SIG-Sauer P320 to replace Beretta M9

[Excalibur]

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

[Mazryonh]

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.

[Mandolin]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

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.

[Mazryonh]

Originally Posted by Mandolin

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 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.

[funkychinaman]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

The process of something being admitted 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.

[Spartan198]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

The US Armed Forces went with 5.56mm NATO in the Vietnam War long before it became a NATO standard in 1980.

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

[Evil Tim]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

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.

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.

[Excalibur]

Originally Posted by Evil Tim

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

[Mazryonh]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

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

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

Originally Posted by Spartan198

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

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.

Originally Posted by Evil Tim

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Excalibur

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

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.

[Spartan198]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

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

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.