Ammo For Sale

« « Parting shots from Obama | Home | Gun Porn » »

Army’s new gun, again

Yesterday, we knew it was a Sig. I speculated it would be a P320. Turns out, it is a 320, with a manual safety. An unnecessary but not horrible addition. Over at TFB, a bit on how they should have picked the Glock. I can’t disagree.

Of course, I also don’t disagree with picking the Sig. Or if they’d have picked the M&P. So long as they went with a striker-fired, polymer-framed gun that holds a lot of bullets. And isn’t an XD or Taurus.

This will, and fairly quickly, bring the Sig to the forefront of the plastic gun market for civilians, I would think. So, it’s good for them.

11 Responses to “Army’s new gun, again”

  1. Jamieb Says:

    Whats the issue with the xd ?

  2. Steven Silverstein Says:

    Ok, for you to casually suggest that any aspect of the design, manufacturing and reliability of either the XD or XDm pistol is somehow inferior to that of an M&P, etc., or worse, is in the same lowly class as a crappy “shake-to-fire” Taurus is just plain ignorant. This is your educated opinion based on what?

  3. Ryan Says:

    I’m hoping for some Magpul Pmags for the Sig 320. I know it would be a ways out but $250-$300 surplus Berettas through the CMP would be nice too.

  4. MajMike Says:

    I prefer a pistol with an external safety because of 40+ years experience with the M1911A1. The Springfield XD in .45ACP would’ve been a good choice as is anything manufactured by H&K.

    Guess this choice will cause an upswing in prices for the Sig.

  5. SayUncle Says:

    The grip safety locking up the slide and trigger is a known issue with the XD. And that safety has been known to break, rendering the gun inoperable. And there’s more:

    https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2014/04/22/springfield-xd-hate/

    It’s likely a meh design. But there are are substantially better designs.

  6. FallenAngel Says:

    I’ve fired over 6,000 rounds through my XD-9 Tactical, and have never had a problem with the grip safety. If held improperly (limp wrist), it won’t fire at all, but that’s intentional in the design. I don’t have an XD-45 (will be getting the single stack soon, though), but know many with that, or the XD-40, and they’ve never had any problems, either. And, as for field strip and clean, nothing is easier than one of these. Don’t know what the complaint is about.

  7. B. Malloy Says:

    MajMike, the P320 accepted in the MHS has an external safety.

  8. Tim Says:

    It’s a fine looking firearm and a good concept. And the price of the whole contract doesn’t start with a “B” (for once in our lives).

    However, the “90% pre-tensioned striker” leaves me feeling a little nervous, external safety notwithstanding. It that design characteristic wise?

  9. MajMike Says:

    My Springfield XD .45 is a very pleasant shooting pistol, but may be a challenge for someone with small hands or short fingers. My HK Compact .45 USP is also a good shooter and nearly as compact as a Glock 19.

    If it were me, I’d have selected a Glock chambered for .45ACP. But, so what?

  10. Paul Says:

    Not going to bash any other pistol but will say my 10+ year old XD45 has never failed me . I picked it over Glock etc because it felt the best in my hands and drew to sight picture the quickest .

    Are any of the pistols mentioned “the best” ? Honestly it comes down to how the individual feels with it . I have yet to try the Sig so can’t comment on it . Who knows , it may make me change my mind on my XD . Till then it will be my go to pistol .

  11. Ravenwood Says:

    I’ve shot and carried a Springfield XD45 double stack for nearly 8 years, and I’ve never experienced any sort of failure. It is my primary carry gun, though I have considered switching to the Sig P229.