Safariland

US Army Anticipates Conditional Material Release for M17 Modular Handgun System By November, Fielding to 101st, 3rd ACR and Security Force Assistance Brigade

The US Army anticipates that by November, the XM17 Modular Handgun System will reach conditional material release, dropping the “X” for “experimental” prefix and become simply, the M17 or M18 for the compact variant.

IMG_4650

Pistols are already undergoing user evaluations with the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. After the conditional material release the Screaming Eagles will receive about 2,000 MHS.

Next up is the 3rd Cavalry Regiment at Fort Hood, Texas, as well as the new Security Force Assistance Brigade at Fort Benning, Georgia Which has been fast tracked for many new systems.

Replacing the 9mm M9, the M17 MHS is based on the commercially available P320 and is manufactured by SIG SAUER in Newington, New Hampshire on the old Pease Air Force Base facility .

16 Responses to “US Army Anticipates Conditional Material Release for M17 Modular Handgun System By November, Fielding to 101st, 3rd ACR and Security Force Assistance Brigade”

  1. Jason says:

    This means it hasn’t met all its requirements. Each requirement not met requires a condition.

    I wonder what the conditions are. They all have to be enumerated and have get well plans associated with each one. Then the PM has to brief ASA(ALT) quarterly on the progress towards clearing them.

    • SSD says:

      So what are they?

      The system is in OT. Just because all of the requirements associated with OT haven’t been met could just as easily mean that they haven’t been evaluated yet.

      • Jason says:

        You’re correct. In addition to all the materiel requirements, each system has an additional requirement: to DEMONSTRATE with confidence that it meets requirements prior to fielding. DT & OT always precede fielding, with the materiel release process being the decision point, the same way Milestone C is the decision point for full rate production (not applicable in COTS acquisitions obviously).

        At any rate, the gun either has demonstrated that it doesn’t meet some portion of its requirements, or HASN’T demonstrated that it has met all its requirements. If it’s still in OT and they’re already planning on it being a CMR, then they know it won’t have demonstrated them by fielding.

        • SSD says:

          The Army is doing this, whether anyone likes it or not. I’ll give them this. They are all in.

        • Seamus says:

          “We’re not figuring out the next lunar landing. This is a pistol!” -Gen. Milley

  2. Seamus says:

    Here is what I don’t understand. Why doesn’t the Army prioritize deploying units first? While some of the 101st and 3ACR may be scheduled for deployment, others are closer to heading out the door so why not issue it to them? It is a pistol after all, so it aint like they need serious retraining with them prior to deployment.

    Why are we fielding equipment by division but deploying by brigade?

    • Stephen says:

      They don’t want to send troops who maybe going to a hot area with a pistol that isn’t proven yet… If you actually read up on the testing/evaluation procedures for this pistol you’ll understand… This Sig didn’t go through nearly as much testing as people would think. We are sending our boys a handgun that in my opinion is inadequate. I understand money was their main concern and yes they did cheap out. SIG underbid Glock by several millions of dollars… Thus winning the contract for a gun that wasn’t tested the way it should’ve been.

    • AbnMedOps says:

      “It is a pistol after all, so it aint like they need serious retraining with them prior to deployment.”

      Grrr! Schedule me for a dental appointment, because I’m grinding my teeth so f-ing hard! YES, TOTAL retraining on pistols is needed. The level of institutional incompetence on pistols is rivaled only by, say the level of institutional incompetence on rifles.

      I have long believed that in order to even draw a sidearm from the arms room, let alone swagger about with it on one’s hip, one should have a nice little laminated card, and a notation on one’s digital military records, documenting the completion of a week-long block of serious, practical training, roughly equivalent to graduating from Gunsite’s basic pistol class. Lacking such focused training and muscle-memory implantation, the chances of effectively and appropriately employing a pistol are close to zilch.

  3. Caleb says:

    It’s not 3rd ACR anymore. Been 3rd CR since 2011.

    • Nate r says:

      It also falls under 1st Cav division now, which makes me wonder why the entire division isn’t getting it .

      • Nate H says:

        3CR was under 1CAV for a few years, but is now no longer TACONed to them anymore. I believe the reason for 3CR fielding is they are next in the chute for an AFG rotation, and with the current mission set of Security Force Assistance that new sidearms make sense.

  4. Jerry says:

    Give the 1911A1back to the troops.it has a proven track record..

  5. MAJ M Sickeks says:

    Why are we stuck on 9mm when both the .45 and 10mm are substantially better firepower
    in a modern pistol. Yes ammo is more, but the weapon is alot more deadly than a 9mm, and a soldier needs the best pistol. In my opinion the Sigs are great, but are overpriced versus other manufactures.

    • Phil says:

      There is not much difference in the effectiveness between these calibers. They all make holes. Regardless of the caliber, if you have to shoot an adversary, you need to use 3 or more rounds to get the job done. One shot kills with a hand gun are very rare and not recommended. If you have to kill an enemy, be sure you kill them dead!

    • Jester says:

      Major,
      This isn’t 1983. The .45 and 10MM are not substantially better. We are talking pistol calibers here, not a .22 short vs. a .50 cal.