# Replacement of Browning HP, Sig Sauer 225 begins



## The Bread Guy (8 Sep 2011)

First step from MERX:  Price and Availability Request


> ".... The Canadian Forces (CF) are looking to replace all current types of pistols in use with a newer weapon and is gathering information on the Price and Availability of weapons and the number of potential contenders as part of its planning and budget process. Personnel from all services of the CF will use these pistols for self-DEFENCE. The GSP will replace the 9mm Browning High Power (HP) and the 9mm Sig Sauer Model 225 pistol ...."


More details on what's wanted, as well as projected timeline from here to purchase (Fall 2015) in the attached files.


----------



## lethalLemon (8 Sep 2011)

Sounds cool, maybe the CF will pick up some Berettas! Mmmm...


----------



## MikeL (8 Sep 2011)

lethalLemon said:
			
		

> Sounds cool, maybe the CF will pick up some Berettas! Mmmm...



Why Berretta?  Why not the Sig Saur P226 which is already in use with certain parts of the CF.


----------



## lethalLemon (8 Sep 2011)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Why Berretta?  Why not the Sig Saur P226 which is already in use with certain parts of the CF.



It does say that they're *looking* so it could be anything. You could say the same thing... why did they have some using 225s and the rest Browning? Why didn't they just send out everyone one brand? I'm just pondering, nobody knows what they'll put to trial and purchase. Berettas are VERY nice handguns, my father has had one since the 80's when his was with the Strats (when they still called Calgary home) and it's taking quite a beating and still performs beautifully (and I don't even take care of it as well as a military man does). The Sig Sauer are great as well, the P226 is a very nice model too.

EDIT: Also, what ever happened to that Para Ordnance company here in Canada that made those fantastic P14-45 and LDA pistols? Did it close shop or something? I was thinking, if they still existed, why don't they take up work with them for a GSP? It would create jobs, it would be buying Canadian and stimulating our own markets/economy.

EDIT again: Apparently the P226 is no longer made in 9mm, but now in .40SW. Would this have an impact on whether or not it would be considered for trial and purchase as a GSP? I also say the disclaimer: *" for National Security reasons, the weapons will be produced in Canada by Colt"* Does this mean that if they decide that - let's say the HK P30 9mm is selected - all of the parts for initial production and issue are shipped to Colt and assembled there to ensure they haven't been tampered with, along with all maintenance and life cycle materials (As Colt employees are pre-screened)?


----------



## Loachman (8 Sep 2011)

Para moved to the US - closer to their market and fewer stupid laws with which to deal.

http://www.paraord.com/new/why_about.php


----------



## MikeL (8 Sep 2011)

lethalLemon said:
			
		

> It does say that they're *looking* so it could be anything. You could say the same thing... why did they have some using 225s and the rest Browning? Why didn't they just send out everyone one brand? I'm just pondering, nobody knows what they'll put to trial and purchase.



Disregard my comment about the P226.  In my reply I was just wondering why you would want the CF to go for the Berretta.  I have minimal experience with Beretta pistols(fired a 92F once and didn't like it). Just wondering what pros you see in Berretta to be a GSP for the CF.

As for why the CF had some 225s but kept the Browning as the Service Pistol, I don't know for sure, I assume certain units had certain requirements for what they wanted in a Pistol and the BHP didn't meet those requirements.


I'll look it up about the P226 no longer being made for 9mm, haven't heard that before and the P226 on the Sig Saur website is still listed as being available in 9mm.


----------



## buzgo (8 Sep 2011)

4 years to first delivery? For what is a COTS purchase?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Sep 2011)

Double action only? Prepare for lots of range time re-evaluating failures.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Sep 2011)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> 4 years to first delivery? For what is a COTS purchase?



Yes.  Step 1: gauge industry interest - 6 months

Step 2: acquire small quatities of each potential candidate.  Refine & finalize the statement of requirements - 18 months

Step 3: compete and issue contract - 6 months

Step 4: arrange technology transfer to Colt - 12 months

Step 5: Colt begins production and delivers first lot in quantity - 6 months


That's quick and dirty off the top of my head.  Parts of the timelines may shift.  Approvals may be longer, depending on whether it's MND or Treasury Board that approves the acquisition.  Technology transfer is tricky as companies negotiate.


----------



## Redeye (8 Sep 2011)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> 4 years to first delivery? For what is a COTS purchase?



It's not really a COTS purchase - the winning design will be produced under license by Colt Canada, so they're basically contracting for a TDP/license production package.  I wonder how many companies will bid that have products that meet that description.

There's a DAO version of the Browning Hi-Power. Glock has a proven design in wide use as well, so does Smith & Wesson. So does SIG, after all - I wonder what will come out of it.


----------



## Loachman (8 Sep 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Double action only? Prepare for lots of range time re-evaluating failures.



I wonder whose bright idea that is.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Sep 2011)

Legend has it that the reason we still use Browning Hi Powers is they were built in Canada in the waning days of WWII for the Nationalist Chinese Army, but the Communists had defeated them by the time the order was ready to be shipped. Since pistols are not a high use item, the thousands stored in the warehouse could sit quietly in their packing for decades while the issued ones wore out. Dust off a box, and voila! a replacement is here.

