View Full Version : US Army fields SIG M17 & M18 pistols
Link to SIG press release.
https://www.sigsauer.com/press-releases/u-s-army-fields-sig-sauer-m17m18-pistols/
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Just need some grip work and safety manipulation time. Trigger reset and press looked good. My 320 is on the way back from Sig, debating moving it for this model when available.
southswede
11-30-17, 08:31
Just need some grip work and safety manipulation time. Trigger reset and press looked good. My 320 is on the way back from Sig, debating moving it for this model when available.
My door to door time with the upgrade was 7 days.
I'm thinking of just adding one of these when they are available.
Link to SIG press release.
https://www.sigsauer.com/press-releases/u-s-army-fields-sig-sauer-m17m18-pistols/
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
1:07... "don't ah fuccckinh...."
Classic soldiers. :D
WickedWillis
11-30-17, 12:44
I do like the look of the longer slide one. Hopefully this serves our troops very well. In the end, that's all that matters.
Bulged/cracked cases at 1:59?
Do they still teach cup and saucer grip in the Army? I saw it a few times.
RAM Engineer
11-30-17, 15:31
“The specific performance improvements of the MHS over the M9 include better accuracy, tighter dispersion, and better ergonomics, which when combined, result in a far more lethal pistol.”
:no:
WickedWillis
11-30-17, 15:48
“The specific performance improvements of the MHS over the M9 include better accuracy, tighter dispersion, and better ergonomics, which when combined, result in a far more lethal pistol.”
:no:
I thought the same shit lol
There's quite a number of items in that video that are less than ideal.
There's quite a number of items in that video that are less than ideal.
One of which is the hand position near the muzzle by Blackburn. I don't know why people insist on using that portion of the slide to manipulate it. In addition, why put serrations there anyhow, promoting the use of the bad practice. I have a pic of a hand with a .45 hole in from this method. Not mine, but it was loud in a concrete building in Grafenwoehr :bad:
What's up with the revolver grips?
https://www.sigsauer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/army-m17-18.jpg
What's up with the revolver grips?
https://www.sigsauer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/army-m17-18.jpg
It's slightly better than the tea cupping in the video.
It's slightly better than the tea cupping in the video.
Lol! Yea I saw that too. I just hope the guns work as advertised.
Leonidas24
11-30-17, 23:19
One of which is the hand position near the muzzle by Blackburn. I don't know why people insist on using that portion of the slide to manipulate it. In addition, why put serrations there anyhow, promoting the use of the bad practice. I have a pic of a hand with a .45 hole in from this method. Not mine, but it was loud in a concrete building in Grafenwoehr :bad:
What year was that? A Co 1/2IN 2008-2010.
At least nobody dropped one.
What year was that? A Co 1/2IN 2008-2010.
I'm old--1988. 3AD
I'm old--1988. 3AD
I spent a bit of time at Graf also. 1987-89 with 2nd ACR. Loads of fun. I was MI so we were considered red-headed step children because we weren't Armor/Cav. Best part though was I did get licensed to drive an M1 and a Bradley.
I was in Germany with 1st I.D. Spent a few weeks in Graf. No holes in hands, but a rolled Bradley one year.
Lol! Yea I saw that too. I just hope the guns work as advertised.
It didn’t look much better than most of the civilians on the public range.
At least there wasn’t any of this going on:
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171201/f80ccb7e9da2361d30fdd1aa4f8da3e3.jpg
Christmas Arrives Early for the 101st as XM17s are Issued!
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2017/12/1/the-keefe-report-christmas-arrives-early-for-the-101st-as-xm17s-are-issued/
It didn’t look much better than most of the civilians on the public range.
At least there wasn’t any of this going on:
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171201/f80ccb7e9da2361d30fdd1aa4f8da3e3.jpg
Pistol time does not figure prominently in most conventional units' training plans. There's also not a lot of institutional knowledge on handgun technique.
The Soldier in that photo does not appear to be from a unit that does much shooting of any kind.
Despite the press and shooting community attention, it's probably the least important weapon in the inventory. Not an excuse for the poor training quality, but it's often a casualty when you are already struggling to find time to meet individual and team certification on scores of other things.
Pistol time does not figure prominently in most conventional units' training plans. There's also not a lot of institutional knowledge on handgun technique.
The Soldier in that photo does not appear to be from a unit that does much shooting of any kind.
Despite the press and shooting community attention, it's probably the least important weapon in the inventory. Not an excuse for the poor training quality, but it's often a casualty when you are already struggling to find time to meet individual and team certification on scores of other things.
I think the bigger problem is not that there are soldiers what suck at pistol craft, like the soldiers in the M17 rollout video or the picture of the General I posted, but rather the Army’s PR sucks. Releasing video like that showing sloppy shooting is not professional. Big Army needs do a better job at controlling its public image when rolling out a new weapon system. If I were in charge I would be furious at whoever let that picture of the General be published. It not only makes the Army look dumb, that General got lambasted by the public. Subordinates need to make those in command look good. What kind of confidence in your leadership does that inspire in your men? Controlling your public image is super important these days. Most 13 year olds on Facebook do a better job PRing themselves and making themselves look cooler than they really are.
MountainRaven
12-02-17, 21:51
What's up with the revolver grips?
https://www.sigsauer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/army-m17-18.jpg
The Army bought new pistols. Not pistol training.
Pistol time does not figure prominently in most conventional units' training plans. There's also not a lot of institutional knowledge on handgun technique.
The Soldier in that photo does not appear to be from a unit that does much shooting of any kind.
Despite the press and shooting community attention, it's probably the least important weapon in the inventory. Not an excuse for the poor training quality, but it's often a casualty when you are already struggling to find time to meet individual and team certification on scores of other things.
The soldier in that photo is a GO.
We're a long way from General Patton and his ivory-gripped Smith & Wesson Registered Magnum "Killing Gun".
The Army bought new pistols. Not pistol training.
And boy do I wish we’d have gone the other way with that money.
And boy do I wish we’d have gone the other way with that money.
Same.
I understand the need to have pistols in inventory. And basic training, etc. And for certain units/missions to have them.
Tankers, engineers, pilots, etc to have a weapon on hand when their doing their primary role? Makes sense.
But I don't understand the "Dual arming down to team leader level" mindset for Infantry line troops.
Unless they added it in the last couple of months, apparently there is no pistol presence in mainstream IN tactics training, nor in their primary role.
I'm all for the troops having another tool in their tool kit to use when needed. If the M9 is worn out or obsolete, no problem.
I don't understand the decision to issue to line troops, especially without additional training, Etc.
Is this intended to be a solution to some perceived "I'm too busy with maps and radios to carry a carbine" issue in the field?
Aside from specific weapon system’s being ‘broken’, the biggest limfac is training for regular .mil units.
It’s not sexy to spend $XYZ extra cash on ‘training’ or ‘optar’ for more flight time - it is sexy to have new ‘things’ (pistols rifles planes).
Plus those ‘things’ will always be owned by generals / admirals, regardless of how poorly they are treated - the individuals with ‘training’ will leave when that happens.
Truth #1: Humans are more important than hardware.
That money could have bought a $&@#-ton of bullets. But surely that time is better spent on sensitivity training, so lets buy new guns and holsters instead.
That video is another example of why you should never assume someone is a weapons expert or even proficient for that matter just because they served.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Truth #1: Humans are more important than hardware.
That money could have bought a $&@#-ton of bullets. But surely that time is better spent on sensitivity training, so lets buy new guns and holsters instead.
Yup, this is a huge waste to taxpayer money..IMO, there wasn't a thing wrong with the M9, except the army is'nt serious about training people how to use and maintain it, (the above pic is a classic example). It's going to be interesting to see how the new Sig holds up to the same lack of maintence,abuse, that the M9 got..
Yup, this is a huge waste to taxpayer money..IMO, there wasn't a thing wrong with the M9, except the army is'nt serious about training people how to use and maintain it, (the above pic is a classic example). It's going to be interesting to see how the new Sig holds up to the same lack of maintence,abuse, that the M9 got..
Pretty much this. While a lot of people bitched, the Glock not getting adopted was the best thing ever for its reputation cuz after 10 years you'd have people screaming bout what pieces of junk they were when failures started occuring because no PM was done, mags were trashed, and it was being cleaned so hard the finished had been scrubbed off.
That said if the pistol trials had ended like tge rifle trials with no adoption we'd probably be bitching tgat they wasted money on the trials instead of ammo.
turnburglar
12-05-17, 17:52
I carried a M9 daily in the performance of duty, and think the 320 is a big step in the right direction.
I couldn't stand the open slide, and the magazines seemed to suck. To be honest my M9 was probably super worn out, but just the overall design is way to complicated compared to the simplicity of most modern striker fired pistols. One time the slide lock spring came out of my M9 during cleaning. It took awhile to get that back on there properly. Im out now and the USAF will probably take their time acquiring these anyways.
azeriosu85
12-06-17, 04:18
I carried a M9 daily in the performance of duty, and think the 320 is a big step in the right direction.
I couldn't stand the open slide, and the magazines seemed to suck. To be honest my M9 was probably super worn out, but just the overall design is way to complicated compared to the simplicity of most modern striker fired pistols. One time the slide lock spring came out of my M9 during cleaning. It took awhile to get that back on there properly. Im out now and the USAF will probably take their time acquiring these anyways.
While the slide stop spring is a PITA that is a VERY detailed cleaning. And should be an armorer job outside normal ground pounders. There is ZERO reason to ever dick with that in the field or otherwise. the only time it to take the trigger pin out. Which would mean a broken return spring...once again. Armorer it goes
The Army bought new pistols. Not pistol training.
The soldier in that photo is a GO.
We're a long way from General Patton and his ivory-gripped Smith & Wesson Registered Magnum "Killing Gun".
I found the source article.... based on his position, it is safe to assume that he did not 'grow up' in a maneuver branch before becoming a GO.
colesteele
12-08-17, 10:42
I think the bigger problem is not that there are soldiers what suck at pistol craft, like the soldiers in the M17 rollout video or the picture of the General I posted, but rather the Army’s PR sucks. Releasing video like that showing sloppy shooting is not professional. Big Army needs do a better job at controlling its public image when rolling out a new weapon system. If I were in charge I would be furious at whoever let that picture of the General be published. It not only makes the Army look dumb, that General got lambasted by the public. Subordinates need to make those in command look good. What kind of confidence in your leadership does that inspire in your men? Controlling your public image is super important these days. Most 13 year olds on Facebook do a better job PRing themselves and making themselves look cooler than they really are.
The issue at hand is that the PAO doesn't know what right looks like.
Truth is less than 5% of the population recognizes the crappy grips / stances of those soldiers.
turnburglar
12-08-17, 15:18
While the slide stop spring is a PITA that is a VERY detailed cleaning. And should be an armorer job outside normal ground pounders. There is ZERO reason to ever dick with that in the field or otherwise. the only time it to take the trigger pin out. Which would mean a broken return spring...once again. Armorer it goes
LOL I had to do the armor's job on many occasions...... M2, mk19, M240, M9 maintenance ect.
In the real world if it can go wrong it will. 'Should' never seems to matter that much.
It didn’t look much better than most of the civilians on the public range.
At least there wasn’t any of this going on:
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171201/f80ccb7e9da2361d30fdd1aa4f8da3e3.jpgExtend them arms and lock your elbows, SOLDIER!
Just need some grip work and safety manipulation time. Trigger reset and press looked good. My 320 is on the way back from Sig, debating moving it for this model when available.
Can I shoot it? ;)
I finally got around to handling a 320 at a store. I’m cautiously optomistic that it will be easier to teach Soldiers to meet minimum competency goals with this gun than it was with the M9.
I still wish we had spent the money on training.
Training would be a really good thing to spend money on I would think. I like the M9 it’s a good weapon but I guess the Sig is easier to operate. I’m not sure the modular thing is very important.
Another article
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/01/02/watch-soldiers-shoot-the-armys-new-handgun-for-the-first-time/
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Good God, does the Army not teach even the most fundamental points of how to hold and shoot a handgun to our guys? The videos and photos I've been seeing of soldiers shooting their new handguns have been cringe-worthy.
I still feel like it doesn't really matter what pistol we issue. Being slightly less bad is still bad. Training > new pistol... that said, I hope the new pistol* does really well.
I still feel like it doesn't really matter what pistol we issue. Being slightly less bad is still bad. Training > new pistol... that said, I hope the new password does really well.
You hope the new password does really well? Sorry...can you explain?
Good God, does the Army not teach even the most fundamental points of how to hold and shoot a handgun to our guys? The videos and photos I've been seeing of soldiers shooting their new handguns have been cringe-worthy.These are the same guys that come back and feel they're weapons experts. Everyone doesn't get the same level of training.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Good God, does the Army not teach even the most fundamental points of how to hold and shoot a handgun to our guys? The videos and photos I've been seeing of soldiers shooting their new handguns have been cringe-worthy.
NO. More time is spent talking about things like "reset" than proper form.
- "Just let the trigger out far enough that you feel a click."
-(everybody practices feeling the "click")
Maybe I'm just being petty, cuz you only have so much time to train a large amount of people, but I honestly think at various points in your career you should have to go to week-long schools for shooting to get certain ranks.
You hope the new password does really well? Sorry...can you explain?
Pistol* (voice to text error)
Training would be a really good thing to spend money on I would think. I like the M9 it’s a good weapon but I guess the Sig is easier to operate. I’m not sure the modular thing is very important.
When has big Army ever allowed the end user to exercise modularity?
These are the same guys that come back and feel they're weapons experts. Everyone doesn't get the same level of training.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
This is true, IMHO. There are opportunities on a regular basis, but there are always things that can interfere, starting with interest. There are also plenty of mandatory training courses you have to get to. Also, hard skills don't always equal career progression, and sometimes that matters quite a bit.
Even though the Army should have gotten the Glock, the time they save not having to teach soldiers not to put the safety on when they operate the slide on the M9 can be spent teaching them not use 'Charlie's Angels' as a guide for weapon presentation.
We can chalk this up as a win.
Even though the Army should have gotten the Glock, the time they save not having to teach soldiers not to put the safety on when they operate the slide on the M9 can be spent teaching them not use 'Charlie's Angels' as a guide for weapon presentation.
We can chalk this up as a win.
Lol! Let the LTs look fabulous, it's all they have! :)
Can't say I have high hopes for a pistol coming from the company that complained reliability was being weighed too heavily during another set of trials.
call_me_ski
01-06-18, 13:59
Can't say I have high hopes for a pistol coming from the company that complained reliability was being weighed too heavily during another set of trials.
The big controversy is that the trails didn’t actually take place before the award was issued solely on cost. Yet cost was outlined as the least important criteria. I don’t always side with protests but I do think that it should not have went down the way it did. If Sig was the better choice they should have gotten a chance to prove it against the Glock. Right now the only definitive thing they can claim is that they were the cheapest.
I still feel like it doesn't really matter what pistol we issue. Being slightly less bad is still bad. Training > new pistol... that said, I hope the new pistol* does really well.
Boom. To take it a step further, the pistol is probably the least killingest sensitive item on the company property book. This being a gun enthusiast forum, we get worked up about it, but effective pistol shooting is less important than understanding how to operate a VHF radio properly for most of the force. It's pretty much the least important weapon in the conventional inventory, ahead of maybe the bayonet, breaching gun, or tomahawk. That's why the Chief picked it as as example of how acquisition could be easy; it should have been easy.
Boom. To take it a step further, the pistol is probably the least killingest sensitive item on the company property book. This being a gun enthusiast forum, we get worked up about it, but effective pistol shooting is less important than understanding how to operate a VHF radio properly for most of the force. It's pretty much the least important weapon in the conventional inventory, ahead of maybe the bayonet, breaching gun, or tomahawk. That's why the Chief picked it as as example of how acquisition could be easy; it should have been easy.
