M17 / M18 acquisition by USAF, USMC, USN - Page 3

TunnelRat · November 11, 2018, 01:01 PM

QC is QC, whether on a new pistol or a modified older pistol. I'm less concerned that our troops get a pistol where the bevel on the frame matches the bevel on the slide than I am that they get a pistol that functions mechanically as expected.

None of what gets said on this forum has any implications for the success of the P320 or M17. The pistol is adopted. It's done. As for the troops, for the small percentage that use pistols I'll be curious if they really find any difference between this and the M9. At least the M17 is lighter and the grip circumference is less. In the scheme of actual conflict I feel confident in saying that in the years ahead pistols are way, way down the list of concerns for most of the military.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

USNRet93 · November 11, 2018, 01:15 PM

https://special-ops.org/37523/why-th...after-so-long/

Quote:

There are a number of factors. First and foremost, you have aging guns that needed to be replaced, and there are bids that go out. I am sure Glock offered the Navy a great deal on the Glock package in order to get the SEAL contract. It wouldn’t surprise me if a Glock 19 cost 1/3 of what the SIG P226 costs the Navy.

TunnelRat · November 11, 2018, 01:28 PM

Right, and the people that have gotten the authority to make their own decisions will continue to do so. World goes on.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

simonrichter · November 12, 2018, 12:23 PM

Quote:

In the scheme of actual conflict I feel confident in saying that in the years ahead pistols are way, way down the list of concerns for most of the military.

I beg to differ. With assymetrical warfare brought to our doorsteps, I reckon very small-scale tactical situations are going to be quite an issue in the future. Neither a USD 300 million air superiority jet nor a sophisticated SAW weapon will make a big difference with someone yielding a machete in a crowd - a pistol in the right (trained) hands might...

TunnelRat · November 12, 2018, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simonrichter

I beg to differ. With assymetrical warfare brought to our doorsteps, I reckon very small-scale tactical situations are going to be quite an issue in the future. Neither a USD 300 million air superiority jet nor a sophisticated SAW weapon will make a big difference with someone yielding a machete in a crowd - a pistol in the right (trained) hands might...

There are Under Secretaries of Defense and officers at the Pentagon that would disagree. The threat going forward isn't just asymmetrical warfare, and even then I can name any number of far more important technologies. Communications, intelligence gathering, the list goes on. You're thinking extremely small scale. I'm not worried about the guy with a machete in a crowd. I'm worried about the guy with a dirty bomb in the crowd or some biological agent. And before you wave off air supremacy, air aupremacy is how the Iraqi army was turned into scrap metal twice. When we're discussing the possibility of a full on war, with which the Army has to concern itself, air supremacy is certainly important.

Even in the event of a direct intervention by small units of soldiers, we have rifles, carbines, SBRs, SMGs, etc. Pistols are secondaries for a reason. As has been stated above, units in special operations, and David can chime in here I imagine, have and will continue to have access to pistols. The M9 being the standard sidearm didn't stop the SEALs from using P226s or Delta from using Glocks or MARSOC from using 1911s for a time. For the units where pistols are a critical part of their gear they have, to my knowledge, at least a degree more discretion than the standard US service member. If they deemed some other pistol was absolutely essential to their mission, I have some confidence they'd get it

And I'm sorry but I can't help but maybe see a degree of conflict of interest or at least pride when an Austrian seems confused that we wouldn't choose Glocks.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

simonrichter · November 12, 2018, 03:45 PM

Quote:

And I'm sorry but I can't help but maybe see a degree of conflict of interest or at least pride when an Austrian seems confused that we wouldn't choose Glocks.

Making a point there

Though in fact, I don't quite like the idea of a gun lacking any manual safety...

Quote:

. I'm not worried about the guy with a machete in a crowd. I'm worried about the guy with a dirty bomb in the crowd or some biological agent.

Yeah, maybe you're right about that. I'm with the Army Ready Reserve, light infantry (territorial), where we're quite focused on these scenarios, but of course you can't omit the big picture as well...

TunnelRat · November 12, 2018, 03:59 PM

Right, and there's nothing wrong with thinking about that scenario either. But the US Army has a lot on its plate, for better or worse, all over the place. There's a long line of people that need funding for a myriad of reasons.

All that said, I don't believe having owned 3 P320s personally, seen them used extensively in courses and by instructors at the Sig Sauer Academy (where some of the instructors have put ludicrous round counts through their pistols), and having read the results of these trials that the P320 will really be noticeably deficient compared to most other things out there. I don't doubt there will be some teething issues, but frankly that's far more common that not when it comes to small arms procurement.

November 12, 2018, 03:59 PM	#57
TunnelRat Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2011 Posts: 12,212	Right, and there's nothing wrong with thinking about that scenario either. But the US Army has a lot on its plate, for better or worse, all over the place. There's a long line of people that need funding for a myriad of reasons. All that said, I don't believe having owned 3 P320s personally, seen them used extensively in courses and by instructors at the Sig Sauer Academy (where some of the instructors have put ludicrous round counts through their pistols), and having read the results of these trials that the P320 will really be noticeably deficient compared to most other things out there. I don't doubt there will be some teething issues, but frankly that's far more common that not when it comes to small arms procurement. Last edited by TunnelRat; November 12, 2018 at 11:24 PM.

November 11, 2018, 01:01 PM	#51
TunnelRat Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2011 Posts: 12,212	QC is QC, whether on a new pistol or a modified older pistol. I'm less concerned that our troops get a pistol where the bevel on the frame matches the bevel on the slide than I am that they get a pistol that functions mechanically as expected. None of what gets said on this forum has any implications for the success of the P320 or M17. The pistol is adopted. It's done. As for the troops, for the small percentage that use pistols I'll be curious if they really find any difference between this and the M9. At least the M17 is lighter and the grip circumference is less. In the scheme of actual conflict I feel confident in saying that in the years ahead pistols are way, way down the list of concerns for most of the military. Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

November 11, 2018, 01:28 PM	#53
TunnelRat Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2011 Posts: 12,212	Right, and the people that have gotten the authority to make their own decisions will continue to do so. World goes on. Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk