Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Sig P320 replacing Beretta for US Army

Agreed. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. The ability to inexpensively obtain two slides--one with optics and one without--would be nice, as would the ability to use the same trigger housing in multiple frames, assuming the trigger pull would not be affected by a change in frame.

When Beretta beat out SIG for the M9 contract it wasn't political; it was criminal.

having dealt with institutional "bids" for the last 30 years, in many cases the "bid" is written in a way that there can be only one company that meets the specifications. However the optics, suppressors, M4's pistols all in one package is actually a strong selling suit. I have two of the SIG Romeo 4 red dots and you know for the money they are a good product despite being OEM'd from Holosun. They hold up, battery has lasted a year now, the zero is good, no complaints. Like I said I need to rent a 320.

Politics in regards to the US wanting to keep bases in Italy were just a small piece of the pie. The fact the Beretta underbid Sig in the final stages was the real reason. Cost was the real determining factor.

I am looking forward to trying one. The price point is good and they come with real sights. I've carried Sigs but the magazines are expensive and support gear has been slow to come to market and with less choices. The army adopting the gun will take care of the support gear problem and, hopefully, magazines won't cost an arm and a leg. It also will result in accelerated demand and T&E by end users.

My only complaint with Sigs is that they are fatter, taller and heavier than they need to be for CCW. On paper, this still appears to be the case, but less so than with the non-polymer guns. The real test, however, will be how they feel in the hand, conceal and shoot.

I dont get why everyone is surpised here?

Sig has a truly modular setup that can be made to replace every sidearm in use by the military in under 30 seconds. Not only do you get small, medium and large frames, you get 3 different sizes within those frames. It can adapt to any size shooter and mission.

In regards to beating Glock....Glock has 0 modularity. After 4 Generations(5 if you include the newest 17) they've managed to add an interchangeable backstrap. They havent even met VP9 level of modularity. Lots of shooters dislike the Glock grip, its either too big(circumfrence), they dont like the angle, or they hate the finger grooves. The Sig solves all that while adding a better trigger.

I dont care for modularity in frames, I just buy more guns to get what I need, but Im not an LE Dept or military either.

So.....Im not surprised that a company who hasnt really kept up with the times after releasing their first product was beat by one that has adapted to the market.

Well that is how a bid works. Establish the performance criteria and then choose the lowest bidder whom fulfills that criteria.

I think they feel better, as most people Ive asked. They are equally reliable, the trigger is better. I think most people who have no experience with neither would choose the Sig over the Glock.

The actual version of the 320 selected. I suspected the Army would require a safety, and it looks like they did.



From Sig's press release...
The MHS Program provides for the delivery of both full size and compact P320’s, over a period of ten (10) years. All pistols will be configurable to receive silencers and will also include both standard and extended capacity magazines.

I think that, for once, I am going to let the product line mature before going all in.

I think that people that can shoot can shoot any gun, and those that cannot feel that they are more influenced by the nuances of grip, trigger, bore axis etc. This does not exclude preferences however as someone with a low bore axis glock might take a second less to shoot and hit over a gun with more muzzle flip.

I considered the 320 before I bought my CZ. It's a great gun, but just not for me. I think the modularity is going to be a boon for the military, but not so much or the CC citizen; I saw no benefit for me personally. The overall feel of the gun just wasn't as nice as the CZ (for me), so I decided to skip the 320.

Different strokes for different folks.

In many ways the 320 is state of the art TODAY. It will take a good 5 years before they're in service in large numbers. By that time, people will not be all that impressed with the 320.

I suspect the 320 will see better acceptance in the civilian sector than the Berreta. Never ever liked the Berreta M9

Agreed. One difference between the Beretta and the SIG is that the 320 is, arguably, reflective of state of the art in handgun manufacturing as of 2017. By contrast, the Beretta 92 was, arguably, not the state of the art circa 1986 when it was adopted. The design was at least 30 years old at the time (and was derivative of the even older Walther design), based on manufacturing techniques that had, by the middle 80's, nearly been overtaken by the development of polymer frame handguns.

I think you're right JWP. In 1985 the M9 was chosen as a service pistol only with no consideration for CC. It found its way into a lot of police holsters but then fell out of favor as guns without slide mounted safeties came along that were lighter and more compact.

The 320 can be hand in a compact (Glock 19-ish) size; MUCH better suited to CC than an M9.

I foresee many, many, many more Sig contracts in their future.




Dave

Who, the Army?

Normally, since its coming from Sig, I would agree. That being said, the P320 is pretty much well vetted at this point with not even as a much as a "known issue" to be had which is typical of Sig's new releases.

Sorry. That was a horrible sentence.

I'm saying that I predict Sig will get many more contracts with many more agencies/departments.

I think they're going to end up owning the majority of the market.




Dave

Sigs were my issued duty weapon and I loved them.