Tuesday, February 27, 2018

The Sig P320 controversy continues

It was very interesting to see how people jumped into the Sig P320 bandwagon. Granted, most people serious about firearms didn’t fall for it but many did. As any firearms expert worth his salt knows, few things are as important as track record and you don’t create that overnight. You earn it over the years.

Why is the 1911 so highly regarded even today? Why is the Browning Hi Power considered one of the most proven autos ever made? Because they are. Because they have been used by hundreds of armed forces, thousands of police departments around the globe and both their virtues and shortcomings are understood, with virtues well outweighing their cons.

The Glock has been around since 1982 and it has rightfully earned its “Perfection” reputation. Ok, “Prefect” you say?... Actually yes, as close to perfect as any mechanical object can be. Few guns have exploded into popularity like Glocks did and do so successfully proving themselves beyond doubt, scoring very high on every aspect a combat handgun should.

And then came the U.S. Army new handgun selection and the Sig P320 “beating” Glock.
Amateurs fell for this as if such a thing proved that the newcomer was the best of the two, a gun with no track record that pales in comparison to one of the most successful handguns design, arguably the most dominant one in today’s market.

Everything about the Army’s trial and selection was suspicious, especially the outcome. It’s not just that they failed to select what is clearly the best handgun in the market today. What makes it worse is that instead they went with a gun that is an absolute newbie, with the US Army being the first mayor buyer, using the armed forces as Guiney pigs for the new gun.

The result?
Well, you all know about the drop firing problem. Drop or bump the gun and it goes off. To make matters worse Sig offers a   ‘Voluntary Upgrade’ rather than a recall, failing to at least admit something was wrong with the gun.

But that’s not the end of the story. A Pentagon report reveals the gun continued to suffer jams among other issues. Not only does the gun fire when dropped (something that the upgrade offered should fix) but it is reported to eject unfired ammo when cycling and suffer reliability issues with traditional “ball” ammo. The gun seems to run fine with XM1153 “special purpose” cartridge, a hollow point round. But with XM1152, a standard “ball” round with a bullet fully enclosed within a copper jacket, it is not reliable. Really Army? You want a gun that isnt reliable with the most common military ammo around? And how on Earth did they fail to see this during the selection trail? Heck, how on Earth did this gun beat the proven Glock?

My point with this post is for you guys to understand that when it comes to firearms, weapons that may save your life one day, you don’t want to the latest fad gun. You want to go with proven platforms, the design issued to thousands over the years and found to be reliable and trust worthy. Guns that have been issued in large quantities, shot and abused and came back asking for more.


Fernando “FerFAL” Aguirre is the author of “The Modern Survival Manual: Surviving the Economic Collapse” and “Bugging Out and Relocating: When Staying is not an Option”


Anonymous said...

I think the main issues were political and ideological, the beretta and glock didn't fit. So they switched to sig sauer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_Sauer#SIG_Sauer_Inc. but got over their heads adopting a new model instead of a proven one like the p229

Anonymous said...

sig sauer may make the best pistol too in the p229R+DAK, a da/sa pistol with a glock like short reset, enabling dry fire practice

JPD said...

Oh yes, the mighty and perfect Glock. Some people need to check the history books. Remember 1992? Yep, Glock having drop fire issues. The difference? Gaston decided to drag his feet. How did he address it? With a voluntary upgrade. I will take a company that addresses a safety issue as quickly as possible. That would be Sig.

Anonymous said...

Big green said they wanted "modularity" (nevermind that they immediatly took it away from soldiers with a lock on the trigger mechanism). Glock instead entered 2 designs the G17 and G19, but with Army approved features. They know what works, as the most used police and military sidearm in the world.
Weaponsman covered this exhaustively before he passed away. It was all political (and many hands were likely greased).

Anonymous said...

One of the selling points for the P320 is the ability to easily switch out the complete grip module. The modules come in large, carry, compact and subcompact form factors and in s/m/l sizes. But, don't try and buy one on eBay because apparently, this non-functional, inert piece of plastic is a danger to society and cannot be sold on eBay. Ask me how I know.

raimius said...

I'm still not sure how the Army can manage to make their pistols eject rounds straight from the mag out the ejection port during cycling. I've never seen a pistol do that. Granted, I only have a thousand-ish rounds through my P320, but it has not malfunctioned yet, and most of those rounds were Winchester White Box fmj, with a few HSTs thrown in for testing.

In other words, something seems off with the Army tests.

Anonymous said...

With the beretta the army mixed and matched parts, which was much harder on reliability. Doesn't mean this pistol isn't perfectly adequate for civilian use.