In your opinion, is the design of the M17 rear sight to be optics ready enough of a feature to offset the limitations it imposes on rear sight options vs a standard 320?

I think it's a good design allowing the user to choose what type of sight they want to use. This gives the ability to change back and forth. For myself I have a 320RX and I find it's a little hard to acquire the sight quickly but then I have ole man eyes. I use the Sig Xray sights, very nice. Chris

I don't follow M17 closely, but if I remember correctly, it's optic cut is for a Deltapoint Pro. If I am correct on that account, it is a big net negative. Not only it limits the irons options, it is cut for an optic that rarely survives anything but the casual use, despite the NSN. There was a recent thread where some of us who have experience with that optic covered the subject in more detail.

The optic cut is specifically for a Leupold Deltapoint Pro.

Isn't SIG supposed to be coming up with adapter plates or something?

Personally I'd prefer a separate rear sight dovetail, but three thoughts occur to me -

- I bought the pistol with the notion that I'd get a Leupold and a bolt-on rear sight to give it a try,

- I like the existing rear sight enough that, for the price, I don't feel absolutely compelled to put an optic on the pistol, and

- The design is new enough and on its way to being ubiquitous enough (thanks to the .gov contract) that it easily makes sense to wait and see what SIG and the aftermarket manufacturers come up with before deciding whether and to what degree the optics-ready design is an asset or a burden.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
- The design is new enough and on its way to being ubiquitous enough (thanks to the .gov contract) that it easily makes sense to wait and see what SIG and the aftermarket manufacturers come up with before deciding whether and to what degree the optics-ready design is an asset or a burden.

Except if one is planning to make a purchase in the near future as I am, the decision of M17 vs P320 will need to be made before this plays out in the coming years.

I don’t think that it is negitive or positive. I think it just is. Remember, when reading stuff on the net, we lose sight that the delta point was the REQUIRED sight of the military spec. If Glock has won the contract it would have been cut for a delta point. I’d also venture to say if Glock made an optic, there wouldn’t be 37 plates available like there are now. Remember when Glock made that cheap ass 2 lumen pistol light? Yeah, they tried to scare agencies into buying their lights, claiming that it was the lights of others that were causing issues. Guess what? It didn’t fix a thing, but they pimped it hard.

^^^^^

Fair enough. Then it sounds like the decision comes down to the presence or absence of a thumb safety. Any other reason to buy an M17 over a full size 320?

I suspect before too long there will be a number of plates available to allow you to do a lot of different optics. It's a pretty straightforward fabrication.

I actually chose the non-thumb safety M17 because it allowed the use of a lot more P320 lower grip/x-change options-

The AR320 direction is also interesting as a side note-

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:
Except if one is planning to make a purchase in the near future as I am, the decision of M17 vs P320 will need to be made before this plays out in the coming years.

Then go for the 320. They're cheap enough that if something good pops up some years down the line, it'll be easy to pick up an M17 then.

Honestly, though, I'd refer you to the previous thought in that post - the night sights on the M17 work pretty well for me given the two small dots at the rear and the large dot in front. That seems to be the one difference that really sticks out in my mind.

As for the thumb safety, I think that's really up to you. It's unobtrusive, small enough that I think it's extremely unlikely to get brushed on or off by accident, easy to engage or disengage, and goes into position in a positive way. If you want one, get one. OTOH, I have a 320F without it and don't particularly worry about not having it.

Other differences? Nothing significant comes to mind. The 320F I have came with contrast sights, so the 320s with night sights may have the same sights as the M17.

I would also add as a consideration that at the moment SIG has been unable to supply me M17 specific parts and they have no idea when they might be able to do so.

I've got both the 320 and the M17.

The slide plate is a neutral for me as I have no intention of running an optic on the gun. The only negative I see with it is I don't like how bulky it makes the rear sight picture. I also have trouble picking up the orange rear dots quickly, but that's my aging eyes, not the gun.

Thumb safety is what it is. Some people love them. Some people hate them. Some folk don't really care one way or another. I fall into the last category. I will say that on the M17 you might not want to ride the safety like you would on a 1911. It puts my thumb precariously close to the slide stop which can cause issues. Drop the safety and tuck your thumb underneath.

I'm sure parts will become available as soon as they get caught up on contract guns. Remember, the M17 wasn't built for the commercial market and they only really offered it after folks started begging for it. Support will come as soon as their primary customer gets their pistols and parts. I for one will be happy when replacement grip frames start showing up. I prefer the small to the medium.

Great shooting gun that hasn't given me any problems thus far.

you'll probably be unhappy when your gun is down for a .05 spring they can't supply. Nobody should release a product to the commercial market if they cannot support it even if "people are begging for it".

Consider the Delta point is what the military spec'd for, from a collector stand point I'm glad they left it in instead of going with some other system for sake of "historical accuracy".