As for service pistols, I am a fan of the Glock series, but since I use a pistol so infrequently it almost does not matter what is selected. I'm sure the unit that uses pistols all the time will also get a budget to refine or modify the issue weapon to their needs anyway.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Sep 2011)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I wonder whose bright idea that is.



Typically, DAO is incorporated as a Cover Your (Corporate) Ass option, especially with up to an 8 lb trigger pull. 

"You really, really, really wanted to pull the trigger, otherwise, it wouldn't have fired, right?" 

In most cases, it also means no external hammer or one that you can physically operate.

The idea that they're reasoning is only one type of trigger pull seems just a tad far fetched and unrealistic, IMHO.


----------



## Loachman (8 Sep 2011)

Unless stocks are dwindling, there is no need to replace the Browning. And if stocks are dwindling, refreshing them with new Brownings would likely be cheaper than replacing the remainder. I see no advantage to dumping one of the best pistols made.

Ambidextrous extended safeties would be a nice upgrade though.


----------



## Redeye (8 Sep 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Legend has it that the reason we still use Browning Hi Powers is they were built in Canada in the waning days of WWII for the Nationalist Chinese Army, but the Communists had defeated them by the time the order was ready to be shipped. Since pistols are not a high use item, the thousands stored in the warehouse could sit quietly in their packing for decades while the issued ones wore out. Dust off a box, and voila! a replacement is here.



The Inglis Mk 1 No 2's made for Nationalist China were distinctly marked as I understand it. There's one in the War Museum with a leaf site graduated to 500m.  It's pretty much an indirect fire weapon at that point, rather humourous.  A lot of the Chinese ones were also sold to the public, I've seen a couple of them at shows and ranges.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> As for service pistols, I am a fan of the Glock series, but since I use a pistol so infrequently it almost does not matter what is selected. I'm sure the unit that uses pistols all the time will also get a budget to refine or modify the issue weapon to their needs anyway.



Glocks are simple, easily maintained, and apparently pretty durable.  They're also ridiculously accurate. I used to shoot a fair bit and owned a Glock 17. Out of the box, it was ridiculously easy to get supertight groupings with.  As far as getting them, if I remember right, the finishes on them are a proprietary process, and I'm not sure they'd be keen to license the design out.  Guess we'll see though.

Edited to add - one thing that is a strike again them - their mags are a b**ch to fill without a tool - the springs are ridiculously tight - but that's probably the main reason why they tend to be fail-proof.


----------



## R031button (8 Sep 2011)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Ambidextrous extended safeties would be a nice upgrade though.



As would tritium night sights and a magazine that falls free from it's housing.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Sep 2011)

R031button said:
			
		

> As would tritium night sights and a magazine that falls free from it's housing.



Item 3-1 
The GSP must be provided
with fixed luminescent
tritium 3 dot adjustable
sights that assist CF
personnel in engaging the
target in periods of darkness
and reduced visibility.


3-15
When released, the magazine
(fully loaded, partial or
empty) should drop freely
from the pistol with little or
no assistance from the
shooter.


----------



## s23256 (8 Sep 2011)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Unless stocks are dwindling, there is no need to replace the Browning. And if stocks are dwindling, refreshing them with new Brownings would likely be cheaper than replacing the remainder. I see no advantage to dumping one of the best pistols made.
> 
> Ambidextrous extended safeties would be a nice upgrade though.



Surely you jest.


Also, based on the document above the Glock in current configurations is out as the trigger must be depressed to strip.


----------



## Loachman (8 Sep 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The Inglis Mk 1 No 2's made for Nationalist China were distinctly marked as I understand it.



I was issued one at the Infantry School while on course in 1970 or 1980. The Chinese characters had been overstamped with "X"s.



			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> There's one in the War Museum with a leaf site graduated to 500m.



The one issued to me had had that sight replaced with the standard one. They were also slotted for a hollow wooden shoulder stock that doubled as a slung holster.



			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> It's pretty much an indirect fire weapon at that point, rather humourous.



It was designed to be fired that way using the shoulder stock. I do not know how that worked at long range, but it didn't do much for accuracy at short range.



			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> A lot of the Chinese ones were also sold to the public, I've seen a couple of them at shows and ranges.



I have one. I acquired a shoulder stock in very good condition in 1985 or 1986 from a Flight Engineer at 427 Squadron in exchange for a nylon shoulder holster that was surplus to my requirements. They went for $500.00-$600.00 then. I picked up the pistol in Germany for half of that.


----------



## REDinstaller (8 Sep 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Legend has it that the reason we still use Browning Hi Powers is they were built in Canada in the waning days of WWII for the Nationalist Chinese Army, but the Communists had defeated them by the time the order was ready to be shipped. Since pistols are not a high use item, the thousands stored in the warehouse could sit quietly in their packing for decades while the issued ones wore out. Dust off a box, and voila! a replacement is here.



We have at least one at the Regt. Chinese markings on the slide.


----------



## R031button (8 Sep 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Item 3-1
> The GSP must be provided
> with fixed luminescent
> tritium 3 dot adjustable
> ...



I was referencing those point when I made my comment, which was more pointing towards the fact that this contract is pushing towards a more modern pistol then the Hi-Power, and that they have thought of more then just an ambidextrous mag release. I'm a bit torn about the "in service with NATO country" stipulation though. On one hand it _should_ guarantee we get a reliable, proven weapon. It could, however, be taken to mean we aren't going to explore some newer variants of proven weapons, the Sig Pro comes to mind. I wonder if the no depressing the trigger to take the weapon apart bit is a deliberate attempt to keep the glock out of the picture? Also if they aren't going to replace the P226 with this "GSP" why not just out and out say they want to buy P226s and site the advantages of a common pistol across the CF. Surely if the pistol meets the needs of CP / CANSOFCOM it will meet the needs of the rest of the CF.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Sep 2011)

They may have already made up their minds, but we have to go through the whole deal with contracting and tendering. The fact that they have very specific requirements that you've listed some of them mean that whoever is doing the contracting has a few pistols in mind and wants those companies to bid. Service with a NATO country is just a way to weed out companies they don't want. The Sig Pro might be considered, but since we always buy last year's technology, we may end up with something designed and built in the 90s.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Sep 2011)

If they plan to transfer tech to colt, then a Clusterf**K will happen. As i understand it Glock is out because of the  "No pulling trigger to disassemble" requirement. The Sig 2022 would be a decent choice, like a 226, but cheaper and less corrosion problems. Just talking to someone here in malaysia and they are having corrosion issues with their sigs.


----------



## DirtyDog (14 Sep 2011)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Unless stocks are dwindling, there is no need to replace the Browning. And if stocks are dwindling, refreshing them with new Brownings would likely be cheaper than replacing the remainder. I see no advantage to dumping one of the best pistols made.
> 
> Ambidextrous extended safeties would be a nice upgrade though.


They've dwindled.

All pistols that become NS now, for whatever reason, are cannabilised for their parts as that is the only supply there is.  I forget the numbers, but despite the huge stock of pistols we had at one time, the attrition rate is pretty heavy on them.


----------



## Redeye (14 Sep 2011)

Colin P said:
			
		

> If they plan to transfer tech to colt, then a Clusterf**K will happen. As i understand it Glock is out because of the  "No pulling trigger to disassemble" requirement. The Sig 2022 would be a decent choice, like a 226, but cheaper and less corrosion problems. Just talking to someone here in malaysia and they are having corrosion issues with their sigs.



The "in service" requirement kind of creates a problem, along with the TDP transfer requirement as I see it.  The only thing I can think of that starts to meet requirements is the M&P (no trigger pull to strip, interchangeable grips of various sizes, etc. But it's plastic, and I don't know how DEET and POL will impact it really. The M&P's "no trigger pull" is an annoying feature more than anything else that was apparently a response to perceived ND risks on stripping and assembling. Realistically, I don't see why this is a huge issue, teaching the drills properly kind of makes it irrevelant.


----------



## s23256 (14 Sep 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The "in service" requirement kind of creates a problem, along with the TDP transfer requirement as I see it.  The only thing I can think of that starts to meet requirements is the M&P (no trigger pull to strip, interchangeable grips of various sizes, etc. But it's plastic, and I don't know how DEET and POL will impact it really. The M&P's "no trigger pull" is an annoying feature more than anything else that was apparently a response to perceived ND risks on stripping and assembling. Realistically, I don't see why this is a huge issue, teaching the drills properly kind of makes it irrevelant.



The convenient thing about the M&P "no trigger pull" feature is you can completely ignoe it and take it down almost like a Glock.  The inconvenient thing about this is it may be interpreted as in violation of the above requirement.

That being said, I don't believe the SOR is written in stone as of yet.  The project is in Edmonton speaking with soldiers about what they want...fancy that.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Sep 2011)

I wonder if anyone in the project considered thinking out of the box and not even specifying a "pistol". A compact PDW, or a weapon chambered in a different calibre than 9mm might be a more appropriate choice for a military personal weapon in this day and age.

Just a personal observation...


----------



## chrisf (14 Sep 2011)

Wouldn't that depend if it was being carried as a primary weapon or a secondary weapon? Seems needlessly heavy to carry a rifle and a PDW. Does anyone carry a pistol as a primary weapon now where a PDW would be more appropriate?

Then if you're carrying a PDW as a primary weapon, hasn't it also been more or less accepted that you're better off carrying a carbine or a rifle than a PDW?


----------



## a_majoor (14 Sep 2011)

I suppose that depends of what the perceived need for a pistol actually is. Maybe troops need an intermediate PDW type weapon so they only carry one rather than a rifle and a pistol. The part 2 of the question (should they be chambered in 9mm) is based on the observation that 9mm is a fairly old and low powered round, while we may be looking at engaging targets protected by armour or possibly "hyped up" through drugs or mental conditioning.

Anyway, I am just wondering if anyone had thought of the problem as more than a straight replacement project.


----------



## s23256 (14 Sep 2011)

I can check tomorrow but I believe a PDW remains on the table as part of SAM or the follow on projects.  

My personal opinion is that I have a hard time finding a real requirement for a weapon between the C8 and the pistol.

9mm remains due to commonality, the relatively low recoil allowing for easier trg especially for inexperienced pistol shooters, mag capacity, and the fact that  there probably isn't all that much to be gained by going to a more powerful round.  In terms of armour penetration there is not likely to be another calibre of pistol ammo with considerably better performance.  Against a target under the influence of drugs etc, without the kind of catastophic damage you are probably going to need hollow points for, shot placement is going to be the only way to get a quick cessation of threat.


----------



## Redeye (15 Sep 2011)

Spinaker said:
			
		

> The convenient thing about the M&P "no trigger pull" feature is you can completely ignoe it and take it down almost like a Glock.  The inconvenient thing about this is it may be interpreted as in violation of the above requirement.
> 
> That being said, I don't believe the SOR is written in stone as of yet.  The project is in Edmonton speaking with soldiers about what they want...fancy that.



You can, but I found it more difficult than the Glock to do because of the position/function of the takedown lever. It's not that much of a hassle, it just seemed like a silly step with mine.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Sep 2011)

9mm commonality is probably the key factor.

To penetrate an armoured target we *could* specify a much hotter round than currently issued, or a specificly formulated round like the FiveSeven round (also used in the P-90), or a new calibre like .40 or .45ACP (which would make the Americans happy, at least)

The large calibre .45 was developed to drop a hopped up Moro warrior during the Phillipines war in the early part of the last century, so in theory it can fulfill both functions.

Anyway, this is all theoretical, they will come up with a more modern 9mm that we will use until 2060...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (15 Sep 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> 9mm commonality is probably the key factor.



_"Only pistols chambered for NATO 9 x 19mm ammunition will be considered because Canada is committed to maintaining ammunition interoperability and standardization with its trusted allies and NATO."_

I find a couple of things interesting; one, that the request was issued on 08 Sep 2011 and the final date for 14 Oct 2011. That's doesn't seem to be very much time to put a bid together. Secondly, that "_for National Security reasons, the weapons will be produced in Canada by Colt_". That would mean that the winner would have to give Colt the design specifications for their product. How many companies would be willing to do that?


----------



## dapaterson (15 Sep 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> _"Only pistols chambered for NATO 9 x 19mm ammunition will be considered because Canada is committed to maintaining ammunition interoperability and standardization with its trusted allies and NATO."_
> 
> I find a couple of things interesting; one, that the request was issued on 08 Sep 2011 and the final date for 14 Oct 2011. That's doesn't seem to be very much time to put a bid together. Secondly, that "_for National Security reasons, the weapons will be produced in Canada by Colt_". That would mean that the winner would have to give Colt the design specifications for their product. How many companies would be willing to do that?



This is not a request for bids; it's a request for price and availability.  It's a public recce announcement, in other words.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (15 Sep 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> This is not a request for bids; it's a request for price and availability.  It's a public recce announcement, in other words.



Thanks for pointing out the difference.


----------



## McG (15 Sep 2011)

Spinaker said:
			
		

> In terms of armour penetration there is not likely to be another calibre of pistol ammo with considerably better performance.


5.7 mm.  I know DLR had several ATWO students investigate a 5.7 mm pistol a few years back because of its better armour penetration.



			
				Spinaker said:
			
		

> Against a target under the influence of drugs etc, without the kind of catastophic damage you are probably going to need hollow points for, shot placement is going to be the only way to get a quick cessation of threat.


10 mm, .40 cal, .45 cal, .50 cal will all be more effective against the hopped-up on drugs individual .... whether that "more" is significant or not, I don't know.

There is a obvious trade-off above. The 5.7 mm is going to be less effective against the _hopped-up on drugs_ threat, and the larger calibers will either come with greater recoil or reduced effectiveness against armour (or possibly both).  

Of course, there are other variables that one could play with.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Sep 2011)

Buying one that's in-service means many of the teething pains have been wokred out by others.  Similarly, using a NATO standard round simplifies the supply chain significantly - how many allies stock 5.7mm or 10mm, compared to the number who stock 9mm?

Perfect is the enemy of good enough.


----------



## McG (15 Sep 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Similarly, using a NATO standard round simplifies the supply chain significantly - how many allies stock 5.7mm or 10mm, compared to the number who stock 9mm?


It does not simplify anything when the ammunition safety empire in ADM(Mat) does not allow Canadian soldiers to fire non-Canadian NATO standard ammunition.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Sep 2011)

I will merely observe that forgiveness can be requested if needed if we share the same calibre; it's not possible if we go with a non-standard round.

As for the control issues certain parts of NDHQ have...


----------



## BernDawg (15 Sep 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I will merely observe that forgiveness can be requested if needed if we share the same calibre; it's not possible if we go with a non-standard round.
> 
> As for the control issues certain parts of NDHQ have...



We were issued British 7.62 ammo in Suffield years ago (86) and it didn't cycle properly in our C1's. As a result of that I never had much faith in the "NATO Standard" doctrine.

Don't haggle too much over types of rounds either becasue we all know that except for the MP's all we'll be able to run through it is ball.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Sep 2011)

Spinaker said:
			
		

> I can check tomorrow but I believe a PDW remains on the table as part of SAM or the follow on projects.
> 
> My personal opinion is that I have a hard time finding a real requirement for a weapon between the C8 and the pistol.
> 
> 9mm remains due to commonality, the relatively low recoil allowing for easier trg especially for inexperienced pistol shooters, mag capacity, and the fact that  there probably isn't all that much to be gained by going to a more powerful round.  In terms of armour penetration there is not likely to be another calibre of pistol ammo with considerably better performance.  Against a target under the influence of drugs etc, without the kind of catastophic damage you are probably going to need hollow points for, shot placement is going to be the only way to get a quick cessation of threat.



