# Special Forces pulls new pistols from service after soldier injured in misfire



## FormerHorseGuard (4 Feb 2021)

Just read this on the CBC


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/special-forces-pistols-1.5897942?fbclid=IwAR2hOfB--ZwvkIAkC_Hk_7VhexWztAdH77BrGKWw5Mmo3W4idbVd0QAGaRY
		


I see flash backs to the RCMP and the MP5s in the 90s?
Is it training or lack of training or is the Sig P320 really a bad weapon. Not a gun guy.


----------



## SupersonicMax (4 Feb 2021)

The article mentions the US Forces also had issues with the P320 and recommended an Engineering Change to the slide.  I am thinking it is related to the weapon itself rather than operators.


----------



## NavyShooter (4 Feb 2021)

No, there were known issues with the P320 - drop/bang issues.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (4 Feb 2021)

SIG was known for making high quality pistols for a long time.  That was when they were a German Company.  They are entirely based in the States now as gun control/decline in Euro Military budgets has caused their historic markets to dry up.  Their business strategy has shifted as has their quality control.


----------



## Haggis (4 Feb 2021)

The original P320 was known to have an issue whereby it would fire if dropped at a very specific angle on a certain part of the rear of the slide.  Sig remedied that by modifying the striker assembly in the slide and fire control group in the lower receiver. This modification was offered as a free "voluntary upgrade" to owners of older model 320's. (I had mine done by MD Charleton and added SigLite sights at the same time.) The US military insisted on adding a manual safety, a loaded chamber indicator and a sear sight plate to accommodate either iron sights or optics, thus creating the M17/M18.

The location and severity of the injury, as reported in the media, would lead me to believe it may have been caused by holstering with the finger on the trigger, as I have seen this occur before.  It would be interesting to know what model of 320/M17 was in use.  Alas, we will likely never know the facts entirely.


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Feb 2021)

Maybe they'd like to buy a proven pistol from Canada: the Browning High Power


----------



## CBH99 (5 Feb 2021)

There was some discussion in the "Replacing the Browning Hi-Power" thread that perhaps the P320 would be picked as the replacement.

Given this incident, issues in US service, similar issues over the years, and a class action suit which was settled last year - I'm thinking maybe this model might be eliminated from consideration.


----------



## Remius (5 Feb 2021)

CBH99 said:


> There was some discussion in the "Replacing the Browning Hi-Power" thread that perhaps the P320 would be picked as the replacement.
> 
> Given this incident, issues in US service, similar issues over the years, and a class action suit which was settled last year - I'm thinking maybe this model might be eliminated from consideration.


Or given Canada’s awesome record at procurement, they’ll buy them and get a huge discount and we’ll be stuck with them for 80years.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (5 Feb 2021)

CBH99 said:


> There was some discussion in the "Replacing the Browning Hi-Power" thread that perhaps the P320 would be picked as the replacement.
> 
> Given this incident, issues in US service, similar issues over the years, and a class action suit which was settled last year - I'm thinking maybe this model might be eliminated from consideration.


 Depends on what the issue actually is. Just because there is a incident doesn't mean it is the pistols fault. How many NDs did we have with the Browning Hi-Powers due to the magazine disconnect? It wasn't a gun defect rather a lack of training. Even if people are well trained, accidents/mistakes happen. 

I would be waiting to see what the full story is before completely removing a model of pistol from consideration, especially one that was just adopted by our neighbour to the South.


----------



## Haggis (5 Feb 2021)

CBH99 said:


> Given this incident, issues in US service, similar issues over the years, and a class action suit which was settled last year - I'm thinking maybe this model might be eliminated from consideration.


Despite the incidents and lawsuits regarding the older, unmodified, P320s, the US military still selected it as their new service pistol after some mods (mentioned earlier) were added by Sig Sauer to meet their requirements. The civilian version of the US service pistol is selling like hotcakes.  Again, there is no evidence this was an equipment failure.  Even police/military SOF members can have brain farts resulting in accidents.


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Feb 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Depends on what the issue actually is. Just because there is a incident doesn't mean it is the pistols fault. How many NDs did we have with the Browning Hi-Powers due to the magazine disconnect? It wasn't a gun defect rather a lack of training. Even if people are well trained, accidents/mistakes happen.
> 
> I would be waiting to see what the full story is before completely removing a model of pistol from consideration, especially one that was just adopted by our neighbour to the South.


