Sig Sauer P320 wins US Army Modular Handgun System contract to replace the M9 pistol - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Jund;51696441]yeah but they had to maintain their reputation as tough guys who don't take any shit, and that entailed using a heavier pistol that's more prone to breaking down with half the rounds and shittier follow up and barely, if any, performance increase depending on the type of round plus they're soc so firing gold bars at the enemy is ok[/QUOTE] IF the 1911 had those flaws they wouldn't have adopted it in the first place, much less [i]actively used them for over 90 years[/i]. You don't have to like it, but there's a good reason it's still seeing active use even today. It's a damn good pistol and easily one of the best automatic pistols ever designed. It has stood the test of time far better than pretty much any other small arm ever produced. Another testament to its designer: The M2 50cal HMG is still in active duty as well, fairly unchanged, from its initial design all those years ago. It's such a good HMG that we've had no need to try to replace it.

[QUOTE=Jund;51696422]yeah they're 26 years old they're older than the guys using them[/QUOTE] If you think that's bad, Canada is still issuing sidearms that were manufactured in the 1940's, and there's no plans to replace them for at least another few years.

[QUOTE=Jund;51696541]well it fires the .357 SIG instead of the .40 S&W like its competitors did so it probably does kill stuff deader[/QUOTE] The MHS will allow it to be chambered from 9mm to .45ACP -- Which is why it was selected. Its more modular than its competition.

So could someone explain to me how this gun shooting is any different to the other gun shooting and why they wasted so much money and time to develop something that really doesn't look all that different, is this one mechanically more efficient or something? [editline]edit[/editline] [QUOTE]One of the major goals of the effort was to adopt a pistol chambered for a more potent round than the current 9mm Sig also touts the P320 model product as "modular" and "adaptable," with interchangeable grips, multiple sizes and calibers that can be converted between 9mm, .357SIG and .40SGW. "From calibers, to pistol size, to the grip fit best suited for the shooter, the P320 is the most adaptable pistol available today," the company says in promotional materials. [/QUOTE] Oh so I guess it just kills but [I]harder[/I] and is slightly more modular? Was that really worth all the time and money to develop, was the M9 really all that outdated of a weapon?

The military industrial complex, everybody. Unbelievable how much this cost.

[QUOTE=jonu67;51696627]So could someone explain to me how this gun shooting is any different to the other gun shooting and why they wasted so much money and time to develop something that really doesn't look all that different, is this one mechanically more efficient or something? [editline]edit[/editline] Oh so I guess it just kills but [I]harder[/I] and is slightly more modular? Was that really worth all the time and money to develop, was the M9 really all that outdated of a weapon?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Jund;51696422]yeah the [Berettas] are 26 years old they're older than the guys using them[/QUOTE] If they're going to replace stock of equipment, they may as well do so with a more up-to-date design that better suits their needs and is much more versatile [editline]20th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=TestECull;51696561]IF the 1911 had those flaws they wouldn't have adopted it in the first place, much less [i]actively used them for over 90 years[/i]. You don't have to like it, but there's a good reason it's still seeing active use even today. It's a damn good pistol and easily one of the best automatic pistols ever designed. It has stood the test of time far better than pretty much any other small arm ever produced. Another testament to its designer: The M2 50cal HMG is still in active duty as well, fairly unchanged, from its initial design all those years ago. It's such a good HMG that we've had no need to try to replace it.[/QUOTE] The mechanism is one of the best, sure. Where the 1911 falls behind is capacity, I'd take 13/15/17 bullets that each (arguably) do roughly the same job as the 1911's 7 - and that's if you hit the target, higher capacity being a much bigger factor in that than whatever .45 or the 1911 brings to the table over any modern 9mm.