I can think of several applications where "carbine characteristics (out to ~300m)" in a "SMG form-factor" would be operationally desirable.  HK G36C or C8CQB if you stick with 5.56, or something like a KAC PDW if you're willing to accept .243/6mm ammo that still works well out to 300m but is notably more compact than the G36 or C8.

Re: GSP: the HK P30LS would be nice....very similar to P226 overall, but HK's own action provides the require DAO but with much nicer trigger pull.  I agree with others who appreciate the significant training required to mentally move folks from SA to DA pistols, especially DA than can be decocked...the potential for ND's resulting from poor understanding to DA characteristics is significant.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Sep 2011)

I have used brakeclean on my M&P, Glock and Sig 2340 for quite some time, no noticeable effects. slightly off topic, keep brakeclean away from all Norinco plastic parts.......... :nod:

The HK and Sigs would be nice, but I doubt the difference is worth the price over the M&P and Glock. That price difference will add up in a hurry when buying a large number of guns. Of course selling our Inglis HP to collectors here in Canada and the US would offset a significant amount of that costs, but stupidity will get in the way of that.


----------



## BernDawg (16 Sep 2011)

Colin P said:
			
		

> course selling our Inglis HP to collectors here in Canada and the US would offset a significant amount of that costs, but stupidity will get in the way of that.



One can dream but they'll probably go the way of the C1. That being said, I would be one of the first in line to buy one. If only for sentimental value.


----------



## Bass ackwards (17 Sep 2011)

Is there any data available to indicate how many times a CF member on ops has had to actually _use_ a handgun ?


----------



## Snaketnk (17 Sep 2011)

I have no data except for personal anecdotes. There was a few times last year that I was very happy to be carrying my pistol. Usually it was as an air sentry in a LAV or a as a gunner in crowded villages/KC when we had pedestrians swarming around the vehicles (on the move), and the only way to put a weapon on someone was to reach over the side of the vehicle with your pistol. Also, pistols got drawn while searching individuals and when you needed a little bit more intimidation. Nothing scatters a crowd like the sound of a pistol being readied.

Personally I never felt a problem with our pistol except I found the grip a bit small for my hands, and the safety awkward to use. Nothing a couple of really simple modifications couldn't take care of. To me there's a lot more pressing issues in regards to our kit.

PDWs sound great in theory, being issued to vehicle crews etc. But the reality of deployments is that people get thrown around into different roles on a regular basis and your role changes from day to day. Some days I was driving. Others I was in engagements at 300+ metres. the C8 is plenty small and light enough to maneuver with in vehicles.


----------



## Angry56789 (29 Sep 2011)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Why Berretta?  Why not the Sig Saur P226 which is already in use with certain parts of the CF.



SOF, MPs, Navy boarding parties; At least I "think" I am at least partially correct.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Oct 2011)

An update.....


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> First step from MERX:  Price and Availability RequestMore details on what's wanted, as well as projected timeline from here to purchase (Fall 2015) in the attached files.



Process to find a new pistol firing alright, process STOPS


> Solicitation W8476-123150/A - PW-$$BM-027-21769 has been cancelled.



Not the only weapon selection process halted - more here.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2011)

Meanwhile....


> Despite all its bluster about saving money and honouring Canada's armed forces, the Conservative federal government is poised to melt down millions of dollars worth of military memorabilia.
> 
> Specifically, the Department of Defence is planning to send 19,000 highly collectable Browning Hi-Power pistols made in Toronto more than 60 years ago to the smelter and destroy them, instead of allowing licensed firearm owners to buy them for hundreds of dollars each.
> 
> ...


_Toronto Sun_/Sun Media, 8 Oct 11


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Oct 2011)

> Despite all its bluster about saving money and honouring Canada's armed forces, the Conservative federal government is poised to melt down millions of dollars worth of military memorabilia.
> 
> Specifically, the Department of Defence is planning to send 19,000 highly collectable Browning Hi-Power pistols made in Toronto more than 60 years ago to the smelter and destroy them, instead of allowing licensed firearm owners to buy them for hundreds of dollars each.



And can you imagine the opposite?

Conservative government is poised to release 19'000 PISTOLS into the hands of potential criminals and other dangerous offenders!  
WHY aren't we just destroying these death dealing relics of the 50's?

After NSE in Afghanistan (08-09) ordered sergeants and below not to carry pistols because it made them look like officers I couldn't care less about the pistol and saw it for what it really was.
Our pistols may be getting replaced but it will be decades before the shiny new kit syndrome settles down and the soldiers that effectively need pistols manage to pry them from the fingers of you know who.

The brownings we have are obviously well used and abused, not respected very well, but I've shot a well maintained and respected browning on the range and it was incredible to shoot.


----------



## GAP (8 Oct 2011)

The PR of selling off those pistols would bite the government in a big way if even one was identified in any criminal activity.....


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> The PR of selling off those pistols would bite the government in a big way if even one was identified in any criminal activity.....


Yup, and all it would take is ONE.


----------



## FlyingDutchman (8 Oct 2011)

There is no winning in politics, only losing less.

Edit: I cannot spell when sick it seems.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Oct 2011)

Well that is just a pity....


----------



## Retired AF Guy (8 Oct 2011)

Makes you wonder what happened to all those FN C1/C2's/SMG's when the military replaced them with the C7?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Oct 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Makes you wonder what happened to all those FN C1/C2's/SMG's when the military replaced them with the C7?



After sitting around in warehouses rusting for years, a few were saved for museums and the rest were chopped and smelted.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Oct 2011)

Here's the answer DND came up with re:  why the process has been halted (complete response attached in post here):


> As part of the Small Arms Modernization (SAM) project, the Department of National Defence (DND) is assessing options for the replacement of the 9mm Browning High Power and the 9mm Sig Sauer Model 225 pistol with a new
> General Service Pistol (GSP), as well as the replacement of the Lee Enfield rifle with a New Canadian Ranger Rifle (NCRR) .... The DND Small Arms Modernization (SAM) Project Management Office (PMO) requested that Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) cancel both the GSP and the NCRR Price and Availability (P&A) requests on MERX as a result of questions, and requests for clarification, from industry.  The feedback from industry brought the DND SAM PMO to re-evaluate its procurement strategy. The DND SAM PMO is now focusing efforts on clarifying the procurement strategy for the GSP and NCRR with the intent to facilitate future communication with industry.  The comments and observations received from industry in response to the P&A requests will be considered when the final requirements are written.  The replacement of the GSP and NCRR remain a priority for DND.  The next step of the project will be to obtain Preliminary Project Approval (PPA). No additional solicitations will be posted on MERX until after PPA is obtained and an approved procurement strategy is in place ....


----------



## captloadie (13 Oct 2011)

It sounds like someone's lobbyists were successful. I hope it is money well spent.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Oct 2011)

We sat in the office one day and tried to figure out a pistol that had all of the mandatory features that DND wanted.... couldn't think of one. Hopefully they'll make it more realistic, especially since they wanted a double action trigger with the same pull weight for the first and second pulls.


----------



## Robert0288 (21 Oct 2011)

> especially since they wanted a double action trigger with the same pull weight for the first and second pulls.



Stupid question and I could just be having a brain fart, but on a DA pistol isn't the first and second pull weight the same?  Its the SA/DA pistols that have different pull weights depending on hammer position.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Oct 2011)

Correct, DA can be done by either using a stiker like the Glock or M&P or a hammer like the Sig does, most of Sig's pistols can be made DA/SA or DAO (Double Action only)


----------



## Kokanee (23 Oct 2011)




----------



## Good2Golf (23 Oct 2011)

Feature #3 is the best!  ;D


----------



## medicineman (23 Oct 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Feature #3 is the best!  ;D



Ditto...It'll be like Firefox - you'll have to think it in Czech (if CZ), German (if SIG), etc.  If you don't think in those languages, start throwing rocks.

MM


----------



## FlyingDutchman (23 Oct 2011)

With 5 it might make an effective boomerang.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Oct 2011)

I love the CADPAT grips... surprised the midlife upgrade for the C7A2 wasn't CADPAT TW furniture.


----------



## KevinB (11 Nov 2011)

Cancelled as no one would hand over the TDP, and I honestly dont think there is a gun out there that has all the features.

  Modular Handgun is still steaming (slowly) forward down here, by all reading of the requirements a .45 S&W M&P with threaded barrel (as all soldier are given a suppressor for their pistol right...) is the leading/prefered candidate - but Glock, Sig and Hk may pull something off.


----------



## MeatheadMick (10 Sep 2012)

So now almost a year later... is there any recent rumblings on either the new GSP or the SAM?


----------



## a_majoor (15 Sep 2012)

Maybe we need to do it this way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJRLoGYtkEM


----------



## LordOsborne (16 Sep 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We sat in the office one day and tried to figure out a pistol that had all of the mandatory features that DND wanted.... couldn't think of one. Hopefully they'll make it more realistic, especially since they wanted a double action trigger with the same pull weight for the first and second pulls.




 I've been doing some research on NATO member pistols, and I think there are a few likely candidates, but they all seem to be disqualified on a few minor points. 
GSP Requirements (condensed):
1. Full Size, DAO Trigger
2. Current NATO Service + 2 years
3. 9mm
4. Magazine >13rds, >15rds is better
5. Unloaded weight + empty magazine must be < 950g
6. Barrel must be 102mm or longer
7. Trigger pull must be between 4-8 lbs
8. Ambidextrous magazine release
9. Must not need to pull the trigger to disassemble
10. No magazine safety
11. No safety devices to manipulate
12. Must have an M1913 accessory rail 
13. Trigger pull weight must be consistent every time


I think the following pistols are likely choices: Sig P226 or 229 DAK; Walther PPQ; H&K P30; H&K USP; Glock 17; Springfield XD9, Smith and Wesson M&P 9

And here is why I think each of them is disqualified:
- The Sig P226 is over the weight limit by 14g. The DAO trigger system is a 10lb pull, which exceeds the requirement. The Sig DAK trigger varies between ~8lbs and 6.5lbs, depending on the method you pull the trigger. The GSP requires a consistent trigger pull weight, so I think that's why a Sig won't be eligible.

- The Walther PPQ, is a variant of the P99QA, and on the face of it would meet all the requirements, except that I haven't seen any evidence that a single NATO member's military uses it. 

- H&K P30 also seems to meet all the paper specs, but I can't find evidence that any NATO countries use it. 

- H&K USP seems to be the most likely choice, since it meets every single requirement. USPs, however, do not have an M1913 rail. The standard USP DAO pull weight exceeds the requirement but a lighter DAO trigger module is available. 

- Glock 17 seems again to meet every requirement, but I don't think the Glock accessory rail is M1913 compliant, and on top of that, you need to pull the trigger to disassemble, so that's a no-go. Unless Glock made a special version that doesn't require a trigger pull to disassemble, I can't see them winning. Glock has made offshoot variants in the past, including models with a manual safety, so who knows?

- Springfield XD 9 - I thought this pistol wasn't in service with any NATO countries, but Croatia has been a member since 2009 (thanks CDN Aviator). On the face of it, again, the XD9 seems to meet all paper specs, except that you need to pull the trigger to disassemble, and it has a grip safety (although I'm not sure if that would disqualify it, since the safety is disengaged automatically). 

- S&W M&P 9 - seems to meet every single requirement... except that no NATO countries use it. I think out of all the pistols, the M&P would be the likeliest choice. I've heard that the RCMP will be switching to the M&P as well, which would sweeten the pot from a cost standpoint perhaps. I know DND and the RCMP are two separate entities, but still...


That's my take on it. I'd be interested to hear if I missed any pistols. I didn't choose the Beretta M9 because it is over weight and the DAO trigger is 12lbs. The CZ-75s are all well over-weight, which is why I didn't pick them


----------



## aesop081 (16 Sep 2012)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> but Croatia has been a member since 2004.



Small unrelated note but Croatia did not become a NATO member until 2009 (it received it's invitation to join in 2008 at the Bucharest summit). Croatia had been a PfP (partnership for peace) country since 2000.

[/sidetrack]


----------



## LordOsborne (16 Sep 2012)

My mistake, thanks


----------



## brihard (16 Sep 2012)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> - H&K USP seems to be the most likely choice, since it meets every single requirement. USPs, however, do not have an M1913 rail.



For a national level military procurement, that would seem like a very, very easy thing for them to fix for a bid.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Sep 2012)

USP is very nice. Hope it gets a fair shake. P9S was very nice when it came out in the late-60's, and the USP was a very nice development. 

Regards,
G2G


----------



## LordOsborne (17 Sep 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> For a national level military procurement, that would seem like a very, very easy thing for them to fix for a bid.



I agree, since all H&K would need to do is change their molds for the frames to incorporate an M1913 rail instead of their proprietary version. Their P2000 and P30s both come with M1913 rails, after all. 

It seems to me that 10,000 pistols isn't a very large number, especially when compared to other nations. For example, the US Army just bought 100,000 Beretta M9s, saying that the M9 will remain their sidearm "for the next five years"
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/09/17/army-buys-100000-m9-pistols/

Seems like we're a fairly small order. I'm sure any company would love to sell 10,000 pistols, but when you factor in the bizarre requirement to license the design to Colt Canada, it's no wonder that potential bidders objected to that stipulation for such a small order.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Sep 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> USP is very nice. Hope it gets a fair shake. P9S was very nice when it came out in the late-60's, and the USP was a very nice development.
> 
> Regards,
> G2G



I was shooting one this weekend- it was amazing.  I'm going to pick one up as soon as funding allows.


----------



## blacktriangle (23 Sep 2012)

Anyone here shot an M&P 9mm? If so, any idea how that shoots in comparison to a Glock?


----------



## MeatheadMick (23 Sep 2012)

I may be a little bias... but I'm still hoping Sig Sauer is the pick.. The 226 is just too sweet of a hand-gun to pass up.


----------



## JorgSlice (23 Sep 2012)

MPMick said:
			
		

> I may be a little bias... but I'm still hoping Sig Sauer is the pick.. The 226 is just too sweet of a hand-gun to pass up.



I'd have to agree myself. While I have not been in a service position that requires a hand gun, I did purchase one as a first when my PAL came in the mail along with an S-W M&P 9mm, and after shooting both at the range, I've neglected my M&P for the past 3 months  

It's beautiful


----------



## Redeye (24 Sep 2012)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Anyone here shot an M&P 9mm? If so, any idea how that shoots in comparison to a Glock?



I found the M&P, even with various palmswell options didn't fit my hand quite as naturally, but it groups almost as well. Trigger pull is not quite as smooth but still quite good.


----------



## LordOsborne (25 Sep 2012)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Anyone here shot an M&P 9mm? If so, any idea how that shoots in comparison to a Glock?



My Civvie job is as an RSO for a rental shooting range. Our Glocks and M&P get quite a bit of range time, and I'd say they're roughly matched for reliability. They both have issues with small parts breakage, at least in my experience. The M&P9 that we have has had its slide stops replaced at least 4 times now, because they just break off. I'm not even sure why they do; we teach our customers to rack the slide instead of using the slide stop lever.

We have Glock 17s and 34s, both Gen 3 and 4. I'd say they're evenly matched for reliability. Occasionally we'll see broken extractor claws or a broken frame rail. Glocks can shoot for quite a while with only 3 of 4 rails, apparently 

Accuracy is about even for both guns, if the shooter does his part. I like the trigger on the Glock better than the M&P, but that's just my personal opinion. As far as the grips go, that's also a matter of personal preference and 'feel'. I'm not crazy about the Glock's grip, but I have big hands and I don't mind it. The M&P doesn't feel comfortable for me unless I put the 'Large' palmswells on the grip, but I find it bulges out quite a bit, and it doesnt feel as natural to me. 

