Six Solid Reasons the P320 is the Right Choice for the Army’s MHS

The P320 is without a doubt at the forefront of modern handgun design. But is it right for military duty?

The U.S. Army selected the SIG Sauer P320 as their new sidearm, replacing the iconic and long-lived Beretta M9. While it’s less of a dramatic change than when the military largely shifted from the M1911 to the M9, the Army’s adoption of a polymer-framed, striker-fired service pistol is still big news.

Perhaps the biggest reason is that it was overdue. Without getting into the pros and cons of Beretta’s established yet now-controversial design, the polymer-framed, striker-fired service pistol is the overwhelmingly preferred type of sidearm for militaries worldwide — for decades now.

When you have piles of spare parts, magazines and most importantly, training and facilities for one firearm, it’s hard to argue for a new one. Even if newer designs suit a majority of users better than older guns, making the switch is hard.

With the Army’s previous crop of service pistols reaching its end of life, this was the opportunity to adopt something more modern. This was no surprise to anyone as the search for a new handgun — the Modular Handgun System program — has been running for years.

Whether or not the P320 was the best decision for the military will be hotly disputed for more years than it will even be in service. That’s just the way people roll. But it really is a good decision, and here are six reasons why.

1. Polymer-framed

There really shouldn’t be much argument left in the polymer-versus-metal frame debate. Polymer-framed handguns are more than suited for military service. Under most conditions a polymer-framed handgun will last as long or longer than an alloy- or even steel-framed handgun. They have steel components that may fail over time, just like metal-framed handguns, but these parts are easy to replace, where metal frames are often a loss.

Yes, there are extreme conditions that will break polymers where metal will not suffer damage. But that doesn’t matter with the SIG P320, because the polymer frame, well it isn’t. The P320 is built on a skeletal steel frame. The plastic grip is just a shell. If it breaks it can be replaced as easily as the pistol grip on an M4 carbine. The grip isn’t the gun.

On top of that, the inner steel frame is small and protected by the grip and slide. It should be able to survive, with maintenance, abuses that would trounce most metal-framed guns. This makes it a smart move for economic reasons, too.

2. Low Price

Price was a major factor in selecting Beretta over SIG so many years ago. (Photo: Spc. Paxton Busch)

The P320 is cheap. In a good way. It uses a couple of really genius design elements that make it easy to produce and maintain. In addition to having a completely replaceable exterior and grip, the internal frame is mostly stamped steel. After stamping, critical surfaces are machined to the correct dimensions. Less critical parts are cast (and are also easily replaceable).

The other critical components, like the slide assembly, barrel, and recoil assembly are produced using more or less conventional methods. The top half of the gun handles the bulk of the stress and it’s made like any other SIG. The P320 employs the best of both manufacturing worlds.

How cheap is it? We know the contract is for up to $580 million dollars. The price-per-gun is more complicated because the contract calls for more than just pistols over the course of the next ten years. What’s the bottom line, though? It could be as low as $207 per pistol.

When the military made the change from .45 ACP to 9mm it was SIG’s P226 that led throughout the trials. However, Beretta’s to-be M9 cost less, while performing well enough. Ultimately cheap — when done well — wins.

3. Striker-Fired

And then there’s the fact that it’s a striker-fired handgun. Hammer-fired handguns will always be relevant. They have their strengths and many uses, from casual shooting to professional fighting. But the learning curve slopes more steeply with these guns.

Striker-fired handguns have mass appeal. Just as not everyone in the military is expected to be a warfighter not everyone issued a handgun is expected to be all that good with it. Striker-fired handguns are easier to use and train with.

For shooters looking for a handgun with a crisp, predictable and accurate trigger pull — the P320 has that too. The P320 has a pseudo two-stage trigger. The first stage disengages the firing pin block. The second stage releases the firing pin with a quick, sharp break.

Of course, the P320 isn’t the only modern striker-fired handgun with a nice trigger.

4. True Modularity

The actual firearm is the stainless steel subassembly. Everything else can be swapped out or replaced.

With the P320 users can easily swap parts and adopt different cartridges for different roles and missions. That’s nice, but that itself isn’t new.

The SIG P320 is one of the few guns that can be converted from a subcompact concealed-carry pistol to a full-size duty gun without any special parts or tools. While many other service pistols use the same internal components across the board, the P320 is one of the few handguns that can be readily transformed from one configuration to another.

Readily is key there. There are a few guns that have similar frame and grip setups, SIG has a complete, in-production lineup of conversion kits that’s available now. They also have suppressor-ready and optics-ready parts that are developed and finalized, ready to order.

The P320 in that light is a logistics dream come true.

5. Meets Requirements

And that’s why the Army wanted it. The Army’s Modular Handgun System solicitation was so specific about features it would be easy to assume that it was written specifically so that the P320 and only the P320 would meet all their requirements.

But what came first, the requirements or the SIG, really? When the MHS requirements were published there was enough time for anyone working on next-generation handguns to develop a new gun, or modify an existing gun, to meet them. SIG wasn’t the only company developing guns with these features they just managed to get them all in one package.

Plenty of companies delivered designs that squeaked by the requirements, SIG was just ahead of the game. What’s surprising is that the military put out a set of requirements — and they got what they wanted.

6. Best(-ish) in Class

Finally, there are few reasons to dislike the P320. It doesn’t have any glaring problems or unusual properties that make it suffer. Sure the bore axis is a little high — it’s a SIG, that’s nothing new. Maybe the factory sight picture isn’t the most popular but it still shoots straight.

Maybe it could have a true ambidextrous safety — the standard safety is merely reversible. And maybe it could have been hammer-fired — and then it wouldn’t have qualified for the job.

There are other modern handguns that do some things better. The H&K VP9 has a better grip and by some standards a better trigger. The FNS is fully ambidextrous. The Glock 19 is proven and already in service with American forces. But none of these pack all the required features and failing that, the P320 simply does not have any tangible drawbacks.

It’s maybe a little bland, a little municipal, less sexy than some of the other next-gen service pistols. But it does everything the Modern Handgun System needs it to do and more, and it does it all very well. The P320 is no compromise. That’s why it’s a great choice for the MHS.

Or is it? What do you think the military should have selected? Glock 19M? Something FN-ish? Put the Military back in M&P? Or blast it all, the M1911 did everything just right in the first place!

{ 169 comments… add one }
  • MSG John Whelen October 22, 2017, 4:58 pm

    The P320 compact failed early in testing. Once again the bean counters are sticking us with the inferior weapon system based on a criteria that put actual combat dead last in their list of considerations.

  • Fr0man September 28, 2017, 6:28 am

    Is the US Army so strapped for cash the would pick a less reliable pistol to save a few bucks?

    The P320 Compact couldn’t finish the MHS test, the Glock 19 can EASILY.

    Even my lowly civilian Glock has nearly 40,000rds through it since 1998 with only 6 malfunctions in all those rounds.

    I’m not Glock Fanboy, when something better actually comes along I’ll buy it but the P320 ain’t it.

    The most important consideration for ANY weapons system is that it goes “BANG” every time you pull the trigger, PERIOD

  • Barry Soetoroe June 30, 2017, 11:51 pm

    #1. SIG is in New Hampshire, an Obama Socialist State (this contract was granted before 18 January 2017, just two days before Trump took office).
    #2. Glock is in Georgia – a Republican/Red State.
    #3. SIG P320 has over a hundred parts…as such it will fail more often and bring lots of $$$ into New Hampshire over many decades of the Army contract.
    #4. Glock is way too reliable. Only 34 parts and NEVER fails.

    • Boomer July 8, 2017, 1:24 am

      As a Georgia resident, I\’ll say yup… To 98% of that… Glocks can fail but it\’s rare. They are much more expedient to repair, however. The modularity is cool and has its place. I\’ll also agree that Glock has been resting on their laurels far too long and improvements can be made and are past due, especially for the money they charge.
      They charge for the name much more than the product in the current state of available weapons in the same class.
      I hope Glock learns from this, bites the bullet, as it were, and drop the price of current offerings and make improvements on the new.

    • Rich July 21, 2017, 3:12 am

      Uh. That socialist liberal state has constitutional carry. So screw your dumb ass

  • Alfred Friend June 30, 2017, 7:57 am

    I don’t like, I’ll tell you. I just don’t like it. If somethin’ was good enough for my pappy and my gran-pappy, it sure as well should be good enough for me or my boys. All this plastic in a gun. Plastics are for toys and not fightin’ gear.

    Just listen to the majority of you. I remember when Glock won their first contract. Holy cow, you’d have thought all the military was going to be killed by a plastic gun. We as humans have our preferences. Good thing a lot of this bunch of whiners are in the procurement process. Nothing would ever get done and they’d be proud of it. Suck it up folks, the world is moving forward and most of it is GOOD. Learn to adapt and overcome. That’s the key to being successful in any endeavor.

  • Al Young March 3, 2017, 7:11 pm

    Sorry,….I do not want an unproven weapon in the hands of the military. I’m far from a Glock fan, but considering some of the garbage Sig has put out in the past, I think it’s a very foolish choice. I seriously doubt all options on the P320 will be exercised and the contract will most likely be cut short.

    • Mark Tercsak June 30, 2017, 2:39 pm

      Actually Sig has made a lot of fine handguns in the past.
      The Sig P210 is considered by many to be the finest 9mm Handgun ever designed.
      sure everybody has had some stinkers even John M. Browning.
      As per the Glock, I’am no fan, Still remember a Glock Engineer , on video with a loaded Glock, just shaking the Pistol and it discharged. That should not Happen.

      Iam not a fan of Manual Freeles Safety Handguns.

      Overall not a fan of Plastic Guns.

      Very Good video produced a few years ago Armscor 1911 vs, Glock

      The Glock did not survive the 1st Round.

