The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Semi-automatic Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 5, 2018, 05:02 PM   #1
simonrichter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Austria
Posts: 757
M17 / M18 acquisition by USAF, USMC, USN

All of the above mentioned forces seem to go with the M18 (= the compact version). Any insights ideas why at last only the Army sticks with the original full size model?

I should maybe add that in fact the "compact" version is only slightly shorter and a good deal heavier than a (considered full size by all means) Glock 17.

That is, btw, not the only thing I'm wondering about the whole MHS thing... We have an Army of (mainly) draftees and use the Glock 17 without any - lo and behold - external safety since 1980. Number of major accidents related to that dangerous actuality that I'm aware of: 0
__________________
"Get off of my lawn!" Walt Kowalski
. ISSC PAR .223
simonrichter is offline  
Old November 5, 2018, 06:09 PM   #2
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
To my knowledge the Army adopted both the M17 and M18. The manual safety was a requirement on the contract. I don't think there was any way the military was going to go from a DA/SA pistol with safety as general issue to a striker fired pistol with no manual safety as general issue. The units that really need secondary weapons of certain specifications will continue to use what pistols they want and get approved, similar to how they used SIGs, Glocks, and HKs. For general issue and given that not many soldiers get a lot of time with pistols I don't think the safety is a bad idea. As far as SIG beating Glock, we've beaten that horse into the ground and there is no shortage of articles or threads on the topic.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Last edited by TunnelRat; November 5, 2018 at 06:42 PM.
TunnelRat is offline  
Old November 5, 2018, 07:46 PM   #3
Bart Noir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 5, 2000
Location: Puget Sound, USA
Posts: 2,215
Hi Simon, my G19 feels as if it has the same weight as my Sig P320 Compact model, which is essentially the M18 minus the thumb safety. So I do not see how the M18 can be heavier than a G17.

A longer slide always means a little bit more accurate pistol, due to being just a bit steadier in the hand and having a bit longer sight radius. And the recoil jump is a bit less than the same gun in compact size. Probably the typical soldier needs all the help he or she can get.

Bart Noir
__________________
Be of good cheer and mindful of your gun muzzle!
Bart Noir is offline  
Old November 5, 2018, 08:14 PM   #4
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
The M18 is actually a P320 Carry, not the Compact. Full length grip but compact slide.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
TunnelRat is offline  
Old November 5, 2018, 10:22 PM   #5
TxFlyFish
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2011
Posts: 1,246
Trying to see if this sig vs glock or safety vs no safety debate
TxFlyFish is offline  
Old November 6, 2018, 12:58 AM   #6
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
Some services probably want to standardize on one size pistol, rather than the current M9/M11 situation. Law enforcement, protective details, and some other units prefer to have a slightly more compact pistol.
raimius is offline  
Old November 6, 2018, 03:45 AM   #7
simonrichter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Austria
Posts: 757
Quote:

Join Date: August 5, 2000
Location: Puget Sound, USA
Posts: 2,128
Hi Simon, my G19 feels as if it has the same weight as my Sig P320 Compact model, which is essentially the M18 minus the thumb safety. So I do not see how the M18 can be heavier than a G17.
Sig Sauer P320 Carry: 737g w/ empty mag
Glock 17: 620g w/empty mag

Sorry I don't have the corresponding imperial units...
__________________
"Get off of my lawn!" Walt Kowalski
. ISSC PAR .223
simonrichter is offline  
Old November 6, 2018, 08:57 AM   #8
TxFlyFish
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2011
Posts: 1,246
Weight is just a portion of the consideration why the sig was chosen over the glock. The way I understood was the sig was considerably less costly than the glock without sacrificing performance or reliability. This is good thing for taxpayers.

At any rate I am glad they went with P320. There will be kinks to work out and legal battles to fight out. The P320 is a more advanced platform and I’d rather have it succeed.

