F.B.I. Selects New Duty Pistol!

Comments

1. Richard says

   November 1, 2015 at 8:51 pm

   Interesting analysis. The P320 certainly seems to fit the RFP. I will note that S&W has a Gen 2 M&P pistol in development for the US Army testing. I expect we will see that released at SHOT Show due to the timing of the US Army’s RFP. It is possible that S&W might also be able to tailor the new pistol (or a variation) for the FBI RFP.

   • Aaron says

     November 2, 2015 at 1:45 pm

     You’re not the first to suggest the S&W M&P line could be slightly modified to meet the criteria. It will be interesting to see if S&W brings their Gen 2 to SHOT – I hope they do! Others have suggested the M&P Pro line as the full size, with the standard M&P line as the compact. There is another issue with the Pro that would require a change. The Pro front sight is fiber optic, and FBI wants a metal sight capable of withstanding slide racking for one-handed reloading.

   • Rusty Shackleford says

     November 5, 2015 at 1:04 pm

     Thats assuming the FBI won’t arbitrarily find something else to disqualify it…like a hinging trigger.
     Somebody high up wants the 320.

     • Richard says

       November 6, 2015 at 11:13 am

       You are absolutely correct. When the RFP are submitted, the agency will go through them with a fine toothed comb and toss out the ones they don’t want based on not meeting the standards, whether true or not. That’s one of the reasons why there are so many lawsuits related to contract awards and why the process is a bit of a joke.

2. VoterID4Me says

   November 2, 2015 at 12:47 pm

   “Barrel lengths between the two classes of pistol shall not be closer than 0.5”.”

   Disqualifies the current Glock 17/19. Would need to use the longer barrel from the Glock 17A.

   • Aaron says

     November 2, 2015 at 1:25 pm

     Like I said the FBI seems to have tailor made their RFP for the Sig P320, spending a lot of time to ensure that the requirements disqualify the other manufacturers – including Glock, which they currently carry. Some have suggested that Glock use their Gen 2 frame to meet the “no finger grooves” requirement. They could then offer a longer barrel/slide on a “new” model. It will be interesting to see how the other manufacturers respond. $80 million is a huge deal, but if the cards are stacked against you … not sure how much R&D money a company wants to throw down in a losing effort.

3. John Sabatini says

   November 2, 2015 at 12:49 pm

   Looks like if s&w can get their trigger pull where it needs to be they could just submit the m&p pro 5″ as the full size and the regular m&p as the compact

   • Aaron says

     November 2, 2015 at 1:43 pm

     John, I forgot to add the sights specifications as well. The FBI wants a metal front sight, capable of sustaining the force of using the sight as a slide racking for one-handed reloads. The current M&P Pro uses a fiber optic front sight that does not meet that standard. That is a quick fix for S&W, but one more hurdle. (I’ve added the sights requirements to the article)

4. doninla says

   November 2, 2015 at 7:39 pm

   Interesting, no requirements for group size.

   • Aaron says

     November 2, 2015 at 8:44 pm

     True, though handguns are not usually as specific as rifles.

   • Rusty Shackleford says

     November 5, 2015 at 1:10 pm

     Thats because modern pistols are more accurate than most shooters.
     I can hit a IPSC target at 75 yards with my friends Les Baer. I certainly can’t achieve 3 inch groups like the maker guarantees.

     • doninla says

       November 5, 2015 at 5:39 pm

       Not all guns are built equally. Not all guns are equally accurate. It should be a consideration.

       • Rusty Shackleford says

         November 5, 2015 at 11:09 pm

         To a degree. 99% of the FBI agents don’t have the skill to match the inherent accuracy of modern pistols.

         • doninla says

           November 5, 2015 at 11:16 pm

           Really? Have you ever shot against FBI agents is a IPSIC match? I have. 99%…wow ?. Lets say you choice was a Walther 99 vs a Korean made K9 for $135.00 on sale?

           My 1911s all hold an inch at 50 meters.

           Go back and read about why the FBI helped invent he 40. You just might get smarter and realize they are repeating the same mistakes they made 30 years ago.

         • KendahlCS says

           November 6, 2015 at 11:06 am

           Remember that you are shooting against the ones interested enough to compete. The real test is the FBI’s qualification to be an agent.

         • doninla says

           November 7, 2015 at 3:17 pm

           That was not exactly what I was saying. There should have been SOME accuracy requirement. There should also be a reliability requirement. The USMC went with a 1911. This happened after testing and selection. I’m not suggesting that for the FBI, I’m just observing how one group tested the guns and made a selection, the other wrote specs to fit a preconceived idea of who they wanted to buy from

         • Richard says

           November 6, 2015 at 11:11 am

           FBI agents, as a whole, are not super human shooters. They are humans with all of the failings thereof. Many don’t even like shooting.

           The group you shoot against in IPSC matches are a very small subset (most likely far below 1% of the whole population group). You cannot make any accurate generalizations about the whole population based on a small group who participates in a shooting game.

           I don’t think anyone is suggesting the FBI consider the Korean gun you mentioned, and it is a silly comparison to make. I think Rusty is making the argument that potential accuracy beyond a certain point is largely relevant as very few people could shoot to that level and ever be in the position where it was needed. And in this, I completely agree with him.

         • Rusty Shackleford says

           November 7, 2015 at 10:05 pm

           Richard said it. You’re shooting against people who care enough to exceed the bare minimum the FBI sets forth. Requirements that aren’t all that difficult. If you can hold 1 inch groups at 50 meters with your 1911, I’m very impressed. However, there are very few that can actually do that.

           As for the pistol accuracy requirement. They’ll be better served demanding accuracy out of the shooter than the gun. My old man can hold 1 inch groups at 25 yards with any decent pistol you’ll give him within two mags. My groups with a Glock are very much different than a USP…but he still gets the same groups.

5. John Hawk says

   November 2, 2015 at 11:13 pm

   It’s a damn shame that we can not buy American! So sad!

6. Bob Owens says

   November 2, 2015 at 11:29 pm

   Variants of some of the firearms being considered for the Army’s Modular Handgun System (MHS) contract seem to fit these criteria as well. The Sig P320 is indeed one fit, but so are the Beretta APX and Detonics STX.

   • Aaron says

     November 3, 2015 at 9:22 am

     Bob that is true, but if my sources are correct those variants are not in full production yet. The Army’s handgun trials will take some time to complete. The FBI RFP is expecting production-ready models to be presented so an immediate purchase can be made once the selection is finalized.

     It will be interesting to see if one or more of the manufacturers ramps up production on their Army trial handguns on the chance they get the FBI contract.

   • Aaron E says

     December 8, 2015 at 10:23 pm

     Bob,

     The Beretta APX should do well for those who enjoy Beretta’s and like the striker fired system. They’re a little late to the game on this style pistol, but I still think they’ll do O.K.

     However, the APX as announced is eliminated for:
     Barrel length – 4.25″ (FBI requires 4.26″)
     Finger grooves on frame – FBI prohibits.

     The Detonics STX is also another interseting pistol, that should raise many eyebrows when finally released to market.

     However as announced the STX is eliminated for:
     Barrel length – 4.25″ (FBI required 4.26″)
     Rear sight – angled, (FBI requires flat edge for one-handed loading drills)
     External safety – appears to have 1911 style frame safety (FBI does not allow)
     Finger grooves on frame – possibly – for the indent underneath the trigger guard

7. GT Strickland says

   November 3, 2015 at 2:52 pm

   Having worked with the FAR for over 30 years, it appears that someone is gaming the system so the only possible winner would be SSP320. Why is 14 rounds the minimum? What is magical about that number? Did the FBI do a study that says 14 rounds of 9mm is only scenario that works? The gun manufacturers need to push back on the validity of the requirements.

   • Aaron says

     November 3, 2015 at 6:27 pm

     Agreed GT, agreed! The FBI could narrow the requirements down to 4-5 manufacturers and let the cards fall where they may. Having worked in government for nearly 20 years I know how someone in charge can pick a favorite, and then work to make that the choice. That’s one thing if you’re picking a new coffee maker for the office, but when a $80 million contract is at hand – the rules are established on the government to ensure they bid multiple offers to get the “Best” and most affordable option.

8. Jeff says

   November 4, 2015 at 11:28 am

   Looks like what is know as a restrictive specification, meaning that it eliminates competing products in favor of the favored product, without saying that it’s a noncompetitive or sole source procurement. While there are sometimes legal reasons and methods to use sole source procurement, pretending that it is a competitive procurement is not one of them.

9. John says

   November 4, 2015 at 5:13 pm

   M&P9 Pro meets the requirements.

   • Aaron E says

     November 11, 2015 at 1:48 am

     The fiber optic front sight does not. I also have to admit that the overall 8.5″ in length – probably a deal killer. Remember they’re going to the 9mm to reduce recoil – smaller agents. Trying to strap a long pistol on your hip defeats the benefits it may bring.

10. James Wegman says

    November 5, 2015 at 10:23 am

    The FBI hasn’t picked a fire arm that has made it happy in over 50 years. Whatever they pick, I’ll stay away from!

    • El Mac says

      November 30, 2015 at 11:21 am

      Bullcrap.

    • Smiddywesson says

      December 2, 2015 at 4:16 pm

      I was rather fond of the Model 13, and you could drive tacks with the 1076 10mm. Some people just had problems handling the big grips and extra recoil, it didn’t make it a bad gun. In fact, I’d say the 10mm is the best semi auto caliber out there, excluding the most holy of holies, the 460 Rowland.

11. Rusty Shackleford says

    November 5, 2015 at 1:19 pm

    This is far from a competitive contract. Most of these are arbitrary requirements and how strange the sig p320 conveniently satisfies their more random requirements.

12. KendahlCS says

    November 6, 2015 at 12:15 pm

    Compared to heavier calibers, 9 mm has advantages of lower recoil and larger capacity. Reduction in effectiveness is minimal to nonexistent. That makes 9 mm a wise choice.

    Replaceable grip components are necessary to accommodate a range of hand sizes. Finger grooves work against this.

    A rail is needed to mount accessories.

    A heavy trigger degrades shooter performance. Unfortunately, the RFP ignores trigger quality which is even more important. The learning curve is steeper for DA/SA than for DA only.

    Current thinking is that a trigger safety is adequate. Others, including magazine disconnect, are excessive.

    Any double stack magazine is big enough.

    Other specifications, such as size and barrel length, seem arbitrary and irrelevant. The RFP goes into excessive detail about the difference between full size and compact pistols but ignores subcompacts which could be the best choice for some agents. It also ignores the height of the bore axis which affects the time needed to reacquire a sight picture.

    The RFP does look like it was written to exclude everything but the P320. A better approach would have been to leave room for several candidates. Conduct shooting tests with about 100 agents who cover the full range of size and shooting skill. Record their qualitative comments in addition to test scores. No matter how one goes about it, the final decision is a judgment call.

13. doninla says

    November 7, 2015 at 3:43 pm

    Let’s ask the obvious question.. HOW MUCH DID SIG pay ant to who for this selection!

    • El Mac says

      November 30, 2015 at 11:20 am

      Sig has NOT been selected, despite what this article alleges.

14. Heartland Patriot says

    November 7, 2015 at 6:51 pm

    The Ruger SR9 does have a compact version, the SR9c. The grip is shorter and so is the barrel. The 17-round magazines for the SR9 fit in and work just fine in the SR9c, even if they stick out an inch or so.

    • Aaron E says

      November 11, 2015 at 1:40 am

      True, but the RFP does not allow magazines to extend past the grip – other than a small flair to allow easier magazine stripping.

    • BaconLovingInfidel says

      December 17, 2015 at 12:27 pm

      Do any agencies actually use the Rugers?

15. PaC SGM (R) says

    November 7, 2015 at 7:36 pm

    Don’t see this being the last word on which weapon gets chosen, the other manufactures will tie this up with legal action for years. If these people were smart rather then having to pay the cost to retrain the agents they would go with the 17/19.
    What I read between the lines is that the guy in charge doesn’t like Glocks so it is more about forcing his or her opinion on the agency then it is about having a better firearm for the agency or someone has a new career once his current one is completed with Sig. much like general officers in the military that get taken care of after their career.
    This could be argued effectively on cost alone someone needs to ask McCain what his thoughts are on it.

    • Monty says

      November 8, 2015 at 8:01 am

      Somebody is greasing the skids. There is lobbying money or job opportunities tied to this for sure.

16. Independant Thinker says

    November 10, 2015 at 7:41 pm

    The author’s bias towards the 40 caliber is distracting from the article. I laugh every time some internet commando makes statements about how the poor, weak, feminine agents need a 9mm because they can’t handle the 40. These statements not only come from people with little to no experience working with the FBI, but they go against the facts and the science involved in the switch.

    One of the side benefits of 9mm is that yes, it’s easier to shoot and easier for a shooter to master. But that is NOT the reason they made the switch and anyone who believe that was the driving force should remove their tinfoil hat. The 9mm is just as good, and in some cases better than 40 and (gasp!!) 45 in terminal ballistics. If they all do basically the same thing, only a fool would choose a sidearm that has more recoil and less capacity. Yes, struggling shooters (every agency has them, not just the feds) will do better with 9mm. But so will the good shooters. Every LEO will shoot better with a 9mm than 40 or 45.

    The DSU at Quantico takes their role very seriously and would not be pushing for the change to 9mm if it wasn’t the best ammunition for an agent when his or her life is on the line. In fact, while the regular agents are still being given 40 caliber Glocks upon graduation, the SWAT teams and HRT (all under CIRG) have already moved to 9mm. For those unfamiliar, CIRG can do whatever it wants in regard to sidearms. For years they had custom 1911’s while regular agents had Glocks and some leftover Sigs. Now the new 9mm hasn’t been selected, but HRT is issuing Glock 17’s and so are the regional SWAT teams. They are doing that because they know how good the ammo is and that it works. I don’t think anyone is going to presume those shooters are struggling because of the “mighty” 40 caliber.

    If you want to carry 40, or your agency issues 40 – good for you. But to try and pump yourself up for carrying 40 and put down an agency that actually conducts the ballistic research the rest of us in law enforcement need and rely upon – well that’s just sad.

    Oh and parts breakage with 40’s is real. I personally saw a LEO with a 3 year old Glock 22, Gen 4 that suffered a locking block crack. He only shoots when his agency makes him and they use a 180gr load that isn’t a screamer. The fact is 40 is hard on guns and when equipping an entire agency… the cost of fixing and replacing guns adds up in a hurry.

    • Aaron E says

      November 11, 2015 at 1:37 am

      Alright Tin Foil, if you’re going to throw out insults then lay out your credentials. You’re accusation that I am a “internet commando” only shows that you know the insult from 5 years ago.

      1. I have over 18 years of law enforcement experience in a larger suburban department of a major U.S. metropolitan area. I have over 13 years of SWAT experience, hundreds of missions, and 8 years as a sniper and team leader. I have made over 2000 physical arrests including hundreds of felons. I carry a firearm professionally, not as a weekend play toy.

      2. I have a lot of respect for the FBI and their DSU. However, I know how politics work in big government, and if the brass says we want 9mm the DSU will look to find a decent 9mm round. In the article I expressly acknowledged that modern manufacturing and technology have made firearms and ammunition much better than even 10 years ago. However, the Speer chart (a well respected ammunition maker) and the physics behind the bullets, show that .40 S&W has more energy and more expansion than 9mm. Look at it in a practical manner. The FBI has literally hired thousands of “non-cops” as agents, with little or no experience in firearms and many with small frames. Moving to 9mm makes it easier for a large chunk of agents to pass quals, 9mm is cheaper, and 9mm is better than it was 10-20 years ago. That’s an easy bureaucratic decision, but not necessarily ballistically sound. Expansion, and energy determine damage and “stopping power”. Some bean counter figured that FBI agents rarely get into shootings, but they have to qual every year – make it easier!! To them that makes perfect sense.

      3. Shot placement is critical to ending a threat. Having acknowledged that, what the bullet can do during impact, expansion, and travel is also very important. More energy, and more expansion means a greater potential to stop the threat and do so more quickly. Yes, FBI HRT has gone to the Glock 17 in 9mm, but they also have an insatiable desire for pretty paper targets. In the last two years I’ve trained with 1 active and 1 former HRT member (still FBI). There is a lot of emphasis on small holes. That’s great on the range, but in a gunfight rounds hitting multiple “critical” areas is better than a bunch of bullets in nearly the same hole. That is not “spray and pray” – but a target area that covers both lungs and the heart.

      4. You have had an experience with .40 S&W causing a breakage, but a sweeping comment the .40 S&W causes more breakages is highly debatable. Our department has used Glock 22’s for over 15 years. We have had a few parts needing replaced (usually pins), but 140+ officers have found the firearm to function as designed and without parts failures. Over 15 years our “cost of fixing and replacing guns” has totaled a few hundred dollars – for 140+ officers. Now, I will agree that the upgraded recoil spring has made the Glock 22 even more snappy – and I believe unnecessarily. I use a Gen 3 on my SWAT rig and a Gen 4 on my patrol rig. My Gen 3 is over 10 years old and the pistol I prefer to shoot. The Gen 4 is about 4 years old, but just harder to shoot because of that recoil spring.

      5. The main gist of the article is not on switching from .40 S&W to 9mm. However, I find it incredibly interesting that the FBI commissioned the study that championed the .40 S&W after the Miami Massacre (where FBI Agents 9mm rounds did not stop the threat – until 2 FBI agents died and several more were critically injured), found significant “ballistic” evidence that .40 S&W was better. No, the article was primarily focused on the ridiculous RFP that is so exclusive that it might as well be a sole source contract.

      • Inside Source says

        November 11, 2015 at 1:28 pm

        This article has so many fallacies and false assumptions that it makes
        the author look like he is just pulling information out of thin air. He
        is wrong about ballistics, (as soon as someone mentions energy and
        terminal ballistics in the same sentence regarding pistol calibers, you can disregard their
        opinion as it is ill-informed), he is wrong about the FBI currently issuing G23’s (they were
        formerly issued and are no longer given out), he is wrong about the FBI
        switching to 9mm because it’s easier to shoot and master (that’s just a
        side benefit), and he is making an incorrect assumption that only
        pistols currently available to the general public will be submitted for
        this RFP — that is not the case.

        Independent Thinker is spot on and clearly has access to correct inside information.

        Shot for shot, the 9mm ammo the FBI is currently
        issuing beats any .40 or .45 ammo on the market. That’s a hard pill to
        swallow for guys who have always assumed “bigger is better.” Comparing
        the 9mm round from the 1986 Miami shootout to the currently issued 9mm
        round also shows ignorance. The FBI had no Ballistics Research Facility in 1986. They started it then as a result of the shootout, and have come a long way since then in understanding what affects terminal ballistics.

        Just because you have 18 years in local LE doesn’t mean you have a clue what goes on inside the organization.

        • Aaron E says

          November 11, 2015 at 2:03 pm

          Insider, thanks for joining the debate, but your attacks are wrong on several points.

          1. Kinetic energy and terminal ballistics are two separate evaluations, until the bullet hits its target, but each is very important in determining if a round will be effective – stopping a threat. A bullet can have impressive KE, but poor terminal ballistics, and vice versa. One of the key determinations, is bullet design, which has a very important impact on how well the bullet’s energy is turned into good or bad terminal ballistics. That is why bullet size and powder charge are important considerations when selecting a self defense round.