[QUOTE=jonu67;51696627]So could someone explain to me how this gun shooting is any different to the other gun shooting and why they wasted so much money and time to develop something that really doesn't look all that different, is this one mechanically more efficient or something? [editline]edit[/editline] Oh so I guess it just kills but [I]harder[/I] and is slightly more modular? Was that really worth all the time and money to develop, was the M9 really all that outdated of a weapon?[/QUOTE] The M9s have been in for decades and are pretty worn out by this point. Striker fired pistols are the new hotness and are relatively cheap, reliable, and arguably require less training to use proficiently since it has a consistent trigger pull compared to the Double Action/Single Action system of the M9. The M9 is also rather large and some people with smaller hands have difficulty using it. The "modular" part of this program comes from the fact that the Army was looking into the possibility of using something other than 9mm ball ammo. They are open to using different calibers like .40 S&W or even JHP rounds. A handgun that can be converted from 9mm to something else would allow them to have that growing room if they decide to go that way. I don't think they will for a while, though. [editline]1[/editline] The neat thing about the P320 is that the trigger control group is the serialized part, or what is considered the actual "gun", and it can be dropped into different sized frames and slides. [t]http://68.media.tumblr.com/6404561784c609978457e3c4f215fff7/tumblr_nw43t0174C1thdnk9o1_1280.jpg[/t] [video=youtube;c3Tqv6sjNv4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3Tqv6sjNv4[/video]

The M9 isn't "old" or "worn out," it was a shitty gun to begin with that should probably have never been chosen.

[QUOTE=TestECull;51696561]IF the 1911 had those flaws they wouldn't have adopted it in the first place, much less [i]actively used them for over 90 years[/i]. You don't have to like it, but there's a good reason it's still seeing active use even today. It's a damn good pistol and easily one of the best automatic pistols ever designed. It has stood the test of time far better than pretty much any other small arm ever produced. Another testament to its designer: The M2 50cal HMG is still in active duty as well, fairly unchanged, from its initial design all those years ago. It's such a good HMG that we've had no need to try to replace it.[/QUOTE] you would have a point if pistol and bullet design literally didn't make any progress over the last 90 years used by who? maybe individually picked up by some hsld urban legend ninja but MARSOC/MEUSOC largely abandoned it in favor of the Glock the M2 is still in active duty because it's an HMG, not a pistol. weight isn't an issue. capacity isn't an issue. modularity isn't an issue. recoil isn't an issue. you can slap a rail mount on it because weight and size don't matter [t]http://puu.sh/tstj9/020f0da661.jpg[/t] even then it received a massive upgrade as the M2A1 in 2011

Even if the 1911 isn't a great gun for military service, there's not many guns that feel better to shoot in your hands. Though I think in it's time, it was an excellent military gun.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51696589]The MHS will allow it to be chambered from 9mm to .45ACP -- Which is why it was selected. Its more modular than its competition.[/QUOTE] all of the pistols in the competition fired 9mm and .40 S&W, some fired .45 ACP and other rounds as well [editline]19th January 2017[/editline] the P320 certainly won because of its overall modularity, but the M&P (and variants) fires more kinds of rounds (though not ones that necessarily matter)

[QUOTE=Jund;51696804]all of the pistols in the competition fired 9mm and .40 S&W, some fired .45 ACP and other rounds as well [editline]19th January 2017[/editline] the P320 certainly won because of its overall modularity, but the M&P (and variants) fires more kinds of rounds (though not ones that necessarily matter)[/QUOTE] I'm sure Sig will come out with a .22 kit for the P320 eventually, then they'll fire just as many.

[QUOTE=jonu67;51696627]So could someone explain to me how this gun shooting is any different to the other gun shooting and why they wasted so much money and time to develop something that really doesn't look all that different, is this one mechanically more efficient or something? [editline]edit[/editline] Oh so I guess it just kills but [I]harder[/I] and is slightly more modular? Was that really worth all the time and money to develop, was the M9 really all that outdated of a weapon?[/QUOTE] The M9 is pretty outdated by today's trends in firearms design and materials. Most of the firearms in the US inventory are reaching the end of their frame service life. Once an all metal frame wears out there's no easy way of fixing it short of buying a new gun. The controls are counter intuitive to what most Americans use with other pistols, and while the M9 is pretty accurate thanks to its unique barrel locking design (that was ripped from a walther P38) its high bore axis meant more felt recoil for a given round. The M9 I was issued was a complete piece of shit. The front sight had been ground to nothing through repeat abuse and everything was super loose. The Marines tried to fix some of that with the M9A1, but the new rail and drift able front sight really didn't change my opinion on it. That's where the P320 succeeds the most, in that you can replace any of the major components with ease, to the point where they almost could be done entirely at the armorer level or even before that.. Frames damaged? Here's a less than $20 unit cost new one. Front Sights gone? we'll just drift in a new one. Want to use .357 Sig with better ballistics and penetration with AP ammo over a 9mm? Here's a conversion. It's lighter, somewhat simpler, more flexible, up-gradable, and I'm sure they cost less per unit than a new M9 in terms of what the military pays since there's no expensive forging done. Granted most of the money was wasted by the Army, since they're always looking for something that's "100% better" than what they currently have. If you think the amount they spent on picking a pistol is bad, don't even bother looking into how much they've spent trying to find a new rifle to replace the M16, which they've been doing since the late 60's. Should just let the Marines do the weapons testing and be done with it.

