ADVERTISEMENT

The Sig M17 is still a pile of junk

UCFKnight85

UCFKnight85

GOL's Inner Circle
Gold Member
May 6, 2003
99,634
105,179
113
sk8knight said:
And this is a lesson the US Government never seems to learn.
Click to expand...

It looks to me like SOCOM and MARSOC are all either sticking with or buying more G19's.

I bet Sig ends up producing way fewer pistols than they thought they would.
 
UCFKnight85 said:
On top of the other issues we knew about, this report now says that the triggers break (to fix the drop fire issue), and the pistol is often just 60% reliable when using standard issue Ball ammo. It only meets the 95% reliability threshold when using the special hallow point payload.

All of that money the USG saved up front is going to be totally consumed just fixing this pistol.

https://sofrep.com/98976/dod-evaluation-says-armys-new-sig-sauer-p320-service-pistol-riddled-issues/
Click to expand...
Do you know what the requirements were for ammo type and reliability? It would be interesting to see the performance requirements levied on the design.
 
fabknight said:
Do you know what the requirements were for ammo type and reliability? It would be interesting to see the performance requirements levied on the design.
Click to expand...

I don't know all of the reliability requirements but I know Sig didn't meet them. Or at least, the USG stopped testing before completing them, which is why Glock went nuts.

This whole thing was done horribly. They allowed each weapon OEM to bid the new 9mm round that would be used, instead of just picking a gun and then going out to market for the best round available. Sig partnered with Winchester for some new super hallow point but no one stopped to realize that most all training would be done with standard Ball ammo.
 
UCFKnight85 said:
I don't know all of the reliability requirements but I know Sig didn't meet them. Or at least, the USG stopped testing before completing them, which is why Glock went nuts.

This whole thing was done horribly. They allowed each weapon OEM to bid the new 9mm round that would be used, instead of just picking a gun and then going out to market for the best round available. Sig partnered with Winchester for some new super hallow point but no one stopped to realize that most all training would be done with standard Ball ammo.
Click to expand...

There must have been some serious pressure to get the gun out. What a waste. As a taxpayer, I'd like to see a re-compete and I'd like Sig to be forced to eat it as I'm sure it was a firm fixed contract. If a company doesn't meet requirements, unless they are conflicting or technologically impossible to meet, then they are in breech of contract and terminate them for convenience.

As far as the bold portion of the quote, I absolutely can't imagine that no one thought of this and it wasn't a part of the requirements; it's so basic. I'm sure the government started with some previous spec or boilerplate.
 
UCFWayne said:
sounds like a typical government program to me
Click to expand...

Not really. SOCOM and the USMC bought Glock 19's off the shelf and it's been a great program. It's a gun that arguably meets most of the MHS requirements already, they delivered on time and at cost, and that's why they're buying more. And SOCOM didn't do something stupid like try to lump ammo, spares, grips, sights, etc into a pistol contract.

MHS is simply trying to overthink a frigging pistol.
 
UCFKnight85 said:
Not really. SOCOM and the USMC bought Glock 19's off the shelf and it's been a great program. It's a gun that arguably meets most of the MHS requirements already, they delivered on time and at cost, and that's why they're buying more. And SOCOM didn't do something stupid like try to lump ammo, spares, grips, sights, etc into a pistol contract.

MHS is simply trying to overthink a frigging pistol.
Click to expand...
i just meant that they went with the lowest bidder, didnt fully test before making the decision, and now it looks like there are some major problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFBS
sk8knight said:
And this is a lesson the US Government never seems to learn.
Click to expand...
Echos of McNamara and his army of analysts.

UCFKnight85 said:
Not really. SOCOM and the USMC bought Glock 19's off the shelf and it's been a great program. It's a gun that arguably meets most of the MHS requirements already, they delivered on time and at cost, and that's why they're buying more. And SOCOM didn't do something stupid like try to lump ammo, spares, grips, sights, etc into a pistol contract.
MHS is simply trying to overthink a frigging pistol.
Click to expand...
A semi-automatic pistol is a semi-automatic pistol, and what is proven for civilians, from reliability to taking down smaller game, is pretty much a 'no brainer' for the US military.

I can totally understand if the brass feels they cannot do that with a rifle, as a semi-automatic rifle is nothing like a selective fire rifle in barrel, feed, head, reliability and other aspects.

But for a pistol ... I don't know why they don't just look to the civilian world.
 
fabknight said:
There must have been some serious pressure to get the gun out. What a waste. As a taxpayer, I'd like to see a re-compete and I'd like Sig to be forced to eat it as I'm sure it was a firm fixed contract. If a company doesn't meet requirements, unless they are conflicting or technologically impossible to meet, then they are in breech of contract and terminate them for convenience.
Click to expand...
Sometimes it's 'scope creep' that make it impossible.

The brass and contractors that are often equally the problem. One of these days, we'll get back to field testing and letting the guys actually using them figure things out.

I mean, that's how we got beyond the F-4 (which exceeded nearly all "engineering" requirements), Puff the Magic Dragon (which never had any requirements, no one thought of it), and countless other things that 'came from the field.'

I understand the US military doesn't just adopt what SOCOM and other operators have, because it's too costly. But they are some of the best 'early adopters' to at least learn from.

Heck, the AR-15 was only adopted because it wasn't a flechette gun, and no flechette ended up meeting the requirements. A survival cartridge turned select fire airbase defense weapon that became the standard "infantry gun" by default, over the cries of the British over nearly 3 decades.

Why don't we just adopt the P90 as our standard infantry gun while we're at it? I mean, it's got a high capacity, 50 cartridge magazine after all! And that cartridge is a 'cop killer' too! ;)
 
UCFBS said:
Sometimes it's 'scope creep' that make it impossible.

The brass and contractors that are often equally the problem. One of these days, we'll get back to field testing and letting the guys actually using them figure things out.

I mean, that's how we got beyond the F-4 (which exceeded nearly all "engineering" requirements), Puff the Magic Dragon (which never had any requirements, no one thought of it), and countless other things that 'came from the field.'

I understand the US military doesn't just adopt what SOCOM and other operators have, because it's too costly. But they are some of the best 'early adopters' to at least learn from.

Heck, the AR-15 was only adopted because it wasn't a flechette gun, and no flechette ended up meeting the requirements. A survival cartridge turned select fire airbase defense weapon that became the standard "infantry gun" by default, over the cries of the British over nearly 3 decades.

Why don't we just adopt the P90 as our standard infantry gun while we're at it? I mean, it's got a high capacity, 50 cartridge magazine after all! And that cartridge is a 'cop killer' too! ;)
Click to expand...
Scope creep on a dang pistol makes me laugh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: btbones
fabknight said:
Scope creep on a dang pistol makes me laugh.
Click to expand...
You'd be surprised how much little things get put into the design that impact in ways the contractor never intended.

But the contractor is just as guilty. They love it when those features cost more.
 
UCFBS said:
You'd be surprised how much little things get put into the design that impact in ways the contractor never intended.

But the contractor is just as guilty. They love it when those features cost more.
Click to expand...

Not on a firm fixed contract.
 
fabknight said:
Not on a firm fixed contract.
Click to expand...

Meh. The Army will throw more money at Sig before they ever admit they picked a bad gun. The alternative is cancelling the contract and recompeting which would embarrass pretty much everyone in the Army command.

They picked a shit sandwich and now must get it to be less of a shit sandwich.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFBS and UCFWayne
UCFKnight85 said:
Not really. SOCOM and the USMC bought Glock 19's off the shelf and it's been a great program. It's a gun that arguably meets most of the MHS requirements already, they delivered on time and at cost, and that's why they're buying more. And SOCOM didn't do something stupid like try to lump ammo, spares, grips, sights, etc into a pistol contract.

MHS is simply trying to overthink a frigging pistol.
Click to expand...
It could be worse. It could be the Australian procurement model where they lump every single CBRN-related item (from PPE to decon tents to software, sensors, and vehicles) that you could think of into a single program and then staff the PM shop with a bare handful of people.
 
UCFKnight85 said:
Meh. The Army will throw more money at Sig before they ever admit they picked a bad gun. The alternative is cancelling the contract and recompeting which would embarrass pretty much everyone in the Army command.

They picked a shit sandwich and now must get it to be less of a shit sandwich.
Click to expand...
they couldve just gone with the a3 and it wouldve been better than what they have now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFBS
UCFKnight85 said:
On top of the other issues we knew about, this report now says that the triggers break (to fix the drop fire issue), and the pistol is often just 60% reliable when using standard issue Ball ammo. It only meets the 95% reliability threshold when using the special hallow point payload.

All of that money the USG saved up front is going to be totally consumed just fixing this pistol.

https://sofrep.com/98976/dod-evaluation-says-armys-new-sig-sauer-p320-service-pistol-riddled-issues/
Click to expand...
Yep I want the m sig 46 kgb myself.
 
UCFWayne said:
they couldve just gone with the a3 and it wouldve been better than what they have now.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. The only thing missing from the M9 is the rail. People love to complain about the gun, but its a damn fine pistol, not to mention that any gun that is produced in the hundreds of thousands and used by 18 year olds is going to have quite a few anecdotal stories of how it's garbage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFBS
NinjaKnight said:
I agree with this. The only thing missing from the M9 is the rail. People love to complain about the gun, but its a damn fine pistol, not to mention that any gun that is produced in the hundreds of thousands and used by 18 year olds is going to have quite a few anecdotal stories of how it's garbage.
Click to expand...
ive heard several people say that most of the problems were due to the mags. no one ever did maintenance on the mags, so they had a newer gun, but the mag was an original from 20 years ago. for some magical reason the mag would cause problems and blamed on the gun itself...
 
UCFWayne said:
they couldve just gone with the a3 and it wouldve been better than what they have now.
Click to expand...
NinjaKnight said:
I agree with this. The only thing missing from the M9 is the rail. People love to complain about the gun, but its a damn fine pistol, not to mention that any gun that is produced in the hundreds of thousands and used by 18 year olds is going to have quite a few anecdotal stories of how it's garbage.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. The M9A3 would have been the best move.

Isn't it funny how we're so ready to switch pistol platforms, but are so risk adverse to switch rifle platforms?
 
To the majority of the military, a sidearm is used mainly as a door stop.

SOCOM isn’t even adopting this gun. The guys who actually may pull a sidearm in a fight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFBS
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back