Unfortunately, this could turn out to be a huge problem for SIG and the P320....

https://sofrep.com/98976/dod-e...stol-riddled-issues/

DoD evaluation says the Army’s new Sig Sauer P320 service pistol is riddled with issues
Alex Hollings | 01.30.2018


According to a study conducted in 2017 and released earlier this month, the Army’s new service pistol, a military variant of the Sig Sauer P320, has exhibited a number of persistent deficiencies and reliability issues through DoD testing, including but not limited to the drop test failures Sig has already announced voluntary recalls to correct.

The U.S. Army’s announcement that they would be ordering some 300,000 full sized M17 and more compact M18 modular pistol platforms from Sig Sauer has not been without controversy. Almost immediately after the announcement, Glock (who had a vested interest in the competition for the Army contract in the form of their Glock 19X) levied a formal protest, claiming that the P320 did not meet the standards established by the Defense Department in certain critical tests. Now, with other branches considering adopting the military variant of the P320 as their own general issue sidearm, DoD testing would seem to suggest that Glock may have been right.

The results of a series of tests of the M17 and M18 platforms were revealed in an annual report compiled by the Pentagon’s Office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, alongside similar testing on a variety of platforms throughout fiscal year 2017. According to the report, the Sig Saur Modular Handgun Systems (MHS) exhibited a number of issues throughout testing that took place between April and September of last year. Primary among them, the aforementioned drop test issue that made headlines late last year. If dropped from the correct angle (onto the dovetail of the pistol) the M17 and M18 platforms are prone to discharging a round.

It is important to note, however, that Sig Sauer has acknowledged and made strides to correct this issue, and although it remains unclear how they went about remedying the issue in the service pistols, it was likely in a similar fashion to the corrections made to the civilian variants seen failing the same test in videos all across the internet.

Perhaps more disconcerting, however, were the other issues the Pentagon’s testing exposed: in two instances, the trigger assemblies in pistols splintered apart during use – an issue that had never come up before Sig implemented changes to the trigger to resolve the drop-test failure. This means the new components intended to solve one problem may have inadvertently caused another.

The report also went on to indicate that the pistol has a propensity for ejecting live rounds alongside spent shells, though it clarifies that this does not usually result in a misfeed or malfunction. Nonetheless, ejecting live rounds could be a concern in combat zones, where every round may count in some survival situations. According to the tests, the issue becomes more prominent the more often the pistol is fired.

That isn’t the end of the MHS’ ammunition woes. While the pistol apparently has no issue cycling the Army’s new XM1153 “special purpose” cartridge, a hollow point round, it apparently does not function reliably when loaded with the standard XM1152 “ball” rounds used most often in service. In order to qualify as a military service weapon, the pistol must be able to fire 2,000 rounds without stoppages at least 95% of the time – a standard both the M17 and M18 pistols were able to meet with hollow points, but with standard ammo, that reliability rate dropped to a dismal 75% in the full size platform, and an even worse 60% on the compact one.

It is unclear what steps the Army has taken to resolve these issues, but the report does indicate that the Army is working with Sig to address them. In the mean time, the pistol platform began distribution to Army units last November, meaning those pistols will either suffer these reliability issues, or will have to be repaired in the near future.

I thought the drop fire issue specifically excluded the M17 and 18 because of the presence of the manual safety?

But holy crap Sig, get your shit together. This was your chance to come out of the "QC slump" you've been in for years and you're bungling it all to hell.

quote:

Originally posted by Dtech:

While the pistol apparently has no issue cycling the Army’s new XM1153 “special purpose” cartridge, a hollow point round, it apparently does not function reliably when loaded with the standard XM1152 “ball” rounds used most often in service. In order to qualify as a military service weapon, the pistol must be able to fire 2,000 rounds without stoppages at least 95% of the time – a standard both the M17 and M18 pistols were able to meet with hollow points, but with standard ammo, that reliability rate dropped to a dismal 75% in the full size platform, and an even worse 60% on the compact one.

Holy crap, jam/stoppages on BALL ammo? That is a significant problem.

