SIG P320-M18 Announced

[Tokarev]

We knew it was coming.

I have been pretty happy with my commercial M17. It shoots well and I like the safety. I'm not big on the rear sight coming off as part of the optics plate but that won't keep me from getting an 18 at some point.

https://www.sigsauer.com/store/p320-m18.html?utm_campaign=M18Launch&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

In stock at Osage County:

https://osagecountyguns.com/sig-sauer-320ca-9-m18-ms.html

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Zincwarrior]

Its too tall for a compact. I don't understand why Sig's "compacts" are as big as full size M&Ps / glocks and 1911s.

[HCM]

Its too tall for a compact. I don't understand why Sig's "compacts" are as big as full size M&Ps / glocks and 1911s.

Because it’s not a compact, it’s a carry, regardless of what the military calls it.

SIG makes an actual compact grip shell with a 15 round mag. It’s a modular handgun so it can be re-configured as required.

The military wanted this configuration for two reasons:

1) standardization on full size magazines

2) testing has shown most pistol toters shoot best with this configuration- compact slide /full size grip, especially when you put them on the clock.

[tlong17]

Its too tall for a compact. I don't understand why Sig's "compacts" are as big as full size M&Ps / glocks and 1911s.

Classified as a compact by Glock

https://us.glock.com/en/pistols/g19x

Classified as a carry/compact by Sig

https://www.sigsauer.com/store/p320-m18.html

X-Carry (which was based on M18 and actually has a longer frame) classified as full size, 19x classified as compact by this site.

https://www.handgunhero.com/compare/glock-g19x-vs-sig-sauer-p320-x-carry

They have almost the same dimensions. Basically, it’s all semantics and the actual dimensions matter the most.

[Tokarev]

Its too tall for a compact. I don't understand why Sig's "compacts" are as big as full size M&Ps / glocks and 1911s.

Think of it more in terms of 1911s.

The M17 or P320 Full-Size is the Government Model

The M18 or the P320 Carry is the Commander

The P320 Compact is the CCO

The P320 Subcompact is the Officer's ACP

Those are generalizations but will hopefully illustrate the different sizes.

[Zincwarrior]

Think of it more in terms of 1911s.

The M17 or P320 Full-Size is the Government Model

The M18 or the P320 Carry is the Commander

The P320 Compact is the CCO

The P320 Subcompact is the Officer's ACP

Those are generalizations but will hopefully illustrate the different sizes.

That is helpful. Thanks.

[AMC]

Because it’s not a compact, it’s a carry, regardless of what the military calls it.

SIG makes an actual compact grip shell with a 15 round mag. It’s a modular handgun so it can be re-configured as required.

The military wanted this configuration for two reasons:

1) standardization on full size magazines

2) testing has shown most pistol toters shoot best with this configuration- compact slide /full size grip, especially when you put them on the clock.

Was this testing done by DOD, someone else? This is coming up regarding our next pistol selection, so I'm looking for references. I've personally never noticed a difference shooting iron sights, but I've been told the 'carry' configuration works better with an optic.

[JonInWA]

My Carry works well with its integral Romeo1, It isn't so much that it works better with a RDS better than any other P320, I think that one of the byproduct advantages of a RDS is there's simply no advantage per se to having a longer slide for an increased sight plane; with with the Carry RX you're getting the benefits of compact sizing/concealability as well as excellent accuracy due to the RDS.

So with the P320 RX Carry you've got everything you need in a 15 round package, and nothing you don't.

Best, Jon

[OlongJohnson]

Think of it more in terms of 1911s.

The M17 or P320 Full-Size is the Government Model

The M18 or the P320 Carry is the Commander

The P320 Compact is the CCO

The P320 Subcompact is the Officer's ACP

Those are generalizations but will hopefully illustrate the different sizes.

I think the Compact length slide is the way to go with the P250/320 family. You can run it with a Carry, Compact or Subcompact grip module with 21/17-, 15-, or 12-rd mags. 10-rd mags are available in all sizes for those living in jurisdictions where the government doesn't trust the people to be armed. I haven't checked a 9mm slide in a Subcompact grip module, but I suspect you'd only lose the full-length dustcover coverage. That's only a problem if you're running MAC's mud test. If it turns out an SC dust cover doesn't quite cover the recoil spring seat part of the slide, you can always cut down a Compact module. They're only $30 and sold as an accessory, so you can hack them up however you want with grip mods, stippling, etc. And they're available with different grip sizes. It's really a brilliant setup.

I'm not sure what would be required to accommodate the safety, but it seems likely to be just drilling a hole in the right place.

[HCM]

Was this testing done by DOD, someone else? This is coming up regarding our next pistol selection, so I'm looking for references. I've personally never noticed a difference shooting iron sights, but I've been told the 'carry' configuration works better with an optic.

My Agency did this as part of our recent switch to 9mm. We were going to issue the 320 compact (15 round) and wound up issuing the Carry with an X grip instead based on our test results. With the X carry frame the height difference between the 15 round and 17 round grips is minimal.

There is a reason the USAF and USMC adopted the M18 instead of the M17. Word I got was the USAF's testing with "non gun people" mirrored that of my Agency. Maybe Caleb can shed some light on it.

We also allow the full sized P320 and IME it is over sprung and has a "dip" when recovering from recoil.

As you know most "pistol toters" are not really "shooters." The pinky is significant to control of the gun, especially when time and multiple shots are factors. Some dedicated shooters will shoot better with a smaller G19/26 grip since it forces them be more attentive to their grip. However, among the "bell curve" as a whole, normal people do better with a full sized grip.

The compact slide works better for the normal "bell curve" as a whole for the same reasons it works well with a red dot. Decreased muzzle flip / shorter recoil arc makes it faster to re-acquire the sights, especially when combined with the extra leverage of a full sized grip. In practical use, like most decent LE qualification COF this out weighs the minor benefits of a slightly longer sight radius.

You probably wouldn't notice the difference, and your "bell curve" shooters likely wont notice either. But put them under time pressure and the targets and timers will show the difference.

[JonInWA]

My Carry works well with its integral Romeo1, It isn't so much that it works better with a RDS better than any other P320, I think that one of the byproduct advantages of a RDS is there's simply no advantage per se to having a longer slide for an increased sight plane; with with the Carry RX you're getting the benefits of compact sizing/concealability as well as excellent accuracy due to the RDS.

So with the P320 RX Carry you've got everything you need in a 15 round package, and nothing you don't.

Best, Jon

Jeez, I screwed up; my P320 RX is the Compact, not the Carry...It has the short slide, shorter frame... terminology....grrr. Best, Jon

[kwb377]

We also allow the full sized P320 and IME it is over sprung and has a "dip" when recovering from recoil.

The compact slide works better for the normal "bell curve" as a whole for the same reasons it works well with a red dot. Decreased muzzle flip / shorter recoil arc makes it faster to re-acquire the sights, especially when combined with the extra leverage of a full sized grip. In practical use, like most decent LE qualification COF this out weighs the minor benefits of a slightly longer sight radius.



This was exactly my experience. I was toting an X-Carry on duty for awhile, then switch to an M17. I liked the safety...not for actual "safety" use, but more as a thumb shelf (ala 1911)...but found I could definitely feel the added mass/movement of the slide and corresponding added time in reacquiring the sights. I found myself most often carrying a bastardized version of the X-Carry slide on the M17 frame (so, basically an M18 :) )...and recently I decided to just sell the M17 altogether.

https://pbase.com/kwb377/image/170143189.jpg

[tlong17]

My Agency did this as part of our recent switch to 9mm. We were going to issue the 320 compact (15 round) and wound up issuing the Carry with an X grip instead based on our test results. With the X carry frame the height difference between the 15 round and 17 round grips is minimal.

There is a reason the USAF and USMC adopted the M18 instead of the M17. Word I got was the USAF's testing with "non gun people" mirrored that of my Agency. Maybe Caleb can shed some light on it.

We also allow the full sized P320 and IME it is over sprung and has a "dip" when recovering from recoil.

As you know most "pistol toters" are not really "shooters." The pinky is significant to control of the gun, especially when time and multiple shots are factors. Some dedicated shooters will shoot better with a smaller G19/26 grip since it forces them be more attentive to their grip. However, among the "bell curve" as a whole, normal people do better with a full sized grip.

The compact slide works better for the normal "bell curve" as a whole for the same reasons it works well with a red dot. Decreased muzzle flip / shorter recoil arc makes it faster to re-acquire the sights, especially when combined with the extra leverage of a full sized grip. In practical use, like most decent LE qualification COF this out weighs the minor benefits of a slightly longer sight radius.

You probably wouldn't notice the difference, and your "bell curve" shooters likely wont notice either. But put them under time pressure and the targets and timers will show the difference.

Good info. What ammunition did you pair it with?

[HCM]

Good info. What ammunition did you pair it with?

124 grain +p Gold dot for duty. We’ve been using it successfully in personally owned Glocks for over 10 years. We tested 147 grain duty ammo before the switch to all 9mm but decided to stick with the 124 +p.

blues was USCS using standard velocity Gold dot 9mm prior to the merger ?

[HCM]

This was exactly my experience. I was toting an X-Carry on duty for awhile, then switch to an M17. I liked the safety...not for actual "safety" use, but more as a thumb shelf (ala 1911)...but found I could definitely feel the added mass/movement of the slide and corresponding added time in reacquiring the sights. I found myself most often carrying a bastardized version of the X-Carry slide on the M17 frame (so, basically an M18 :) )...and recently I decided to just sell the M17 altogether.

https://pbase.com/kwb377/image/170143189.jpg

The dip of the FS can be addressed with an after market guide rod and lighter springs but that’s not a realistic duty option for us.

[HCM]

Jeez, I screwed up; my P320 RX is the Compact, not the Carry...It has the short slide, shorter frame... terminology....grrr. Best, Jon

It’s A $40 grip shell away from being a carry. It’s a modular handgun.


https://youtu.be/ta41xU-tkFA

[JonInWA]

Wiseass! I can't say I didn't walk into that one. Seriously, I may get one of the X-Carry receiver shells if I test the Check-Mate contract 17 round magazines, that have been pretty seriously panned by knowledgeable p-f members.

Best, Jon

[Tokarev]

On a somewhat related topic there's a fellow dba as AB Prototype offering to cut a 320 chassis to accept the thumb safety. He has a couple different options. Can cut the chassis only or can cut and install appropriate parts. He also will cut the grip module to accept the levers.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[blues]

124 grain +p Gold dot for duty. We’ve been using it successfully in personally owned Glocks for over 10 years. We tested 147 grain duty ammo before the switch to all 9mm but decided to stick with the 124 +p.

blues was USCS using standard velocity Gold dot 9mm prior to the merger ?

HCM

Every quarter it seemed to be something different, whether Speer, Federal, Remington, Winchester, Black Talons, sub-sonic etc.

I know we had Speer GD as duty ammo during some of those years but I can't recall if it was standard. Ordinarily, we were issued +P

At one time we had +P+ but I don't recall if that was for autos or revolvers.

The boxes I have left over from back in the day are all +P and mostly Federal 115 grain with a smattering of the others mentioned above.

[John Hearne]

I don't know any of the details, but I was told that similar shooting tests were used to confirm the USPP selection of the Carry version of the P320.

[HCM]

Wiseass! I can't say I didn't walk into that one. Seriously, I may get one of the X-Carry receiver shells if I test the Check-Mate contract 17 round magazines, that have been pretty seriously panned by knowledgeable p-f members.

Best, Jon

Not just by PF members. During the SIGP320 armorers course in June of this year we were advised that Sig supplies only the Italian made Mecgar magazines for LE Agency and IOP sales and that they recommended only the Italian made mags for duty use.

[AMC]

This is what we were told as well. No personal experience with Checkmate mags for the 320, but I wouldn't ever trust one for a 226 or Beretta. Nothing but problems.

[JonInWA]

I've trusted them in my Beretta for over 12 years. I don't make a secret here that I'm one of Check-Mate's sponsored shooters, but my 92 dry-film magazines have provided near flawless performance through heavy, repeated and varied use over years.

Some potentially crucial differences between my Check-Mate magazines and others experiences:

1. Mine were all obtained/issued brand new, with one exception (and experimental teflon-treated tube that had clearly been used prior to my receiving it, as on the high points, the teflon coating was rubbed and chipped); operationally, the magazine has been flawless;

2. All of my magazines before use are disassembled, cleaned, with all cutting oil removed, and the tube interiors, followers, springs and baseplates treated with Dri-Slide, a dry-film lubricant/anticorrosive; magazines are then reassembled, and exteriors wiped down with Weapon Shield.

All of my magazines are standard issue/contract magazines, with three exceptions: A 2005 production magazine with an experimental stainless steel spring, and two 2015 production magazines with an experimental teflon finish applied to the tubes in their entirety.

In 12 years of use, I've encountered precisely two issues: 1) One magazine (as I recall, a 2010 production one) in use would not drop free from the receiver; it was returned to Check-Mate, resent through the tube sizing die, and returned to me, where it's performed without issue for years; and 2) One magazine where there was a single failure to lock back when the magazine was emptied in an IDPA match. In retrospect, the causal factors were likely an insufficient grip (I was firing support-handed only) and/or low-powered ammunition (I was using Federal Champion 115 gr aluminum cased); subsequently, the magazine has performed without incident.

Recently, Ernest Langdon discussed the various magazines for the Beretta 92; the Check-Mate magazines were cited for two potential areas of concern, both involving the Check-Mate baseplates: 1) that the front of the baseplate could be sufficiently bent to preclude the magazine from being able to be secured in the receiver (the magazine llatch would be unable to latch in the tube notch due to insufficient tube insertion), and 2) that the baseplate flange(s) that slide onto and engage the tube flange to secure the baseplate to the magazine tube could be bent or damaged. While I certainly defer to Ernst Langdon's expertise and exposure, both actual and anecdotal, I've personally never experienced any isues with my baseplates, and would point out that the baseplates are of hardened/tempered steel. Whole anything can be damaged, there have been magazines of similar baseplate design that historically this has apparently not been a significant issue-the FN/Browning High Power, CZ-75, and Walther P.38/P1/P4/P5 magazines come to mind.

I am concerned over the issues, both actual, perceived and potential with the Check-Mate manufactured magazines for the P320, and am requesting some for detailed testing, use and analysis.

Best, Jon

[Tokarev]

Sold out at Osage County.

Available on pre-order at Quantico Tactical/Proven Arms.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Jared]

I’m going to get a wonderful head to head look at the magazine thing as the 320 XCarry I acquired over the weekend has one Checkmate May and one MecGar. It’s kinda funny that you can do a quick glance over and tell the two mags are different on a brand new pistol from Sig. The finishes of the mags instantly jump out as being different before you see “Made in USA” and a “C” in a circle on one and “Made in Italy” on the other.

[Jared]

Sold out at Osage County.

Available on pre-order at Quantico Tactical/Proven Arms.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Interesting, as I swear I saw an M17 and an M18 at a LGS last weekend. I remember thinking “hey, they’ve got the M18’s out now.” As noted in my other post, I went with an XCarry instead of either of the M’s.

[shane45]

Not a big sig fan but a sf pistol with enough of a usable thumb safety appealed to me. So I picked up an m18. Now to get the holster, rds and buis figured out!