Beretta M9 vs SIG M17

[1986s4]

If Sig can get the P320 to stop firing when dropped from knee high onto carpet they will have a good gun. Supposedly the M17/18 already has the fix.

There was some reliability testing posted on another board from a department test and the Sig smoked other entries in reliability, including Glock. Each test has its quirks.

Beretta did not claim their pistol was ten times as reliable as the M17. They claim it exceeded the M17 requirements Ten fold. That is completely different.

Honestly, the DOD should dump the M17, go M18 force wide and allow the units that want to ditch the safety. I love the 92 and Beretta. I respect the company more than Sig, but the design is tired. If we can get a more modern design while paying less long term, we should. The modular design of the Sig also allows for growth if need be.

For the record I do think that the XM17 trials should have played out differently(or at the very least played out) but this the point we are at.

I am not a M17/P320 fan. I've never shot one, beat one with a hammer or dropped one from any height onto any surface but the testing seemed incomplete to me. I like the M9 and I respect Glocks for their proven record even though I don't own one.

[17K]

I'm usually pretty open to the latest hotness, and I've always been a fan of the M9 for me, but I understand how it's not the best choice for a good many people. I wouldn't pick one ober a Glock, classic Sig, 1911, or several others.

That being said, the M17 is a joke and the Beretta is a better pistol.

[Fordtough25]

Love my beretta, and glocks. I don't have much love for Sig but my opinion doesn't mean much for the US Army and their new pistol. Just have to hope for the best for our troops!

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

If they can fix the 320’s quirks I’m sure it will be fine. It is lighter than the beretta, but I think the whole project is a colossal waste of time and money. I’ll bet $5 the whole process was just to secure some fancy military brass’s retirement. It was announced almost immediately after the Hand-off to trump so it stinks of panic fire.

[sundance435]

I love the M9/92FS, but if you've read any of the mounting number of articles decrying the load our troops are carrying into battle, then anything that lightens that load, as long as it doesn't sacrifice reliability, has got to be a step in the right direction. 9mm NATO ball bullets are double the weight of 1 M855 bullet and empty Beretta/Checkmate mags have to weigh at least as much as one empty PMAG. Why are soldiers even required to carry 2 spare handgun mags?

Just my inexperienced opinion, but something polymer with a 3.5" - 3.75" barrel that holds 10-15 rounds in polymer mags seems to make a lot more sense for what it might actually be used for, when weight is a factor.

[Evel Baldgui]

I would not choose either, and favor a CZ, Walther, or Glock.

[Feline]

I love the M9/92FS, but if you've read any of the mounting number of articles decrying the load our troops are carrying into battle, then anything that lightens that load, as long as it doesn't sacrifice reliability, has got to be a step in the right direction. 9mm NATO ball bullets are double the weight of 1 M855 bullet and empty Beretta/Checkmate mags have to weigh at least as much as one empty PMAG. Why are soldiers even required to carry 2 spare handgun mags?

Just my inexperienced opinion, but something polymer with a 3.5" - 3.75" barrel that holds 10-15 rounds in polymer mags seems to make a lot more sense for what it might actually be used for, when weight is a factor.

Gen 5 Glock 19/17 would have been the logical choice.

[ColtSeavers]

Love my 92a1 and the wife's 92a1.

Still trying to figure out why the testing was so half assed.

[sundance435]

Gen 5 Glock 19/17 would have been the logical choice.

Maybe the 19, but you could still go smaller, and why 15 rounds? 3.75" barrel with 12-13 round mags should fulfill every task you could reasonably expect of a military sidearm. These aren't offensive weapons - you might use them as a primary in house clearings and certain CQB scenarios, but the reality is that the "last stand" with your sidearm occurs rarely, if ever, in modern combat. I'm not saying that it's impossible, but, again, the military should be realistic in terms of what the gun is probably or most likely going to be used for vs. the weight these guys are having to carry into battle. It may seem trivial when you're talking about half a lb to a lb in weight savings, but I'd be willing to bet that the guys having to hump it would disagree. Merely providing a reliable-enough sidearm at the lowest possible cost shouldn't be the only benchmark.

General Dynamics had signaled early on that they were partnering with S&W on an entry. An M&P compact 9mm with GD engineering, design, and metallurgical changes for increased reliability might have been pretty close to what I'm suggesting. It must've become clear to GD that there was no reason for them to be involved with something that was going to be off-the-shelf. Can you imagine the possibilities if a company with the technical expertise of General Dynamics was involved in designing a modern sidearm based on realistic requirements?

[davidjinks]

I love reading and hearing how the testing was "half assed".

Please, tell me how the testing was half assed. I'd like to hear from someone who was there about how the testing was conducted.

Love my 92a1 and the wife's 92a1.

Still trying to figure out why the testing was so half assed.