quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
I got in trouble on another forum for pointing out some details. 132 testers, of those 8 guys caused 60% of all the stoppages. Why the Army didn't stop the testing and either train those 8 guys or pull them because the literally caused the vast majority of the problems. Garbage in garbage out.

I would approach that test/report with a healthy dose of cynicism.

They didn't throw those shooters out but they did a sub-analysis throwing lockback stoppages from all 132 shooters out. In that sub-analysis neither XM-17 nor XM-18 could go through a case of ammo without a stoppage.

I totally agree on a healthy dose of cynicism although where that cynicism is directed to might differ.

Solider Systems Daily just published a good write up on the situation, complete with comments from the PEO.

quote:

Originally posted by CD228:
Solider Systems Daily just published a good write up on the situation, complete with comments from the PEO.

And, here we go.
As always, Eric does excellent work pointing out the flaws, separating out the hyperbole and getting to the facts.
http://soldiersystems.net/2018...rt-implies/#comments

quote:

A recently issued report from the Department Of Defense’s Director, Operational Test and Evaluation Office (DOT&E), on the Modular Handgun System has been picked up by bloggers and the headlines have been sensational. They’re being shared online at face value, with few people taking time to read the source document. You can read the whole thing here, and I encourage you to do so, but I’ll use extracts throughout this article.

I’ve spent the past few days going back and forth with DOT&E and PEO Soldier, who manages the program, to clarify information in the report.

From the received responses, apparently the situation is not as dire as the authors of other stories would like their audience to believe.

Background

Each year, the Department Of Defense Operational Test and Evaluation Office (DOT&E) submits an annual report of test and evaluation activities to Congress.

The 2017 report was published on 26 January, 2018 and includes details on numerous test activities in support of Army procurement, including those of the joint Modular Handgun System. MHS consists of militarized versions of a standard (M17) and compact (M18) pistol, manufactured by SIG SAUER and based on their commercial P320 9mm model. the weapon has a common trigger pack and swappable frames to make the switch from M17 to M18.

The weapon was selected for procurement just a year ago on January 19, 2017. Since then, it has served as a model for fast track acquisition reform.

The procurement announcement was met with displeasure from fans of fellow contender GLOCK who pointed to G19 use by USSOCOM as ample reason to broaden its issues within DoD. The SIG contract award was formally protested by GLOCK, but their effort was not sustained by the Government Accountability Office.

....

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

quote:

Originally posted by CD228:
Solider Systems Daily just published a good write up on the situation, complete with comments from the PEO.

And, here we go.
As always, Eric does excellent work pointing out the flaws, separating out the hyperbole and getting to the facts.
http://soldiersystems.net/2018...rt-implies/#comments

quote:

A recently issued report from the Department Of Defense’s Director, Operational Test and Evaluation Office (DOT&E), on the Modular Handgun System has been picked up by bloggers and the headlines have been sensational. They’re being shared online at face value, with few people taking time to read the source document. You can read the whole thing here, and I encourage you to do so, but I’ll use extracts throughout this article.

I’ve spent the past few days going back and forth with DOT&E and PEO Soldier, who manages the program, to clarify information in the report.

From the received responses, apparently the situation is not as dire as the authors of other stories would like their audience to believe.

Background

Each year, the Department Of Defense Operational Test and Evaluation Office (DOT&E) submits an annual report of test and evaluation activities to Congress.

The 2017 report was published on 26 January, 2018 and includes details on numerous test activities in support of Army procurement, including those of the joint Modular Handgun System. MHS consists of militarized versions of a standard (M17) and compact (M18) pistol, manufactured by SIG SAUER and based on their commercial P320 9mm model. the weapon has a common trigger pack and swappable frames to make the switch from M17 to M18.

The weapon was selected for procurement just a year ago on January 19, 2017. Since then, it has served as a model for fast track acquisition reform.

The procurement announcement was met with displeasure from fans of fellow contender GLOCK who pointed to G19 use by USSOCOM as ample reason to broaden its issues within DoD. The SIG contract award was formally protested by GLOCK, but their effort was not sustained by the Government Accountability Office.

....

Interesting, and as I suspect many of us suspected.

It's so nice to know at least that the guns don't blow up, you know, like Berettas and Glocks always do!

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:

quote:

Originally posted by Sparkyk:
And the Glock lovers rejoiced.

On a different note. I wonder if we had the same level of testing and the internet back when the M16 first came out would we still have a M16?

