Why the U.S. Military Picked the Sig Sauer P320 Over the Glock 19X: An Analysis

When it comes to choosing one firearm over another, the decision is often based on a series of nuanced factors. The U.S. military's selection of the Sig Sauer P320 over the Glock 19X in recent years is a prime example. This article will delve into the reasons behind this choice, the performance of both pistols, and the politics that played a part in the decision.

Why You Choose Anything Over Anything Else

Kicking off with a single question: why did the military choose the Sig Sauer P320 over the Glock 19X? This decision wasn't made lightly. Remember, when you choose something over another, it’s not a one-size-fits-all decision. You choose based on personal preference, which is influenced by a variety of factors. It’s a testament to the enduring nature of the Sig P320 and its advantages over its competitors.

The Glocks: Worthless or Just Disappointing?

Many critics, including some within the military, have dismissed Glock pistols as inferior. Common complaints include their plastic feel and the lack of a thumb safety. In defense of Glocks, they have performed admirably in mass shooting scenarios, such as MRBS (Mean Rounds Between Stoppage) and MRBF (Mean Rounds Before Failure) tests. However, the Sig Sauer P320 has emerged as a better choice.

The Military's Choice: Performance Over Preference

The Sig Sauer P320 has shown superior performance over Glock 19X in a variety of tests. According to some analysts, the higher MRBF numbers of the Glock submissions would have outweighed the additional cost over two decades. Yet, military history teaches us that much of the equipment, even if lightly used, ends up in the removal and distribution system (DRMO), never to be worn to the point of failure.

The Sig Sauer P320 is known for its accuracy, cheaper initial cost, and innovative modular subframe. The addition of this feature to the U.S. Army pistol requirements aimed to disqualify Glock from the competition. However, the choice of Sig P320 was not just about its features. It was also about the behind-the-scenes influence that shaped the test requirements, reminiscent of similar impacts seen in past small arms trials. This is an important reminder of the political and business-driven aspects of weapon selection processes.

The Sig Sauer P320 vs. Beretta 92 and HK USP

In comparing the Sig Sauer P320 with other pistol models like the Beretta 92 and HK USP, it becomes clear that Sig made a strategic choice. Both the Beretta and HK USP are superior in their own right. The Sig Sauer P320, while excellent, is not the most perfect option. However, it is "good enough" for the military's needs, which is a significant consideration in any procurement decision.

The Beretta 92 and HK USP both offer features and performance that the Sig Sauer P320 cannot match. The Beretta 92, in particular, is renowned for its reliability and ease of use, while the HK USP is celebrated for its ergonomic design and durability. Despite these advantages, the Sig Sauer P320 was chosen for its unique set of qualities and the political maneuvering that favored its inclusion in the competition.

The Gloves Come Off: The Thumb Safety Controversy

The absence of a thumb safety in Glock 19X was a significant factor in its exclusion. It's worth noting that even the Austrian military, which initially favored the Glock, later added this feature. However, when it came to the U.S. military, it was clear that Glock's refusal to include this essential feature was a decisive factor in its rejection.

It's also important to acknowledge the broader context of the military's decision-making process. The thumb safety requirement was added to the U.S. Army’s pistol requirements, ostensibly to eliminate Glock from the competition, despite feedback from high-ranking officials and special operations units expressing a preference for Glocks. This manipulation of the testing criteria highlighted the influence of vested interests in the decision-making process.

Despite its issues, the Glock 19X is a capable firearm. However, the Sig Sauer P320’s selection was rooted in a mix of performance, policy, and political influence. The decision to pick the Sig Sauer P320 over the Glock 19X is a reflection of the complex interplay between functionality, politics, and business interests in the world of military procurements.