In this first episode of a four part series on the Modular Handgun System, SIG discusses the history of pistols in the US Army and what led to the selection of the M17.
www.sigsauer.com/products/firearms/pistols/p320/
Tags: Sig Sauer
We reserve the right to refuse advertising to anyone
Entries (RSS)
and Comments (RSS).
Soldier Systems Daily is in no way affiliated with the US Government.
Copyright © Soldier Systems Daily 2008-2021. All Rights Reserved.
It was the price and the incoming Trump presidency.
Never settle when you can sell out.
Thats pretty funny
The Army has no record of that…….
The 320 was chosen because they are cheap. The G19
would have been a better choice because they are proven. The 320 is a cheap gun that will not last. Nothing sends a message to the troops like “we bought you the cheapest hand gun we could find, not the best one we could find”. Sad
The Glock 17 would have been the easy button, but DoD didn’t take that route. Instead, they wrote a requirement.
Industry responded.
While cost was definitely a factor in DoD’s decision, Glock offered the 19X. They dialed it in.
On the other hand, Sig offered a truly modular handgun. The Fire Control Unit is the actual firearm and everything else is replaceable. As DoD is still in the process of fielding MHS, it hasn’t even started considering what it has. That gun has the potential to grow and adapt over a very long service life.
You realize that “requirement” was written around the Sig P320 ahead of time…right?
The hole MHS “selection” was a dog and pony show to give the taxpayer/Congress the illusion of an open-bid for contract.
The between-the-sheets quid-pro-quo stuff has been going on between the industry and DoD procurement for a long time (thought it really started to hit its stride in Vietnam).
The quality/reliability of the Sig P320 isn’t in question here (though I do question it personally), but the graft involved in its [pre]selection is.
Graft? You are going to have to present evidence of your allegation, or crawl back under your rock.
I’ve seen institutional momentum drive programs in certain directions, but I do not believe anyone at PEO Soldier, past or present, is committing malfeasance.
I always find the proven argument to be funny. Can you point to another individual small arm the Army has put in to service that was “proven” prior to its adoption? I think the 240 may be the only example. On the other hand the 1911, M1 Garnad, M1 carbine, M1919, M60, M16 ECT were all new at the time of their adoption.
The M9 is crap, and oh yea its 2018 and I am still humping around a 14.5inch M4 with a 7 inch rail and a non free floated barrel. Also we have a 24ish pound M240 that has a 3.5 power optic on yet my M4 has a 4 power fixed optic. M249’s are all long in the teeth at this point. M110 has its issues as well.
So yea the Big Army has much bigger fish to fry than complaining consistently how we didn’t adopt the beloved Glock.
9/10 would buy for sure if I needed a 9mm
I actually think that the Beretta M9A3 would have been a better option. Another interesting alternative may have been the Beretta APX wich has a modular unit with a serialized FCU as well.
Well maybe the “other interesting alternative” should have at least gotten has far as the down-select.