Sig Sauer Wins US Pistol contract

okiegtrider said:
Didn't expect that. Thought Glock was a shoe in.

Shows what I know.
ne_nau.gif
Click to expand...

I own both the Glock 19 and Sig Sauer P320C and hands down the P320 has the following advantages over the G19

1. P320C has a much softer recoil than G19
-P320 has higher bore axis but the heavier slide along with Sig rounded corners on grip soak up a lot of the recoil

2. P320 ergonomics is way better than G19
-Even the Gen4, the grip on G19 feels like a piece of brick in your hands and not very comfortable to hold.

3. The P320 with the different frames, can allow people with very short fingers to reach trigger where the Glock 19, the only remedy is to fill the rear with expoxy and sand it down.

4. P320 more concealable and not as uncomfortable as G19.

The disadvantage of the P320 is the frame seems cheap, may not hold up to running over with a truck or slamming against a concrete wall as well as a G19. And many of the first release of 320 owners had many issues with the extractor not working. However, G19 when it first came out with gen4 also had issues. I also think the Sig magazines will be much pricier than G19

all and all, I think the Army made a smart decision. I also think MP did not get the contract because the Compact 9mm only holds 12 rounds.
 
Apparently, the Army's new P320s will have a feature that prevents removal of the chassis or the slide cover plate by the end user.

So, the brain trust at the Pentagon bought a pistol which has, as its primary selling point, the ability of the end user to re-configure the pistol. And then they had SIG Sauer incorporate something that makes that difficult or impossible for said end user.

I suppose this tells us what the Army thinks of the soldiers who will carry this pistol.

For me, it sends an equally clear message about the people who run such acquisition programs, and those who make decisions concerning small arms and their features.

Let us hope my information is not correct.
 
Leatherman-Cowboy said:
WVSig

You are correct the gun will be made in the US, by American workers,,,not disputing that.
My point was to use a US manufacturer. I did look up Sig Sauer before I posted. Schleswig-Holstein, Germany.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you didn't look it up enough that Sig Sauer has completely moved it's operation to the United States because of the export ban the German government placed on Sig Sauer. Sig Sauer in Germany exists only to produce guns in Germany and parts of Europe. Everywhere else get US Manufactured firearms. It's roots some from Switzerland and Germany, but the Sig Sauer of today is a United States company supplying the United States with a firearm designed by Americans and built by Americans.

As to why the 1911 wouldn't cut it, we're forced due to practicality and supplies to use 9mm. Why would you want a 10+1 single stack gun compared to a 15-17+1 double stack that retains quite a bit of the 1911 grip dimensions while being as reliable, easier to work on, and requires far fewer parts and springs? Double stack 1911s have never been known to be the most reliable guns in the world and cost 3-4x what a reliable striker fired gun does without ever having to mention the words "Magazine Tuning."

As for why they didn't go with Glock, it doesn't meet the modularity requirements as well as the Sig, doesn't have an external safety, and since Sig Sauer is making damn near everything to do with firearms, they can get whatever accessories, spare parts, and whatnot direct from Sig for a discount. It's also far more comfortable than a stock Glock, has a better trigger than a stock Glock, and has better sights than a stock Glock.
 
shawn mccarver said:
I suppose this tells us what the Army thinks of the soldiers who will carry this pistol.
Click to expand...
It doesn't take much historical knowledge to know that some soldiers tend to do unauthorized things with government property if the property is not secured and accounted for. Soldiers are just people and in any group of people there are those that will steal if you make it easy for them to steal. Indeed, the easier it is to steal, the more likely someone that would otherwise not steal is tempted. It's in the nature of man.
 
shawn mccarver said:
Apparently, the Army's new P320s will have a feature that prevents removal of the chassis or the slide cover plate by the end user.

So, the brain trust at the Pentagon bought a pistol which has, as its primary selling point, the ability of the end user to re-configure the pistol. And then they had SIG Sauer incorporate something that makes that difficult or impossible for said end user.

I suppose this tells us what the Army thinks of the soldiers who will carry this pistol.

For me, it sends an equally clear message about the people who run such acquisition programs, and those who make decisions concerning small arms and their features.

Let us hope my information is not correct.
Click to expand...

Cardboard_killer said:
It doesn't take much historical knowledge to know that some soldiers tend to do unauthorized things with government property if the property is not secured and accounted for. Soldiers are just people and in any group of people there are those that will steal if you make it easy for them to steal. Indeed, the easier it is to steal, the more likely someone that would otherwise not steal is tempted. It's in the nature of man.
Click to expand...
Exactly this^

Not long ago there were a lot of nice AimPoints and Trijicon optics for sale really cheap if you knew where to look. All of them came off military rifles but none of them were surplused. Someone decided to make a few bucks.


Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
M9 to P320

Inusuit said:
So what happens to all the m9s? Will any reach the civilian market? Maybe through DCM? I suppose we can hope.
Click to expand...

I'm almost positive that you won't see any service models released to the civilian market. I remember when they went from 1911's to M9's, all the 1911's and parts were destroyed.
 
WVSig said:
I imagine it will be fielded in 9mm and 40 S&W because the the striker firing module which technically is the gun can be used in either calibers frame. The firing module for the 45 is different and requires different frames. It looks like they added a thumb safety to the commercial version.
Click to expand...


Not true. The Fire Control Unit (FCU) will work in all calibers.

The p250, and p320 use the same grip frames and magazines.

The .45 ACP has a different grip frame because the magazines are wider than the other calibers.
 
Cardboard_killer said:
It doesn't take much historical knowledge to know that some soldiers tend to do unauthorized things with government property if the property is not secured and accounted for. Soldiers are just people and in any group of people there are those that will steal if you make it easy for them to steal. Indeed, the easier it is to steal, the more likely someone that would otherwise not steal is tempted. It's in the nature of man.
Click to expand...

While I appreciate your schooling me on the tendencies of man, the idea that we are going to inconvenience 99.9% of the people in order to address the failings of the other one-tenth of one percent is the same faulty logic used by gun control people to justify permits, background checks, keeping weapons in a shooting club instead of at home, etc.

I suggest instead ridding the Army of the criminals, and when they are discovered, prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
 
sfcjcl said:
I remember when they went from 1911's to M9's, all the 1911's and parts were destroyed.
Click to expand...

Really?

Wow, I wonder where the Marines were getting all those little-used 1911s they used to build their MARSOC guns before they began to buy them off the shelf because they could not build them fast enough. And, I wonder where all the 1911s that are going to be sold through the CMP are coming from.
 
eveled said:
The Fire Control Unit (FCU) will work in all calibers.
Click to expand...

I do not believe this is correct. When I read your post, I immediately thought otherwise, but on the chance I was wrong I called SIG Sauer. They confirmed that the FCU is the same for 9mm, .357, and .40; but, that the .45 uses a separate FCU that is not compatible with the other three calibers.

Thus, in the 9mm, .357, and .40, the end user can change from grip module sizes and calibers, as well as, with proper upper unit, from compact to full size, etc.

However, .45 is its own system, and you can change from compact to full size, but you cannot change the caliber.
 
shawn mccarver said:
Really?

Wow, I wonder where the Marines were getting all those little-used 1911s they used to build their MARSOC guns before they began to buy them off the shelf because they could not build them fast enough. And, I wonder where all the 1911s that are going to be sold through the CMP are coming from.
Click to expand...
Special Operations command doesn't count. They have their own procurement.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
shawn mccarver said:
While I appreciate your schooling me on the tendencies of man, the idea that we are going to inconvenience 99.9% of the people in order to address the failings of the other one-tenth of one percent is the same faulty logic used by gun control people to justify permits, background checks, keeping weapons in a shooting club instead of at home, etc.

I suggest instead ridding the Army of the criminals, and when they are discovered, prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
Click to expand...
How exactly are they "inconveniencing" anyone?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
Arik said:
Special Operations command doesn't count. They have their own procurement.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The point I was making is that prior to "procuring" pistols from Springfield, Kimber, and the latest Colt M45A1, the Marine gunsmiths at Quantico used 1911s from military stock to build the MARSOC 1911s, which proves the military did not destroy all of the old 1911s, as the other poster had asserted in his post. In addition, I pointed out, as has at least one other poster, that the 1911s have been approved for sale through the CMP, although when that will happen is anyone's guess. Again, this merely proves that the military did not destroy the old 1911s when they switched to the M9 Beretta, as the poster had asserted. Otherwise, they would not have any 1911s to sell through the CMP.
 
DanHend said:
Obviously, you didn't look it up enough that Sig Sauer has completely moved it's operation to the United States because of the export ban the German government placed on Sig Sauer. Sig Sauer in Germany exists only to produce guns in Germany and parts of Europe. Everywhere else get US Manufactured firearms. It's roots some from Switzerland and Germany, but the Sig Sauer of today is a United States company supplying the United States with a firearm designed by Americans and built by Americans.

As to why the 1911 wouldn't cut it, we're forced due to practicality and supplies to use 9mm. Why would you want a 10+1 single stack gun compared to a 15-17+1 double stack that retains quite a bit of the 1911 grip dimensions while being as reliable, easier to work on, and requires far fewer parts and springs? Double stack 1911s have never been known to be the most reliable guns in the world and cost 3-4x what a reliable striker fired gun does without ever having to mention the words "Magazine Tuning."