Precisely. Which famous SOF dude said that shooting was only 5% of his job? Once you add all the other things you get trained up on, it becomes very evident. CCW is much better in this regard, since you get to choose your outset gear, etc. Still, I think we'd all like to see them get this right.
(Ironically, a service buddy of mine also CCWs the P320, and is convinced the Army finally got something right. )
"Shooting was only 5% of his job."
OK, it may be true that only 5% of his job involves shooting, but during that 5% is it is 100% that matters when the bullet must hit what it needs to hit, right?
So why can't the Army offer adequate training on using a handgun?
"Shooting was only 5% of his job."
OK, it may be true that only 5% of his job involves shooting, but during that 5% is it is 100% that matters when the bullet must hit what it needs to hit, right?
So why can't the Army offer adequate training on using a handgun?
I agree with you entirely! But we're talking about the perspective of the individual verses to perspective of the Army as a whole. On an individual and Squad level, it needs to be made the biggest deal possible. I would go so far as to say even on a platoon or company level. But to the Big Army, it is one of scores of required tasks. General Mattis, to our Fortune, has initiated things such as scrubbing training requirements to better reflect a fighting force.
What I hope to see in the future is a return to the increased focus on combat effectiveness, what's does include shooting "schools". That includes funding, which I think will increase under this administration.
I'm just a little guy in the bigger picture, my thoughts are based entirely on my perspective over a number of years, and are influenced by the type of units I've spent time in. In general, the closer you get to the spearhead, the more training you receive. Some of my combat arms Buddies are out at shooting events the majority of their time training. It's usually the opposite for support units.
One of which is the hand position near the muzzle by Blackburn. I don't know why people insist on using that portion of the slide to manipulate it. In addition, why put serrations there anyhow, promoting the use of the bad practice. I have a pic of a hand with a .45 hole in from this method. Not mine, but it was loud in a concrete building in Grafenwoehr :bad:
Respectfully, just like using the slide stop to send the slide forward is faster, so is manipulating the slide via the front a much faster method or racking the slide than sling-shotting or "power stroking".
Manipulating the slide using the front of the slide give you more control of the handgun during admin handling such as in the video.
I agree with you entirely! But we're talking about the perspective of the individual verses to perspective of the Army as a whole. On an individual and Squad level, it needs to be made the biggest deal possible. I would go so far as to say even on a platoon or company level. But to the Big Army, it is one of scores of required tasks. General Mattis, to our Fortune, has initiated things such as scrubbing training requirements to better reflect a fighting force.
What I hope to see in the future is a return to the increased focus on combat effectiveness, what's does include shooting "schools". That includes funding, which I think will increase under this administration.
I'm just a little guy in the bigger picture, my thoughts are based entirely on my perspective over a number of years, and are influenced by the type of units I've spent time in. In general, the closer you get to the spearhead, the more training you receive. Some of my combat arms Buddies are out at shooting events the majority of their time training. It's usually the opposite for support units.
Small unit lethality is a priority for the future, but the pistol is a tiny part of that effort, again behind most every other piece of individual equipment. Sure, when you actually need it, nothing is more important, but if big army can put the money into stuff that matters in modern conventional conflict, like survivability, long range precision fires (artillery, not snipers), communicating when you're against an adversary that actually jams your networks..... the money will go there.
Any change in pistol technique in the conventional force would have to come from building some institutional knowledge with the small unit leadership, like a variation of a unit master gunner, that is passed on to Soldiers during sergeant's time with the squad and team.
Respectfully, just like using the slide stop to send the slide forward is faster, so is manipulating the slide via the front a much faster method or racking the slide than sling-shotting or "power stroking".
Manipulating the slide using the front of the slide give you more control of the handgun during admin handling such as in the video.
Do it while admin; you'll do it under pressure too unless you train very consciously.
In my opinion, the problem is most people will place some portion of the hand in front of the muzzle or interfere with the ejection port in various ways. At 1.10, my point is proven.
Any change in pistol technique in the conventional force would have to come from building some institutional knowledge with the small unit leadership, like a variation of a unit master gunner, that is passed on to Soldiers during sergeant's time with the squad and team.
Do it while admin; you'll do it under pressure too unless you train very consciously.
Well, it's not that black and white.
We are fully able to use different techniques for different purposes.
In my opinion, the problem is most people will place some portion of the hand in front of the muzzle or interfere with the ejection port in various ways. At 1.10, my point is proven.
That is a training issue, not a technique issue.
Using the front serrations for slide manipulation is the most efficient method, in my experience.
I've never cared for forward serrations. And I don't believe using them is faster than slingshotting.
I've never cared for forward serrations. And I don't believe using them is faster than slingshotting.
Put it on the timer. It's quite simple.
You have to move your support hand a shorter distance after manipulating the slide when using the front serrations, than when slingshotting or power stroking.
MountainRaven
01-07-18, 13:10
I've never cared for forward serrations. And I don't believe using them is faster than slingshotting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8Qie-pvCIM
Skip to about the 4 minute mark.
I believe your method is thumb and fore finger overtop of the slide which is how I would manipulate the slide if doing it that way(I would use the rear though) I would agree with you that if done correctly, it would be a safe method. I hold that either way would be efficient although the rear more natural and less prone to error. I posted before the video-or typed this.
I believe your method is thumb and fore finger overtop of the slide which is how I would manipulate the slide if doing it that way(I would use the rear though) I would agree with you that if done correctly, it would be a safe method. I hold that either way would be efficient although the rear more natural and less prone to error. I posted before the video-or typed this.
Correct, the slide is wedged between my thumb and index finger, as Bill shows in the video.
As for efficiency, my money is on forward manipulation - and that is coming from someone who used a sling shot method for years and years.
Didn't even take that many reps to convert either.
Sounds good to me, thanks bro. On a side note, I've been liking the 320 more and more. Both kids, decent shooters immediately shot more accurately with the 320 vs the 17/19. I'm working on getting my daughter and son one this year.
At this point, I've been shooting the M9 long enough I'm pretty good with it. So my biggest hope for this new acquisition is durability, if for no other reason than they are physically newer than the pistols they are replacing. In each of the last three training events I have gone to one of the Berettas has broken on the firing line. Use it as a hammer, entirely nonfunctional, paperweight style, broken. After the end of the last event I went to, my teammates and I were cleaning our pistols and his locking block was cracked, making the pistol soon-to-be useless. I'm hoping the M 17 will be a tougher gun, and will last longer between catastrophic failures. It's a lot to hope for, but just maybe it'll turn out that way.
....nothing to write home about....
Shoot it for awhile and see if it doesn't grow on you.
I shot my first 320 quite awhile before owning one. It was a full-size in 9mm and I came away somewhat unimpressed. Later, I bought a Carry model. That gun has been great and really has become a gun I shoot and enjoy fairly regularly.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Nope, sorry, I see absolutely zero reason to use a handgun that I can not EASILY strip down to the very last and single part and put back together again in under 20 minutes and easily replace and inexpensively buy magazines for and shoot accurately and run it like it was stolen. But...ok.
:)
Nope, sorry, I see absolutely zero reason to use a handgun that I can not EASILY strip down to the very last and single part and put back together again in under 20 minutes and easily replace and inexpensively buy magazines for and shoot accurately and run it like it was stolen. But...ok.
:)
Which handgun are you protesting?
MountainRaven
01-29-18, 20:25
Remember when SiG said that the M17 and M18 didn't suffer the same safety problems as the pre-August 2017 commercial production P320?
Apparently they lied. (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18047/armys-new-pistols-often-eject-live-rounds-and-dont-work-well-with-regular-bullets)
Short version:
•The XM17/XM18 pistols, as submitted, went off when dropped. The replacement parts that SiG began using for commercial P320 pistols appear to have been originally developed for the M17/M18 - and were already in the M17/M18 by the time SiG publicly admitted they had a problem. Two of the chassises fitted with the new parts have apparently spontaneously disintegrated.
