XM17 arrives

| December 14, 2017 | 58 Comments

According to Fox News, the Army’s 101st Airborne Division has taken delivery of the new Sig Sauer XM17 Modular Handgun System (MHS) pistols.

The Sig Sauer 9mm XM17, and the more compact version XM18, are replacing the M9 as the Army’s service pistol.

This is the first change in about three decades since Beretta’s M9 was first introduced as the Army’s sidearm in the Cold War era back in 1986.

Over the next 10 years, the Army will distribute the new handguns to all Army units.

The XM17 is a variant of the civilian P320, one of Sig’s more popular handguns.

I have two Sigs, a Scorpion (carry version) and a Spartan (both in .45) and I’m pleased with their out-of-the-box performance, I have to think that the XM17 is similar. They have to be better than the M9.

Both pistols can be outfitted with suppressors. To attach lasers and lights, there’s an integrated MIL-STD-1913 Picatinny rail.

There’s also self-illuminating night sights for optimum combat effectiveness in challenging light conditions.

The sights on my Scorpion are similar, and they work really well – better than the iron sights on my ancient Remington Rand.

The Army’s intent is to issue the handgun down to Team Leader- and squad leader-level. They expect to buy 195,000 over the next ten years.

Thanks to HMC RET for the link.

Category: Army News

Comments (58)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Vexatious Defendant says:

    Anything SIG works for me … P-220 45 cal, P-229 357 mag, P-226 9 mm.

    • Hondo says:

      Sigs are nice – if you have money to burn. But last time I checked, Uncle Sam was running on goodwill and credit.

      The best solution is one you can afford.

      • Some Guy says:

        Nah, Uncle Donny gave the DoD a nice Christmas bonus this year. We can afford a couple of pistols for the Joes.
        True, one day I or my kids (or my kid’s kids) will have to finally pay the piper, but that’s a problem for future Some Guy. Present Some Guy is just happy about his new toys.
        /s

        • The Other Whitey says:

          After all the Christmas, New Year’s, President’s Day, Easter, Labor Day, and Black History Month bonuses the former Glorious Leader handed out to people who do absolutely nothing, it’s only fair.

  2. JacktheJarhead says:

    I have fired a number of SIG P320 and they are excellent guns. The sights are excellent and the triggers are better out of the box than most polymer framed guns. one of these days I have to add a SIG to my collection. Probably this one.

    • Old Trooper says:

      My buddy has one and ever since he let my wife squeeze off a few rounds, she is all sorts of whipped up to get her own.

      She says she still likes my Commander size 1911, but she wants the SIG. I think I’m a little jealous.

      • JacktheJarhead says:

        Funny, my buddies wife loves my Commander in .38 Super. She currently carries a VP9 but keeps on him to get her a Commander.

        The P320 is an excelent gun, I carry a Glock 19 and the only reason I have not purchased P320 for carry is that I have Pre-Ban normal capacity magazines for the 19. I live behind enemy lines in the PRM.

  3. Hondo says:

    Hmm. Looks a helluva lot like a Ruger SR9 with a Picatinny rail, brown cerakote, and tritium sights added.

    Contract is for 10 years and $508M – to procure roughly 421,000 pistols for all 4 services. That works out to an average unit cost of nearly $1400 each ($1377+ each, to be precise).

    Somehow, I’m thinking that Ruger (or Springfield or S&W) could have done something along these lines for somewhere around $500 a pop. I’ve see the SR9 recently in the $350 range – quantity 1, shipped.

    • TxRadioguy says:

      Hondo,

      From early reports I’ve read they are getting them at $200 per unit (gun) and they are getting a mix of the full size (M17) and the Compact (M18). A lot of that cost will be spares, extra magazines, parts etc. Plus IIRC that includes the initial ammo contract as well.

      The rest of the services (minus the Marines) have signaled they will switch to the new Sig as well sometime in the next few years.

      I’ve got the compact as my EDC and I live it. Straight shooter…not much recoil. I’d rather shoot it than the Beretta’s I’ve tried to qualify on in the past.

      • The Other Whitey says:

        That makes a bit more sense.

      • Hondo says:

        Love to see your sources for that. That info doesn’t square with published accounts of the contract (I cited one above) – which specifies a 10 year period of performance, total contract value of $508M, and total number procured (between both models) of 421,000.

        Remember: PMs often play games with cost. Classical one is to quote “flyaway cost” (essentially the incremental cost of producing one more) vice what Uncle Sam actually pays, which is the full loaded unit cost (includes program overhead, test/eval costs, spare parts/tools, training, etc . . . . ).

        $508M contract cost / 421,000 units = $1,377+ each. Unless and until someone shows better numbers, I’ll accept that as actual.

