Top Menu

Sig Sauer Wins Contract to Become Standard-Issue U.S. Army Sidearm

After 30 years of service as the U.S. Army’s standard-issue sidearm, Beretta is about to make way for a new generation of pistol. And this generation belongs to Sig Sauer.

Sig Sauer has been selected to have its P320 replace the M9 handgun. According to industry news site Military.com, the 10-year contract for the Sig Sauer is worth $580 million and will include both full-size and compact models.

A search for a replacement handgun for the U.S. army began well over a decade ago amid concerns the service pistol chambered for a 9mm round didn’t have enough stopping power. Over twenty companies submitted designs, including American Outdoor Brands, Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Glock and FN America.

Over time, the finalists were whittled down to just a handful, and when Smith & Wesson announced last year that it and partner General Dynamics had been eliminated from contention, its stock took a major hit — even though the gun maker had never included revenues from the proposed Army contract in its guidance.

In December, the army narrowed the field to just two companies, Glock and Sig Sauer. In doing this, the army eliminated rejecting Beretta’s new APX platform as a replacement for the M9. Glock submitted its models 17 and 19 for consideration, though the Army ultimately chose the P320.

And while it was believed the Army was looking for a more muscular round than the 9mm, and the P320 can be converted between 9mm, .357SIG, and .40S&W, Military.com says a source revealed the 9mm has been chosen once again.

The announcement of the new contract came at last week’s SHOT Show in Las Vegas. It was reported Sig representatives broke out champagne when told, but the way the news broke was apparently a bit unorthodox. Glock first heard it lost when members of the media told them. Glock is expected to appeal the decision because when you also include the ammunition as part of the contract, its value mushrooms to around $1.2 billion.

, , , , , ,

19 Responses to Sig Sauer Wins Contract to Become Standard-Issue U.S. Army Sidearm

  1. Kent February 3, 2017 at 9:44 am #

    Well that is stsndard government logic, we need a need weapon because the existing 9mm does not have sufficient stopping power. So we now choose a 9 mm dig sayer.

    Let’s see, keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. Definition of what???

    • Old Hickory February 3, 2017 at 3:57 pm #

      Well said, Kent. Why didn’t they settle for a .45?

    • Terrence MacArthur February 17, 2017 at 3:56 am #

      So it took 30 years for the REMFs at DCSLOG in Arlington to realize that a 9mm is a piece of crap in combat situations, where a pistol is only going to be used in pretty close up situations so accuracy at a distance is moot, which was already the case even before so many of the Tangos had body armor. So, naturally, they decided on another 9mm. Hey, people, did you ever wonder why so many people in all branches of Spec Ops did their best to stay with the 1911, even to the extent, in some cases, of letting contracts for new 1911s after you switched to the Beretta? Wake up and smell the coffe, idiots. In combat, no pistol with a caliber that doesn’t start a 4 has enough stopping power to reliably save your life. But, then again, you’re the direct lineal descendants of thefoolss who sent us to Vietnam with ammo made with powder which the M16’s manufacturer had told you wouldn’t work because it didn’t burn clean enough. left too much residue, and would cause too many malfunctions. Is there some disease that peolpe catch at CGSC, or does your family have some genetic defect in the part of your DNA that controls your abiity to think logically and rationally, and leaves you preferring logistical “efficiency” and the resultant saving of money over the saving of soldiers? The more things change, the more they remain the same. Even after 5 decades.

    • BBob Best(sep.SFC,ILARNG) February 21, 2017 at 6:10 pm #

      If I wanted to carry a .45 it would not be a 1911 with such limited capacity, but rather a Glock 21 ! They run in any conditions and the mags carry more rounds! I, too, wonder why make a changein pistols if staying with the same caliber? I will admit that I was never as accurate with the Beretta as I am with a Glock. I also understand that one can carry more 9mm than .45 cal. of equal weight. That being said, why do so many combat troops and the Spec. Ops want the .45? These folks know more about “real” than Pentagon Brass and Gov’t. bean counters!

  2. GEORGE CHRISTIE February 3, 2017 at 9:47 am #

    THE BERETTA IS AN EXCELLANT PISTOL AND IT JUST SEEMS A TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY TO REPLACE THAT PISTOL W/ A NEW PLATFORM, NO MATTER WHO THE MANUFACTURER, UNLESS THE CARTRIDGE IS ALSO AN UPGRADE. ANOTHER POLITICALLY MOTIVATED DECISION THAT DOES NOT IMPROVE THE POSITION OF THE US COMBAT SOLDIER! WITH ALL THE PROTECTIVE GEAR OPPOSING COMBATANTS HAVE AT THEIR DISPOSAL, IT IS FOOLISH TO CONTINUE ISSUING 9MM.

    • Brian Walsh February 3, 2017 at 1:08 pm #

      I agree the Beretta is a decent weapon for what it is, but it was a poor performer in the desert. I carried one in Afghanistan and Iraq, and believe me…it does not work well in that environment. You can’t keep the slide oiled because with all the dirt and dust, it gums up. Fortunately, I took plenty of Remington Dry Lube with me, so that helped. The same can be said for the M-4 rifle. I have owned Berettas, Sigs and Glocks. They are all great weapons, but personally I like Glock best for combat purposes. If you tear a Glock up, then you have accomplished a major challenge. They work no matter what. I’ve seen them frozen in a block of ice, submerged in mud, dragged down the road behind a truck, thrown out of a 5 story window onto concrete, and saw a representative park a Ford F-250 on one all day. The Glocks still functioned after all of those torture tests. I highly doubt that Beretta and Sig can do the same. I agree that the military needs to go back to the .45 acp and get as far away from the 9mm as possible. Again, speaking from experience, the 115 grain ball ammo is nowhere near as effective as a 230 grain .45 round.

      • Old Hickory February 3, 2017 at 4:04 pm #

        Yeah on that, Brian! I have to carry the issued M9 and the issued M4. I would much rather be issued a Colt .45 1911 and the good old A1 M16 I used to carry rather than what I am forced to use.

        • Terrence MacArthur February 17, 2017 at 4:10 am #

          All that’s why now that I don’t go to work in Army green anymore my two pistols are a Milspec 1911A1 with 2 spare 8 round mags and, for when location and weather make concealement harder, a Glock 27 (.40 cal baby Glock) with 2 spare Glock 22 mags..

  3. Richard Parks February 3, 2017 at 10:26 am #

    MCAnother case of political philantrify. 9MM has proven it is NOT a weaSpon for our military. Whose the promoter that will reap $$$$ over this phony deal. The USMC tried 9 but went back to 45 cal. Colt I believe is still an Americqn company and has great luck with 1911 series.

  4. Bayou Castine February 3, 2017 at 11:26 am #

    Has anyone asked hospital ER personnel how many “walk-ins” wounded with the ‘vaulted’ 9mm compared to those wounded with the 45 APC they’ve treated? The stats I’ve seen indicate many more “walking wounded” treatments caused by the 9 vs. the 45.

    Seems to me that and actual battlefield experience would be the true “field of fire”. [No pun intended.]

  5. Ken Wall February 3, 2017 at 11:29 am #

    It doesn’t matter what handgun they choose. Until the military decides to put some emphasis on marksmanship training, nothing will change.

  6. LARRY L. February 3, 2017 at 1:59 pm #

    I agree w/ Ken Wall, as long as todays soldier thinks all he has to do is spray the country side w/ bullets instead of aiming & hiting, the cal. does not matter. Learn from the Marines .

  7. Marvin Zeichner February 3, 2017 at 2:56 pm #

    What’s wrong with the 45acp? The stopping power is much greater than 9mm. It was a big success during the war.

  8. Jimmy February 3, 2017 at 3:08 pm #

    I have a Sig P320c in .357 sig I think it has a lot more power than the 9mm. I have a Beretta.357 sig and a M&P Smith & Wesson in .357 sig I love them ! But it is still a 9mm bullet.I think that the Military should go with the >357sig round

  9. Les Burns February 3, 2017 at 6:00 pm #

    I have the Sig P320. I easily convert it to from 9mm to Sig .357 or .40 caliber, depending on what I’m doing. It’s a very versatile firearm. Great choice Army.

    • Terrence MacArthur February 17, 2017 at 4:34 am #

      You’ve missed the point entirely, and I seriously doubt you’ve ever been in ground combat. It’s a totally different world than it is in civiian life, even civilian police. Do you rsally think the Army is going to buy, along with every 9mm P320, the barrel, slide, and mag that is the conversion kit, which retails for about $400? Be real. Nor will they allow any soldier to buy his own conversion kit and convert his issue P230 to .357 or .45. Anyone who did that would find himself up on charges in a heartbeat.

      Why do ypu think the Marines and most all Spec Ops units dumped the Berretta right away and went back to the 1911? The Sig may well be more reliable in certain conditions than is the Beretta, but the problem (and it’s a big one) with the Army’s P320 is not the pistol itself, it’s the fact that they’re getting it in 9mm. And the reason for that, as it was with the Beretta, is no doubt ammo compatibility with NATO militaries (who all use 9mm) istead of combat efffectiveness and soldier survival.

  10. aj houk February 4, 2017 at 3:20 am #

    I think that armed service should be just that, every body should carry a firearm all the time, than maybe we won’t have a another fort bliss tragedy or any place else, by firearm I mean side arm.

  11. Terrence MacArthur February 17, 2017 at 4:45 am #

    Unfortunstly, the ethos in the US military is that soldiers shouldn’t be armed unless actually performing specific duty that specifically requires it. Even MPs have to go to the arms room to draw their sidearms before duty shifts, and turn them back in at the end of shift. And even in combat zones, soldiers’ arms are kept locked up in the arms room if they’re back at base, except sometimes if it’s a small forward base that’s subject to attack 24/7. And, unfortunately. almost all soldiers are not trained to be armed except when under the control of a superior. The vast majority just don’t have the necessary training to let them keep their weapons all the time, or even the means to safeguard those weapons when they’re, for example, sleeping.

  12. Terrence MacArthur February 17, 2017 at 4:51 am #

    And I can’t type for spit. And I think I typed P230 instead of P320 in some comments, and didn’t spot it (or some other typos) before clicking submit. Sorry ’bout that.

Leave a Reply