US Army fields SIG M17 and M18 pistols

[RAM Engineer]

I thought the M17/M18 shared the same grip module?

Attachment 39208

They do. They're both "Carry"-sized. SIG's designations of "Carry" vs "Compact" confuse a lots of people. There are rumors (that I just read on another forum) that the USMC is also fielding the "Compact" size grip modules with their M18s.

[Zincwarrior]

If you are talking about putting a full-size slide on an M18/Carry grip module, yes. That will work fine. I know a few solid shooters who prefer that setup for the P320, including our own John Hearne.

Thats what I was thinking of. Thanks!

[Tokarev]

They do. They're both "Carry"-sized. SIG's designations of "Carry" vs "Compact" confuse a lots of people. There are rumors (that I just read on another forum) that the USMC is also fielding the "Compact" size grip modules with their M18s.

This one looks to have the full length magazine interface aka carry size. But it is hard to say for certain.



Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[0ddl0t]

At least the USMC performed and completed a thorough testing protocol before adopting it.

A sample size of 3 does not seem very thorough, particularly if there is a chance Sig cherry-picked the pistols rather than grabbing 3 random units off the assembly line.

[JSGlock34]

I haven't seen any reporting that the Marines conducted any further testing on the M18. Presumably the Marines benefited from the rather quiet reliability improvements made to the M18 after initial batches demonstrated reliability issues during Product Verification Testing. The XM18 actually exceeded the reliability of the XM17 in the second round of PVT after the "adjustments to the magazine spring, magazine follower, slide geometry, and the internal components".

[tcba_joe]

I emailed an acquaintance at SIG this morning. He's saying a civilian M18 will be released late this year.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

I'm going to need one, or 2 of these...

[JonInWA]

I haven't seen any reporting that the Marines conducted any further testing on the M18. Presumably the Marines benefited from the rather quiet reliability improvements made to the M18 after initial batches demonstrated reliability issues during Product Verification Testing. The XM18 actually exceeded the reliability of the XM17 in the second round of PVT after the "adjustments to the magazine spring, magazine follower, slide geometry, and the internal components".

So-were those improvement changes incorporated into P320 production across the board, or just to the M17/M18 contract guns?

Best, Jon

[JSGlock34]

So-were those improvement changes incorporated into P320 production across the board, or just to the M17/M18 contract guns?

No idea but I'm curious as well. SIG has been tight lipped about deficiencies revealed in military testing that resulted in manufacturing changes (to include the drop-safety episode). I haven't seen any details on the changes beyond the described "adjustments to the magazine spring, magazine follower, slide geometry, and the internal components" in the DOT&E report.

Are there new magazine followers and springs out for the 320? To be fair, updating a follower design seems like a nearly continuous process for manufacturers (what iteration is Glock up to now?). Slide geometry and internal components seem more significant changes.

[0ddl0t]

Has anyone seen, or heard a second-hand account of, a double ejection on a P320? I still have a hard time imagining that happening dozens of times without causing a stoppage.

[psalms144.1]

Has anyone seen, or heard a second-hand account of, a double ejection on a P320? I still have a hard time imagining that happening dozens of times without causing a stoppage.

Yes, many of them, with early generation(s) of magazines (I believe Sig is on the 3rd or 4th "generation" of MHS mags by now). And, it does frequently cause stoppages.