SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the next-time-it-will-be-a-light-sabre dept.
The U.S. Army will likely replace its standard-issue sidearm with a Sig Sauer P320 pistol (with undisclosed modifications):
After a long and much-criticized search, the US Army has chosen Sig Sauer to produce its next generation of handgun, eventually replacing the current standard issue sidearm, the Beretta M9 pistol. "Following a thorough operational test, fielding of the modular handgun is expected to begin in 2017," the Army said in a statement announcing the decision Thursday.
The M9's three decades of service since 1985 has occasionally made it the subject of derision among members of the armed forces. "The joke that we had in the military was that sometimes the most effective use of an M9 is to simply throw it at your adversary," Sen. Joni Ernst, a former officer in the Iowa Army National Guard, said last week during the confirmation hearings for Ret. Marine Gen. James Mattis to be secretary of defense. [...] "The Army's effort to buy a new handgun has already taken 10 years and produced nothing but a more than 350-page requirements document micromanaging extremely small unimportant details," Senate Armed Services committee chairman John McCain wrote in a 2015 report on the program's problems.
The Army awarded Sig Sauer Inc. with a $580,217,000 contract. Also at Washington Post, Popular Mechanics, and RT.
More about the Modular Handgun System.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Spook brat on Monday January 23 2017, @10:01PM
I thought this process would never get finished. I was beginning to think that the plan was to drag their feet long enough for the project to just get cancelled, or else keep doing trials until it's time to retire the personnel involved.
On top of that, I never thought they'd go for a frame with no external safety!
I never much liked the M9, although reliability was never my problem with it:
* too heavy
* not adjustable for grip fit
* DA/SA change between first and second rounds
* I'm not a fan of external safeties
It looks like the P320 isn't a horrible pick, and the option to swap out .45 barrels on the same frame is intriguing. No suppressor lug on the base P320, either, so it'll be a "variant of" kind of arrangement.
Best of luck on implementation! Picking the candidate is easy, now comes the hard part of actually getting them purchased to specification and distributed...
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by Spook brat on Monday January 23 2017, @10:11PM
Gah, spoke too soon:
The weapon is fully ambidextrous, with safety and slide catch levers on both sides, and has a bright orange loaded chamber indicator
Looks like they really aren't buying the stock P320 [sigsauer.com] after all...
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by EvilSS on Monday January 23 2017, @11:03PM
Interesting that they are (finally) going to a poly-frame sidearm. Can't wait to hear the uninformed bitching about that on the internet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @02:36AM
Poly as in plastic!? Did we learn nothing from 9/11!?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2017, @12:26AM
Wait until they melt in the hot desert sun. I feel sorry for all of you soldiers that will be sent to die at the whim of this administration.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Monday January 23 2017, @10:31PM
This gun looks crappy. Probably a big step up from the M9, but that's not saying much. From the photos, it looks like there's no passive safeties: where are the grip and trigger safeties? I don't see any. Just an active safety, which are obsolete and stupid. Glocks (which tons of police worldwide carry) don't have any such thing, for good reason, nor do other competitive handguns.
With a handgun, it's very simple: it should stay in the holster at all times, until you need to use it, because when that happens you're probably in trouble (esp. if your main weapon is a rifle). Then, you should be able to draw it and fire, without worrying about flipping extra levers. The only real safety you need is on the trigger: if you don't want to fire, don't put your finger on the trigger or inside the trigger guard. Personally, I also like a grip safety, to prevent against an AD (accidental discharge) when reholstering, as has happened to a bunch of cops. That way, you can only fire the gun when you have a firm grip on it and your finger is inside the trigger guard. The Springfield XD series of pistols have this feature.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 23 2017, @10:43PM
Do either of you know how they compare to the 1911? I believe those were standard issue for quite some time and I remember my Uncle complaining when they replaced it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @12:55AM
The Beretta is what replaced them. My father still carries my grandfather's WW2 era sidearm 6 decades later.
The only real downside of it compared to newer models is the straight rather than staggered clip. Narrower grip, but only 7 rounds. (The 15 rounds was one of the reasons for the switch to the Beretta, although most service personnel would have preferred the 7 heavy rounds of the .45 over the weaker 9mms of the M9. From what I understood quite a few special forces types continued carrying 1911s well into the '90s or '00s since they didn't have ammo limitations like line soldiers did. One of other reasons for dropping the 1911 was to standardize on 5.56, 7.62, and 9mm rounds for all weapons to cut down on logistics issues among NATO allies operating in the field.
Seems like a silly choice if you have even the slightest concern about opponents with body armor.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:36PM
9mm should be superior if you're worried about opponents having body armor. 9mm rounds are supersonic; .45 is subsonic. It may have more mass, but velocity I would think is more important for penetrating armor. You can also get 9mm rounds in higher-pressure loadings these days.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Tuesday January 24 2017, @10:43PM
9mm should be superior if you're worried about opponents having body armor. 9mm rounds are supersonic; .45 is subsonic. It may have more mass, but velocity I would think is more important for penetrating armor. You can also get 9mm rounds in higher-pressure loadings these days.
Yep, muzzle energy for both is about the same due to higher velocity on the 9mm. The higher velocity and smaller diameter make the 9mm better at penetration.
It bears mentioning that, in the military mindset, overpenetrating and also hitting a second target beyond the immediate one is considered a bonus, unlike in civilian use. Similarly, an incapacitating wound is better than a killing wound in combat - medical evacuation takes on average two extra combatants off the field for every injured combatant. That 3-for-1 multiplier is a big reason why Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) is the standard bullet configuration: I guarantee that hollowpoint rounds never would have been conceded for the Geneva Conventions otherwise.
I doubt anyone in the top brass is going to argue that .45 isn't more effective at stopping an enemy soldier. The problem is that the math goes better for the overall engagement if our pistols have more rounds of higher-velocity smaller-caliber rounds. The individual soldier is less safe, but the Army is better served as a whole. In the immortal words of Lord Farquad:
That is a sacrifice that I am willing to make
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @11:49PM
It's more complex than that. For penetration you want high velocity, but a narrow round by itself isn't the issue. You need a high sectional density, and then you need a projectile hard enough that it doesn't expend all its energy in deforming against the armour.
Most 9mm rounds aren't all that hard. Armour piercing rounds are available, but mostly in rifle calibres. They have hardened penetrators as part of their construction, and tend to drill extremely narrow holes.
At the time of the Geneva Convention, this sort of analysis had not yet been done, but they did know perfectly well that spitzer bullets tended to yaw and tear large holes on impact, which makes them highly lethal on humans, but less than ideal for hunters. They were quite happy to keep using proven, effective bullets.
Elsewhere there have been discussions about handgun projectile survival rates. They're quite high, given modern medicine.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Monday January 23 2017, @10:50PM
it looks like there's no passive safeties: where are the grip and trigger safeties? I don't see any. Just an active safety, which are obsolete and stupid.
Yep, the stock P320 has only a firing pin safety; meaning it won't discharge when dropped.
In addition it looks like the XM17 Sig submitted for evaluation added an external safety to the P320, which I agree is an anti-feature. Unfortunately, the Powers That Be in the U.S Army really like the external safety, so it probably was a required feature for this contest.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 23 2017, @11:02PM
Remember the people who are being first handed these weapons it may be the first one they have ever held. People do all sorts of idiotic things when they first start learning.
However, remember military procurement is not about the people using the weapons. It is about money. Follow that and you will understand who gets the most from this deal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @03:38AM
Think of the average grunt, then remember half of them are even more stupid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @11:57AM
I thought of the median grunt and it all worked out.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Monday January 23 2017, @11:18PM
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:37PM
Maybe, but we're not talking about the P320 here, we're talking about the US Army's new gun (which happens to be based on the P320, but is not the same thing). An optional feature on a civilian gun is irrelevant to my complaint about a military gun.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:48PM
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday January 24 2017, @07:00PM
I'm pretty sure a trigger safety is not present: they show the actual gun in the photos in the article, and it's pretty obvious there is no trigger safety there. As for them not being effective, Glock disagrees with you, and they're one of the largest suppliers to police in the world. And a bunch of competitive guns have them too; between the lot of them, that's probably almost all police in the industrialized nations. Relying on the user to do something every time to prevent an accident isn't as effective as just building a passive device into the product; this is pretty basic product engineering. The military's thinking is obsolete.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Tuesday January 24 2017, @09:17PM
I stand by the trigger safety not being all that effective. It will not prevent most ADs from a finger or object of similar size crossing across the trigger and pulling back. Some from object snags yes, but most are from improperly keeping a finger on the trigger when holstering/unholstering and it will not effectively prevent those. These have happened and no passive safety can prevent that. Springfield puts a trigger and backstrap safety on some of their models and people have managed to discharge those by accident as well.
Just because they are popular does not mean they are popular due to that particular feature. Most services like them due to their reliability and lighter weight compared to traditional steel and aluminum frame pistols. There is a reason that Beretta, Sig, and S&W started making polymer frame handguns. It also doesn't hurt that Glock is also aggressive in selling to police departments across the US.
(Score: 2) by fishybell on Tuesday January 24 2017, @02:22AM
I bought my XD 45 for exactly the reasons you stated.