        • TxRadioguy says:

          Yes sir. Here ya go.

          http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/01/24/grapevine-us-army-pays-207-per-pistol-sig-sauer-m17-modular-handguns/

          https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/01/analysis-us-army-chooses-sig-320-as-new-pistol/

          That’s the two main articles I rely on for my information on this. I’ll dig a little more and talk to my friends down at AMU and see if they have any different info.

          But from everything I’ve read in the media it’s going to be roughly $200 per gun.

          And yeah you’re right there does seem to always be a bit of bait and switch in any procurement contract the military does.

          • Hondo says:

            Well, as long as you’re willing to accept “anonymous sources” as gospel, I guess that’s fine. But I’d prefer to see the actual numbers – so they can be analyzed.

            Frankly, I’d doubt that bigtime. Per your second article, the normal cost of a commercial P320 is around $700 each – and adding RFID and a manual safety would likely add to that. I don’t see any way that bulk sales could result in a unit cost of $207 for an item that normally sells for over 3 times that – and which would require multiple mods from the commercial item to meet contract requirements.

            It also brings up an interesting question: since the contract’s value is $580M and 421,000 units at a cost of $207 each only accounts for a bit less than $87.15M, what in the heck is the other half-billion on that contract intended to buy? Holsters, spare parts, etc . . . can be pricey – but collectively they aren’t generally THAT pricey (over 5x the cost of the basic weapon). Only things I can think of that would eat that kind of $$$ might be a suppressor or high-end optics – and I’m pretty sure that not every weapon will have those kinds of expensive accessories, either.

            It will certainly be interesting to see what the average procurement unit cost for the M-17 and M-18 really turns out to be.

            • TxRadioguy says:

              Could part of that cost get eaten up by the ammo contract? I know that Sig is teaming with Winchester to provide the ammo and from the pics I’ve seen They are teasing us with the possibility of using JHP rounds in the new guns.

              I know just from gathering info from stuff I find open source that they are talking threaded barrel options for silencers…Romeo 1 optics and even the X Change kits so they can take the fire control unit out of a 9mm and drop it into say a .40 S&W or .45 ACP frame. Those frames on the open market run about $300…when you can find them in stock.

              Plus there’s the different capacity magazines for them. Anywhere from 15-19 rounds. IIRC the full size will come with 17 round magazines.

              I’m sure Sig will nickel and dime the DoD to death with stuff that’s not included in the contract.

              But they still…whatever the actual cost turns out to be…came in lower than Glock and the others.

            • USMC Steve says:

              I have no idea where you got your prices there, but at the four gun stores I was seeing them at, the SIG P320C was going for a touch over $550.00 plus tax.

          • Hondo says:

            Addendum: if the alleged $207 cost doesn’t include at least one magazine, it’s misleading as hell if not outright dishonest. A magazine-fed weapon without at least one magazine isn’t particularly useful.

        • OldSoldier54 says:

          “Remember: PMs often play games with cost.”

          Nefarious is the kindest word I can find to describe these two-faced thieves.

        • desertdweller says:

          Don’t question prices…how else are corrupt politicians going to line their pockets?

    • The Other Whitey says:

      My Kimber 1911 ran $1400 new. Of course it’s a great gun that runs flawlessly and (I think) really was worth the money. As a taxpayer, I hope this SIG is a worthwhile investment, but that seems like an awful lot of money for a polymer gun. For comparison, my full-size XD .45 cost about $500.

  4. TxRadioguy says:

    One more thing, there was a 5 year competition between Sig, Beretta, FN and Glock for the new gun as well. All four of the manufacturers are going to release to the public, if they haven’t already, civilian models of the guns they submitted for the MHS competition.

  5. Boomer Sooner says:

    I’m still in law enforcement and have the option to carry my personal weapon (provided I qualify). I carry the Beretta 92FS, which is basically the M9 with a modified trigger. I love it. I also carry a Sig P239 and P229. Both are .40, the only difference is the P239 is a single stack 7rd magazine for a slimmer profile for concealed carry.

    Personally I’ll take my Beretta any day of the week. I shoot better with it since I’ve used it for nearly 20 years. The Sig’s are excellent weapons as well.

  6. OldManchu says:

    Goodbye M9 Beretta. I’ll always remember you as this….

  7. HMCS(FMF) ret says:

    As the guys I went to high school and lived in the barrio would say… “that piece looks CHOICE, ese!”

  8. Fjardeson says:

    I have a P239 and absolutely love it. SIGs, IMHO, are some of the best pistols made.

  9. 26Limabeans says:

    They should mold a take down scratch in it just for nostalgia sake.

  10. Graybeard says:

    I want – but have not been able to convince the CFO to let me purchase – the SIG P320.

    My EDC is a full-sized P220. That is fine for cold weather where it is acceptable to be wearing a coat/jacket, but hard during the summer.

    But I love the way a SIG runs. Mine has the Triton sights and I’ve added a Crimson Trace red laser on the rail (had to make my own holster to carry that combo) and the only question when I pull the trigger is “are my sights aligned on the target correctly” – if so, the bullet goes where it is supposed to with no problems. With my older eyes those sights make things easy – and in a hurry that laser sure helps.