People who treat firearm brands like they're sports teams, need to keep that shit to sports. Honestly it's so tiresome.

As someone who owns both, and generally pays no mind to gun brands I don't care for, I really don't get the attitude of someone who bothers to spend time on such things.

It strikes me as a similar vein to how we all assume the guy who hates gays, probably secretly wants to blow his best friend. "Methinks thou dost protest too much."

Just calling it like I see it.

And I don't find it tiresome, but I do find it amusing to say the least. Just like the Ford vs Chevy vs Dodge truck thing.

BTW I own multiple examples of both Glocks and Sigs. And I have owned trucks from all three. And was happy with all of them as well as all my Glocks and Sigs.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

quote:

Originally posted by CD228:
Solider Systems Daily just published a good write up on the situation, complete with comments from the PEO.

And, here we go.
As always, Eric does excellent work pointing out the flaws, separating out the hyperbole and getting to the facts.
http://soldiersystems.net/2018...rt-implies/#comments

quote:

A recently issued report from the Department Of Defense’s Director, Operational Test and Evaluation Office (DOT&E), on the Modular Handgun System has been picked up by bloggers and the headlines have been sensational. They’re being shared online at face value, with few people taking time to read the source document. You can read the whole thing here, and I encourage you to do so, but I’ll use extracts throughout this article.

I’ve spent the past few days going back and forth with DOT&E and PEO Soldier, who manages the program, to clarify information in the report.

From the received responses, apparently the situation is not as dire as the authors of other stories would like their audience to believe.

Background

Each year, the Department Of Defense Operational Test and Evaluation Office (DOT&E) submits an annual report of test and evaluation activities to Congress.

The 2017 report was published on 26 January, 2018 and includes details on numerous test activities in support of Army procurement, including those of the joint Modular Handgun System. MHS consists of militarized versions of a standard (M17) and compact (M18) pistol, manufactured by SIG SAUER and based on their commercial P320 9mm model. the weapon has a common trigger pack and swappable frames to make the switch from M17 to M18.

The weapon was selected for procurement just a year ago on January 19, 2017. Since then, it has served as a model for fast track acquisition reform.

The procurement announcement was met with displeasure from fans of fellow contender GLOCK who pointed to G19 use by USSOCOM as ample reason to broaden its issues within DoD. The SIG contract award was formally protested by GLOCK, but their effort was not sustained by the Government Accountability Office.

....

Thanks for sharing.

So the "double ejection" is a Classified Top Secret failure that only Those With A Need To Know may know...

OK..................

But what about not feeding FMJ'S????

What is THAT all about?

If you read the article you will know that the FMJ ammo that was problematical with the XM17 and XM18 pistols does not have a normal round nose projectile. The XM1152 ball round is a new cartridge developed by Winchester specifically for use with the MHS pistols. It has a 115 grain projectile with a truncated nose (flat meplat). The "X" designation indicates experimental, of course. The feed problem may be as much an issue with a new cartridge as it is an issue with the pistols.

Like many other P320 owners, I have fed hundreds of rounds of Winchester 124 grain 9 mm NATO ammunition through my 9 mm compact, as well as many other varieties of 115 and 124 grain FMJ 9 mm ammo, and I have never had a failure to feed.

quote:

Originally posted by pblanc:
If you read the article you will know that the FMJ ammo that was problematical with the XM17 and XM18 pistols does not have a normal round nose projectile. The XM1152 ball round is a new cartridge developed by Winchester specifically for use with the MHS pistols. It has a 115 grain projectile with a truncated nose (flat meplat). The "X" designation indicates experimental, of course. The feed problem may be as much an issue with a new cartridge as it is an issue with the pistols.

Like many other P320 owners, I have fed hundreds of rounds of Winchester 124 grain 9 mm NATO ammunition through my 9 mm compact, as well as many other varieties of 115 and 124 grain FMJ 9 mm ammo, and I have never had a failure to feed.

Now that is very interesting.

For years I've used service pistols for killing butcher stock and long ago came to the conclusion that the military needed to go to exactly that; a high speed TC 115 grain bullet. {ETA: Now it seems they might not be using a true TC but a RNFP. Not sure} That being because I never thought JAG would ever approve JHP's. I have used many different pistols and calibers, but mostly FMJRN and LRN bullets. Some JHP's and some cast TC's. RN's produce some very ice-pick like wounds, with little peripheral damage. Caliber .45 or 9mm makes zero difference and a guy would never be able to tell whether a .45 or 9 was used based on the reaction to the shot.