Unfortunately the product didn't live up to the expectations. The grip safety especially only worked well for certain sizes and/or shapes of hands, which mine was clearly not one of. I had to adjust my grip for the gun — not insubstantially, but terribly substantially — to ensure the safety was disengaged.
The problem was that although I had a firm grip on the grip, and fully engaged at the top (the hinge-point of the lever-style safety), my hand didn't fully grip at the middle all of the time. I had to push forward my thumb to disengage the safety.
In the end, it ended up being too much of a pain-in-the-ass and I sold it.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:32PM
Are your hands small? That's really odd.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday January 24 2017, @02:56PM
I was issued the M9 (along with M249 and M2) and carried it everyday for a year. The external safety is no issue and prevents holstering AD. I used a BlackHawk thigh rig and could draw and unsafe in one smooth motion. I also spent a lot of time with the pistol drawn. Put thousands of hours in HMMWV turrets and always drew my pistol when travelling through crowds or urban areas. I simply couldn't swing my SAW around fast enough to be of use. If the truck was rushed at short range you'd want a pistol, not a machine gun. Have you seen Ashura, lol. In urban areas you can't aim your mounted weapons high enough. I usually had the M2 .50 cal mounted and SAW hanging on the side. Ran all 3 guns red, round chambered (SAW with open bolt pulled back). When dismounted i used the SAW as a rifle (had short barrel and 100rd belt pouch) and M9 as backup.
Anyways, the M9 was a fine pistol and did what it was supposed to do. I would never describe it as bad. It always worked for me. I slept with it. I put it in a baggie and showered with it. We probably had children at some point, i can't remember.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @08:37PM
With a handgun, it's very simple: it should stay in the holster at all times, until you need to use it, because when that happens you're probably in trouble (esp. if your main weapon is a rifle). Then, you should be able to draw it and fire, without worrying about flipping extra levers. The only real safety you need is on the trigger: if you don't want to fire, don't put your finger on the trigger or inside the trigger guard.
The only real safety you need is the trigger: if you don't want to fire, don't put your finger on the trigger or inside the trigger guard.
Personally, I also like a grip safety, to prevent against an AD (accidental discharge) when reholstering, as has happened to a bunch of cops.
Something to prevent glockcidental discharges from holster flaps is good, but the existence of that phenomenon just shows that trigger safeties don't work -- almost anything that can enter the trigger guard and pull the trigger can also enter the trigger guard a little further, actuate a trigger safety, and pull the trigger. (I'm not saying trigger safeties don't prevent some ADs, but they don't stop enough, so IMO you need another safety of whatever sort (or a double-action trigger pull), and that other safety (or long heavy pull) renders the trigger safety redundant.)
As to whether a grip safety or a thumb safety is best to achieve that goal, it depends. On the one hand, a thumb safety requires lots of training -- with insufficient training, you'll either forget to put the safety on, and risk glockcidental discharges, or forget to take it off, and the gun won't fire when you really really need it to. The grip safety requires next to no training, but requires correct fit -- some combinations of grip safety and hand size/shape mean you have to deliberately alter your firing grip to press the grip safety, which means you'll forget that under stress, and again it won't fire when you need it. Grip safeties are designed as universally as possible, so this affects a very small minority of users, but in an army, that's still quite a few soldiers having very serious issues.
So for someone buying a personal gun, grip safety makes a lot of sense -- just pick a gun that fits you right, or if you can't find one, get a gunsmith to modify the grip safety and make it work for you.
But for an army buying mass-produced guns for mass-produced soldiers, it's hard to argue with a thumb safety on the gun, and training on the soldiers; this is especially true when you've been training soldiers that way for a century.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by EvilSS on Monday January 23 2017, @11:35PM
the option to swap out .45 barrels on the same frame is intriguing.
It's a bit more complicated than just swapping out the barrels. The stock P320 can swap between 9mm, 357sig, and 40S&W which wouldn't be much trouble on a single frame, but .45 requires a different frame.
What is really interesting here though is that the frame is not the "firearm" part like it is on most guns in the US, it's what Sig refers to as a "grip module". The serial number is on the modular trigger assembly, making that the "gun" as far as the BATFE and (I'm guessing) the DoD is concerned. Everything else is just swapping out slide/barrel and frame/grip. That's going to make it extremely modular for the military. For civilians it means you can swap it from a 9mm compact carry config to a large .45 configuration for $300-400 bucks. You drop in the trigger module, attach the slide assembly, and pop in the correct size magazine and you're done. No tools required. And no licensed dealer required once you buy the initial pistol with the trigger module.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday January 24 2017, @06:31AM
Meh should have went back to the 1911. There is a reason why the 1911 is still being cranked out after all these years, for the same reason they still make the old ma deuce and AK47, its because it just works without the bullshit.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.