SIG Sauer recently announced the delivery of the 100,000th M17/M18 Modular Handgun System (MHS) pistol to the U.S. Military. The 100K delivery milestone came ahead of schedule and SIG Sauer says it has surpassed the performance standards of the government MHS contract. The SIG Sauer M17/M18 replaces the Beretta M9 (aka 92F) which served the U.S. Miltary since 1985. The M17 has a close civilian equivalent, the SIG Sauer model P320 pistol.

“In the month of October 2019 SIG SAUER exceeded our manufacturing requirements by 30% and delivered a record-setting 12,100 handguns to the U.S. Military to achieve this historic milestone for SIG Sauer and the MHS program”, stated Ron Cohen, SIG President & CEO. “With the strict accuracy and acceptance specifications that the M17 and M18 are continuously exceeding, it’s clear that the success of this program can be directly attributed to the reliability, durability, and accuracy of the handgun, which has resulted in the high demand for both the M17 and M18 from every branch of the U.S. Military.”

The M17 and M18 handguns are a 9mm, striker-fired, P320-based handgun platform, featuring coyote-tan PVD coated stainless steel slides with black controls and utilize both 17-round and 21-round magazines. The M18 is a compact version of the M17. Both handgun types are equipped with SIGLITE front night sights, removable night sight rear plates, and manual safeties. To date SIG SAUER has delivered M17 and M18 handguns to all branches of the U.S. Military and the U.S. Coast Guard.

P320/M17 image from KSGunGuy YouTube Video.

It’s official… the U.S. Army is replacing the M9 Pistol made by Beretta. On August 28, 2015, the Army released the official solicitation for the XM17 MHS Pistol, a modular design that will replace the M9, the Army’s version of Beretta’s model 92. This is a big contract — the Army intends to acquire at least 300,000 pistols, all from one manufacturer.

According to Military.com: “One of the major goals of the MHS [Modular Handgun System] effort is to adopt a pistol chambered for a more potent round than the current 9mm[.] The U.S. military replaced the .45 caliber 1911 pistol with the M9 in 1985 and began using the 9mm NATO round at that time.” It is unclear what chambering the U.S. Army wants instead of the 9x19mm. Some pundits suggest the Army wants a larger-diameter bullet, while others think the Army is looking for a higher velocity projectile that can penetrate body armor. While the Army has not specified a particular cartridge, the XM17 spec requires that the pistol’s projectile penetrate at least 14″ of ballistics gel at 50 meters. The Army also hopes that the new pistol will be more durable and easier to maintain than the M9.

This XM17 solicitation document, a whopping 351 pages long, contains detailed specs for the pistol, accessories, along with performance standards. Guns.com says the specification includes accuracy standards as well as modular design requirements: “The Army said the handgun should be able to hit a 4-inch target at a 50-meter range at least 90 percent of the time throughout the gun’s lifespan. To compete in the Modular Handgun System, and the XM17 designation, the pistol needs modifiable grips, varied magazine options, ambidextrous controls, and rails for accessories.”

We are told that the military needs a new pistol, to be called the Modular Handgun System (MHS). According to Fox News: “The MHS would replace the Army’s inventory of more than 200,000 outdated M9 pistols and several thousand M11 9mm pistols with one that has greater accuracy, lethality, reliability, and durability.” The MHS will be a “total system replacement — new gun, new ammo, new holster, everything,” reports Daryl Easlick, Army project officer at Fort Benning, Georgia.

Easlick says that the Army, and other services, demand a pistol with a more powerful cartridge that does more damage to the bad guys: “We have to do better than our current 9mm.”

Does the military really need a new pistol, with a different chambering? Maybe not…

Here’s the real problem. Most Marines, Soldiers, police, and gun owners tend to be novice marksmen, especially with handguns. Very few people have trained to shoot a handgun well enough to offer a competent opinion on the matter. To underscore this point, let’s look at some ranges for evidence of typical skill levels.

Army Pistol Qualification Target

As you can see, there is no real trend in hits and the entire barn door (full sized silhouette) has shots sprayed all over it. And these are the shots that actually hit, all of them receiving full value. On this particular Army course, shooters are given 40 rounds to engage 30 targets and are considered qualified if 16 of the 30 targets are hit, somewhere. Soldiers can miss nearly half the time, even with ten extra rounds, and still pass. The “fast” stages of the course allow two seconds per shot and the bulk of the course is slower. Note the base of the target is blocked by the mound protecting the target lifter and that mound is a beaten zone of many very low, errant shots.

The Marines in the peanut gallery are likely chuckling, so let’s look at examples of their ranges.

Marine Pistol Target Bay

Yet Another Marine Pistol Target Bay, Showing Effects of Missed Shots.

The metal carrier behind the block wall holds a silhouette the same size as the Army target and that waist-high wall has taken a healthy beating from bad shots jerked and flinched several feet off target. Of course, the wall only shows shots pulled off target that went low. The rest ended up in the berm somewhere else. As seen closer up, the chewed-up top line of blocks is not made of concrete. That’s to avoid back-splatter towards the shooters from the excessive number of low shots.

REALITY CHECK: These are the results on actual qualification ranges with large targets, generous time limits, fixed courses of fire, and no real pressure. Imagine how much worse the shooting is when the stress and variables of combat are thrown in. Given the users wielding it, is the M9 truly ineffective? Even if it is, are shooters like this capable of a valid opinion on the matter?

Most Marines, Soldiers, police, CCW, and gun owners won’t invest the effort needed to train to a high level of skill and very few public sector organizations will expend the resources needed to make them do so. I’m not casting aspersions, just trying to address reality. If the Department of Defense (DoD) decides on a new pistol, or any other weapon, the results will be similar because the end user isn’t magically more skillful with a shiny new issue item.

About the Author
John M. Buol Jr. began his shooting career in practical competition, earning Master classifications from USPSA and IDPA. After slotting on the Army Reserve Marksmanship Program, he switched to NATO and NRA/CMP events, earning Distinguished Rifleman and Pistol Shot badges and a series of All Army Small Arms Championship wins along the way. He is a published author (Beyond “Expert”: Tripling Military Shooting Skills) and maintains the Firearm User Network Blog at http://FirearmUserNetwork.com