According to SIG, this is what the winning MHS candidate looks like [t]http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/img_7415-1.jpg[/t] It's got this greenish-brown color that reminds me of baby poop

What I don't understand is if they want to replace the 9mm for being weak, why not go with a PDW round so it can punch through body armor much better?

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51697138]What I don't understand is if they want to replace the 9mm for being weak, why not go with a PDW round so it can punch through body armor much better?[/QUOTE] It wasn't so much that the 9mm was weak more than the guns were old and having different caliber options on the table meant an easier ability to adapt to whatever needs may arise in the future. At the end of the day a handgun is a defensive weapon, and I don't think they'll be switching from 9mm any time soon. They may switch to hollow points, but that would be it.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51696423]Something tells me that the US Army doesn't give a rat's ass about how cool it looks, only how good it kills.[/QUOTE] Clearly, otherwise they wouldn't have picked something that looks like this does :v:

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51697138]What I don't understand is if they want to replace the 9mm for being weak, why not go with a PDW round so it can punch through body armor much better?[/QUOTE] but they don't, and the 9mm isn't modern 9mms have similar energy, tissue penetration, and expanded diameter compared to .45 ACP with better material penetration due to higher velocities. PLUS you can have double the rounds with less cost per round. there's a reason the .45 is being abandoned by the military the only thing that MIGHT beat it is if they make a .45 ACP +P+, but you'll probably need a new gun and new hands after firing it once

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;51697156]It wasn't so much that the 9mm was weak more than the guns were old and having different caliber options on the table meant an easier ability to adapt to whatever needs may arise in the future. At the end of the day a handgun is a defensive weapon, and I don't think they'll be switching from 9mm any time soon. They may switch to hollow points, but that would be it.[/QUOTE] Was going to say something about the Hague convention but then remembered the US is the only nation that didn't sign that part

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51697253]Was going to say something about the Hague convention but then remembered the US is the only nation that didn't sign that part[/QUOTE] i'm kinda iffy on the hague's ban on HPs because yeah getting hit by one fucks you up real bad, but isn't letting someone bleed out slower "unnecessary suffering" as well? there's a blurry line between being effective and fighting a war to incapacitate in any case, 9mm JHP +P is pretty much the best PDW round on the market today

[QUOTE=Jund;51697252]but they don't, and the 9mm isn't modern 9mms have similar energy, tissue penetration, and expanded diameter compared to .45 ACP with better material penetration due to higher velocities. PLUS you can have double the rounds with less cost per round. there's a reason the .45 is being abandoned by the military the only thing that MIGHT beat it is if they make a .45 ACP +P+, but you'll probably need a new gun and new hands after firing it once[/QUOTE] For what handguns are used for militarily there's no reason to go back to a big fat bullet like that. The .45 super already exists (it's literally just an updated .45 acp with a thicker base web to handle higher pressures) and they would have taken it if it was applicable. 9mm gets the job done. It can use hollow points or high velocity armor piercing all while allowing for higher ammunition capacities, lower recoil, and less cost per round than other popular defense calibers. Realistically if we were to jump up it would be better to go with a 10mm, since in it's true loading it's more powerful than a .357 magnum and edges into .41 magnum territory in terms of energy. It's honestly over kill though, unless the world became overran with intelligent angry grizzly bears. The only way I'd see the military moving to a more powerful handgun round would be if "the norm" in body armor required that much more umph to propel a light weight AP round to penetrate it.

