Looks like the USAF is foregoing the M17 altogether. Plus, I guess it just looks cooler than an M9:
"The new M18 costs the Air Force about 1/3 of what it would cost us to buy an M9 today."
https://www.aflcmc.af.mil/News/Artic...force-handgun/
Looks like the USAF is foregoing the M17 altogether. Plus, I guess it just looks cooler than an M9:
"The new M18 costs the Air Force about 1/3 of what it would cost us to buy an M9 today."
https://www.aflcmc.af.mil/News/Artic...force-handgun/
Last edited by Slater; 06-23-20 at 18:01.
Great decision, it's darn fine sidearm even though secondaries don't win gunfights in the mil, but more importantly, it makes sense to use what the other services are already using, makes the logistics burden pain free when in far away lands and things break or mags/holsters needed.
Not a bad deal. Included test and and engineering for about $177 each. The paid 22.1 mil for 125k.
Didn’t the USMC also do this or was it just MARSOC?
I believe the Marines also went with the M18. As far as I know, only the Army uses the bigger M17.
"The new M18 costs the Air Force about 1/3 of what it would cost us to buy an M9 today."
And probably works about 1/3 as well, too.
While I'll bash SIG and their "Drop Safe" stupidity regarding the P320, the M17/18 program is a big win for the US Military - and it would have been regardless if it was Glock who won instead of SIG.
The Beretta M9 has done it's part and at the time, it did what needed to be done. But handgun tech has progressed quite a bit since then and a polymer, striker fired handgun is the standard these days.
And the shorter slide M18 makes sense for the USAF, who would be arming security forces and aircrew, so space can be at a premium.
Bookmarks