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

[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.

[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

[rcbusmc24]

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 to Glock's protest (which is somewhat interesting if bureaucratic reading).

Will problems with the M17/18 amount to $100M worth of problems?