Now I'm curious as to what the hangup with the TC's is.

So it is only with this specific type of FMJ that the feed problems show up? I can only imagine we have a few cases of RN's in the inventory to burn up so that might give them some time to come up with a fix...

I'd like to see some good pictures of that bullet.

ETA:

Cannot find any explicit pix but did find this: "Also present at Winchester’s booth was the XM1152 improved ball round, which externally appears to be a simple flat-nosed FMJ."

And one pic appeared it to be a long RNFP. If that's the case I can see why they might have trouble with it.

The original German 9mm loading with a true FMJTC would seem about right, and I've not heard of any troubles feeding that shape. Hornady XTP's and HAP's feed fine. This sounds more like an ammo issue. Who knows...

Okay, I finally read the original report myself (it’s only three pages of large font text), and I’m curious how everyone is determining that the stoppages (as the report refers to them) are what most people call failures to “feed*.” One reference I found said that SIG was supplying that ammunition, so it seems strange that they wouldn’t have made sure it was compatible with the pistol. That truncated nose design is very unusual for 9mm FMJ bullets, but not for hollow points; in fact, the contrary is true. I’m also curious why the XM1152 FMJ bullet weighs only 115 grains: higher velocity for better penetration and wounding effects with the flat nose—?

It would be good to know exactly what sort of stoppages occurred with the FMJ load. Perhaps a minor modification to the chamber ramp would cure the problem, if it was indeed chambering failures.

What is particularly strange, though, is the “double ejection” problem. As one reviewer pointed out, that’s hard to understand at best, and might even be impossible. If, however, an empty case and live round were being ejected from the gun in the firing cycle, and as pointed out above, that problem must surely be due to faulty magazines. Did somehow 357/40 mags get substituted for the proper 9mm version? My 357/40 P320 mags will retain 9mm cartridges, but the feed lips make much less contact with them, and I could see a 9mm round escaping during the firing cycle. Also, my magazines were made by Mec-Gar in Italy; I wonder if SIG is procuring mags for the X-guns from a different manufacturer.

Or, perhaps, the description of the problem is simply not correct. Rather than both empty case and live round being ejected, maybe it’s something like a failure to eject that leaves the case in the ejection port and a live round partially chambered. Based on the review I mentioned above, it doesn’t seem as though the authors of the critical report were completely savvy about guns in general or the P320 in particular.

In any event, I am far from ready to concede that “Big Green” made a big mistake in choosing the P320. And after attending a Glock armorer course, were the entire selection process to be repeated, my first recommendation to anyone who would listen would be to look at all the other available choices in addition to Glocks, no matter how popular the latter may be.

* “Feeding” is what the magazine does to push the cartridges up to where the bolt or slide can contact them for the next step in the autoloading cycle, which is chambering. If the cartridge is pushed up to where the slide pushes it forward from the magazine but the round doesn’t go into the chamber, that’s a failure to chamber—strange as that may seem.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Okay, I finally read the original report myself (it’s only three pages of large font text), and I’m curious how everyone is determining that the stoppages (as the report refers to them) are what most people call failures to “feed*.” One reference I found said that SIG was supplying that ammunition, so it seems strange that they wouldn’t have made sure it was compatible with the pistol. That truncated nose design is very unusual for 9mm FMJ bullets, but not for hollow points; in fact, the contrary is true. I’m also curious why the XM1152 FMJ bullet weighs only 115 grains: higher velocity for better penetration and wounding effects with the flat nose—?

It would be good to know exactly what sort of stoppages occurred with the FMJ load. Perhaps a minor modification to the chamber ramp would cure the problem, if it was indeed chambering failures.

What is particularly strange, though, is the “double ejection” problem. As one reviewer pointed out, that’s hard to understand at best, and might even be impossible. If, however, an empty case and live round were being ejected from the gun in the firing cycle, and as pointed out above, that problem must surely be due to faulty magazines. Did somehow 357/40 mags get substituted for the proper 9mm version? My 357/40 P320 mags will retain 9mm cartridges, but the feed lips make much less contact with them, and I could see a 9mm round escaping during the firing cycle. Also, my magazines were made by Mec-Gar in Italy; I wonder if SIG is procuring mags for the X-guns from a different manufacturer.

Or, perhaps, the description of the problem is simply not correct. Rather than both empty case and live round being ejected, maybe it’s something like a failure to eject that leaves the case in the ejection port and a live round partially chambered. Based on the review I mentioned above, it doesn’t seem as though the authors of the critical report were completely savvy about guns in general or the P320 in particular.

