Army To Issue New M17 Modular Handgun To Ft Campbell Troops First

Earlier today at the NDIA Armaments Conference, PEO Soldier’s PM for Soldier Weapons, LTC Steven Power stated that the First Unit Equipped for the M17 Modular Handgun will be the 101st at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, during the first quarter of Fiscal Year 18. He also stated that other units on Fort Campbell would also receive the first of 190,000 Pistols the Army plans to buy.

In addition to multiple other Army units on the post, the 5th Special Forces Group ( Airborne) and elements of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment are also there. Yesterday, USASOC Deputy Chief of Staff for Requirements (G8), COL Samuel Ashley stated that despite adoption of the GLOCK 19 by elements of the command, it was part of the Army’s fielding of the M17 as a replacement for their M9 pistols.


In January during SHOT Show, the Army selected the SIG SAUER P320 as its new modular handgun. However, in Februrary, GLOCK protested the award. The GAO has until 5 June to make a decision on whether or not to sustain the protest. Despite this, the Army has developed a fielding plan for the new pistol, no matter who produces it.

20 Responses to “Army To Issue New M17 Modular Handgun To Ft Campbell Troops First”

  1. Y.T. says:

    I wonder if the standard issue M17 is going to be the long barreled (5 inch?) version. Not a whole lot of information about that particular model.

    • Jason says:

      The full size will replace the M9. So whatever units have the M9, they will get full size pistols. The compact will replace the M11, so whoever has those on the books will get the compact M17.

  2. tazman66gt says:

    I don’t mean to be “that guy” but I find it rather odd to have to remove the rear sight if you want to put on a red dot. Other brands don’t have to do it and I’m pretty sure another variation of the 320’s have it so you don’t have to remove the rear sight to mount a red dot. Perhaps I’m just picking nits.

    • Ed says:

      Was mounting a red dot sight without removing the rear sight a requirement?

      • tazman66gt says:

        Not that I know of, it was just an observation based on the above photos.

    • some other joe says:

      What red dot is on the table for general issue? And how much space is actually available for mounting without removing the sight?

      And is the rail cover really a single piece that includes the rear sight?

      • tazman66gt says:

        I know of no red dot on the wish list or even a competition for one. The second question I don’t know either but if you look at the Sig P320 RX it has their own design red dot in front of the dovetailed rear sight. If you can zoom in on the above photo you can see the plate and the rear sight is mounted to the plate rather than the slide.

        • some other joe says:

          That was part of my question. Zooming in, about halfway up the sight, it looks like a very clear line. It’s either a material separation or an interesting trick of the light as the sight reflects like parkerized metal and the cover has a smooth, even, matte finish reminiscent of some polymer. I can picture an arrangement where cover would wrap around the sight base on the slide for extra security. But somehow, I don’t see an easily removable iron sight passing muster. Even my allen key for my M4’s BUIS is locktited down, same as the one on the rail.

          I guess we’ll have to see a red dot mounted or get it in the wild to see.

    • Jeff S says:

      What am I missing here?

      I see the SIG Optics RDS and a rear sight.

      • Rob says:

        The RX models from Use a different optics mount than the XM17/18 and the X-series of pistols. The RX does not currently have a provision to fill the void left by removing the Red dot as it was designed to always be used. It also uses a standard rear sight dovetail instead of the rear sight being integrated into the removable plate like the xm17/18

        • Jeff S says:

          Good to know, thanks.

          After getting burned by SIG USA, I haven’t really been keeping up on the details.

  3. some other joe says:

    RE: SOCOM units of Campbell, it will be kind of interesting to see what they do. They’ll have the opportunity to test SIG vs GLOCK against each other themselves. Will they continue to spend operational funds on non-standard guns or will they determine the issued weapon meets their requirements?

    • Jon, OPT says:

      I know the USASOC units get their big Army guns from big Army funding. Not sure what SOCOM units are on Campbell, wait, is it Megafor;qerfvb[‘ov’orn[‘o]p’`w3

      • some other joe says:

        Just 5th Group and 160th. No one at all, really 😉

        And that’s my point. When Group guys ditch their M9s for M17s (’cause big Army’s buyin’), will the gun their rich uncle buys them be good enough or will they still use the allowance he gives them to buy another pistol rather than spend the money on SCUBA “vacations” and such.

  4. Greg says:

    Aside from the extended magazine, I really like the look of the longer barrel variant.

    • toivo says:

      Just splitting hairs here, but I think the longer barrel is going to be the standard issue, so the shorter one would be the variant.

  5. Leon Vickers says:

    Usually I would call this a bit#h move by Glock, but I want the US Army to be successful for the good of humanity, and I have owned SIGs.

  6. My assumption on the optic plate incorporating the rear sight would be due to the footprint of some red dot sights there was no room to properly mount a rear sight to the slide. This would lead to the obvious choice of incorporating the rear sight into the optic cover. This is just a guess on my part

    • Rob says:

      Do you have any other experience with the 320 platform or the xm17/18 pistols? How do you view the 320 vis-a-vis its rivals?

  7. Joe says:

    Do you know whats the finish on the fde new pistols?
    Thank you.