      The Armscor 1911 was soaked in mud in functioned and shot very well.
      The Armscor 1911 was Blown-up Twice and shot with a shot gun and still worked.
      It was sunk in cement which was allowed to cure and busted out, it still worked.

      That is what you want in a true fighting handgun, something that can be brutalized over and over and still function and work and get the job done.

      All Steel is the only way to go.

  • Lon March 3, 2017, 1:01 pm

    I agree with what some others have said about the P320 grip. I have large hands and the medium grip on my P320 (.40 S&W) feels bulky. Not that it’s big, it’s “fat” It feels unnecessarily wide and round. The first time I shot it I had trouble getting it pointed straight on quick draw and fire drills. My flat sided Glocks/XDs/etc point much better for me. Strange because when I first switched from revolvers to autos the flat sided grips felt odd but, After shooting them for a while, I realized that my hands “indexed” with the flats better. Plus, the med grip on my P320 doesn’t feel any smaller that the grip on my XD mod 2 .45. I haven’t held a small grip so I’ll reserve judgement on those. The pistol feels very large because of it’s high bore axis, when I think about the tall pistol with a small sized grip the first thing that pops into my head is that it will feel like a Hi-Point. Which brings me to another issue: why does this striker fired pistol have such a high bore axis? It’s not just a little high, it’s hammer fired pistol high. Maybe if I shot only Sigs it wouldn’t feel so tall to me but compared to my other striker pistols it’s comically tall.
    I, personally, do not understand why the military has to adapt it’s firearms to fit a small percentage of new “soldiers” who cannot adapt to the weapon handed them. What are they going to do in combat if their pistol fails? Are they going to die because the next weapon handed them does not fit their game-remote shaped paws? Do we really have to consider whether some women (or some “men”) will want to shoot their sidearm if it doesn’t fit them perfectly? Seriously, is this what our military has become? My daughter happily shoots every new gun I buy, regardless of brand or caliber. Her first experience with 45 acp was in a sub-compact at 8 years old and she had zero complaints. In fact, she’s now old enough and wants one for her CCW. My best friend’s wife, all 5’2″ and 100 pounds soaking wet of her, will go through more .40 in her glock 23 on range days then most of the men. Sounds like we’re recruiting the wrong people to defend our country.

  • EJ February 8, 2017, 7:32 am

    The ballistics of the 9mm suck. Why did law enforcement across this country go to the 40? The 9mm won’t dependably shoot through a windshield, if it does who knows where it’s going. The 9mm won’t punch through a modern fender either. The 40 does. I think the only law enforcement I know of who still use the 9mm are some of those fools out in California. So why should our boys defending us have to use something less? I thought the whole idea was to get something better for them. Looks to me like it’s the same ole thing, cheap as hell. Save a buck, not a life. Just go back to the 1911, it was a real weapon. Just replace them when they get old not part them out like in the Vietnam era. These people in charge make me sick, these boys should have the BEST period, not the best cheap one.

    • BUURGA March 3, 2017, 2:59 am

      A 9 mm will punch through a fender, although why that should be an issue is puzzling. The Sig has been known for quality and reliability for years. The .45 was, and is, a fine round, but has trouble with modern body armor. The .40 just doesn’t do that much more to start new supply lines when 9mm ammo is available world wide. No sidearm is really designed to attack vehicles anyway. Law enforcement is widely using the 9mm or will be. The ballistics are fine, don’t know where you got that one from.

      • Clayton March 3, 2017, 8:13 am

        The ballistic for a 9mm are a long way from fine.
        Remember that our military are bound be rules of war to use FMJ ammo only. When you are engaged in a battle you don’t put your gun down and give up because your equipment can’t penetrate your adversaries armor . So you had better be carrying appointment that had a treat their armor whether it’s a fender or a windshield.

        • Oaf March 3, 2017, 7:12 pm

          Our military is NOT bound by any “rules of war” that prohibit hollow point bullets. The 1899 Hague Convention banned bullets that expand or flatten easily in the human body, but America has never been signatory to that agreement. In fact the US military is considering issuing hollow point handgun ammo now.

      • Frank Morehouse March 15, 2017, 7:13 am

        Not true-the .357 round was designed to punch through an engine block…common knowledge

  • Jesse January 31, 2017, 1:53 pm

    The military should never have dropped the 1911. Bit since they already did, I think the Sig is a great choice. So what they will have to train & learn a new weapon system! That’s what training is for. It’s not hard to train military personnel on how to use & handle a striker after carrying a Beretta w/ a hammer. I think once everyone is up to speed & units have a choice on carry or compact sizes, the Sig will liked by every soldier, even the anti-polymer ones. I love my 320, love it. Semper Fidelis

  • Gene Simmons January 30, 2017, 10:12 am

    I like the P320. I own two, a full size and compact. I’ve owned them for 6 months. During that 6 months, neither have been as reliable as any of the many Glocks I’ve owned and shot since 1992. In fact, I had more malfunctions (failures to extract) with my P320 Compact in one range session (17 in 75 rounds) than I’ve had in a quarter-century of shooting thousands of rounds through Glocks. Sig Sauer quickly replaced the extractor, which is known to be an issue in the Compact, and I’m grateful to their customer service.

    My main concern with the P320 is long-term durability. The Glock has been vetted by decades of field work and millions of rounds. The P320 has been around only for about 18 months and is basically a striker-fired reintroduction of the unsuccessful P250. I’m really interested in the results of the P320’s military durability tests. If it passed, hey, that’s wonderful and our troops deserve nothing but the best.

    One thing that I’ve considered is that some of Army brass wanted the P226 so badly in 1985 that it was almost a foregone conclusion that they were going to get their choice of Sig Sauer this time. Irrelevant, but interesting nonetheless. Congratulations to Sig Sauer and I hope the Army has the best of luck with the P320.

    • Aaron S. March 3, 2017, 9:09 am

      I don’t think we probably have a lot of The same army Brass as we had 32 years ago.

    • Kenny Carwile March 3, 2017, 12:50 pm

      I’ve owned a compact 320 for over a year now and in close to 2000 rounds I’ve had 0 issues. I shoot my own hand loads so I think I’ve only shot 1 box of factory. Love the gun!

  • Phred January 29, 2017, 9:45 am

    Thanks to all who clearly applied a lot of thought and expertise in writing about these firearms.

  • Foxtrap January 29, 2017, 9:01 am

    I think this pistol is a fine choice. The only problem that should be fixed, as the 9mm hangup. I get that it’s a NATO thing, but that doesn’t make it ok. It needs to be upgraded to at least .40 S&W, or maybe 10mm. 45 acp is probably asking too much in such a lightweight pistol, for the average Joe.

    • Aaron S. March 3, 2017, 9:20 am

      We have a lot of women in our military and the .40 is just too violent on recoil, With FMJ ammo it just does not perform significantly better. The .45 is slow and has issues with body armor and slightly more recoil than the 9 but not as violent as the .40. Price does play a big role, but the 9mm in today’s military makes sense. LE departments are going back to the 9mm and ditching the .40 for the same reasons (not all departments)). It has been around and used by military and LE for a lot longer than Glock, or the .40 has been around. .40 was developed due to the lack of punch the .38 special had, not really due to the 9mm. I heard also the military is considering going away from FMJ, we are not bound by it, we can choose.
      Also Sig has been making fine and dependable firearms for a lot longer than Glock, Glock needs to quit crying, they had the same chance as everyone else, they were not chosen. Sigs are made in the US mostly, Glock is not, the money stays here, not that that matters I guess.

  • Glenn61 January 29, 2017, 6:43 am

    I like it,….!. the guts can come out easily for quick cleaning, The Beretta 92FS is still a great gun, but this is more up to date.
    This will be a nice addition to the infantry while Trump builds up the military again.
    But,,,I’ll hang on to my Beretta , it’s a great pistol once you replace the ridiculous safety on the slide with a Wilson Combat after market one.
    I still have a love for the pistol with a hammer that can be cocked, Just like I still prefer a 5-speed stick in my car and my truck too.
    I guess I’m getting old.

    • Gomer Pyle March 12, 2017, 4:39 pm

      Yeah yer purty old, but I prefer a three speed on the column for my car and three on the floor for my truck.

  • Mikial January 27, 2017, 9:25 pm

    In truth, all the guns submitted in the RFP were great guns. The Sig had the features the Army wanted at the price they wanted to pay. I like Glocks, but after spending 2 1/2 years in Iraq as a DoD contractor working with the troops and indigenous forces I completely understand why the Army wanted an external safety. The 1911 was a great gun in its day, the M9 served our troops well in its day, and the Sig will be a reliable and solid handgun for our troops going forward. Period.

  • cisco kid January 27, 2017, 8:36 pm

    Lets compare the Sig to the Glock.

    The Glock’s striker is only 68.2 per cent cocked which means it will stay stronger longer before it weakens from being cocked and need replace because it becomes unreliable with its ignition. The Sig 320’s striker is supposedly 90 per cent cocked so it will have to be replaced sooner but its ignitions system when new should be a bit stronger being 90 per cent cocked.

    Pre-loaded striker fired weapons have notoriously weak ignitions systems as compared to the traditional hammer fired guns like the Beretta and 1911 pistols. I have tested the ignition strength of both the Glock 17, 19, and Walther P99 and they all failed the high primer test 3 times in a row trying to set off the same primer in each test compared to the various bone crushing ignitions systems of hammer fired guns like the Beretta and the 1911 etc. Its interesting to note that some years ago Germany tested pre-loaded striker fired pistols and found the ignitions so weak in comparison to hammer fired guns they tested the pre-loaded striker fired guns had to have the ignition power factor reduced substantially to even pass the test.

    Pre loaded striker fired guns also have open striker channels that let in dirt, dust, burnt powder , moisture etc which again makes them way less reliable than the closed firing pin tunnels found on most hammer fired guns.

    Safety: “What people cannot see they do not fear”. Guns with hammers let the operator know the gun is cocked and ready to fire. In other words “it scares the shit out of people” especially new recruits that usually have never even held a real handgun before. Not so much with striker fired guns as they cannot see the gun is cocked so the caution value is not there.

    Manual Safeties. The Beretta had a manual safety which was a plus both in carrying the gun and taking it apart. At least the Sig has a side lever for take down rather than the idiotic and totally unsafe Glock take down system that requires you to pull the trigger to take the gun apart. If you forget just one time to check the chamber you either shoot yourself or someone else. Brilliant system.

    The military should demand Sig put a manual safety on the 320 as the average recruit again has not the gun savvy or experience to handle a weapon without a manual safety and ditto for civilians that shoot themselves with Glocks and copy cat guns every day.

    Back Straps: Here Sig really dropped the ball as a person needing more trigger reach must replace the entire plasticky frame rather than just swap out another back strap that is much cheaper and quicker to do.

    Although the Military claims the Sig 320 is one gun that does it all I am willing to bet they end up adopting the 320 compact for tank crews or for air force personal climbing in and out of helicopters and jet planes.

    Since the Military has so many 92’s in stock now they will have to train recruits on two entirely different types of handguns. That takes time and money and in combat situation if you have to pick up the other pistol which you have never used everyday its a prescription for disaster. Another Brilliant move to adopt another totally different type of pistol especially one that is inferior in the ignition system.

    As usual the Neanderthals that procure weapons for the military never think things out from beginning to end and simply replace one system that may not have been perfect and usually end up with another system that is even worse and this time that is certainly the case.

    Of course now we will see Sig bring out a “look a like” military version of the 320 complete with military markings to give the civilian para-military lunatic fringe an orgasm as they believes that since the Military adopted the 320 it therefore has to be perfect in every way and now they all simply must have one.

    If the Military would have had brain one and were hell bent o n adopting a “plasticky pistol” they would have been way better off just adopting the H&K P30S. Its has a reliable ignition system being hammer fired, a manual safety which can be left on when loading or unloading the gun, a safe take down system and an excellent de-cocker lever to safely lower the hammer and the hammer does not crash down against the slide but is caught on the way down to gently lower the hammer. Now that is how to build a pistol even if it is “plasticky” but “plasticky” is about as good as it gets in todays econo-grade “plasticky” world of pistols.

    • Kevin January 28, 2017, 7:11 pm

      Nice comment I enjoyed reading it.

    • Glenn61 January 29, 2017, 6:48 am

      I like a hammer too,,, but after hundreds of rounds through my Gen 3 Glock 19 without even a mis-feed,,,, I can’t fault a striker. I’m sure Sig thought about the 90% cock ready, and put a really good spring in there.

    • Ed January 30, 2017, 5:38 pm

      My first carry weapon was a Bersa 380. It is a shameless knock off (but very effective) of the Walther PP. At the time a lot of DA only hammer fired autoloaders were being pushed by the manufacturers. I could never see the point. To my mind a DA only takes a choice away from you. Now there are striker fired autoloaders…..and I have to ask,..why? I get that a hammer can snag….but that never happened with my Bersa. I like being able to actually see the thing that’s going to drop on the firing pin. I like being able to pull the hammer back or not for my first shot. I also get that the hammer has to be lowered gently to avoid firing the next round if you want to…..but so what? Anybody who can’t do that has no business owning a firearm in the first place. I can see it….I can determine if it needs cleaning…..I know when I pull the trigger the hammer is going to fall. I look at striker fired as the automatic transmission of guns….shift into D and you have absolutely no idea what is going on to make your car go. No thanks. My next concealed carry will be hammer fired.

  • NICK January 27, 2017, 7:42 pm


    • Rrudytoo January 28, 2017, 10:37 am

      Ah, c’mon, Nick, don’t beat around the bush. Just come out and say what’s on your mind. LOL!
      Semper Fi.

    • Jason January 28, 2017, 1:26 pm

      These Sigs are all manufactured in Exeter, New Hampshire providing American jobs.

    • Jason Porter January 28, 2017, 2:09 pm

      Say what you want about 9mm, but the FBI’s extensive testing will disagree with you.
      On the flip side, this is the most Marine thing I’ve ever seen posted on here.

      • TPSnodgrass January 29, 2017, 2:57 pm

        Having had the experience of working with various FBI agents at various times on various “joint projects” prior to my own law enforcement retirement, I can say that the majority of those I interacted with, had little to no real firearms experience other than their qualification and Academy range time. The safest place to be is in front of them. The HRT folks are an entirely different breed of agents, and that is good. I’m not sure I put any faith at all into the FBI “testing protocols” because those all have specified and pre-determined outcomes based upon budgetary requirements.(which drive ALL Federal RFPs and contracts)
        Anytime the military changes their handgun requirements, someone is always going to be “upset” with the change, so, the simple solution is to find the “work around”, which does indeed exist in all military units in all branches of the military.(from my own experiences as well)
        Instead of whining and sniveling, find out what works best for you, accept it, then move ahead.

    • Vic January 30, 2017, 12:08 pm

      Another boondoggle.. 9mm ball will be just as lousy in a SIG as it was in the Beretta.
      “Well not everyone can shoot .45acp well” Well… how about not looking to the weakest link (not simply a gender issue) to build the standard around..
      No excuse..

      The 9mm ball cartridge will continue to cost lives..


    • Dale March 3, 2017, 12:01 pm

      You’d never take away my FNX-45. Shoots straight, easy to clean, they pack a punch and 15 rounds. Screw 9mm’s!

  • Mil-Spec January 27, 2017, 7:32 pm

    Well folks – my commentary is 2-fold. 1) regarding the specifications, I am in agreement with those of a mind that the spec was written PRECISELY for the purpose of selecting the Sig. I have been a technical sales specialist to the military (US Navy, DHS, and various government agencies) for the past 16 yrs and personally wrote specs that closed out the competition due to the fact the requesting agency wanted my company’s products despite the fact we were more $$$ (we produce totally US made items) 2) Glock has pistols operating throughout the world w/more military/police agencies than all others, excepting SF’s/SOG/SWAT detachments and the like – so what’s the real deal beyond a flawed procurement? As stated by many commentors: POLITICS.
    Remember, other than special operations “… a sidearms primary reason for being is to allow its user to fight their way to a rifle”. ~ Jeff Cooper

  • Shannon January 27, 2017, 6:50 pm

    “And maybe it could have been hammer-fired — and then it wouldn’t have qualified for the job.”

    And it would have been the equally remarkable Sig Sauer P250, which has been in production even longer. Sig learned from this gun’s rocky release and all its pains and tribulations, then designed a serialized inner mechanism and slide for the striker-firing requirements.

  • Colonel G January 27, 2017, 5:08 pm

    Most of us have their favorites, but chances of The U.S. Army adopting our personal favorite pistol are pretty remote. The old Colt 1911 was fine in its day, but that day has passed. The same can be said of my personal favorite, the superb Browning Hi Power. Most of us are familiar with Sig which has a reputation second to none. If I were issued a Sig 320, I might find a point or two where it doesn’t match my Browning, but having shot many Sigs before, I would have complete confidence that it is utterly reliable, exceptionally accurate and probably superior to any pistol the opposition might have. Sig’s reputation, fit and handling are exceptional, the testing seems to have been rigorous and thorough, and the 320 meets all the criteria for a modern combat sidearm . I’ll take it.

    • richard from willow springs January 27, 2017, 8:28 pm

      my ’73 Hi Power had horrible accuracy. another fellow who bought one mid 70’s said same thing. we both got rid of them.

      • Foxtrap January 29, 2017, 9:15 am

        I bought a High Power in the 70’s too, and had the same accuracy issues. Couldn’t hit a bull in the ass with an ironing board, so I sold it too.

  • Edward M Pate January 27, 2017, 4:18 pm

    I am just curious after all the years of the M9 with that long DA first pull if you might see more than a few accidental discharges with this new weapon. Let’s face it, military handgun training leaves much to be desired and could stand some improving and putting more rounds down range in training.

    • Rrudytoo January 28, 2017, 10:41 am

      Absolutely agree! I’m a Vietnam era former active duty Marine and my experience was fam fire, only, when it came to handguns which, in my case, meant the M1911.

  • Brian Moore January 27, 2017, 3:51 pm

    I am very happy about this choice and think they have chosen very well! I was active duty when they went from the 1911 to the M-9 and hated that move. They should have chosen the 226 then. Had they done that, this move would be unnecessary.

  • Barry Soetoroe January 27, 2017, 2:59 pm

    The real six reasons that SIG won this $580 million contract:
    1. New Hampshire (where SIG USA is) is a Democrat, Hillary and Obama-voting state.
    2. The SIG USA plant in New Hampshire is manned by Labor Union employees….who vote Democrat.
    3. The contract decision was driven by the Democratic Administration in the DoD and made just two days before the Trump Administration took office. The Dems did NOT want such a large contract being handed to a Red State such as Georgia (where Glock USA resides).
    4. Georgia (Glock USA) is a Right-to-Work state and restricts the abuses of unions who obviously are joined at the hip with the DNC.
    5. SIG USA was a major donor to Hillary’s campaign. SIG gave nothing to the Trump campaign.
    6. While Glocks are clearly the most reliable auto pistols on earth, they require very little maintenance and extremely few, if any, replacement parts….not a good long-term business model when you want to keep selling replacement parts to the Govt customer and keep pumping out entire replacement guns at ever-increasing costs over the next decade.

