SIG-Sauer P320 to replace Beretta M9

[commando552]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

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]

Originally Posted by Jcordell

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]

Originally Posted by commando552

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]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

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 -

Originally Posted by commando552

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]

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]

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? Oh yeah, new SIG adoption. 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]

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]

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

Here we go.

[Spartan198]

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]

Originally Posted by Spartan198

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?