The military is all about the ball/FMJ in their pistols so this sounds like a pretty significant "Uh-Oh" to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Jester814:
I thought the drop fire issue specifically excluded the M17 and 18 because of the presence of the manual safety?

But holy crap Sig, get your shit together. This was your chance to come out of the "QC slump" you've been in for years and you're bungling it all to hell.

Yeah, we're mixing apples and oranges here for click bait, or so it would seem.

And to add: according to SIG, it's not just the manual safety that prevents the drop fires, otherwise their "fix" wouldn't work on the modified pistols w/o a manual safety...

quote:

Holy crap, jam/stoppages on BALL ammo? That is a significant problem.

Ya what the heck are they saying it was not tested with ball ammo?

Found this File look at page 135. WTF!


Assessment
• The MHS met its accuracy requirement that 10 shots at
35 meters can be covered by a 4-inch disk, with the center of
the grouping being no more than 4 inches from the point of
aim, 90 percent of the time. This was an entrance criterion for
the IOT&E.
• During PVT, the XM17 and XM18 were tested for MRBF
and MRBS with special purpose munition and with ball
ammunition with testing out to the required service life of
25,000 rounds per pistol. The MRBF reliability requirement is 5,000 MRBF for a 98 percent probability of completing
a 96-hour mission without a failure. The MRBS reliability
requirement is 2,000 MRBS for a 95 percent probability of
completing a 96-hour mission without a stoppage.
• During PVT, the XM17 and XM18, with special purpose
munition, met its requirement for both MRBF and MRBS:
- The XM17 demonstrated 8,929 MRBF (99 percent
probability)
- The XM18 demonstrated 8,333 MRBF (99 percent
probability)
- The XM17 demonstrated 1,923 MRBS (95 percent
probability)
- The XM18 demonstrated 2,155 MRBS (96 percent
probability)
• During PVT, the XM17 with ball ammunition met its
requirement for MRBF but not its requirement for MRBS.
The XM18 with ball ammunition did not meet its MRBF or
MRBS requirement.
- The XM17 demonstrated 6,944 MRBF (99 percent
probability)
- The XM18 demonstrated 3,906 MRBF (98 percent
probability)
- The XM17 demonstrated 343 MRBS (75 percent
probability)
- The XM18 demonstrated 197 MRBS (61 percent
probability)

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/re...pdf/army/2017mhs.pdf

The 19x is waiting in the wings.

I have confidence in Sig, and especially the P226 that I own, and find this finding disappointed. I believe that Sig will get the wrinkles ironed out.

.

The discussion about this report started yesterday in this "Sig Pistols" area thread:

www.SigForum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/430601935/m/4600089634

This is a dupe from the pistol forum and has been dated to be testing done in mid-2017.

Apologies for the overlap. Mods can lock or delete as they desire.

The Army should have never dumped the M9.

quote:

Originally posted by divil:
The Army should have never dumped the M9.

The M9 had (and has) more than it's fair share of issues.

Did not like the M9.

I'll take a well maintained 92FS/M9 or P228 / M11 over a P320 any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

quote:

Originally posted by divil:
The Army should have never dumped the M9.

Really?

How about: The Army should have never dumped the M1911?

I am still torqued about that move away from the Springfield Trapdoor. Wimpy soldier needing more than one shot and not needing to kill a buffalo 2 miles away.

quote:

Originally posted by Dtech:
I'll take a well maintained 92FS/M9 or P228 / M11 over a P320 any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

+1. My personal P226 and every M9 I have ever been issued (10+) are the only pistols I’ve ever owned that were 100% reliable.

quote:

Originally posted by dwd1985:

quote:

Originally posted by Dtech:
I'll take a well maintained 92FS/M9 or P228 / M11 over a P320 any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

+1. My personal P226 and every M9 I have ever been issued (10+) are the only pistols I’ve ever owned that were 100% reliable.

That’s what gets me. These things are pretty rock solid to have that kind of failure rate all of the sudden.

Something must have happened during the mfg process that has caused a problem.

Terminate the contract for the convenience of the Government, re-award the contract to Glock and be done with it.