In the late 1980s, controversy over the selection of Beretta’s 92FS as the winner of the XM9 trials led to the XM10 trials. Most manufacturers who submitted pistols for the XM9 trials abstained from the XM10 trials, but S&W and Ruger participated. However, the Beretta 92FS won again. Do you guys think the sharp increase in bad publicity regarding the P320 might also result in a redo (i.e another pistol trial)?
No. The M17 and M18 have a manual safety and, at least in non-combat locations, are not carried with a round in the chamber. At least that's the way I remember it.
One can only hope. If there’s any administration that would force a new pistol selection it’s this one. In actuality the P320 never went through an actual selection testing process anyway. The 320, along with Glock and potentially others passed the initial pre-selection phase and were slated to go on to the next phase. But then the actual testing program was scrapped and the P320 was selected without complete testing. Maybe, hopefully, an actual, legitimate testing program will take place to select the service pistol that our nation’s armed forces are issued, instead of the P320 just bing deemed “good enough.”
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
Posts: 5846 | Location: Upstate NY | Registered: February 28, 2002
Somewhere between slim and none. I don’t want the tax payer money spent on it either. If it was a rifle or piece of artillery or helo etc. then yeah but the reality is the handgun in the military is pretty tertiary even with its increased use throughout the GWOT. The folks likely to use a sidearm in a more primary combat manner likely have access to other options anyway.
I don’t think the M17/18 was the right choice and I think they skipped steps and palms were greased but at the end of the day….its a handgun where most folks would prefer to just carry a couple extra mags of rifle ammo instead.
Take Care, Shoot Safe, Chris
Posts: 8323 | Location: On the water | Registered: July 25, 2002
Our military has other things on which they need to be prioritizing their time/money, and yet another round of pistol trials and replacements is about as far from a priority as you can get.
Especially unlikely under this current administration, who is all about further streamlining and cutting costs.
The M9A3 or M9A4 would have been a better choice than the M17. There. I said it.
Sig probably sold those guns at a loss to secure the contract. They've been riding that marketing hard for their civilian sales. I won't own any of the new Sig products, though.
I would love an M9A4 Centurion, though.
_______________
Posts: 1832 | Location: TX | Registered: November 09, 2005
Personally, I think the 320 series was a bad move for the armed forces. The people carrying them are not gun people for the most part and there are better options,especially if they aren't carried with a loaded chamber. I like the design applications with the ability of using different slides, frames, etc., but after owning/shooting one myself, the trigger for me is way too short and light and I could see an a.d. happen in my/family member's future.
I am partial to the 92 ‘Compact’, though it may not be that much smaller & lighter than the regular 92. It has the ultra-safe DA/SA, with safety as needed. It also takes the full size or any extended 92 magazine.
As a reminder, these handguns are normally ‘support’ arms, not any main weapon for battle.
Regardless, I imagine the military vetting system to be extremely cumbersome.
Posts: 6846 | Location: WI | Registered: February 29, 2012
Originally posted by sourdough44: Not sure what’s out there in the slightly used market. The CZ PCR is similar with manual of arms, I think.
If I am no mistaken, the CZ uses a modified tilting barrel lock-up like Sig. The Beretta 92 series uses a rotating or cam block like the original Walther P.38. This keeps the barrel on the same axis through the shot.
Now does this matter in regards to accuracy? I don't know. What I do know is that I seem to shoot the P232SL better than the other Sigs.
Posts: 6798 | Location: Virginia | Registered: January 22, 2001
My cousins friends brother in law said they are going back to Colt 1911s. They all fall to hardball!!!
But seriously, not a big fan of the sig 320. Sig 226 or HK P30/45 would have made more sense to me. I know I know….da/sa isn’t cool anymore.
Glock makes the most sense to me. Dead reliable. Easy to work on. Light, cheap, used around the world, cheap mags, tons of accessories. Already tested by law-enforcement and military around the world.
As far as the military is concerned there are no issues with the M17/18. Operationally I understand only the line scrubs that carry ie; all the MP's no matter what branch hardly shoot them anyway after qualified, and the combat crews probably don't care as the pistol is their last resort over the rifle. Special groups still use the Glock afaik. I vote NO on any change. (I have AD contacts)
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke
Posts: 544 | Location: Florida | Registered: February 18, 2004
Pete Hegseth, who I love as SecDef, will make sure the military has the best tools for the job, whatever it may be. At least that's my impression as an outisder.
Whether he is able to pull that off for the long term is another story.