30 years of making basically the same gun Glock still can’t get things right.
TxFlyFish is offline  
Old November 6, 2018, 09:12 AM   #9
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
^ I personally can't go that far, in terms of calling the P320 a more "advanced" platform and that Glock "can't get it right". Glock has enough military and police contracts to indicate that at least to a fair number of people they did get it right, or right enough. While I imagine the point of the cost of Glocks will be brought up, if Glocks were hot garbage they wouldn't be used and there are enough people choosing to use Glocks even when they could use more expensive pistols that Glock's place in history is certainly solidified (whether they're our preferred choice or not).

As for the P320 being more advanced, is it though? It's a polymer framed striker fired pistol using a Browning tilting barrel and feeding from a detachable magazine. Sound familiar? Glock submitted a version to the trial with I'm sure both a safety and an optics cut. I think time will tell how much the modular frame of the P320 will factor in to its use by the US military. To my knowledge as it's issued the modular frame is locked to prevent tampering by soldiers and that feature would only be done at the armorer level. Despite having the option of a modular frame the military still adopted and is receiving two different versions of essentially the same pistol based on size. I'm not aware of the purchasing an array of grip modules. While I'm not opposed to a modular design, what I see so far doesn't indicate that it will really factor much into its use.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
TunnelRat is offline  
Old November 6, 2018, 10:10 AM   #10
TxFlyFish
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2011
Posts: 1,246
All good points. I don’t think the modularity is meant to be swapped for individual soldier preferences. But I am guessing here. The military has its own requirements and intended use. Few people will truly know the reasoning behind it...all the different opinions and inputs from the various units that led to MHS. I’d rather not guess because frankly nobody here knows.

Let’s just compare the platforms. The Sig can swap frame configurations much more readily than a Glock. The frames are much less expensive to swap out/replace. The entire fire control group just pops out making it easier to inspect and clean. Whether one needs the modularity or not it truly is a modular platform. The Glock has interchangeable backstraps, and not very well implemented at that.
TxFlyFish is offline  
Old November 6, 2018, 10:31 AM   #11
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
To me the modularity is of limited use, for both the military and even moreso private citizens. I'm not opposed to it, but that alone isn't enough for me to call the P320 more advanced when their general function and controls are so similar. That's my view.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
TunnelRat is offline  
Old November 6, 2018, 10:42 AM   #12
TxFlyFish
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2011
Posts: 1,246
In a field full of polymer striker fired pistols with little differentiation feature wise, I’d say the p320 in the right direction. Modularity is bound to happen sooner or later. Edit: I would go as far as saying the drive to modularity is inevitable
TxFlyFish is offline  
Old November 6, 2018, 11:54 AM   #13
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
I'm not opposed to modularity. The problem is the conversion kits for the P320 that really allow you to take advantage of the modularity are priced as such that the cost savings isn't enough to make me want to have the kit rather than another pistol as I've seen people have a hard time reselling the kits and getting most of their money back as opposed to just having multiple pistols. Then there's the lack of availability of the conversion kits a fair amount of the time. There is also the ability to buy and then either stipple by yourself or have someone else stipple your grip and if you don't like it you just buy another for not much more money. I do like that. I don't see that being particularly relevant for the military and even for the "average" consumer I'm not sure how important it is, though certainly so for the enthusiast.

In concept it is a good idea, but the execution isn't such that I see it being particularly relevant in the short term, by which I mean the next few years. In the longer term sure. SIG also wasn't the first to do this, and in fact is in a lawsuit that I don't think has been resolved yet. https://taskandpurpose.com/sig-sauer-p320-steyr-arms/

Edit: I'm not upset that SIG won, I think the P320 is adequate and was notably cheaper. That's really what matters. Glock got beat and nothing changes that, I just don't read quite as much into SIG winning.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
TunnelRat is offline  
Old November 6, 2018, 06:01 PM   #14
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by TxFlyFish View Post
Weight is just a portion of the consideration why the sig was chosen over the glock. The way I understood was the sig was considerably less costly than the glock without sacrificing performance or reliability. This is good thing for taxpayers.

At any rate I am glad they went with P320. There will be kinks to work out and legal battles to fight out. The P320 is a more advanced platform and I’d rather have it succeed.

30 years of making basically the same gun Glock still can’t get things right.
Well, sorta..Sig, in the middle of the testing regimen, made the US Gov't a $ per unit 'offer they couldn't refuse', which basically Glock couldn't match. Lots of 'discussion' about the US Gov't's choice..

https://taskandpurpose.com/sigs-p320...afety-defects/
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old November 6, 2018, 06:03 PM   #15
IMightBeWrong
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 22, 2009
Posts: 814
I like the modularity and I think it’s the future. The main benefit is in replacing parts. Dropped the pistol and dented the rail causing attachments to wobble? Order a new frame without sending the gun in. Just want to swap frame colors from time to time? Go for it. Want to put a compact slide on a subcompact frame for concealed carry? Easy to buy an inexpensive frame for a compact you already have. These ideas are actually some I had when I got my P320 Compact anyway so I’m just using them to illustrate why I think modularity is a good idea in general. If a grunt cracks a plastic frame it’s a 30 second fix.
__________________
"Intelligence is nothing more than discussing things with others. Limitless wisdom comes of this." - 山本 常朝
IMightBeWrong is offline  
Old November 6, 2018, 06:10 PM   #16
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
Those are all good points, but most polymers are relatively impact resistant. You have to drop a pistol frame from a pretty significant height to have enough energy to deform it to the point where an attachment won't work or where the frame will crack. It's not something that will result from just being clumsy and dropping it while standing or moving (and if it does there was a problem with the polymer). Ease of armorer repair is a plus though.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Last edited by TunnelRat; November 6, 2018 at 06:30 PM.
TunnelRat is offline  
Old November 7, 2018, 04:23 PM   #17
pblanc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 23, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 697
I agree that at the current pricing the conversion kits for the P320 are not a cost-effective option, unless you live in some Godforsaken place where you can only file one serial number for carry, or some such. Actually, when the P320 was first introduced, the retail price on the conversion kits was more than $100 than it is now, and SIG offered a 20% off coupon with the sale of a new pistol that was good on purchases of conversion kits. At that time, the conversion kits were quite cost-effective.

Then one April Fool's day a few years back, SIG upped the price of the kits by $100 overnight without advance warning. Not too long after, they stopped offering the 20% of retail price coupons.

Although buying a conversion kit instead of another separate P320 pistol makes little sense for most, buying a different sized grip module and a couple of magazines for it is quite cost-effective. I have purchased grip modules and two factory magazines for around $100. This allows one to put a carry model grip module on a compact upper, or vice verse, or put a subcompact grip module on a compact upper, etc.

I think from the military's perspective, the major advantage of the system is to be able to better and quickly fit the pistol to the serviceperson's hand size by simply swapping the grip module, as three different sizes are available. The different grip modules do a much better job of this than interchangeable back straps that other makers use. There may be some advantage to being able to get a malfunctioning pistol back in service quickly be swapping out the fire control unit. The FCUs are compact and a supply could easily be kept on hand by a company armorer.
pblanc is offline  
Old November 7, 2018, 05:06 PM   #18
TxFlyFish
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2011
Posts: 1,246
This is slightly tangent but you could stick the FCU into a carbine
TxFlyFish is offline  
Old November 7, 2018, 06:05 PM   #19
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
I completely agree that swapping the module makes more difference than a backstrap.

I do question how much fitting to each soldier will be done. From what I know, and I'm far from an expert, pistols typically aren't issued to individual soldiers when talking standard units. The pistols are checked out from an armory/armorer (at least when on a post), used for a period of time, and checked back in.