No, there is a deficiency with the gun. But often, we mitigate deficiencies with training (or train-away bad designs). In this case, it is a highly-trained, special forces individual.  I doubt training would sufficiently mitigate the deficiency for non-SOF personnel.


----------



## Haggis (5 Feb 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> No, there is a deficiency with the gun.


There _was_ a deficiency, which Sig Sauer remedied with an upgrade.  I'd buy your assertion if this was an unmodified pistol.


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Feb 2021)

Haggis said:


> There _was_ a deficiency, which Sig Sauer remedied with an upgrade.  I'd buy your assertion if this was an unmodified pistol.


So, did our SOF have the upgraded version? My understanding is that only the US Army had the modification.


----------



## Haggis (5 Feb 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> So, did our SOF have the upgraded version? My understanding is that only the US Army had the modification.


That's a good question.

They may have had an older, unmodified version., without an external safety, which may fire if dropped.  As I mentioned upthread, once the deficiency was identified Sig Sauer (through MD Charleton in Canada) offered a free voluntary upgrade to all owners/users to correct this.  The US military went further, requiring the M17/M18 have the safety upgrade, in addition to the manual safety, and having the slide lock moved forward to accommodate the manual safety.


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Feb 2021)

Haggis said:


> That's a good question.
> 
> They may have had an older, unmodified version., without an external safety, which may fire if dropped.  As I mentioned upthread, once the deficiency was identified Sig Sauer (through MD Charleton in Canada) offered a free voluntary upgrade to all owners/users to correct this.  The US military went further, requiring the M17/M18 have the safety upgrade, in addition to the manual safety, and having the slide lock moved forward to accommodate the manual safety.


Sure.  Assuming the SOF weapons were not modified, there was a deficiency with those weapons. 

Given that JTF-2 are generally highly competent, I think it is fair to assume, initially at least, that the operator is not at fault.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Feb 2021)

I had a chance to play with the M17, it's a very nice pistol. I take it over a G17 any day.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Feb 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Given that JTF-2 are generally highly competent, I think it is fair to assume, initially at least, that the operator is not at fault.


Why?  Without knowing more, that’s not necessarily a good assumption. Stuff happens. Heck, even COMCANSOF can have a ND. 🤷🏻‍♂️


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Feb 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Why?  Without knowing more, that’s not necessarily a good assumption. Stuff happens. Heck, even COMCANSOF can have a ND. 🤷🏻‍♂️


That's why I said initially.  Yes, stuff happens but the likelihood of operator error is smaller amongst that cadre.


----------



## Gunnar (5 Feb 2021)

It's funny, but having fired a grand total of 5 handguns in my life, all of which within the past few months, the Sig 320 was one of my faves.  I did better shooting with it because the trigger was not quite as heavy to pull.  If one were to holster the weapon with finger on trigger as suggested above, it would most assuredly fire.  Whether that was the issue or not remains to be seen, and I look forward to hearing about it.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Feb 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> That's why I said initially.  Yes, stuff happens but the likelihood of operator error is smaller amongst that cadre.


Using what metrics?  Incidents vs rounds fired?  Incidents vs population of Cat 1 Assaulters?  Incidents vs population of other types of JTF 2 personnel?

would you be so quick to intimate an equipment cause if there was an accident with a CF-18?  I mean, fighter pilots are professed to be awesome, best of the best, so incidents must be assumed to be materiel failure initially umtil proven otherwise?

Have you actually shot a P320? P226? P225? etc. and know the nuances of a striker-fire vs hammer-fire pistol?  Just wondering, because you seem very quick to make assumptions...


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Feb 2021)

Gunnar said:


> It's funny, but having fired a grand total of 5 handguns in my life, all of which within the past few months, the Sig 320 was one of my faves.  I did better shooting with it because the trigger was not quite as heavy to pull.  If one were to holster the weapon with finger on trigger as suggested above, it would most assuredly fire.  Whether that was the issue or not remains to be seen, and I look forward to hearing about it.


I have only shot a few mags through a friends 320, but it had very nice take up, no stacking and a nice clean consistent break.  Only pistol nicer than that I’ve fired is an H&K VP9...beautiful work of German art.


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Feb 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Using what metrics?  Incidents vs rounds fired?  Incidents vs population of Cat 1 Assaulters?  Incidents vs population of other types of JTF 2 personnel?
> 
> would you be so quick to intimate an equipment cause if there was an accident with a CF-18?  I mean, fighter pilots are professed to be awesome, best of the best, so incidents must be assumed to be materiel failure initially umtil proven otherwise?
> 
> Have you actually shot a P320? P226? P225? etc. and know the nuances of a striker-fire vs hammer-fire pistol?  Just wondering, because you seem very quick to make assumptions...



G2G,

So, a pistol model that has a history of misfires, misfires when handled by highly-trained and competent SOF operator and material failure is not a fair assumption? Not all accidents and incidents are created equal...

For some incidents, in any community, it is fair to assume material failure and pull that thread before any others.  Just like for other incidents, it is fair to assume human error.

Of course, assumptions can be proven wrong in the course of an investigation...


----------



## Haggis (5 Feb 2021)

Gunnar said:


> If one were to holster the weapon with finger on trigger as suggested above, it would most assuredly fire.


I have seen exactly this happen using a pistol with a 10 lb double action trigger.  Luckily the round went out the open bottom of the holster, missed the officer and went into the floor.


----------



## Haggis (5 Feb 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> G2G,
> 
> So, a pistol model that has a history of misfires, *misfires* when handled by highly-trained and competent SOF operator and material failure is not a fair assumption?


It "inexplicably went off".  Having witnessed my fair share of ND/AD, some went like this:

*BOOM!*

Sgt:  "Why did your pistol go off, trooper?"

Tpr: "Dunno, Sgt, it just went off!"  Inexplicable.

We don't know - and probably never will - if it was being holstered, was dropped, or as Liberals would have you believe,  was lying on a table waiting to attack it's next victim.


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Feb 2021)

Good point, Haggis, I didn't use the proper word. I should have said "... has a history of malfunctioning, malfunctions when ...."  The point remains the same.


----------



## Weinie (5 Feb 2021)

Haggis said:


> It "inexplicably went off".  Having witnessed my fair share of ND/AD, some went like this:
> 
> *BOOM!*
> 
> ...


Bwahahahhahaha.......oh wait a minute, on second thought now I want to cry, because, sadly, that last part is truer than it should be.


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Feb 2021)

Haggis said:


> It "inexplicably went off".  Having witnessed my fair share of ND/AD, some went like this:
> 
> *BOOM!*
> 
> ...


That why we investigate incidents.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Feb 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> That why we investigate incidents.


...and don't jump to conclusions or make assumptions prior to the investigation.


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Feb 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> ...and don't jump to conclusions or make assumptions prior to the investigation.


You have to make some assumptions at the onset of an investigation in order to have a starting point. Then validate or disprove your assumptions.  Making conclusions based on assumptions should not be done but at the onset of an investigation, it is perfectly appropriate.

Edit: Plus, I am sure this forum is not part of an investigation.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Feb 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> You have to make some assumptions at the onset of an investigation in order to have a starting point. Then validate or disprove your assumptions.


Investigations are not based on the Scientific Method.  They investigate the facts.  Only if there are missing facts, are assumptions then considered.

Keep digging.  Your 'assumption' that it was a material or design failure prejudges the outcome of the investigation.


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Feb 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Investigations are not based on the Scientific Method.  They investigate the facts.  Only if there are missing facts, are assumptions then considered.
> 
> Keep digging.  Your 'assumption' that it was a material or design failure prejudges the outcome of the investigation.


If an assumption is proven to be true, with facts, how does it prejudges the outcome when the conclusion is based on facts?

Plus, AFAIK, I am not part of any investigation so I am not sure how my assumptions here will affect anything...


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Feb 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> If an assumption is proven to be true, with facts, how does it prejudges the outcome when the conclusion is based on facts?


It injects expectation bias, amongst other things, that can affect the investigation outcome.


----------



## Navy_Pete (5 Feb 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> It injects expectation bias, amongst other things, that can affect the investigation outcome.


Part of a good scientific method is tracking all assumptions and proving/disproving them as much as practicable, or at least providing some evidence that something is feasible.

Normally technical investigations use techniques like probabilistic event trees to figure out what could have happened. For example, a possible misfire due to mechanical malfunction may be more probable if there was a previous history, but you would then gather as much facts on what the history was etc. But all that starts out with a theory (ie. it was a misfire) which you then prove/disprove/assess probability, with other theories on other possibilities, all with their own assumptions. All of that is pretty much the definition of using the scientific theory to build possible causes. That approach doesn't preclude other possible causes, just gives you different things to look into.

Nothing inherently wrong with assumptions, and you are going to have to make some somewhere, it's just a matter of keeping track of them and not lumping them in with facts/data. Usually when you poke at things, there are always assumptions built into the data gathering, which is why things like confidence interval and accuracy are key to track and include in the data analysis and reports.

Working on some fire investigation case study right now where a lot of the facts were destroyed or not available, and the analysis is full of assumptions, because otherwise it's just massive unknowns. When it's an assumption that could possibly have a big impact, you can just do some sensitivity analysis to see how much that impacts the outcome.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Feb 2021)

I think considering Comd CANSOFCOM Gen Rouleau was raised in the same culture of JTF2 which caused him to self-report a ND to the CDS, plead guilty and pen an apology letter directly to his troops so he was held accountable, its a safe assumption that if this was a case of "Assaulter error" that the individual would have been counselled and the P320 would have been returned to service in very short order. JTF2 or even CANSOF doesn't seem like an organization that would take its brand new pistol out of service for multiple months and then drag its feet on an investigation unless there was an actual mechanical issue with that pistol that couldn't be resolved quickly...


----------



## Haggis (5 Feb 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> JTF2 or even CANSOF doesn't seem like an organization that would take its brand new pistol out of service for multiple months and then drag its feet on an investigation unless there was an actual mechanical issue with that pistol that couldn't be resolved quickly...


Which raises the question of what version of the P320 was in use at this instant. It would not surprise me if we received unmodified, regardless of what was ordered. A user wouldn't know the difference unless they knew what to look for in the fire control unit.

A couple of years ago my agency received a shipment of new mags for our pistols.  They were all pinned to 10 rounds for use in Canada. Externally, they were almost identical. The error wasn't noticed until we put them into use and tried to fire a practice requiring 12 rounds before a magazine change.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Feb 2021)

There's a chance, albeit pretty small, that DHTC was cohearsed to use the P320s an


PuckChaser said:


> JTF2 or even CANSOF doesn't seem like an organization that would take its brand new pistol out of service for multiple months and then drag its feet on an investigation unless there was an actual mechanical issue with that pistol that couldn't be resolved quickly...


It's possibly, albeit probably unlikely, that they were forced to adopt the P320 and jumped at the first chance to condemn the pistol and pull them out of service.


----------



## Weinie (5 Feb 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> There's a chance, albeit pretty small, that DHTC was cohearsed to use the P320s an
> 
> It's possibly, albeit probably unlikely, that they were forced to adopt the P320 and jumped at the first chance to condemn the pistol and pull them out of service.


Wow, That is a pretty out there assertion. 

There are a small number of folks on here who have served with CANSOF and predecessor orgs. My gut on this is that they were never coerced, more likely, the P320 represented the next gen pistol and the org has a track record of having the foresight, budget, and leeway to trial/purchase operational eqpt that sometimes take Reg F units years (and in most cases a war zone aka Afghanistan) to trial and purchase. 

Ford Pinto's had a fatal flaw, but they sold like hotcakes, until they started blowing up.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Feb 2021)

Weinie said:


> Wow, That is a pretty out there assertion.


I thought so too.  If the treasury board were to decide what pistol CANSOF is buying I wonder if they would they have the clout to say no?


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Feb 2021)

TB wouldn't get to pick the pistol. CANSOF would write the Statement of Requirement and bidders would put their bids in. With JTF2 being around for close to 30 years, I think they've figured out how to get what they want based by writing a SOR a certain way to get through the red tape. At the end of the day, even replacing every pistol in CANSOF is probably under $5M CAD. That's a 10th of the CA's pistol replacement program cost and wouldn't get the same scrutiny.

Some smarter folks than me might know if it's below the threshold between Major and Minor Capital projects, which has a big impact on processes.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Feb 2021)

Major vs minor is less a concern than the Project Complexity and Risk Assessment (PCRA) - that's what decides what goes to TB for approval, or what lower approval level is permitted.

Acquiring mature, proven technology at a relatively low price point is generally a low PCRA, and delegated to MND or below.


----------



## Weinie (5 Feb 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> TB wouldn't get to pick the pistol. *CANSOF would write the Statement of Requirement and bidders would put their bids in*. With JTF2 being around for close to 30 years, I think they've figured out how to get what they want based by writing a SOR a certain way to get through the red tape. At the end of the day, even replacing every pistol in CANSOF is probably under $5M CAD. That's a 10th of the CA's pistol replacement program cost and wouldn't get the same scrutiny.
> 
> Some smarter folks than me might know if it's below the threshold between Major and Minor Capital projects, which has a big impact on processes.


Sometimes they buy off the shelf.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Feb 2021)

I don't think you can LPO $5M worth of weapons systems...


----------



## dapaterson (5 Feb 2021)

The National Security Exemption is a hell of a drug...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Feb 2021)

JTF2 or even CANSOF are full of people that take shooting seriously and likley aware of the track record of the pistol and are also very likley to be competent pistol users. That being said a high energy drill like detaining a suspect and trying to holster the pistol is a high risk endeavour, because you can't slow down enough or focus enough to ensure the path between the pistol and the holster is clear. One LEO suffered a bad ND when the elastic cord on her jacket snagged the trigger of her pistol. 
As far as I can tell they have not completely determine the cause. You can have operator error even with a pistol with a known fault.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Feb 2021)

For those interested in seeing the Sig-provided update to the chassis and fire control group on the P320.  Info only on the modifications - no assumptions to what variant JTF 2 has.

Sig Sauer P320: Before and After Voluntary Upgrade

Some interesting aspects to the operation of the P320’s fire control group, especially how far out of battery the slide can come yet with the trigger still being able to fire, even after the modifications.


----------



## RedFive (6 Feb 2021)

Apparently due to the wrong holster, per the manufacturer.

SIG SAUER press release


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Feb 2021)

RedFive said:


> Apparently due to the wrong holster, per the manufacturer.
> 
> SIG SAUER press release


Thanks for the article w linked SIG release, R5.

Interesting finding of the investigation.  Looks like incorrect/unfounded assumptions didn’t pan out....🙄


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Feb 2021)

I feel like this story is a sign I should buy a P320.


----------



## Haggis (6 Feb 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> JTF2 or even CANSOF are full of people that take shooting seriously and likely aware of the track record of the pistol and are also very likely to be competent pistol users.





RedFive said:


> Apparently due to the wrong holster, per the manufacturer.
> 
> SIG SAUER press release


The top statement seems to fly contrary to the bottom.  You would think, given the experience level at DHTC, that they would've bought new holsters that go with their pistols. My Level II Safariland, which is a perfect fit for my 320, cost $75.


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Feb 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> I feel like this story is a sign I should buy a P320.



If you need to stick a pistol down the front of your pants I can vouch for the Browning. 

Top 'tip': don't use the extended mag if you can avoid it


----------



## Haggis (6 Feb 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> I feel like this story is a sign I should buy a P320.


Do it!


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Feb 2021)

Haggis said:


> The top statement seems to fly contrary to the bottom.  You would think, given the experience level at DHTC, that they would've bought new holsters that go with their pistols. My Level II Safariland, which is a perfect fit for my 320, cost $75.


It does seem strange to start heating and warping and drilling old holsters when they can pick up new ones.


----------



## blacktriangle (6 Feb 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> It does seem strange to start heating and warping and drilling old holsters when they can pick up new ones.


Maybe the new holsters were sold under the table by that crooked DHTC supply tech.


----------



## Haggis (6 Feb 2021)

reveng said:


> Maybe the new holsters were sold under the table by that crooked DHTC supply tech.


Hopefully they didn't end up on Amazon.....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Feb 2021)

Haggis said:


> The top statement seems to fly contrary to the bottom.  You would think, given the experience level at DHTC, that they would've bought new holsters that go with their pistols. My Level II Safariland, which is a perfect fit for my 320, cost $75.


or maybe a scathing indictment of our procurement and supply system, incapable of ordering the correct holsters or to do so in time?


----------



## CBH99 (6 Feb 2021)

CBH99 said:


> There was some discussion in the "Replacing the Browning Hi-Power" thread that perhaps the P320 would be picked as the replacement.
> 
> Given this incident, issues in US service, similar issues over the years, and a class action suit which was settled last year - I'm thinking maybe this model might be eliminated from consideration.


When I first made this comment, I was looking at this situation more from a procurement standpoint than a safety standpoint.

All I was saying was that if the government is considering, lets' say 5 pistols - and this one has a history or misfires or mishaps, and the company offering that model is engaged in legal matters as a result of issues from that model - it would be a fairly simple one to cross of the list, from a Public Works / Procurement standpoint.

If a senior procurement official in Public Works, who isn't up to date on modern firearms, is looking to eliminate various options in the course of choosing which model is selected - I'm just thinking this one may be one of the first ones they choose.  (Not saying it is the right choice or not - again, looking at it from a procurement perspective.)


I don't know anything remotely resembling competent knowledge on pistol mechanics compared to a lot of the folks here.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Feb 2021)

The nice thing about the 320/M17 design is that it's built around a metal chassis, so the size of the lower grip can be changed and if necessary the chassis can be replaced with a new/modified one. Some polymer pistols have the metal chassis moulded into the frame so they remain one unit. Having a Chassis separate might make maintaining pistols for the long run easier, as you can slowly build a new pistol by replacing the parts bit by bit. However it's also the chassis that contains the serial number. the other nice thing about the M17 is that it's already set up to take an optic, which is likley to become the standard for pistols in the future.




https://www.google.com/search?q=sig...ECAQQAw&biw=1920&bih=937#imgrc=KMB9m03v12LO1M


----------



## Haggis (6 Feb 2021)

CBH99 said:


> All I was saying was that if the government is considering, lets' say 5 pistols - and this one has a history or misfires or mishaps, and the company offering that model is engaged in legal matters as a result of issues from that model - it would be a fairly simple one to cross of the list, from a Public Works / Procurement standpoint.
> 
> If a senior procurement official in Public Works, who isn't up to date on modern firearms, is looking to eliminate various options in the course of choosing which model is selected - I'm just thinking this one may be one of the first ones they choose.  (Not saying it is the right choice or not - again, looking at it from a procurement perspective.)



Glock is embroiled in a class action lawsuit related to safety concerns as is Beretta and Walther.  And the reputation of Smith and Wesson has taken a hit in Canada due to that class action lawsuit over the use of a S&W pistol in the Danforth shooting. (Imagine the headlines:  "_Government to Adopt Military Pistol Made by Danforth Gun Manufacturer_").  If ongoing litigation is a deciding factor in our new pistol, the list is of viable candidates getting shorter by the day.

A point to remember when considering the new CAF service pistol is that the primary firearm is still the service *RIFLE*.  The majority of pistol users in the CAF are infrequent, casual users and the pistol training afforded to them (IBTS, PWT1/APWT) is just enough (in most cases) to keep them safe and scare the enemy away.

The M17/M18 has been taken into service by the largest NATO forces over all other competitors including the much vaunted Glocks, which are a ton cheaper.  It's also been adopted by US Air Marshalls. As a former Infantry soldier, and professional firearms instructor, I've seen my fair share of NDs.  The two biggest human factor causes for NDs are complacency (e.g. not sticking to established drills) and unfamiliarity.


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Feb 2021)

Haggis said:


> The two biggest human factor causes for NDs are complacency (e.g. not sticking to established drills) and unfamiliarity.



So, like, there's no direct correlation with rank then, right?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Feb 2021)

The good news is that any motivated solider can learn about 3-4 the skills using a pistol on a civy range as they will in the military, that is if JT and crew don't screw us gun owners over any further.


----------



## CBH99 (7 Feb 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> The good news is that any motivated solider can learn about 3-4 the skills using a pistol on a civy range as they will in the military, that is if JT and crew don't screw us gun owners over any further.


Oh they will.  Count on it.


----------



## Haggis (7 Feb 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> So, like, there's no direct correlation with rank then, right?


"Unfamiliarity". Even GO/FOs should successfully complete TOETs and a PWT before being issued a pistol.

That's what gets me about the public perception of NDs involving senior members.  The expectation is that a senior member who causes an ND should be held to a higher standard because their rank and experience should cause them to be more skilled when the inverse is true.  A notable exception to this would be our now-VCDS who had his incident while still serving in CANSOFCOM.