          2. I did not say the “bigger is better”. The .223 has been found to be very effective because of the amount of energy it produces, and its terminal ballistics (small round, but gets the job done because of bullet tumble/separation on impact). Energy by itself can be an injury producer. If you get hit by a plastic bat the energy is not enough to cause serious injury. If you get hit by a much smaller aluminum bat, the injury is much more serious due to energy transfer/blunt force trauma.

          3. As far as terminal ballistics – they matter. A FMJ bullet often will go right through a target but not produce great terminal ballistics. There are 2 reasons for this. First, unless the bullet hits bone it is very unlikely to deform or come apart. Second, because the bullet does not expand, the energy transfer is much slower, and generally a significant amount is wasted after the bullet leaves the target. The temporary wound channel is thus smaller, reducing the likelihood that the round will cause permanent injury – unless it was placed in a vital area of the target.
          A smaller hollow-point round (with proper energy) can cause much more devastating injury due to bullet expansion and rapid transfer of energy INSIDE the target. That expands the temporary wound channel through the fluid shock wave principle, and that increased expansion creates a much higher likelihood of greater injury due to tearing or other trauma to vital organs, arteries, or veins nearby.

          I may not be an “expert”, but I do know a lot about what I am talking about, having conducted several team tests of various ammunition, and been present for several manufacturer ammunition tests, and read several other independent ammunition test results. I have also studied several expert research papers on the topic, including several from internationally renown Dr. Martin Fackler who worked extensively with the U.S. Army Wound Ballistics Laboratory on this very issue.

          4. I did not compare the 9mm from 1986 to modern 9mm, and in fact absolutely acknowledged that current 9mm is much better than the older 9mm. What I did say was it was very interesting that the FBI commissioned the studies that brought the .40 S&W into being, using scientific procedures, to produce a superior round that did not have quite the recoil of a .45 ACP.

          In fact, I am not opposed to 9mm as a duty round or self-defense round. However, the FBI’s quick turnaround from .40 S&W to 9mm, in conjunction with an RFP that is so blatantly limited, is the focus of this article. It appears the FBI is attempting to ram rod a new pistol and caliber through the channels, without the proper procedures. I find that very disturbing.

          5. True – I am not in the FBI, and I am like most others that must take at face value what the FBI publishes, or what sources within the FBI reveal. If you read the article in entirety – and didn’t focus on the .40 S&W part – you would realize that I praised the newer 9mm, and the Sig P320. But when one of the nation’s largest, and arguably the most influential, Federal law enforcement agencies suddenly alters course and then produces an RFP so thinly structured, we all should question why!

          • Inside Source says

            November 11, 2015 at 10:13 pm

            I’m not trying to attack you on a personal level, I respect the work of all LE and I work on a daily basis with state and local agencies to make sure they get access to the best ballistic, firearms, and training information they can so that they can arm their officers/agents with the best tools for the job. I am trying to warn people who may read your article and jump to conclusions that nothing is set in stone at this point, and there will be other firearms in the mix that meet all the specs. In response to your points above:

            1. The only thing that affects terminal performance of pistol rounds is the permanent cavity, i.e. the damage caused directly by the path of the bullet (penetration and expansion). KE only affects the size of the temporary cavity, which has been proven by people like Fackler and the FBI Ballistic Research Facility to do no damage to tissue in pistol calibers. You say you are familiar with Fackler, but your statements on energy as it relates to pistol calibers contradicts his work.

            2. The .223 is a rifle round, and the KE produced by it does cause a severe enough temporary cavity to damage tissue. This comparison is apples to oranges to pistol calibers. Also, .223 rounds that tumble and separate may be the best thing available to the military, who are limited in what types of bullets they can use, but LE is better served by a round that consistently expands and performs through intermediate barriers than by using a round that tumbles inconsistently like M855.

            3. FMJ’s do a lot of things badly, and are a bad choice as a result. Lack of expansion is the primary issue, not energy transfer.

            4. The FBI did not have a quick turn around on the .40. They’ve been issuing it or the 10mm for over 20 years. Bullet design is a lot different today than 20 years ago, in part because of the research done by the FBI, Fackler, and other ballisticians has created a “guide” for what factors are important in terminal performance. Prior to that, manufacturers used the marketing gimmick of “high energy” by driving really light bullets as fast as possible in order to stamp the highest energy number on the outside of the box.

            5. The RFP was designed so that the FBI gets what they want instead of being limited to what is on the shelf. FN has publicly stated on gun forums that they are releasing a new line specifically to meet this RFP (the FN T-9). S&W, Glock, and Sig will also be submitting/modifying designs that meet every spec in this RFP. The Sig 320 you see on shelves won’t even be the exact version submitted for this RFP. I’m sure others will make similar modifications before the submissions are due.

          • Aaron says

            November 11, 2015 at 11:30 pm

            Insider,
            Thanks for this last post. It is much more informative, and provides a greater insight into the original post material. This is exactly the kind of post that we look for here and we’re grateful for your time.

            I do understand that pistol round and high velocity rounds have a much different terminal ballistic characteristic. My point (probably not written well), is that a bullet with larger mass, higher energy, and better expansion has a greater potential for injury/incapacitation than one that is smaller, less energy, and less expansion. The temporary wound channel will not likely effect injury “unless” that temporary expansion tears, penetrates or otherwise injures a major organ or artery – which would only happen with a very close miss, but is much more likely with a larger expansion than a smaller one. This is consistent with what Fackler noted.

            You’re absolutely right about the M855. The new M855 has a different construction that assists with expansion, but most LE agencies are not using straight military rounds, but using some kind of hollow-point round that will cause the needed expansion and permanent wound channel.

            Agree with the FMJ comment, though understanding wasted energy, I think, is a component of the lesser potential.

            What I meant by a “quick turn around” by FBI on .40 S&W is that a very short time after their 9mm study, they come out with a highly restrictive RFP. Again, the most prevalent argument in my original article was that the RFP seems awfully suspicious, not really an argument on the validity of modern 9mm. And I agree that higher energy alone is not a critical factor in terminal ballistics. I just prefer to include it in the equation, along with shot placement and expansion of a good hollow-point.

            It sounds like you truly do have insider information that includes reports on several of the “majors” putting together new guns to meet the RFP. We’d love to hear more about these as they become known.

        • Richard says

          November 13, 2015 at 10:55 am

          Which 9mm load is the FBI issuing that beats all .40 & .45 on the market? I’m genuinely curious.

          • Independant Thinker says

            November 30, 2015 at 11:16 am

            Richard they have been using the Winchester Ranger 147gr and are now transitioning to the Gold Dot G2 147gr. The G2 had some growing pains and was recalled briefly several months back. It’s my understanding that Speer addressed the issues and it’s now being issued again. Either of those loads perform as well or better than their competition.
            That doesn’t mean everyone needs to immediately dump their 40 and 45 carry loads. The bottom line is all handgun calibers suck at stopping an aggressive attacker. But it does mean people can stop pontificating about why they “think” 9mm is not good enough, regardless of their background.

          • Richard says

            December 27, 2015 at 7:56 pm

            Thanks for the information. I was pretty sure the Speer GD G2 had been the new load, but wasn’t positive. I’m not sure the problems with the load have been worked out, however. I spent some time speaking to someone within the company a few months back. The person suggested there were some flaws in the design that were proving difficult to overcome. I did not get the impression that the individual was confident that the problems would ever be overcome. If the FBI is married to the 147 grain bullet, they might be better served by simply running the Federal HST, though the original GD isn’t a bad choice either.

      • Buford Boone says

        November 29, 2015 at 10:05 pm

        With regards to your point #5:
        The FBI study did not champion the .40 S&W. It couldn’t have. The .40 didn’t exist at the time of the study.

        • Aaron says

          November 30, 2015 at 10:00 am

          Buford,

          There were two FBI studies that I referenced so to be sure I talk to your point I’ll explain both. I believe you are referencing the first study, which did in fact bring about the development of the .40 S&W.

          First – after the 1986 Miami Massacre, the FBI determined that the .38 revolver rounds, and 9mm semi-auto rounds used by the Agents that day, were not sufficient to stop the committed bank robbers. As a result, at least one Agent was killed and others wounded – even after the robbers had been hit and wounded. Even though autopsies revealed that some of the 9mm hits would have been fatal on the bank robbers, their underperformance allowed those murderers to stay in the fight and cause more casualties.

          That study initially looked towards 9mm and .45 ACP, but the FBI Firearms SAC included the 10mm cartridge as well. Though impressive, the FBI questioned if the 10mm was too powerful for many Agents to field. The FBI wanted a reduced powder charge 10mm to overcome those challenges, and a pistol to accommodate the round based upon the S&W 4506. During the study, S&W saw the 10mm cartridge had a lot of wasted space, and realized if they reduced the casing to maximize spacing, they could actually develop the pistol off of their medium framed semi-autos instead of their large ones. This brought about the development of the .40 S&W (or 10mm short), which the FBI quickly accepted.

          Second – the other FBI study was just recently, and examined the capabilities of modern 9mm ammunition. From the study, the FBI determined that the performance differences between modern 9mm and .40 S&W were small enough, that there was no reason to keep using the sharper recoiling .40 S&W over the easier recoiling 9mm. As I stated, I believe all ammunition manufacturing has improved dramatically over the last 30 years, and I agree that the 9mm of today is much better than was was available in 1986.

          However, .40 S&W has also seen some improvements. The .40 S&W has more energy, and a larger expansion (wound potential) than 9mm. In that regard I still favor the .40 S&W over the 9mm. I believe the FBI’s sudden reversal of its 1986-based studies that led to the .40 S&W, has more to do with accommodating a wealth of smaller framed Agents that have been hired over the years, than necessarily the fact that modern 9mm performs close to .40 S&W.

          Hope that helps.