While SIG did make the P250/P320 really easy to swap a grip frame on, for the M17/M18 there is an anti-tamper device to prevent individual soldiers from doing the swap. It has to be done at an armorer level. This means that to fit the pistol to a soldier an armorer would have to swap out the frame each time it was checked out, and then possibly do the same when it was checked back in. I'm not sure how hard it is to do for an armorer, I imagine still pretty easy, but that seems to be like it would get tedious for an armorer who likely is busy enough. I wonder if what won't happen is the medium grip, which fits the most people and is certainly smaller in diamater than an M9, will get left on and the replacement modules only rarely used.

This also means the armorer has to keep a crate around of grip frames, and while they're certainly light enough they do take up space. That's doable on a post, but for a deployed unit are they just going to cart that crate around with them?

It will be interesting to see as time passes how the modularity is actually used.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Last edited by TunnelRat; November 7, 2018 at 08:42 PM.
TunnelRat is offline  
Old November 7, 2018, 06:23 PM   #20
TxFlyFish
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2011
Posts: 1,246
But on the flip side you don’t get the option to change g19x frame on the cheap. The 19x configuration doesn’t make much sense with the shorter barrel longer grip, should be the other way around.
TxFlyFish is offline  
Old November 7, 2018, 07:19 PM   #21
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
The 19x is literally the configuration of the M18 or SIG's civilian P320 Carry (not Compact), which the Army requested. The other way around makes sense for concealed carry, but that wasn't the main goal here.

And yeah you can swap frames easier than on the 19x, but that assumes the 19x has the same level of modularity as what Glock submitted for the trials, which I don't know for sure (they already didn't give us the manual safety and the FN 509 is supposedly based on FN's submission and isn't modular either).

As I said before, I'm not saying modularity is bad, I just question how much it will actually be a factor, which was the whole point of my last post. Time will tell.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Last edited by TunnelRat; November 7, 2018 at 08:41 PM.
TunnelRat is offline  
Old November 8, 2018, 06:47 AM   #22
dzavoina
Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 2010
Location: Madison, MS
Posts: 34
The cost per pistol wasn't the only consideration, the MHS, with the "S" for system and the "M" for modular are the key words here.
The system was for multiple grips, holsters, and optics.
Glock could not comply with the grips portion of the proposal, and that is why their contract protest was denied.
Sig partnered with Safariland for different holster configurations, ie, belt, drop leg and shoulder holsters to comply with that portion of the proposal.
dzavoina is offline  
Old November 8, 2018, 07:53 AM   #23
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by dzavoina View Post
The cost per pistol wasn't the only consideration, the MHS, with the "S" for system and the "M" for modular are the key words here.
The system was for multiple grips, holsters, and optics.
Glock could not comply with the grips portion of the proposal, and that is why their contract protest was denied.
Sig partnered with Safariland for different holster configurations, ie, belt, drop leg and shoulder holsters to comply with that portion of the proposal.
True but the testing protocol was 'mysteriously' curtailed in the middle of testing after Sig gave the Gov't their $ offer..
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old November 8, 2018, 11:52 AM   #24
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
Eh, their contract protest was about not completing the additional phase of the competition, not so much to do with the grip modules. The GAO, IIRC, pointed out that the additional phase wasn't required and the contract was rewarded based on the results of the first phase. This article helps a bit. When you look at it you see in terms of ergonomics the differences in ratings aren't dramatic, though there is a difference. https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...-released-gao/

SIG absolutely did seem to do a better job at providing an overall package in terms of licensing and production planning with other industry partners. This sort of confuses me because if a company makes a pistol accessory they almost always make a Glock version, so I'm not sure how Glock did worse here. Maybe SIG just beat some more pavement and did more legwork? They won regardless.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Last edited by TunnelRat; November 8, 2018 at 09:31 PM.
TunnelRat is offline  
Old November 8, 2018, 12:04 PM   #25
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,944
I may be mistaken, but I know gun shop lore states that Beretta beat out SIG for the previous handgun contract by offering a better overall package deal. If that is true maybe SIG learned a lesson and came better prepared this time.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.07551 seconds with 8 queries