testtest

RIP Sig P320

The P320 was never the FBI's handgun.

There was a competition 9 yrs ago with the Glock & P320 in the running and the FBI, and associated agencies, selected the Glock.


In June 2016, the FBI awarded a contract to Glock for new 9mm service and training weapons. This decision marked a shift from the previously issued .40 caliber Glock pistols, which had been in use since 1997. The contract includes the supply of the Glock 17 (full-size) and Glock 19 (mid-size) models. The FBI's transition back to the 9mm caliber was influenced by advancements in ammunition technology, which made the 9mm a more viable option with higher magazine capacity and less recoil.

While the FBI's Request for Proposal seemed to favor the modular design of the SIG Sauer P320, Glock ultimately secured the contract due to its reliability in testing, according to Recoil Magazine. During the testing phase, several Glock 17s and 19s reportedly fired 20,000 rounds each without any malfunctions, totaling 120,000 rounds in all.

Therefore, the FBI has indeed switched to Glock pistols as their standard service weapons, specifically the Glock 17 and Glock 19 models in 9mm caliber.



The Sig Sauer P320 was not ultimately adopted as the standard-issue handgun for the FBI, although it was initially considered and a variant was even selected for testing. The FBI ultimately opted to remain with Glock pistols, specifically the Glock 19M and Glock 17M.

So, there was never a switch contrary to the recent multiple internet Clickbait.

View attachment 88093

In this latest case I believe (or it seems) since the Gbi was involved in the MSP investigation someone (guntuber) ran with FBInin their title.

In general whem the FBI adopted Glock 9mm in 2016 I was ina. Glock Armorer class.

The perception at the time was 2 guns met the no finger grooves Sig 320 and M&P almost everyone discounted Glock not realizing the 17 and 19 m’s were the pre Gen 5 Gen 5’s until Bam new release FBI selects Glock 17 and 19M
Indy PD was probably the second agency to grab up 17Ms

Then short order Gem 5 9mm line for everyone

All these guntubers and such the enquirer comparison is spit in. Most hear a sentence of something and run their own narrative and most don’t take the time to research the history of thing.

Love being dismissed when half of the stuf Fi lived through and was part of firearms training or industry as it happens.

Bless their hearts! (In the most southern way possible)
 
Thank you Hans, but I’ll have you know I turned down the gig of doing the fall off that building in your movie, (I’m afraid of heights) 😉
IMG_5078.gif
 
Not to play the Devils Advocate here, but I haven't seen a single example of uncommanded fire in military usage......

Just say'n......
There have been a few. I’ll try and find the official report but here’s 3 links

The AF dictates they carry round chambered and M18 on fire (thumb safety off) same as I carried the M9 whem I was in!




 
There have been a few. I’ll try and find the official report but here’s 3 links

The AF dictates they carry round chambered and M18 on fire (thumb safety off) same as I carried the M9 whem I was in!






Like I said, hadn't heard about, but now I have ....

Thanks for the heads up

Guess it won't be on the short list
 
The AF dictates they carry round chambered and M18 on fire (thumb safety off) same as I carried the M9 whem I was in!

Not the fault of the pistol, BUT the policy to carry like that when not in combat conditions.

So, the military versions of the Sig Sauer P320, designated the M17 and M18, include a manual thumb safety because the U.S. Army specifically required it as part of the Modular Handgun System (MHS) contract. This requirement stemmed from concerns about accidental discharges during testing and evaluation of the P320 platform before its adoption.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
  • Army Specification:
    The Army, during its evaluation of the P320 for the MHS program, identified a need for an external safety mechanism to prevent accidental discharges.

  • Addressing Concerns:
    The P320, while having internal safeties, had been linked to some accidental discharges, particularly when dropped or subjected to certain impacts.

  • External Safety Requirement:
    To address these concerns and meet the Army's requirements, Sig Sauer incorporated a manual thumb safety into the M17 and M18 models.

    Then the USAF carry policy went contrary to why the M17/M18 was required to have a thumb safety??? :unsure:


 
Last edited:
The AF dictates they carry round chambered and M18 on fire (thumb safety off) same as I carried the M9 whem I was in!

Not the fault of the pistol, BUT the policy to carry like that when not in combat conditions.

So, the military versions of the Sig Sauer P320, designated the M17 and M18, include a manual thumb safety because the U.S. Army specifically required it as part of the Modular Handgun System (MHS) contract. This requirement stemmed from concerns about accidental discharges during testing and evaluation of the P320 platform before its adoption.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
  • Army Specification:
    The Army, during its evaluation of the P320 for the MHS program, identified a need for an external safety mechanism to prevent accidental discharges.

  • Addressing Concerns:
    The P320, while having internal safeties, had been linked to some accidental discharges, particularly when dropped or subjected to certain impacts.

  • External Safety Requirement:
    To address these concerns and meet the Army's requirements, Sig Sauer incorporated a manual thumb safety into the M17 and M18 models.

    Then the USAF carry policy went contrary to why the M17/M18 was required to have a thumb safety??? :unsure:



Dude, it's the Gubment, you seem surprised..........

It's not like an M9 with the hammer dropped by the de-cocker with a round in the chamber.......

Or God forbid, a cocked and locked 1911......
 
Dude, I'm not surprised.

I used to be a Fed and saw more than my share of screw-ups.

It's still a faulty policy to carry like that & ignore a specified safety requirement.
 
Dude, I'm not surprised.

I used to be a Fed and saw more than my share of screw-ups.

It's still a faulty policy to carry like that & ignore a specified safety requirement.

I was not arguing that, you must've missed the blinding flash of the obvious.........

The guy carrying said side arm doesn't matter in the long run, DOD choices in the last 40 years prove it, and with higher priced weapon systems than the M17/M18.

High Command knows better..............

But I obviously don't know........

I defer to you greater experience......
 
Back
Top