So now that we have a bright new shiny pistol there are quite a few people I meet who are excited to get hands on it even though picking one up is about the most experience most soldiers will get with one. Beside my general saltyness having to do with fixing things that aren't broke. (I have long said the issue with the M9 isn't that it sucks but that people who are issued it suck at shooting in general and suck at maintaining firearms)

I have read the army wanted a modular pistol with interchangeable front and back straps and the ability to accept various accessories on the dust cover.

I anticipate that the front and back straps extra grip frames will all get lost either in the arms room or eventually make their way into the trash when some new PV2 armor doesn't know what they are for.

The barrels are threaded but I haven't seen a pistol suppressor in the army since I have been in (almost 13 years now) not even with the SF guys we fixed weapons for in Iraq. Turns out "real operators" use ear pro and as one told me the additional noise in a confined space is disrupting to the enemy. I figure it won't take long for most of the thread protectors to be lost and the threads mashed up by rough handling.

Also I don't see why the army needs the ability to readily reconfigure pistols its not like soldiers have the need to change caliber and size so they can conceal carry their duty pistol as a 40 cal at the dfac on the fob. Though I can see some numb nuts young MP buying and installing a different size or color 9mm conversion kit just to be different. Deployed I did occasionally see certain fobbits with highly modified M4's because what they were issued wasn't "good enough" for their tastes.

It seems to me more like the army wanted a new toy and was going to buy it no matter who or what told them they didn't.

I feel they should have dedicated the money to more instructors to train trainers on basic pistol marksmanship and maintenance because in the end a new gun alone doesn't help a shitty shot shoot better.

Anyone else have any feelings on this?

The saltiness is high with this one.

Did we need a new pistol--no...Do I think in the long run that this will be a beneficial decision--absolutely.  I'm a medic so I'm assigned a pistol.  The M9 has never felt comfortable in my hands, as I always found the grip to be large. So the thing I'm looking forward to the most is the interchangeable grips.  Sure, removable back pieces like Glock or the M&P use would have been easier, however I feel like a full set would have been included with each pistol and would be more likely to have been lost.  I think full grips make it easier to account for them. But face it, most shooters are going to take it off the rack, shoot it, and put it back--not knowing or caring about changing the grip.  As far as being thrown away, I would hope that even the newest armorer wouldn't discard what looks like a pistol as the grips are a little more distinguishable than a back strap.  I can't imagine they are going to allow the trigger pack to be removed by the average 'joe'.  I imagine you'll have to go to an armorer to have them switch the grips.

I agree--threaded barrels are overkill, but maybe it was selected because it gives a slightly longer barrel in a smaller overall package.  Thread protectors being lost and threads being smashed is a culture thing.  I agree it will happen, but its the overall culture of a lack of accountability, and frankly people not caring.  Myself, and some of our other medics will treat ours as if they were our own personal firearms and take good care of them, returning them to the armory with all of their issued pieces, in the same or better condition then when checked out.  The others won't care enough to take them out of their holsters, let alone play with the features.

I'm sure the X17 will outperform the M9 in dusty environments, and from everything I read the P320 its based on is a good shooter too.  

The P320 is a pistol I want to own, and I'm very excited now that I can train on my own, attend courses, put bullets down range with a pistol very similar to my service piece.  I would have eventually bought an M9 to do the same, but it wouldn't have been a priority.

OP, what MOS are you?

Being da/sa- the beretta was hard to train people to shoot correctly.  I think having a single, uniform, and repeatable trigger pull will yield better marksmanship results.  I personally own a P320 compact, and while my trigger pull gauge says its 7.5 lbs... it feels much closer to 5 lbs in practice.  I personally hope the Marines follow suit, because after owning the P320 for about a year, I have nothing negative to say about it.  I won't sell my Glocks, but the Sig will be sticking around.

Coming from an aviation standpoint- carrying a beretta that was humongous and heavy in a shoulder holster (flight suit carry) was a complete pain in the ass.  I would have gladly jumped at the chance to carry something lighter and smaller while deployed.  I'm not combat arms, never was, so I can't comment on how they'll be used or carried in the field, but I think they're a step in the right direction.

