Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

P320 has won Army's MHS program


Rudukai13

Recommended Posts

It makes sense that it would score high in the competition given that they really did seem to be looking for the exact kind of modularity that the P320 offers. It's really cool to see and I am currently making some popcorn to read the responses from the Glock fans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts?  Buy one now if you want one.  Buy all the parts you think you'll need, as well, because it's likely you won't be able to find them soon.  Supposedly the initial order is for something like 200k+ guns.  

I have other thoughts, mainly wondering why Uncle Sam felt that it was warranted to spend so many of our tax dollars switching from a perfectly serviceable handgun... but that's for another thread, I suppose.  I do predict, however, that we are going to start to hear grumblings before too long from people complaining about how the P320 is a POS... just like they did when the M9 went into service.  Folks don't like change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MemphisMechanic said:

Now we know what purpose Team SIG might have actually served. Had to establish durability and popularity for the new kid on the block in a hurry.

That was definitely a goal, both for the P320 platform itself and the Grayguns enhancements. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like Sig had a unique advantage in this competition as the requirements also include silencers and ammunition.  Less work for Sig to have to sub out to another manufacturer, resulting in reduced pass through and overall costs.

CORRECTION:  No silencers included in the requirements.  I saw "suppressor kit" in the RFP, but it's only the things needed to make the gun suppressor ready (threaded barrel, taller sights, etc.).

Edited by tyler2you
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowing how the government contracting works through my business, I can assure you it wasn't a coincidence. Everything they've done was strategically for these government contracts and future contracts. What we got as a result is icing on the cake and help offsetting their costs. SIG could give a f*#$ about us when big daddy uncle sam warbucks is looking to make it rain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RangerTrace said:

Well, since Sig hasn't been able to quickly fill my Department's contract order, it may take a while to ship another 200K guns.....

At least this time they have to stick to making the same thing longer than a couple years.  I bought a 556R, and was considering another when they stopped making them and went to the 55Xi and then they quit making those, too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2017 at 1:30 PM, JusticeOfToren said:

Anyone knows how did all 5 P320 sent to FBI for testing all failed? Was it functional failure or just failed to meet some strange requirements? I heard this from someone but curious to know a bit more details. Thanks.

I am very, very curious about this myself.

On 1/20/2017 at 10:39 AM, R34PER said:

Knowing how the government contracting works through my business, I can assure you it wasn't a coincidence. Everything they've done was strategically for these government contracts and future contracts. What we got as a result is icing on the cake and help offsetting their costs. SIG could give a f*#$ about us when big daddy uncle sam warbucks is looking to make it rain. 

It could also explain the interesting timing of the SIG line of ammo.

On 1/20/2017 at 0:15 AM, mrgrabow said:

I am curious though, what were the problems with the M9 which warranted a wholesale replacement?

As we mentioned previously, I think the old M9 pistols were just that... old.  From what I hear, they were never really subject to much PMCS.  I think they took this opportunity to add features that they think they would like instead of ordering more M9s.  I hate to think about how many tax dollars was spent on this evaluation process and how much more is going to be spent purely on logistical factors related to the change over.  The contract is supposedly for $580 million and includes the guns, accessories, training, parts, etc.  Seems like kind of a lot... $2000-3000 per gun.  If they ordered more brand new M9 pistols or maybe the M9A1 or M9A3, they could have continued to use existing parts, accessories, mags, etc. and wouldn't have had to train anyone else.  Oh well.  Good for SIG... bad for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, TacticalReload said:

That's probably the only legit beef with the gun along with the function and location of the manual safety.  Both of these issues could have been remedied with the M9A3.

I heard many years ago in a video released by Beretta stating that the M9A3 could be produced for LESS than what they're currently selling the M9 to the military for.

Perhaps that was an overly optimistic assessment? As it stands, the M9A3 retails for over a grand.  Im assuming this is due to demand but the MSRP is still up there.

The 320 retails for a whole heck of a lot less than the M9A3 so perhaps the realities of cost were factored into the decision to go with the 320?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me when the army adopted the m9 over the sig 226

the gun rags, rumor mills were all saying they both passed the trials, sig was superior but the beretta was cheaper 

Except that didn't fly with the navy when the adopted the M 11 for the SEALs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...