SIG Talk banner
21 - 23 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
Ive yet to run into any issues. And i have every combination possible. Run my 45 fcus in 9, 40, 357, 45 and 10mm..
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
866 Posts
Not for nothing... but if you've been in the military, you know why they tried to take that ability away from the end user (and left that ability to the armory)

That said... I would LOVE to find one of those takedown levers and the tool to go with it.
I COMPLETELY agree. In my opinion the Army was not wrong in doing that, but you have to wonder about the purpose of a Modular Handgun System if you're not going to take full advantage of it. If you read the requirements laid out in the MHS request for proposal for a handgun to be modular, its sole purpose was to make the handgun adaptable to different size hands. It had nothing to do with a removable chassis per se (which is why Glock and others submitted what they did). With a Glock, Smith & Wesson M&P, Beretta APX etc. all one has to do to adjust the grip size is change the backstraps. With the SIG P320, however, you would have to carry three or four (M&P) different size frames to do what those other pistols can do. It's just one more piece of evidence—in my opinion—that proves the MHS trials were a forgone conclusion before they even started. It's very possible that SIG was promised the contract when the Army basically did the same thing for Beretta in 1984 because there is a good argument to be made that the SIG P226 was a better firearm at the time than the Beretta M9 (as investigated by Congress).

In other words, just as Glock found itself being the only pistol to actually pass phase 1 testing in MHS, the argument was made that the P226 was the only pistol to truly win the third round of XM9 trials during the Joint Service Small Arms Program. Just as with MHS, the official story is that it came down to price; however, when you pull away the layers, that does not appear to be the case in either competition. Just as Glock won a number of government contracts almost immediately following their rejected protest to the GAO (e.g. the U.S. Secret Service), the SIG P226 was adopted by Navy SEALs not long after Beretta won the contract in January of 1985. They just wash, rinse and repeat in my opinion. I'm willing to believe the M1911 won fair and square, but not the other two (or at least not the SIG P320). Interestingly enough, the Colt M1911 went 6,000 rounds in its MRBS testing. That's more than three times longer than the army could get out of the P320.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ScottR65

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
Is it perfect? No.

Can you do any of this with a Glock or 1911? - using the same serial numbered FCU?

It's a start and as soon as the next maker takes it up a notch its going to get more interesting. That is the entire point of this innovation. But, there is a limit, there are going to be combinations that can't dynamically work and there are limits.

Case in point, I have a 5.56 AR Pistol, a 6.8SPC Rifle, and I'm building a .375 SOCOM rifle. Bolts, barrels and mags aren't identically interchangeable and may never be - but it's the same stuff right up to the bolt head, barrel, and mag. I am in fact taking the furniture I was using on the 6.8 and now installing it on the .375, no mods or changes.

SIG's aren't that far off and for a small format firearm with the contracted intent of having different length barrels, slides, and grip units, buy all means, lets debate the other makers designs that do the same.

It's gonna take a few more years, Glock isn't even hinting they give a damn.
 
21 - 23 of 23 Posts
Top