        • Aaron E says

          December 2, 2015 at 4:14 pm

          Buford,

          There were 2 studies mentioned. The first came about from the 1986 Miami Massacre (Shootout), and that study absolutely brought about the 10mm cartridge, and later .40 S&W. The FBI was very concerned with how that 9mm performed.

          The newest study (2014) is the one the FBI found some current 9mm cartridges meet their performance requirements, and are very close to .40 and .45.

          • Buford Boone says

            December 4, 2015 at 9:25 pm

            I’m familiar with the studies. The Miami incident resulted in the issuance of the 10mm. It was not a full-power 10mm. It may be accurate to say that later begat the .40 S&W. However, claiming the report “Championed the .40 S&W” is simply untrue. Read it and you won’t find that cartridge mentioned…because it didn’t exist at the time.

            I’m also familiar with the 2014 study. It was not a revelation of some 9mm cartridges meeting performance requirements, that has been happening for many years. It was simply documentation that there was no good reason to continue down the .40 S&W road.

            BTW, do you have any idea when the last RFP for a general issue FBI pistol was conducted? It was 1997. It resulted in the Glock 22 and 23.

            I think it is past time to have another competition. Let the best pistol win.

          • El Mac says

            December 4, 2015 at 9:44 pm

            Amen.

          • Aaron E says

            December 5, 2015 at 11:24 am

            I believe the misunderstanding comes from my use of the term “championed”. I fully acknowledge the original FBI study did not specifically request .40 S&W, but instead a lower power 10mm. However, during development of that 10mm round S&W saw that the reduced charge left a lot of wasted space in the cartridge – which was designed for the larger frame 4506 frame.

            S&W then worked on reducing the cartridge size so there would be no wasted space. In doing so they got the cartridge size small enough to allow the use of their smaller framed semi-auto pistols. This became the .40 S&W, which was subsequently preferred and chosen by FBI.

            The .40 S&W would likely have not been created, or at least not at that time, had it not been for the FBI request for the reduced charge 10mm. So in that way the FBI request “championed” the .40 S&W.

      • El Mac says

        November 29, 2015 at 10:10 pm

        “…the article was primarily focused on the ridiculous RFP that is so exclusive that it might as well be a sole source contract.”
        Negative Ghost Rider. It is far from a sole source contract.

      • Independant Thinker says

        November 30, 2015 at 11:40 am

        Aaron, I may have been a bit harsh in how I delivered my message and for that I apologize. I just get weary of everyone who believes they know better than the FBI about ballistics and what weapon/caliber is best for them. The FBI isn’t perfect by any stretch, but the DSU works very hard to ensure their armed personnel have the best available equipment and ammunition so they can go home to their families at the end of the day. You are suggesting it’s politics driving the train and I’m telling you that is completely false. If you are an active LEO, then you should have your chief send an official request to the DSU for their test results. They used to provide them to any PD/SO who wanted them, so I’m assuming that is still the case. And in case you are unfamiliar with the poster a couple places down from this one, you may want to research Mr. Boone’s background.

        I’m not making a sweeping comment about 40 breaking guns. It’s a trend that has been well documented in and out of the FBI. Plenty of large PD’s around the country have ditched 40 for the 9mm, and not because the feds said to do so. You say your guns haven’t had any issues in your PD. That’s only part of the information necessary to proclaim 40 doesn’t break weapons. We need to know what kind of round counts you have on those unbreakable weapons. What kind of ammunition? Also, I’m not understanding why you think the Gen 4 is snappier and because of the RSA. The double springed RSA makes the Gen 4 Glocks less snappy in my experience (across all calibers). In fact, Glock had to slow down the slides on the 40 because with a weapon mounted light the guns were cycling too quickly and not always picking up the top round in the magazine. Slowing the slides will make the gun feel less snappy, not more.

        The bottom line here is that you and many others across the internet love to proclaim that the FBI has weak handed shooters who should be carrying a laptop instead of a firearm. As the story goes, 9mm is for wimpy shooters and it’s being used simply to improve scores and make the top echelons of the FBI look good. That is complete crap and you don’t need to take my word for it – do the research yourself. That’s why several of us have mentioned HRT and FBI SWAT choosing on their own to adopt 9mm ahead of the rest of the agent population. Go visit your local FBI office and ask to chat with the PFI. They shoot more often than most agencies (4 times a year as a minimum). And while you say they have hired “thousands of non-cops” to be agents… I say so what? Where do you hire your cops from? Do they come pre-trained as Grand Master shooters? The FBI hires its agents from the same pool as you and every other PD/SO in the country. So how are your people better than theirs? Fact is – we’ve been at war for over a decade as a nation, and both local and federal agencies are drawing from hard working combat veterans. So your logic that your PD hires more gun oriented and tactical people than the FBI falls flat on its face. And along that vein, I suspect the FBI’s firearm training program is much better than most LE agencies at the state and local level.

        You are critical of two HRT bubbas you know who want “pretty targets” with tight shot groups… I find that really interesting. You are saying that repeatable accuracy is a bad thing? We all know that under the stress of an actual shooting, our skills (whatever level they may be) will degrade some. So a shooter who has a softball sized hole in his qualification target can expect some spread in that group under life and death stress. We can reasonably expect the shooter with the shots all over the target is going to also experience the same and his group will be wider than what he is used to seeing. Under the stress of a real shooting, we do not rise to the occasion. Rather we fall back to our level of training. Your accuracy won’t improve because some thug is shooting at you. So if in the training environment that HRT guy has one large ragged hole in his target, he’s the guy I’ll choose to accompany me through a darkened doorway at 2am.

        As for my background – I spent 11 years on active duty with the military and have been full time LE for the past 10. Sorry, but that’s all you will get from me in this setting.

        • El Mac says

          November 30, 2015 at 11:46 am

          Spot on Independent Thinker. Solid.

        • Aaron E says

          November 30, 2015 at 4:48 pm

          Great to hear from you again Independent! Your comments are appreciated, and have a lot of merit. I appreciate your apology, but I really think we have both stepped off on the wrong foot. Granted your “internet commando” tag was a shot across the bow and a bit premature for sure. I think we understand each other’s backgrounds much more now.

          First, I’d like to re-emphasize my article was to call into question an RFP that seems suspiciously tailored toward one particular handgun. Although not selected yet, the Sig P320 has to do nothing to compete, while most other manufacturers have to modify/adapt/create to compete. I believe in calling into question such a narrowly defined request, when $80 million in tax payer money is at hand.

          The .40 caliber breaks more guns comment is very subjective. I fully acknowledge that some have had problems – including broken parts. However, in my area of the country .40 S&W is the dominant cartridge. I am in contact with firearms instructors and armorers from many agencies, including outside my area of the country. Though occasional breakages are reported, they are not catastrophic. When you consider the total number of officers, total number of firearms, and total number of rounds fired, the breakage problem is minimal. It would be highly improbable that this area of the country has obtained multiple manufacturer firearms that perform above the norm from other parts of the country. ANY firearm can expect breakages after repeated use, especially “disposable” parts such as pins and springs.

          It is my own personal experiences with the Gen4 Glock 22 that make me feel it is snappier than the Gen3. Maybe it is the slowed slide recoil, or the more aggressive grips of the Gen4, but I find shooting the Gen3 easier, more natural, and more comfortable than the Gen4.

          As far as the FBI comments – I stand by them. Over the last 25 years the FBI has absolutely recruited more and more agents that have “specialized” skills over agents with military or LEO backgrounds. A person with computer skills, language fluency, or science backgrounds has a much better chance of selection than a standard LEO or military background (though military does have some step up). That means a lot more “non-shooters” joining the ranks. Though the FBI may train them, these agents have weapon proficiency way down on the list of priorities – I have met many! Do local or State police agencies train better than the FBI? Maybe a few, but most do not. However, most local and State police agencies are hiring people for street-level police work, where weapon proficiency is much more important. As such, weapon proficiency, prior LEO or military experience, are much more desirable by local or State police agencies.

          The FBI has also very publicly sought to increase the number of female agents. I think that is great – as long as they continue selecting the best candidates, but it also generally means hiring agents with smaller statures. Even in the 1980’s when the Bureau was much more male dominated, the 10mm pistol and cartridge was just a bit too much for the agents, which subsequently helped birth the .40 S&W (10mm short). With more “smaller” stature agents, it makes selecting a lighter recoil firearm/cartridge that much easier.

          Good points on shooting tight groups in training, translating to better shooting under stress. No argument! However, if you focus too much on tight groups, I highly question how realistic the training regiment is. Add in stress, physical exertion, timed requirements and let’s see where those groups go. In a gunfight, shots that hit multiple critical areas, are better than several in the same spot where damage has already been done.

          The HRT agents I trained with were not “bubbas”. Both were supervisory agents, and their skill levels were apparent. I’m not sure I would put the “bubba” label on any of the HRT agents, unless they self-describe as such! Those agents are highly proficient with their firearms, though they are NOT indicative of the vast majority of FBI agents. My criticism was not on their skill, only on their desire to impress with small groups. A 4″ x 6″ box across the upper chest (heart and lungs) is plenty good for accuracy – IMO.

          Thanks for your service, and your excellent comments.

          • Inside Source says

            December 2, 2015 at 1:22 pm

            “As far as the FBI comments – I stand by them. Over the last 25 years the FBI has absolutely recruited more and more agents that have “specialized” skills over agents with military or LEO backgrounds. A person with computer skills, language fluency, or science backgrounds has a much better chance of selection than a standard LEO or military background (though military does have some step up). That means a lot more “non-shooters” joining the ranks. Though the FBI may train them, these agents have weapon proficiency way down on the list of priorities – I have met many! Do local or State police agencies train better than the FBI? Maybe a few, but most do not. However, most local and State police agencies are hiring people for street-level police work, where weapon proficiency is much more important. As such, weapon proficiency, prior LEO or military experience, are much more desirable by local or State police agencies.”
            ——————————————————————————————–

            How many of us have to jump in here and tell you that “small statured” and “weak-handed” agents is not the reason for the 9mm switch before you’ll stop bloviating about it? This just leads to macho chest thumping by agencies/departments who think they are “man enough” to handle .40 or .45 rather than looking at the actual ballistic data and making the best decisions for their officers/agents based on fact.

            What does prior LEO or military background have to do with shooting proficiency? In any LE agency there are officers that are proficient with their weapons and those that struggle to meet minimum standards. As an example, there were two former LEO’s in my recruitment class who were recycled into a remedial program due to firearms deficiencies. One was a former SWAT officer from a major metropolitan pd and one of the strongest people in the class. I had no prior LEO or mil experience (what you referred to as a “specialized skills” hire), and I am a GM level USPSA shooter (and not HRT), which also throws your generalization out the window. I am not the exception either; I know a lot of former accountants, lawyers, engineers, and other specialized skills hires who are now firearms instructors, swat and HRT operators, snipers, fugitive task force members, and in other high risk assignments who make weapon proficiency a priority. I would wager that the FBI has more high level shooters than any other LE agency in the world, and a lot of them are involved in many of the decisions regarding this RFP and the change to 9mm, and they, myself included, choose and prefer 9mm over .40 or .45 despite being perfectly capable of shooting .40 or .45 to a high level. If you could shoot a lighter recoiling cartridge that has the exact same or better terminal performance as any .40 or .45 round, isn’t it a no brainer?

          • Aaron E says

            December 2, 2015 at 3:36 pm

            OK once again I am not “bloviating” (I like O’Reilly too), and I’m NOT saying that the smaller stature Agents is the ONLY reason FBI seems eager to move to 9mm. You keep focusing on that one point alone. My responses have been directly to your statements or questions, and have included several considerations. You disagree with them – OK, but they are valid discussion points. I am a strong advocate of minority and female inclusion in law enforcement and have recruited both myself. However, many females (smaller stature) struggle with firearms proficiency – that is all.

            However, to say that smaller stature Agents is NOT a factor is dubious at best. The FBI is highly political – just like all of the Federal law enforcement agencies (local/State too). You even allude to that when you mention shooting as well or better with a lighter recoiling cartridge – which I actually agree with (read more).

            I, and many others, just find it wonderfully coincidental that a short time after the FBI report is released advising that certain modern 9mm can perform acceptably to FBI standards, the FBI puts out an RFP for a new duty pistol that is so narrow that the Sig P320 “appears” to be marked to win. You mention other manufacturers will present their own options, but Sig doesn’t have to do anything but pick up a P320 and hand it to the FBI. All the others have to make modifications. Hmmm! That’s the whole point of the original article – we’re talking $80-85 million. I like Sig. I like the P320. But I believe in fair competition to get the best (hopeless market capitalist here). That really is the whole point. When a large Federal (tax payer funded) agency wants to buy something and the RFP looks to only allow one option (at the time released), any reasonable reviewer should ask questions – which is what I’m doing here.

            Back to the 9mm.

            Is modern 9mm is much better than 30 years ago? Yes!
            Are certain modern 9mm cartridges competitive to other calibers? Yes!
            Do I like 9mm? Yes!
            Do competitive 9mm cartridges penetrate equally or better than .40/.45? Yes.
            Do the competitive 9mm rounds expand as large as .40/.45? No.
            Do the competitive 9mm rounds have as much energy? No.
            Do the competitive 9mm rounds
            Can the FBI justify a switch to 9mm? Yes!
            Is the fact small agents shoot 9mm easier a factor? YES!

            *Round placement is the critical decisive factor to a rounds effectiveness, but the .40 gives the officer a little more “near-miss” potential to cause the injuries needed to end a threat faster. That’s why I still prefer .40 – I’ll take an extra (1) mm potential. I’ll take every advantage that I can. Can I/you/anyone shoot 9mm easier .. uh, yes. But with proper training, most can shoot .40 well – to the point its heavier recoil is not a distraction.

            Do Glock corporation/family problems influence the “new” pistol RFP? Likely.
            Is the FBI new pistol RFP very narrow? Absolutely!
            Does the Sig P320 meet every RFP requirement? Yes!
            Do other manufacturer’s pistol meet every RFP requirement? No!
            Does the move to 9mm and the RFP raise questions? Absolutely. Hence this article.

            My reference to FBI hiring standards is a point that lends credibility to my claim that there is more to the 9mm decision besides 9mm improvements. You mention some “non-shooters” becoming great. That is true – but not the norm. You mention becoming a GM in USPSA (outstanding achievement sir!). However, I wager that your skill level to accomplish that did NOT come from FBI/military training alone. You spent a lot of personal time/money to get there. So you are not the norm in the Bureau.

            Does the FBI have some great firearms training? Yes. Are some Agents (even a lot) very good shooters? Yes. Are the majority of Agents very good shooters – doubtful (especially the non-specialized unit ones – HRT, Fugitive, etc.)

          • El Mac says

            December 2, 2015 at 3:51 pm

            Aaron, you said: “Do other manufacturer’s pistol meet every RFP requirement? No!”
            Clearly you do not understand how an RFP works. The guns HAVE NOT even been submitted yet – and still you act like they have. YOU have NO idea what guns and from what manufacturers are going to be submitted nor whether or not they will meet the RFP. Slow your roll bro.

          • Aaron E says

            December 2, 2015 at 4:11 pm

            Again Mac – as pointed out in the original article – the Sig P320 could be handed to the FBI right now and meet the RFP. The other manufacturers have to make alterations – some of them major ones. That is the point! The RFP, at the very minimum, appears to be tailor-made for the P320 – when published. When only 1 manufacturer meets the RFP at release there is a lot of question of how fair (legal) the RFP was designed.

            I actually do understand how an RFP works in government, having participated in several specifications requirements for desired weapons and products, but that is not really the point.

          • El Mac says

            December 2, 2015 at 4:28 pm

            Then if you have experience with the RFP process, you understand that the RFP is not meant to be “fair” to the manufacturers. It is meant to fill the need of the end user. The manufacturers can play or not. No one is holding a “gun” to their head. Fairness is not nor should it be a concern now anymore than it was when the FBI issued an RFP for a 1911 design.

          • Aaron E says

            December 2, 2015 at 5:16 pm

            “Fair” in the process Mac, not “fair” to the manufacturers. When 1 manufacturer appears to be singled out for an advantage than the process is unfair. That is the problem, not that some manufacturers will have more to do than others.

          • El Mac says

            December 2, 2015 at 5:22 pm

            You sound like a jail house lawyer. And going your way, it would result in a weapon “built by committee”…uh, no thanks.

          • Aaron E says

            December 2, 2015 at 11:37 pm

            Uh no, and no!
            The lawful RFP allows the Bureau to set criteria, but also requires open and fair competition. The agency still gets to pick the best – a decision that will come from several sources within the Bureau regardless.

            Making an RFP that gives 1 manufacturer a head’s up in the competition is where the problem lies. The FBI could have been just a little looser in their specs and still selected the P320 and been fine. As written the RFP is dirty.

          • El Mac says

            December 2, 2015 at 11:40 pm

            That’s your opinion. And you are entitled to it. And it’s worth what anyone reading this has paid for it.

          • Aaron E says

            December 2, 2015 at 4:24 pm

            In fact, if the FBI has simply come out and said that their testing of some new 9mm was close enough in performance as .40/.45, and switching to 9mm would save the Bureau millions of dollars (it would over time), AND the 9mm will allow agents faster/more accurate shooting that would have not only made sense, but been widely accepted. (In that I think we can both agree).

            My contention with the 9mm switch, has as much to do with this new RFP as it does with terminal ballistics differences or smaller stature agents. The narrow RFP (with the Sig P320 being the only ready-to-go offering right now) is what is the crux of my speculation and argument.

          • El Mac says

            December 2, 2015 at 4:32 pm

            No, the FBI could have issued an RFP and kept the .40 caliber. Two separate issues. Or it could have just bought new top ends and switched calibers but kept the Glock. Two. Separate. Issues.

    • El Mac says

      November 29, 2015 at 8:57 pm

      Not to mention the fact that by writing a whole new “need” and program, it looks very good on one’s FD-954…and will also look good on one’s resume post-Bu. And THAT, is really what matters.

      • Aaron says

        November 30, 2015 at 9:33 am

        Ahhh you know the Federal system well El Mac.

17. Aaron E says

    November 11, 2015 at 1:43 am

    Almost all of the “DISQUALIFIED” manufacturers could adjust an existing firearm, or literally create a new firearm for the RFP. However, re-tooling a manufacturing process to create a “new” firearm in the short time now that a highly-discriminatory RFP has been released, is not likely a wise financial decision. Spending millions of dollars on a lost cause just doesn’t make sense.

    The legal action … has more merit, but we’ll have to see.

    • Smiddywesson says

      December 2, 2015 at 3:37 pm

      I kinda think a lot of the disqualifiers are either easily altered parts like sights, safeties, and levers, or changes in the cheapest part of the manufacturing process, the polymer frame. I don’t think Sig will be the only participant.

      • Aaron E says

        December 2, 2015 at 4:16 pm

        Glock probably has the easiest – they used to make grips with no finger grooves so to change the process back wouldn’t be that difficult.

        Changing sights isn’t too difficult either. However, changing magazine release mechanisms, safeties, etc. becomes an entire engineering and manufacturing project.

18. keep it simple says

    November 16, 2015 at 4:31 am

    A few questions for the FBI. If the 9mm has been improved by recent bullet technology, then why hasn’t the .40, .45 and other pistol ammo similarly benefitted? That the FBI concluded that the 9mm is as effective as the .40 really seems to mean the total platform of a 9mm pistol is easier to accurately shoot faster than a .40 cal pistol, and when the opponent is a soft clad human opponent, then the greater energy of the .40 is more often than not unnecessary (but not always). But I can’t believe the two rounds are the same when it comes to energy, to raw power. The 9mm is definitely easier to shoot than the .40; after I shoot .40, 9mm is a very nice ride; in comparison a .40 Glock 23 with no sock still stings my hand a bit. No doubt the .40 is harder on the Glock 22, 23, 27, and 35 frame guns, but logically that also means it has more kinetic energy (the energy of destruction) on the bullet/receiving end as well. The 9mm is cheaper, and for most civilian self-defense situations it works. So naturally a lot of people like it. Especially inexperienced people, or more casual shooters. I know, because I know them, trained some. When I intro somebody to guns I try to start with a .22, then go to a .38, then a 9mm, then maybe the .40 (don’t own a .45). Among the raw inexperienced, usually only the physically stronger people venture past 5 rounds of .40. The others fire it a couple times, and then comes the frown, the wince, the bewildered look, and the pistol gets benched. But, there are some exceptions, like a woman martial artist I know who wanted to learn guns. She digested a 50 round box of .40 no problem. I know a lot of experienced military guys like the 9mm; no arguments there. But I also know a bunch of them who, having shot both, say the .40 is decidedly more powerful, and hence they believe it’s better at stopping bad guys. IMO the law enforcement problem with the 9mm is still penetration of barriers, although it’s not as bad today, since bullets and loads have been improved. But windshields, doors, body armor and violent perpetrators high on drugs and pain free often need a .40, .45 or the .357’s – the next power level up. It will be interesting to see if the most experienced FBI shooters, the HRT or any other FBI hot dog teams go back to the 9mm. Maybe the FBI should have authorized 9mm, .40, and .45, for those who wanted choices and who could qualify with whichever caliber (weren’t they doing this at the end of the .40 as official caliber?). I like both 9mm and .40 – that is, I like to train with a more cost-effective 2:1 ratio of 9mm to .40. Still prefer the .40 to protect myself and others. Admittedly, I’d rather have a partner who could shoot a 9mm really well, vs. one who was mediocre with a .40.

    • Aaron says

      November 16, 2015 at 9:05 am

      Excellent points Simple, ones that any shooter should seriously consider.

    • Inside Source says

      December 2, 2015 at 1:31 pm

      Read the comments below, most of it has been covered. In summary:
      1. Kinetic energy is not “the energy of destruction” in pistol calibers. Only penetration/expansion destroys tissue. The only thing kinetic energy translates to is more recoil for the shooter to overcome.
      2. 9mm bullets have higher sectional density, therefore penetrate better than .40 or .45 without driving the .40 or .45 to almost un-manageable recoil levels. This is why .40 and .45 haven’t benefitted from the same advances in bullet technology.
      3. Anyone who can shoot a .40 or .45 well can shoot a 9mm in the same gun better. This is simple physics.
      4. The FBI high speed teams (SWAT, HRT) have already gone back to the 9mm, prior to the rest of the agency switching.
      5. 9mm is more barrier blind, i.e. better at getting through hard barriers like windshields and car doors, than any of the other service calibers.

      • El Mac says

        December 2, 2015 at 1:36 pm

        Inside, on your point #4 – that is only partially true. The decision is still up to the individual operator. If he wants to still rock his Glock .40, he can. If he still wants to rock his 1911 .45, he can.

        • Frankie D says

          March 26, 2016 at 4:56 pm

          …and that was a poor tactical decision by the HRT’s command staff. Uniformity of weapon and caliber make good common sense. But, traditions die hard, especially in law enforcement circles. The 1911 was a great combat pistol in its time, but times have changed, the new 9mm ammo and high capacity mags are where it’s at now, and for a swatt entry team to be outfitted with different pistols and calibers is backward thinking.

          • El Mac says

            March 27, 2016 at 2:03 pm

            Actually, no it wasn’t a poor “tactical” decision. It was a very “adult” decision. HRT Operators do NOT need to be dictated to as to what type of weapons they need to go with on any given mission. They are big boys. Besides, the pistol – any pistol, is at best a back up to the primary long gun. And the 1911, is still a very viable combat pistol whether you dig it or not. And the 9mm, wow…it’s great, until it isn’t.

          • Aaron E says

            March 27, 2016 at 10:58 pm

            I agree with you here El Mac, as military special forces teams have often gone out with a variety of firearms. However, Frankie D does make a valid point in a law enforcement area – especially hostage rescue or difficult barricaded subjects.

            That is, if every member of the team carries different weapons, and at a critical moment one member runs out of ammo, or has a malfunction, etc. then having the same sidearm allows a very quick transition to bring that member back into the fight. Without the uniformity, a critical member may be out of action and that could alter the outcome of the incident.

            The military situation is different. The missions tend to involve goals and objectives with guidelines on eliminating threats – however necessary. If a special operator needs to grab a combatant’s firearm to finish the mission, so be it. If civilians become casualties then there are mechanisms to pay for that and move on.

            In law enforcement, every bullet fired carries a lawyers watchful eye for potential payout. If a law enforcement officer fails to perform – possible liability. If the officer uses an unfamiliar firearm with poor performance – liability. And the list does. on.

            I get your points. In a perfect world each special operator chooses the weapons that best fit their needs. If all goes well then there is no problem. If all falls apart, and you’re in law enforcement, then the potential for serious liability grows exponentially. In that regard, trying to limit liability should be a serious consideration of law enforcement executives.

          • El Mac says

            March 27, 2016 at 11:10 pm

            I hear what you are saying but I strongly disagree with it. And here is why…let me use this quote as my launching pad:

            “In law enforcement, every bullet fired carries a lawyers watchful eye for potential payout. If a law enforcement officer fails to perform – possible liability. If the officer uses an unfamiliar firearm with poor perf ormance – liability.”
            True, every bullet fired is most likely a lawsuit. But the flip side to your argument is the one that I personally came to and that is this: I still maintain and use my 1911 over the super Glock. Why? Simple, I shoot it better. I get more hits. I get them faster. And I get them repeatedly. I get them on demand. I carry it because my performance goes up and my confidence in my ability with that chose tool is reason enough. I do NOT need someone else making that decision for me. So if they want to ram the Glock down my throat and I throw a round in a critical situation, the liability is on them, not me. I’ve stated my reasons for sticking with the 1911. If they want to bully me into some other goofy design WHEN I DO NOT WANT TO FOR VERY VALID REASONS, the lawsuit will be on their head. And they know it. My reason is based on demonstrated performance, not arm chair commanding decision.

          • Aaron E says

            March 28, 2016 at 9:53 pm

            So are you saying you cannot train to proficiency with the Glock – or any other handgun besides the 1911? I think the revealing part of your statement is “WHEN I DO NOT WANT TO …”.

            I believe you shoot better with a 1911, however personal preference can go a long way in that arena. If the same amount of time and commitment were given to another pistol, I’m confident that you could become as proficient.

            I get the “arm chair commanding decision” opinion – I’ve seen way too many dumb ideas, projects, and equipment pushed by those who don’t actually do the job. However, it does make perfect sense to choose single firearms for particular uses – pistol, shotgun, patrol rifle, sub-gun, precision.

            Like I said before, having everyone using the same system allows for interchangeability and additional ammunition ready to go if needed. It would be a nightmare for larger agencies (like FBI – nearly 10,000 Agents) to have multiple firearms in use simply because of personal preference. There could potentially be dozens of firearms in use.

            There would be added expense for Armorer training, spare parts, training in general, and potentially for firearm purchases – the larger the purchase the better the deal. Multiple firearms with smaller amounts – less deal. Same goes for ammunition.

            Now, the FBI having a highly specialized unit like HRT, I could see allowing more personal preference to dictate, but not for the Bureau at large. HRT could have their own Armorers, parts, etc. and training is more specialized with specialized shooters making the prospect more reasonable.

          • El Mac says

            March 29, 2016 at 6:54 am

            Of course I can train to proficiency with a Glock and have done so. But the point is, I don’t like it. Ergo, I will never perform as smoothly with it as I do a 1911. The larger point I was getting at was addressing your “liability” argument. It just doesn’t hold water. That’s a typical response of a desk jockey, bean counting REMF. And something tells me, that is not you. So stop swallowing their brand of koolaid and think for yourself and just as importantly, trust your fellow operator/officer/agent to follow his own instincts as to what works for him. I could care less about the extra cost of parts/armorer training, etc. That is the REMF’s issue to deal with not mine. And rather than additional bean counting fingernail biting worries, I look at it as “value added”. If I can field an operator that believes in his equipment, his own training and performance – it would be well worth the cost. I don’t owe jack crap to Gaston and I never will. And I refuse to swallow his lowest common denominator garbage.

    • Smiddywesson says

      December 2, 2015 at 3:09 pm

      There are a lot of authorized guns on the approved list. SWAT generally shoots .45 Springfield 1911s. Most people just stick with their issued guns, which are mostly Glocks in .40. The issue isn’t performance of the 9mm, which HAS improved, the issue is terminal ballistics. A smaller bullet cannot do the work of a larger bullet simply by cranking up the velocity. The number one important factor for wounding is bullet size, then bullet construction, then velocity. A 9mm will never be a .45, and it isn’t even a .40, period. People can talk until they are blue in the face about anecdotal stories how medical people can’t tell the difference by looking at the wounds, but that’s just ridiculous. The nose of the bullet does the work, and the mass drives that tool, period.

      • Inside Source says

        December 2, 2015 at 3:45 pm

        This is changing. HRT currently issues 9mm G17’s to all new operators as the default, and SWAT is pushing out G17’s to replace the 1911’s. While most agents still have a choice, the default issued guns for the high speed teams are going toward 9mm, with the rest of the agency to follow once this contract is awarded.

        You’re wrong about factors for wounding. Velocity is only important in that a bullet travels within the velocity range it was designed to perform in. Expansion and penetration causing permanent tissue damage is the only thing that matters in pistol calibers. The nose of the bullet does do the work, and the mass does drive that tool, but a 9mm bullet has more mass behind it in relation to frontal surface area than the .40 or .45 do, and that is what makes it better at penetrating hard barriers. The two 9mm loadings the FBI uses (mentioned below) also expand within .02-.05″ of similar .40 and .45 rounds, yet they penetrate as much as 2-3″ more and perform more consistently through barriers.

        • Smiddywesson says

          December 2, 2015 at 4:21 pm

          Exactly, velocity needs to be sufficient, but it’s not the primary concern in wounding, the nose design and mass do the job.

          • Aaron E says

            December 2, 2015 at 5:14 pm

            And shot placement!

19. El Mac says

    November 29, 2015 at 9:03 pm

    Aaron, you have no idea what the other makers will end up offering. Glock is not about to send forward a model with “finger grooves” just because the current ones have finger grooves. Same with the other manufacturers. Admittedly, against current iterations of pistols, the Sig P320 looks very good. And it should, it is a da-mn fine pistola. But the other manufacturers are not going to take anything lying down. Standby.

    • Aaron says

      November 30, 2015 at 9:32 am

      El Mac,
      I have no doubt that some of the other manufacturers will try to develop a prototype to meet the FBI’s requirements. In fact, Glock appears to be in the best shape for this as they simply need to go back to a straight grip without finger grooves.

      However, many of the other manufacturers will have to develop an entirely new pistol. I did not see a timeframe on the RFP, but it stands to reason that the FBI isn’t going to wait around indefinitely. So the real question becomes, are the other manufacturers going to spend a lot of money redesigning, and recalibrating million dollar equipment, on the chance they might be considered.

      For instance, Ruger has been selling firearms like crazy over the last few years. There models have some major design changes to compete. I don’t see Ruger even forwarding an option, as their civilian sales are so good it doesn’t make good business sense to spend a lot of money on something that appears to be tailored so neatly to one of its competitors.

    • Aaron E says

      December 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm

      I don’t think the “others” will let this go laying down either – but they all have to modify current models, where Sig does not. In business language that is an unfair advantage. And yes, the Sig P320 is a very nice pistol (almost all Sigs are), but that is not really the point of my article.

      • El Mac says

        December 2, 2015 at 4:13 pm

        So what? The FBI laid out the requirements of what they want…and either the manufacturers will man up or they won’t. That is not the FBI’s problem.

        • Aaron E says

          December 2, 2015 at 4:19 pm

          Ah but it is. If the manufactures can show the RFP is so narrowly defined as to give Sig an unfair advantage (a defacto sole source), a Court could rule the RFP unlawful and prevent the FBI from selecting a new pistol based upon that RFP’s requirements.

          Fair competition is how graft and corruption is supposed to be kept out of government.

          • El Mac says

            December 2, 2015 at 4:30 pm

            Then that is an issue for the legal beagles, not the end user. “Could” is just part of the process.

          • Aaron E says

            December 2, 2015 at 5:13 pm

            And a waste of taxpayer money for an RFP that should have been vetted better.

          • El Mac says

            March 28, 2016 at 12:27 pm

            And upon further review, the Sig does not meet the requirement as stated in the RFP because it does not have a magwell.

          • FredC1968 says

            April 12, 2016 at 10:58 am

            This looks like an end run around the requirement for fair competition.

          • El Mac says

            April 12, 2016 at 11:23 am

            Bullcrap

20. John Smith says

    December 20, 2015 at 4:55 am

    So whats the timeline on this?

    • Aaron E says

      December 21, 2015 at 11:02 pm

      John I could not find a timeline, but I would imagine it would only be around 6 months or so. After the pistols are submitted, FBI will need time to examine their qualifications and do their own testing before making a recommendation for selection.

      • El Mac says

        December 22, 2015 at 12:53 am

        You can expect at least a year – best case. Two years, realistic.

        • Aaron E says

          December 22, 2015 at 3:28 pm

          Do you have inside information? Or pure speculation? Though the Federal government is typically slow, I’d say a year at the most. The FBI doesn’t need or want to sit around on the decision.

          • El Mac says

            December 22, 2015 at 3:43 pm

            Experience. The part that is not predictable and the part that can delay the process is the part that is not in the FBI’s hands – that is, the lawyers of company XYZ that can (and will) sue because their product was not selected for whatever reason that they deem “unfair”. Given the size and long range impact of this contract, one can expect it. It has happened before on smaller contracts.

          • Aaron E says

            December 22, 2015 at 3:54 pm

            That part we agree on … lawyers!

      • John Smith says

        December 22, 2015 at 8:44 am

        Thanks. Fair or not whichever one selected is going to get a nice sales boost. I’m more interested in maybe some new models coming out to meet the requirement, like maybe Glock submitting a 17 with longer bbl and no finger grooves and 19 with no grooves. Not sure if there was time or worth the trouble to them.

        • El Mac says

          December 22, 2015 at 10:33 am

          I hope Glock just goes away. But like a metastic tumor, they probably won’t.

21. JMB says

    December 29, 2015 at 10:24 am

    Wouldn’t the m&p pro series still be in the running? The full sized m&p pro actually fits in the fbi class 1 requirements… The m&p pro L would fill the class 2.

    • Aaron E says

      December 29, 2015 at 5:29 pm

      Possibly JMB, but I think the front fiber optic sight is a disqualifier.

      “The night sights shall contain tritium or an equivalent self-luminous material all of the same color.”

      • JMB says

        December 29, 2015 at 5:42 pm

        It sounds like they have picked out their sites (trijicon bright and tough). It’s an easy switch…plus honestly s&w could just put together a FBI spec pistol out of existing parts. The important thing is that their full sized frame meets the size requirement for both requested pistols with just a change in their top end. The other dq factor mentioned is not a problem due to the availability of the PC sear.

        The full sized m&p with a sear change is just barely within spec for their smaller gun req, and add on a L slide and barrel and you meet the requirements of the bigger gun. Same frame…only have to inventory one magazine, set of frame inserts, etc.

        Or throw in a threaded barrel w/ .5″ more length and they meet the requirements for both classes of pistols with everything but the barrel the same. Inventory management would be so drastically simpler.

        • Aaron E says

          December 29, 2015 at 5:47 pm

          Good points! I’m going to go by several of the most likely competitors’ booths at SHOT Show in a few weeks and see if there are new or altered pistols being prepared for the RFP.

22. shanef says

    January 2, 2016 at 2:31 am

    Walther ppq and p99 both have magazine that hold 17 rounds. I have 4 of them

23. Aaron E says

    January 8, 2016 at 7:47 pm

    UPDATE: The Sig Sauer P320 just won the 2016 Golden Bullseye Award for best handgun from the National Rifle Association’s American Rifleman magazine. This is a very prestigious award in the firearms market, and could be another mark in the FBI decision-making process.

    • El Mac says

      January 9, 2016 at 1:13 am

      Only if it passes FBI muster.

24. Kevin Clash says

    March 4, 2016 at 1:25 am

    The FBI…clowns, do your job and stop wasting taxpayer money.

25. Scott says

    March 22, 2016 at 9:26 pm

    What’s with the requirement for NO finger grooves?

    • El Mac says

      March 22, 2016 at 9:59 pm

      Finger grooves are BS. They work for some, but not all. A waste of time.

      • Aaron E says

        March 27, 2016 at 10:41 pm

        Although the Glock finger grooves work very well for me, I tend to agree with you here – they don’t work for everybody. There are other ways to mold the grip to fit different hand sizes.

26. Andy Nash says

    May 18, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    I have 2 Glocks and a H & K, all .40’s and like them all but this one sounds like a winner. Might just piss the lefties off and go buy one.

27. John Smith says

    May 25, 2016 at 11:54 am

    Lot of crickets on the Internet on this, any updates?

    • Aaron E says

      May 26, 2016 at 9:34 am

      John I have been looking as well and I haven’t found any more updates. However, as I mentioned in the article, I didn’t expect this process to move with lightning speed. Remember, SHOT Show was in January where all the majors show off their new firearms. NRA Show just concluded and a few more new firearms were delivered.

      I expect the manufacturers are finalizing their submissions, and are in the process of submitting their entries. Then the arduous task of the FBI scrutinizing the entries to verify the meet minimum requirements, and the longer testing and evaluating process to follow. I would not expect a decision on this until next year.

      • El Mac says

        May 26, 2016 at 10:04 am

        Look for some news to come out next month.

28. Ask4theCloser says

    June 29, 2016 at 4:35 pm

    Glock Gen 5

    • El Mac says

      June 29, 2016 at 5:43 pm

      Bingo. Someone is paying attention.

      • Ask4theCloser says

        June 29, 2016 at 6:39 pm

        I tried to post the link for the award. But so far, the site won’t let me.

        • El Mac says

          June 29, 2016 at 6:59 pm

          I doubt that link is official. The official word is not to come until the earliest next week.

          • Ask4theCloser says

            June 29, 2016 at 7:13 pm

            Goto FOB DOT GOV and search FBI, you’ll see the first link as

            9mm Luger Pistols / Replacement Parts click on that, it says awarded today 3:20PM

          • El Mac says

            June 29, 2016 at 7:42 pm

            Ok, those are for parts. I see nothing about a Glock Gen 5. The Bureau already has a crap ton load of Gkock 9mm. Has had for years and years…that is nothing new.

            The new contract pistol will be a Glock…no doubt. But that link ain’t it.

          • Ask4theCloser says

            June 29, 2016 at 8:24 pm

            That is the original solicitation for the contract to supply guns to the FBI. And it says, “9mm Luger Pistols / Replacement Parts”. It’s for the whole works. And the Frame’s for testing were marked M. With no finger grooves, ambi slide release, flared magwel, and stripper mag base plate, that’s not a Gen 4. It’s not any Gen that’s been out ever, up to this point.

          • El Mac says

            June 29, 2016 at 9:17 pm

            Correct. And that is exactly as I said it would be when I originally argued against the author of this article’s premise. However, I still don’t see where you are seeing a description of the selected model.

          • Ask4theCloser says

            June 29, 2016 at 9:25 pm

            Under the solicitation it has the requirements for the pistol, the description is in the application. I would say you have a source for your information. And I would reach out to them to confirm this. I am telling you what my source is telling me.

          • Aaron E says

            July 1, 2016 at 11:17 am

            Are you saying you called the FBI’s new pistol being a new Glock from the original dialogue, because I can’t find that post anywhere?

          • El Mac says

            July 1, 2016 at 11:37 am

            Aaron, I’m saying that I knew the pistol was not going to be the SIG 320 as you most definitely stated. I also knew that Glock had the inside track which you disputed because it had finger grooves which the RFP disallowed….and I further stated that if Glock wanted the contract, it would be nothing for them to submit a finger grooveless model to meet the RFP requirements. You tried to tell us that the fix was in for the 320. I disputed that.

            Who was right? ?

          • Aaron E says

            July 1, 2016 at 12:14 pm

            Well to be fair I only said the RFP appeared tailor made for the Sig P320 (maybe a play on words, but still a play on words). I never disputed Glock would make a run for this contract, in fact I was counting on them doing just that. With 20 years in the Bureau there were a lot of advantages going toward Glock. The finger grooves disqualified them but I also acknowledged the fix was fairly easy.

            Now I wonder if I should post an article on the Glock “inside track”. I could put forth that the FBI simply wanted an updated Glock frame (and 9mm), but went through an extensive RFP to hide a sole source $85 million contract … hee, hee, hee!

            I’m actually glad to see what the new Glock will look like. Could spawn a whole new set of features across the market.

          • Ask4theCloser says

            June 29, 2016 at 8:53 pm

            It was also reported on Soldier System dot com, and a number of other sites. Just google FBI Glock and the last 24 hours news, and you’ll see it

          • Ask4theCloser says

            June 29, 2016 at 7:20 pm

            Google RFP-OSCU-DSU1503 it’ll pop up

29. Beachhawk says

    November 6, 2016 at 10:11 pm

    It seems to me that one of the basic entry qualifications for special agent should be physically able to fire and control the agency’s service weapons. FBI agents lost their lives in Miami because they were out gunned. In fact, they had to go to the nearest gun store to commandeer some hunting rifles to take out the bank robbers. After that incident they ordered 10mm pistols. Then they dumped the 10mm because many of the female agents couldn’t handle the recoil so the FBI adopted the 40S&W. Now they are dumping the 40 for the same caliber that got them in trouble in Miami because some of the new agents can’t handle the 40s. My only question is “WTF?.”

    • El Mac says

      November 6, 2016 at 10:21 pm

      Negative Beachhawk. You are confusing the Miami Shootout in ’86 with the North Hollywood bank robbers shootout in ’97. FBI Agents did NOT go to gun stores and commandeer hunting rifles to finish the Miami shootout. North Hollywood shootout, there were cops that did just that.

      Secondly, the 10mm wasn’t dropped in favor of the .40 because female agents couldn’t handle the recoil of the 10mm. The .40 that was eventually adopted did not recoil any LESS than the 10, and in fact, some would argue that it recoiled MORE because the gun that fired the .40 weighed significantly less that the 1076 that fired the 10mm. The real culprit, if you want to call it that, was that the 1076 was a very problematic gun to begin with. It’s bulk and weight did not make for a good concealment pistol – it made the 1911 look absolutely svelte in comparison. The length of the grip from fore to aft was the real issue. It was loooong to accommodate that 10mm.

      And really, if you want to believe the pablum about the .40…then you have to believe that about virtually every department, agency and unit that dropped what they had and switched over to the .40. Not just the FBI.

      Lastly, yeah, to me it is a mistake to drop the .40 for a 9. But the real crime was staying with the Glunk.

      • Beachhawk says

        November 7, 2016 at 5:32 pm

        Thanks for the correction, El Mac. You are correct, I mixed up my shoot out histories. Sometimes my middle aged memory circuits get crossed up resulting in misfires. As for the reason the FBI switched 10 to 40s, that was the story given to me by a couple of agents when I was in law enforcement. I never carried a 10 for the reasons you laid out, so I have virtually no experience with them. I have a 40, but I prefer to carry a .45 subcompact. Personally, I think the 40 is a solution in search of a problem and the Glock looks like a pistol designed by trolls living in the basement of a Soviet-era, East European factory. They may be accurate and reliable, but they will never win any beauty contests. There are too many accurate and reliable pistols that don’t look like they fell off the back of a tow truck. Okay, I’ll get off the soap box now. Apologies to Glock owners!

        • El Mac says

          November 8, 2016 at 10:09 am

          No worries! It happens…stay safe out there.

30. Mallic says

    January 25, 2017 at 7:04 pm

    There is a compact model of the SR9. It’s called the SR9C.

31. George says

    June 17, 2017 at 9:43 pm

    I read about the Miami shootout years ago. One agent hit the bad guy with his 9mm firing 115 grain hollow points. I think the bullet reached within 1 inch of the bad guy’s heart. If 147 grain hollow points were available then, and the agent was firing those instead of the 115 grain ones, the bullet would have hit the bad guys heart and the shootout would have ended earlier.

32. Frank Matchung says

    July 14, 2017 at 9:30 am

    Does anyone know of the new Glock designed for the FBI is or will be available for civilian purchase?

    • Aaron says

      July 18, 2017 at 12:07 am

      Frank I’m attending a Glock Armorer recertification course tomorrow and will see what I can find out. From talking with their SHOT Show reps it doesn’t sound like it will go public, nor will the Army’s MHS Glock design with manual safety. Word is Glock himself very much dislikes both designs and only allowed them to win big money contracts.

    • Aaron E says

      July 19, 2017 at 1:34 pm

      Frank, I just attended a Glock Armorer course and received some insight into this question. The instructor explained the Glock 17M (FBI and a few other major U.S. law enforcement agencies model) was produced to acquire the rather large and very prestigious FBI contract. However, Glock does not appear interested at this time in furthering the 17M in the civilian market, or even for smaller law enforcement agency purchase. Currently Glock is experiencing record highs in production and sales on their current models, so they are not interested in exerting effort in the 17M at this time.

33. Green Legacy says

    December 12, 2017 at 3:00 pm

    I would probably come at someone using a glock 22 with a .380, just fyi

34. Joe Smith says

    June 3, 2018 at 1:50 pm

    My Sig P320 was not a good pistol out of the box. The takedown lever was extremely difficult to operate, should have never left the factory like that. Plus the “voluntary upgrade” (IE Recall) to fix the accident discharge problem when dropped. Trigger was nice, accuracy was nice, I could swear once and awhile I had a live round eject along with a spent round, a magazine problem??? I traded it in for a Glock 19x, best decision I made. I own several older Sigs, excellent pistols. But not the 320 or the 250.

    • Aaron says

      June 4, 2018 at 7:37 pm

      Joe you are unfortunately not the only P320 owner to have troubles with their pistol. Sig has such a good reputation, but it appears they may have rushed the P320 and suffered quality control. It happens, and this pistol made a strong run at the FBI pistol and won the Army’s pistol competition, but it is just so disappointing when a good manufacturer compromises. I think the P320 will come around and be a fine pistol, but it is hard for me to argue the Glock is a more trustworthy firearm right now.

    • El Mac says

      September 11, 2018 at 2:26 pm

      “I could swear once and awhile I had a live round eject along with a spent round, a magazine problem???”

      Well, either you did or you didn’t. It’s that simple.

      • Joe Smith says

        September 11, 2018 at 3:25 pm

        Yes it is that simple lol and I did after a round count. I no longer have the pistol. Bought a Glock 19x with zero issues out of the box.

        • El Mac says

          September 11, 2018 at 3:33 pm

          Your explanation and writing leave a bit to be desired. As to y our choice of pistol, whatever floats your boat.

          • Joe Smith says

            September 11, 2018 at 3:50 pm

            To be more clear, out of the last magazine I shot through the Sig 320, I had 3 live rounds eject or pop out of the magazine during shooting. They were not chambered. This did not cause the pistol to jam. Maybe I am picky, but a pistol should work out of the box. As I mentioned in my first post, this pistol should have never passed quality control. I have read that several other people have had the same issues as I have, including the Army. I have older Sig pistols which function flawlessly. My Sig P210 functions perfectly, for a target pistol. I own many Glocks, quite a few HKs, and many other pistols. This particular P320 was one of the worst pistols I have owned.

          • El Mac says

            September 11, 2018 at 3:51 pm

            I’m curious, what did you do with said pistol?

          • Joe Smith says

            September 11, 2018 at 4:08 pm

            The dealer I bought it from was very understanding and we worked out a trade, and he was going to work with Sig, who I am sure fixed the issue. From what I understand the take down lever was pressing against the recoil spring and rod. As for the live rounds ejecting our if the mags, I am not sure, perhaps just swapped the mags. I did lose some money, but I didn’t have to deal with the hassle so well worth it.

          • El Mac says

            September 11, 2018 at 4:16 pm

            Good. No doubt the problem was resolved. Glad you didn’t shuttle it off to some unsuspecting cat at a gun show.

          • Joe Smith says

            September 11, 2018 at 4:23 pm

            Yeah I have had that happen to me before with a Ruger. Fortunately, Ruger helped me out, fixed the issue, in an fairly quick turn around.

35. Aaron says

    November 2, 2015 at 2:01 pm

    Thanks for the hat tip Todd!

36. Aaron says

    November 2, 2015 at 8:52 pm

    Thanks for the nod Uncle!