•The M17/M18 has a propensity to throw live rounds out of the ejection port when fired, along with spent casings.
•The M17/M18 does not function reliably with SiG's ball ammo clone (XM1152) of the new hollow point cartridge (XM1153). And the M17 is 95% reliable with XM1153 (JHP) with the M18 being 96% reliable - which means 100 and 92 stoppages respectively per 2000 rounds. The M17 is 75% reliable with XM1152 (ball) ammo and the M18 is 60% reliable - which means 500 and 800 stoppages respectively per 2000 rounds.
With the Army's 2000 round reliability standards in mind, I took a quick look over another forum's 2,000 Round Challenge thread. Most of those handguns had zero stoppages of any type. Those that did generally had fewer than a dozen - and often those additional stoppages were intentionally induced to uncover the cause of the original stoppage. So I look forward to seeing how 19Xs perform in these 2000 round challenges going forward.
SomeOtherGuy
01-29-18, 20:33
Remember when SiG said that the M17 and M18 didn't suffer the same safety problems as the pre-August 2017 commercial production P320?
Apparently they lied. (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18047/armys-new-pistols-often-eject-live-rounds-and-dont-work-well-with-regular-bullets)
Short version:
***•The M17/M18 does not function reliably with SiG's ball ammo clone (XM1152) of the new hollow point cartridge (XM1153). And the M17 is 95% reliable with XM1153 (JHP) with the M18 being 96% reliable - which means 100 and 92 stoppages respectively per 2000 rounds. The M17 is 75% reliable with XM1152 (ball) ammo and the M18 is 60% reliable - which means 500 and 800 stoppages respectively per 2000 rounds.
This is absurd. I wonder if the story is accurate, but if it is, that should be the end of Sig's military contract. How do you even make a pistol that fails 40% of the time with ball ammo? Taurus and High-Point can easily beat that for pistols produced Monday morning after the World Cup / Super Bowl (respectively).
This is absurd. I wonder if the story is accurate, but if it is, that should be the end of Sig's military contract. How do you even make a pistol that fails 40% of the time with ball ammo? Taurus and High-Point can easily beat that for pistols produced Monday morning after the World Cup / Super Bowl (respectively).Most of the malfunctions were failures to lock the slide open when empty.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
call_me_ski
01-29-18, 23:19
Most of the malfunctions were failures to lock the slide open when empty.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Even when they eliminate that stoppage from the count it leaves them with 87 and 90%. Still unacceptable. This entire program has been a disservice to the soldier.
Remember when SiG said that the M17 and M18 didn't suffer the same safety problems as the pre-August 2017 commercial production P320?
Apparently they lied. (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18047/armys-new-pistols-often-eject-live-rounds-and-dont-work-well-with-regular-bullets)
Short version:
•The XM17/XM18 pistols, as submitted, went off when dropped. The replacement parts that SiG began using for commercial P320 pistols appear to have been originally developed for the M17/M18 - and were already in the M17/M18 by the time SiG publicly admitted they had a problem. Two of the chassises fitted with the new parts have apparently spontaneously disintegrated.
•The M17/M18 has a propensity to throw live rounds out of the ejection port when fired, along with spent casings.
•The M17/M18 does not function reliably with SiG's ball ammo clone (XM1152) of the new hollow point cartridge (XM1153). And the M17 is 95% reliable with XM1153 (JHP) with the M18 being 96% reliable - which means 100 and 92 stoppages respectively per 2000 rounds. The M17 is 75% reliable with XM1152 (ball) ammo and the M18 is 60% reliable - which means 500 and 800 stoppages respectively per 2000 rounds.
With the Army's 2000 round reliability standards in mind, I took a quick look over another forum's 2,000 Round Challenge thread. Most of those handguns had zero stoppages of any type. Those that did generally had fewer than a dozen - and often those additional stoppages were intentionally induced to uncover the cause of the original stoppage. So I look forward to seeing how 19Xs perform in these 2000 round challenges going forward.
Source? (Eta: source is linked in the quoted post.)
If any part of this is true, the Army needs to destroy Sig, and at least a few procurement and good idea types. Ready the pitchforks.
WTF.
crusader377
01-30-18, 07:37
The sad thing is the Army is going to a new unproven pistol with questionable reliability while the current M9s are the most reliable pistol and probably the most tested ever produced. The current lot acceptance pistols ran 1 malfunction per 19,000 rounds.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18047/armys-new-pistols-often-eject-live-rounds-and-dont-work-well-with-regular-bullets
C4
WickedWillis
01-30-18, 11:16
So the rumblings and the accusations that Sig only won because they basically gave them away looks to have much more merit than we thought.
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation report:
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2017/pdf/army/2017mhs.pdf
MSparks909
01-30-18, 14:12
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18047/armys-new-pistols-often-eject-live-rounds-and-dont-work-well-with-regular-bullets
C4
What a clusterf***. The Army should have picked the 19X. And that’s coming from a Beretta 92 nut.
crusader377
01-30-18, 14:28
What a clusterf***. The Army should have picked the 19X. And that’s coming from a Beretta 92 nut.
I'm a 92 fan as well and I think they should have either gone with the M9A3 or do a off the shelf purchase of the Glock 19 which is already widely used in the SF community. But I guess that solution makes too much sense for the Army.
MSparks909
01-30-18, 15:38
I'm a 92 fan as well and I think they should have either gone with the M9A3 or do a off the shelf purchase of the Glock 19 which is already widely used in the SF community. But I guess that solution makes too much sense for the Army.
The M9A3 would have been an excellent choice as well, but if it was between the 19X and Sig M17/18...Glock 19X all day.
Shame.
Should have gone with the upgraded Beretta or the Glock.
I know several Sig fans. I used to think they were good guns just not my choice. I have much lower opinion of Sig-USA these days.
I would not consider buying any of their guns.
The M9A3 would have been an excellent choice as well, but if it was between the 19X and Sig M17/18...Glock 19X all day.
Small Army has been using Glocks for a long time. So for me, it makes sense to stick with the same platform (once you decided to get away from Beretta).
C4
MSparks909
01-30-18, 16:36
Small Army has been using Glocks for a long time. So for me, it makes sense to stick with the same platform (once you decided to get away from Beretta).
C4
Agree. I wonder if the other branches will pause or if they will just blindly follow the Army and adopt the M17/18 as well. This will be interesting to watch.
Agree. I wonder if the other branches will pause or if they will just blindly follow the Army and adopt the M17/18 as well. This will be interesting to watch.
Certain folks inside the USMC and SEAL's already use Glock's so I doubt that they would jump on the Army bandwagon no matter what (and especially not know).
C4
southswede
01-30-18, 18:04
Glock claims 90+% of malfunctions are shooter related, 7+% ammunition and the remaining gun related. I wonder if this applies to the Sig P320.......no, I'm sure that would be crazy thinking.
That didn’t take long. Army should back out.
Hell, Remington is probably standing by with their RP9 :D
The Dumb Gun Collector
01-30-18, 20:57
Definitely should have stuck with Beretta unless unless they had went with the original plan of swapping to a better caliber— the Beretta was better than the guns they tried to replace it with...IMHO.
call_me_ski
01-30-18, 20:59
Certain folks inside the USMC and SEAL's already use Glock's so I doubt that they would jump on the Army bandwagon no matter what (and especially not know).
C4
The funny part was that it was the Army that really brought Glocks onboard before anyone else in the US military. They trickled down from JSOC to regiment and the SF groups and their adoption of the Glock 19 on a wider scale lead to SOCOM wanting to standardize on the platform. Now the Army blindly bought guns that may or may not work solely on price when what limited testing that was done revealed that they might not be as reliable as other entries and they didn’t pass drop tests. Is the Army open to liability regarding this acquisition or did that end with the GAO protest?
A lot of people seem to be missing all the details. The story is sensational rather than objective. They don't bother to mention most of the stoppages were a straight up training issue.
