Dave R
Junior Member
Posts: 460
|
Post by Dave R on Jan 19, 2017 21:35:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by omnivorous on Jan 19, 2017 23:46:12 GMT -5
Sig had the largest hooker budget, apparently.
|
|
Dave R
Junior Member
Posts: 460
|
Post by Dave R on Jan 20, 2017 2:08:36 GMT -5
With the current administration in mind, what are the chances of these M9s hitting the surplus market?
|
|
|
|
Post by omnivorous on Jan 20, 2017 12:35:45 GMT -5
With the current administration in mind, what are the chances of these M9s hitting the surplus market? Better than the outgoing on, I surmise. We'll probably be going in whole new direction, in that regard. I can't believe Glock lost in these trials, again. I get the P320 has some unique design features, but those features largely seem geared toward the civilian and LEO markets. The main advantage for the military, would seem to be the ability to swap a larger grip for a smaller grip, for service members with baby hands. I doubt the US Army is going to move away from the 9x19mm as the standard pistol cartridge, so the ability to swap calibers is largely useless, unless there is some kind of highly specific situation. Even then, I just don't see it being done. I don't have any special insight nor connections to the operator community, but I am a thinker, and I just don't see how it would be useful, unless there is a unit given the prerogative to do such a thing, and the cartridges which would be chosen would be either the .357 SIG or .45 ACP, and not the neutered 10mm Auto, I mean the .40 S&W. The special operations communities continually choosing Glock pistols, specifically the G19, speaks for itself. Those are the units allowed to have at least some choice when it comes to issued equipment, and unit and individual purchases. Yeah, the mag release can be switched to the right side of the grip, but given how lefties have to adjust to a right handed firearms world, I don't think that ability is useful for the military. Are they going to start swapping-out the lowers on the M4s, to versions which can take a swap-able mag release? For the sake of full disclosure, I have zero (0) experience with the SIG Sauer P320, but I do with the Glock 19, and so do many others who are far more high-speed than I am. I just don't get how a pistol with a known, excellent track record, with capabilities which provide no more, but no less, than what is needed for the role, is passed-over yet again, for a brand new pistol which has its main selling points marketed for the convenience of civilian shooters. |
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on Jan 20, 2017 15:22:58 GMT -5
People buy from people. SF types tend to buy from whoever has the current best kit. (I've seen kit issues change over the course of 2-8 months based on 'we bought this... but now this exists give me it, it is better'). 'Army' level purchases tend to be a little bit more political than they should be. By all means the 320 appears to be pretty bombproof... Unless the 320 has some stuff in the works discussed with the military that Glock can't offer?
|
|
|
|
Post by trailrunner909 on Jan 20, 2017 15:37:38 GMT -5
Doesn't look like it is set in stone yet. Kind of a mind blower though considering SOCOM, the FBI, and everyone else seems to adopting Glocks whether officially or unofficially.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitebear620 on Jan 20, 2017 16:30:00 GMT -5
With the current administration in mind, what are the chances of these M9s hitting the surplus market? Better than the outgoing on, I surmise. We'll probably be going in whole new direction, in that regard. I can't believe Glock lost in these trials, again. I get the P320 has some unique design features, but those features largely seem geared toward the civilian and LEO markets. The main advantage for the military, would seem to be the ability to swap a larger grip for a smaller grip, for service members with baby hands. I doubt the US Army is going to move away from the 9x19mm as the standard pistol cartridge, so the ability to swap calibers is largely useless, unless there is some kind of highly specific situation. Even then, I just don't see it being done. I don't have any special insight nor connections to the operator community, but I am a thinker, and I just don't see how it would be useful, unless there is a unit given the prerogative to do such a thing, and the cartridges which would be chosen would be either the .357 SIG or .45 ACP, and not the neutered 10mm Auto, I mean the .40 S&W. The special operations communities continually choosing Glock pistols, specifically the G19, speaks for itself. Those are the units allowed to have at least some choice when it comes to issued equipment, and unit and individual purchases. Yeah, the mag release can be switched to the right side of the grip, but given how lefties have to adjust to a right handed firearms world, I don't think that ability is useful for the military. Are they going to start swapping-out the lowers on the M4s, to versions which can take a swap-able mag release? For the sake of full disclosure, I have zero (0) experience with the SIG Sauer P320, but I do with the Glock 19, and so do many others who are far more high-speed than I am. I just don't get how a pistol with a known, excellent track record, with capabilities which provide no more, but no less, than what is needed for the role, is passed-over yet again, for a brand new pistol which has its main selling points marketed for the convenience of civilian shooters. Just a slight thing I'll point that I'm sure everyone else realizes. But it would be kind of against protocol to let individuals switch which side of the mag release is on because I'm sure the commanders want all pistols as identical as possible within the unit. Sort of the way it is with the M4 currently, most units won't have ambidextrous safeties/mag releases on M4s because us southpaws have just learned to adapt to it in the army. |
|
|
|
Post by Erick on Jan 22, 2017 13:34:15 GMT -5
Not a big Sig guy in handguns due to price ( but own 2 Sig516s AR15s)
So whats the big difference w/ the P320 vs the M11?