What will really happen? Big Army will still not teach pistol craft to the general population. Soldiers will still be required to carry them with empty chambers with the safety engaged. Supply Sgts will still horde all the parts and guns will be shit. Officers and Fobbits will still carry them due to laziness.

At the last manufacturing facility I worked at, we had a hierarchy for safety issues that I think can be applied to the situation.  If you have a safety/reliability problem, the solutions you propose should fit in the following hierarchy (I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember the exact list).

1.  Engineering change - Prevent the issue from ever happening by modifying the equipment itself, this ensures you're not relying on people following through with things, which is virtually never 100%.  This is the ideal solution because it eliminates the problem.

2.  Administrative change - Change the overall process and training for the task at hand to prevent the issue.  This works all right in most cases, but if the new way is more difficult or time consuming than the old way, expect it to be ignored by more than a few people.  If the consequences aren't immediate, expect it to be ignored as well.  Even if it's a home run, expect some old timers to ignore it because they don't like change and are stubborn.

3.  PPE change - Add required protective equipment as a last line of defense.  This is your last line of defense, and is not ideal.  It should be paired with one of the above.

With that being said, the new pistol program seems to be an attempt at an engineering change.  Yes, in an ideal world you could give everyone more training and they'd all give a shit and the M9 would be fine.  If you can buy a new pistol that fixes even some of the issues you currently have, that's probably a better first step as you yourself even admit the lack of effectiveness the training has.  Consistent trigger pull (better accuracy for someone with little practice), better fit to the person, less paths for debris to enter the weapon, less cleaning required, lighter weight, these are all advantages that you get purely from switching handguns.

In the fantasy world where everyone is meticulous about their guns and incredibly well trained you could give them any gun and they'd make it work.  In the real world, low maintenance, reliable, easy to operate, lightweight, and replaceable are key factors that help make up for some of the lack of training.  Cost is also a factor I'm sure.  The new gun isn't going to fix all of their problems, but it will probably help lessen some of them.

Like f402mech  I carried the M9 under a flight suit for many years and agree that it sucked.  So much weight and bulk for such a little round, I never saw the point.  We carried our M9s with a round in the chamber and the safety off, it was SOP.  We carried like this while flying at 41,000' and on the ramp in dozens of foreign nations.  We transferred the guns like this between crewmembers and from the holster into the aircraft's gun (storage) box and back.  There was never a problem.

It's cheaper.  Simple as that.

The legacy pistols, M9 and M11, are costing an arm and a leg to maintain.  I'm not talking about cleaning at the user level.  I'm talking about actual logistic, third shop, true "maintenance" where things that are broken get fixed.  Both the legacy guns simply take more work to keep running and more work when they break to fix them.  In a fleet of a half million sidearms, it adds up.

The pure idiocy of having two completely different handguns, from completely different makers, with completely different parts, magazines, accessories like holsters, and even publications add up to millions of dollars the Army doesn't need to spend.

The M17 will be cheaper right off the bat, because any of the newer designs that were considered all have a track record of taking less resources than the older Sig and Beretta.  So anything they picked would end up being cheaper because you eliminate one whole gun from the system. The modular nature of the Sig makes things even cheaper in the long run.  

The Army isn't going to use the modular feature the way John Q Public does.  It's got nothing to do with GI Joe swapping parts and creating his version of the custom M17.  It has everything to do with replacing modules when a part breaks.  Think of the way the Army will use "modular" more as a "Line Replaceable Unit".  When something breaks in the gun, it no longer has to go off to third shop.  The module with the busted part gets replaced at the unit, and the bad module goes off.  The gun stays at the unit, and operational. When the module gets fixed, it goes back into the supply system.  The Army doesn't want GI Joe fucking with the parts at all.  "Modular" for the Army is all about logistics.  

There's a secondary benefit in being able to reconfigure pistols to a different version.  Right now, if the Army needs 5000 compacts, and has 5000 M9's in storage, it needs to buy 5000 M11's to fill the compact need.  It still has the 5000 M9's in storage.  With the modular capability, the Army will simply be able to take the 5000 full-size guns and reconfigure them to compact.  The left over parts go into the supply system to support the guns in service.  Sure, they'd have to buy 5000 compact conversions, but they would likely be buying much of that anyway to support weapons already in units.  The Army is already going to be buying every part and module as spares anyway.

Don't think of the "modular" nature of the M17 as how the 320 is sold to civilians.  Think of it as a logistics feature.  Logistics is what this is all about, and logistics is where the true savings will be.

Depends on where, what unit, etc.... but a number of SOPs are safety on an empty chamber.

Great post Ross.

Modular aspect is overrated in real world when it comes to how big army will use it.  Will expect to see plenty of P320 parts on ebay being sold from places near military bases.

However, M9s are worn out and expensive to maintain.  Plus too big.  Sidearm is mostly a backup and needs to take as little space as possible.  So a G19.

To be honest, most people are failing to see the benefits. Guns get fixed faster. Guns that would normally be a wo if it were a berretta or glock, ie crushed frame  will be fixedable. Maintainence and upgrades can be performed in the arms room and Brigade level support as a opposed to going higher. Those types of things will keep the guns on the line and available for training and deployment.

Modularity wasn't he main reason, price was.  Sig was not going to lose that contract and priced it accordingly.  I think they will work fine for what they are.

Do you have a citation or is this mere speculation?  The myth is that all government contracts are awarded to the lowest bidder, but that is absolutely untrue.  The acquisition system is so complex and exacting you would be surprised anyone even wants to do business with the US government.  Go read the Federal Acquisitions Regulations (FAR), read the contract (and all the FAR clauses), the Technical Data Package, then come back.

Not trying to be contrary, but there is a LOT more to it than price.  

91F30

For the record I posted this to see what kinds of responses I would get since few of these arguments were made in official publications.

I agree maintenance will be simplified. I just don't agree with the whole "were too broke to buy non deadlining howitzer / small arms parts but hey big army is going to buy a bunch of new pistols." I get it all comes down to compartmentalized budgeting but still its hard to miss the hypocrisy.

I'm gonna go and jump in on this one too. I agree that the m9 is an excellent pistol, but gets most of its negative criticisms from lack of maintenence, training, lowest bidder checkmate mags, and size. I for one love the m9 and it's one of my pistols that I shoot the best. The grip is perfect for my hands, but obviously not everyone has the same attributes. It's an extremely reliable gun as well. The main problem was the checkmate mags that were and are still issued. I have a ton of these for my beretta and have never had them fail on me, but I can see how fine sand like that in Iraq could cause problems due to the heavy phosphate finish. A lot of sand resistant pvd coated beretta mags have been issued recently and these have eliminated many of the malfunction problems with the m9.

I don't disagree that the p320 was a good gun to pick to replace the m9 though. It makes sense to adopt a pistol that has a polymer frame and is more accommodating to more shooters. I do think we will start hearing the same complaints we did with the beretta though. Pistol training will not change as well as maintenance. Hopefully the government will buy sig mags as opposed to contracting them out like the m9. The p320's will most definitely be cheaper to overhaul than the m9 which is always a good thing.
As for the threaded barrel, it is likely unnecessary for pretty much every soldier and is only one more thing to get damaged. There are seals that are issued the hk45ct with suppressors but these are pretty much the only pistol suppressors in the military.
I'm a marine and personally hope that the usmc sticks with the m9 and m9a1's in inventory, but that is just personal preference.

Da fuq?

What's wrong with that? It's a da/sa pistol and completely safe to carry decocked and safety off. No different than carrying a sig 226.

I also carried an M9 round chambered safety off, and with 124gr Corbon HPs to boot while acting as a firing party NCO.

I think for the aircrews it was about the transition training, or rather the lack thereof.  We carried S&W snubbies, which were draw, point, and shoot.  Someone somewhere decided not to complicate that.  

So we'd walk up to the window and be issued a pistol and a full magazine.  Walk to the clearing barrel, insert magazine, chamber a round, decock, safety off, then holster.

That's the correct SOP.  Chamber loaded, hammer down, safety off.

if the Military had made the right decision to begin with, P228 / M11 for everyone, I wonder if we would still be choosing a new handgun.  The maintenance issues would be there, but it would be one gun that works for everyone.  I doubt anyone in the field would miss those 2 extra rounds they get with a Beretta 92.

