Page 3 of 38 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 371

Thread: US Army fields SIG M17 and M18 pistols

  1. #21
    Two deployments to Iraq. My pistol was a paperweight. If I had been using a pistol- then things had gone so bad- it wouldn’t have mattered.
    As someone said earlier- with rifles, machine guns, tanks, Apaches, etc- the pistol could be important but I didn’t see one fired in 23 months.
    This country needs an enema- Blues approved sig line

  2. #22
    Site Supporter psalms144.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Bloomington, IN
    Well, at least none of the pistols OOB exploded during the video . I seriously hope that Sig has these pistols RIGHT, and they'll serve our men and women in uniform well for a long while. My agency is considering adopting them as a replacement for our current issued P229/P238 DAK .40s, and it appears Big Navy is pushing to standardize on the M17/M18 for all handguns.

  3. #23
    Site Supporter Hambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Behind the Photonic Curtain
    As for durability I doubt it's a concern in the short term. The high volume pistol shooters in the military aren't using these.
    "Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by LockedBreech View Post
    Is there any evidence for the claim that the P320/M17/M18 is more accurate than the M9? In my experience the 92-series pistols are profoundly accurate. Are they just talking about aged, beat-to-heck M9s or are they making the claim that the 320 is more accurate out of the box?
    At this point it's traditional for the military to compare the accuracy of a beat-up old gun to a crisp new gun, then claim the newer one is inherently more accurate.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

  5. #25
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    In the desert, looking for water.
    Dispersion is more of a machine gun term, iirc: true bullet hoses, a machine gun is expected to have an "area of dispersion" which the gunner uses to hose his bullets into his target area and beat everything within it into Swiss cheese as he works the gun back and forth across the target area.

    Tighter dispersion means more precise, even if it is maybe an awkward turn of phrase.

  6. #26
    Member DallasBronco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Richardson, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by Drang View Post
    Many soldiers are astonished to learn that there is no Army reg that mandates wearing full "battle rattle" on the range.
    Unit standards, yes, but no AR.
    Thanks for that, I didn't know. I was former Air Force enlisted as an Army Guard tanker, so I thought "everybody" did it that way because it just seemed like the gospel throughout my battalion.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by psalms144.1 View Post
    Well, at least none of the pistols OOB exploded during the video . I seriously hope that Sig has these pistols RIGHT, and they'll serve our men and women in uniform well for a long while. My agency is considering adopting them as a replacement for our current issued P229/P238 DAK .40s, and it appears Big Navy is pushing to standardize on the M17/M18 for all handguns.
    No No... Don't get rid of the 229's. Best platform for 357/40, IMHO

  8. #28
    Site Supporter psalms144.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Bloomington, IN
    Quote Originally Posted by dpadams6 View Post
    No No... Don't get rid of the 229's. Best platform for 357/40, IMHO
    Forgive the thread drift, but it's largely about money. My agency has to pay for our Sigs out of hide, since they're not "standard" equipment issued by Crane. Going forward, if we need new pistols, parts, mags, etc, Crane and Navy won't support. So, we either have to keep cutting out of our very limited budget to support legacy firearms, or go with the new "standard issue"...

  9. #29
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    South Louisiana
    Quote Originally Posted by Drang View Post
    Many soldiers are astonished to learn that there is no Army reg that mandates wearing full "battle rattle" on the range.
    Unit standards, yes, but no AR.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggW View Post
    Correct. Commanders discretion. I've fought that battle multiple times. I get tired of hearing "train like we fight!" Zeroing is not training. Qualifying is not training. Very few can figure out the difference.
    Quote Originally Posted by DallasBronco View Post
    Thanks for that, I didn't know. I was former Air Force enlisted as an Army Guard tanker, so I thought "everybody" did it that way because it just seemed like the gospel throughout my battalion.
    From a Guard/Reserve standpoint, annual qualification is the only time the Soldier will fire his/her weapon, and it's different with and without battle rattle. While it may not qualify as training, it's as close as they'll get unless they're spinning up for a deployment.

  10. #30
    Member DallasBronco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Richardson, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by revchuck38 View Post
    From a Guard/Reserve standpoint, annual qualification is the only time the Soldier will fire his/her weapon, and it's different with and without battle rattle. While it may not qualify as training, it's as close as they'll get unless they're spinning up for a deployment.
    As a tanker, we were issued an M9. When we shot, we were in full battle rattle. When we deployed stateside toting M-16's and had to qualify, we were in full battle rattle. I was under the impression that was always how the Army did it, until I read Drang's post.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •