units, and the fact that it is now a more mature design than the P320 family.

It's a lot of hot air, but I don't blame them for being frustrated.

What is the 95th Rule of Acquisition? "Expand or die."

By the way, the lawsuit between Helga Glock and Gaston Glock was settled in Gaston's favour in early 2017. I have a feeling some highly-placed people in the company want some increased market share so as to help pay the legal fees.

From what I've read, the SIG and Glock both met specs with the performance differences between them trivial at best, so picking the cheaper option makes obvious sense. The Beretta 92 is widely believed to be inferior to the SIG 226 (an opinion I share), but can anyone say it hasn't proven to still be an excellent pistol over the years?

Glock is pushing for the MHS program to be restarted, but if it is, I suspect it will end up backfiring on them and get the program cancelled altogether.

The whole underbidding of contacts is always a staple. We wish the best money can buy should be afforded to the guys in uniform but politics and costs will always put it down

Like I said, the performance differences between the SIG and Glock were trivial at best and both passed specs. If both pistols will do the job satisfactorily, what exactly makes the cheaper option bad? This is where that whole "lowest bidder" adage falls short; if two products offer equal capability, it makes no economic sense to get the more expensive one.

I'm also questioning the purpose of something a gimmicky sounding as "Modular". As if it was purpose built to be that mindset. For basic infantry that are issued a sidearm, why does it matter if it can be changed into a more compact weapon? It's a sidearm that will most likely not see use. While Special Forces type will most likely see more uses with pistols, their loadout should change depending on the mission they are on, unless they plan to bring different frames and slides to drop the P320's internal while out on the field?

I can understand the concept of having a purpose built weapon if it was a rifle, but I don't see the need to have it on a pistol.

The way I'm thinking, it may be partly so if the frame wears out/breaks, they can really easily change it without having to get into the mess of keeping track of serials, since the serialized part is that little chassis

frame crack? toss that bitch in the trash, get another out of the big-ass box of them you have laying around

They do test pistols under extreme conditions and it's the military. They can replace entire weapon systems if shit happens to it. The US military certainly has the budget for it.

While unrelated to MHS, I feel compelled to reveal that SIG beat Glock AGAIN! :D

This in light of other branches like the US Marines adopting it.

I'm personally wondering if the SIG P220 in 10mm sold enough for SIG-Sauer to try manufacturing a 10mm version of their SIG P320 handgun. Now that's something that US armed forces should try. With a pistol that can reliably hit targets without much ballistic drop past 50 yards while retaining a lot of energy beyond that distance, a soldier could carry one of these and honestly say s/he's not carrying a peashooter.

Except 10mm Auto isn't NATO standard and never will be. Besides, you're not engaging with a pistol at 50+ yards. You're using a pistol at under 10.

The other branches adopting it is likely just a formality. It's highly unlikely they could justify buying more M9s while the Army is buying thousands of M17s and M18s. Besides, I'm pretty sure the Danish trials started before the other branches committed to MHS.

Formality is one way to put it. Though since pistols aren't a primary weapon and aren't issued to everybody, it isn't the most important thing

The process of something being admitted to, or barred from, becoming a NATO standard is a bit fuzzy. The US Armed Forces went with 5.56mm NATO in the Vietnam War long before it became a NATO standard in 1980. There was also the indefinite postponement of 5.7x28mm becoming a NATO standard when the Germans complained about their 4.6x30mm round being left out.

The infrastructure for widespread 10mm Auto manufacturing already exists, in the form of .40 S&W manufacturing lines (because .40 S&W cases are just 3mm shorter than 10mm Auto cases). Furthermore, using 10mm Auto in an compact-SMG-type (perhaps with an MP7-style layout) platform instead of 5.56mm SBRs can save money and soldiers' hearing, because SBRs waste a lot of powder in the casings with every shot, and SMGs are much easier to suppress efficiently from short barrels than SBRs, and SMGs are also quieter than SBRs when unsuppressed.

I still think it would be interesting if SIG-Sauer puts out a 10mm version of their M17 and M18 handguns and some gun vlogger tests it alongside the 9x19mm versions. If it comes down to the handgun or SMG, at least the ballistic performance and barrier-blind performance of the 10mm Auto over the 9mm Para will mean that the soldier with that handgun or SMG will be that much more capable.

SOCOM has tremendous leeway when it comes to weapons selection, and they're happy with 9mm and .45 ACP.

Same caliber, but different rounds. That was the M193 series. The round chosen for NATO standardization was the SS109/M855.

The main issue is that 10mm Auto has a really bad reputation in military / LE because none of the early guns that fired it worked properly and a lot of the early ammo was faulty.

I thought the primary reason for not adopting the 10mm was because women and some "weak" men can't handle the recoil, so they then took some powder out and then got the bright idea of creating the .40 S&W

I don't know anything about SOCOM or whether they've heard about or even given 10mm Auto handguns/SMGs a fair shake.

They still used 5.56x45mm for a long time before it became a NATO standard. Essentially they went it alone and waited for the other NATO members to follow suit.

You could say the same about the early-model M16s and the early 5.56x45mm combat loadings. I'd say that the 10mm has already proven itself quite a bit, just not in many well-known professional environments. The FBI HRT still uses the MP5/10, for instance.

That was the case for the FBI. Had things been a little different, such as if the 10mm had been put into a Mini-Uzi-type platform, or even a variant of the M2 Carbine, or an MP5K-PDW, for use as a PDW or even compact duty weapon for a Law Enforcement Agency, then it would have been much more controllable since those platforms have more points of contact than handguns.

A lot of people don't want to take the effort to master the weapons they're issued. Budget issues also don't help since weapon qualifications are usually not very often either. If those women and "weak" men made some honest efforts, more of them might have been able to handle 10mm handguns. New platforms like the B&T Universal Service Weapon would definitely help though.

You could indeed, but the Army knew damn well they weren't going to get another new rifle after the M14 had the shortest service life of any standard-issue rifle in US history, so they were going to have to make it work. If the FBI had bought a million 10mm Auto guns rather than a handful you'd have seen the same thing, but they didn't.

That's fair. I'm sure one day they'll take a minute to evaluate a cartridge that's been available for over thirty years.

I think it's safe to assume they've heard about it. I'm sure someone in SOCOM has seen an episode of Miami Vice or read a firearms publication since 1983.

I thought the FBI HRT retired the MP5/10 because it was overpowered for a platform that was never designed for it

There's no need to be sarcastic. But given the examples you brought up, hasn't the MP5 in 9mm had a long history among the special forces? If the MP5/10 was more widely available I think they'd see it as a straight upgrade. The advantages are substantial and the infrastructure is already there.

Wasn't there a variant of the HK G3 battle rifle (the base platform for the MP5) that used 5.56mm NATO, called the HK33? I think it's clear that the G3 platform could handle the pressures of the 10mm, if the right variant of the G3 was made.

Actually most of the advantages of 9mm in SF and police use are in things like not penetrating walls as much, they don't necessarily want a more powerful round for the work they do with subguns. Also 10mm rounds are over twice as expensive as 9mm.

And if they wanted more power, then there's various AR carbines in 5.56.

Sorry about the sarcasm, but it's like arguing for Betamax at this point. The 10mm Auto had its chance, and for a variety of reasons, no one bit. It's time to move on.

Betamax? "Be kind, rewind!"

But seriously, aren't you glad electronic trends like Moore's Law don't apply to the laws of ballistics (which are the same as they were in the 1980s and before) and ballistic weapons in general? We still use muzzleloaders, airguns, bows, and even slingshots. Obsolescence in ballistic weaponry isn't quite as cut-and-dry as obsolescence in the IT world. Besides, the infrastructure that once supported Betamax is long gone. 10mm Auto ammunition on the other hand still has existing infrastructure to support it, or infrastructure that could be easily converted to do so.

Here are some interesting links. I don't know if this is current but here's a link saying that the FBI Hostage Rescue Team still uses the MP5/10. I've heard elsewhere that H&K still supplies them with replacement parts.

There's another magazine article here that outlines a couple other reasons why the MP5 is useful in CQB over the M4 and other 5.56mm SBRs. One was the lowered noise level of the MP5, even while unsuppressed, to reduce hearing damage and suppressor wear. Another was that friendly fire incidents with the MP5 were much less likely to be lethal since most kevlar is good enough to stop 9mm rounds, while you need a Level III or Level IV armour plate to stop 5.56mm NATO rounds (and that might not even stop AP versions). The need for AP fire was covered by one or a few members of a team carrying an M4. Yes, this article was written before the adoption of .300 BLK in M4 carbines for subsonic suppressed fire, but I'll get to that shortly.

So there is in fact some evidence that the 10mm in SMG or pistol-caliber carbine form could be a good solution to bridge the capability gap between SMGs and SBRs (i.e., being able to get good midrange performance with ease of suppression with subsonic ammo), most especially in an LEO context where the ability to share ammunition between handguns and SMGs can simplify logistics (and I haven't heard of any .300 BLK semiauto handguns). Being able to shoot through car windshields is also something some 5.56mm NATO loadings have trouble with, whereas 10mm in full-power loadings has less trouble doing so.

There's also the possibility to close the AP capability gap (at least at short range) by loading 10mm ammo with penetrators, just like the Russians did with their 9mm AP loadings. With greater case volume available in 10mm Auto than the 9x19mm cartridge, you could get more effective range while retaining AP abilities than the lightly-loaded and overpressured 9mm AP projectiles can.

No one uses that stuff in combat though

I may be mistaken, but there's a notable lack of MP5s in HRT hands recently. They're using HK416s or other shorty M4s.

"We use 9mm so we don't kill each other" is the dumbest possible reason to use a MP5. Stop shooting each other!

The point remains that unlike Moore's Law, human bodies have remained as vulnerable as ever to ballistic trauma. That's why killing people with those weapons is just as viable as it was centuries ago.

You might also be interested in how the US Army released an RFI for "Sub Compact Weapons" in 9x19mm on May 2, 2018.

I didn't say that the article was current up-to-the-second.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger. We still have NDs with pistols, and "green zone attacks" from people who are recruited and make it somewhere but end up taking out their vendettas against their putative allies and comrades-in-arms.

In other news, there's a lot of recent news articles about organizations adopting the M17 or M18 MHS handgun.

• The USAF and USN are looking to order the M18 version of the P320.
• The USMC is following suit with the US Army and adopting the MHS as well.
• There are also people claiming that the P320 is a "total game changer."

Compromising effectiveness is good because our guys might get hurt by our own weapons, so we should...adopt a more powerful round? :confused:

It's more like mistrust of our troops and instead of training them, it's more cost effective to give them equipment where they rely on the gadget to protect them from accidents?

I still feel that the DA/SA trigger is pointless given basic level of training and practice to military and police. The DA/SA revolver made sense because it's actually a mechanism that operates the gun to shoot, but the DA/SA semi-auto was invented for the sole purpose of prevent accidents in poorly trained troops and for low quality training for police. I remember when Teddy Roosevelt becoming chief of New York City's police and he made sure every officer under his command is properly trained in their weapons.

You're forgetting something important. 10mm Auto, unless loaded with penetrators, can't penetrate Level IIIA body armour. The same "just in case our rounds go astray into one of our guys" factor would still apply, assuming "our guys" are all using Level IIIA body armour where their (rifle-resistant) plates aren't covering.

Once again the Russians have been upgrading 9x19mm handguns and SMGs for their own forces as well.

Also, take a look at this recent video of someone letting rip with his full-auto 10mm MP5. That doesn't look like the gun has "uncontrollable recoil" to me.

I'd also think it's a case using a technological solution to prevent what is in fact a training issue. The current lack of training for handguns used by LEOs is partly a budget issue too. The most likely cause is that the higher-ups feel that having more LEOs on the streets to respond to more calls is more important than making sure every one of them is good enough with their weapons.

Another example of technology making up for lack of training with regards to the P320 is the B&T-made grip module that provides a folding stock for the P320. It's certainly easier to shoot a handgun accurately with a folding stock than without one, but not as easily as one would a compact SMG with a buttstock that can take a proper cheekweld and a foregrip/handguard for the off-hand.

Wrong, it's so training carries over AND so if one doesn't want to be stuck with a revolver, they aren't then stuck with a SAO handgun (of which there are only TWO common designs, the BHP and 1911, compared to the million and a half DA options). DA/SA allows the shooter to carry a gun that's immediately ready to shoot (requiring no fine motor control to make ready like a SAO), that ISN'T limited to just 5-6 shots, and that will have a fairly short trigger after the initial shot. Also with the DA/SA, you don't really need a safety, just decock before you holster; this is better than having to hit a lever before you fire like with a single action pistol, which most people won't remember to do under stress, or will be disregard in favor of carrying the gun hammer down.

If DA/SA was so bad, you wouldn't have seen the US Army trying to copy the P38 after WW2, then like 35 years of most everyone that knew better carrying S&W autos, SIGs, CZ's, and HKs. The 1911 fad came later, counter to popular belief, and a lot of the features (beavertail, raised sights, extended slide release and safety) common now to make them more suited as a fighting gun have their roots in customization made for competition shooting rather than a need to put people in the ground

The reason why people carried the 1911 hammer down is not on a live round or they're stupid because 1911s don't have hammer blocks if you ride the hammer down on a live round. Early US Army SOP with the 1911 was to carry it empty chamber with the hammer down. Later, they changed it to cocked and lock. A lot of Armies didn't trust semi autos even with manual safeties so when the DA/SA was invented, it gave them a hammer block when putting the weapon on safety, which drops the hammer during decock. Exceptions is the British and other countries with the Browning Hi-Power, a single action gun that's only been recently retired from the UK and for some reason, those guys train with carrying in condition 3.

I disagree. The US army is notorious for slow in adopting in any new equipment. Look at the the M16's history will tell you. By the time the 80s rolled around, they needed to replace all the 1911s that are still in inventory because they have not bought any new ones and had poorly maintained all of them. They wanted a 9mm to be friendly with NATO and Beretta won the contract because SIG didn't want to spend extra money to build a factory in America and cost more than the 92 that became the M9. The other guns that competed were Smith & Wesson Model 459A, P226, H&K P7M8 and P7M13, Walther P88, Steyr GB and FN ADA.

And what do you mean a 5-6 shot gun? By the beginning of WWII, most military forces had adopted guns that were at least 7 to 10 shots with the exceptions being the Russians still using the Nagant revolvers along said the Tokerov or the British Webley

The whole concept that with a DA/SA gun, you can carry it "ready to go" doesn't make sense. All handguns are designed to be chambered and carried ready. Most have safeties. Some don't. Glock became the first adopted service weapon to forgo any type of manual safety, which way back in the 1911 days was added at the request of the US Army and not because Browning first designed it.

The SIG being the only DA/SA gun that has no manual safety, all other handguns that have ever been adopted for use like the Beretta, HK, all the way back to the Walter P38 that popularized the DA/SA system has a manual safety with the decocker. So when operating those guns, you still need to take the gun off safe and pull the heavy double action.


I understand why you might think that adopting the DA/SA is to carry over from revolvers, but that only applies to US law enforcement and it's been a mix of revolvers and semi-autos for many years before recently retiring of all revolvers as main service weapons. Military from all around the world, especially the Germans and Italians that basically invented the DA/SA for semi-autos have long since stopped using revolvers prior to WWI (or popularized the adoption). The Great War was the age of military forces changing from revolvers to semi autos en masse except for a few countries like England.


I personally think DA/SA pistols have no place in modern shooting and should be pushed aside from systems like Glock. No manual safety to worry about flicking on or off and no heavy double action trigger and then inconsistently transition to a single action pull, which to the lowly trained soldier or police officer will throw off their first shots. This is a system only meant for people who put time training for it. This is why I don't recommend this type of gun for beginners and advocate training and practice if you want to carry a gun for protection.