Oldsalt66
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2014
- Messages
- 871
- Reaction score
- 1,397
After which they've been returned to full service:
The Air Force Has Completed its Inspection of their SIG M18 Service Pistols
- Thread starter Oldsalt66
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Glenn R. McMannly
Member
I knew they would be.
The M17 is a fine handgun.
The M17 is a fine handgun.
From the report: A review of weapon discharges in AFGSC showed that none were attributed to weapons malfunction.
Their words, not mine.
Their words, not mine.
OP
Oldsalt66
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2014
- Messages
- 871
- Reaction score
- 1,397
Absolutely, regardless of all the lies and vulgar YouTube defamation efforts like this:
.
Attachments
Consider too that the army does not want to have to buy another mountain of replacement handguns like a gluck along with new holsters . What if a few of the troops are out of commission do to handgun issues plus its embarrassing for both the army and for Sig since they are the supplier of new over priced long guns ! I had my run of lack of QC with early sig p320's so no more sig's in my house .
Now feel free to run over to a siggly forum to pat each others backs .
Now feel free to run over to a siggly forum to pat each others backs .
It will be interesting to see how the ramifications of this decision affect police departments and civilians around the country that have already banned or paused using P320 variants. I would love to be able to shoot my P320 X5 Legion again at my local ranges.
ec fan
Member
This is some good news for Sig amid all the bad news for them lately.
I have no opinion of Sig one way or the other and have never owned a Sig.
I'd still like to know what happened in the body cam videos and other videos caught on camera when LEOs' or others' hands were not near their holsters but the pistol fired inside the holster. Those are still very puzzling.
(I don't mean the many YT videos of "tests" trying to replicate the problem, nor the incidents that involved user negligence. I mean the unintended discharges caught on camera when the user clearly wasn't touching the holster.)
I have no opinion of Sig one way or the other and have never owned a Sig.
I'd still like to know what happened in the body cam videos and other videos caught on camera when LEOs' or others' hands were not near their holsters but the pistol fired inside the holster. Those are still very puzzling.
(I don't mean the many YT videos of "tests" trying to replicate the problem, nor the incidents that involved user negligence. I mean the unintended discharges caught on camera when the user clearly wasn't touching the holster.)
I very strongly suspect most of the airmen (particularly pilots/aircrew) are carrying on empty chambers.
LVSteve
Member
Big liability and "visuals" differences between the military and civilian police forces.
Always interesting to read factual information presented by an individual with so much insider information. And most of us just want factual information and not biased opinions.
By the way I believe it should be "due to" not "do to"
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 9,207
- Reaction score
- 11,421
Are YouDupe videos really bona fide "tests"?
Can you imagine the investigation and some Generals having to answer this question, "so exactly how did a pistol that couldn't go 200 MRBS with standard Nato ammo even make it to down select?"
Yeah big embarrassment. $1Billion spent and the replacement isn't 1/4 as good as the retired handgun. I am glad my son is out now and no longer has to worry about being given a substandard Sig product.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 7,772
- Reaction score
- 7,184
MRBS????? Mean Rounds Between Failures I can understand.
The Last Standing Knight
Member
It really doesn't matter over all, although I stand by what I have previously written in this forum about it, handguns are not a big priority with the military.
When we had the .45's back in the 80's, we carried two magazines loaded with five rounds each in the pouch...the weapon was empty and carried "condition 3" with a "safety wire" across the hammer.
I figure all branches are at least unofficially carrying condition 3 with this weapon. Maybe someone with recent service can answer this.
When we had the .45's back in the 80's, we carried two magazines loaded with five rounds each in the pouch...the weapon was empty and carried "condition 3" with a "safety wire" across the hammer.
I figure all branches are at least unofficially carrying condition 3 with this weapon. Maybe someone with recent service can answer this.
Mean Rounds Between Stoppages.
It's not synonymous with Mean Rounds Between Failures.
For example, for a machine gun the military might specify a Mean Round Between Stoppage (MRBS) of say 7,500 rounds, along with a Mean Rounds Between Failure (MRBF) of 25,000 rounds over a minimum planned service life of 50,000 rounds.
IIRC the Beretta 92S had a mean time between failure of 35,000 rounds, about 5 times its anticipated service life in European military and police service.
In the original USAF service pistol test from 1977-1980t, during reliability testing the M1911A1 recorded a MRBS of 1 failure for every 748 rounds fired, which was far short of the original 1 in 6000 when it was adopted. The difference in my opinion was:
- the switch from the original tapered feed lip magazine to a more modern hybrid feed lip design that was not optimized for GI ball rounds; and
- the USAF pulling tired 1911A1s from its existing inventory rather than new build pistols.
I suspect that was intentional to show that whatever pistol was adopted was more reliable than the 1911A1.
The Smith & Wesson 459A recorded a MRBS of 1 stoppage per 1,952 rounds.
The Beretta 92SB was at 1 stoppage per 2,000 rounds.
The US Army objected to the USAF's test protocols and reportedly during the first round of the XM-9 trials none of the pistols tested exceeded a 1 in 600 MRBF. Actual data though seems to have been lost or intentionally buried.
In the second set of XM-9 trials the SIG Sauer P226 and Beretta's updated 92F had respective MRBS numbers of 2,877 and 1,750. Note the Sig P226 results were much better, but the Beretta was still well over the minimum standard, so it came down to bid price, with the P226 being cheaper per pistol, but with the 92F being cheaper when magazines and spare parts were included in the contract.
The US Navy Seals adopted the P226 anyway as the Mk 25 Mod 0.
Last edited:
Agreed. Way back in the day with the 1911A1 carrying in Condition 3 (un- hammer over an empty chamber) was the norm. For the US Military it was just a safety issue. They assumed (correctly) that the vast majority of times a 1911 might be used the soldier, sailor or Marine using it would have ample warning of the incoming threat to rack the slide and
chamber a round.
The Israelis did the same thing during that era. However, their rationale was that with so many different handgun models in service, teaching troops to carry on an empty chamber and rack the slide was the only manual of arms that would work with all of the semi-auto pistols in the inventory.
-----
In that regard, any flaws in the Sig P320 pose no risk with an empty chamber. If any incidents do happen the military can usually blame that on the person with the pistol.
That's far better for avoiding accountability and managing careers than admitting the procurement process, the officers involved, and the pistol they selected were flawed.
I'd rather need to work a slide than shoot myself in the thigh and maybe end up crashing a jet…
Here we go with the demon 320 again
I can say with 100% certainty that my M9 was fully locked and loaded, hammer decocked, safety off when we rolled outside the wire in Iraq.
The Last Standing Knight
Member
Equus, I remember. We replaced our 45's with M9's when they first hit the FMF and I got to famfire it for guard duty. We were ordered to carry them fully loaded with a round in the chamber..a significant change from the 45's. Then the "problems" came up and the Berettas were recalled and while many went back to 45's, TO&E was changed that most of the Marines who carried pistols would be carrying full rifles...a policy I agreed with, BTW. (0311 from 84-88)
Similar threads
- Locked
