M9 vs M17

[SteyrAUG]

I believe part of Glock's protest was that the Army never subjected the SIG to any of the standard adverse environment/reliability/durability testing. The XM9 contenders had to undergo all that testing and the Beretta 92 and SIG P226 came out on top.

The XM9 testing of the 1980s required a double strike capability so the Glock wasn't even eligible.

[Slater]

The XM9 testing of the 1980s required a double strike capability so the Glock wasn't even eligible.

Glock wasn't even in the country when the XM9 trials were conducted. The point was that the XM9 contenders had to undergo all the then-required testing, while the Modular Handgun System weapons (as far as I'm aware) weren't subjected to the same rigors.

[opngrnd]

Besides the thumb safety, the military M17/M18 fire control unit is not the same as commercial SIG P320s.

In which ways do they differ?

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

The XM18 with both ball and jacketed hollow point ammunition exceeds the MRBS requirement of 2,000 MRBS (95 percent probability of completing one 99-round mission without a single stoppage). The XM17 with ball and jacketed hollow point ammunition demonstrated 93 percent and 94 percent probability, respectively, of completing one 99-round mission without a single stoppage.

Towards the end of production Beretta completed the fourteenth consecutive M9 Lot Acceptance Test an average of only one malfunction every 19,090 rounds. That being said, I am sure the SIG will be fine. I have an M17 and it is a decent gun.

[Slater]

IIRC, the slide on the civvie M17 is slightly lighter than the .mil version, to handle the wide variety of ammo expected to be used.

[SteyrAUG]

Glock wasn't even in the country when the XM9 trials were conducted. The point was that the XM9 contenders had to undergo all the then-required testing, while the Modular Handgun System weapons (as far as I'm aware) weren't subjected to the same rigors.

I'm getting the feeling we are unintentionally having two different discussions. Obviously Glock could have participated in the 1985 XM9 trials IF they qualified, they had existed for a few years.

[Slater]

I'm getting the feeling we are unintentionally having two different discussions. Obviously Glock could have participated in the 1985 XM9 trials IF they qualified, they had existed for a few years.

My understanding is that Glock was introduced to the US market in 1986. Is it possible that Gaston could have gotten a few into the country for the XM9 trials? I don't know - I suppose it's possible.

[Fordtough25]

I had an M17 for a couple months, and I did try to like it. But I found that I really did not get excited shooting it, I actually like shooting my M9 still.

I've carried Glocks for so long that I guess that does me for my 9mm plastic, the idea with the FCG on the Sig is smart though and give them credit for those!

[Alpha-17]

SIG SAUER is offering a voluntary program for P320 pistols. This will include an alternate design that reduces the physical weight of the trigger, sear, and striker while additionally adding a mechanical disconnector.

I know you were intentionally talking about the P320's "controversy" but it should be pointed out that none of those issues were ever had with the M17 design, as most of the P320's fixes came from the M17 development.

I can't say anything about the .mil M17/M18 offerings, but my commercial version has been outstanding. Comparing it to a commercial M9 has been very favorable to the Sig, and even my boomer father-in-law, who loved the M9, now has recommended the "new Army Sig" to family members after shooting mine.

[Ron3]

I would have preferred to have seen them go with the much-improved Beretta M92X G RDO, or S&W M&P OR, or Glock gen 5 OR.

But they went with a decision made by a few guys who pushed for a certain result as well as the lowest bid.