Canadian Special Forces pulls P320s from service after soldier injured by misfire

[LittleLebowski]

Given that this was JTF-2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Task_Force_2), I’m leaning towards this not being an ND.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/special-forces-pistols-1.5897942


The soldier, belonging to Joint Task Force 2 (JTF-2), was hit in the leg and received a flesh wound as a result of the accident, which took place Nov. 5, 2020 on a firing range at Dwyer Hill, the unit's principal base.

Consequently, the military has withdrawn all the brand new SIG Sauer P320s from service and members of the unit will — for the time being — rely on their old model SIG Sauer P226 pistols.

[HeavyDuty]

I really want to like the P320, but...

[rd62]

Full disclosure I do not own nor have I fired a P320.

That said I don't see what it does that other (vetted and seemingly less prone to failure resulting in an AD) striker pistols don't do, that would warrant agencies/individuals continuing to roll the dice on these pistols.

[LittleLebowski]

I really want to like the P320, but...

https://i.giphy.com/media/3o7btT1T9qpQZWhNlK/200.webp

[awp_101]

67101

[HeavyDuty]

I love how they feel and shoot for me, but then I look at the parts diagram and realize just how much is going on in there. Not even a gadget would make me feel differently.

[beenalongtime]

Given that this was JTF-2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Task_Force_2), I’m leaning towards this not being an ND.



Thanks for the laugh today, this made me think it was fired with intent then.


I really want to like the P320, but...
you don't live with stairs?

I saw one of these in my deal of the day email program, last night, and for a second I read it as the Sig I would like to get, the 229. I try to avoid making purchases at night, due to late night reading.

[gato naranja]

Full disclosure I do not own nor have I fired a P320.

That said I don't see what it does that other (vetted and seemingly less prone to failure resulting in an AD) striker pistols don't do, that would warrant agencies/individuals continuing to roll the dice on these pistols.

I have rented two of them, and thought them to be "meh." Other than the infinite mystical modularity offered by the serialized chassis, I still can't figure out why anyone would favor it over other platforms.

[TGS]

"was hit in the leg and received a flesh wound as a result of the accident"

Am I the only one whose mind went this route?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UijhbHvxWrA

[19852+]

Don't our [US] SF use Glocks? Namely the G19 ? I don't own a Glock but I've used a couple and I respect what they are and what they can do for so many. I do not have the same thoughts for the P320.

[LittleLebowski]

Don't our [US] SF use Glocks? Namely the G19 ? I don't own a Glock but I've used a couple and I respect what they are and what they can do for so many. I do not have the same thoughts for the P320.

They have access to both, what my buddy at 3rd Group says is that most are sticking with G17s and G19s.

[JonInWA]

They have access to both, what my buddy at 3rd Group says is that most are sticking with G17s and G19s.

That eminently makes sense. Disregarding the cloud over the P320's inherent safety, trudging through or being immersed to mud, sludge, water, etc, and then having to detail-disassemble in the field to clean/lube that fiddly FCU is not my idea of a Good Time.

And Glocks, in addition to their durability and reliability, are literally the easiest gun that I can think of, and certainly the only viable contemporary one to detail-disassemble and reassemble-easily accomplished in a baseball cap in the field with a simple punch (or a field-expediant substitute) being the only requisite tool.

Best, Jon

[Polecat]

Sig should try their hand at a more simplified design: think a Sig Glock if that makes sense.

[TheNewbie]

Sig should try their hand at a more simplified design: think a Sig Glock if that makes sense.

A “Sick”.

[Kirk]

I haven't kept up with the Sig saga lately. So I'm guessing even the updated post-recall models *still* aren't drop safe? As much as I want to like the P320s, this continues to give me pause.

Not trying to thread drift, but do the P365s have this same issue? I ask because I'm currently the lead bidder on 1 right now :D

[TicTacticalTimmy]

The article contains literally no information on how the ND/AD occured, so I dont see how one can really draw conclusions from this. The article has numerous technical innacuracies and doesnt say anything specific about the incident, only that the military isnt providing any details.
I also see remarkable cockiness/ignorance from posters with comments like "Sig should redesign the P320" or "sig doesnt know what they are doing." Sig is literally the biggest success story in the global firearms industry of the last decade. The way they have been doing things has won them the contract to replace nearly all the pistols in US Military Service with the P320, as well as many other contracts not to mention explosive growth on the civilian side.

And I am someone with a strong dislike of the P320 and pretty much all SAO strikers for serious use.

[Jim Watson]

An inadvertent pistol discharge into the leg usually involves a holster.

And I guess I have to revise my vocabulary, I always thought a "misfire" was a failure to fire, not an inadvertent discharge.

[Shoresy]

An inadvertent pistol discharge into the leg usually involves a holster.

And I guess I have to revise my vocabulary, I always thought a "misfire" was a failure to fire, not an inadvertent discharge.

It's CBC... the US media has a propensity to (willfully) not have a clue what they're talking about when it comes to firearms. You can go ahead and double that proclivity (possibly triple it) for the Canadian media.

[Default.mp3]

Yesterday, a Canadian news outlet, CBC News, published a story regarding the unintended discharge last year of a SIG P320 by a Canadian Special Operator, resulting in injury and his unit withdrawing the pistol from service. After the accident the unit returned to using the SIG P226 they had planned to replace with the P320.

Unfortunately, the story is not well researched. For example, they edited it after publication, removing an inaccurate description of how the pistol operates. Rather than critique it all here, we leave it up to you to read it.

However, we will point out that the story alleges that the pistols in question do not feature the drop safety upgrades found in the US Military Modular Handgun System M17/18 and current production P320s. Considering they were procured from SIG after the changes were made to the design, this is false and severely undermines the narrative offered up in the article.

While the story was shared in various corners of the web and social media, it didn’t gain near the traction that we had expected. Reactions ranged from confirmation bias from those who don’t like 320s and just read the headline and not the full story; to others who brushed the issue off as a Negligent Discharge; to those who questioned the timing of the story as a hit piece placed by SIG’s competitors.

The last factor is worth examining, considering that the Canadian Department of National Defence is poised to release a tender for a replacement for their long-serving Browning Hi-powers, a firearm which should have been replaced years ago.

In a similar fashion to US “Buy America” directives, the Canadian government requires “Canadian Content.” For small arms, this means Colt Canada, a company which doesn’t manufacture modern, polymer, striker fired pistols.

In 2011, DND tested the waters, surveying industry’s willingness to sell their pistol Technical Data Packages to the Canadian government so that Colt Canada could be involved in the procurement. As you can imagine, the notion fell flat. Almost a decade has gone by and they’ve finally refined their requirement, deciding to open it to international contenders. Word is, they also homed in on a modular design inspired by MHS, with different frame and barrel sizes along with a common trigger mechanism. If true, this gives SIG a serious leg up on the competition.

But back to the firearm. Apparently, the pistol and holster made it to SIG where they attempted to replicate the malfunction. They couldn’t. What they did find odd was that the P320 was paired with a P226 holster which had modified, possibly with a Dremel tool, and heated and reformed. The fit is reportedly, far from optimal.

Naturally, the Canadian government is reticent to address the entire issue, considering the sensitivity of the unit in question. Since it made the papers and a point was made in the story to politicize the weapons purchase (it is categorized under politics for good measure), the Minister of Defence was assuredly briefed.

Absent an official statement from DND, we can only imagine how this affair might affect the upcoming pistol tender. Only time will tell.

However, we do have SIG SAUER’s statement on the matter:


NEWINGTON, N.H., (February 5, 2021) – SIG SAUER is working with Canadian Special Operations Forces Command (CANSOFCOM) to resolve an incident involving the unintended discharge of a P320. An inaccurate and incomplete report of this incident was recently published in the Canadian media that called into question the safety of the P320. While this incident occurred months ago, this erroneous media report is driven by multiple sources, including our competitors, and coincides with the imminent release of other Canadian military and law enforcement tenders, indicating the timing of its release is an attempt to improperly influence the procurements.

The firearm involved has been extensively tested by SIG SAUER and it has been determined to be safe. The investigation revealed the use of an incorrect holster not designed for a P320. The use of a modified P226 holster created an unsafe condition by allowing a foreign object to enter the holster, causing the unintended discharge.

The SIG SAUER P320 is among the most rigorously vetted pistols in the market. The P320 meets and exceeds all US safety standards and global military and law enforcement protocols, including the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and Department of Justice (DOJ). The P320 is one of the most innovative and sought-after pistols in the firearms market, and the pistol of choice for all branches of the United States Military (M17/M18), along with numerous law enforcement agencies and other military units worldwide.

What caused the malfunction? That’s still up in the air, but the actual pistol doesn’t seem to be the culprit. That leaves poor holster choice or operator error. Regardless, the article served its purpose, to disrupt pistol procurements. If not for DND, at least for LE Agencies in Canada.Source: https://soldiersystems.net/2021/02/05/sig-sauer-statement-on-cansofcom-incident/

[call_me_ski]

So it sounds like Sig got the holster back with the gun to test. Yet they couldn’t replicate the problem despite having the combo, yet the implication is it was the holster despite them not being able to replicate it? It seems like the only basis to blaim the holster after testing is it is the most convenient thing to blaim. Were all the other problems related to the P320 due to being in modified P226 holsters? It sounds like Sig still has not idea what is going on with the P320.

At some point, when is see smoke, I am going to assume there is fire. Regardless how hard Sig’s media department is working to tell me to not trust my lying little eyes. I just don’t see the reason to keep betting on the Sig when the market is so saturated with other options.

[HeavyDuty]

Another victim of Safariland being unable to get product out the door?

/snark

[HCountyGuy]

So it sounds like Sig got the holster back with the gun to test. Yet they couldn’t replicate the problem despite having the combo, yet the implication is it was the holster despite them not being able to replicate it? It seems like the only basis to blaim the holster after testing is it is the most convenient thing to blaim. Were all the other problems related to the P320 due to being in modified P226 holsters? It sounds like Sig still has not idea what is going on with the P320.

At some point, when is see smoke, I am going to assume there is fire. Regardless how hard Sig’s media department is working to tell me to not trust my lying little eyes. I just don’t see the reason to keep betting on the Sig when the market is so saturated with other options.

Yeah I'm not exactly trusting Sig to be honest with any issues given how things have been poorly handled so far in regards to the P320. I would like it if the Canadians would share their findings once they're done investigating the incident but I'm sure they're going to decline to do so either due to secret squirrel stuff or NDAs. Shame that.

[GearFondler]

Sig P320:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210205/9d5d49195c902f7bb70687e8955b8197.jpg



Glock:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210205/1827933574a78843f01309dc7e07475e.jpg

[Wondering Beard]

Sig P320:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210205/9d5d49195c902f7bb70687e8955b8197.jpg



Glock:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210205/1827933574a78843f01309dc7e07475e.jpg


HK:

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/ff/98/ea/ff98eac23706a58131ea62c0a16c9006.jpg

[HCM]

So it sounds like Sig got the holster back with the gun to test. Yet they couldn’t replicate the problem despite having the combo, yet the implication is it was the holster despite them not being able to replicate it? It seems like the only basis to blaim the holster after testing is it is the most convenient thing to blaim. Were all the other problems related to the P320 due to being in modified P226 holsters? It sounds like Sig still has not idea what is going on with the P320.

At some point, when is see smoke, I am going to assume there is fire. Regardless how hard Sig’s media department is working to tell me to not trust my lying little eyes. I just don’t see the reason to keep betting on the Sig when the market is so saturated with other options.

Putting a gun with a short light trigger pull in a holster not made for that gun is user error.

Here you have a holster that is A) made for a different gun and B) user modified.

Compound that with the fact that you have an organization which has been using double action first shot pistols for decades switching to a striker fired pistol. As we have discussed before with the LA sheriffs office transition from the Beretta 92 to the Smith and Wesson M&P, and other orgs transitioning from DA to SF guns, there is normally an initial increase in NDs.

Canada has been jerking around since 2011 in replacing pistols that should’ve been replaced 20 years ago. The problem is they want to have the guns made by colt Canada which is their only serious small arms production facility. While Canada has a large landmass they have a small population. A Canadian military pistol contract is not large enough to make licensing production I called Canada worthwhile for any of the major gunmakers makers.

[psalms144.1]

I haven't kept up with the Sig saga lately. So I'm guessing even the updated post-recall models *still* aren't drop safe? As much as I want to like the P320s, this continues to give me pause.Post upgrade pistols are allegedly drop safe, though the P320 owners manual does (did?) directly state that the pistol might discharge if dropped. Neither is "slam safe" - engagement surfaces holding the fully tensioned striker are very small, and tolerance stacking is a thing...

[psalms144.1]

The way they have been doing things has won them the contract to replace nearly all the pistols in US Military Service with the P320, as well as many other contracts not to mention explosive growth on the civilian side.Sig won the MHS contract exclusively on price per unit. Think about that for a minute - Sig underbid Glock while promising to produce a pistol with double the parts and an extremely more complicated assembly process. Sig is in the business of making money - they're banking on the press from the MHS to bring LE and civilian buyers into the fold. "Well, the Army tested this thing and selected it..."

[Sig_Fiend]

67114

LOL one can only hope.

[call_me_ski]

Putting a gun with a short light trigger pull in a holster not made for that gun is user error.

Here you have a holster that is A) made for a different gun and B) user modified.

Compound that with the fact that you have an organization which has been using double action first shot pistols for decades switching to a striker fired pistol. As we have discussed before with the LA sheriffs office transition from the Beretta 92 to the Smith and Wesson M&P, and other orgs transitioning from DA to SF guns, there is normally an initial increase in NDs.

Canada has been jerking around since 2011 in replacing pistols that should’ve been replaced 20 years ago. The problem is they want to have the guns made by colt Canada which is their only serious small arms production facility. While Canada has a large landmass they have a small population. A Canadian military pistol contract is not large enough to make licensing production I called Canada worthwhile for any of the major gunmakers makers.

I agree that using the wrong holster is user error. However that doesn’t automatically mean it is the user error that caused the problem. It should be a fairly easy failure mode to test. Either the holster can be made to contact the trigger when in the holster or it can’t. I imagine Sig tried their best to have the holster cause the problem. The multitude of small parts inside the gun have many more variables in testing. This combined with the numerous other reports of problems and history of Sig openly lying to customers about the issue(beyond the typical no comment companies give) has kind of lost them the benefit of the doubt in my mind.

I wonder if the guns were pulled from service immediately and it was just reported of if they were pulled a few months later, after an investigation. If the unit waited to pull the guns after an investigation it may be more telling than any statement from Sig.

[JAH 3rd]

Sig should try their hand at a more simplified design: think a Sig Glock if that makes sense.

Copy Glock, pay a few million for whatever infringement of that design, then soldier on.

[DocGKR]

If you are at all intelligent, you will pay very close attention to what "psalms144.1" wrote above...

[DocGKR]

As posted by an informed individual at LF:

From the Special Operations Aviation Training Battalion (TF-160's feeder selection and training unit):

M17/M18 Product Quality Deficiency Report

Background —
• SOATB is having a new issue with our SIG M18's
• The Safety Lock as pictured is shearing and disabling the Drop Safety.
• Weapon will still fire and function normally but can be unsafe if dropped.
• If not correct weapon could accidentally discharge.

Ongoing Actions —
• Inspected and repaired as required.
• PQDR submission to TACOM
• The affected part can only be replaced as an entire assy: Striker Assy (1005-01-665-3082).
• Request that armorers keep Striker Assemblies on hand as Shop Stock.
• 3 x of the 115 on hand were found broken during inspection.
• Round count on the affected pistols was approx. 5-6000 rounds.

Recommendations —
• Adjacent Unit Armorers one time inspect all weapons of the affected area on the underside of the slide
• Reinspect every time the weapon is issued.
• Implement the Safety of Use Message or MAM once distro

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/586680530314068244/806960073330786364/unknown.png

-------------------------------

From Army's PS Magazine:

M17/M18 MHS: New Slide Function Check
June 12, 2020

Soldiers, do you know the M17/M18 modular handgun system (MHS) has two different striker assemblies? One is called the current striker assembly and the other is the original striker assembly.

Both will operate with or without the reset spring and are mission capable as long as the striker is retained by the safety lock and passes all other function checks.

There’s no need to replace the original with the current unless it fails the function checks.

How do you know which striker assembly is in your MHS? Only by performing a slide function check.

Start with the original striker assembly check in WP 12 of TM 9-1005-470-10 (Mar 19) or WP 10 of TM 9-1005-470-23&P (Jun 19). If your slide fails this function test, perform this new slide function test:

Apply slight forward pressure to the striker pin toward the muzzle end of the slide. The striker pin shouldn’t protrude from the breech face of slide.

Press in on the safety lock.

While pressing in on the striker safety lock, push the striker pin forward. The striker pin should move and protrude from the breech face of the slide.

While holding the striker pin forward, release the safety lock. The safety lock should still be held down.

Release the striker pin and push it back to the rear of the slide. The safety lock should reset. You should hear a slight click.

Apply slight forward pressure to the striker pin toward the muzzle end of the slide. The striker pin should not protrude from the breech face.

Check extractor tension by lifting up the extractor and releasing it. The extractor spring should produce resistance.

Note that a slide function test should be performed any time maintenance is performed on the pistol, as well as during PMCS. The -10 and -23 TMs will be updated with this info.

If you have any questions or need assistance, contact your local Army Materiel Command (AMC) Logistics Assistance Representative (LAR) or your State Surface Maintenance Manager.

[JAH 3rd]

Just go back to the 1911

[HCM]

I agree that using the wrong holster is user error. However that doesn’t automatically mean it is the user error that caused the problem. It should be a fairly easy failure mode to test. Either the holster can be made to contact the trigger when in the holster or it can’t. I imagine Sig tried their best to have the holster cause the problem. The multitude of small parts inside the gun have many more variables in testing. This combined with the numerous other reports of problems and history of Sig openly lying to customers about the issue(beyond the typical no comment companies give) has kind of lost them the benefit of the doubt in my mind.

I wonder if the guns were pulled from service immediately and it was just reported of if they were pulled a few months later, after an investigation. If the unit waited to pull the guns after an investigation it may be more telling than any statement from Sig.

They were pulled immediately.

The not drop safe issues and SIG not being honest about them are real but not nearly as prevalent as they are made out to be. The biggest issue is still loose nut behind the trigger.

For example in the July lawsuit (which involved a non upgraded original P320) they cite multiple examples of P320s going off "uncommanded" however at least 2/3 were clearly ND not AD. In particular one involving my agency in NYC was witnessed on the range during training and is 100% ND not AD.


Even if the user didn't touch the trigger, holsters are not used in a vacuum. Things get in trigger guards and result in ND's all the time, especially when wearing gear, winter clothing etc. That's before you factor in not using the correct holster.

[Doc_Glock]

As posted by an informed individual at LF:

From the Special Operations Aviation Training Battalion (TF-160's feeder selection and training unit):

M17/M18 Product Quality Deficiency Report

Background —
• SOATB is having a new issue with our SIG M18's
• The Safety Lock as pictured is shearing and disabling the Drop Safety.
• Weapon will still fire and function normally but can be unsafe if dropped.
• If not correct weapon could accidentally discharge.

Ongoing Actions —
• Inspected and repaired as required.
• PQDR submission to TACOM
• The affected part can only be replaced as an entire assy: Striker Assy (1005-01-665-3082 (tel:1005-01-665-3082)).
• Request that armorers keep Striker Assemblies on hand as Shop Stock.
• 3 x of the 115 on hand were found broken during inspection.
• Round count on the affected pistols was approx. 5-6000 rounds.

Recommendations —
• Adjacent Unit Armorers one time inspect all weapons of the affected area on the underside of the slide
• Reinspect every time the weapon is issued.
• Implement the Safety of Use Message or MAM once distro

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/586680530314068244/806960073330786364/unknown.png

-------------------------------

From Army's PS Magazine:

M17/M18 MHS: New Slide Function Check
June 12, 2020

.....

Press in on the safety lock.

While pressing in on the striker safety lock, push the striker pin forward. The striker pin should move and protrude from the breech face of the slide.


So the Safety Lock is what I call a striker block. And it is failing. Not ideal. And it means the striker is still falling with impacts with the potential of getting past the broken safety block. It saddens me that this is what we are giving our soldiers.

[Duelist]

As posted by an informed individual at LF:
...snipped out lots of words about checking to see if a gun is broken from two military parent orgs...

The overriding message or TL;DR I got from those is: “these guns might not work right when needed, we should have bought Glocks.”

[TGS]

Just go back to the 1911

Canada did not issue the 1911 previously.

Can't "go back" to what you don't have......not to mention it'd be a terrible idea.

Though, I do think it'd be hilarious if some motivators in the USMC command ranks referenced this (among all the other P320 issues) as a reason to halt procurement of the M18 and expand M45A1 procurement to rearm the entire fleet. That would be amaze-balls, and such a USMC moto thing to do that I can almost see it happening.

[CWM11B]

BLUF:

SIG lost my trust well over ten years ago with their unethical corporate conduct and crappy QC.


My West German claasic guns are solid.

I don't like or trust the 320, and will not own one. I've seen the thing drop fire and have discussed it previously.

That said, a friend who is dialed in on the 320 and it's issues has told me this occured when the pistol was being reholstered with a finger on the trigger, so I am inclined to give some benefit of doubt to Sig. Fair is fair, regardless of how morally bankrupt I think the company is.

I believe the M17/18 will be the shortest lived service pistol in US Military history, and the acquisition will go down as one of the greatest debacles in weapons procurement ever.

[RevolverRob]

Canada has been jerking around since 2011 in replacing pistols that should’ve been replaced 20 years ago. The problem is they want to have the guns made by colt Canada which is their only serious small arms production facility. While Canada has a large landmass they have a small population. A Canadian military pistol contract is not large enough to make licensing production I called Canada worthwhile for any of the major gunmakers makers.

It may not be an issue in a minute.

If CZ succeeds in purchasing Colt, Colt Canada is part of that intellectual property and business. In relatively short order the Canadian government will be able to have a Canadian-manufactured CZ P10 or P09/P07 combination delivered to their doors. Because I can imagine CZ can streamline licensing its own IP to one of its subsidiaries.

Note: I'm not saying that CZ helped push this information out the door to drum up controversy. But I mean...if you were in CZ's shoes, trying to keep contracts from getting got, before you could compete for them, and you already had a gun in inventory with a NATO Stock Number, and you were buying the factory, and you really don't want to make your competitor's guns...Wouldn't you at least think about drumming up a bit of controversy and slowing things down?

And it's not like the P320 is without controversy - so folks won't suddenly be surprised that "This great gun is all fucked up."

Here's where I'm at - if CZ succeeds in buying Colt, I put it 80:20 that the new Canadian Military Pistol will be a 'CZ' made by Colt Canada. Shortly after the RCMP will be carrying the same. If the contract gets made before CZ succeeds in buying Colt then I put it 90:10 in favor of the P320 being made by Colt Canada.

[RevolverRob]

Canada did not issue the 1911 previously.

Can't "go back" to what you don't have......not to mention it'd be a terrible idea.

Though, I do think it'd be hilarious if some motivators in the USMC command ranks referenced this (among all the other P320 issues) as a reason to halt procurement of the M18 and expand M45A1 procurement to rearm the entire fleet. That would be amaze-balls, and such a USMC moto thing to do that I can almost see it happening.

It would be such a Marine thing to do...

And frankly I'd be for it, why the fuck not? It's not like pistols really matter that much in a military context. The M45A1 does everything the M18 can do, except it's boat anchor heavy. Whatever they're Marines and their great grandfathers, grandfathers, and fathers toted them to wars across 4 continents over the 20th Century.

[JJN]

Sig won the MHS contract exclusively on price per unit. Think about that for a minute - Sig underbid Glock while promising to produce a pistol with double the parts and an extremely more complicated assembly process. Sig is in the business of making money - they're banking on the press from the MHS to bring LE and civilian buyers into the fold. "Well, the Army tested this thing and selected it..."

I have an alternate theory as to why the Army had to go with something other than Glock. When GEN Milley was FORSCOM CG, he made a comment that he could solve the handgun situation just by buying Glock 19s with a GPC. Then the Modular Handgun System goes for testing after GEN Milley becam Chief of Staff. So his previous comments would make selecting the Glock look like GEN Milley had influenced the process unduly, and probably would have resulted in lawsuits by all the other submitting companies.

It's hard for the average citizen to understand how unimportant handguns are to Big Army. Below boots, MREs, and sleeping bags in terms of winning ground wars. GEN Milley's original point was that the Army had already wasted too much time and money on a very irrelevant piece of gear, and should just go with the simplest decent solution: the Glock 19, which was already in procurement channels for some USSOCCOM elements.

I have no inside baseball, just a hunch with how it all played out.

Jon

[Wendell]

The distributor, M.D. Charlton, posted this on Canadian Gun Nutz:
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/2120430-SIG-SAUER-Statement-on-CANSOFCOM-Incident

[JSGlock34]

I had posted that SIG wouldn't be able to go to their usual PR playbook in responding to this incident, but they proved me wrong...they managed to find a way to blame Glock.

[Jim Watson]

Copy Glock, pay a few million for whatever infringement of that design, then soldier on.

For what infringement? You might have to back up a few generations to get to expired patents and you might have to fudge the appearance to avoid "trade dress" complaints, but just build them. There are several low volume high dollar fake Glock builders already.

[CWM11B]

That SIG presser is incorrect. Four of the five US military branches have adopted the M17/18. The USCG is fielding Gen 5 G19s.

[03RN]

Canada did not issue the 1911 previously.

Can't "go back" to what you don't have......not to mention it'd be a terrible idea.

Though, I do think it'd be hilarious if some motivators in the USMC command ranks referenced this (among all the other P320 issues) as a reason to halt procurement of the M18 and expand M45A1 procurement to rearm the entire fleet. That would be amaze-balls, and such a USMC moto thing to do that I can almost see it happening.
:cool:

[VT1032]

I believe the M17/18 will be the shortest lived service pistol in US Military history, and the acquisition will go down as one of the greatest debacles in weapons procurement ever.

Never happen. That would require the Army to admit they were wrong and that they didn't complete the trials or adequately test the entrants. Can't have that in today's zero defect military. They'll keep them limping along.

Handguns mean next to nothing to the big picture bean counters. These are the same people that issued aftermarket check mate mags for the M9s in the middle of a shooting war.

On the contrary, I'd bet that not only do they keep the M17, they'll also adopt the sig ngsw entrants to replace the m4 and m249.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[TCinVA]

Sig P320:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210205/9d5d49195c902f7bb70687e8955b8197.jpg



Glock:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210205/1827933574a78843f01309dc7e07475e.jpg

Perhaps.

...but it will take Sig years to get sued as much as Glock has been for unintentional discharges of their weapons.

Glock's staggering number of issues over the years never seem to get as much press as issues with their competitors in the market place.

This incident reminds us margin for error drops considerably when one goes from a pistol with a DA trigger to one that has a factory trigger that is shorter and lighter than a lot of 1911 triggers out of the box.

[LockedBreech]

Casually polishes 2013 Beretta 92 that has never shot me in the leg.

How 'bout that.

Best wishes for a fast recovery to the JTF-2 soldier.

[TheNewbie]

Perhaps.

...but it will take Sig years to get sued as much as Glock has been for unintentional discharges of their weapons.

Glock's staggering number of issues over the years never seem to get as much press as issues with their competitors in the market place.

This incident reminds us margin for error drops considerably when one goes from a pistol with a DA trigger to one that has a factory trigger that is shorter and lighter than a lot of 1911 triggers out of the box.


Are the Glock sure incidents related to QC and design issues, or their light and short trigger? I’m genuinely asking, not trying to sound sarcastic.

[GearFondler]

Are the Glock sure incidents related to QC and design issues, or their light and short trigger? I’m genuinely asking, not trying to sound sarcastic.I'd bet a decent percentage is people who had their Glock shoot them when they went to remove the slide.

[LockedBreech]

Difference being as far as I know a Glock has never shot anyone who didn't pull the trigger.

[Borderland]

I had posted that SIG wouldn't be able to go to their usual PR playbook in responding to this incident, but they proved me wrong...they managed to find a way to blame Glock.

Yeah, it's striker you know. They started this entire striker thing.

[HeavyDuty]

Difference being as far as I know a Glock has never shot anyone who didn't pull the trigger.

... intentionally or not. I can’t say I have that level of trust with the P320.

[Borderland]

:cool:


M45 A1? That's a horse cav pistol. You can do better.

[Borderland]

I'd bet a decent percentage is people who had their Glock shoot them when they went to remove the slide.

LMAO. It isn't exactly a pistol for novices. That would be a revolver. :D

[Borderland]

Difference being as far as I know a Glock has never shot anyone who didn't pull the trigger.

Not true.

[Lex Luthier]

A “Sick”.

They could have it built under contract in Springfield MA; it would then be a "Sickma". That version is pretty well proven, too.

[TheNewbie]

They could have it built under contract in Springfield MA; it would then be a "Sickma". That version is pretty well proven, too.

Awesome. :D

[LockedBreech]

Not true.

Did early Glocks have some issue I’m not aware of?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TGS]

M45 A1? That's a horse cav pistol. You can do better.

67142

As usual.

It's actually a USMC specific design/procurement from 2014 for 12,000 pieces.

[HCM]

Did early Glocks have some issue I’m not aware of?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Early Glocks with the black internals were not drop safe. There were multiple incidents of dropped Glocks going off prior to Glock failing the drop testing portion of the DEA’s pistol testing in the early 90s.

This triggered the infamous Glock “it’s an upgrade not a recall.” In which the black internals were swapped for nickel / silver plated parts.

[farscott]

Yes, they did. Somewhat similar to what SIG is experiencing with the P320. There was an infamous "six-part recall" to fix issues where a slight change in the slide's height relative to the rails and/or impacts caused AD/NDs. Notably the trigger bar, firing pin, firing pin safety plunger, and firing pin safety spring were redesigned.

More at https://www.ar15.com/forums/handguns/Recalled-upgraded-parts-to-look-for-in-your-Glocks/13-160059/

[Borderland]

67142

As usual.

It's actually a USMC specific design/procurement from 2014 for 12,000 pieces.


And it was an Army specification/procurement in 1911. How does that make it a different basic design?


The differences are these.

dual recoil system
80 firing pin safety
tritium night sight
cerakote ceramic coating
stainless steel internal parts
M1913 Picatinny rail under the barrel for mounting accessories

You should inspect them side by side sometime. Maybe even field strip them and compare.

[TGS]

The differences are these.


Missed some. Google harder next time.

Still not a cavalry pistol.

[HCM]

Yes, they did. Somewhat similar to what SIG is experiencing with the P320. There was an infamous "six-part recall" to fix issues where a slight change in the slide's height relative to the rails and/or impacts caused AD/NDs. Notably the trigger bar, firing pin, firing pin safety plunger, and firing pin safety spring were redesigned.

More at https://www.ar15.com/forums/handguns/Recalled-upgraded-parts-to-look-for-in-your-Glocks/13-160059/

Despite the terminology used by the ARFCOM poster Glock NEVER used the “R” word.

Glock was the originator of “it’s an upgrade” not a recall.

[Borderland]

Did early Glocks have some issue I’m not aware of?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Now, in regards to the gun firing without the trigger being pulled at all. It’s important to admit that it has happened, there have been 2 occasions where Glock 17’s fired without the trigger being pulled due to the gun being knocked around.

https://aimingexpert.com/will-a-glock-fire-without-a-magazine/

Not an issue because it's rare, but it's happened.

[Borderland]

Missed some. Google harder next time.

Still not a cavalry pistol.

I know that. :D The design is basically the same however.

[LockedBreech]

Borderland et. al, thank you for the correction on early Glocks. I was not into guns yet at the time as I was an infant. Always good to be humbled when I'm being smarmy, so I appreciate it.

[BehindBlueI's]

I'd bet a decent percentage is people who had their Glock shoot them when they went to remove the slide.

You'd win. When I tracked it, roughly 1/3 of all unintended discharges resulting in injury or death were due to improper clearing and then a trigger pull to break down the pistol. Reversing the clearing steps (running the slide THEN dropping the magazine) was prevalent, as was dropping the mag but forgetting to run the slide.

[Wendell]

Early Glocks with the black internals were not drop safe. There were multiple incidents of dropped Glocks going off prior to Glock failing the drop testing portion of the DEA’s pistol testing in the early 90s.

This triggered the infamous Glock “it’s an upgrade not a recall.” In which the black internals were swapped for nickel / silver plated parts.

Do you recall what dimensional changes were made? I know that it included the striker and the triggerbar/cruciform, but was it more than that? And, aside from the finish, how were the parts different?

[UNM1136]

The link to TOS has pics, and a page taken from an armorer's manual. If you can't/won't look at ARF.com I will see if I dig out my manual and upload an image.

pat

[Greg Bell]

I have no doubt that they will eventually work this out. And it’s true that Beretta had issues in the early 80s that were pretty quickly resolved. Glock actually had quite a few problems over time but they have fixed all those too. I just don’t see why they adopted this beta model gun that doesn’t do anything special. I guess it was probably just money but I have suspicions. Especially how the selection sort of came out of the blue right as the Trump admin came in. I suspect guys from the old guard had made a deal but when trump won they had to rush the deal to make sure various retirement packages were secured. Just me being paranoid.

[Borderland]

You'd win. When I tracked it, roughly 1/3 of all unintended discharges resulting in injury or death were due to improper clearing and then a trigger pull to break down the pistol. Reversing the clearing steps (running the slide THEN dropping the magazine) was prevalent, as was dropping the mag but forgetting to run the slide.

I've never owned a Glock but I think this was mostly the problem from my reading. Mag drop on some pistols (not Glock) disables the firing pin. That's an added safety feature. But again, I've never owned a stiker or miniature dog of any sort. :D

[BWT]

Sad.

I think one of the main difference with Sig p320’s and Glocks, M&P’s, and H&K’s is the modularity of the trigger assembly to the different frames.

I think that it has added untraveled waters to what has been a common design for 30+ years now.

It’s clever, but I wonder if it plays any factor here.

[farscott]

Getting back to the original story, there appears to be multiple things happening:

1) Striker block (safeties) are failing/breaking causing the loss of the drop safety.

2) The pistol being used with an incorrect holster; however, SIG could not duplicate the issue using the same pistol and holster that was part of the incident.

3) The possibility that the "nut behind the trigger", SF or not, shot himself. Combined with the wrong holster being used, this seems more likely.

4) The pistols were pulled from service due to a loss of drop safety; however, SIG says the drop safety, the new one on the M17/M18, has no issues.

Does that sum up the issue to date?

[Borderland]

I guess it comes down to which one you would rather shoot yourself with, a Glock or a Sig.

[HCM]

I have no doubt that they will eventually work this out. And it’s true that Beretta had issues in the early 80s that were pretty quickly resolved. Glock actually had quite a few problems over time but they have fixed all those too. I just don’t see why they adopted this beta model gun that doesn’t do anything special. I guess it was probably just money but I have suspicions. Especially how the selection sort of came out of the blue right as the Trump admin came in. I suspect guys from the old guard had made a deal but when trump won they had to rush the deal to make sure various retirement packages were secured. Just me being paranoid.

What issues did Beretta have in the early 80s ?

Are you referring to the M9 slide breakages ? Because those were late 80s, only involved 14 guns and were a defective materials issue. So not similar to he Glock or 320 situation.

https://www.gao.gov/products/T-NSIAD-88-46

Regardless of what you think of how the MHS selection was made, and it was likely price, the MHS program did not come out of the blue. Trump or no Trump the DOD was getting new handguns to replace M9s which had been rebuilt multiple times over 30 years of service / 20 years of war.

[Nick B]

Getting back to the original story, there appears to be multiple things happening:

1) Striker block (safeties) are failing/breaking causing the loss of the drop safety.

2) The pistol being used with an incorrect holster; however, SIG could not duplicate the issue using the same pistol and holster that was part of the incident.

3) The possibility that the "nut behind the trigger", SF or not, shot himself. Combined with the wrong holster being used, this seems more likely.

4) The pistols were pulled from service due to a loss of drop safety; however, SIG says the drop safety, the new one on the M17/M18, has no issues.

Does that sum up the issue to date?
I chose #3 .

[Ed L]

Especially how the selection sort of came out of the blue right as the Trump admin came in. I suspect guys from the old guard had made a deal but when trump won they had to rush the deal to make sure various retirement packages were secured. Just me being paranoid.

Yes, I remember Trump saying that the Sig P320 was a "beautiful gun that will make a super duper choice for America's next service pistol."

[sickeness]

I chose #3 .

I find #3 to be the least likely.
Sig's press release reeks of lawyer-cope-excuse.

I highly doubt the organization would have recalled the pistols if it was determined to be user error by their own investigation, or if there was any doubt. That's a big cage to rattle over negligence by a single soldier.

[ECVMatt]

Do you recall what dimensional changes were made? I know that it included the striker and the triggerbar/cruciform, but was it more than that? And, aside from the finish, how were the parts different?

I have my original "Black Parts" and the upgraded parts. I can take a look at them tomorrow and post some pictures.

[Greg Bell]

What issues did Beretta have in the early 80s ?

Are you referring to the M9 slide breakages ? Because those were late 80s, only involved 14 guns and were a defective materials issue. So not similar to he Glock or 320 situation.

https://www.gao.gov/products/T-NSIAD-88-46

Regardless of what you think of how the MHS selection was made, and it was likely price, the MHS program did not come out of the blue. Trump or no Trump the DOD was getting new handguns to replace M9s which had been rebuilt multiple times over 30 years of service / 20 years of war.


I was just being diplomatic. If it was up to me they would have just ordered M9A3s

I wasn't clear. I wasn't blaming this on trump. My theory (just a theory) was that the decision was sort of an inside job, and they decided to make the decision final before any of the new crew came in and just bought Glocks or cancelled the whole project.

[HCM]

I was just being diplomatic. If it was up to me they would have just ordered M9A3s

I wasn't clear. I wasn't blaming this on trump. My theory (just a theory) was that the decision was sort of an inside job, and they decided to make the decision final before any of the new crew came in and just bought Glocks or cancelled the whole project.

The DOD was definitely getting new handguns - that is not even up for debate. Whether Glocks, M9A3s or something else.

I’m a big Beretta 92 fan but given the minimal training most .MIL pistol users get TDA trigger management and decocking is not viable.

It came down to SIG and Glock. Glock is very well established- SIG was hungry and needed a big win to gain momentum for the 320. They made a strategic decision to make the M17 a loss leader and sold it to DOD at cost or a slight loss betting that the collateral commercial, military and LE sales would more than make up for it. So far it’s been a good bet.

While Glock has the SOCOM /SMU market tied up, the Glock has some downsides as a general issue pistol. Pulling the trigger for takedown has been an issue in LE and would be just as much of an issue or more with 18 year old troops. Second the every other military weapons system has a manual safety. While they put one on the Glock MHS pistol, every manual safety on Glocks, both factory dnd aftermarket has sucked.

[medmo]

They have access to both, what my buddy at 3rd Group says is that most are sticking with G17s and G19s.

Why wouldn’t they? It’s not like some other pistol of similar action, size, caliber and capacity is going to magically reach out and smite the enemy more effectively. It’s also going to require additional time and energy with additional training plus a qual fire. Unnecessary inconvenience. Why bother.

[TGS]

https://www.gao.gov/products/T-NSIAD-88-46

67221

That GAO doc really glosses over the ammo having thicker case walls than specified but still loaded with the same amount of powder as specified....resulting in pressures near proof levels.

Also leaves out the same ammo dead-lining other guns, such as the P226.

[HCM]

I find #3 to be the least likely.
Sig's press release reeks of lawyer-cope-excuse.

I highly doubt the organization would have recalled the pistols if it was determined to be user error by their own investigation, or if there was any doubt. That's a big cage to rattle over negligence by a single soldier.

Regardless of SIG's questionable ethics, if you have any significant experience in "how the sausage is made" in institutional firearms programs and LE/Military bureaucracy, you would know that even among highly skilled shooters #3 is always the most likely and that CYA, deflection and illogical reactions are the default for most such bureaucracies.

[HCM]

67221

What could go wrong ?:rolleyes:

[TGS]

What could go wrong ?:rolleyes:

If anything, I look at that snafu and see it as a testament to how strong the Beretta 92 actually is.

The noodle-benders made one hell of a gun.

[sickeness]

Regardless of SIG's questionable ethics, if you have any significant experience in "how the sausage is made" in institutional firearms programs and LE/Military bureaucracy, you would know that even among highly skilled shooters #3 is always the most likely and that CYA, deflection and illogical reactions are the default for most such bureaucracies.

I would actually beg to differ, and think you are quite wrong on this issue.
With all the testing/contracts and bureaucracy involved in the selection and adoption of an issued weapon, it is highly unlikely that they would automatically pull it after one experience unless they were sure something seriously stinks.
Our local sister department which is one of the largest Sheriff's department in the USA had many teething problems with the initial M&P including numerous NDs and broken parts, yet the contract had already been made and they stuck through with it until the problems were fixed.

I have previously worked in government procurement function and I can safely say from my experience that once the ink has dried on the contract, making changes is nigh impossible unless there is a serious safety concern, Officer complaints be damned. Unfortunately in this day and age, most agencies or bureaucracies would rather throw the Officer/operator under the bus and blame his negligence than go through the trouble of revaluating the contract that they spent so much time and money procuring and admitting fault on their own part.

[TGS]

I find #3 to be the least likely.
Sig's press release reeks of lawyer-cope-excuse.

I highly doubt the organization would have recalled the pistols if it was determined to be user error by their own investigation, or if there was any doubt. That's a big cage to rattle over negligence by a single soldier.


I would actually beg to differ, and think you are quite wrong on this issue.
With all the testing/contracts and bureaucracy involved in the selection and adoption of an issued weapon, it is highly unlikely that they would automatically pull it after one experience unless they were sure something seriously stinks.
Our local sister department which is one of the largest Sheriff's department in the USA had many teething problems with the initial M&P including numerous NDs and broken parts, yet the contract had already been made and they stuck through with it until the problems were fixed.

I have previously worked in government procurement function and I can safely say from my experience that once the ink has dried on the contract, making changes is nigh impossible unless there is a serious safety concern, Officer complaints be damned. Unfortunately in this day and age, most agencies or bureaucracies would rather throw the Officer/operator under the bus and blame his negligence than go through the trouble of revaluating the contract that they spent so much time and money procuring and admitting fault on their own part.

I think one of the things we're failing to account for here is the use of the wrong holster by personnel.

My money is that the gun was yanked from service simply because they didn't have the right holster for it, and not necessarily because of a definitive mechanical fault in the gun. If you're not using the correct equipment, it's always going to be assumed as a contributory factor to whatever Bad ThingTM happened....especially if you have no definitive proof of mechanical fault of the gun.

[Borderland]

I would actually beg to differ, and think you are quite wrong on this issue.
With all the testing/contracts and bureaucracy involved in the selection and adoption of an issued weapon, it is highly unlikely that they would automatically pull it after one experience unless they were sure something seriously stinks.
Our local sister department which is one of the largest Sheriff's department in the USA had many teething problems with the initial M&P including numerous NDs and broken parts, yet the contract had already been made and they stuck through with it until the problems were fixed.

I have previously worked in government procurement function and I can safely say from my experience that once the ink has dried on the contract, making changes is nigh impossible unless there is a serious safety concern, Officer complaints be damned. Unfortunately in this day and age, most agencies or bureaucracies would rather throw the Officer/operator under the bus and blame his negligence than go through the trouble of revaluating the contract that they spent so much time and money procuring and admitting fault on their own part.

It's that way with a lot big ticket items a gov't agency buys. The first mistake they make is little or no input from the users themselves. The second mistake is the people doing the procurement won't acknowledge that they don't have a good handle on the tech or function of the item they're buying. The third mistake they make is they let vendors (not unlike car salesmen) tell them what they need. When they do procure the item and it goes into service all types of issues pop up that should have been addresses before the purchase was made. Then it becomes an us-verses-them issue between the users and the administrators who made the purchase. Some users will just stand down and watch the calamity while others will point fingers and name names for the failure of the org. to get it right. Administrators will always push back when they're called out on their poor decisions. I spent many days trying to make a new system work that was inferior to a system that was replaced. After a few years I realized it was futile and just adjusted my work load accordingly. When asked to do any tech support my answer became that needs to come from the rocket scientist that bought the system or possibly the vendors hottie sales rep that sold the system. The only thing I know is it doesn't work. :D

[Greg Bell]

The DOD was definitely getting new handguns - that is not even up for debate. Whether Glocks, M9A3s or something else.

I’m a big Beretta 92 fan but given the minimal training most .MIL pistol users get TDA trigger management and decocking is not viable.

It came down to SIG and Glock. Glock is very well established- SIG was hungry and needed a big win to gain momentum for the 320. They made a strategic decision to make the M17 a loss leader and sold it to DOD at cost or a slight loss betting that the collateral commercial, military and LE sales would more than make up for it. So far it’s been a good bet.

While Glock has the SOCOM /SMU market tied up, the Glock has some downsides as a general issue pistol. Pulling the trigger for takedown has been an issue in LE and would be just as much of an issue or more with 18 year old troops. Second the every other military weapons system has a manual safety. While they put one on the Glock MHS pistol, every manual safety on Glocks, both factory dnd aftermarket has sucked.

I agree with all of your points. I also suspect the 320 is (slightly) easier to shoot out of the box. But the suddeness of the selection, and the skipping of Product Verification Testing phase was just weird. Apparently they just shot the full size gun 12,500 rounds in a ransom rest and only shot the compact 500! rounds. They skipped all the environmental testing and endurance testing that they traditionally subject pistols to. Mind you, my source is Chris Bartocci at Small Arms solutions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0LUbLu6TqA I have no other real knowledge other that watching all the safety recalls and other issues that keep popping up (which I can't help but suspect would have popped up if they actually finished testing the guns (which probably would have favored the Glock since they sorted these issues out in the early 90s before the harsh eyes of the internet).

[Wendell]

CBC News reached out to Sig Sauer and its Canadian distributor, M.D. Charlton, headquartered in Victoria, B.C., for comment on its original story, but neither responded. Both companies, instead, took to pro-gun industry forums to offer a rebuttal, giving no opportunity to answer questions. "The investigation revealed the use of an incorrect holster not designed for a [SIG] P320," SIG Sauer said in their statement, which was released Friday and posted to a U.S. online pro-industry publication, Soldier Systems. "The use of a modified [SIG] P226 holster created an unsafe condition by allowing a foreign object to enter the holster, causing the unintended discharge."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/soldier-wounded-wrong-holster-1.5903723

[Borderland]

So now a firearms safety is dependent on the correct holster. Interesting new twist.

[Archer1440]

Can one’s index finger be considered to be a “foreign object”?

[LittleLebowski]

I can both believe it was attributable to the holster and still not trust Sig.

[HeavyDuty]

So now a firearms safety is dependent on the correct holster. Interesting new twist.

I have no problem with that, if it allows unintended manipulation of the trigger either due to physical fit or introduction of a foreign object. You can say the same thing about Glocks or even revolvers.

[HeavyDuty]

Yes, I remember Trump saying that the Sig P320 was a "beautiful gun that will make a super duper choice for America's next service pistol."

Sadly, I can hear that in his voice and believe it’s an actual quote.

[Borderland]

Sadly, I can hear that in his voice and believe it’s an actual quote.

I had to think about it for a few seconds myself. :D

[SoCalDep]

Our local sister department which is one of the largest Sheriff's department in the USA had many teething problems with the initial M&P including numerous NDs and broken parts, yet the contract had already been made and they stuck through with it until the problems were fixed.

... Or that department’s sister department which is one of the largest police departments in the USA with all those broken Glock firing pins. One might argue that it’s the ammo’s fault and I would agree to an extent, but they didn’t change that either.

[Borderland]

I have no problem with that, if it allows unintended manipulation of the trigger either due to physical fit or introduction of a foreign object. You can say the same thing about Glocks or even revolvers.

But if you adopt that as a safety feature aren't you insuring that a manufacturer will claim that their pistol is only safe in one of their prescribed holsters? That kind of leaves the holster manufacturers without much business unless they contract with Sig.

I see this going in that direction anyway. I'm amazed they haven't already made that claim.

[19852+]

It may not be an issue in a minute.

If CZ succeeds in purchasing Colt, Colt Canada is part of that intellectual property and business. In relatively short order the Canadian government will be able to have a Canadian-manufactured CZ P10 or P09/P07 combination delivered to their doors. Because I can imagine CZ can streamline licensing its own IP to one of its subsidiaries.

Note: I'm not saying that CZ helped push this information out the door to drum up controversy. But I mean...if you were in CZ's shoes, trying to keep contracts from getting got, before you could compete for them, and you already had a gun in inventory with a NATO Stock Number, and you were buying the factory, and you really don't want to make your competitor's guns...Wouldn't you at least think about drumming up a bit of controversy and slowing things down?

And it's not like the P320 is without controversy - so folks won't suddenly be surprised that "This great gun is all fucked up."

Here's where I'm at - if CZ succeeds in buying Colt, I put it 80:20 that the new Canadian Military Pistol will be a 'CZ' made by Colt Canada. Shortly after the RCMP will be carrying the same. If the contract gets made before CZ succeeds in buying Colt then I put it 90:10 in favor of the P320 being made by Colt Canada.

Are you saying CZ is trying to buy Colt USA as well as Colt Canada? I have not heard that.

[CWM11B]

So now a firearms safety is dependent on the correct holster. Interesting new twist.

Not dependent, but definitely a component.

[TGS]

Not dependent, but definitely a component.

And, not a new twist.

[Borderland]

And, not a new twist.

I don't think any firearms manufacturer has claimed that in a law suit. Please enlighten me.

[HeavyDuty]

But if you adopt that as a safety feature aren't you insuring that a manufacturer will claim that their pistol is only safe in one of their prescribed holsters? That kind of leaves the holster manufacturers without much business unless they contract with Sig.

I see this going in that direction anyway. I'm amazed they haven't already made that claim.

Possibly, if only prescribed holsters were supported. Unintended use can never be warranted.

One of my favorite classes to teach to new underwriters used to be unintended product uses. The crap you see... every stupid warning sticker has an equally stupid story behind it. Stuffing a P320 into a possibly poorly modified holster not intended for it ranks right up there on the stupidity scale, whether or not that actually had a bearing on this incident.

[CWM11B]

A properly fitting holster is, and always has been a component of safety for both the firearm and gunhandling in general. It is in every block of firearms instruction I've ever attended an in the instructor material for every instructor course I've graduated from. If you will read the manuals of virtually every holster manufacturer, you will see explicit warnings about having the correct holster for your particular pistol with a warning to the effect of "failing to do so may result in death or serious bodily injury". I know Safariland specifically warns against modifying their holsters and doing so voids any and all warranties.

Issues with an improper holster range from loss, retention during a disarm, and foreign objects, the operator's or other individual's trigger finger getting into the trigger guard resulting in a shot being fired. I have seen that personally, interviewed those its happened to, and experienced the temporary loss of my weapon due to a cheap bastard and idiot purchaser during a vehicle take down of a violent drug dealer. It is beyond important.

You wouldn't wear the wrong sized shoes would you?

[HeavyDuty]

iPad crash double tap

[Rex G]

Yet another day, for which I am thankful, as I have, yet again, not shot my leg, or other important bits, with my Colt Model P. Everything I need, and nothing I don’t, since 1873. Empty chamber under the hammer, yet instantly ready to fire.

;)

Edited to add: This was a conceptual statement, not the literal truth. ;)

[BehindBlueI's]

Romper room shit moved to romper room. Stay on topic.

[HCM]

I would actually beg to differ, and think you are quite wrong on this issue.
With all the testing/contracts and bureaucracy involved in the selection and adoption of an issued weapon, it is highly unlikely that they would automatically pull it after one experience unless they were sure something seriously stinks.
Our local sister department which is one of the largest Sheriff's department in the USA had many teething problems with the initial M&P including numerous NDs and broken parts, yet the contract had already been made and they stuck through with it until the problems were fixed.

I have previously worked in government procurement function and I can safely say from my experience that once the ink has dried on the contract, making changes is nigh impossible unless there is a serious safety concern, Officer complaints be damned. Unfortunately in this day and age, most agencies or bureaucracies would rather throw the Officer/operator under the bus and blame his negligence than go through the trouble of revaluating the contract that they spent so much time and money procuring and admitting fault on their own part.

I’m not speaking theoretically. As detailed below pulling guns pending investigation does not equal cancelling a contract.

I’ve both personally witnessed and investigated multiple ND’s involving holsters and human error, clothing in trigger guards etc. it happens, no matter how “special” the personnel. There is a balance between someone being well trained and the habituation /familiarity / automaticity resulting in NDs. I’ve also seen the inside of procurement for large bureaucracies.

Politics is very much a thing. In many organizations if someone in a key position (or positions) wants a particular item they will have the organization jump through multiple hoops to make the square peg fit the round hole. Speaking of which, the LE success of Glock often had as much to do with Glock bringing chiefs to Smyrna for factory tours that included the Atlanta Gold Club as it did the merits of the pistol. In the mid 1990s my own organization selected the Beretta 96 over the SIG P229 resulting the firearms unit Chief going to jail for taking non cash kickbacks from Beretta.

Pulling guns from service aka a “P320 safety stand down” is not the same as cancelling a contract. Pulling brand new gun from service pending an investigation into the cause of the problem is standard in LE/MIL bureaucracies. As is doing extensive testing and selection only to find a previously unknown problem once guns or other equipment is in operational use. Both of these occurred with S&W M&P pistols at both LASD and the Texas DPS. LASD went on to adopt the M&P as standard while TX DPS dropped them like a rock.

However, human factors involved in the spike in NDs during the LASD transition from TDA to striker guns had nothing to do with defective guns and we saw the same trend in organizations transitioning from Revolvers to Glocks.

The Canadian MOD has stated the guns have been pulled pending investigation not based on a completed investigation.


So far Joint Task Force 2 is the only Canadian unit to have procured the P320, purchasing the pistols to replace their P226s. It is reported that they have now withdrawn the new pistols pending review. CBC report that 400 of the pistols were purchased via SIG Sauer’s Canadian distributor M.D. Charlton. Canada’s Special Operations Force Command declined to comment on the pistols but in statement spokesperson Captain Ian Grant did say:

“One member sustained a minor gunshot injury during the incident, was treated and released the same day and was returned to duty. Immediate actions were followed, including quarantining the weapon and the ammunition in accordance with Canadian Armed Forces standard operating procedures. An investigation is ongoing to determine the cause of the incident.”

Emphasis added.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2021/02/05/canadian-p320/

JTF 2 only bought 400 guns. In organizational terms that is a drop in the bucket. If the guns are defective it may well be cheaper to simply consider it nuisance value and destroy them vs a legal battle.

SIG actually does a lot of business with the Canadian military having previously sold them DMR rifles, optics and machine guns. So they have to decide between the value of their relationship with the Canadian MOD in terms of future sales vs the potentially diminished value of the P320s already battered reputation if they appear to admit fault by taking the guns back.

[HCM]

A properly fitting holster is, and always has been a component of safety for both the firearm and gunhandling in general. It is in every block of firearms instruction I've ever attended an in the instructor material for every instructor course I've graduated from. If you will read the manuals of virtually every holster manufacturer, you will see explicit warnings about having the correct holster for your particular pistol with a warning to the effect of "failing to do so may result in death or serious bodily injury". I know Safariland specifically warns against modifying their holsters and doing so voids any and all warranties.

Issues with an improper holster range from loss, retention during a disarm, and foreign objects, the operator's or other individual's trigger finger getting into the trigger guard resulting in a shot being fired. I have seen that personally, interviewed those its happened to, and experienced the temporary loss of my weapon due to a cheap bastard and idiot purchaser during a vehicle take down of a violent drug dealer. It is beyond important.

You wouldn't wear the wrong sized shoes would you?

We’re having this issue now at work. The P320 Carry apparently sort of fits in many P229R holsters. Given that the only thing cheaper than a cop, is two cops, we are seeing a lot of this. Luckily the only issues so far have been retention.

[HCM]

... Or that department’s sister department which is one of the largest police departments in the USA with all those broken Glock firing pins. One might argue that it’s the ammo’s fault and I would agree to an extent, but they didn’t change that either.

That department’s adoption/approval of Glocks coinciding with the arrival of an outside cheif who has converted every department he’s headed to Glocks is an example of politics negating the system.

[jd950]

We’re having this issue now at work. The P320 Carry apparently sort of fits in many P229R holsters. Given that the only thing cheaper than a cop, is two cops, we are seeing a lot of this. Luckily the only issues so far have been retention.

Out of curiosity, I just checked. A P320 compact (SIRT) fits and is retained in safariland P229 and P226 duty holsters.

[RevolverRob]

Are you saying CZ is trying to buy Colt USA as well as Colt Canada? I have not heard that.

Colt Canada is a division of Colt's Manufacturing LLC. Which also is the holding company that owns Colt Defense. CZ is attempting to buy Colt's Manufacturing LLC (to my knowledge). Which, theoretically will have them owning all of the divisions of Colt's MFG to include Colt Canada.

[19852+]

Colt Canada is a division of Colt's Manufacturing LLC. Which also is the holding company that owns Colt Defense. CZ is attempting to buy Colt's Manufacturing LLC (to my knowledge). Which, theoretically will have them owning all of the divisions of Colt's MFG to include Colt Canada.

Interesting, thanks. My first reaction is no, Colt is American firearms! But then upon further review in my mind maybe it's a good thing. Maybe CZ can bring some innovation back to Colt. Maybe Colt can sell pistols to LE once again.

[DpdG]

Out of curiosity, I just checked. A P320 compact (SIRT) fits and is retained in safariland P229 and P226 duty holsters.

Which duty holsters? My experience was 6280 and 070 for P226R (no light) were not compatible with P320 Carry. Aker pancakes for the 226R would accept the P320 carry, but thumb break was loose enough the 320 could be raised enough to access the trigger in the snapped holster.

[HCM]

Out of curiosity, I just checked. A P320 compact (SIRT) fits and is retained in safariland P229 and P226 duty holsters.

Sometimes they're retained, sometimes not.

[HCM]

Interesting, thanks. My first reaction is no, Colt is American firearms! But then upon further review in my mind maybe it's a good thing. Maybe CZ can bring some innovation back to Colt. Maybe Colt can sell pistols to LE once again.

Given the beating colt has taken from "American" corporate greed and "American" mis-management refusing to sell products people want for decades CZ can only be an improvement.

Given all Colt's issues, LE pistol sales are the least of their problems.

[19852+]

Given the beating colt has taken from "American" corporate greed and "American" mis-management refusing to sell products people want for decades CZ can only be an improvement.

Given all Colt's issues, LE pistol sales are the least of their problems.

Agree ! All of the above.

[jd950]

Which duty holsters? My experience was 6280 and 070 for P226R (no light) were not compatible with P320 Carry. Aker pancakes for the 226R would accept the P320 carry, but thumb break was loose enough the 320 could be raised enough to access the trigger in the snapped holster.

I tried 6360 and 6390 holsters. WML holsters seemed loose with no light on the SIRT, a 6390 no-light light seemed almost new and was snug. I did not try a 73 series but might be able to find one to try. In the 6360 and 6390, the retention seemed to work on the SIRT gun. Can probably locate a 6280 around here somewhere, but no 070 holsters are lying around as far as I know.

If anyone wants me to search for a 7360 or 7390 or 6280 to try, let me know.

Note that I am NOT in any way suggesting anyone use a 226 or 229 holster for a 320. Even if a 320 fits and locks, that does not mean it is safe and I have no idea if the retention is compromised even thought it seems to hold the gun. Bad way to save a few bucks. This was just an experiment out of curiosity. There are probably other guns that would fit and latch, too.

If anyone decides do this for real and has a bad thing happen, it is not my fault!

[jnc36rcpd]

Having a newly-issued or purchased pistol fit duty or off-duty holsters for a previous weapon should be considered an unexpected gift of a new suit. You can certainly appreciate it and it will save you some money, but you wouldn't wear an ill-fitting suit. It will have negative consequences at work, at parties, on dates, and at job interviews. Likewise, it's penny-wise and pound-foolish to use a holster that almost fits a new pistol. You or your organization had enough money for a new gun. New holsters aren't all that much compared to the consequences.

Don't get me started on the firearms training coordinator in my previous organization who decided we would only purchase duty holsters that fit our pistols with lights attached. Don't have a weapon-mounted light? Have an older non-railed 226? Harden up, snowflake. You're getting the big holster and you'll darn well like it. The guns without lights were pretty secure, but it was not optimal. I was tempted to suggest that we could further simplify the logistics chain by only issuing right-handed holsters and have the southpaws make do, but sarcasm is a dangerous talent in bureaucracies.

[DpdG]

I hope I didn’t convey a desire to put a 320 into a 226 holster- I was trying to say “it’s a bad idea and if it kinda/sorta works, it’s only by happenstance and should not be trusted.” Many of the light bearing duty holsters (looking at 6280 bucket) “fit” damn near anything but also do a very poor job of actual protection/retention. The light bearing holsters, even when correctly fitted, often do not do a very good job of keeping foreign objects out of the trigger guard with the weapon fully seated/secured.

[jd950]

I hope I didn’t convey a desire to put a 320 into a 226 holster- I

Not to me, but somehow it seemed a "warning notice" was appropriate in case anyone mistook an experiment as a suggestion.

Yes, the WML holsters can pose additional risks even for the guns they are designed for.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

Couple of friends commented to me yesterday that the involved party was still in selection and they don't see it as a gun problem. They're both out of the unit but still close ties to it, of course.

That doesn't guarantee the accuracy of the information, but that's the back channel stuff I'm hearing.

[John Hearne]

FWIW, the holster fit of the P320 and classic Sigs is really close. We are transitioning from classic Sigs to P320s and several people have discovered this. I just buy the right holster but the fit is tantalizingly close.

[DocGKR]

Don't go off on a tangent; the problem is not the holster, it is the pistol.

[HeavyDuty]

Don't go off on a tangent; the problem is not the holster, it is the pistol.

In this case, my money is on a little of both, and a big dose of operator error.

[HCM]

Couple of friends commented to me yesterday that the involved party was still in selection and they don't see it as a gun problem. They're both out of the unit but still close ties to it, of course.

That doesn't guarantee the accuracy of the information, but that's the back channel stuff I'm hearing.


Don't go off on a tangent; the problem is not the holster, it is the pistol.

SIG 320s have a history of mechanical drop safety problems (ADs) however that does not make P320's exempt from the handling errors (ND) that all pistols, Glocks, M&Ps, 1911s etc are subject to.

There is an old expression associated with the medical community to the effect that when one hears hoofbeats, they should think horses first, not zebras.

Right now the only public facts are:

A solider with CANSOF had an unintended discharge with a 320.

CANSOF suspended use of 320s pending an investigation.

When the gun was sent to SIG, the holster included was a modified P226 holster and SIG could not attribute the UD to the holster.

At this time, there are no public facts supporting either the holster or a design flaw in that particular 320 aka "zebras." Rather, publicly we are still at the logical starting point, operator error aka "horses."

[Archer1440]

Don't go off on a tangent; the problem is not the holster, it is the pistol.

For all we know, the problem was with the shooter’s finger discipline. There’s no evidence here, just inference.

[DocGKR]

Media is so often correct....

Again, it is not the holster, not finger discipline--it is the pistol.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

SIG 320s have a history of mechanical drop safety problems (ADs) however that does not make P320's exempt from the handling errors (ND) that all pistols, Glocks, M&Ps, 1911s etc are subject to.

There is an old expression associated with the medical community to the effect that when one hears hoofbeats, they should think horses first, not zebras.

Right now the only public facts are:

A solider with CANSOF had an unintended discharge with a 320.

CANSOF suspended use of 320s pending an investigation.

When the gun was sent to SIG, the holster included was a modified P226 holster and SIG could not attribute the UD to the holster.

At this time, there are no public facts supporting either the holster or a design flaw in that particular 320 aka "zebras." Rather, publicly we are still at the logical starting point, operator error aka "horses."

I'll just point out that the bolded phrase used in this post is exactly correct.

As of this morning, no operators had been pulled from the team. An ND is an automatic out. Ergo, a soldier with CANSOF was involved, which is different than a CANSOF operator, obviously. But easy to forget the difference, at least for non-military guys like me. I haven't talked with anyone who was there when it happened, but my circle includes a few ex-ops; it won't be long before I hear the full story.

But everyone I have talked to so far that's connected to the team is saying the same thing...Canada's pretty cold for zebras and nobody is expecting to find any.
Although here, of course we pronounce it "zedbras."

[DocGKR]

Last time I am going to post here--it is not a problem with a "horse". The problem is with the pistol.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

The problem is with the pistol.

I'm sorry but I can't tell from your posts if what you are saying is that in this instance you know from people directly involved in this incident that the gun fired on its own as the result of some mechanical failure, or if you are saying that the 320 has issues that make it problematic. Your wording makes it sound like the latter, that's why there's some debate.

[CWM11B]

My money is on Doc having knowledge of this through his various channels. I know he's got more inside intel than my source. That along with my personal experiences with Sig, seeing one go bang when dropped in a controlled setting, the way they handled this from the outset, and the numerous documented issues with the platform, this pistol is (once again) a confirmed hard no for me. And were I in charge of procurement for an agency, Sig wouldn't get an appointment to speak with me. To many other optioons out there with less baggage.

[jnc36rcpd]

Roberts definitely gets more insider knowledge than most of us. That said, some of us may be in positions where we have to argue against the adoption of a SIG 320 by our organization. Quips that the problem is the gun rather than the holster or the operator are not helpful. While I don't doubt Dr. Roberts' knowledge and expertise, I don't think his input in this thread will provide much weight if the department director really wants SigSauer weapons for the troops. Instructors and pretty much anyone considering a 320 need some specifics.

While I want to love and marry the safe queen that resides four feet behind me, I suspect it might somehow load itself in the gun locker and then shoot me in the back. Given the 320's characteristics, I could see an uncommanded discharge occurring if it were stuffed into a 226 holster. I would not expect that to happen with a 229, but we're issuing striker fired weapons in this decade.

[Polecat]

Who was responsible for the design of the P320, 250, 365. Same person or diff folks? Though I am sure there is plenty of collaboration.

[JHC]

Sig won the MHS contract exclusively on price per unit. Think about that for a minute - Sig underbid Glock while promising to produce a pistol with double the parts and an extremely more complicated assembly process. Sig is in the business of making money - they're banking on the press from the MHS to bring LE and civilian buyers into the fold. "Well, the Army tested this thing and selected it..."

+1
In the portion of the MHS testing that did occur, the Glock entrant beat the hell out of the Sig (Glock was more accurate and more reliable in the published but redacted GAO report, apparently not $100M worth). I have it on good authority the Sig did even worse in separate technical testing by a SOF subset of the Army. It's a sad situation.

[CWM11B]

Roberts definitely gets more insider knowledge than most of us. That said, some of us may be in positions where we have to argue against the adoption of a SIG 320 by our organization. Quips that the problem is the gun rather than the holster or the operator are not helpful. While I don't doubt Dr. Roberts' knowledge and expertise, I don't think his input in this thread will provide much weight if the department director really wants SigSauer weapons for the troops. Instructors and pretty much anyone considering a 320 need some specifics.

While I want to love and marry the safe queen that resides four feet behind me, I suspect it might somehow load itself in the gun locker and then shoot me in the back. Given the 320's characteristics, I could see an uncommanded discharge occurring if it were stuffed into a 226 holster. I would not expect that to happen with a 229, but we're issuing striker fired weapons in this decade.

I'm one of those guys. Made those arguments for the agency I retired from and do the same for two organizations that contract me now. While you are correct that a "quip" in a post is not helpful in making those arguments, I'd argue that relying on an internet gun forum (no matter how much we may enjoy it, or how good it may be) as a primary resource for the argument is both foolish and lazy. Many specifics cannot be published on an open forum for a variety of reasons, but they are available for authorized persons who do their due diligence. In the case of Doc, reaching out to him and providing verifiable creds is a great way to get pointed in the right direction. Also, with verifiable creds, the FBI Firearms Training Unit is your friend. As are many, many other resources. You just have to knuckle down and do the leg work.

As for Joe gun buyer, IME the average member of that group goes by instagram, you tube vids, flashy marketing, gun store lore, and price
when making their decisions. The dedicated private citizen purchaser will typically do a deeper dive, but those individuals are the exception rather than the rule.

Expecting someone to disclose information in a public/open forum that may violate the conditions of release is neither a fair or reasonable expectation.

[TGS]

+1
In the portion of the MHS testing that did occur, the Glock entrant beat the hell out of the Sig (Glock was more accurate and more reliable in the published but redacted GAO report, apparently not $100M worth). I have it on good authority the Sig did even worse in separate technical testing by a SOF subset of the Army. It's a sad situation.

Any particulars on what constitutes "did even worse"? Mean rounds between failures, specific environments, parts breakages after a certain point, etc?

[Borderland]

I'm one of those guys. Made those arguments for the agency I retired from and do the same for two organizations that contract me now. While you are correct that a "quip" in a post is not helpful in making those arguments, I'd argue that relying on an internet gun forum (no matter how much we may enjoy it, or how good it may be) as a primary resource for the argument is both foolish and lazy. Many specifics cannot be published on an open forum for a variety of reasons, but they are available for authorized persons who do their due diligence. In the case of Doc, reaching out to him and providing verifiable creds is a great way to get pointed in the right direction. Also, with verifiable creds, the FBI Firearms Training Unit is your friend. As are many, many other resources. You just have to knuckle down and do the leg work.

As for Joe gun buyer, IME the average member of that group goes by instagram, you tube vids, flashy marketing, gun store lore, and price
when making their decisions. The dedicated private citizen purchaser will typically do a deeper dive, but those individuals are the exception rather than the rule.

Expecting someone to disclose information in a public/open forum that may violate the conditions of release is neither a fair or reasonable expectation.

So the moral of the story seems to be this. The people who know aren't going to say and the people who don't know are going to continue to speculate about it until the cows (and maybe horses) come home.

[CWM11B]

More like seek and ye shall find.

[HeavyDuty]

Last time I am going to post here--it is not a problem with a "horse". The problem is with the pistol.

Doc, I respect your knowledge but the way you’ve been stating it could be interpreted as a curmudgeonly thing. If you have additional information, that’s different.

[sickeness]

One thing specifically about Sig's press release and their comments about situation that stinks to high heaven for me is that it appears that they are using the holster as a blame vector for this.

As someone who carries a gun in a safariland on a daily basis and who has been known to put an M&P in a Glock RDS holster for training purposes, I don't see how in any way shape or form having a modified holster can contribute in any way to a ND or AD. I mean if the gun fits and locks in, how is anything other than your finger or the mechanism failing gonna make the gun fire?

Its pretty common practice that some models of safariland have cross compatibilty and function fine in similar model sometimes with no mods or very minimal fitting. Of course safariland will make a different holster for every specific variant of each gun so they can sell more holsters, my m&p 2.0 fits and function perfectly in all 1.0 models even though the 2.0 holster has a different part number.

This is all assuming the holster is a safariland.

[Chaswick]

Have there been any issues at ICE regarding the P320?

I know a few HSI guys have been waiting/hoping that the Glock Gen5s will be approved for POW carry, but apparently the Gen 5 samples keep failing the approval process. With issues popping up everywhere with the P320 and reading about it's apparently poor showing with other .mil/.gov orgs that have approved Gen 5 Glocks, it makes me wonder. I believe that ICE has/had a relatively well regarded testing process...

[HeavyDuty]

One thing specifically about Sig's press release and their comments about situation that stinks to high heaven for me is that it appears that they are using the holster as a blame vector for this.

As someone who carries a gun in a safariland on a daily basis and who has been known to put an M&P in a Glock RDS holster for training purposes, I don't see how in any way shape or form having a modified holster can contribute in any way to a ND or AD. I mean if the gun fits and locks in, how is anything other than your finger or the mechanism failing gonna make the gun fire?

Its pretty common practice that some models of safariland have cross compatibilty and function fine in similar model sometimes with no mods or very minimal fitting. Of course safariland will make a different holster for every specific variant of each gun so they can sell more holsters, my m&p 2.0 fits and function perfectly in all 1.0 models even though the 2.0 holster has a different part number.

This is all assuming the holster is a safariland.
Researching which warning label you’ve inspired...

I kid, I kid.

[HCM]

Have there been any issues at ICE regarding the P320?



320s firing due to mechanical or design failures? No.

NDs due to operator error - yes.

A couple broken trigger return springs at relatively low round counts (less than 5k).

A few deadlined guns due to bent ejectors resulting from over insertion of extended magazines. The ejector is part of the stamped FCU so bending it deadlines the gun.

The Gen 5 testing issue has been discussed extensively in the PF Gen 5 thread.

[JSGlock34]

Count me among those disappointed with the M17 selection process. I dislike how SIG has handled the drop safety issue, and their pattern of treating customers as beta testers. They should hire a different PR firm.

But at this point I want the M17/M18 to succeed. I have friends and family who may well end up carrying one into harms way. They don't get to choose something different. I've purchased a M17 not because I'm so enamored with the product but because I want to understand what makes the new service pistol tick. It isn't going away anytime soon. Personally I'm surprised at how fast SIG has delivered these pistols.

The P320 design has had problems, that is undisputed, but just dismissing SIG and telling folks that there are better options is not helpful. If post-upgrade guns have issues, we need to know.

[farscott]

Count me among those disappointed with the M17 selection process. I dislike how SIG has handled the drop safety issue, and their pattern of treating customers as beta testers. They should hire a different PR firm.

But at this point I want the M17/M18 to succeed. I have friends and family who may well end up carrying one into harms way. They don't get to choose something different. I've purchased a M17 not because I'm so enamored with the product but because I want to understand what makes the new service pistol tick. It isn't going away anytime soon. Personally I'm surprised at how fast SIG has delivered these pistols.

The P320 design has had problems, that is undisputed, but just dismissing SIG and telling folks that there are better options is not helpful. If post-upgrade guns have issues, we need to know.

I wish I could like this more than once. While I would have preferred another choice, DoD made their choice. As an American and a taxpayer, I want the men and women who use and rely on these pistols to have the best possible tool. I look at the SIG P320/M17/M18 as a design in process. The issues will be found and they will be resolved. At least they better be resolved for all of our sakes.

[JonInWA]

I don't blame SIG for the M18/M18 testing process, I blame DoD. Both in the contract terminology and in the actual testing and vetting process. SIG was sharp enough to see how the way the contract specifications were worded to allow only the FCU to be considered the gun, apparently, and was able to configure their bid accordingly. That's neither unfair or cheating.

DoD contracting and testing should have been astute enough to have caught that. Apparently there was some lacking in adult mature experience, knowledge and/or leadership there regarding the allowable contract interpretation.

And then was the actual testing process, which was apparently both flawed and incomplete. That kind of negligance is what provides (or allows for) inferior selections and fielding, leading to weapon issues and possibly lives being lost.

Houston, we have a problem...

Best, Jon

[JonInWA]

Additionally, I increasingly suspect that the P320/M17/M18 FCU, while technically a repairable unit, is in actuality being treated as a disposable/replaceable in toto item when issues with it occur. How that, if actually true, affects the bid/contract pricing could be interesting, especially when you factor in the total recource and component costings involved.

At the end of the day, I strongly suspect that a Glock would have simply been a far better choice, especially when durability and ease of maintenance resourcing costs are factored in.

Best, Jon

[Borderland]

Additionally, I increasingly suspect that the P320/M17/M18 FCU, while technically a repairable unit, is in actuality being treated as a disposable/replaceable in toto item when issues with it occur. How that, if actually true, affects the bid/contract pricing could be interesting, especially when you factor in the total recource and component costings involved.

At the end of the day, I strongly suspect that a Glock would have simply been a far better choice, especially when durability and ease of maintenance resourcing costs are factored in.

Best, Jon

At around $200 a unit for the Sig I'm thinking it's a disposable pistol. Build a POS, upgrade/refine, replace as necessary. I'm genuinely glad I missed the striker parade. I've never used an M9 in the mil but I owned a 92FS and it was a fine pistol.

I've seen it happen where the system was "upgraded" when in fact it was downgraded with obsolete tech.

[gato naranja]

Additionally, I increasingly suspect that the P320/M17/M18 FCU, while technically a repairable unit, is in actuality being treated as a disposable/replaceable in toto item when issues with it occur. How that, if actually true, affects the bid/contract pricing could be interesting, especially when you factor in the total recource and component costings involved.

At the end of the day, I strongly suspect that a Glock would have simply been a far better choice, especially when durability and ease of maintenance resourcing costs are factored in.

Since you went there-

I have a similar suspicion, having long thought that the militaries/governments of the world have had the wet dream of disposable weapons since WWII. From the Liberator pistol, the Sten, various Volkssturmgewehren, etc, to the original single-use preloaded AR magazines and caseless ammunition, the mindset is there. The whole P320/M17/M18 saga so far has been strange... and may be even more opaque than the 1911 to Beretta adventure. I guess (Paraphrasing Bismarck) “Military contracts are like sausages: it is better not to see them being made.”

To be fair, I also think the M-16/M4/AR platform is actually a "disposable" weapons system too, but that's another story. All I know is that I'd feel less like a sap if the AFG* gave me an AR gratis and replaced it when it became unserviceable (as opposed to paying for the "privilege").



*Almighty Federal Government

[rcbusmc24]

In the context of military employment and usage, all weapons and all gear is disposable. Just saying.... It's something that collectors and gun people have a real hard time wrapping their minds around at times...

[JonInWA]

In the context of military employment and usage, all weapons and all gear is disposable. Just saying.... It's something that collectors and gun people have a real hard time wrapping their minds around at times...

Forecasted disposability/replacement is one thing; shit breaking at unforecasted times/situations within the projected weapon/component replacement/preventive maintenance schedule is another entirely. If said shit occurs with frequency, then I consider it an indicator that the weapon/system concerned needs to be replaced. Said from the position of a former company commander, group XO, and reaction force commander.

Best, Jon

[Joe in PNG]

They go with the worst of both worlds- order disposable items, then try to re-use them as long as possible.

[Borderland]

In the context of military employment and usage, all weapons and all gear is disposable. Just saying.... It's something that collectors and gun people have a real hard time wrapping their minds around at times...

Vehicle combat losses in Iraq since 2003 (approx.)

M1 Abrams tanks 20
Bradley fighting vehicles 50
Stryker wheeled combat vehicles 20
M113 armored personnel carriers 20
Humvees 250
Fox wheeled reconnaissance vehicles, mine clearing vehicles,
heavy and medium trucks and trailers, more than 500
Apache attack helicopters 27
Black Hawk utility helicopters 21
Chinook cargo helicopters 14
Kiowa assault helicopters 23
Source: Army Times February 20, 2006

https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/kf/EQUIPMENT_SHORTAGE.PDF

[S154]

While Glock has the SOCOM /SMU market tied up, the Glock has some downsides as a general issue pistol. Pulling the trigger for takedown has been an issue in LE and would be just as much of an issue or more with 18 year old troops. Second the every other military weapons system has a manual safety. While they put one on the Glock MHS pistol, every manual safety on Glocks, both factory dnd aftermarket has sucked.

You do know that a JSOC unit or "SMU" is issuing a P320 variant, right?

[jnc36rcpd]

Which JSOC unit?

[S154]

Which JSOC unit?

DEVGRU

[Bucky]

Vehicle combat losses in Iraq since 2003 (approx.)

M1 Abrams tanks 20
Bradley fighting vehicles 50
Stryker wheeled combat vehicles 20
M113 armored personnel carriers 20
Humvees 250
Fox wheeled reconnaissance vehicles, mine clearing vehicles,
heavy and medium trucks and trailers, more than 500
Apache attack helicopters 27
Black Hawk utility helicopters 21
Chinook cargo helicopters 14
Kiowa assault helicopters 23
Source: Army Times February 20, 2006

https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/kf/EQUIPMENT_SHORTAGE.PDF


No A10s lost? :) ;)

[GJM]

Is there a theory on the exact cause of this discharge beyond bad company, bad design?

[Mjolnir]

An inadvertent pistol discharge into the leg usually involves a holster.

And I guess I have to revise my vocabulary, I always thought a "misfire" was a failure to fire, not an inadvertent discharge.

The article I read said the holster was for a P226 that had been “modified” to accept the P320.

Does not mean that’s the truth.

Maybe it’s just me but with such a SHORT trigger pull that pistol seriously needs an external safety for duty use - which would include daily carry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mjolnir]

Sig won the MHS contract exclusively on price per unit. Think about that for a minute - Sig underbid Glock while promising to produce a pistol with double the parts and an extremely more complicated assembly process. Sig is in the business of making money - they're banking on the press from the MHS to bring LE and civilian buyers into the fold. "Well, the Army tested this thing and selected it..."

Not true. The second phase of testing was never completed. Fact.

Odd politics took place before any discussion of price or which of the two pistols was the best.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mjolnir]

They were pulled immediately.

The not drop safe issues and SIG not being honest about them are real but not nearly as prevalent as they are made out to be. The biggest issue is still loose nut behind the trigger.

For example in the July lawsuit (which involved a non upgraded original P320) they cite multiple examples of P320s going off "uncommanded" however at least 2/3 were clearly ND not AD. In particular one involving my agency in NYC was witnessed on the range during training and is 100% ND not AD.


Even if the user didn't touch the trigger, holsters are not used in a vacuum. Things get in trigger guards and result in ND's all the time, especially when wearing gear, winter clothing etc. That's before you factor in not using the correct holster.

All the more reason for Striker Control Devices, External Safeties and Double Action trigger pulls...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JonInWA]

All the more reason for Striker Control Devices, External Safeties and Double Action trigger pulls...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or LEM...

Best, Jon

[Borderland]

Or LEM...

Best, Jon


Yep, LEM. Best keep secret in the world of duty pistols. Nobody gets shot holstering a pistol with your thumb on the hammer. No safety and no decocker because you don't need one. I wouldn't expect the military to even consider the benefits though.

[HCM]

You do know that a JSOC unit or "SMU" is issuing a P320 variant, right?

Yes More than one AFAIK, if you expand that to SOCOM.

I heard one SMU was using an X5 variant, others in SOCOM are doing M18's, I think with an X carry grip and a magwell like the Danish 320.

There were always some Berettas, 1911s and a few HKs floating around too but Glock is still the solid majority.

[gato naranja]

Yep, LEM. Best keep secret in the world of duty pistols.

That is essentially true. Surprisingly so.

[TCB]

Yep, LEM. Best keep secret in the world of duty pistols. Nobody gets shot holstering a pistol with your thumb on the hammer. No safety and no decocker because you don't need one. I wouldn't expect the military to even consider the benefits though.

Sadly very untrue. There have been chingos of CBP Agents and Officers who have ND’d LEM pistols...chingos.

[javemtr]

Sadly very untrue. There have been chingos of CBP Agents and Officers who have ND’d LEM pistols...chingos.
Of course you can still ND an LEM pistol. But the fact remains true that keeping your thumb on the hammer when holstering makes it very hard to ND any hammer-fired pistol.

[Duelist]

Of course you can still ND an LEM pistol. But the fact remains true that keeping your thumb on the hammer when holstering makes it very hard to ND any hammer-fired pistol.

It only makes it more difficult to ND into your leg/butt/balls while holstering. It doesn’t make a difference for any other time the shooter is handling a firearm.

It makes a difference because when most shooters who ND and injure themselves do so is when they are holstering.

[19852+]

I'll bet there were those who ND'ed DAO revolvers...

[Duelist]

I'll bet there were those who ND'ed DAO revolvers...

Very easy to do if you cock the piece for some reason and then go to decock it without your brain engaged.




Don’t ask me how I know.

[19852+]

Very easy to do if you cock the piece for some reason and then go to decock it without your brain engaged.




Don’t ask me how I know.

That's why I specified DAO.. I know there's a reason these conversions were done...

[Duelist]

That's why I specified DAO.. I know there's a reason these conversions were done...

And sometimes we type responses without our brains fully engaged. LOL - sorry!

[HeavyDuty]

I'll bet there were those who ND'ed DAO revolvers...

I’ve seen it.

[TCinVA]

There is no trigger that is operator proof.

There are just trigger arrangements that offer a greater margin for error than others.

The Sigs I've handled lately are flat out disturbing. Their "Scorpion" is exemplar. That thing is essentially a 1911 with no safeties.

The M17 at least has a manual safety, even if it doesn't do anything but block the trigger.

There will be consequences that result from this proliferation of fully cocked striker fired pistols with short, light trigger presses.

[19852+]

And sometimes we type responses without our brains fully engaged. LOL - sorry!

No problem, been there, done that...

[TheNewbie]

Ruger should release their version of the P250.


After the inevitable recall, it should be good to go.

[19852+]

There is no trigger that is operator proof.

There are just trigger arrangements that offer a greater margin for error than others.

The Sigs I've handled lately are flat out disturbing. Their "Scorpion" is exemplar. That thing is essentially a 1911 with no safeties.

The M17 at least has a manual safety, even if it doesn't do anything but block the trigger.

There will be consequences that result from this proliferation of fully cocked striker fired pistols with short, light trigger presses.

Walther PPQ ?

[farscott]

There will be consequences that result from this proliferation of fully cocked striker fired pistols with short, light trigger presses.

Especially with the huge amount of first-time gun owners. I guess the bean counters overruled the in-house counsel.

It does seem like we are seeing another transition from longer, safer trigger (no more LEM) pulls to short, light ones. Combined with an ammo shortage and the possibility of a magazine capacity limit, the 1911 appears to be the 2021 P-F pistol of the year.

[BehindBlueI's]

It makes a difference because when most shooters who ND and injure themselves do so is when they are holstering.

Point of order, that may be true on the range but is not true in the wider world of gun ownership. Intentional trigger pulls thinking the gun was empty vastly outweighed holstering incidents for those who injured themselves or others with an unintended discharge. Obviously trigger weight, length, etc. is irrelevant to stopping that sort of thing. The silver lining, so to speak, was the injuries also tended to be some of the least serious. The off hand was the most common body part struck, which obviously sucks but is rarely life threatening.

Holstering incidents certainly occurred, and especially with appendix carry the resulting injuries were often much more serious. Joe Gunowner has a better chance of a fatal outcome with a holstering mishap but a much greater chance of injury overall through careless administrative handling and/or general fuckery.

[TCinVA]

The requirement to press the trigger before disassembling one of the most popular options on the market didn't help that any.

[GearFondler]

I'd wager that the vast majority of ND's involve people who don't even own a holster.

[BehindBlueI's]

I'd wager that the vast majority of ND's involve people who don't even own a holster.

I'll have to dig out my spreadsheets, but I did track holstered vs unholstered for those who discharged the gun while on their person but not for administrative/general fuckery discharges. Going from memory, holsterless pocket carry, often with other stuff in the pocket, was a fairly frequent flyer. Holsterless appendix and grabbing at a shifting gun was a less frequent one but one that had a high chance of life altering/ending injury. One guy was on his cell phone with his girlfriend and was looking for something under his car seat and apparently grabbed the gun as it shifted so it wouldn't fall out. He blasted himself, told her he was going to drive himself to the hospital, and bled out almost immediately with her still on the phone.

[BehindBlueI's]

Back on topic, I have it on good authority the issue is the gun. Not the holster, not the soldier, but the gun itself and something repeatable and endemic to the design. I suspect that more information will become public at some point, but this is not that point. I've said what I can say without betraying a trust, so take it or leave it.

[Kanye Wyoming]

Holsterless appendix
Just reading that induced shivers and an involuntary sphincter clench. Upon further reflection, is it a bad thing for the gene pool if someone who thinks that's a good idea ends up being precluded from procreation?

[Maple Syrup Actual]

Back on topic, I have it on good authority the issue is the gun. Not the holster, not the soldier, but the gun itself and something repeatable and endemic to the design. I suspect that more information will become public at some point, but this is not that point. I've said what I can say without betraying a trust, so take it or leave it.

Well, that'll sure be interesting if it turns out to be true. I am hearing the exact opposite but the guys I am hearing it from weren't there and aren't on the team anymore, so it's just the rumour mill of those guys that I'm getting, not anything official. And it's hard to filter out the biases of these guys, no matter how experienced they are.

For sure if it turns out to be the gun, that'll be interesting for a whole pile of reasons.

[roboster2013]

Back on topic, I have it on good authority the issue is the gun. Not the holster, not the soldier, but the gun itself and something repeatable and endemic to the design. I suspect that more information will become public at some point, but this is not that point. I've said what I can say without betraying a trust, so take it or leave it.

Thanks for the info. It will be interesting to see what follows down the road.

[roboster2013]

Back on topic, I have it on good authority the issue is the gun. Not the holster, not the soldier, but the gun itself and something repeatable and endemic to the design. I suspect that more information will become public at some point, but this is not that point. I've said what I can say without betraying a trust, so take it or leave it.

I do have a question if you are able to answer without betraying your trust. Do you know if it was a recently manufactured gun (2019 or later) or was it older?

[Snapshot]

<snip>For sure if it turns out to be the gun, that'll be interesting for a whole pile of reasons.

CZ is coming, problem will be solved when they offer the Arctic Shadow (TM) to replace all CAF handguns. :rolleyes:

[CWM11B]

Back on topic, I have it on good authority the issue is the gun. Not the holster, not the soldier, but the gun itself and something repeatable and endemic to the design. I suspect that more information will become public at some point, but this is not that point. I've said what I can say without betraying a trust, so take it or leave it.

Ditto. From more than one, and long before (but also including) this incident.

[Trooper224]

Right before I retired, I was part of the evaluation team responsible for selecting the next sidearm. I really liked the P320, I mean I REALLY liked it, moreso than any other plastic fantastic I've ever handled. Of course, Sig then fucked up the end game in typical fashion with the whole instantaneous discharge feature.

I find it sad that so many people have gotten their ego so wrapped up in this pistol they simply can't admit there's a problem.

[Joe in PNG]

Yah, the whole "interchangeable" FCU thing is kind of cool and all, but is it really all that useful, especially over the long term?

How often do the real end users swap the bits and configs around on a regular basis?

Kind of like the Stoner 63, where you could make all sorts of cool guns- but most users pretty much just set it up as an LMG, and left it there.

[HeavyDuty]

Back on topic, I have it on good authority the issue is the gun. Not the holster, not the soldier, but the gun itself and something repeatable and endemic to the design. I suspect that more information will become public at some point, but this is not that point. I've said what I can say without betraying a trust, so take it or leave it.

That’s all it took, instead of cryptic grumbling. Thanks for the clarification.

[Bucky]

Yah, the whole "interchangeable" FCU thing is kind of cool and all, but is it really all that useful, especially over the long term?
.

I see it’s usefulness in relationship to how firearms are treated. To be able to change a firearm to different sizes without the paperwork involved, especially in some states, is a plus. For those states (or state) that only allow 3 guns on a permit, would you be allowed to have one FCU as one gun, and switch configurations?

With an LE or MIL unit, this is a non issue. Now that GLOCK has made the 47 (I espoused back when they developed the Gen 4s, why not make the 17 and 19 with compatible slides), a 19 / 47 gives you the ability to make 4 different size configurations. Speaking of which, it’s high time clock made the 19 L, now that they produce all the parts it should be a no brainer.

[GJM]

FIFY



Speaking of which, it’s high time Glock made the 19 L, once they start producing parts again, it should be a no brainer.

[Navin Johnson]

That’s all it took, instead of cryptic grumbling. Thanks for the clarification.

I think Gary said the same thing a few pages back....

[vandal]

My county only allows TWO handguns (by serial number) on a CCW permit. So being able to turn an edc 365XL with 507K into a 365 ankle/pocket gun as needed is a real world advantage.

For the 320 might be nice to swap grips for glove vs summer weather.

This is the only reason I’m switching from G48 & G19 to P365XL & P320.


Yah, the whole "interchangeable" FCU thing is kind of cool and all, but is it really all that useful, especially over the long term?

How often do the real end users swap the bits and configs around on a regular basis?

[Joe in PNG]

My county only allows TWO handguns (by serial number) on a CCW permit. So being able to turn an edc 365XL with 507K into a 365 ankle/pocket gun as needed is a real world advantage.

For the 320 might be nice to swap grips for glove vs summer weather.

This is the only reason I’m switching from G48 & G19 to P365XL & P320.

Which makes sense in a restricted area, same as the HK4 caliber change kit.

[Borderland]

Which makes sense in a restricted area, same as the HK4 caliber change kit.

I had one of those but I gave it to a relative about 20 years ago. Mine was only .380 and I didn't have the kit. That was responsible for the last two HK's I bought. Never been disappointed. The thing I noticed about it was it was very accurate and it virtually destroyed the ejected brass. Deep indents at the base.

[JSGlock34]

Yah, the whole "interchangeable" FCU thing is kind of cool and all, but is it really all that useful, especially over the long term?

How often do the real end users swap the bits and configs around on a regular basis?

Kind of like the Stoner 63, where you could make all sorts of cool guns- but most users pretty much just set it up as an LMG, and left it there.

Ever see an arms room full of beat up M9 frames? Or smooth worn Glock frames? Every M9 I was ever issued looked like it was dragged to the range behind the truck.

I don't think the advantage here is too much to the individual user; sure some will benefit from the ability to move the Legos around, especially in locales with legal restrictions. But from a logistical standpoint, the ability to swap out frames every few years during the rebuild process is significant. And they're cheap.

[HCM]

Ever see an arms room full of beat up M9 frames? Or smooth worn Glock frames? Every M9 I was ever issued looked like it was dragged to the range behind the truck.

I don't think the advantage here is too much to the individual user; sure some will benefit from the ability to move the Legos around, especially in locales with legal restrictions. But from a logistical standpoint, the ability to swap out frames every few years during the rebuild process is significant. And they're cheap.

Those who have never been in bureaucratic organizations are not quite going to get the advantages Modular systems provide within the artificial constraints of bureaucracy. Doesn’t matter whether it is military law enforcement or other government.

[Joe in PNG]

One does hope that they'll take full advantage of that feature, and not fall into the temptation to "save money" by trying to push the lifespan of things longer than intended.

Not that our military or any other organization would ever do something like that.

[JonInWA]

In my opinion,where the M17/M18 runs the risk of falling off its collective and individual wheels could be in protracted use in hostile environments with limited higher echelon support/resupply capabilities. Where Glocks have a proven abilities to perform with limited maintenance and limited forecasted parts replacements, the M17/M18 posesses what I suspect is limited on-site servicibility beyond operator field stripping. With problematic pistols, I suspect that instead of repair, FCUs with issues are simply replaced.

If FCU resupply is limited, repair can become paramount to keep the platform user viable. The FCU is seemingly comprised of multiple fiddley parts, challenging field maintenance and repair.

If my scenario is correct, it also casts apersions on the validity of the costing model accepted by DoD in the winning bid process. The incomplete testing protocol is another yawning gap.

There's strong anecdotal evidence that Tier One units are fully cognizant of this, and are sticking primarily with Gen 3 and Gen4/5 Glocks.

I'm envisioning a slow-moving train wreck in the future.

Best, Jon

[JSGlock34]

I imagine protecting the FCU from fiddling by Joe is the reason that the MHS pistols originally had the 'tamper proof' key for the takedown lever, but it seems this 'feature' does not appear on the issue article. That trigger return spring in particular looks easily damaged.

[RevolverRob]

Every M9 I was ever issued looked like it was dragged to the range behind the truck.

But the guns worked and didn't fire due to mechanical failure when dropped and drug behind a HMMV right? And did the aesthetic damage result in less performance on the part of the end user?

I'n sure you're catching my drift here - but for other folks and sake or clarity:

If the guns are safe and work - does it matter if they look like hammered dog shit?

I understand that many M9s in service are reaching the end of their usable life span. Things can only be rebuilt/refurbished so much before they're done. That's true of any mechanical object.

In the long term, we're going to genuinely find out if the P320 has mechanical issues. The volume of incidents will stack up too high to counter with "user error". In addition, we're going to see the dinky-ness of this design doesn't hold up to long-tern abuse. That "rebuilding" the guns is going to be tantamount to replacing them, not rebuilding them. Eventually, the economy of scale won't add up, because full scale replacement is happening more often than not.

[JSGlock34]

But the guns worked and didn't fire due to mechanical failure when dropped and drug behind a HMMV right? And did the aesthetic damage result in less performance on the part of the end user?

I'n sure you're catching my drift here...

I think by linking my comment about the potential benefits of a modular design to the reported safety issues, you are presenting a false choice. Obviously, any logistical advantages to a modular design should not come at the expense of the intrinsic safety of the firearm.

[Joe in PNG]

I think by linking my comment about the potential benefits of a modular design to the reported safety issues, you are presenting a false choice. Obviously, any logistical advantages to a modular design should not come at the expense of the intrinsic safety of the firearm.

Considering that the Armed Forces have a history of not replacing life limited components in firearms (1911 mainsprings, Beretta locking blocks, M-16 mags), there is the very real possibility that we'll still see the same sort of beat up, worn out, over cleaned, and junked up weapons even with the modular bits available.

[JSGlock34]

Considering that the Armed Forces have a history of not replacing life limited components in firearms (1911 mainsprings, Beretta locking blocks, M-16 mags), there is the very real possibility that we'll still see the same sort of beat up, worn out, over cleaned, and junked up weapons even with the modular bits available.

Sure. Does that mean that there is no merit in the modular concept? The Army doesn't have a history of using it so the concept is poor?

Don't get me wrong, I thought the MHS selection was poorly executed, and have said so previously on this site. But SIG isn't the only one offering such a design (Beretta has the APX) and I suspect we'll see other companies copy the approach in the future.

The M17/M18 is a disposable gun. I'll be curious to see what that does to military logistics, but if there are advantages to the modular approach, I still think they are at the organizational vice user level.

[farscott]

The modular approach may be the future, but the 320 is likely to delay that future. Just like GM delayed diesel adoption in the USA with a design that used heads designed for blocks for gas motors, the unfinished P320 design may impact the future of modular handguns.

[Alan0354]

I don't quite get how the modular system of Sig work for registration. They usually have the serial number on the frame and they register the gun by the frame. But here, you can change the grip frame and everything, so which part of the gun is registered?

[cheby]

I don't quite get how the modular system of Sig work for registration. They usually have the serial number on the frame and they register the gun by the frame. But here, you can change the grip frame and everything, so which part of the gun is registered?
FCU

[Wendell]

I don't quite get how the modular system of Sig work for registration. They usually have the serial number on the frame and they register the gun by the frame. But here, you can change the grip frame and everything, so which part of the gun is registered?

https://www.sigsauer.com/p320-fire-control-unit.html

[RevolverRob]

I think by linking my comment about the potential benefits of a modular design to the reported safety issues, you are presenting a false choice. Obviously, any logistical advantages to a modular design should not come at the expense of the intrinsic safety of the firearm.

First, I did not intend to misrepresent what you wrote. Or suggest that you're okay with eliminating safety in the name of modularity. FWIW, I did not glean that from what you wrote. My apologies if it seemed that way.

Let's talk about what the actual logistical advantages of a modular handgun system are - sincerely - I don't see those advantages. Real or theoretical to me the attempts at modularity are undermining the safety of the systems, by trying to unnecessarily complicate things by introducing a packaging problem.

[Alan0354]

Wow, using a FCU is a very good idea, so it's made of titanium? That's very strong. Is the slide rail also on the FCU, that the frame is not subject to any of the stress?

So you just register the FCU?

[Alan0354]

HK:

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/ff/98/ea/ff98eac23706a58131ea62c0a16c9006.jpg

If Glock works, it would be the most reliable, no maintenance and most rugged one then. This also tells me never touch HK.

[Wondering Beard]

If Glock works, it would be the most reliable, no maintenance and most rugged one then. This also tells me never touch HK.

Read the HK articles (particularly those on the P30) by the founder of this forum: http://pistol-training.com/

[JSGlock34]

First, I did not intend to misrepresent what you wrote. Or suggest that you're okay with eliminating safety in the name of modularity. FWIW, I did not glean that from what you wrote. My apologies if it seemed that way.

Let's talk about what the actual logistical advantages of a modular handgun system are - sincerely - I don't see those advantages. Real or theoretical to me the attempts at modularity are undermining the safety of the systems, by trying to unnecessarily complicate things by introducing a packaging problem.

No apologies necessary.

First - is a modular handgun necessary? Clearly it isn't. Despite the catchy name of 'Modular Handgun System', Glock was a finalist and doesn't have the SIG's chassis system. The APX was the only other entrant I can recall with a similar design. So I'm not even sure the Army was really looking for this 'feature' in the first place. To Joe's point, maybe it'll change how they do business. Perhaps not. I don't think any Generals are staying up late pondering the logistical possibilities offered by a 'Modular Handgun'. In the scheme of things, the pistol is the least important military weapon system, and I think General Milley's comments about the procurement process were spot on.

So what does the P320 design offer in this respect? Really, it comes down to the frame design. Now, even the Army has said that it expects 90% of personnel to use the 'medium' grip frame. This is why I said I don't see too much utility for the individual user; most will choose a grip frame and stick with it.

Now, the fact is that the grip frame is an entirely disposable item. I think that prevents some interesting options for an organization. I mentioned frame wear. Frames can get beat up and damaged - and not just aesthetically. Polymer will wear over time. Now we can just pop on a new one. Maybe some organizations will need different frame features in the future. We already see SIG marketing their 'X-Carry' frame for SOF use (no idea why the X-Carry isn't suitable for general use, but sure, whatever).

Is the FCU a disposable item too? Jon's observations about forward armorer support are interesting. Problematic gun? Just swap out the FCU? Obviously this is the registered part so you can't pitch in the trash like a grip frame, but perhaps you have a supply of spare FCUs and problems are resolved the depot level?

Again, I'm certainly not wedded to the concept - I'm just not ready to dismiss it entirely as a gimmick either. I think it does present some interesting options that could be attractive at the organizational level, and I'll break out the popcorn to watch it evolve.

SIG is marketing themselves as the 'modular' firearms company (MHS, MPX, MCX, etc). Time will tell if their strategy proves successful.

I still think the Army should have selected the Glock entry.

[HeavyDuty]

FCU

No need to be rude.

[cheby]

No need to be rude.

What are you talking about??? FCU - Fire Control Unit.

https://www.sigsauer.com/p320-fire-control-unit.html

[call_me_ski]

No apologies necessary.

First - is a modular handgun necessary? Clearly it isn't. Despite the catchy name of 'Modular Handgun System', Glock was a finalist and doesn't have the SIG's chassis system. The APX was the only other entrant I can recall with a similar design. So I'm not even sure the Army was really looking for this 'feature' in the first place. To Joe's point, maybe it'll change how they do business. Perhaps not. I don't think any Generals are staying up late pondering the logistical possibilities offered by a 'Modular Handgun'. In the scheme of things, the pistol is the least important military weapon system, and I think General Milley's comments about the procurement process were spot on.

So what does the P320 design offer in this respect? Really, it comes down to the frame design. Now, even the Army has said that it expects 90% of personnel to use the 'medium' grip frame. This is why I said I don't see too much utility for the individual user; most will choose a grip frame and stick with it.

Now, the fact is that the grip frame is an entirely disposable item. I think that prevents some interesting options for an organization. I mentioned frame wear. Frames can get beat up and damaged - and not just aesthetically. Polymer will wear over time. Now we can just pop on a new one. Maybe some organizations will need different frame features in the future. We already see SIG marketing their 'X-Carry' frame for SOF use (no idea why the X-Carry isn't suitable for general use, but sure, whatever).

Is the FCU a disposable item too? Jon's observations about forward armorer support are interesting. Problematic gun? Just swap out the FCU? Obviously this is the registered part so you can't pitch in the trash like a grip frame, but perhaps you have a supply of spare FCUs and problems are resolved the depot level?

Again, I'm certainly not wedded to the concept - I'm just not ready to dismiss it entirely as a gimmick either. I think it does present some interesting options that could be attractive at the organizational level, and I'll break out the popcorn to watch it evolve.

SIG is marketing themselves as the 'modular' firearms company (MHS, MPX, MCX, etc). Time will tell if their strategy proves successful.

I still think the Army should have selected the Glock entry.

The FCU does allow people in some organizations more freedom with a dremel and soldering iron. Not to mention membership into the pistol grip of the month club. I am personally well served by a Gen 5 Glock frame with no modification.

In all seriousness, the X frame didn’t exist when the M17 was bid and now it is marketed as an upgrade. I am personally split as to if it is an improvement or not over the normal frame. They market it to SOF because they have more money to spend and they like to have Gucci gear. Hell, they earned it. Plus sometimes you need a different handgun visibly hanging out of your front pocket so that a random 1st Sgt knows that he can’t say shit about you being in the chow hall in flip flops and a 4 month old hair cut. Who am I kidding, the 1st Sgt won’t be able to help themselves.

As for the XM17 program, they should have conducted Phase 2 testing before an award. Specs outline price as being in the least important deduction criteria category yet they conducted nearly zero testing before awarding a contract on price. Love or hate the M17, you should not like how it went down.

[Borderland]

How does any of this matter now? The military has a contract with Sig no matter how bad the 320 is. Same thing happened to Colt M45A1. Colt had to eat some of those but nobody lost any money except the tax payer. Some shrewd investor bought them all for Colts $1050 investment and sold every one for a 25% profit.

Now that's ingenious marketing right there. The last surplus military 1911 for sale to the public so they said. But it wasn't. I got one of the last ones, 1911 A1 US Property. It wasn't easy. :D

[BehindBlueI's]

How does any of this matter now? The military has a contract with Sig no matter how bad the 320 is.

The military cancels contracts fairly routinely. Besides the normal criminal or civil reasons a contract can be cancelled (product misrepresented, for example), gov't contracts often have a "for the convenience of the government" clause that lets them eject because they changed their mind. Boiler plate here:

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.249-2

Keeping in mind I am going from foggy memories of procurement courses I took some 20+ years ago in an effort to score some promotion points, the contract will lay out the maximum award. That's how much money the company *could* make if the gov't buys the maximum number of widgets over the course of the life time of the contract. Then there's an obligation payment that goes with a specific delivery. So a $30 million award may be broken down into a bunch of little sales, many of which are optional on the gov't's part, and they are only obligated for the ones they make.

If I've botched it, I'm sure there are members here with more recent and more betterer experience in this arena then me who can correct me, but the takeaway is a contract with the federal government is not exactly written in stone if the gov't decides to part ways.

[call_me_ski]

A good example of the above was the Remington MK21 MSR 338 Lapua adopted by SOCOM. The contract was worth millions but in reality it is IQID meaning that the stated value is the maximum should the government exercise their option to buy the maximum quantity. Instead the minimum purchase was something like 12 rifles. The production rifles didn’t preform like the test guns so SOCOM bought 12 guns and said thanks but no thanks.

Although with 200,000 pistols delivered I think the military has moved past that point. I wonder if it was the military or Sig that pushed the guns to be delivered so fast.

[HCM]

What are you talking about??? FCU - Fire Control Unit.

https://www.sigsauer.com/p320-fire-control-unit.html


https://youtu.be/-CxX8nvLalE

[rcbusmc24]

https://youtu.be/-CxX8nvLalE

With all the derp that's' been showing up recently I'm getting to the point that this is pretty much how I want to reply to a bunch of various threads anymore as well....

[JSGlock34]

One thing to keep in mind is that SIG significantly underbid Glock. This is from the GAO response (https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/685461.pdf) to Glock's protest (which is somewhat interesting if bureaucratic reading).
https://pistol-forum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=23485&d=1517534871
Will problems with the M17/18 amount to $100M worth of problems?

[19852+]

Just a point of curiosity, what was the shortest handgun service life in the US Military? I'm thinking the Colt .38 revolver just prior to the adoption of the 1911 but I could be wrong. The mil was so unhappy with it they dragged out some old SAA's in .45LC from stores.

[fatdog]

Just a point of curiosity, what was the shortest handgun service life in the US Military? I'm thinking the Colt .38 revolver just prior to the adoption of the 1911

My guess is the Colt 1860, while it was a top of the heap percussion design, it was supplanted by first the Schoefield and then the SAA in 1873 as fast as Colt could produce them because of the shift to cartridges, so 13 years "front line service" at most. The 1892 Colt was documented to be in service by '93 as best I can tell and it certainly remained in inventory until general issue of the 1911, about 17-18 years.

[TGS]

Just a point of curiosity, what was the shortest handgun service life in the US Military? I'm thinking the Colt .38 revolver just prior to the adoption of the 1911 but I could be wrong. The mil was so unhappy with it they dragged out some old SAA's in .45LC from stores.

My answer would be the M13 Aircrewman revolvers produced by S&W and Colt in the 50's. Only 6 years in service before being pulled and destroyed(not held in reserve) I believe....even shorter than fatdog 's Model 1860.

Of course, we can really only view it through the lens of curiosities sake as you're coming from. The 50s was nuts.....military spending was like nothing the US has ever seen. We were coming out with new aircraft designs and replacing our fighter jet fleet every couple years.....orders placed in the thousands......we would lose more naval aviators in one year during the 1950s than we've lost from the end of Vietnam to current day, combined. So, if a handgun wasn't exactly tip-top, it was truly a drop in the bucket to destroy 40,000 of them and just buy something else....probably didn't even register as an abnormality on budget tracking.

If the US military designed and issued the M13 today and found the same frame cracking issues, the answer would probably be, "Okay, it's even cracking with the low pressure ammo? Not a problem. Prohibit airmen from conducting training with it, and put a breakaway security seal on it so we know if the trigger has been pulled." Thus, what in one era ended up being the shortest serving pistol in US military history, in another era could end up being one of the longest serving. I'm actually kind of surprised that wasn't the answer, given that the USAF was already issuing revolvers as their standard sidearm during that time and could've just used such as a facsimilie for training purposes.

[HeavyDuty]

What are you talking about??? FCU - Fire Control Unit.

https://www.sigsauer.com/p320-fire-control-unit.html

A joke, obviously not a good one.

[revchuck38]

How about the M1909 Colt New Service in .45 Colt? I have no idea how long it stayed in service.

[RevolverRob]

How about the M1909 Colt New Service in .45 Colt? I have no idea how long it stayed in service.

My understanding is they stayed in service until the 1920s. But it's so hard to know, since the Army and Marine Corps had M1909s, M1911s, and M1917s in inventory during that time and things were so fluid. I ASSume that there was more than one or two 1909s present during WW1.

[Joe in PNG]

If the US military designed and issued the M13 today and found the same frame cracking issues, the answer would probably be, "Okay, it's even cracking with the low pressure ammo? Not a problem. Prohibit airmen from conducting training with it, and put a breakaway security seal on it so we know if the trigger has been pulled." Thus, what in one era ended up being the shortest serving pistol in US military history, in another era could end up being one of the longest serving. I'm actually kind of surprised that wasn't the answer, given that the USAF was already issuing revolvers as their standard sidearm during that time and could've just used such as a facsimilie for training purposes.

I suspect Curtis LeMay had a say in that.

[fatdog]

Yep, if you get down to the limited issue and branch specific guns there are lots of short timers I guess. Colt Commando and S&W K frame Victory Model in WW II were both less than 4 years.

[Half Moon]

Yep, if you get down to the limited issue and branch specific guns there are lots of short timers I guess. Colt Commando and S&W K frame Victory Model in WW II were both less than 4 years.

The Victory model might need to come off the list. Read an article somewhere the last couple years that some of the Navy Victory models were still in active service with the Air Force as late as the early seventies.

[19852+]

My question regarding the shortest lived US service pistol was obvious and my way of wondering if history will repeat itself..

[RevolverRob]

My question regarding the shortest lived US service pistol was obvious and my way of wondering if history will repeat itself..

Yes, but this is P-F, where the nuances of pistol craft, pistol design, and pistol history have to be discussed.

Anyways we return you now to our previously scheduled Daily Two Minutes Hate of the P320.

--

[TGS]

Yes, but this is P-F, where the nuances of pistol craft, pistol design, and pistol history have to be discussed.


Fo'realz. If someone doesn't like randomly talking about guns, there's probably better places on the internets that gun forums. ;)

[Bucky]

My question regarding the shortest lived US service pistol was obvious and my way of wondering if history will repeat itself..

I don’t think our culture today allows for the admittance of mistakes.

The following is of course hypothetical. Imagine company A is looking to replace their internally developed software X. They contract company B for software Y when it really needs software Z (both from same company). Instead of admitting fault and renegotiating to license software Z, they repurpose the internal software X team to modify and extend external software Y to do what software Z already does.

Moral of the story, it’s better to pound a square peg into a round hole, than to admit you should have bought the round peg.

Nothing here is to imply the M17 is / isn’t up to the task, just to imply that IF it wasn’t, the .gov would keep pounding on that square peg.

[Snapshot]

I don’t think our culture today allows for the admittance of mistakes.

The following is of course hypothetical. Imagine company A is looking to replace their internally developed software X. They contract company B for software Y when it really needs software Z (both from same company). Instead of admitting fault and renegotiating to license software Z, they repurpose the internal software X team to modify and extend external software Y to do what software Z already does.

Moral of the story, it’s better to pound a square peg into a round hole, than to admit you should have bought the round peg.

Nothing here is to imply the M17 is / isn’t up to the task, just to imply that IF it wasn’t, the .gov would keep pounding on that square peg.

I have survived several versions of this hypothetical story, not with handguns but with mission- and safety-critical software. It has never ended well, and the X team that caused most of the problems with projects 1, 2, and 3 were still around to take on project 4.

[Whirlwind06]

To continue with the software analogy I’m thinking that during demo and testing of the M17 it appeared to check all of the boxes. In actual use behind the spiffy fronted, there is a bunch of spaghetti code.

[AMC]

I have some thoughts on these issues, and think they point to something else as well. This is entirely separate from the fact that I think Sig has some really cool, innovative people working for them, but is run by garbage human beings. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

There may be problems with the gun still. I tend to think that current production Pro Series guns are good to go, and I do enjoy shooting them (though not as much as an M&P 2.0). There are several departments in the greater SF Bay Area that have recently adopted the gun, and two large sheriff's departments that are about to make the move. The training staffs at those two departments are pretty switched on guys, too.

The gun clearly was not drop safe, when released initially, and Sig handled the problem in the worst way possible in my opinion. They've left a target on their back, and any negligent discharge associated with one of these guns runs the risk of attracting a lawyers attention. That's a totally self-inflicted wound, in my opinion. To this day, I would never trust a "Voluntary Upgrade" 320.

Several of these incidents bear all the signs of a negligent discharge, that someone is trying to excuse or pay their medical bills for. Not the earliest, pre-upgrade incidents, mind you....but some of the later and more recent ones. And this points to a part of what I think is going on. I'm aware of, and participated in reviews of, several negligent discharges in my own department over the last couple of years. Nearly half involved the officers' personally owned, off-duty Glock (we issue Sig P226R pistols in .40). I'm also aware of several negligent discharges investigated by nearby agencies involving their officers. These incidents involved mostly Glocks, but also Smith M&P's, etc. And I think there is still a common denominator here. In my opinion, that is totally inadequate training.....specifically transition training. I've spoken to the training staff at numerous departments in my state over the last 18 months or so, who have made or were in the process of making the transition to the Sig 320. Every single one of them had conducted a transition training of 8 hours or less, including the agencies coming from DA/SA guns. When I asked the training staff at one local agency if they had experienced an increase in ND's, he said no. Six months later I ran into an officer from that agency, and asked him the same question. He said "Oh, yeah.....every time we're at the range. At least one or two."
A trainer at a Southern California department I spoke to, when I asked him about the 8 hour training, said "Why would you need more? How long do you think it takes to get someone to qualify with a new gun?" And this, right there, is the problem. I can get you to "Qualify" with a striker fired gun in an hour, frankly, if you are a remotely decent halfass shooter. That isn't the point, and it isn't what concerns me. What worries me is are you safe with that new trigger? Are you able to 'not' shoot when you don't need to? This is the reason that I've insisted that any transition course for a striker fired pistol we approve will be 20 hrs. ...minimum. And the training will concentrate heavily on trigger finger discipline, in changing 'shoot/don't shoot' drills. Some people gripe about this...but are also the same people who would never bat an eye at mandating 40 hours of training before carrying a 1911 pattern gun. This is not new thinking at all, and everybody involved in training here knows this is a problem. We aren't preparing people for success with 4-8 hrs of training. We're setting them up to fail.

Some of these incidents discussed here may be the gun. Time will tell. I still maintain that totally inadequate transition training is at the root of the problem. Sig just stupidly drew a "Bummer of a birthmark" on themselves with their response to Dropgate, and now every negligent discharge will be blamed on the gun, deserved or not. Anyway, that's my take on what is driving a majority of these incidents. YMMV.

[M2CattleCo]

I don’t think our culture today allows for the admittance of mistakes.


You just put something into words that I’ve been thinking about for years.

[farscott]

To continue with the software analogy I’m thinking that during demo and testing of the M17 it appeared to check all of the boxes. In actual use behind the spiffy fronted, there is a bunch of spaghetti code.

I am not sure that is the best analogy. I think one of two things happened, neither of which is good.

1) SIG never performed thorough design validation and process verification testing on the commercial guns before marketing and never ran PRAT. As such, SIG never found the initial issues. This would just mean SIG is incompetent.

2) SIG found the issues during DoD testing, kept shipping the commercial guns while changing the DoD design, and insisted there were no issues with the commercial guns. This would mean SIG has zero integrity.

The story to date favors 2) because SIG claimed the DoD guns did not suffer from the issue, shipped the commercial guns with the defect found during the DoD testing, and insisted the commercial guns were safe.

Because I believe 2) is the issue, I will not purchase a new SIG product until such time as the management team shows some signs of integrity. Just me. My choice will have zero impact on SIG's bottom line.

I just hope that the guns get fixed, especially for agency and institutional users who have to carry the "company" gun.

[Wendell]

I am not sure that is the best analogy. I think one of two things happened, neither of which is good.

1) SIG never performed thorough design validation and process verification testing on the commercial guns before marketing and never ran PRAT. As such, SIG never found the initial issues. This would just mean SIG is incompetent.

2) SIG found the issues during DoD testing, kept shipping the commercial guns while changing the DoD design, and insisted there were no issues with the commercial guns. This would mean SIG has zero integrity.

The story to date favors 2) because SIG claimed the DoD guns did not suffer from the issue, shipped the commercial guns with the defect found during the DoD testing, and insisted the commercial guns were safe.

Because I believe 2) is the issue, I will not purchase a new SIG product until such time as the management team shows some signs of integrity. Just me. My choice will have zero impact on SIG's bottom line.

I just hope that the guns get fixed, especially for agency and institutional users who have to carry the "company" gun.

A*B*C=X


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA2EBWFCULg

[Borderland]

You just put something into words that I’ve been thinking about for years.


I thought I made a mistake once but I was wrong. ;)

It's tax dollars. Nobody has any skin in the game except the end user. Shoot a procurement guy in the leg and see how he holds up.