Posted on 04/02/2018 9:27:30 AM PDT by PROCON
The full-sized M17 vs. the more compact M18. The guns use the same interchangeable fire control unit and magazines– either flush-fit 17-round or 21-round extended mags. (Photo: Chris Eger/Guns.com)
A report says the nation’s seagoing branch will go with the smaller version of the Army’s Modular Handgun System, the Sig M18, to replace legacy 9mm pistols.
The Navy currently uses the M9, a variant of the Beretta 92F shown above, and the M11, a more compact pistol based on the Sig Sauer P228. The new M18 will replace both. (Photo: U.S. Navy)
The Navy will phase out its current M9 and M11 handguns with the M18, the smaller-framed version of the Army’s newly adopted handgun. The MHS winner, based on the Sig Sauer P320 family, can utilize two different-sized frames, the full-sized M17 and a more compact M18. While the Army is issuing the gun in a kit with both frames and one interchangeable plug-and-play fire control unit that makes up the guts of the handgun, the Navy will go with just the single M18 frame.
Navy spokesman Ben Anderson told Military.com that “money has been allocated for contracting this year, with delivery to the Navy to commence in FY19” for some 60,000 pistols.
The Navy currently uses the M9, a variant of the Beretta 92F, and the M11, a more compact pistol based on the Sig Sauer P228. While the M18 is slated to replace both, there is no word on if other platforms used in smaller numbers by Naval Special Warfare units such as the Mk23 and Mk24 pistols — .45ACP guns made by Heckler & Koch — as well as various unit-purchased Glocks, and the Mk25 — a navalised version of the Sig P226 in 9mm — will be replaced by the new Sig as well.
All branches of the U.S. Armed Forces have placed orders for the M17/18 Modular Handgun System, according to Sig Sauer.
“The only pistol to ever finish tests with a perfect record was the 1911 Colt.”
Raspberries in all non-American directions.
How can you call America a serious country if we don’t even make our own weapons?
Agree completely. Why sig?
Colt is still a US company, is it not?
I once owned 3 CZ .22 bolt action rifles. They were about as good as it gets. All 3 were marked “Made In Egypt” but they were too well made for that.
They were covered with Arabic writing but they also had the CZ in a circle stamp which was a dead giveaway that they were actually made by them.
Two were close to new and the third had some serious pitting in the bore but it still shot fine.
As others here have remarked, firearms are highly personal so I don’t begrudge anybody their choice. If they’re comfortable with, and confident in their choice, so be it. Personally my SHTF sidearm is a CZ75B in .40 S&W. Yes, I own more powerful sidearm, prettier ones, and more prestigious ones, but none as robust, or reliable, and few that are more inherently accurate. Ergonomically, it fits my hand just right.
“Colt is still a US company, is it not?”
To the best of my knowledge.
I enjoyed shooting and drilling with the good ol’ M-14, a fine, accurate 7.62 rifle.
.
I can say that the 228 is a great gun (wife has one) so if it is just a stubbier 228 it should serve well.
.
I kick myself that Angus Hobdell’s custom shop is less than a hour away from me and I have yet to custom order one of his specially prepared weapons. That Phantom I linked is my very next purchase. I am older and the weight will be better for me than the full steel unit.
Some of CZ’s products are made in Turkey. I’ve looked at their “Bobwhite” light double-barrel shotgun, but it’s place of origin makes me hesitate to reach for my wallet. A Miroku-built Browning double would probably be a smarter buy, though pricier.
Around 1988 I traded a Ruger Red Label 20 gauge to a former teacher for a Miroku side by side 20 gauge and $400.00. This was before it was widely known that they made the Citori.
That was one neat little shotgun and I really needed the $400 at the time.
Colt crapped in their nest long ago. They stopped the snake lines never followed the trend toward striker fired weapons, high capacity mags, etc. their top management drained the company and bagged ass. Remington is in the same condition.
The US soldier needs and deserves the best weapons available. Comparing a range or hunting weapon is ludicrous. The 1911 will not cover the current conditions on the battlefield. The contract competionw is open to all suppliers but you better bring a useful option for current operational requirements.
Now how about these used berratas?
This design is completely modular, with the working parts mounted in a steel carriage that can be swapped into any number of different-sized grip frames. This crosses over to the civilian/commercial market - if a grip that is tailored for smaller female hands is offered for the p320 series, a military version will be available too. I can see why the armorers would like that design.
Currently, I don't think there are any American designs that offer this sort of flexibility.
I used to buy and give away to family members surplus 82s. The two I’ve kept do not appear to have been shot prior to my putting rounds through them. Wish I could find extended mags for them, but twelve is not bad.
It (this modular P320 design) is a neat idea. But I have seen at least one P320 that could not hold a group at 5 yards. The receiver group, slide, and barrel would ‘rock’ in the plastic frame on firing (unlike a conventional design where the receiver and frame are one), thus a different alignment every shot. Others seemed fine, but seems like a design issue to me. When they actually get through all the recalls and any ‘new’ issues, I might get one.
John Garand brought a rifle to Aberdeen proving grounds to compete against the Petterson rifle. The Army likes the Garand but told him nice gun but wrong caliber it was chambered in 270. He was informed a war was coming and all the ammo world wide was 30-06. He went back to Springfield Armory and returned with a rifle chambered fo 30 cal. It was modular. The garand trigger group built at Winchester works in one from Springfield rifles etc. I have one but it’s not my SHTF rifle or the one I would carry into battle today. I have better fits for current combat conditions. The great thing about the garand rifle was it’s ability to work in a lot of environments reliably. But taking a trigger group from one weapon to another has some advantages in the field.
Handled a P365 today, and it is incredibly small for being a 10+1 pistol. Felt smaller than a Glock 43 and the small Smith M&P.
Unfortunately, they’re hot and the LGS has a waiting list that goes out several months.
Plus the trigger is sweet! Nicer than a Kahr, which is pretty good.
The Colt All American 2000 was striker fired, but only memorable to those who tried to get them to work.
Hey I get it. Its not the idea that’s bad. Whether it works or not is all in the execution of the idea.
BTW its been a loooong time since I have field stripped my Garand. (I enjoy it more as a conversation piece than actually shooting it). But I don’t recall in field stripping it the barrel coming off the receiver. What I recall is the trigger group coming out as a unit. Maybe its semantics as to what is defined as the receiver. But in the Garand’s case, I don’t see how the basic alignment of the shot can change (chamber/barrel/sights), which does not seem to be the case with the P320 design.
One of the great things about the good old US of A is all the choices and options and the freedom to make them. And the willingness to protect those rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.