No.

Modular is important. If the M9 was requested as a modular back before the XM9 trials we wouldn't have needed the M9A1 or the XM17 with the M9A3 entry. Technology changes the battlefield hence why there was a need for the M9A1. Fast forward today and we're getting a gun that replaces potentially three already in the system with the third being the G19 because the G19 cannot be adapted to emerging technologies. We're going to be saving a lot of money here in the long run.

Yes it is a secondary but not to all units it is a secondary. So a P320 and not a 19 because the 19 isn't modular to change the configuration to suit the unit that is using them for whatever task that they're doing. The 19 cannot be adapted to new unseen tech like the 320 can. So again, not a 19, this is the P320.

What you want the mil to have is different from what the mil wants to have. The 19 cannot be turned into a sub compact if CID needs it but the 320 can. You said it, as little space as possible. But what if CID is going into theater and not deep cover and wants a compact? Bingo, that is the 320 that can be changed back to a compact at the operator or 20 level...and then changed back to a sub compact. Can the 19 do that? No, it cannot.

Guys, it is done. Trump, Mattis, and everyone else is not waiting to see what we say before they weigh in on this...not matter how much you wished it so.

OP, if it was up to me I'd be making qualifications quarterly. Then they would have to take it seriously.

Add "and continue to have no unit-level maintenance program", and you've fully described how it will go.    

I like Sig's pistols in general, but I still think the M9a3 made significantly more sense than the XM17 from pretty much every perspective. Solved the main gripes, high parts commonality so existing magazines and parts could be used, no retraining of users, little retraining of armorers, and Beretta significantly underbid their own prices for the M9 and M9a1. Any way you slice it it would be immensely cheaper than transitioning to the new platform.

There's also the reliability/longevity thing. The P226 tying the M9 for durability in the 80s trials was no surprise at all, but Ron Cohen's Sig is not Old Sig. I don't trust their QC lately. At all.

What you say may well be true, but only in the short term.  The same argument was made when the M9 replaced the 1911s and S&W 15s (and whatever else was in the inventory).  

This is actually a contradiction.  Modern manufacturers don't use QC anymore; they've all gone to ISO9000, Lean 6 Sigma, and quality assurance techniques.  Reliability was tested during the trials, the P320 wouldn't have been selected if there were reliability issues.

The problem is whether the 92 or the 226 was selected at the M9 trials, both were a HUGE upgrade over the 1911. As much as it might be loved in sport shooting, and as pretty as it is, and all that, for a combat pistol it's a horribly outdated relic from the first World War. It was a .45, low capacity, nowhere near as reliable as either the 92 or the 226 (talking off-the-shelf commercial ones, not some fancy $4000 Nighthawk/Wilson here), and when's the last time you visited the Beretta or Sig handgun forums and saw someone trying to adjust the fit on their pistol by hand? It was good for its time, but its time had passed even back in the 80s.

The P320 is at most a sidegrade. What do we get for our enormous expenditure over the cost effective option of transitioning to M9a3s? Interchangeable grips? Whoop-tee-doo. I'm not unaware of the cost saving potential of a unified platform; if Colt corporate didn't have their heads lodged permanently in their asses they would've advertised the hell out of the ability of the 901 lower to be all things to all users, whether you want a 7.62 rifle, a 5.56 10.5" carbine, grab uppers off of 416s, or anything in between. It would simplify the hell out of the parts and maintenance chain if everyone from the line infantryman to a CSASS user to a semi-auto sniper user all had the same lowers. I just don't see how blowing hundreds of millions so you can turn your full-size pistol into a moderately smaller compact makes a real difference the way doing something similar for the rifle/carbine platforms would. And that all on a platform that arguably is less reliable than what it's replacing to boot. M9 --> M17 is not analogous to M1911 --> M9 at all.

I could be wrong I suppose, but I have yet to see a convincing argument for why that's a good tradeoff.



FBI tests seemed to establish the P320 is no P22x when it comes to reliability, according to Vickers. I absolutely trust the P22x series, but right now I don't trust the P320. YMMV.