The Army’s New Sig Sauer M17 Handgun (P320) Is Having Major Problems
BY Herschel Smith
6 years, 9 months ago
Early evaluations of the Army’s new handgun, the M17, last year showed test failures when the pistol was fired with the standard ball ammunition, stoppages, and double ejections.
Those findings were revealed in a recently published report by the Defense Department’s Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation. The office reviews major programs across the Defense Department.
[ … ]
The Pentagon report noted the following problems:
- Double ejections of an unspent ball ammunition round along with a spent round during firing.
- A higher number of stoppages experienced by shooters with both the XM17 and XM18 handguns when fired with ball ammunition as compared to the special purpose ammunition.
- Both weapons failed to meet the Mean Rounds Between Stoppage reliability requirement with ball ammunition.
- Two trigger-splintering incidents that officials believe were related to an engineering change made by Sig Sauer to correct a drop test deficiency in which testers saw the weapon fire when dropped.
- More than half of the stoppages reported were likely caused by use of the Army Marksmanship Unit’s “high pistol grip” method, which can result in the shooter engaging the slide catch lever and cause the slide not to lock in the rear position.
Ridiculous. Everyone should have a “high pistol grip.” They are also having to do this because of the tall slide and high bore axis, and thus the muzzle flip this firearm produces because of the couple, something I pointed out when the Army selected this pistol.
As for not being able to shoot FMJ lead ball, that seems like a real problem. Double ejections are also a big problem, and firing when dropped makes this firearm completely unacceptable. Funny, this. I never have any problems with any of these things or any other failures with my 1911s, or with my new CMMG .45 ACP AR pistol. I just won’t accept failures. It’s a machine, and it can be designed and fabricated properly (although I’ll have to say that it’s hard to beat what John Moses Browning did and I don’t think anybody has even come close yet).
Here is the right way to roll out new software.[1] Set functional requirements, [2] programmers go to work, [3] put high end users in a room with it and tell them to break it, [4] repeat parts [2] and [3] until no more breakages. Only after this do you roll it out to the user community.
The Army should have taken this approach prior to selecting a new pistol. This must be embarrassing for them. It should be.
|
|
On February 2, 2018 at 7:43 am, Frank Clarke said:
“Here is the right way to roll out new software.[1] Set functional requirements, [2] programmers go to work, [3] put high end users in a room with it and tell them to break it, [4] repeat parts [2] and [3] until no more breakages.”
I can tell a funny (to some; gruesome to others) story about amateurs doing [2] and professionals doing [3] with cycle times ranging from 6 minutes to 3 hours. The following day the testers packed up and left saying “call us back when YOU can’t break it”. I retired two months later and they still hadn’t called us back.
On February 2, 2018 at 11:45 am, soapweed said:
Remedial concepts. ‘Army of one FU after another’ —-almost a half sister to the air force and navy….
On February 2, 2018 at 11:47 am, Herschel Smith said:
@soapweed,
Now that comment caused a chuckle.
On February 2, 2018 at 12:20 pm, Towser said:
You’re dreaming Herschel. The nerds that build software rarely even THINK about the end user. For example, I’m using a once popular ecommerce platform that defaults to “free shipping” on all new products. They finally revised the entire platform, asking, nearly begging for input. I offered suggestions I’d value in the thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars. They implemented none of them. Instead they packed the platform so full of javascript it is now almost unusable. The backoffice screen alone eats up 70 percent of the viewing area with another subscript that stays stationary so certain changes are nearly impossible to make.
While this is a nightmare-case scenario, time and time again, software rolls out that totally ignores actual functionality in favor of bells and whistles.
On February 2, 2018 at 12:26 pm, Herschel Smith said:
@Towser,
I described the right way to roll out software. Rarely is it ever done the right way.
On February 2, 2018 at 1:42 pm, Duke Norfolk said:
Wow. I’m not a gun expert, by any means. But it’s beyond my comprehension how there could be this much trouble with a semi-auto pistol in the current year. Really? It’s not exactly a new weapon system type.
Is this a Sig Sauer FU? (I’m not too familiar other than to know that they’re a generally reputable company – at least I thought so.)
On February 3, 2018 at 2:57 am, J said:
My 3 Original 320’s are running 100% with No Malfunctions.
Hmmmmmm?
But You(R)ube “Gunsmiths” told us something was wrong with them.
Hmmmmmm?
So Sig was shamed to change them by You(R)ube “Gunsmiths”
Hmmmmmm?
No we read The Armytimes article, by Highly Qual'(D) Rubes.
Hmmmmmm?
Say’s
320 Certed Armorer.
With ZERO Plans to Modify my Perfectly Functioning 320’s
On February 4, 2018 at 9:23 am, Heywood said:
“Wow, what a shock, the Government really screwed that up.”
Nobody Ever