Can any currently of former military Facepunchers here explain what exactly handguns are used for in modern combat roles other than one's primary weapon failing? As someone with no military experience I'm curious.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;51697027] Granted most of the money was wasted by the Army, since they're always looking for something that's "100% better" than what they currently have. If you think the amount they spent on picking a pistol is bad, don't even bother looking into how much they've spent trying to find a new rifle to replace the M16, which they've been doing since the late 60's. Should just let the Marines do the weapons testing and be done with it.[/QUOTE] I don't know much about modern military stuff and even i know what clusterfuck the OICW program was. "Yeah we want a weapon that serves as a grenade launcher and long/midrange rifle at the same time, consolidate 4 weapons into one gun that does everything 100% better than the 50 year old designs it replaces." was the mission statement. Yeah, you wanna replace the m16 with an overcomplicated futureshock shit the size of an engine block. and you want this unproven and unreasonable madness "100% better" in all ways upon delivery, including reliability, and serve 4 or 5 roles at once on one platform. and it took them 20 fucking years and god knows how many tens of million dollars to realize maybe it wasn't going to happen

sig sauer is cool, but i wonder how the p320 stacks up against the not-trying-to-hide-sig-clone rex zero 1. [t]http://www.k-var.com/shop/images/P/COB_4803.jpg[/t] like i really love sig sauer, but holy shit, the rex zero 1 is like a sig sauer, but with better qol and less jamming issues than a sig sauer.

Well the British Army will be spending £8.5m to replace their Brownings Hi-Powers with Glock 17s... meanwhile in Singapore... the police are finally replacing this Taurus Model 85 [thumb]http://i13.tinypic.com/33z8kmu.jpg[/thumb] with this CZ-75 P07 [thumb]http://cdn.cz-usa.com/hammer/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/cz-usa-cz-p-071-500x333.png[/thumb] I wonder what criteria they had when choosing the P07 other than "It's not a revolver".

[QUOTE=angelangel;51697812] I wonder what criteria they had when choosing the P07 other than "It's not a revolver".[/QUOTE] Probably "It's not a Taurus" :v: [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fn6GFSwTEw]They've got a great track record for reliability[/url]

[QUOTE=angelangel;51697812]Well the British Army will be spending £8.5m to replace their Brownings Hi-Powers with Glock 17s... meanwhile in Singapore... the police are finally replacing this Taurus Model 85 [thumb]http://i13.tinypic.com/33z8kmu.jpg[/thumb] with this CZ-75 P07 [thumb]http://cdn.cz-usa.com/hammer/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/cz-usa-cz-p-071-500x333.png[/thumb] I wonder what criteria they had when choosing the P07 other than "It's not a revolver".[/QUOTE] Talking shit about our guns, fuckboi?

[QUOTE=angelangel;51697812]Snip-O[/QUOTE] They should of upgraded to a better revolver before going to a pistol. [t]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/IMG_2287-660x458.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=matt000024;51697692]Can any currently of former military Facepunchers here explain what exactly handguns are used for in modern combat roles other than one's primary weapon failing? As someone with no military experience I'm curious.[/QUOTE] Prettty much nothing. Which is why it's allowed to take so long to replace, and why the god-awful 1911 was allowed to serve up into the 1980s. You use it if your primary fails, if your primary is too bulky to use in some situations (That is, if you are an MG-gunner), or if you have enough bars on your shoulder. They're pretty universally hated for being extra dead-weight that you have to carry for no good reason, and in these modern carbine-days, there's very very little reason not to use your primary.

[QUOTE=matt000024;51697692]Can any currently of former military[B]*[/B] Facepunchers here explain what exactly handguns are used for in modern combat roles other than one's primary weapon failing? As someone with no military experience I'm curious.[/QUOTE] *I'm not The pistol's role in a modern military context has been described as "A gun to be used to fight your way to a better gun". There's little practical value for them as far as the average infantryman is concerned. Generally speaking most firefights take place at distances where firing a pistol round is going to be as good as pissing in the wind. Some have said they prefer to use a pistol for close-quarters stuff, stating that 9mm or .45 is more effective than a rifle round in such situations because of the latter's capacity for over-penetration, and the pistol's maneuverability, but that's all disputable. Good training (ie ensuring one has a full mag before entering an enemy-occupied building, and that the gun is well-maintained), logistics (Making sure they have enough ammo to do so) and tactics (Making sure there's more than one person able to support the other should their gun still go down) typically mitigates the need for a back-up weapon. Weight considerations are a factor too, the weight being taken up by a pistol that might not end up ever being drawn can be used for a few more rifle mags which would always be useful. So to answer your question, not much at all. The only other real consideration are aviators who don't have the space in their aircraft for a carbine or SMG, and SF units who like to account for as many possibilities as possible.