----------



## Haggis (7 Feb 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> The good news is that any motivated solider can learn about 3-4 the skills using a pistol on a civy range as they will in the military, that is if JT and crew don't screw us gun owners over any further.


That point, specifically in favour of LEOs, was brought out during the recent injunction hearing against the May 1st Liberal "assault-style" gun ban OIC.  The witness told the judge that the ban denied LEOs (and by unspoken extension, CAF members) the ability to conduct off-duty practice with their privately owned but now prohibited AR platforms.

TANGENT - One range out west has barred LEOs from using their service firearms for off duty practice as a direct response to the May 1st OIC.- TANGENT ENDS


----------



## Ostrozac (7 Feb 2021)

Haggis said:


> The M17/M18 has been taken into service by the largest NATO forces over all other competitors including the much vaunted Glocks, which are a ton cheaper.


Actually, it appears that the Sig P320 won the M17/M18 competition largely because Sig quoted a price that was significantly cheaper than the Glock entry — the two company’s pistols receiving essentially identical scoring in all other aspects of the competition.

Commercially, the two pistols are available at essentially the same price point — approx $800 Canadian, approx $600US south of the border. The metal framed Sigs tend to be a bit more expensive, but the polymer frames compete with Glock on price.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (7 Feb 2021)

Just for the record basically every major design ever adopted has had issues of some sort. Look at the M16 and the issues it had early on vs. now it being more or less the standard modern service arms are based off of. The Lee Enfields sights were off as discovered in the Boer War, and that rifle design also went through about 20-30 design updates to get to its final iterations (they were even ready to abandon the design until WWI kicked in). The Browning Hi-Power is a continuation of a design that was in development for close to 35 years, and even then they have about 3 major variations on the design (ours being the first pattern). 

I wouldn't discount Sig or any other design because they had a issue they have since resolved. Do a set of trials, let the competitors come forward, and judge them fairly based off how they perform. Anything else is unscientific, you might as well get rid of the procurement system and just order whatever someone thinks is best (our pre-WWI method).


----------



## Haggis (7 Feb 2021)

Ostrozac said:


> Actually, it appears that the Sig P320 won the M17/M18 competition largely because Sig quoted a price that was significantly cheaper than the Glock entry — the two company’s pistols receiving essentially identical scoring in all other aspects of the competition.


Which is exactly what Glock did to win the Ottawa Police contract.  The deciding factor, from what I've read, was that Sig added the manual safety, something Glock refused to/couldn't do.  When the original RFP came out to replace the Browning, one requirement was a manual ambidextrous safety. This was to mitigate the risk of NDs by casual users.


----------



## Ostrozac (7 Feb 2021)

Haggis said:


> Which is exactly what Glock did to win the Ottawa Police contract.  The deciding factor, from what I've read, was that Sig added the manual safety, something Glock refused to/couldn't do.  When the original RFP came out to replace the Browning, one requirement was a manual ambidextrous safety. This was to mitigate the risk of NDs by casual users.


A manual safety also helps if you have a foreign object in the holster, which is what Sig Sauer alleges contributed to this specific CANSOFCOM incident.

Whether keeping drawstrings, empty casings and gravel out of your holster is an issue best dealt with by training or equipment design, it’s certainly an issue.


----------



## Haggis (7 Feb 2021)

Ostrozac said:


> A manual safety also helps if you have a foreign object in the holster, which is what Sig Sauer alleges contributed to this specific CANSOFCOM incident.


So, that would infer that, in this instance, if it occurred as described by Sig, either the manual safety wasn't engaged or this wasn't an M17 but a stock P320, which is what the media article stated.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Feb 2021)

My next pistol is likley to be a M17, I like my Sigs


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Feb 2021)

Haggis said:


> "Unfamiliarity". Even GO/FOs should successfully complete TOETs and a PWT before being issued a pistol.


On that point, we have this gem from Op ATTENTION: https://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/cm/en/item/99003/index.do?q=Colonel

8 months into a 9 month tour, after almost weekly mandatory TEOT refreshers (I know because I was there doing them), a LCol successfully argued he had no knowledge of the TSOs on ND and worse yet, the C7/C8 Carbine manual that contained all the drills he needed to know to DAG Green. Even more ridiculous was the amount of Jr NCMs who didn't get the luxury of "beyond reasonable doubt" and paid fines in the neighbourhood of $1000 per round.