|
|
|
|
Post by swampy on Jan 26, 2017 8:47:50 GMT -5
Not a big Sig guy in handguns due to price ( but own 2 Sig516s AR15s) So whats the big difference w/ the P320 vs the M11? The P320 is a polymer frame striker fire, like a Glock. More comparable to Glock in price too. They run around $600 new on the civilian market. Word is the Army is only paying $207 each for them. SOCOM pays $320 for the Glock 19's they currently use. It's been suggested that they may have a hard time justifying that now. It's pretty hard to find any benefit of the G19 over the P320, unlike the M9. |
|
|
|
Post by omnivorous on Jan 26, 2017 15:56:20 GMT -5
The P320 is a polymer frame striker fire, like a Glock. More comparable to Glock in price too. They run around $600 new on the civilian market. Word is the Army is only paying $207 each for them. SOCOM pays $320 for the Glock 19's they currently use. It's been suggested that they may have a hard time justifying that now. It's pretty hard to find any benefit of the G19 over the P320, unlike the M9. That's a hell of a discount! I know there are bulk order discounts for this kind of purchase, and militaries and the like have that level of negotiating power with manufactures, but still, damn! This military version of the P320 is also supposed to have an external safety, because, reasons... I really would like to know the testing protocols used for this round of evaluations. I don't think SOCOM is going to have to justify a just over $100 price difference to anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on Jan 26, 2017 16:32:04 GMT -5
I would be willing to bet that the $100 price difference is because SOCOM bought them. I'd be willing to bet if SOCOM, the Army, the Navy etc all clubbed together and purchased standardised equipment together (And this is something I think you probably CAN standardise on...) then the Glock price would be much closer to the Sig price. Anyone got figures on quantities against those prices? 10k units are always going to be more expensive than 100k units...
Oh, and yeah; SOCOM aint going to justifying anything to anyone other than SOCOM, if it's anything like SF over here. I've seen £10k purchases through accounts that were then gifted to support units because they needed it for like 3 days worth of work and might, one day in a few years time, need it again. And we're talking low level commanders with purchasing cards here, not HQ level....
|
|
|
|
Post by swampy on Jan 26, 2017 18:23:04 GMT -5
The P320 is a polymer frame striker fire, like a Glock. More comparable to Glock in price too. They run around $600 new on the civilian market. Word is the Army is only paying $207 each for them. SOCOM pays $320 for the Glock 19's they currently use. It's been suggested that they may have a hard time justifying that now. It's pretty hard to find any benefit of the G19 over the P320, unlike the M9. That's a hell of a discount! I know there are bulk order discounts for this kind of purchase, and militaries and the like have that level of negotiating power with manufactures, but still, damn! This military version of the P320 is also supposed to have an external safety, because, reasons... I really would like to know the testing protocols used for this round of evaluations. I don't think SOCOM is going to have to justify a just over $100 price difference to anyone. It wasn't so much justifying it to anyone else so much as it was to themselves. I got that idea from the Weaponsman blog here: weaponsman.com/?p=38475 second to last paragraph is where he mentions SOF and talks about budget. |
|
|
|
Post by omnivorous on Jan 26, 2017 22:35:16 GMT -5
It wasn't so much justifying it to anyone else so much as it was to themselves. I got that idea from the Weaponsman blog here: weaponsman.com/?p=38475 second to last paragraph is where he mentions SOF and talks about budget. That's an interesting read, thanks. Perhaps the SOCOM choice of the G19, was based off of it being the best known quantity, at the time, especially since they wEnt with Gen 3's. The P320 has only been around for 2 years, so perhaps it is simply it's lack of track record, which has held it back, until now? The conscious choice of a pistol which purposefully lacks an external safety, is an interesting choice, especially since the P320 will go through that minor redesign to have one added. |
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on Jan 27, 2017 10:51:08 GMT -5
It wasn't so much justifying it to anyone else so much as it was to themselves. I got that idea from the Weaponsman blog here: weaponsman.com/?p=38475 second to last paragraph is where he mentions SOF and talks about budget. That's an interesting read, thanks. Perhaps the SOCOM choice of the G19, was based off of it being the best known quantity, at the time, especially since they wEnt with Gen 3's. The P320 has only been around for 2 years, so perhaps it is simply it's lack of track record, which has held it back, until now? The conscious choice of a pistol which purposefully lacks an external safety, is an interesting choice, especially since the P320 will go through that minor redesign to have one added. Seriously? They're adding ON an external safety? The mind boggles... |
|
|
|
Post by whitebear620 on Jan 27, 2017 13:01:03 GMT -5
That's an interesting read, thanks. Perhaps the SOCOM choice of the G19, was based off of it being the best known quantity, at the time, especially since they wEnt with Gen 3's. The P320 has only been around for 2 years, so perhaps it is simply it's lack of track record, which has held it back, until now? The conscious choice of a pistol which purposefully lacks an external safety, is an interesting choice, especially since the P320 will go through that minor redesign to have one added. Seriously? They're adding ON an external safety? The mind boggles... That was a given with big army here in the US. There's a perception against pistols without a safety and if carries over amongst officers who are making the decisions. But this is also the same people who make soldiers carry their rifles empty while on base. |
|