    • SGT-N January 27, 2017, 4:09 pm

      If Glocks are the best pistols, why do Glock owners switch out plastic sights, triggers, barrels, slides, etc. Glocks, moreover, are known to have the worst grip angle ever. When you own a SIG Sauer, Colt, FN Herstal, Kimber, HK, Sphinx, or another high end pistol, you may change the sights to night sights, if the pistol didn’t have them or the original set died, or the grips to a more aggressive type on a non-polymer frame. Even Ruger, S&W, Springfield Armory, CZ, Walther come out of the box needing few if any changes.

      • Major54 January 27, 2017, 8:00 pm

        WHY do Glock owners make these changes? Because the Glock, like the venerable 1911, has proliferated world-wide to the extent that all that you mention and more is readily and competitively available. Why do many auto enthusiasts do likewise with wheels, suspensions and decorative customizations? Because the ready ability to make an item personalized is inate in the psyche of a large percentage of the Western world. I own a number of custom made and fitted 1911 variants simply because I can at a realistic price. As for my EDC in my profession of nearly forty years, I carry a Glock, with factory tritium sights. It’s what I am issued to carry. I have no affinity for it but after several thousand factory rounds through it without a hiccup, I can begrudgingly admit why moderate bore fans choose to stake their life on its reliability. And why there is such an industry for its customization and personalization. All while I personally enjoy and carry when possible, one of my custom fitted and highly customized 1911’s.

      • Joe January 27, 2017, 10:52 pm

        Simple, for personal customization, just like when you buy an AR-15 or a 1911 .45 ACP pistol, there are so many OEM part manufacturers, one can’t help but to want to join the growing trend of doing personal custom work. I had a Gen 2 Glock 19 for years, and took it constantly to the 25 yard line, and was able to put most rounds on a 5 inch diameter bull’s eye on center mass paper silhouette. Oh and I forgot to mention, that was with a brand new out of the box Glock 19, with no custom work done ever, the factory 5 lb trigger, and regular factory sights. Law enforcement agencies are not allowed to do any custom work on their service weapons, they need to be factory original parts, with the exceptions of certain departments (NYPD) which require the trigger pull to be changed to 12 lbs (known as NY trigger). And as of yet, there hasn’t been any issues since inception in 1982. That’s over 34 years with a clean history and A1 reliability, and again, with original factory parts. And the only issue they had, if you want to call it an issue, was that the magazines did not drop free on the first generation Glocks. And that was mostly due to the fact that in most European countries that adopted the model 17, they were ok with that. But in the US, during the decade of the 80’s, as a result of police departments across America transitioning to go from revolvers to semi-automatics, they preferred the drop free magazines for obvious tactical reasons. And Glock provided that change, and it was smooth sailing from there. About the only issue I ever found with my Glock 19 was the grip size, which was an easy fix, a $10 rubber sleeve made my Hogue. Now with the new Gen 4, you have grip options to fit the size of the shooter’s palm.

    • John J Morley January 27, 2017, 7:44 pm

      HUMM? Very interesting info, I did not know all this, but it does make sense now. For the record, I used a Glock 17, in Law enforcement duties, since it first came out ( early 90’s ? ). In the military, I used a Colt .45 1911 ( made by Singer), for a long time and also the Beretta M-9, over in the Gulf. I still shoot my Colt 1911 best, but I do like the simplicity of the Glock. I never shot a SIG.

      • Rrudytoo January 28, 2017, 10:48 am

        You’ve got to try a SIG 1911! I have the Nitron Carry model and it is the best out of the box pistol I’ve owned. It is as stock now as it was the day I bought it years ago and I have no plans on changing a thing…….it flat works and is incredibly accurate if I do my part.
        Semper Fi.

    • Joe January 27, 2017, 10:14 pm

      I agree with point #6, you’re absolutely right on the money on that one. I worked at a gun shop years ago, and during my time there, I could not believe the amount of cops that brought their service Sigs in to have factory warranty repairs. The Sig is not as reliable as people make them to be, when you put them to the daily abuse, mostly the exposure to the elements, they would jam and I personally saw quite a few of them rusting. A great majority of the officers that came for factory warranty repairs, were displeased with their Sigs, and ended up switching to the Glocks.

      • DrJon March 3, 2017, 8:52 am

        I carried a SIG P220 during Hurricane Katrina in 2005, but it was never wet. Overnight the entire pistol turned brown and started to rust. I had to lightly use oiled flat wound wool to clean off the rust. Then near the end of the period that I carried it the hammer return spring broke and the gun became inoperable if the pistol was not first pointed up to the sky to get the hammer into a proper firing position. It was a failure prone pistol that I quickly sold and replaced with another 1911.
        All the Glock needed was a slide mounted safety and a few of the plastic parts replaced to immediately go into military use. However, the Glock has, in my opinion a very poorly designed trigger and having fired both the Glock and Walther PPQ, the Walther system means that more rounds are going to point of aim with its excellent system. Glock should improve their trigger and bring it more into line with the aftermarket trigger systems that are available.

    • Buck Ofama January 27, 2017, 11:42 pm

      You are 100% correct. Army once again screwed the pooch. Should have just opted for Glock 17 and/or 19 and been DONE with this. I think that this new SiG is FUGLY, full-length dust cover on frame looks stupid. All of this “modularity” crap is over-rated too. Army doesn’t like the average soldier to fully “disassemble” pistols beyond basic field stripping anyway. They either want fully-trained unit armorers or Dept. of Army “civilian” depot-level maintenance employees (many of these D.A. civilians are former active/retired Army personnel) ONLY to take stuff apart and put it back together again (when they actually have time in between the 25 or 30 daily “coffee breaks” that these people typically take (and yes I was once an Army unit armorer myself). So, Private “Joe Snuffie” has no business to partake in “unauthorized disassembly” of anything. Hell, God help you if they catch you removing a FLASH HIDER off of an M-16/M-4 to properly remove all carbon, etc, LOL…Some things never change. I was in the Army during the transition from the venerable 1911A1 to the Beretta M-9 (92). As some Army General recently commented that he could “get a credit card and go to Cabela’s and purchase all of the new handguns that the Army needed” for far less hassle, etc., he was correct. Should have went with Glocks. Better trigger, safer, more reliable, more “soldier-proof”. Pure win. But instead they went with a gun made in a libtard Hillary and Obama-loving state. Why ANY gun manufacturer chooses to remain in any of the communist states is a mystery to me. I hope that our soldiers don’t lose their lives because of this poor choice.

      • Big Mike January 28, 2017, 9:33 am

        I was in the Army and field stripped all platoon weapons. I own Glocks, 1911’s, SW’s, Walthers,Sigs and a Sig P320. The field strip is easier on the P320 than any weapon I have touched or seen. The overlooked design plus is that the grip of the P320 can be adapted and channged to fit any hand. Their are 3 types now as in size. Small, Medium and Large. I would even expect aftermarkets to take advantage of the design just as stock makers for rifels such as Magpul. The P320 is such a paradigm shift that it will take a while for the public and manufacturers to get their head wrapped arround it. One thing I find odd is no one mentions the torque shift whithin the P320 when the trigger is squeezed. The parts acually shift and the barrel moves at a half trigger pull. This can eaisily felt during a dry fire. Also the flat trigger is a must. The guns effectiveness is enhanced greatly with people with large finger.

    • Pete L January 28, 2017, 12:02 am

      I found that Sig Sauer actually contributed $100,000 dollars to an ad campaign AGAINST HILLARY. Although other manufactures like Smith and Wesson gave $500,000. The point is, your speculation of how Sig won the contract is total Bullshit.

    • Dan January 28, 2017, 2:31 am

      There wasn’t a single point in your whole comment that is true. All point are completely false.

    • Dan January 28, 2017, 2:45 am

      Barry Soetoroe
      There wasn’t a single point in your whole comment that is true. All point are completely false. I know a ton of people who work at SIG and everyone hates Hillary. There is also no union. And no one voted for Killary. And its also funny because Sig actually invited Trump to visit the factory, not Hillary. Your comment is a joke.

    • Frank Stratton January 28, 2017, 3:36 pm

      If #5 is true It would stop me by myself buying any SIG. Don’t need my money going to people or causes I don”t support. Getting harder and harder to track companies I can agree with.

    • TPSnodgrass January 29, 2017, 3:00 pm

      Where can I find the the donor information that SIG contributed (specifically) to HIllary’s campaign? If that is true, I will never purchase another SIG and will sell the one I currently have. I vote with my wallet.
      Thank you.

  • Missbaysdaddy January 27, 2017, 2:42 pm

    I think they should have gone with the CZ-75B. I own two of them and they are excellent pistols. The big draw back is that they would cost twice as much. Just would not be possible to make them for $207.00 each. I wish if they were going for that small amount I would own more than two.

    • SGT-N January 27, 2017, 4:15 pm

      I love pistols made by CZ as well, but the CZ-75 series is not modular.

  • Mike January 27, 2017, 2:08 pm

    I don’t know the Sig, but I shoot a 9mm S&W M&P frequently and like it very much – reliable & accurate. The updated M&P series just released looks like an awesome American-made alternative.

    • SGT-N January 27, 2017, 4:30 pm

      I have both a S&W M&P 9mm and a SIG Sauer P250 Compact, the hammer fired predecessor to the P320, in 380 ACP, which has a 13-round mag, and love both of them. The only difference is the fact that I can change the P250 to 9mm, 357 SIG, 40 S&W, or 45 ACP for around $300 to $350, which is less than a no name pistol, and still have the parts for the 380 ACP.

  • Ed Robinson January 27, 2017, 1:33 pm

    What’s the point? The GI pistol, not intended for SF use, is the least important piece of military armorment in the arsenal. Very few modern pistols wouldn’t work. So go for simple, functional and inexpensive and get on with it.

