• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Great Pick Army!

Bruzilla

Well-Known Member
Local time
2:35 PM
Joined
Jan 11, 2012
Messages
7,644
Reaction score
7,816
Location
Orange Park, FL
Leave it to the Army to make yet another bad acquisition decision. The Army decided to adopt the Sig P320, aka M-17, pistol in January, and all the legal hurdles to that process were cleared late last month. Now we're finding out the pistol has a nasty habit of going bang when it is dropped. How this fact was missed during testing is a mystery to me, but Sig is saying the discharges occur when a pistol is dropped "beyond US standards for safety". So I guess if the test standard was there could be no discharges when dropped from two feet, if you drop your gun from 25" and it blows a hole in something that's okay???

You would think that the Army would have learned from all the unintentional discharges with cops and Glocks that having a striker-fired pistol is a really bad idea, but I guess they haven't figured that out yet.

http://taskandpurpose.com/sigs-p320-armys-new-handgun-fire-multiple-reports-safety-defects/
 
Last edited:
Piss-poor decision to move away from the 1911s way back when...
 
I'm no expert on firearms, but that sounds like a serious issue... why would they do such a thing?
:elmer:
 
I'm no expert on firearms, but that sounds like a serious issue... why would they do such a thing?
:elmer:
Whoever shmoozes them the best gets the contact. It's a very buddy-buddy way of doing things and complete BS but that's how they do it..and before I get called 'conspiracy guy' please know I have seen this personally...this is a problem with the upper brass/government, not the 'working class' of the military that we know and love..
 
I tend to agree you Beanhead. I've always thought someone made a lot of money in that switch and that was the only reason for it. What other reason could there be for switching from a very effective, tried and true, combat tested and proven pistol liken the 1911. I'll take a .45 1911 any day over any of it's replacements.
 
Sig P320
17 shot
9mm


1484940115-16143281-10154911256707603-8655241124918313736-n.jpg
 
Whoever shmoozes them the best gets the contact. It's a very buddy-buddy way of doing things and complete BS but that's how they do it..and before I get called 'conspiracy guy' please know I have seen this personally...this is a problem with the upper brass/government, not the 'working class' of the military that we know and love..
That's EXACTLY!!!! how chit gets done!
Anybody who thinks otherwise is only fooling themselves.
 
I have to assume another major factor in the switch from a .45 1911 to a sig 320 or which ever sig they picked at the time was if a 9mm was cost. Weapon and ammo. I'd rather take a bad guy out with one shot than have to do it with 3.
 
30-06 & 45ACP ! Let the other side have the 223 & 9mm.....
 
I have to assume another major factor in the switch from a .45 1911 to a sig 320 or which ever sig they picked at the time was if a 9mm was cost. Weapon and ammo. I'd rather take a bad guy out with one shot than have to do it with 3.
The ammo was exactly the reason. The whole purpose of the NATO supply chain was everyone uses the same consumables to ease logistics. We did that with 5.46 NATO and 7.62 NATO, but .45 ACP was an oddball, and while the 1911A1 can be made to fire 9MM NATO the frame would have had to be extensively redesigned for all the other stuff DoD wanted, like a hammer drop safety and higher-capacity magazines.

From what I've been reading lately, this move was more about... girls. The M9's grip was too large for little girl hands, so they wanted a pistol with multiple-sized grips to accommodate them.
 
I tend to agree you Beanhead. I've always thought someone made a lot of money in that switch and that was the only reason for it. What other reason could there be for switching from a very effective, tried and true, combat tested and proven pistol liken the 1911. I'll take a .45 1911 any day over any of it's replacements.
Not trying to start a fight but here goes...The 1911 in inventory at the time of 1980 or so when the replacement search started were at newest 1943 vintage. They were old,worn out and just outdated(like me...lol". NATO was not using anything in .45 ACP. Their standard was the 9mm. At that time had a war gotten hot and we were there with NATO the supply would be a nightmare. It doesn't matter what caliber you use...FMJ is a poor stopper and we use it because that's what Geneva Convention dictates. .45 is only 2 mm bigger than 9mm. If you compare hollow points to hollow points they are the same effectiveness. Cops and Glock accidental discharges are a training issue. Sig has a problem and has finally owned up and are fixing the problem. Glocks don't go off from being dropped. I'll take a 17 shot 9mm, striker fired pistol anyday over a 1911 7 shot pistol.
 
I love my sig fastback .357 BTW...not throwing shade at sig that's for sure!(only 'fastback' I'll probably ever own, cars or otherwise lol!)
 
The ammo was exactly the reason. The whole purpose of the NATO supply chain was everyone uses the same consumables to ease logistics.

Not only a NATO thing, but look at the logistics of it. How much more weight per round is there between .45 and .9, same with 223/556 vs 7.62/.308? Lighter rounds means more ammo, not only to ship it but also carry. The difference adds up fast.
 
Aside from performance issues, I have always thought a Glock was a butt ugly pistol! I,s take a Baretta or SW 9 mm any day. We had M-9's in the Air Force...Baretta's. man were they sweet!
 
All for one world UN, globalist appeasements, suppliers of 9mm BS
 
Just got mine back today from the voluntary upgrade. About two weeks turnaround.
Lighter trigger, machined seer, mechanical block, etc. all done.
Damn thing is an even nicer shooter now than it was before and the reset is ridiculously quick as well.
I almost like it as much as my Walther PPQ. Almost.
Sig did a nice job on this, even though they didn't have to.
 
In my opinion the trajectory of US military small arms has been in the wrong direction since before the Vietnam War. The replacement of the rugged and reliable M14 (firing a 7.62 mm round) with the lighter and less reliable M16 (now M4) firing a 5.56mm round was a mistake. Likewise, the replacement of the M1911 pistol (firing a .45 ACP round) with the lighter M9 Beretta (firing a 9mm round) was a mistake. What's the point of increasing magazine capacity with these lighter, supposedly NATO "standardized" rounds if it takes 2-3 of the lighter rounds to do the job that one of the heavier rounds used to do? Adding to this issue is the problem with marksmanship in the US Army today. It's a lost art that we started losing back in Vietnam. Instead of aimed, well-placed shots (marksmanship) the trend has been to "pour" large volumes of unaimed fire in the direction of the enemy vis-a-vis the 3 round burst selector or automatic fire. Fire discipline in many respects has suffered as a result.
 
Auto Transport Service
Back
Top