Wednesday, January 25, 2017


I was standing in the Sig booth at SHOT when {REDACTED} tugged on my sleeve and whispered in my ear "Sig won the Army pistol contract. They're going to announce it in twenty minutes."

As far as insider knowledge goes, it's pretty lame, but I was proven wrong in that the Army got a new pistol before Chevy dealerships got a mid-engine Corvette.

It has set off the usual round of pontificating and second-guessing on forums and in blog posts as everybody asserts reasons why their own particular snowflake gun should have been picked. Expect flurries of comments about bore axis and "But plastic!" and grip angle from people who don't shoot, except for the no doubt thousands of flawless rounds their Taurus or whatever has fired. (I'll wager the couple of boxes they tell you it's fired when they're trying to sell it are a lot closer to the true round count than the thousands they claim when arguing on the internet. Logbook or GTFO, Sparky.)

Yeah, I carry a Glock. I've carried an M&P, and I'll probably switch to a P320 in the next couple years when I get bored of working with Glocks. They're pretty much interchangeable and, unlike a lot of other pistols I've sampled over the years, have all been largely trouble-free.

Personally, I think the MHS contest could have been as satisfactorily resolved by throwing a P320, an M&P, and a Glock 17 into a sack, spinning it around a few times, and reaching in and pulling one out. They all work fine, and if there's a less crucial weapon in modern warfare than the pistol, it probably attaches to bayonet lugs.

It will be interesting to see if SOCOM sticks with G19s or if they gradually get replaced by the compact version of the M17. Weaponsman, who is more knowledgeable about these sorts of things than I, has some interesting comments in that direction in the closing paragraphs of this post.