All of this happened AFTER the trials. SIG had already won. That means it passed the Army drop tests. I doubt they even found the problem themselves.
XM... is not standard ball ammo. If it was standard it would be M... and not XM. No feeding issues in civilian reviews or use that I have seen makes me suspect the ammo first.
No idea what to make of live rounds ejecting without causing a stoppage? Strange and something I feel we would have heard about if it ever happened to civilian guns.
I am not a SIG fan or hater but they will either work out the problems or this will just be one more of many poor procurements.
I suggest people read this article.
The problem is limited to the XM1152 115gr TC FMJ round:
https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/01/31/army-responds-dod-report-criticizing-new-sidearm-reliability.html
crusader377
01-31-18, 16:57
I suggest people read this article.
The problem is limited to the XM1152 115gr TC FMJ round:
https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/01/31/army-responds-dod-report-criticizing-new-sidearm-reliability.html
That could be true but these issues should have been found in initial testing which the U.S. Army neglected to do. Furthermore, problems shooting ball ammunition is another indicator along with the poor drop test performance of the Sig P320 that the whole platform suffers from inadequate engineering and quality control. End of the day the Army in its infinite wisdom chose to adopt an unproven pistol with minimal testing that was based off a commercial grade pistol design.
The way it appears that Sig has acted in all of this leaves me with some disdain for the company. I have 3 Legions (P226, P229, and wife's P226 SAO) and a 2004-ish production P229. I had wanted to pick up one or two P220 Legions (10mm and .45ACP), but the whole affair with the commercial P320 and (it would seem) the M17/M18 puts them in the not for a long time camp. And a certain gunsmith (whose work I respected) has lost a customer, too.
A requirement in the contract was to OPTIMIZE the handgun for the "go to war round", ie the 147gr HP round.
Both pistols passed that testing, with flying colors. The Army says that the system is still good to go for warfighting.
The issue is the 115gr TC FMJ ball round. If I were a betting man, I would put money on the shape of the projectile being the main culprit, as TC generally doesn't feed as well as RN bullet profiles.
Varying reports from people involved in the fielding says it does fine with 124gr NATO ball as well.
Do the math.
Nightstalker865
01-31-18, 18:12
Another angle on what Grant posted.
https://sofrep.com/98976/dod-evaluation-says-armys-new-sig-sauer-p320-service-pistol-riddled-issues/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
All of this happened AFTER the trials. SIG had already won. That means it passed the Army drop tests.
The way I understand GAO report on Glock protest, this is incorrect. The contract was awarded after initial reliability testing (section M, that Glock also disputed and GAO in principle agreed) but before operational testing. Glock argued that all testing should have been done before awarding the contract.
The protester also contends that it is unclear whether the Army intends to complete the section H evaluation prior to award of the production CLINs. Glock Supp. Comments, May 9, 2017, at 1-2. The Army asserts that the Sig Sauer handguns “(both compact and full size) will undergo all possible Section H Source Selection testing,” prior to general distribution of the handguns. Supp. AR at 1-2.
A requirement in the contract was to OPTIMIZE the handgun for the "go to war round", ie the 147gr HP round.
Both pistols passed that testing, with flying colors. The Army says that the system is still good to go for warfighting.
The issue is the 115gr TC FMJ ball round. If I were a betting man, I would put money on the shape of the projectile being the main culprit, as TC generally doesn't feed as well as RN bullet profiles.
Varying reports from people involved in the fielding says it does fine with 124gr NATO ball as well.
Do the math.
TC rounds generally feed the same as hollowpoints, which these articles claim work ok.
I’ll be interested to hear more about this TC 115gr. Maybe its loaded lightly? Why in the $&@% would the Army choose a 115gr for training and a 147gr for war, anyway?
What about the double ejection thing?
HardToHandle
01-31-18, 20:01
Why in the $&@% would the Army choose a 115gr for training and a 147gr for war, anyway?
It is the Army... so “costs less” is the #1 answer. Is that not the entire reason SIG was selected - minimally qualified but less expensive?
115gr FMJ is original Parabellum clambering and commonly available IIRC.
124gr is the NATO standard and consequently held in war stocks throughout the world. Arguably 115 to 124 is closer than 124 to 147 for maintenance of point of impact.
M9 is still standard issue and will likely still be on the line when today’s Kindergarteners are signing enlistment papers. I am not aware if the 147gr/ Berretta M9 teaming was part of the most recent competition, but doubt it was.
The joint service project rolled out the Beretta M9 that was shooting a bullet one way and the slide into the shooter’s face. The US Army doubled down then on a known faulty weapons system. Expect the same on a handgun with a track record of not being drop safe and unable to feed the most common ammunition types.
EzGoingKev
01-31-18, 22:09
The joint service project rolled out the Beretta M9 that was shooting a bullet one way and the slide into the shooter’s face. The US Army doubled down then on a known faulty weapons system. Expect the same on a handgun with a track record of not being drop safe and unable to feed the most common ammunition types.
The M9 was adopted in 1985. The slide issue did not show up until a few years later.
The M9 was adopted in 1985. The slide issue did not show up until a few years later.
True, traced to slides made in Italy before the factory in the US was completed. According to the linked GAO report the slide is supposed to last 7,000 rounds.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/110/102286.pdf (NOTE: the link is not the source of the info below)
In September of 1987 the slide of a civilian model Beretta 92SB pistol fractured at the junction where the locking block mates into the slide. The broken half of the slide flew back at the shooter (A member of the Navy Special Warfare Group) injuring him. (NSIAD-88-213) In January and February of 1988 respectively, 2 more military model M9 handguns exhibited the same problem, injuring 2 more shooters from the Navy Special Warfare Group.
All three shooters suffered facial lacerations. One suffered a broken tooth and the other two required stitches. (NSIAD-88-213)
The Army was doing unrelated barrel testing on current production civilian model 92SB pistols and military model M9 pistols and ran into the same slide separation issue. They fired 3 M9 pistols 10,000 times and inspected the weapons with the MPI process for evidence of slide cracks. They discovered that one of the weapons had a cracked slide. The Army then decided to fire all of the weapons until the slides failed. Failure occurred at round number 23,310 on one weapon, 30,083 on another, and 30,545 on the last weapon. (NSIAD-88-213)
Examination of the NSWG slides and the Army slides showed a low metal toughness as the cause of the problems with slide separation. The Army then began to investigate the production process of the slides. (NSIAD-88-213) At the time the frames of the M9 pistols were produced in the US, while the slides were produced in Italy. There are reportedly documents from the Picatinny Arsenal that report a metallurgical study blaming the use of Tellurium in the manufacturing process for the low metal toughness of the Italian slides, but I have been unable to independently verify this information.
After April of 1988, however, all slides for the M9/92 pistols were produced in the US. (NSIAD-88-213) As a part of the contract requirements, the Beretta Corporation had to build a plant inside the United States to produce the M9. It naturally took some time for the US plant (located in Accokeek MD.) to get into full production swing, so the Italian plant made the slides for a time.
Several GAO reports and testimony from GAO staff before Congressional Sub-Committees (NSIAD-88-213, NSIAD-88-46, NSIAD-89-59 are a few…) report the total number of slide failures at 14. Three occurred in the field with the NSWG and the other 11 occurred in the test lab. Only 3 injuries resulted from the slide separation problem. The Beretta Corporation changed the design of the M9 pistol so that even if a slide fractured, the broken half could not come back and hit the shooter causing injury.
Of the 14 slide separations reported, only 4 took place at round counts under 10,000. (NSIAD-88-213) No further slide fractures were reported after the change to the US manufactured slides.
http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/history/true_story_m9.htm
In speaking with people familiar with fielding of systems to the US mil, ECP's are pretty normal prior to full fielding.
In addition, the report is from FY 2017, so all the issues reported happened prior to Sept of last year.
Fielding to the 101st and 1st SFAB happened after Sept 2017, so the Army has been working to fix the issues that were adressed in the report.
Final note, lowest bidder is a myth. There are requirements that have to be met, and award criteria are often weighted differently. A more expensive product can be awarded a contract if quality is better, assuming award criteria is stacked that way.
southswede
02-01-18, 07:45
The way I understand GAO report on Glock protest, this is incorrect. The contract was awarded after initial reliability testing (section M, that Glock also disputed and GAO in principle agreed) but before operational testing. Glock argued that all testing should have been done before awarding the contract.
The protester also contends that it is unclear whether the Army intends to complete the section H evaluation prior to award of the production CLINs. Glock Supp. Comments, May 9, 2017, at 1-2. The Army asserts that the Sig Sauer handguns “(both compact and full size) will undergo all possible Section H Source Selection testing,” prior to general distribution of the handguns. Supp. AR at 1-2.
The contract also had a modularity requirement that Glock does not have. My guess is that this is why Glock lost the contract and the protest.
I just hope it's truly the best choice for the troops and not a financial decision. Our troops deserve the best possible in everything.
The contract also had a modularity requirement that Glock does not have. My guess is that this is why Glock lost the contract and the protest.
That may be indeed true. Also true is that the SIG's modularity implementation was given a priority over reliability. SIG offering two guns, compact and full size, around same FCUs is what that modularity amounted to, but the reliability benchmarks for the compact were significantly lowered. See Glock protest GAO report for details.
call_me_ski
02-01-18, 10:59
The contract also had a modularity requirement that Glock does not have. My guess is that this is why Glock lost the contract and the protest.
Unless you can point to a portion of the RFP that industry, SMEs and the Army themselves missed, Glock met the modularity requirements of the MHS contract.
...a handgun with a track record of not being drop safe and unable to feed the most common ammunition types.
You got anything to back up the claim the drop issue was known? I have not seen any drop tests with the angle needed for the 320 to fail, though I have not seen the test requirements the Army had.
Both the excess stoppages and the live round ejecting only happen with this new "ball" round.
This just up on Mil.com
Army Responds to DoD Report Criticizing New Sidearm Reliability
https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/01/31/army-responds-dod-report-criticizing-new-sidearm-reliability.html
I am still trying to understand why ammo was tied to the pistol competition, recipe for failure down the road.
...a handgun with a track record of not being drop safe and unable to feed the most common ammunition types.
The drop angle that was found to cause issues is not part of the standard drop test. That's at least partly a failure of the protocols.
Additionally, these issues aren't present with the M17/M18 due to the manual safety.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
EzGoingKev
02-01-18, 12:48
I am still trying to understand why ammo was tied to the pistol competition, recipe for failure down the road.
I am thinking it would be the exact opposite.
The Army picked the ammo they want to use. It makes sense the new pistol works with that ammo.
Additionally, these issues aren't present with the M17/M18 due to the manual safety.
These issues were present with the XM-17 and XM-18 during the operational testing and led to the ECP. A specific position of manual safety cannot be guaranteed when pistol is dropped and it cannot be counted on to fully mitigate other drop safety deficiencies.
The Army selected SIG SAUER’s full-size (XM-17) and
compact (XM-18) variant pistols for the Army Modular
Handgun System (MHS), and awarded a production contract
to SIG SAUER on January 19, 2017.
• The Army conducted operational and live fire testing for
both variants in FY17. Analysis is ongoing for operational
effectiveness, operational suitability, and lethality. DOT&E
intends to submit a combined IOT&E/LFT&E report to
Congress in 2QFY18.
• During drop testing in which an empty primed cartridge was
inserted, the striker struck the primer causing a discharge.
SIG SAUER implemented an Engineering Change Proposal
(ECP) to correct this deficiency by implementing lightweight
components in the trigger group mechanism. This fix may
have contributed to the splintering of two triggers during the
IOT&E.
Incorrect. Manual safety did nothing for drop safety issues.
The Army selected SIG SAUER’s full-size (XM-17) and
compact (XM-18) variant pistols for the Army Modular
Handgun System (MHS), and awarded a production contract
to SIG SAUER on January 19, 2017.
• The Army conducted operational and live fire testing for
both variants in FY17. Analysis is ongoing for operational
effectiveness, operational suitability, and lethality. DOT&E
intends to submit a combined IOT&E/LFT&E report to
Congress in 2QFY18.
• During drop testing in which an empty primed cartridge was
inserted, the striker struck the primer causing a discharge.
SIG SAUER implemented an Engineering Change Proposal
(ECP) to correct this deficiency by implementing lightweight
components in the trigger group mechanism. This fix may
have contributed to the splintering of two triggers during the
IOT&E.
I stand corrected. Must have read bad info. Thanks
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
No, you're not wrong and I edited my post for clarity and wrong choice of words. My understanding is that manual safety does prevent drop related discharges (I am not 100% sure that it does but I do believe that it does). My further understanding is that XM-17 and XM-18 drop discharged when safety was off but, understandably, this wasn't good enough and the ECP was implemented.
Posted on TOS by user sea2summit:
So over the last 30 days I’ve gotten to see several hundred M17s and 25 M18s shoot thousands of rounds. The only malfunction we had with ammo was a fail to fire which appeared to be a light primer strike and the round did fire on the second attempt. We also lost three front sight posts which I thought was odd. And finally, if you have man hands the safety won’t work for you.
Having said that the trigger is a million times better than the 92, magazines are much better quality and the taper has me hoping for better performance when exposed to sand (like actually functioning unlike the 92 magazine), the orange/green night sights are pretty cool but I haven’t done any low light shooting yet.
Here are the first 15 rounds fired from this gun at 10m. The two thrown rounds were number 2 and 3 and I think we’re my fault. But again, much better performance than the 92 and I actually shot the 92 pretty well compared to most.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/326526/EBEE40A0-832F-42DE-989C-17375BF1C91A-436394.JPG
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/326526/B8FA94DB-7722-491B-8055-DAD498AAEEB2-436395.JPG
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
No, you're not wrong and I edited my post for clarity and wrong choice of words. My understanding is that manual safety does prevent drop related discharges (I am not 100% sure that it does but I do believe that it does). My further understanding is that XM-17 and XM-18 drop discharged when safety was off but, understandably, this wasn't good enough and the ECP was implemented.Ahh, that makes more sense and jives with what I was reading
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Posted on TOS by user sea2summit:
So over the last 30 days I’ve gotten to see several hundred M17s and 25 M18s shoot thousands of rounds. The only malfunction we had with ammo was a fail to fire which appeared to be a light primer strike and the round did fire on the second attempt. We also lost three front sight posts which I thought was odd. And finally, if you have man hands the safety won’t work for you.
Having said that the trigger is a million times better than the 92, magazines are much better quality and the taper has me hoping for better performance when exposed to sand (like actually functioning unlike the 92 magazine), the orange/green night sights are pretty cool but I haven’t done any low light shooting yet.
Here are the first 15 rounds fired from this gun at 10m. The two thrown rounds were number 2 and 3 and I think we’re my fault. But again, much better performance than the 92 and I actually shot the 92 pretty well compared to most.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/326526/EBEE40A0-832F-42DE-989C-17375BF1C91A-436394.JPG
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/326526/B8FA94DB-7722-491B-8055-DAD498AAEEB2-436395.JPG
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Those better be the shooters fault, lol.
http://soldiersystems.net/2018/02/02/modular-handgun-system-things-arent-as-bad-as-the-dote-report-implies/
A pretty good breakdown of the situation.
After reading that, and other sources, I remain confused on
- at what stage of testing was ball ammo dropped out
- since when Army decided to start issuing pistol JHP ammo to troops
- after eliminating user induced slide stop related stoppages from the analysis, the XM pistols still couldn't go through a 1000 rounds without a stoppage and that is OK?
After reading that, and other sources, I remain confused on
- at what stage of testing was ball ammo dropped out
- since when Army decided to start issuing pistol JHP ammo to troops
- after eliminating user induced slide stop related stoppages from the analysis, the XM pistols still couldn't go through a 1000 rounds without a stoppage and that is OK?I'm old enough to remember reading all the same kind of crap about the JSSP program that ended up with the Beretta being selected.
Ignore all the wimpy 9mm uproar, it still showed the same testing flaws, organizational artifacts, and similar that led to arguably superior pistols being dismissed and we ended up with the Beretta.
Not that I think the Colts should have automatically won, or the H&K. Just that the testing program and conclusions had all the same issues and all the same anomalies that we're seeing now, including questionable MTBS figures etc.
Deja Vu, and I think somewhere in my basement I still have magazines with articles that read almost exactly like some of the current blogs and analysis for this pistol.
At least with all the M16A2 program issues, you knew why they were biased. (Heavy Marksmanship Unit influence, with very little light fighter thinking at the time)
The entire rifle was retooled around ammo which was retooled to meet an arbitrary steel helmet penetration test. Which by the way, was the bullet weight and configuration at the Marksmanship unit's wanted. Which led to m855 (OK)... But the tracers also had the meet the test, along with visibility duration. Which meant super long bullets and all the sudden 1:7 twist is a requirement. Add heavy barrels to deal with perceived accuracy issues.
And we ended up with a rifle that was okay, probably better than average, served reasonably (admirably), but was functionally obsolete for the future needs of the Army and Marines.
So I wince when I hear people preaching 1:7 twist gospel, as I know how they arrived at it. It was not optimal. It was a committee program decision. Largely to save face.
Same for the Beretta, it was not the best. It was just the least worst, as defined by some questionable testing.
And we are seeing exactly the same now. Not that I think the Sig is bad, just that I'm not too convinced that the testing was objective or at least not flawed.
EzGoingKev
02-02-18, 11:14
My belief is they looked at the Sig's modularity and the price tag, made up their minds right there, and now are re-engineering the pistol so that it works. YMMV.
My question is that when the Army works all the bugs out and gets models that work will Sig be able to consistently deliver pistols that continue to work.
After reading that, and other sources, I remain confused on
1. at what stage of testing was ball ammo dropped out
2. since when Army decided to start issuing pistol JHP ammo to troops
3. after eliminating user induced slide stop related stoppages from the analysis, the XM pistols still couldn't go through a 1000 rounds without a stoppage and that is OK?
It is all in the source document, if people could just be bothered to read it, instead of speculating:
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2017/pdf/army/2017mhs.pdf
1. See notes from source document:
• The Army entered into PVT in April 2017 for both the XM17
full-size variant and XM18 compact variant MHS pistols. This
testing consisted of developmental testing, LFT&E, a fixed
stand accuracy assessment, and a shooter-in-the-loop accuracy
assessment.
• During PVT testing with the ball ammunition, both MHS
variant pistols would occasionally experience double ejections
in which it would eject unspent ammunition along with the
spent ammunition. The frequency of this occurrence increased
as more rounds were fired through the pistol. The program
manager created a team to determine the root cause of this
failure.
• Several reliability stoppages were observed with both the
XM17 and XM18 when shooting ball ammunition. The ball
ammunition was not included in the IOT&E because of the
demonstrated reliability problems during PVT and the ongoing
root cause analysis.
• The Army conducted IOT&E for the XM17 and XM18 with
shooters for all Services firing special purpose munition from
August 14 through September 22, 2017, at Fort Bragg, North
Carolina, in accordance with the DOT&E-approved test plan.
• The Army received a Conditional Materiel Release for the
XM17 and XM18 with both the special purpose munition and
the ball ammunition in November 2017. The 101st Airborne
Division is the first unit scheduled to receive the pistol
2. Hollow Point Ammunition was part of the solicitation, which has been known for a long time.
3. Se notes from the source document below:
• Preliminary data from the IOT&E indicate that the XM17 and
XM18 met the MRBF reliability requirement of 5,000 MRBF
and a 95 percent probability of completing a 96-hour mission
without a failure. Neither weapon met the MRBS reliability
requirement of 2,000 MRBS and a 95 percent probability of
completing a 96-hour mission without a stoppage.
- The XM17 demonstrated 38,247 MRBF (99 percent
probability).
- The XM18 demonstrated 9,501 MRBF (99 percent
probability).
- The XM17 demonstrated 336 MRBS (74 percent
probability).
- The XM18 demonstrated 229 MRBS (65 percent
probability).
• The predominant cause of stoppages was the failure of the
slide to lock (FSLR) after the firing of the last round in
the magazine (60 of 120 stoppages for the XM17 and 63
of 85 stoppages for the XM18). The purpose of the slide
locking to the rear is to inform the operator that the last round
has been expended, and that the operator needs to reload a
magazine into the weapon. Operators who are trained in
pistol qualification, as taught by the Army marksmanship unit,
utilize what is known as a high pistol grip. This grip places
the non-dominant hand along the pistol slide on top of the
slide catch lever. Many operators stated that the placement of
the slide catch lever caused them to engage it while firing the
pistol, which resulted in the slide not locking to the rear when
the last round was expended in a magazine. Sixty percent
of all FSLR stoppages (75 of 123) were experienced by
8 shooters out of the 132 who participated in the IOT&E.
The Army marksmanship unit experts stated that this is an
insignificant problem that can be mitigated with training and
experience with the weapon. The MRBS demonstrated during
IOT&E is significantly increased if this stoppage is eliminated:
- The XM17 demonstrated 708 MRBS (87 percent
probability).
- The XM18 demonstrated 950 MRBS (90 percent
probability).
Yes, I read it, the answers to my questions are not clear or readily available. For example, I didn't know that pistol JHP are now kosher on a battlefield.
However, re-reading it, I came to a conclusion that you highlighted a wrong paragraph. The one below is what reflects true reliability. And since, and I quote the ball
ammunition was not included in the IOT&E because of the demonstrated reliability problems during PVT and the ongoing
root cause analysis , it was the more reliable, 147 grain, ammo that the XM pistols couldn't go through a case of without a stoppage, even discounting slide lock stoppages.
I switched my competition guns for a similar MRBS rate.
No, I highlighted the correct paragraph:
• Preliminary data from the IOT&E indicate that the XM17 and
XM18 met the MRBF reliability requirement of 5,000 MRBF
and a 95 percent probability of completing a 96-hour mission
without a failure. Neither weapon met the MRBS reliability
requirement of 2,000 MRBS and a 95 percent probability of
completing a 96-hour mission without a stoppage.
- The XM17 demonstrated 38,247 MRBF (99 percent
probability).
- The XM18 demonstrated 9,501 MRBF (99 percent
probability).
- The XM17 demonstrated 336 MRBS (74 percent
probability).
- The XM18 demonstrated 229 MRBS (65 percent
probability).
Also, the reliability issue with 147gr has been resolved, seeing as they went through with a conditional material release starting in Nov 17. The units having been issued the pistols are not experiencing these issues now.
That is straight from people involved with current fielding and training. Also, both pistols passed reliability training with JHP ammo during Product Verification Testing:
• During PVT, the XM17 and XM18, with special purpose
munition, met its requirement for both MRBF and MRBS:
- The XM17 demonstrated 8,929 MRBF (99 percent
probability)
- The XM18 demonstrated 8,333 MRBF (99 percent
probability)
- The XM17 demonstrated 1,923 MRBS (95 percent
probability)
- The XM18 demonstrated 2,155 MRBS (96 percent
probability)
How is the Army's problem that you don't know that they are issuing JHP rounds? It was part of the solicitation - even I as a non US citizen knew this.
IOT&E, Initial Operational Test and Evaluation, is conducted specifically to get rid of small bugs like this.
http://acqnotes.com/acqnote/careerfields/initial-operational-test-and-evaluation-te
I was part of the initial fielding of the HK416 to the Norwegian mil, and there were similar small issues we identified that needed to be fixed, that didn't pose a threat to soldiers as occurrences were incredibly rare (spring and roll pins of incorrect size on charging handle latch and buffer, ejector pin incorrect size, Aimpoints that wouldn't adjust windage/elevation, faulty TTP on optics placement resulting in loss of zero after maintenance). We had the same issue with HK417's and the S&B scope not getting windage and elevation adjustments in the cold, as well as ammo issues where cases would get stuck and case heads were ripped off.
