SIG M17 Commercial Version coming in August 2018

[Hollander]

Certainly the CNA study had its flaws, the small sample size among them, and I remind myself when reading it that it is recording perceptions. Still, despite the fact that the M9 isn't frequently employed in combat compared to other military small arms, I find it troubling that 26% of the respondents who had fired their M9 in anger reported a stoppage.

I think it could be troubling depending on why those stoppages occurred in the first place. If they were due to operator error (which is possible given that most troops prioritize rifle training over pistol training) or poor maintenance (which is likely, especially given how old and abused some of those M9 components were) then I don't necessarily find that to be a "troubling" fault of the firearm. Any firearm needs proper maintenance (to include parts replacement/servicing) in order to stay reliable over the long run.

FYI, a former Army armorer gave a very good explanation of why that perception existed among certain troops:

As someone who carried and shot the M9a1 quite a bit, I observed that design to work just fine...but weapons maintenance and training can vary quite a bit in one branch from the next.

Personally, I think the better argument for wider issue of sidearms isn't for their utility when moving to contact, but to ensure personnel remain readily armed when inside the wire.

Perhaps, but if you honestly think there will be the potential for any sort of conflict within the wire, you're going be walking around with your rifle. And that's exactly what everyone did, at least on the COP's that I was at...excepting a few officers and admin types here and there.

[JSGlock34]

I think it could be troubling depending on why those stoppages occurred in the first place. If they were due to operator error (which is possible given that most troops prioritize rifle training over pistol training) or poor maintenance (which is likely, especially given how old and abused some of those M9 components were) then I don't necessarily find that to be a "troubling" fault of the firearm. Any firearm needs proper maintenance (to include parts replacement/servicing) in order to stay reliable over the long run.

I never said the stoppages were a "troubling fault of the firearm." I just find stoppages in combat troubling. I'm sure the soldiers who experienced those stoppages found them more so.

I said earlier that poor Army maintenance practices did much to tarnish the reputation of a fine firearm. No one has argued that the M17 will be any more lethal or reliable than the M9 it replaces. The Army did not properly support the M9 with parts, maintenance, or training - and sometimes that neglect manifested in combat stoppages that eroded soldier confidence in the weapon. Instead of fixing those problems, the Army decided to adopt something different, not necessarily better.

As someone who carried and shot the M9a1 quite a bit, I observed that design to work just fine...but weapons maintenance and training can vary quite a bit in one branch from the next.

As someone who carried and shot the M9 quite a bit, I observed that design to work just fine...but most M9s I saw in service did not inspire confidence. I know more now than I did then, but my current affection for the 92 had to overcome some significant baggage.

Perhaps, but if you honestly think there will be the potential for any sort of conflict within the wire, you're going be walking around with your rifle. And that's exactly what everyone did, at least on the COP's that I was at...excepting a few officers and admin types here and there.

In my experience, a long arm isn't always appropriate or at hand. Again, given a choice, bring rifles, grenade launchers, squad automatic weapons, crew served medium machine-guns, mortars, an infantry fighting vehicle, sharp sticks, close air-support, and lots of friends to your next gunfight. The pistol is a niche weapon in military service, but sometimes it is the only tool that fits.

[Hollander]

I never said the stoppages were a "troubling fault of the firearm." I just find stoppages in combat troubling. I'm sure the soldiers who experienced those stoppages found them more so.

I said earlier that poor Army maintenance practices did much to tarnish the reputation of a fine firearm. No one has argued that the M17 will be any more lethal or reliable than the M9 it replaces. The Army did not properly support the M9 with parts, maintenance, or training - and sometimes that neglect manifested in combat stoppages that eroded soldier confidence in the weapon. Instead of fixing those problems, the Army decided to adopt something different, not necessarily better.

Alright, then you and I are probably in agreement on the perception of the M9 versus its realistic capabilities.

In my experience, a long arm isn't always appropriate or at hand. Again, given a choice, bring rifles, grenade launchers, squad automatic weapons, crew served medium machine-guns, mortars, an infantry fighting vehicle, sharp sticks, close air-support, and lots of friends to your next gunfight. The pistol is a niche weapon in military service, but sometimes it is the only tool that fits.

Within the context of warfare (not CCW as a civilian), a pistol is a tool that's used only if you don't have more lethal tools at your immediate disposal. For the average front line combatant who lives, eats, sleeps and shits with his/her rifle within arm's length, those instances will be few and far between.

I'm not saying the M17 is a bad design or that it won't ever be useful for our war fighters. I'm saying that issuing a brand new pistol design shouldn't have been a top priority in the grand scheme of things, especially considering that we're on the tail-end of a draw down from major overseas conflicts.

[tcba_joe]

Alright, then you and I are probably in agreement on the perception of the M9 versus its realistic capabilities.

I'm not saying the M17 is a bad design or that it won't ever be useful for our war fighters. I'm saying that issuing a brand new pistol design shouldn't have been a top priority in the grand scheme of things, especially considering that we're on the tail-end of a draw down from major overseas conflicts.

This is a Pistol forum, so of course the emphasis here is on the new pistol. I don't think it was truly a "top" priority, for the Army; I think it was a comparatively simple modernization program within the whole. There are projects for new helmets, body armor, rifles, L/M/H MGs, precision rifles, radio systems, power generation/management, UAVs of all sizes, new all terrain vehicles, adoption of the Gustaf, a recently adopted new 40mm, recently adopted SDM, new load bearing equipment, etc... Even updated physical fitness standards and testing. Personally. I wish more was being done with dual tube visual augmentation as a PVS-14/PSQ replacement (though there may be).