    Military procurement is rife with added costs, we all know that. And SIGs ain’t cheap. But having a weapon which will go bang when it needs to go bang is worth it, IMHO.

  11. 11B-Mailclerk says:

    Considering how many small-statured ladies I have seen shoot 1911s -well-, I still do not see the “improvement” in a 9.

    • Graybeard says:

      Maybe some, but not all.
      My daughter-in-law could not even find a 9mm that fit her hands. She had to drop to a .380 to get something she could shoot.
      Her daughter may just have the hands for a 9mm and some .45ACPs including 1911s, maybe.
      It is my impression (which, of course, can very well be a wrong impression) that there are more folks who can easily handle a 9mm – especially one which has a grip that can be adapted to various hand-sizes – than can handle the .45ACPs.

      Dad would tell the story of teaching my mother to shoot after WWII using a .22. Then he gave her a Walther P38 and forgot to warn her about the recoil. She fired it once, and never picked it up again. Even a 9mm was a bit much for her liking.

      I know the military is a “one-size-fits-all or else!” organization, but back in the World some size differences are acknowledged.

      For Clarity: I am not accusing you, 11B, of overlooking this factoid.

      • JacktheJarhead says:

        My daughter is not huge, 5′ 5″ and 120 soaking wet, she has no problem with most 9mm pistols, she hates the .40 and likes the 1911. She also is overly fond of my H&K P7, she ain’t getting that.

        If you bring someone up slow, male or female, they can handle most firearms.

        • The Other Whitey says:

          Mrs. Whitey is a skinny Asian chick with tiny little hands who can shoot a 1911. It looks comically huge in her hands, but so does her full-size .38 wheelgun.

          • Graybeard says:

            All I can go on is what my beloved daughter-in-law tells me.

            In her hands anything over a .380 hurts – causing flinching.

            I’d rather she shoot accurately in a pinch than be flinching. A .380 in the chest beats a .45ACP in the air.

            • 11B-Mailclerk says:

              I respect that “some is not all”. Most of the ” 1911 ladies” I know put the pre A1 short trigger in the 1911.

              I was speaking of military use, or other ” duty gun” use. From your post, I inferred “private carry”. Carry what -works- for -you- is a key concept there.

              Arthritis will also lead to down-sizing, as can injury. At one point, mid-range .22s hurt to shoot. My .44 mag days are long past.

              I think ladies that genuinely serve, combatively, are far more able to use a .45 than some would admit. 9mm ammo is cheaper, and easier to shoot. I suspect that figures in somewhere, since most folks carrying a sidearm in uniform spend -lots- more time qualifying than actually shooting folks with a pistol. Rifles generally work better, and given the option an M2 .50 is high on my list of preferred fighting irons. Radio-fu is nice, also. But these days I an an IT geek, prefer a revolver, and .45 works for me.

            • The Other Whitey says:

              All very true.

    • desertdweller says:

      A couple of things, 9mm is cheaper and more available….and smaller, you can carry a lot more ammo..imho

  12. Atkron says:

    MHS…We just can’t call a sidearm a pistol any more?

    I wonder how much more a Modular Handgun System costs compared to just a handgun.

    Reminds me of half the local businesses that use ‘Solutions’ as part of their name.

    • David says:

      In fairness – this particular pistol has interchangeable grips panels to make it able to fit larger or smaller hands, threaded and non-threaded barrels available for suppressed or non-suppressed operation, different capacity magazines, and can be interchanged between 9mm and .40. It’s ‘way more versatile at a unit lvel than either the M9 or M1911.

    • The Other Whitey says:

      Personally, I think “US Pistol, Caliber 9mm, M17” sounds a lot cooler than any “joint system” buzzword bullshit, but I don’t write congressional budget proposals.

  13. rgr769 says:

    Is this going to be one of those dangerous SIG’s that shoots on its own, like the one that killed Kate Steinle? Because we know some GI’s will forget to engage the manual safety with a round in the chamber.

  14. RM3(SS) says:

    Got one for early Christmas~full size in .40 cal. Shoots really well, have the conversion kits on order. You can convert it to 9mm, .357 Sig and .40 in 3 different sizes. Because of the mag well you can’t convert it to .45. Once I get the sub compact kit in it will be my EDC.

  15. Ex-PH2 says:

    Golly, all this talk of guns ‘n’ ammo is confusing. I went some place to get some cigars and they had some long-barrled six-shooters in a display case. I wondered if something like that would act as a deterremt to a carjacker, if you pull it out and say ‘My gun’s bigger than your gun. Bye-bye’.

    But that’s just me. 🙂

  16. Devtun says:

    In no time butter bars and spec 4s will be treating it like a hammer or pry bar.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *