Originally Posted by
Mike C
I don't mean the Mil. I mean those of us who run a P320 and still don't like how Sig handled the whole thing or those of us who still lack full confidence in it. There are plenty of us, (even though I seem to own a shitload more of their stuff than anything else these days). As far as it not being a smart business move that would be highly debatable. What I am talking about is the exact same thing Sig has been doing with the whole P365 line and it has been insanely successful. For example originally the P365 model was released then the XL, then the P365X after that the Spectre Comp, .380 model and now the Macro. Sig has also changed slide designs and are offering all slide models with optics cut and BUIS. All models have or are about to have slides released for all guns on this line, all which have an extremely high degree of parts compatibility.
Instead of redesigning whole new guns time can be better spent reusing some of the existing components, saving lots of R&D time. Look at the .380 model. Slide, barrel RSA and mag swap, mag is mostly the same. This is a cost savings to the company and a benefit to the customer. If several models use the same barrel and other internal components that means fewer tool head swaps, less down time, fewer tools on the tool head potentially and higher output over all. I would think having fewer parts not only decreases cost but could also equate to more time for QC if one allowed. I am a good bit out my wheelhouse and of course this is a lot of conjecture on my part. I'd bet a machinist or manufacturing expert can chime in here and spell it out better than I could but I'm sure you see what I am getting at.