In any event, I am far from ready to concede that “Big Green” made a big mistake in choosing the P320. And after attending a Glock armorer course, were the entire selection process to be repeated, my first recommendation to anyone who would listen would be to look at all the other available choices in addition to Glocks, no matter how popular the latter may be.

* “Feeding” is what the magazine does to push the cartridges up to where the bolt or slide can contact them for the next step in the autoloading cycle, which is chambering. If the cartridge is pushed up to where the slide pushes it forward from the magazine but the round doesn’t go into the chamber, that’s a failure to chamber—strange as that may seem.

I don't have the answers, but as with other things in this report, namely the "double-ejection" I'm not sure the terms are well communicated.

I am not sure the ammo is actually a Truncated Cone. From the one picture I THINK is of the round it is a Round Nose Flat Point which of course is very common in 147 grain FMJ ammo. Maybe that wasn't the right round. I can't find a good pic of it online. So what is ACTUALLY happening? I took it that there is a feed issue as well as the double-ejection {2 problems} but maybe that is not correct.

What you describe as happening in the live round leaving the gun sounds right. I don't see how the GUN itself could cause that, only magazines as you say. And that I have never experienced with a pistol but recall it happening with a Mauser of some sort where the magazine would not properly retain cartridges. Neither can I see how a bullet configuration is causing it.

My reasoning for promoting the 115 grain true Truncated Cone FMJ is indeed speed and penetration and tissue disruption. I'd suspect that is what the purpose is for Uncle Sam, too, but at this point I'm not willing to pretend I know WHAT they are doing! A true TC may act as a punch in engineering terms against hard targets as well, maximizing penetration of helmets, etc.

Yup; looks like it is 2 different problems:

"The office of DOT&E recommends that "upon identification of the root cause of the double ejections and ball ammunition reliability problems, confirm fixes to both the XM17 and XM18 in future testing," the report states.

"The MHS is safe to operate with the XM1152 ball ammunition," Dawson said. "It is simply not meeting its reliability requirements with the ball ammunition and has experienced stoppages and issues with double ejections."

"double ejections and ball ammunition reliability problems,"

https://www.military.com/kitup...arm-reliability.html

In some ways the slide lock issue might be the more problematic. I know it is popular to call it a "training issue" which it is to a degree, but under stress, wearing gloves, odd shooting angles, etc, the issue might be a bugbear.

quote:

Originally posted by 3/4Flap:
In some ways the slide lock issue might be the more problematic. I know it is popular to call it a "training issue" which it is to a degree, but under stress, wearing gloves, odd shooting angles, etc, the issue might be a bugbear.

I am usually very hesitant to consider something the shooter does in normal operation to cause a malfunction a valid excuse for a poor design. My pet example is that it’s necessary to “lock” one’s wrist to expect a Glock to function properly, but in this instance I don’t know of any other reasonable option to address the problem than to condition shooters to not touch the slide catch lever.

The engagement tabs on the P320 slide catch lever (SCL) are significantly smaller and even positioned a little farther forward than the SCL tabs of SIG Classic line pistols, for example. I’ve had a few shooters who just had to learn to keep their thumbs off the SCLs of our issued P220s because there isn’t any mechanical fix for the problem.

I don’t have tiny hands (usually wear “large” gloves), and yet I can’t come close to touching the SCL of my P320 with anything close to a normal firing grip. And of course when the SCL is too difficult to reach, then the whining starts about how people can’t release the slide by using it. The last armorer job I did was to install an extended slide stop in a Glock 21, and I had to bite my tongue to not tell the owner to just learn to release the slide the proper way.

If someone has really large hands and can’t avoid touching the tabs of the P320 SCL, I must really wonder what pistol would work any better for him. The tab of the slide stop of a Glock 17, for example, is in virtually the same position relative to the grip, so if someone has a problem with the P320, I can’t imagine he would do much better with the Perfect Pistol.

Yup. If you move the slide catch too much, you can't release with it, or for those of you that insist that's a horrible thing to do, to lock the slide back to fix a malfunction.

I have big hands and have pretty much come to expect that the slide won't lock back regularly. I don't see it as too big of an issue, because I've seen so many people pulling the trigger on a locked back slide anyway. I don't think it serves as an indicator as well as some may think. We may be used to it, but there's a lot of shooters that don't feel or see the difference.

These threads ALWAYS border on the comical.