Show me a system that was fielded with a 100% success rate right out of the box. Indiana Metro PD recalled and returned Glock 17M's to Glock, as slides were falling off during dry fire. This happened prior to the FBI being issued guns, so it was fixed in time.
How is the Army's problem that you don't know that they are issuing JHP rounds? It was part of the solicitation - even I as a non US citizen knew this.
Good for you. Frankly, I don't give a damn, I was just under the impression that NATO and US Army were still operating under the rules of Hague Convention.
IOT&E, Initial Operational Test and Evaluation, is conducted specifically to get rid of small bugs like this.
60%+ MRBS decline from the PVT testing rates seems like slightly bigger than a small bug but hey, why concentrate on unpleasantries.
The AMU says it's not an issue. Guys fielding it and training with it are not having issues.
The internet however, says that gun is a huge mistake....go figure.
I trust folks with actual first hand experience and knowledge of the subject.
Dunning-Kruger is roaming wild it seems....
All I'm saying is that IOT&E MRBS numbers look like a joke, with or without slide lock. That is it.
EzGoingKev
02-02-18, 19:10
This scrutiny comes down to two things:
- The Army cutting the evaluation short.
- Sig lying about the NID when dropped.
• During drop testing in which an empty primed cartridge was
inserted, the striker struck the primer causing a discharge. The
Army directed SIG SAUER to develop an ECP to correct this
deficiency. SIG SAUER modified the trigger mechanism to
eliminate this deficiency. Subsequent testing validated that
this ECP corrected the deficiency and the pistol no longer fired
when dropped. The MHS with this ECP modification was
submitted as the production-representative pistol for PVT,
LFT&E, and IOT&E.
Unless what I bolded above changes, I think complaints about when and how much SIG admitted the problem to us should go in the P320 thread.
Indeed. The MHS process scrutiny is about the selection process and question that it might have raised. The drop safety thing is a civilian P320 issue.
I don't know if the guns are complete turds, or if they are the best thing since sliced bread.
But I do know that Snuffy could tear up an anvil.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-03-18, 12:26
I don't get the double ejection. The fact that it gets worse with more rounds seems to make it related to the magazines and wear on the feed lips? I've never heard of a double ejection? I'm unclear if the 'third' round actually get chambered- or is the feeding round stripping off and just not making it into the chamber and you are left with a gun with an empty chamber?
Aren't all these 9mm double stack magazines derived pretty much from highpower mags? During the AWB 10 round silliness, I remember adding different magazine catch cut outs to get mag tubes to fit in other guns. I would have thought DS 9 mags would be at a stable and reliable design by now- or is it a manufacturing issue?
Handguns suck. They just do. Glocks just suck less than others.
Good for you. Frankly, I don't give a damn, I was just under the impression that NATO and US Army were still operating under the rules of Hague Convention..
US is not a signatory to that and it was never ratified by US Gov
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
EzGoingKev
02-03-18, 12:52
The drop safety thing is a civilian P320 issue.
Is it? It looked to me like it showed up during the military testing.
US is not a signatory to that and it was never ratified by US Gov
Yet US, and NATO, has only issued a ball ammo for general use. Naturally, I am curious when that has changed.
Is it? It looked to me like it showed up during the military testing.
It was ECP'd on military guns before they were issued to end users, and the correction was not labeled as a "voluntary upgrade". Seems to me that is a bit different from the civilian and LEO situation.
EzGoingKev
02-03-18, 17:30
It was ECP'd on military guns before they were issued to end users, and the correction was not labeled as a "voluntary upgrade". Seems to me that is a bit different from the civilian and LEO situation.
It showed up in the military tests. This makes me ask how much shit did they ignore so they could pick this pistol?
Also, they knew there was a problem before it blew up on the internet. When it did blow up they denied it. When they could no longer lie about it they miraculously had an instant fix for it. Is this who we want supplying pistols to our soldiers?
People bashed Glock for protesting the award but after learning about all this shit I do not blame them.
Based on Sig's past history I cringed when I saw they were awarded this contract. I had thought they turned things around but that is not the case. I really wanted to see them turn things around because I have been thinking of replacing my AR's with MPX's as my go to guns. That will not be the case.
Yet US, and NATO, has only issued a ball ammo for general use. Naturally, I am curious when that has changed.
Elements of SOF have used hollow point ammo for decades. GP forces have generally adhered to the provisions of the 1899 Hague Convention but have always reserved the option to change that as they saw necessary. This contact solicitation made it clear that they were prepared to move in that direction
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
It showed up in the military tests. This makes me ask how much shit did they ignore so they could pick this pistol?
Also, they knew there was a problem before it blew up on the internet. When it did blow up they denied it. When they could no longer lie about it they miraculously had an instant fix for it. Is this who we want supplying pistols to our soldiers?
People bashed Glock for protesting the award but after learning about all this shit I do not blame them.
Based on Sig's past history I cringed when I saw they were awarded this contract. I had thought they turned things around but that is not the case. I really wanted to see them turn things around because I have been thinking of replacing my AR's with MPX's as my go to guns. That will not be the case.
You're preaching to a choir here but...
The contract was awarded in January '17 and all that PVT and IOT was done after. I don't know if the drop testing was done before the contract was awarded. I think it is reasonable to suspect that drop issues were discovered after January and then the ECP was implemented, and that may have taken some time. Ultimately, I don't know how much time passed between the discovery of this problem in Army trials and internet busting it open.
However, the Stamford, CT officer's injury was in January and SIG was informed of that. So if somebody wants to say "**** SIG", I won't object. I just don't know how Army trials discovery fit into the time frame of this cluster.
Elements of SOF have used hollow point ammo for decades. GP forces have generally adhered to the provisions of the 1899 Hague Convention but have always reserved the option to change that as they saw necessary. This contact solicitation made it clear that they were prepared to move in that direction
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Yes, I am aware of SOF use, which is why I specified "general issue". This is rather interesting although totally outside the scope of this thread. I wouldn't lose a second of sleep if our troops went JHP, in fact, I support it. That said, such unilateral decision will create a PC-driven pushback and I hope that whoever made that decision has enough gravitas to defend it.
Yes, I am aware of SOF use, which is why I specified "general issue". This is rather interesting although totally outside the scope of this thread. I wouldn't lose a second of sleep if our troops went JHP, in fact, I support it. That said, such unilateral decision will create a PC-driven pushback and I hope that whoever made that decision has enough gravitas to defend it.
It's my understanding that the decision was made following an extensive legal review at the Pentagon from the Judge Advocate General for law of war.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Is it? It looked to me like it showed up during the military testing.
Subsequent testing validated that this ECP corrected the deficiency and the pistol no longer fired when dropped.
And is resolved. Bitching about how or when SIG knew or told civilian owners is a P320 issue.
EzGoingKev
02-03-18, 19:02
Subsequent testing validated that this ECP corrected the deficiency and the pistol no longer fired when dropped.
And is resolved. Bitching about how or when SIG knew or told civilian owners is a P320 issue.
It is another side of the same coin.
Interesting timing for the article: http://soldiersystems.net/2018/02/02/modular-handgun-system-things-arent-as-bad-as-the-dote-report-implies/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
Cagemonkey
02-03-18, 20:43
My friend showed me this the other night. The Author of the article has no Dog in the Fight. He makes some good, solid point. A bad Reputation or experience seems to flow you forever. Look at how long the M16 and Beretta M9 were maligned. Sig has done some stupid stuff, but it looks like that the M17/18 situation is being over blown. We'll have to wait and see.
Interesting timing for the article: http://soldiersystems.net/2018/02/02/modular-handgun-system-things-arent-as-bad-as-the-dote-report-implies/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
Already posted though, post #123.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.