The pistol was an easy and quick change in a sea of new equipment (lets be honest new training is a pipedream) that also incorporated new ammunition and an MTOE change. It gets the most publicity because it's a simple change that was comparatively easier to check off, the gun world was following it, and the lay person can actually own the end result.

I'm just saying it has a 20-something page thread and lots of discussion because this is a handgun forum, so we're discussing handguns. The Army is, and should be doing more, to update the equipment, TTPs, and doctrine in all aspects and they'll fail and succeed in different aspects.

[Moshjath]

Personally. I wish more was being done with dual tube visual augmentation as a PVS-14/PSQ replacement (though there may be).

Widespread fielding of the ENVG-B is on the horizon. I’ve seen some elements of the 82nd fielding PVS-31’s when I was in my last job at JRTC.

[Hollander]

This is a Pistol forum, so of course the emphasis here is on the new pistol. I don't think it was truly a "top" priority, for the Army; I think it was a comparatively simple modernization program within the whole.

I think you're downplaying how much resources (to include budget) went into this program. Updating to the new M9a1 or M9a3 would have been a far more simple and cost-effective move. The rest of the money would have been better spent elsewhere.

And I totally get why people on a pistol form will want to discuss the Army's new standard-issue sidearm....but it is worth pointing out that said sidearm will have very little importance in the grand scheme of things. It's hard for those who haven't been in combat to appreciate that.

[JRB]

There's honestly what could only be called a cultural hatred of the M9 within the Army and USMC. A lack of actual training and immersion time with M9's leads to poor performance which is exacerbated by poor maintenance. I've pulled at least two dozen cracked locking blocks out of issued M9's on qual ranges. Whoever thought 3rd party locking blocks were a good idea needs a kick in the ass.

Armorers often don't care to really learn about the design and everything is a work-order driven break-fix process that gets parts thrown at it and then it's TI'd and thrown back in an arms room. The aftermarket locking blocks are a disaster in and of themselves. Same for the lack of PM on trigger return springs, recoil springs, and grip panels.
Most S4 sections also are grossly negligent about discarding those old flawed magazines. Unless the magazine is visibly damaged they toss it back in circulation even if it's ID'd as a problem child by range personnel. I have culled an astounding number of gulf-war era M9 magazines out of two different Arms Rooms. S4 bitches every time because they don't want to spend unit money on new M9 magazines.

I was threatened with a statement of charges for destroying several bad 5.56 and a few M9 magazines at a range I conducted. The 5.56 mags I destroyed were first generation BLACK follower magazines that somehow floated in a unit's magazine box for all these years. They were ID'd because Soldiers shooting a qualification were seeing stoppages on the firing line - and those Soldiers wrongly got the typical Army RSO "clean your weapon" ass-chewing when it was actually the ~25+ year old magazine's fault.

But if a shooter performs poorly with an M9, or a stoppage is seen with an M9, everyone just shrugs and blames the M9. Soldiers naturally would rather save the weight vs carrying a weapon that's almost institutionally maligned all around. That's why we have the M17, is because it's new and it is *not* an M9. Because it's not an M9, it solves this cultural distrust of the M9 seen within the Army - but it solves none of the actual software issues with handguns and proper training in the military, and it's a short matter of time before the maintenance issues set in.

Overall the Army's handgun problem is a cultural software one, but it's blamed on hardware because of a few hardware problems that could be overcome with proper instruction and proper maintenance support by people who give a shit.
New springs, new grip panels, new *Beretta* locking blocks and the new 17rnd sand-resistant magazines would solve the overwhelming majority of the problems I've seen with even the most beat-up old M9's. New JHP 147grn ammo would be a vast lethality improvement over the goddamn 124gr NATO ball ammo.
But that would require an expert-driven program that needs to miraculously slide past the bean counters completely intact, and fixing old pistols doesn't look nearly as good as 'NEW PISTOLS YAY!' on OER's for the O6/O7 types making these decisions.

[RAM Engineer]

I'm not privy to the needs of SOCOM, but given that USSOCOM has focused on the Glock 19 and Glock 26 pistols, this is way too big.

I've only seen this so far, although I'd bet there's more to it.


I have some ideas of a direction I could see them going with these guns as part of a "pistol SOPMOD" but it would be pure conjecture on my part.

[tcba_joe]

I'm not privy to the needs of SOCOM, but given that USSOCOM has focused on the Glock 19 and Glock 26 pistols, this is way too big.

There are plenty of G34s and G35s in use. But that's whats nice about the P320 architecture. It's scalable from G34 to G17 to G19 to G26 sizes based on mission set, just like M16/M4 receiver.

I have no other ideas what other configurations and parts combos they have in mind, but a subcompact version MHS style slide would make a ton of sense in a "SOPMOD" kit. Along with the subcompact grip and mags.

ETA: SOCOM was able to procure the G19 and G26 because they articulated a need for a compact and subcompact pistol. As they already had an issued fullsize pistol (the M9) it meant they couldn't issue the G17 at that level. There are G17s, G22s, G34s, and G35s that were purchased at much lower levels, but not issued as standard SOCOM issued through Crane.

[Tokarev]

More M17 news/info:

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...police-school/

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk