SIG-Sauer P320 to replace Beretta M9

[Mazryonh]

Originally Posted by Jcordell

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?

Originally Posted by Spartan198

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]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

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]

Originally Posted by Jcordell

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.