    • Kivaari January 27, 2017, 2:35 pm

      That’s what this pistol is. It is dirt simple (could have been a Glock) and doesn’t cost much money. A $207 each that’s pretty reasonable.

  • Joe January 27, 2017, 1:20 pm

    Well, there are two guns in the world that are known to be the top contenders when it comes to reliability. Beretta 92FS and Glocks. The 92FS is a workhorse, probably the only handgun in the world that was tested continuously to firing over 30k rounds before it’s first malfunction. The Italians got it right with that open top slide, as there’s less of a chance of getting level 1 malfunctions (failure to eject) no matter how dirty the gun is. Glocks are the most reliable of the polymer frame, striker-fired type handguns, there’s a reason why every major gun manufacturer tries to copy it, but there’s only one original, the rest are imitations that fall short of delivering the reliability we expect from a handgun when at a critical moment. It is the most adopted handgun in the world, by both foreign military and law enforcement, as well as most domestic law enforcement agencies. Why? Because it is battle proven since it came out in the 1980’s, simple in design and operation, very easy to maintain, it is the same design across the different calibers offered as different models, and now with Gen 4, the ability to change the grips to fit the shooter’s palm size. It’s a shame to know that the Army’s selection to go with the Sig P320 was as a matter of fact, based on which gun was the cheapest (and not necessarily the most reliable) option. I am glad to see that here in the U.S. there are still military units (Navy Seals) that value their servicemen’s lives over cost when it comes to their choice of sidearm (Glock).

    • Bob January 27, 2017, 3:07 pm

      How many who read this article have ever been in combat? Now, how many of them ever had to use their sidearm in a firefight or that the sidearm was required to save their lives? Probably very very few. I carried a 45 in combat and only used it once in combat in the entire 13 months and fifteen days while in country.The only reason I had to use it was because we were involved in a an unexpected engagement and I was 20 feet from my rifle. like a dumb butt. Most of the time it was just useless dead weight. People need to understand that real combat is not like Hollywood combat. In civilian life, I carry a pistol out and about. It is obviously the most convenient way to carry a firearm in public. But my thoughts are to always use the handgun to get to my long gun, which would be in my vehicle, when possible.

      • richard from willow springs January 27, 2017, 8:36 pm

        just wanted to brag a little about my home state of Missouri which had open carry for a long time. last November, it is now legal for concealed carry without a permit.

      • Big Mike January 28, 2017, 9:34 am


    • junglecogs January 27, 2017, 9:14 pm

      I may be in error, but I think the SEALS already use Sigs.

  • Ronald Brabbin January 27, 2017, 1:14 pm

    Why can’t a American company produce a superior side arm for our military, designed and produced by Americans.

    • Kivaari January 27, 2017, 2:38 pm

      This IS an American design and built in New Hampshire.

    • Bill Hughes January 27, 2017, 2:55 pm

      It IS being produced by an American company. It IS designed and produced by Americans. Do your research. SIG SAUER USA, NH.

      • FactChecker90803 January 27, 2017, 7:45 pm

        Most dont know that A separate company named SIG Sauer was founded in the USA in 1985 with the name Sigarms (until October 2007) to import and distribute SIG Sauer firearms into the United States.

        Since 2000 SIG Sauer USA Inc, has been organizationally separated from SIG Sauer GmbH. SIG Sauer USA, is a wholly separate company that has a slew of weapons that have been independently developed and co-developed with L&O Holding Gruppe that bought SIG, and renamed it Swissarms, the units that are held by this Holding Company consist of:

        J.P. Sauer & Sohn.
        Swissarms Inc.
        Mauser Jagdwaffen GMBH.
        The German manufacturer SIG Sauer GmbH.

  • James Drouin January 27, 2017, 12:59 pm

    a). “They have steel components that may fail over time, just like metal-framed handguns, but these parts are easy to replace, where metal frames are often a loss.”

    Nonsense, worn out is worn out. And, guess what, “steel” doesn’t wear as rapidly as polymers.

    b). “Less critical parts are cast (and are also easily replaceable).”

    Nonsense, the slide and frame on ‘metal’ handguns are stamped and then machined.

    c). “And then there’s the fact that it’s a striker-fired handgun.”

    Correct, and the incidence of accidental firings on striker-style handguns is LEGION, just look through Youtube.

    d). “The SIG P320 is one of the few guns that can be converted from a subcompact concealed-carry pistol to a full-size duty gun without any special parts or tools.”

    Completely misleading, one size does NOT fit all, and anyone who believes the military will allow anyone but one of their Amorers to change the configuration simply doesn’t know the military.

    e). “The Army’s Modular Handgun System solicitation was so specific …”

    And therein lies the problem. Instead of asking industry to innovate, aka “think”, they decided THEY knew everything relevant to know.

    So, not so “solid” after all.

    • SGT-N January 27, 2017, 6:08 pm

      In rebuttal:

      A) the key is P320 is modularity. If the firing module wears out, snap in a new one. If the grip module wears out, snap the firing module into a new grip module. If the slide or barrel wears out, which is highly unlikely in the near term, just mate a new one with a good firing/grip module. Last, the P320 can be changed to 9mm, 357 SIG, 40 S&W, or 45 ACP with a kit composed of barrel, slide, magazine, and recoil spring where required. In other words, think of P320 as a high quality Leggo set.

      B) barrels and slides are critical parts. SIG Sauer mills them from a billet of stainless steel using state of the art CNC machines, then finishes them with a proprietary, hardened coating known as Nitron.

      C) only untrained idiots carrying unholstered Glocks tend to cause negligent discharges. A negligent discharge by a trained service member carrying a holstered P320, which uses a variation of a DOA-only trigger system, will be rare or nonexistent.

      D) the grip modules for the P320 come in small, medium, and large, so the unit armorers will snap the firing module into a grip module that works best for the service member. If a compact or subcompact grip module is required, the unit armorers will fit a firing module into the proper grip module. Since unit armorers changed out triggers, grips, stocks, stocks, and other simple items on the M16A1, M16A2, M4, and M4A1, the Board which chose the P320 took into consideration that all necessary modifications could be done at the unit level as well.

      E) SIG Sauer developed the P320 by improving the revolutionary, hammer-fired P250. Since the P250 prededed the P320 by 7 years, the other firearm companies had plenty of time to develop something similar; but, they didn’t. Some like FN Herstal made their rail system on the PX and PS series replaceable, but this feature doesn’t make these firearms modular. Likewise, many companies include grip panels to accommodate different hand sizes, but again, this only cured one facet of modularity that the Military sought.

      PS: I am not affiliated with SIG Sauer in any way. I’m a disabled Vet who owns pistols/revolvers produced by S&W, Ruger, CZ, Para Ordnance (Canadian made), Colt, Rock Island Armory, Walther, Mauser, Browning, FEG, Beretta, Kimber as well as SIG Sauer.

      • SGT-N January 27, 2017, 6:22 pm

        Errata: A) 1. the key to the P320 is modularity 2. In other words, think of the P320 D) the Board, which chose the P320,

  • sean January 27, 2017, 12:41 pm

    I have one and was amazed with the accuracy. Very much a close counter part to the M16. Very simple gun to learn. Parts are basic and easy. I think it was a logical choice. It appears the military version will have a manual safety. Having been in the Army I like it and it will be easy for new recruits to master. Is they’re more accurate, better triggers, more cosmetically appealing pistols? Of course! This is not about that. This is about teaching someone that has never used a pistol how to use it, master it, simplicity of parts, reliable, accurate, easily modified, light weight, and cost effective. It seems to fit the bill.

  • Grant Stevens January 27, 2017, 12:33 pm

    Like the Beretta debacle of the mid 1980s, this is another sad day for a nation that pioneered firearms development worldwide. This is just one more globalist shot to the heart of American firearms manufacture. I am incensed that my tax dollars are being spent by the US military to enrich a foreign firearms manufacturer. Even if the guns are made here, the profits still benefit a foreign nation, not America. The US military should only be allowed to purchase US-made firearms and ammunition by US companies. How can we be the “arsenal of democracy” if our military arms and ammunition are made by foreign companies? There is absolutely no reason why S&W, Colt, Ruger, Kimber or any number of other US firearms manufacturers could not supply a superior 9mm handgun for US military use. Besides, if the situation is desperate enough for a handgun to be used, it may as well be a .45 acp 1911. No other handgun on earth has its battle-tested credentials. But, then again, that was when real men walked the earth and compromises weren’t made to accommodate the fairer sex.

    • Rider793 January 27, 2017, 1:34 pm

      Obvious question: If there is absolutely no reason why any number of US firearms manufacturers could not supply a superior 9mm handgun, WHY DIDN’T THEY? Per reason number 5 above, ONLY SIG got them all into one package. Be disappointed in the US firearms manufacturers, not the Army.

    • DRAINO January 27, 2017, 1:36 pm

      Sounds like your beef is with the US companies….? Why fault the buyer who is seeking the best all around tool for a specific job? As stated, the US companies could have entered better candidates. I agree it would be much better that we bought American, but why handicap ourselves to spite ourselves? Don’t be mad at the buyer for buying the better tool just because where the tool was made.

    • Kivaari January 27, 2017, 2:43 pm

      Why do we issue Swedish weapons, Belgian weapons and Italian weapons? We’ve been doing so for decades. All our machineguns are Belgian. Our AT84 and M3 are Swedish. The Beretta is Italian. Where have you been?

  • Noel P. January 27, 2017, 12:11 pm

    The cost factor ? 200,000 guns, 450,000,000+ million dollars. Even with spares and backup (which is seldom around when you need it) I don’t see these getting anywhere near $207.00. Maybe their math was wrong.
    Also on nonmetal frames there does exist a concern over extended use damaging the polomer frame. I have a Sig Striker framed pistol and others and I found that the Walters seem to point better but as pistols go the Sig is fine. I am now more concerned about the caliber.