----------



## Haggis (7 Feb 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> On that point, we have this gem from Op ATTENTION: https://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/cm/en/item/99003/index.do?q=Colonel
> 
> 8 months into a 9 month tour, after almost weekly mandatory TEOT refreshers (I know because I was there doing them), a LCol successfully argued he had no knowledge of the TSOs on ND and worse yet, the C7/C8 Carbine manual that contained all the drills he needed to know to DAG Green. Even more ridiculous was the amount of Jr NCMs who didn't get the luxury of "beyond reasonable doubt" and paid fines in the neighbourhood of $1000 per round.


This case is an excellent example of why I hate NDA S. 129.  NDA s 124 (Negligent Performance of a Military Duty) may have been more appropriate and easier to prove as the prosecution doesn't have to prove the alleged offence was contrary to both good order and discipline. The LCol in this case _didn't have to prove anything_. The onus was on the prosecution to prove that the LCol wasn't aware of the TSO, that the TSO made an ND an offence, and that the LCol was not aware of proper handling drills.

This case also raised and excellent point. The errant round was safely fired into a clearing bay, a designated "safe direction". The intent of a clearing bay is to mitigate any harm which may result from poor weapons handling, momentary inattention or *unfamiliarity*.  This was pointed out by the judge at para 57 who determined that the LCol did act safely..  Contrast this case with that of LCol Fortin who received a $1500 fine for one round fired into the ground or to  Col Scagnetti, who had his ND in an office environment and received a $2000 fine for one round.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Feb 2021)

if someone discharges into a clearing bay, then a "good job that it happened here. Now tonite and tomorrow you be spending time with the M/CPL doing weapon drills till he tells me your skills have improved".


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Feb 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> if someone discharges into a clearing bay, then a "good job that it happened here. Now tonite and tomorrow you be spending time with the M/CPL doing weapon drills till he tells me your skills have improved".



Or, as in my previous units, that's an immediate charge and you lose 7 days pay. If you happen to be an Officer, it's more of course.

That kind of 'promise' can help incent you to do your drills right.


----------



## Haggis (8 Feb 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Or, as in my previous units, that's an immediate charge and you lose 7 days pay. If you happen to be an Officer, it's more of course.
> 
> That kind of 'promise' can help incent you to do your drills right.


Until the discharge is deemed to have been cause by a mechanical malfunction, which is raised as a defence.  Policies that have absolutes are not always workable.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Feb 2021)

Haggis said:


> Until the discharge is deemed to have been cause by a mechanical malfunction, which is raised as a defence.  Policies that have absolutes are not always workable.


I'd like to see the statistics on 'technical' versus 'accidental' malfunctions. 

I'm pretty sure the percentage of mechanical malfunctions is minuscule in comparison to operator error.


----------



## Haggis (8 Feb 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> I'm pretty sure the percentage of mechanical malfunctions is minuscule in comparison to operator error.


I have been witness to two in over four decades of shooting.  One involved the 9mm SMG C1, which the gun plumbers determined had a badly worn sear.  The other was on a civvy range where a pistol slam-fired during an emergency reload.  This was caused by a broken firing pin spring. IIRC it was an older 1911 before the firing pin blocks were used.

The overh=whelming majority of  unexpected (or, to quote the CBC, "inexplicable") discharges are the result of what IT folks call an "ID ten T" error.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Feb 2021)

Haggis said:


> I have been witness to two in over four decades of shooting.  One involved the 9mm SMG C1, which the gun plumbers determined had a badly worn sear.  The other was on a civvy range where a pistol slam-fired during an emergency reload.  This was caused by a broken firing pin spring. IIRC it was an older 1911 before the firing pin blocks were used.
> 
> The overh=whelming majority of  unexpected (or, to quote the CBC, "inexplicable") discharges are the result of what IT folks call an "ID ten T" error.



A great example... 

There have been times in the past when my job kept me away from any regular 'trigger time' so I was pretty keen on dragging a switched on Corporal aside to run me through the drills a few times before heading out on patrol/ to the range.

Good for me, because I'm less dangerous to friendly forces, good for the NCM because they get to say 'I trained up the boss today'


----------

