Army Chooses Sig Sauer P320 As Next Service Pistol

T

Text Drivers are Killers

Joe Biden - "Time to put Trump in the bullseye."
Caliber hasn't been picked yet but it will almost certainly be another piddly 9mm to keep the girls happy. So why not stick with what we have? The Beretta 9mm is fine if you like a 9.

https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2017/01/19/army-chooses-sig-sauer-p320-as-next-service-pistol/

jan 19 2017 The U.S. Army on Thursday awarded Sig Sauer a contract worth $580 million to make the service’s next service pistol.

Sig Sauer beat out Glock Inc., FN America and Beretta USA, the maker of the current M9 9mm service pistol.

“I am tremendously proud of the Modular Handgun System team,” Army Acquisition Executive Steffanie Easter said in a Jan.19 press announcement. “By maximizing full and open competition across our industry partners, we have optimized private sector advancements in handguns, ammunition and magazines, and the end result will ensure a decidedly superior weapon system for our warfighters.”

The Army did not offer any details about what caliber the new Sig Sauer pistol will be.
Click to expand...
 
Should we even issue handguns to our troops? Handguns are important to cops and civilians but not to a soldier - to them a handgun is just a confidence builder.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Caliber hasn't been picked yet but it will almost certainly be another piddly 9mm to keep the girls happy. So why not stick with what we have? The Beretta 9mm is fine if you like a 9.
Click to expand...

Beats the hell out of the old .45 cal. That was about as accurate as using a sling shot at 100 yards. One could become proficient with the weapon....but you had to practice and waste many rounds with the same weapon as each weapon varied greatly in a constant direction of fire and shot pattern.
 
Ralph said:
Beats the hell out of the old .45 cal. That was about as accurate as using a sling shot at 100 yards. One could become proficient with the weapon....but you had to practice and waste many rounds with the same weapon as each weapon varied greatly in a constant direction of fire and shot pattern.
Click to expand...

It is silly to think you are going to try to drop someone with any handgun at 100 yards. I don't care what you are shooting particularly in a high stress situation.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Should we even issue handguns to our troops? Handguns are important to cops and civilians but not to a soldier - to them a handgun is just a confidence builder.
Click to expand...
A sidearm has been traditionally issued to officers and NCOs for self defense as they are usually looking around getting the tactical picture and the positions of their troops rather than having their eyes focused on a rifle sight. In WW2 they got the good old .45 ACP, and sometimes a sub-machine gun. I believe in Korea they started carrying the .30 cal M1 carbine. In the early 70s, NATO switched over to the 5.56mm round to accommodate our love of the M16, then we switched to 9mm in 1985(?)to accommodate THEIR 9mm sidearms. I grumbled a lot, going from the .45 to the 9mm, but mostly about the particular round. I would have preferred a hollow point, but at that time everyone said they were "inhumane". Ironic.
 
callinectes said:
A sidearm has been traditionally issued to officers and NCOs for self defense as they are usually looking around getting the tactical picture and the positions of their troops rather than having their eyes focused on a rifle sight. In WW2 they got the good old .45 ACP, and sometimes a sub-machine gun. I believe in Korea they started carrying the .30 cal M1 carbine. In the early 70s, NATO switched over to the 5.56mm round to accommodate our love of the M16, then we switched to 9mm in 1985(?)to accommodate THEIR 9mm sidearms. I grumbled a lot, going from the .45 to the 9mm, but mostly about the particular round. I would have preferred a hollow point, but at that time everyone said they were "inhumane". Ironic.
Click to expand...

I've never been able to figure that out also.
You can use bombs, automatic weapons, grenades, RPGs, etc; but a hollow point is inhumane!!

:facepalm:
 
Well I'm a Sig fan so I'm good with it.
My buddy former Special Ops, bought and carried his own Sig. Used it a lot. When it absolutely positively HAD to fire, you want a Sig.
 
Celticguy said:
Well I'm a Sig fan so I'm good with it.
My buddy former Special Ops, bought and carried his own Sig. Used it a lot. When it absolutely positively HAD to fire, you want a Sig.
Click to expand...

Sure it's a nice gun. So is the beretta we now have. Why change? The people who voted for this switch collected a fortune in bribes.
 
Ralph said:
Beats the hell out of the old .45 cal. That was about as accurate as using a sling shot at 100 yards. .
Click to expand...

The 1911 was not a sniper handgun. No handgun is. But it shot a very effective 25 yard cartridge. The army found out in the 1800s that 45 is the way to go.
 
My question to the group *:
Setting NATO standardization issues aside, which cartridge do you think would be best, bearing in mind this sidearm will be shared by burly men, and petite women, potentially in the same battle.

The .40S&W? Perhaps the 10mmAUTO? Or perhaps the .357SIG which can't deliver the foot-pounds the 10mm does, but still has more pop than the 9mm, and due to its necked cart. profile, is noted for relyable feeding (less jamming)?

"Should we even issue handguns to our troops? Handguns are important to cops and civilians but not to a soldier - to them a handgun is just a confidence builder." TK #4

in reply:

"Works good in close quarters." U9 #4

If Captain Sears was leading a patrol in Afghanistan I wouldln't mind having a Sig handgun tucked under my flack vest, in case my M4 packs up.

It's life & death.
As far as handguns go: "It's better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it."

"Of course there are rare instances where a soldier needs a handgun. But handguns don't win battles." TK #6

"For want of the nail the horseshoe was lost.
For want of the horseshoe the horse was lost.
For want of the horse the battle was lost.
For loss of the battle the war was lost.
For loss of the war the kingdom was lost.
For loss of the kingdom their freedom was lost."

I wouldn't be too cavalier about dismissing the importance of nails,
or handguns for that matter.
If you don't want it, don't take it.

But if our troops want a handgun, they deserve the best.
What I'd like to know is, what sort of sights will the new Sigs have.
Iron?
3 dot?
Tritium?
Laser?
Other?

* I understand the U.S. military is the heart & seoul of NATO. So there are standardization issues. Thus the 9mm ball ammo albatross around our necks right now.
 
PS

"The 1911 was not a sniper handgun. No handgun is. But it shot a very effective 25 yard cartridge. The army found out in the 1800s that 45 is the way to go." #17

The M1911-A1 was the sidearm I carried while I was a Cold Warrior.
I thought it was a good, reliable sidearm / cart. combo.

Anyone here not familiar with the story of the Philippine Insurrection?
The insurgents were binding their own limbs with vines so that when shot (w/ a .38) they could continue to charge into battle.

Sam Colt to the rescue!
Tap someone with a .45 ACP and suddenly their priorities become substantially adjusted.
 
sear said:
My question to the group *:
Setting NATO standardization issues aside, which cartridge do you think would be best, bearing in mind this sidearm will be shared by burly men, and petite women, potentially in the same battle.
Click to expand...


We could give the men a 45 and the girls a 9 mm but that would be admitting girls are inferior and it's better to let soldiers die.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top