I tend to get long winded, so let’s just start with the link, to make it easier to TL/DR:
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/re...pdf/army/2018mhs.pdf

I’m generally of the opinion that if the government is doing it, it’s not the right thing to do. If they do something right, it’s purely by happy accident. I happen to think the P320 is a great pistol, but time will tell if the can hold up to the rigors (neglect and abuse) of military use. But I know a lot of people like to copy what the gov does, either because of testing that is done, or just perceived cool factor.

The one point that stood out to me is:
“To improve the reliability with ball ammunition without degrading any of the other attributes of the weapon, the vendor made adjustments to the magazine spring, magazine follower, slide geometry, and the internal components.”

Sounds like those ejecting live rounds were mostly mag related. But interesting that a fix was implemented, so it wasn’t just bad mags (dropped and lips bent or something).

If you want to browse some other military programs:
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/

Here is some more information on the M18 and is passing the LAT.

http://soldiersystems.net/2019...reliability-testing/

I appears the 320 is maturing into a solid, reliable, platform.



TXPO

Good to see they do additional testing on the receiving end. 3 pistols isn’t much, but 12,000 each is a lot. That article is clearly just a SIG press release though, I wonder if there was any negatives that were overlooked.

One other thing I noted in the MHS update was the M18 appears to have done better than the M17 for MRBS and MRBF. And both did better with JHP. Makes me wonder if it’s because 1) JHP being a bit hotter and 2) lighter slide on the M18 cycles easier.

I read those...makes me want a M18 now.