Graybeard Outdoors banner
21 - 40 of 43 Posts
They're out of stock right now, but look at Palmetto State Armory. The just had S&W Shield's for around $250 (+/-).
 
Are you sure that your not referring to a 7.62x25. Yes i have shot those before but it's been a long time ago when i was in my early 20s.


P.S. My apologies i found an artical on the 7.62x28 except i had never seen one.
.
Oops! My mistake I did mean the Tokarev original chambering which is 7.62x25.
A pretty potent pistol cartridge.
.
...TM7
 
Just talked to the local gunshop owner about them yesterday. He has a 45acp 320 and his wife a 9 and he said they've both ate a couple thousand rounds so far and have been dead reliable and both are accurate guns. He said there not target accurate but more accurate then the typical out of the box glock. He really liked them. I might have to try one. Kind of like the midsized 45acp. It holds one more round then my M&P compact 45. 9+1 instead of 8+1 He said his full sized 45 holds 10+1 but I don't know if the additional bulk is worth one more round.
 
The Sig is a good gun, but I would hope that the various forces would settle on one caliber or another. By settling on one or the other, it would avoid logistics problems.
Whether 9mm, 40 or 45 they should all be the same. Consider a time when some Navy Seals, Army Rangers or Marine Raiders are hemmed in and running low on ammo.. An air drop of ammo is accomplished..but the pistol ammo dropped is 45 cal and the troops are carrying 9mm pistols !
Sometimes when the situation is dire, people don't read the details...

BTW: Probably the best improvement in military handgun use, would be to get rid of the "hardball only" rule.

Let's hear what NATO has to say, that could weigh heavily into what our forces accept.
 
I've got a lot of handguns and for accuracy, it's hard to beat a .22, but I have a 9mm Taurus PT 99 (aluminum and stainless steel) that can match the .22's and it holds 18 rounds with one in the chamber. This is the one I would want to have in a gun fight (pistols only). This gun has never misfired and never done anything weird, which I can't say about my 19ll's.

Revolvers of course are a whole different matter.
 
So, what is it that I recently read, saying that the Army has now reported two accidental discharges from the new pistol, when they were dropped.

Was this just internet rumor?

Or, is everything up in the air again, with Glock and others demanding more trials?

Mannyrock
 
. . . but I would hope that the various forces would settle on one caliber or another. By settling on one or the other, it would avoid logistics problems.
Whether 9mm, 40 or 45 they should all be the same. Consider a time when some Navy Seals, Army Rangers or Marine Raiders are hemmed in and running low on ammo.. An air drop of ammo is accomplished..but the pistol ammo dropped is 45 cal and the troops are carrying 9mm pistols !
Sometimes when the situation is dire, people don't read the details. . . .
yep. it's not hard to imagine this ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

over the years i've seen this happen with Ford. you get some part that isn't even close
to what you've ordered, and it turns out the pull tag is wrong. it turns out that someone
at the depot it was shipped from pulled the wrong thing because some other person
put these 3000 gadgets in the wrong bin instead of where they belong. the person
pulling the part for the order sees and knows it's not the right thing, but "hey- it's
not my job. it says pull one part from bin#301, and that's what i'm gonna do. ."

one of the many reasons all our stuff is imported from overseas now
 
IG....

I surmise 99+% of these military Sigs will be chambered in NATO 9mm and take all the iterations of that standard NATO round. But if NATO changed to 40S&W the modular aspect of 320 would accomdate such a change.

.
...TM7
 
Discussion starter · #31 ·
There was an early problem with the 320 firing if dropped but Sig made major changes to fix it. I kinda doubt any of them going to the military had the early design or it shouldn't have been the one selected.

Now based on my vast combat military and law enforcement experience (none, zip, nada so that makes me an expert right) I'd think the best choice for military use would be the .40 S&W. All of the FMJ ammo I've seen and shot for the .40 has a flat wide meplat that at least in theory should make it more deadly faster than a round nose like both the 9mm and .45 have.
 
There was an early problem with the 320 firing if dropped but Sig made major changes to fix it. I kinda doubt any of them going to the military had the early design or it shouldn't have been the one selected.

Now based on my vast combat military and law enforcement experience (none, zip, nada so that makes me an expert right) I'd think the best choice for military use would be the .40 S&W. All of the FMJ ammo I've seen and shot for the .40 has a flat wide meplat that at least in theory should make it more deadly faster than a round nose like both the 9mm and .45 have.
Some reports indicate the Army also signed up for an "open tip" 9mm, a brand new DODIC just for the SIG P320 contract; open tip does not equal hollow point and we're already using it in service rifles so its assumed to clear the legal test. In a 9mm, thats just a frangible bullet on thin skinned targets, but the service pistol is not intended for use against armored targets anyway. The 9mm is a proven caliber for a combat sidearm, which ought never be confused with an LEO or citizen SD/HD sidearm, especially with the NATO ammo which is a higher pressure 124gr load than the well known 115gr FMJ.
 
Problem with that is a navy seal or different special forces have different needs then a security guard or major in the rear ordering his troops into action. I know if I was doing something like house clearing id personally rather have a 45 then a 9. I don't think the military should put restrictions on what they can use to make logistics easier. Yes the sky might fall tomorrow but you cant base everything on that. For the most part special services support themselves and its sure no big deal to have a few cans of 40 or 45 around in case that one in a 1000 chance of them needing more ammo might accrue. Also if they are worried about it they always have the option of grabbing a 9 for a mission. I say leave it up to the pros on what they need and not dictate it because of paper work. cool thing about this platform is they can decide they would rather have a 40 or 45 and in about 3 minutes swap the gun there used to having in there hand to any of those calibers. they don't have say change from a 92 berretta to a 1911 to change from 9 to 45. Right now special forces uses about everything. Sigs, H&Ks, Berettas, 1911s of various manufactures and more. This would allow for one platform. Easy to stock a few internal sections that can be swapped in even out in the field to get a broke gun back in action and back at the office parts to easily change calibers to fit the mission. No brainer to me. I really have to doubt if a single navy seal, recon, or ranger cares about what caliber I think they should be carrying. Its there ass on the line not mine. Navy seals go into the field prepared for about any situation and if they don't like this new sig there just not going to use it period and that's the way it should be.
The Sig is a good gun, but I would hope that the various forces would settle on one caliber or another. By settling on one or the other, it would avoid logistics problems.
Whether 9mm, 40 or 45 they should all be the same. Consider a time when some Navy Seals, Army Rangers or Marine Raiders are hemmed in and running low on ammo.. An air drop of ammo is accomplished..but the pistol ammo dropped is 45 cal and the troops are carrying 9mm pistols !
Sometimes when the situation is dire, people don't read the details...

BTW: Probably the best improvement in military handgun use, would be to get rid of the "hardball only" rule.

Let's hear what NATO has to say, that could weigh heavily into what our forces accept.
 
cant argue that but theres no doubt special forces have done it with handguns and practice it with handguns too.
As does everyone in Combat Arms in the Army and Marine Corps, but only as a method of last resort. Everyone household in Iraq and Afghanistan are allowed by law to have one full auto Ak47 per male adult and a full magazine, in their homes ... the places our troops go into. CQB today is not an LEO scenario involving street clothes and handguns. The Short Barreled Rifle was specifically developed out of SOCOM for the purpose of CQB with plate wearing AK toting bad guys, indoors. My infantry battalion turned in all of our sidearms and everyone carried either an A4, M4 or Bernelli, on at least the two combat tours I did with them. We had LEO embeds from LAPD with us, and they left their sidearms back at the FOB and snagged a carbine first chance they could.

The handgun is enjoying an increasingly limited role in modern combat.
 
The handgun is enjoying an increasingly limited role in modern combat
cant argue that for main line infantry troops but special forces carry what they need and most carry side arms into any operation. I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't tote around an extra couple pounds if they didn't think it was necessary or advantageous.
 
cant argue that but theres no doubt special forces have done it with handguns and practice it with handguns too.
My grandson did plenty of "house clearing" in Iraq, and just as TN said, a handgun was last choice for that task. M4 was his first choice. His unit had Mossberg 500s, but they used them chiefly for blowing locks with special rounds they referred to as "corks". Since his MOS was armorer, he impressed upon me the importance of standardization..especially in the given unit.

The houses are often dark in the interior, and one very important device for such work , is the Surefire.. It often gives a little edge. Various grenades are very important.. stun them and shoot them.
 
I'm sure not arguing that a M4 isn't the preferred weapon for house clearing. What I'm saying that special forces guys have different needs then infantry men and DO carry handguns and do practice using them in shooting houses. Never even insinuated that a main line army infantry soldier needed a handgun. Very few were even issued them as far back as ww1. At least under the rank of sargent. I doubt this new sig is going to change that one bit. Its sure not up to me to judge whether a special forces soldier needs a handgun or not. Its up to them and bottom line is they do carry them. Don't know how the rangers work or even infantry units but I do know that seals choose there own sidearm and they all don't choose the same gun or even caliber. Why? because its there ass on the line and they are a bit more knowledgeable about what it takes to do there job and what there comfortable with then I am. I seriously doubt that changing to this sig is going to mean its shoved down there faces any time soon.
 
I'm sure not arguing that a M4 isn't the preferred weapon for house clearing. What I'm saying that special forces guys have different needs then infantry men and DO carry handguns and do practice using them in shooting houses. Never even insinuated that a main line army infantry soldier needed a handgun. Very few were even issued them as far back as ww1. At least under the rank of sargent. I doubt this new sig is going to change that one bit. Its sure not up to me to judge whether a special forces soldier needs a handgun or not. Its up to them and bottom line is they do carry them. Don't know how the rangers work or even infantry units but I do know that seals choose there own sidearm and they all don't choose the same gun or even caliber. Why? because its there ass on the line and they are a bit more knowledgeable about what it takes to do there job and what there comfortable with then I am. I seriously doubt that changing to this sig is going to mean its shoved down there faces any time soon.
My grandson was special forces (MARSOC)..for his type units, the Corps had dome a redux of the WW2 term, Marine Raiders. Perhaps the public will better understand now, the Marines have spec ops to fall in with Rangers, Seals, Green Berets...and they are called Raiders.
I guess it takes a colorful nickname for certain units, in order to get some civilians to understand..
 
21 - 40 of 43 Posts