    • Kivaari January 27, 2017, 12:38 pm

      The $207 is for the pistol, the balance of the money is for spare parts, magazines, holsters, training etc. The contract includes all those features. It will be 9mm.

  • MuddyEye January 27, 2017, 12:04 pm

    A long time ago when the decision was made to drop the .45ACP and go with a smaller faster bullet, a golden opportunity was missed. Years ago the .38 Super offered magnum firepower in a semi-automatic design weapon. In Iraq it was important to have more power at a longer distance, and still have a flat shooting trajectory, with a manageable recoil. Since the SIG-P320 is multi-caliber there is still hope for this option. The battlefield is not the place for a CCW as a primary fighting tool, it is an open carry, bigger more demanding environment. SIG has a reputation for being easy to shoot accurately with little practice. Accuracy instills confidence.

    • Kivaari January 27, 2017, 12:41 pm

      Why worry about “long range” with a pistol. A 38 Super isn’t that much flatter and long distances are est served with an M4 carbine. The average military pitol user will do well to hit at 25m.

      • SGT-N January 27, 2017, 6:29 pm

        A pistol caliber that is accurate and powerful at more than 25 meters is important when your M4 goes tits up in the middle of a firefight.

  • Radesh Singh January 27, 2017, 12:00 pm

    Haven’t held or fired one of these. I had a p250, and a 2022. Didn’t like the feel of either. Hence the word ‘had’. I have a p220 and p229, so certainly nothing against SIGs, but I really like the XD(m), and Glock 19. That said, I would be great to hear from the people who put the gun through its paces.

    • sean January 27, 2017, 12:45 pm

      Had a p229 too. Hated it, love the p320 though. Straight shooter.

    • Shannon January 27, 2017, 6:54 pm

      Uses the same grip modules as the P250, so all in all, it would feel the same in that regards.

  • William liddell January 27, 2017, 11:31 am

    You got the Berretta purchase reasons wrong. We bought the M9 because the Italians bought our M60 tank. It was more about politics than either quality , reliability or price. You will find the same situation for our buying Belgian FN machineguns in exchange they bought our F16’s. There were/are better pistols and machineguns but that seems to be secondary to our politics.

    • John S. January 27, 2017, 6:50 pm

      Curious as to which machine guns are superior to the 249 and especially the M240?
      The FN Mag/240 is probably the most widely issued 7.62 NATO GPMG in the world.
      The new and improved M60 variants are interesting, but not widely issued in the US military.

    • Jake January 27, 2017, 9:05 pm

      What machine-gun is better than the FN MAG? As for best pistol, who the heck knows? Everybody has an opinion and the government, even though they always say this newest one will replace all others still winds up with ten different guns in circulation all the time. What do the SEALS really use? 1911’s? Glocks? HK mk23? SIG Mk25? Depending who you talk to you get four or five answers.

    • Max Slowik January 30, 2017, 2:50 pm

      I agree, the small module is more medium and the medium module is pretty large.

  • W.P. Zeller January 27, 2017, 11:10 am

    We bought the 320RX with a mind towards using it in our many Intro classes, hoping the dot would be a good learning aid. Plus, as (overly) active USPSA competitors, we were impressed by watching Shane Coley blaze the Carry Optics division at Area 5.
    Once we got our hands on it, though, we became steadily less impressed.
    The standard “medium” grip module is actually pretty large. I can’t get a good straight-line grip with my medium-sized hands. The problem is, the “small” module is only a little bit smaller, and worse, completely unavailable. Not even Sig has had them in stock.
    Our students have been very mixed on the gun. We expected the older ones to be more enthused but that hasn’t been the case.
    The 320 is also another in a long line of polymer striker guns that many a review insisted had the best striker trigger ever. Yeah, well, being less bad than a Glock does not mean it’s a great trigger. It’s okay, but it’s nothing special.
    The gun exudes an air of cheesiness that I can’t escape. Maybe it will indeed prove durable but there’s nothing about it that makes me think it will be able to equal a 226 for long-lasting reliability. To me, it’s just a cheap-looking and -seeming gun.
    Worse, is that the Ruger American isn’t even mentioned here. I confess when we were first exposed to the American (a name I would not have picked) we weren’t overly impressed.
    But we do a secondary class with a “gun buffet” of 30-some 9s and .38s and the American is in the mix thanks to the store’s extraordinary rental rack.
    After a while, the American sort of started creeping up on me, especially after purchasing the 320 and getting disappointed.
    Finally, a couple of weeks ago, I put the 320s, iron and dot-sighted, and the American in a booth and asked our students to make a point of comparing them. Then, when they were all done, we ourselves did the side-by-side shooting comparison.
    The Ruger ran away with the “competition”- it was preferred by a solid two-thirds of the group, and in my own personal case, it was not close- the American’s controls, ergonomics, and most especially the trigger were superior by a significant margin. The balance is better too, to my mind, more nose-heavy and solid. The 320’s balance is practically indistinct. It never feels as though it’s come to the “home” position.
    Even the looks- the 320 is just plain stupid looking, even if one ignores the high-bore-axis thing. Clunky at best.
    The American is a little too space-shippy for this old guy but wins me over in the polymer field (where I confess I don’t find much aesthetically pleasing).
    And, the Ruger’s changeable handle works better for our hands than the expensive and unavailable Sig modules.
    I have no use for the reflex sight we have on our 320. It slows me down and adds almost nothing to accuracy at less than 20 yards. I’d take it off were it not for the students’ use.
    But I’m scheming to add an American to the fleet, which I believe at least I’d shoot voluntarily.

    • MuddyEye January 27, 2017, 12:21 pm

      Interesting observations which mirror my own experiences. The SIG 225 is a favorite but is too small for the battlefield.
      Something like an X6 in .38 super is what the troops need. This will be expensive. The compromises incorporated due to cost savings and speed of manufacturing are often reflected in the overall satisfaction of the finished product. Cheezy…the same way I feel about most every polymer anything. The Russian PL-14 looks like a home run to me. Just hope they stick with the alloy frame.

      • SGT-N January 27, 2017, 6:39 pm

        I believe the P226 in 357 SIG would be great, but not all the REMF’s could handle the recoil. Solution, P320 in 9mm for the REMF’s, and the P226 in 357 SIG for combat arms. Will never happen, though, due to the cost of the P226 and the ammunition.

    • Jake January 27, 2017, 9:15 pm

      Same here. I am head over heels with my American. I like the trigger very much and the Novak sights are perfect for me. Any old 1911 guy would find like me that your muscle memory for the 1911 works 100% with the American as well. The trigger out of the box is way better than my M&P Pro was. One thing is for sure. There are a whole lot of new, pretty good striker fire polymer guns out there today.

  • Robert Smith January 27, 2017, 10:56 am

    A bit off-topic, but what’s now going to happen to all those M9s? I hope some anti-gun bureaucrat in the Pentagon doesn’t order them destroyed. Congress should require them to be turned over to the Director of Civilian Marksmanship for sale to the American public. They are our guns.

    • Kivaari January 27, 2017, 12:46 pm

      The M9 remains ins service over the 10 years of this contract. Then they go to reserve/guard units for 30 years of service. Just like the M1911 went into reserve units after the M9 came on line. It took years to switch out.

      • DM3404 January 27, 2017, 3:11 pm

        Guard and reserve have the M9s now. The old ones will probably go the route of the old 1911s, sold to other countries and stockpiled by the CMP , then all the rumors about sale to the public will begin.

  • Michael Monahan January 27, 2017, 10:56 am

    I heartily disagree with the statement “…everyone in the military is not expected to be a warfighter…” Every member of every branch of the military is always expected to be a warfighter. When the chips are down, the cook drops his or her ladle and picks up a weapon. That is taught for day 1 of basic training.

    • DRAINO January 27, 2017, 1:53 pm

      Not sure what branch you are talking about but during my 20 in the AF….that WAS NOT the culture. They are slowly trying to change that culture, but until the AF has bled like the other corps….it’s always going to be behind the times…or lines, should I say. Not saying the AF hasn’t bled. Many great Airmen have given their lives on duty. But as a whole, losses have been much greater in the other branches. But back to the point, Ideally that may be how things work in a perfect military. But that war fighter culture has not been and probably still isn’t shared by all branches. A painful truth to be sure.

  • Gamebred January 27, 2017, 10:39 am

    The number one thing to remember about this choice is . . . it met all the contractual requirements of the DoD’s specifications. Above and beyond all, that’s why it got picked.

    Do all the requirements really matter in “the real world”? Simply put, it doesn’t matter. Those were the requirements, and the Sig 320 did the best job meeting them. Really, that’s all there is to it.

    We can argue all the usual arguments, but at the end of the day this is a service handgun that will basically be a backup, concealment, or “he just needs to be armed” gun for our military. It has to serve people that go from expert level to “oh, is that a gun?” level, and there are far more of the latter.

    It appears to be a decent “serves most purposes” handgun, and that’s probably what our military needs. Our special forces have access to better or at least more specialized weaponry, and that’s smart. We don’t need super custom pieces to serve as qualification arms for our stateside officers and staff.

    And maybe that’s what this modular system can do. Maybe there’s a “standard” package for general duty and a “*insert your favorite black ops term here*” version for the guys we read about in Soldier of Fortune?

  • Jonathan D Olenick January 27, 2017, 10:26 am

    NOTHING stops like a .45acp, but more recoil and fewer rounds and heavier ammo. Jon

    • paul paradis January 27, 2017, 10:57 am

      SW M&P keep the money in the US with US made and owned

      • Richard January 27, 2017, 12:46 pm

        SigSauer is now actually a American company and separate form Sig in Germany. It also no longer has ties to its original Swiss manufacturers( which is now named SAN Swiss). Most of the newer guns are designed and made here in the US. The 320 is entirely a US designed gun. Sig Sauer also doesn’t pay any licensing to Sig in Germany for any guns manufactured today. Its essenually three separate companies, SigArms in Germany, SAN Swiss in Switzerland, and Sig Sauer in the US.

      • Kivaari January 27, 2017, 12:49 pm

        SIGs are made in New Hampshire. Wages stay here. Holsters, parts, magazines, training all stays here.

        • DRAINO January 27, 2017, 1:59 pm

          Yeah, but why the anti-gun peoples republic of NH….??????!!!! Go to a more pro gun state!! At least a state where people can legally own what you make. How contradictory is that?? Should be another requirement…….made in a US state that is not considered anti-gun.

          • Dan January 28, 2017, 2:54 am


            Your comment couldn’t be more wrong. NH is pro gun. NH is also in the process of passing constitutional carry legislation. In NH open carry is legal, concealed carry is legal, private sale is legal. Check your facts

    • James Drouin January 27, 2017, 1:04 pm

      Old adage … while a 9mm may expand, a .45 will never shrink.

      • Radesh Singh January 28, 2017, 6:25 pm

        Excellent, comment. Going to borrow that one!

    • Edward M Pate January 27, 2017, 4:08 pm

      Like 45 ACP but 10mm stops a LOT harder!

  • Catfish86 January 27, 2017, 10:15 am

    OK, I see the word “iconic” coupled with the Beretta M9 and they act like it is proven. It was a dud when it was adopted and never improved. Please stop using that word with that piece of crap.

    • James Drouin January 27, 2017, 1:06 pm

      Well, there ARE “iconic failures” … it just seems like the military specializes in collecting them.

    • Edward M Pate January 27, 2017, 4:10 pm

      There is NOTHING wrong with that weapon other than the fact so many were allowed to get so worn out. They went through the toughest testing any military handgun ever did prior to being adopted. I’ve got probably 5000+ rounds through my 92FS and the only issues I’ve ever had were a couple of FTF using cheap reloads. Also one of the most accurate handguns out there too, and a hammer to allow for a double strike if needed.

  • Bryan January 27, 2017, 9:56 am

    When this thing went into service with LE there was a mandatory recall on the total slaide assembly… happened in my county. They were given a deal by sig to trade in the amazing P229 for this POS. I am a huge fan os SIG, just not this one. Good thing they are cheap……they will need to replace a lot of them.

  • Mitch Dennis January 27, 2017, 9:40 am

    Glock is king in the polymer handguns. Just look how many country’s military and PMC and law enforcement choose them. The rest are cheep copy’s non battle tested junk. As far as caliber inside the US 40 S&W with a 155 gr. can produce almost 357 mag. ballistics with a capacity of 16. That is my choice. But on a world stage 9 mm Para bellum is the correct choice. Look up the word Para bellum. Latin for “Prepare for war”. It was designed exclusively for war. The Germans got it right. With out a doubt the 9mm Para bellum cartridge has killed more men than any other handgun cartridge in the world.

    • Mike Loveall January 27, 2017, 10:36 am

      Price is the reason only

      • Don January 27, 2017, 12:27 pm

        Mike, you ‘right-on-the-money.’ I am a former Army SF veteran and served in Vietnam. I also believe that a ‘combat’ handgun differs from a ‘carry’ handgun. In my day, we carried the ‘old man,’ the Model 1911A1 in .45 ACP. It would put the enemy down and out very well. Also, the 1911s held up very well under combat conditions. After 10 years of service I left the Army and then, in 1984-85 they adopted the ‘Beretta’ M9 in 9mm. I still carry a ‘Colt’ 1911A1 Officers Model in .45 ACP and now at 65 years old, I am staying with it.
        Be well!

    • Stephen M January 27, 2017, 12:23 pm

      Isnt 9mm the NATO sanctioned pistol cartridge? I didn’t think the US military had much choice in cartridge if it wanted to adhere to NATO regs.

    • Edward M Pate January 27, 2017, 4:12 pm

      I like the 40 S&W and have several guns chambered in it. But in my opinion is is way short of 357 Mag power levels. Go to the 10mm and now we are talking, it is at about 41 Mag levels.

  • Alan January 27, 2017, 9:34 am

    For all the naysayers, It’s STILL a damn site better than that committee built “never seen combat” POS of a Berretta.
    Hell, the ORIGINAL Berretta with the frame mounted safety was better than what they came up with.
    I have never understood that stupid slide mounted safety alteration. Smaller handed people couldn’t use it without shifting grip.
    I don’t care for Sigs mostly, they don’t ‘feel’ right to me.
    But they do have the reputation

    • Kivaari January 27, 2017, 12:53 pm

      In the last 15 years of war, I suspect a few M9 pistols have seen combat. Dakota Myers used one while earning his MOH. He didn’t like it, but he used it.

  • JLA January 27, 2017, 9:14 am

    I’d have gone with the Smith & Wesson M&P .45 myself, but the 320 should get the job done. It’s interesting that it has a manual thumb safety, or at least it looks like it does. I wasn’t aware that was even on option on the P320. I guess when you’re buying hundreds of thousands of them you can get them anyway you want.

    • Mike Loveall January 27, 2017, 10:40 am

      I have the predecessor the Sig P-250 sub-compact

  • JLA January 27, 2017, 9:12 am

    I’d have gone with the Smith & Wesson M&P .45 myself, but the 320 should get the job done.

  • WS January 27, 2017, 8:57 am

    I don’t think they could’ve gone wrong with an FNX-45 Tactical. The only problem? The price tag.

    • Mark Are January 27, 2017, 11:29 am

      Price tag? When has the government ever really cared about the price tag of anything? At least these weren’t as expensive as some of the toilet seats they bought. BTW…they have a printing press and really don’t worry about the cost of much of anything anymore.

    • Kivaari January 27, 2017, 2:48 pm

      The FN Tactical is too large for everyone except a couple genetic misfits.

  • ROSCOE January 27, 2017, 8:34 am

    I carried the M1911A in a few wars and own both a retired military one and a new Springfield Armory version. I checked the serial numbers of the ones I carried for duty, and they were manufactured in the 1940s. And thank you, John Browning for a fantastic life preserver. I’ve never shot the Beretta, but the ones I’ve seen in ground pounders’ holsters look like they wore out a lot faster than the M1911A1s did. On the other hand, I like a “large capacity” fist full of quick, accurate, sustained violence. So I like Sigs. Apparently the Infantry Board and I are in agreement, and the Army made a great decision.

  • Tom King January 27, 2017, 8:08 am

    A little off subject. In the picture of the soldier shooting the pistol. How is he holding it? It almost seems if it has a forward grip.

    • Dave January 27, 2017, 9:17 am

      If you google Dave Sevigny (I think I spelled that correctly), you will see that his grip technique when shooting Glocks is very much like the gentleman in the picture above.

  • Joseph January 27, 2017, 8:05 am

    Hmm, but the least expensive P320 I can find for sale to the public is about $600.00. Yeah, I know – you buy $5M worth and you’ll get them for about $200.00 too. It does seem though, that double the government rate would be a legitimate retail price. I expect you can get an M9 pretty cheap in the near future if you know what to look for. Anyone have tips on how to acquire one that isn’t shot out?

    • Elnonio January 27, 2017, 9:42 am

      I bought my M92FS years ago for the simple reason that it’s what we carry and so I wanted to have on to be able to shoot it occasionally through the year with it and not just once a year.
      Assuming that the Marine Corps goes the 320 way, my M9 will go on sale.
      The M9 is a good enough firearm, but I won’t need it then and it’s not one that I feel particularly attached to. I suspect mine won’t be the only one!

  • Warner Anderson January 27, 2017, 7:58 am

    The pistol was issued to a combat arms unit that served as a real-world test bed, right? Why not interview some of those troops, and look at their official feedback as well? More meaningful and insightful than opinions from all us “Former Action Guys” and armchair opinionators.

  • ToddB January 27, 2017, 7:57 am

    Some of us are confused, for a while we kept hearing how the 9mm just wasnt cutting it when it came to stopping power, the military cant use all those really effective hollow points. So I guess many of us were sort of expecting something other than another 9mm. That will use the same ineffective rounds as the last pistol.

    And hopefully SIG has fixed the reliability issues with this series of guns. The P320 is just a striker fired version of the P250. The gun that was sent back by a slew of govt agencies for reliability issues. I traded for a P250, and quickly got rid of it. It was just not reliable enough to depend on it for my life. Had a bad habit of FTE, it would pull an empty out part way then just leave it there to gum everything up. And buying $50 magazines got old pretty quick.

    • Stan d. Upnow January 27, 2017, 10:41 am

      Todd, maybe your P-250 jammed because it was in 9mm? I’ve got a full-size in .45acp and have not experienced that problem. I do agree on the price of mags, though; IF you can even find them! (last time I checked, SIG website was out of them)

  • Mark Tercsak January 27, 2017, 7:48 am

    You can have a Million scenarios when it comes to combat.
    let’s put a soldier in one of those situations, he is in an urban environment , his M4 destroyed in fighting.
    he is separated from his unit.
    He has been using his Sig but is low on Ammunition.
    He is surprised by an enemy fighter and hears others.
    He decides instantly to use his Sig-Pistol has a Hammer and beat this Son of Bitches Skull in and Pound out his Brains !
    Question Will this Plastic Sig be able to do that and still Function ?
    How many Times can this soldier use his Sig Pistol as a Hammer before it Fails ?
    will this Piece accidently discharge when the Soldier is using as a hammer, trying to crush the other dudes skull ?
    Can you pop a top off a beer Bottle ? Well you can with a 1911 and a Beretta.
    Plastic Guns are not superior to steel guns!
    Simple Fact !
    Glock vs Armscor 1911
    Glock did not survive the 1st Round.
    Well the Slide did the rest of the Piece could not be found.
    The Glock was blown up with 1 lbs of Explosives, as I said all they found was the slide.
    The Armscor 1911 was also blown up with a 1 lbs of explosives.
    The Armscor 1911 was intact and functioned perfectly.
    They would go on to torture test the Piece, they shot it with a 12 gauge shot gun, the 1911 still worked , they set it in concrete and let the concrete cure and blew it up a second time, the Armscor 1911 still functioned.
    All Steel guns are the way they should go…..
    Sig has a great line-up of All Steel Guns, as Does CZ!

    • elnonio January 27, 2017, 9:53 am

      Now you tell me?! My pistol is really for opening bottles, getting blown up with explosives and hammering skulls… I really need to ask the Marine Corps to update the doctrine, they’re teaching us all the wrong things…

    • Deadmeat99 January 27, 2017, 10:49 am

      Brought to you by Armscor.
      Armscor – “We Beat People With Our Handguns”

    • Mark Are January 27, 2017, 11:42 am

      Gee, I’d rather use my guns for protection, rather then blowing them up or beating people with the grip. I have a hard time believing your post. My first experience with a Glock was a torture test in Tampa Florida the first year they were made available. I didn’t like the looks, but when I saw them drop one out of a helicopter from 1000 feet and watch it bounce in the air 50 feet a few times before it came to a stop on the runway, where it was picked up and fired fine, I thought hmmm…then the other two torture tests. One with a Crown Victoria cop car slamming on the brakes and skidding the Glock under the tires, still fired…looked like crap but it worked. And then the demonstrator took it and threw it down the runway end over end. Messed the sights up, but it fired. HOWEVER, they didn’t blow one up! Guess that was the test they stayed away from because THAT would have “proved” they were junk. LOL! BTW..I own Glocks, SIGs, HK’s and a few other different pistols and revolvers and frankly, you can’t stop a Glock. Not too easily. SIG 320? I blew one up twice because the round started to extract too soon. SIG disagreed, but the pictures of the brass told otherwise. It was the .357 SIG version though. I have a complete set of P250’s with four FCU’s and every possible combination within reason. The set fits in a hard rifle case. Nice pistol, but a PITA to get good with due to the DA only design. Give me a Glock 29 or 30 any day.

    • Kivaari January 27, 2017, 12:59 pm

      SIG uses aluminum and plastic.

      • SGT-N January 27, 2017, 7:00 pm

        The P320’s slide and barrel are stainless steel, and itsfiring module is stamped steel. Even its sights are steel, unlike plastic ones found on Glocks. The legacy line ( P226, P225-A1, P229, and P239) have an aluminum frame using the same alloy found in M4 uppers/lowers, hard-coated stainless steel slides/barrels, steel sights (tritium night sights or 3-dot contrast sights), and steel components everywhere else.

  • Infidel7.62 January 27, 2017, 7:44 am

    The SIG is fine but it should have been the 229 or 226 striker fired is a reason not to buy it.

    • Jim J January 27, 2017, 10:01 am

      I completely agree, I am no fan of striker fired. I actually just bought the Beretta storm full-size 45 caliber. And I have to say I absolutely love it! I have owned six, other Burress, Smith and Wesson, cold and I have to say the new storm with the barrel design is a pleasure to shoot, is extremely accurate stays on target much better than a standard blowback design and is very rugged. Plus you have the option of single/double action etc. it also comes with a host of options.

  • Tom Parry January 27, 2017, 7:37 am

    Dumb decision. The trigger pull is way too heavy for the rank and file to shoot accurately. I’m not saying stick with Beretta, but the gun needs to be DA/SA or have a short reset like the Glock 19. Why do these guys need a modular gun for concealed carry anyway? If they want a Sig, the 229 would have been a better choice.

  • Military Dude January 27, 2017, 7:34 am

    This is the most preposterous argument I’ve ever heard – A Glock, XD, or any other polymer framed pistol could be substituted into every one of those arguments. None of the reasons specifically identified the Sig as the proper choice, just stating things we already knew, sorry folks – not my favorite article from you.

    • Max Oversteer January 27, 2017, 10:20 am

      Would those guns have functioned? Certainly. Reliably so. Would they have met the modularity requirement (whether it’s a valid requirement or not)? Not at all. Being modular was so important to the program, they named it the MODULAR Handgun System Program. In this aspect, the Glock and XD failed miserably. Hence, the lack of adoption. Did you read the article you commented on?

  • Anthony Romano January 27, 2017, 7:29 am

    I think the M&P should have been the choice, it’s an American company and it does virtually everything the Sig does.

    • Kivaari January 27, 2017, 1:02 pm

      SIG is located in New Hampshire. Beretta is a USA company, just like SIG. We made M9s here for 30 years. We’ll make the SIG here for the 10 years of the contract.

  • Lon January 27, 2017, 7:18 am

    Akshilly, the grip is easier to replace than an AR…. you don’t need tools. 😉

  • Ed January 27, 2017, 6:40 am


    • Theron Patrick January 27, 2017, 8:11 am

      The Sig is Meade in the USA.

      • Ed February 1, 2017, 6:31 am

        BUY AMERICAN !!!
        Foreign products made or assembled here are still not American. I say stick to American companies like most other nations support their own. This comment is not a knock on foreign products, but meant to support homemade industries first.

  • Jim Amirault January 27, 2017, 6:08 am

    “The Army’s Modular Handgun System solicitation was so specific about features it would be easy to assume that it was written specifically so that the P320 and only the P320 would meet all their requirements.” That is most likely exactly what happened!

    • joeseph momma January 27, 2017, 9:08 am

      I agree with you…

  • Pops45 January 27, 2017, 6:05 am

    Does this mean I won’t have to listen or read about the 1911 vs Beretta debate anymore?

  • Stephen Burchett January 27, 2017, 5:43 am

    This is a dollars and cents choice, however , I think special ops. will still have the 1911 type available, where as the P320 may be better for the rest.

    • Kivaari January 27, 2017, 1:03 pm

      The Marines dropped the M45 after just a couple of years.

  • REM1875 January 27, 2017, 5:39 am

    Well here’s hoping the slide doesn’t crack at around 3000 rd like the first “iconic” M-9s did.

    • Kivaari January 27, 2017, 3:10 pm

      Remember that was using +P+ ammo. That was also 30 years ago and the issue was solved. Just like the M16 issues were 50 years ago, and they were solved.

    • cisco kid January 27, 2017, 8:40 pm

      most likely the frame will split.

  • Obeezy January 27, 2017, 3:02 am

    Boooooo. I’m a patriot, but these are NH-manufactured wannabees. The few real deal SIGs still around come out of Germany, but almost none ever make it across the pond anymore, due to politics, disguised as export penalties: . Anyone familar with the Walther PPK quality control issues, once they let S&W take over production? Anyone who thinks our (firearms) manufacturing standards are on par with Germany (or Austria) are kidding themselves. Still, I get it. We’d rather not have our service pistols manufactured in a foreign country. We could give American stalwarts like Colt, S&W, Remington, and Kimber a reason to WANT to make an exceptional service pistol. However, as far as they’re all concerned, the words “Low cost, technically acceptable” don’t exactly get their creative juices flowing.

    • Kivaari January 27, 2017, 3:15 pm

      The American companies did not want the business enough to build to the requirements. Would you have suggested S&W when it was owned by Tompkins Plumbing (England) or Bangor Punta (Brazil)? Winchester (Belgium and Italy)? Colt in bankruptcy?

      • Obeezy January 28, 2017, 1:38 pm

        Appreciate the note, Kivaari. As far as I know, (at the moment) S&W’s parent company is American, and a contract like this could actually save Colt. It’s not apples to apples, but while (to many) Bentley or Mercedes are considered superior luxury autos, (our) President rides in a customized GM Cadillac. If at all possible, our troops should have a US-branded sidearm. That said, if the Glock 19 is good enough for issue to SEAL teams, it should be good enough for the Army.

  • Will Drider January 27, 2017, 12:44 am

    I don’t have a dog in this fight. Having retired from the Mil and then from LE, Nobody dictates the firearms I will carry. I will say that the “modular requirement” is over blown. The “pistol” is actually nothing more then a drop in trigger group. I find it a real stretch to call it a receiver but that is the trend of erector set pistols. If we really look at the numbers most of the pistols will never have their modular parts changed. How many undercover cover and covert operators need CC size? So that leaves grip size: say 60% fit the standard and split the other 40% among inserts. I’ll say there is some benefit there. But the bottom line is the Army is going to buy a shit load of extra parts that are going to sit in boxes and add to the logistics tail and being dragged around everywhere the Units go. That takes money, fuel and cargo space that often times is scarce.
    One size fits all. Maybe a non-modular pistol isn’t too big but the soldiers are too small or not trained enough to be proficient in a make do with what you have Military? Smaller folks used the Garand, BAR, M14, M60 and 1911.

    • joeseph momma January 27, 2017, 9:12 am

      I agree with you…

    • Pseudo January 27, 2017, 10:04 am

      I agree with you as well. Why is it that for years there have been so many smaller size folks and women who have had no issues shooting the .45 without complaints about recoil, as there are the same size folks still shooting the .45, yet the trend I keep hearing any more is about “recoil?”

  • Al January 26, 2017, 3:59 pm

    +1 for the P320 full size. I owned one and only traded to fund another purchase. The trigger was a tad heavier than I prefer, but so smooth I barely noticed. It’s perfect for stress situations.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend