Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Last edited by Tokarev; 01-23-2019 at 08:19 AM.
It was rigged!!!
http://soldiersystems.net/2019/02/05...edium=facebook
I've seen more than few firearms review channels (Military Arms, Small Arms Solutions) opine about how it made little sense for the Army to switch over to an entirely new pistol after the US has begun to withdraw from its major conflicts. I'm inclined to agree. The M9 Beretta and its updated variants were perfectly usable as combat sidearms. And the biggest complaint with the outgoing sidearm (lack of "stopping power") certainly doesn't get addressed if you simply switch to another pistol chambered in 9mm. That's an ammo issue, not a firearm issue, and one that is largely dictated by the Hague Conventions.
Personally, I think the M4/M16's and M249's are more deserving of an update and/or replacement before a standard-issue sidearm is...pistols are mostly confined to holster duty and/or armory storage for combat arms units anyways.
I am far more interested in the 18 than the 17.
State Government Attorney | Beretta, Glock, CZ & S&W Fan
Interesting to read the report vice the SIG press release...
“To improve the reliability with ball ammunition without degrading any of the other attributes of the weapon, the vendor made adjustments to the magazine spring, magazine follower, slide geometry, and the internal components.”
Curious to hear more about these adjustments and whether they will be incorporated into the 320 line.
In any case, it seems the Army sorted out the issues that were reported last year with the XM17. The reported XM18 reliability is very encouraging.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the USAF and USMC adopt the M18 in greater numbers than the M17.
Last edited by JSGlock34; 02-05-2019 at 11:12 PM.
"When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."