The reason I ask is pretty much anybody is capable of spooging out a very decent piece of striker fired tactical Tupperware these days.

The M&P I get as it sort of came along at the time most folks were moving more to strikers en masse, and they offered a fairly compelling Glock alternative that they were able to get into PD holsters.

The 320 was, fairly late to the party and was.....well a striker fired plastic handgun, of which there were eleventy billion at that point. Yeah, modular chassis but most folks don’t seem to use that feature. So how did the 320 do it?

None of this is to say it’s a bad gun. More so that there are so many good guns out there and this was just another good striker handgun. So what got this one to grow wings?

I see new plastic strikers introduced all the time. CZ’s, Rugers, IWI, Walther etc. etc. etc. how does one even compete in a firearms world (at least a US centric one) where Glock may not be perfection but it damn sure has the track record. Smith has managed to get the M&P fairly entrenched. SIG sort of hail mary’d the 320 from the P250 it seems and got lucky.

So how does anybody expect to compete in a see of perfectly good options with 2-3 800lb gorillas at the top, barring something pretty unique like the P365 magazine design.

I mean I am a gun guy and Would happily “collect the whole set” so to speak but I look at the IWI Masada, or Ruger American or Walther PPQ and so on and If I put on my regular buyer or agency buyer hat I just keep thinking “Why?” What’s the point. What does that do even remotely better even at a slightly cheaper price then a “Glock 17” for example.

So will the big three so to speak basically be the .38 special revolver for the next hundred years or do you think they will ever really be challenged?

quote:

The 320 was, fairly late to the party and was.....well a striker fired plastic handgun, of which there were eleventy billion at that point. Yeah, modular chassis but most folks don’t seem to use that feature. So how did the 320 do it?

Imo, the p320 is the best of the striker-fired options out there. Modular chassis, as reliable as a Glock with a better trigger (arguably the best out-of-the-box striker trigger out there), and at a price point that's hard to beat. You've also got to consider that many agencies already had a relationship with Sig (armorer schools, training, and sales), so switching to another Sig product when the time came to retire the last generation of duty guns just made sense. Add to that the good press from the military contract, and it's no surprise to me that they're doing well.

If you offered to give me, free of charge, any gun on the market as a duty weapon right now, I'd keep my P320.

One element in the civilian market may be the combination of the military's adopting the 320 and the sudden widespread popularity of the 365. These things often feed on each other.

The P320 has been used in competition for some time. It's been in use by law enforcement for a time and has recently made military inroads. It's a popular civilian handgun.

At a match last week, half the pistols in holsters were P320's of one form or another, including two of the new legion models.

The P320 comes with a great trigger and doesn't need a lot done to it other than user choice of sights, and possiblly trigger preference. Optic if one wishes to go that route. With the ergonomic x-grip modules, it's a hard design to beat, and it's growing in popularity because to try one is to really appreciate one.

I think they tend to sell themselves, once someone gets to shoot one.

.

For me, it was the awful Glock sights being the reason for not buying one and purchasing a DA/SA P226 way back in 1987 as my first pistol.

From there, I bought a P220 and eventually a P227 to stay with the same action and feel.

Before the Army selection of the M17/18 as their new handgun, I bought a P320 9mm Subcompact because of it's modularity. Living in CA, the ability to change size and caliber is a big plus. I have purchased 9mm Full Size RX kit and the 9mm Compact RX kit. At some point, I hope to acquire a 9mm X-Compact slide because it has the removal plate to add a reflex sight.

All of the above and add in that somehow SIGs always seem to transfer less recoil to the shooter. The trigger, very predictable recoil characteristics and pretty decent grip (angle, texture, size, roundness...overall comfort) make it a very easy to shoot and forgiving pistol.

Oh, and it’s newer with a sleeker look. Even though looks of a pistol shouldn’t matter, to a lot of people they do.

IMHO, in priority order:

1) Trigger. Like the 1911, the trigger is the heart of the P320.

2) Grip fit. Three sizes, great ergos. Then add in the recent X-series. Beats simple backstraps.

3) Modularity. Screwed it up with the pricing on the X-Change kits. However, very attractive feature for LE agencies and military.

The net result, plus some intangibles no doubt, is the fact it is such a damn easy gun to shoot well for a large range of shooters. Very tolerant of bad inputs from the shooter.

With the P320 (and my 1911's) I can shoot them well standing on my head spitting nickels. All of my other handguns require a little more effort.

In the future, of course Sig can be challenged. Years ago, Glock was unchallenged. Then came M&P's, XD's, P320's and P365's. It's called competition.

I think the OP really discounts the modularity aspect (whether many people actually make much use of that feature or not) and the 1000# Gorilla in the room, service pistol contract.

Viable modularity and official Army service pistol cemented its popularity for many years to come. People like that it is modular and can't help but think of ways to make use of that feature even if they don't bother after buying the gun.

Same goes for agency service pistol contracts, modular to fill all sizes of officer's hands and they know it is reliable and well tested since the Army adopted it, they sure as heck can't afford an extensive service pistol trial period.

quote:

So what got this one to grow wings?

The new Army Handgun contract.

If they hadn't won that, it would be just another plastic fantastic that (for awhile, anyway) dropped when fired.

Technology is changing quickly. I don't think anything will be around for another 100 years. Think back just over your lifetime-the changes I have seen would have terrified my grandfather. We're truly living in the Jetson's age.

Army contract puts it on the map firmly, just as it did for the Beretta 92, lots of those were sold simply because its a military selected sidearm, people like to be associated with that.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
Technology is changing quickly. I don't think anything will be around for another 100 years. Think back just over your lifetime-the changes I have seen would have terrified my grandfather. We're truly living in the Jetson's age.

That is true in many senses but the two most fielded and prolific rifles in the world are 50-70 years old at this point.

Glocks are chasing down damn near 40 years, with most of those being at or near the top of the “game” so to speak.

I guess I was kind of shocked to see .mil go SIG not because I think it’s some inferior piece of trash or something but more because it seems so out of the typical .gov comfort zone / not the traditional thing to do. I think the 320 is a marvelous firearm and will serve admirably and be loathed by a group like EVERY OTHER military arm EVER has been this side of the MA Deuce and PKM.

I guess it just struck me as odd at how quickly the 320 was able to win the big game. Again not because it is in any way inferior to any other plastic fantastics just that it’s track record is so short and it seems so non traditional/staid as military procurement goes.

I think too much credit is givin to the Military for the guns popularity. Not that they've chosen poorly. It is right to keep them armed with the most modern technology, even in small arms. Sig is no newby in the poly framed pistol markets. I think a lot of the 320s R&D credit should go to Bruce Grey. Like their P220 10mm gun, he's got a lot of influence on the 320. Sigs own marketing of cool variants of the gun has lent to its acceptance. I've looked at several in the local toy store and its just a cool pistol for a poly. Still have issues myself calling it a P however. I've liked its very well made FCU sinse day 1. That damn bolt in its slide rear still carries 250 memories for me. Again, no P for the 250. All the factory mods of colored frames, high tech trigger profiles and sights only help the model sell better. Oh, honorable mention need be made of those lopped off slide sides. Rather CZ like. I can tell someone stayed up late ironing that out. It was a needed feature however.

1. Army contract
2. Sig reputation, customer base, and other products
3. It is a very good pistol
4. Good ergos
5. Go fire one!

I don't own one, but am very likely to soon. I have rented and shot one, and the ergos and trigger feel are great. Even with the improvements, I am just a tad apprehensive about the lack of any kind of "dingus" on the trigger, and as much as I abhor safeties on striker fired pistols, I am waffling a bit on this one.

The downside is that Sig has some reputation for letting customers be the beta testers as of late.

^^^ I hate the "dingus" myself, so that may be coloring my perceptions. Having said that, I haven't found myself worried about the two I have that have no dingus or thumb safety, and the thumb safeties on the two I have with them are unobtrusive, unlikely to engage or disengage accidentally, easy to reach and positive in both engagement and disengagement.

As for beta testing, I think they've been beta tested pretty widely for some time now.

You've got some good options.

They out Glocked Glock. The trigger is great and the gun is modular.

The tab on the triggers of Glocks serves no purpose except to prevent the trigger from rotating to the rear due to inertia if the gun were dropped from a great height or something similar happened. It wouldn’t prevent a discharge if there were a mechanical defect or design flaw in the gun’s action (as was evidently the problem with the original P320). The only way it could act as a conventional firing inhibitor is in the unlikely event pressure is applied only to the edge of the trigger without depressing the tab. The number of unintentional discharges that occur with Glocks demonstrate that if something is going to get on the trigger and move it to the rear while holstering or other action, it will often depress the tab as well.

When the P320 was first announced, it was stated that a tabbed trigger would be available as an option, but I’ve never seen one like that. The fact that not even the Army specified that feature is a pretty clear indication that few people believe it serves any useful purpose.

I traded my Beretta 92 A1 for a 320 M-17 a coupe of weeks ago and I’m very happy with my 320. It is just a fun gun to shoot and it’s replacing my Beretta as my nightstand handgun. I was a little hesitant on the striker fire but I really like it now

They won the Army contract by submitting a gun that met all the requirements of the contract priced at $200-something per unit.

They really did out Glock Glock!

Similar to Beretta v Sig in the 80s. Both guns met the requirements and were very good, but the Beretta selection came with an airbase in Italy.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
Technology is changing quickly. I don't think anything will be around for another 100 years. Think back just over your lifetime-the changes I have seen would have terrified my grandfather. We're truly living in the Jetson's age.

Oh yeah? Well, that's just what they told John M. Browning in 1911.