As for why they didn't go with Glock, it doesn't meet the modularity requirements as well as the Sig, doesn't have an external safety, and since Sig Sauer is making damn near everything to do with firearms, they can get whatever accessories, spare parts, and whatnot direct from Sig for a discount. It's also far more comfortable than a stock Glock, has a better trigger than a stock Glock, and has better sights than a stock Glock.
Click to expand...

That is great to know, but all I would have liked to see was that a US Company,,,Springfield-Smith/Wesson etc. I am sure either Company would be able to design a semi that hold's 17+.
I am sure many points can be argued, and will vary depending on the person. Either way, the contract went to Sig Sauer, and I am sure it will serve each person very well.

I will hold on to my US Springfield 1911.

I do thank you for your detailed reply.

Thank you,
 
shawn mccarver said:
I do not believe this is correct. When I read your post, I immediately thought otherwise, but on the chance I was wrong I called SIG Sauer. They confirmed that the FCU is the same for 9mm, .357, and .40; but, that the .45 uses a separate FCU that is not compatible with the other three calibers.

Thus, in the 9mm, .357, and .40, the end user can change from grip module sizes and calibers, as well as, with proper upper unit, from compact to full size, etc.

However, .45 is its own system, and you can change from compact to full size, but you cannot change the caliber.
Click to expand...

Strange, on the p250 the FCU will fit any caliber, and we have been told the 250 and the 320 use the same grip frames. I must be missing something.
 
Neat pistols. I like them a lot. Has anybody noticed that the DoD (et al) is buying different small arms for different branches? Berettas, SIGs, GLOCKs, FNs and Colts abound!

Nothing has been said about the USMC or USN or USAF. By my way of thinking the $580M (yes, with an 'M') is for enough pistols to outfit the Army.

The Marine Corps in 2006 purchased the lowers (and complete guns) to the M9A1 to replace frames in use since the early 90s. They are the only users of the M9A1. They purchased millions of dollars on the holsters, spare parts and other accessories for the M9A1.

I have a funny feeling about the SIG 320. Great gun, but the press release was done a day before the changeover in administrations and SecDef.

I would adopt a "Wait and See" to ascertain EXACTLY how this changeover is going to happen. The press release said that the 320 was going to be in the 9mm (so it can be changed over to .357 SIG and .40 S&W). Folks, the whole reason for the "change" was to go to a bigger caliber (.45 ACP).

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this contract was "turned off" and the Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) of the Beretta M9A3 was done instead. Beretta has said that it will ship new M9A3s as an ECP (rather than a new contract) to fulfill the existing contracts. Makes fiscal sense.

Since my recent retirement from the Corps in November, I am a Contractor tracking costs and readiness of the Naval Aviation Enterprise (NAE). In the NAE, there is much talk about contracts and doing more with less. This way of thinking translates to the DoD writ large.

I don't have a 'dog in the race', but I would be very watchful about this contract. $580M is a lot of money to pay for the Army's new "toy" in 9mm. The new M9A3 makes sense as an updated adjunct to the venerable M9. Think of the new training, equipment, TO&E and of course the roll-out of the 320. We're talking years and years...

I think that the COTS solution to MARSOC and the SEAL Teams getting GLOCK 19s is based squarely on their mission and the logistics of support throughout the world. Likewise, the Beretta M9 already has an established track record and support system for the Rank and File Marine, Airman, Soldier and Sailor. Coasties are left out,as they have the P229 in .40 S&W.

One more aside: The FBI really wanted the 320. They wrote the Request for Proposal (RFP) in such a way that they would get the SIG 320. Newsflash: The GLOCK 17M/19M still did it! My money is on the M9A3 or GLOCK. Whatever "new" platform that is picked (320 or GLOCK) will experience production delays and a long roll-out. I would love to see the Army's XM17 Plan of Action and Milestone (POA&M) document for the 320's roll-out. I think five years. A lot of things can happen in a five year POM cycle.

The USMC is satisfied with the M9. Are there better pistols? Of course! There always will be. The M9A1 (since 2006) is just now being issued to the Air Wing. It has done what it's designed to do and is one of the safest pistols there is.

Think about "Big Army". Lots of training to "undo" the familiar DA/SA training of the M9. Not saying it can't/won't happen, but I think the timing of the contract's press release is curiously suspect.

Who knows what SecDef Mattis thinks of it? I think there's more pressing matters in the DoD to handle before fielding a new modular pistol.

Just thinking aloud...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jimmyj
Sig-Sauer P-320
Replies
2
Views
234
WardenRoss
WardenRoss
abigails&w
New SIG Sauer P210 Carry model
Replies
8
Views
1K
ridewv
ridewv
O
Sig Sauer P365XL Question.
Replies
13
Views
971
H Richard
H Richard
cmdrcody
Sig Sauer P229 LEO trade in
Replies
17
Views
1K
Golddollar
Golddollar
jake1945
Sig Sauer 1911-22
Replies
9
Views
590
Toyman
Toyman

Latest posts

Back
Top