"Just give the contract to Glock and be done with it"

And who do we give the contract to when the Glocks develop issues? Ruger, perhaps? And when the Rugers are recalled who do we give the contract to?

The military does not pride itself on pistol training. You'd also be really surprised in the SOF community how poor the pistol shooting is. They are dangerous inside 5 yards. That's about it for most of the green SOF dudes. Why? Their trade is the rifle, and the pistol is just an "oh shit" type deal.

Big military? Anyone defending their (lack of) training program as not being a major part of the problem is also in denial. Look at the porn pictures that have been released by many outlets of the new XM17 in action. The pictures clearly show that the military hasn't changed since I was in. Look at the pictures. Their training is shit.

So, if their training is shit, let's blame the gun. I wonder if when a private backs into a building with a Humvee, do they blame GM?

Guys, I could really give two shits less about the 320, and the XM blah blah blah. But, we have departed reality in these threads.

Oh, yeah. And there's this. In about 2001, the Kentucky State Police was wanting to ditch their aging Smith 1076's. There were some movers and shakers at HQ that wanted Glocks. There was a colonel that decided that they would replace the 1076's with 4566's instead of the Glock. The 4566's were full of FTF problems. Videos were taken, hell was raised. Each time Smith took the guns in to try to make it right, they could not duplicate the problems. There was a massive war cry from those at HQ who wanted Glocks that this was a massive officer safety problem. They got Glocks.
And the Glocks wouldn't run. Same problems. Turns out, the reman ammo that the state was buying as practice ammo was shit. This fact was really quickly covered up, and Glock was declared to be the king of reliability.

About a year and a half into it, the Glocks quit running again. This time, the gun stopped feeding. Glock blamed the ammo. So they tried different types of ammo. They couldn't get the guns to run. Glock tried this and that, and finally told the state that their magazines were wore out and they had to be replaced with magazines with an "8" generation follower or above. This sorta fixed it, and when the guns would fail, they'd just give the trooper new magazines and toss the old ones in a big box. At one point, they had about 6,000 used magazines in boxes at supply. Some were like new. A trooper would go in on a range day, have problems, get given new mags, go back in the next range day, have problems, get given new mags, and all the old magazines got thrown into boxes and shipped back to HQ.

Pick any manufacturer. And you'll find events just like the above with big contracts. "But my 320/17M/M&P/Ruger Hi Point has 300 flawless rounds through it is always the war cry"

Like I said, I think I'll wait on the military to actually put forth a training program that doesn't include near cup and saucer grips before I crucify the 320, or take a lot of stock in any DOD finding. And keep right on shooting my M&Ps.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:........

I'm not exactly certain what your entire point is here but if it is that:

1} pistol training is important
2} Army doesn't provide sufficient training
3} poor training can give indications of mechanical flaws that don't exist
4} guns are mechanical objects subject to manufacturing processes, less-than-perfect engineering/design and sometimes have warts

I'm in full agreement.

In truth, the history of large-scale adoption of military small arms is a very interesting topic and one of the first things a student of the subject learns is that such adoptions are almost ALWAYS initially plagued by startup problems. Many times the problems are pretty insignificant all things taken into account, and at other times the problems are catastrophic. Most of the time the bugs seem to get worked out or the services simply make do with the limitations of design.

So I cannot dismiss the reported problems as all hype and nonsense, because I don't know. I'm not sure from your post whether you were making that point or the opposite of that point but I am curious as to whether you have identified any particular glitches in the 320 system you care to comment on.

I have issues and concerns with the 320 being involved in a process that saw a few million rounds go down range across myself and some of the top shooters based upon about a three year span.

But issues touted on the internet about the lowest common denominator shooters based upon a government contract, from an article that seems to be written from a slanted perspective? It appears to me based upon experience that one of two things occurred.

1- The army didn't actually test these pistols with a true sampling of the big army.
2- Someone else is in charge and they wanted something different.

Most of the problems cited, if true, are likely not the fault of the pistol.


Pass.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I have issues and concerns with the 320 being involved in a process that saw a few million rounds go down range across myself and some of the top shooters based upon about a three year span.

What are these "issues and concerns with the 320"?

The big one is the number of guns that have exploded and the blame has been on the ammo being double charged, but the case head appears that the gun went off while not in battery.

I do not want to side track this thread, but that is my major concern. The voluntary "upgrade" seems to have potentially fixed the issue.

Just curious...are there any publicly available reports or information on how all the manufacturers' submissions fared in the original tests?