Either way, our guns get used a lot. I'd say on average these guns see about 50-200 rounds a day, depending on how busy we get. They get cleaned twice a week, on average, and they only get repairs or maintenance if something breaks, which isn't often. Either one is a good choice, IMO.


----------



## MeatheadMick (28 Sep 2012)

Interesting, the Sig P250 seems to meet most of the requirements... and it's designed to be modular.  Could be interesting to see the NATO 9mm in the hands of the majority of the Forces, whereas a .45 could be utilized by MPs and bring us up to the standard of most modern police forces. As well CANSOF, CP Operators and boarding parties could be equipped with the compact version.

http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg/switch/sig-sauer-p250-e.html


----------



## LordOsborne (28 Sep 2012)

MPMick said:
			
		

> Interesting, the Sig P250 seems to meet most of the requirements... and it's designed to be modular.  Could be interesting to see the NATO 9mm in the hands of the majority of the Forces, whereas a .45 could be utilized by MPs and bring us up to the standard of most modern police forces. As well CANSOF, CP Operators and boarding parties could be equipped with the compact version.
> 
> http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg/switch/sig-sauer-p250-e.html



The P250 certainly looks interesting. It's not used by any NATO militaries, though. Also, I think most law enforcement agencies (especially in North America) use .40 S&W, not .45 ACP.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Sep 2012)

The 250 struggles to be the gun that it's older cousian the 2022 is. The modular concept fell through due to dismal support by Sig. That being said I have no doubt Sig would offer a competative deal on it as they desperatly need a large purchase to make this gun appear to be a success.

I have not drank the Glock Koolaid, but  suspect that the G19 will offer 90% of everything we need at a very attractive price. Considering the training for pistol shooting in the military will be the biggest hinderance and will negate the advantages of any more expensive platform. Buy the Glock and used the money saved to buy decent holsters, extra mags, training ammo and instruction material.


----------



## MeatheadMick (28 Sep 2012)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> The P250 certainly looks interesting. It's not used by any NATO militaries, though. Also, I think most law enforcement agencies (especially in North America) use .40 S&W, not .45 ACP.



Yeah you're right, brain fart on my bad


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Sep 2012)

Has anybody fired the P250?  It looks small - not having all three fingers below the trigger holding the grip is very irritating, I find.  Having shot BHP, 225, 17, P9S and USP as well as hefted, but not shot an M&P, I hope the USP is looked at favourably.  I think it best carries on the spirit o the BHP (particularly the tear-down) while not getting overly funky (Glocks and "that" trigger) or the Sig, which while nice has always seemed a bit skinny  for my liking.

Regards 
G2G


----------



## MeatheadMick (29 Sep 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Has anybody fired the P250?  It looks small - not having all three fingers below the trigger holding the grip is very irritating, I find.  Having shot BHP, 225, 17, P9S and USP as well as hefted, but not shot an M&P, I hope the USP is looked at favourably.  I think it best carries on the spirit o the BHP (particularly the tear-down) while not getting overly funky (Glocks and "that" trigger) or the Sig, which while nice has always seemed a bit skinny  for my liking.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



I find the grip on the P225 is a little thin, but it's quite a beefy pistol compared to both the Browning Hi-Pow or the Glock IMO. The P226 is a wider grip so it can fit a double stack mag, and I find it's just an awesome handgun all around. I've heard rumours that when the MP's transitioned from the Browning to the Sig, the P225 was chosen over the 226 to accomodate smaller female hands. I'd say that's horse-shit, however, in the early 90's when male MP's carried the Browning, female MP's were still issued the .38 Special, so there could be truth to the story.

As for the P250, I've researched it a little more, and AFAIK at the moment it is only available as a 'compact' frame. I've played with other compact pistols, and I'm not a fan of having my pinky off of the grip. I haven't had the privilege of shooting it, so I'm not much help there. The P250 shares many similarities with the P228 and 229, however the latter seem to have the longer grips. I believe the P229 is used by the OPP, and countless tac teams (and US Navy Seals) use the Sig P226. The P229 is an excellent pistol, however the price per sale is going to be too high for the CF. I think in the end, what is really going to be putting a stopper to getting a decent modern handgun is having to shelve over the technology to Colt Canada. I can't see many companies wanting to go through with that, however, stranger things have happened.

In the end, I'm just a Sig Fan Boy and whatever the CF puts in my holster I'll use, but the firearm at home will always be a Sig


----------



## NavyShooter (29 Sep 2012)

I've played with Sigs, Glocks, CZ's, tried the occasional other pistol here and there.

I'll use whatever tool is put into the toolbox.

NS


----------



## KevinB (29 Sep 2012)

The USP is a brick -- the newer Hk guns are much better - but apparently the CF does not think it can properly test and lifecycle a gun so they want it adopted previosuly by NATO so they are out.

I really like the S&W M&P9, you technically dont need to fire the action to disassemble as there is a 'tool' -  but you can do it like a Glock.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Sep 2012)

KevinB, which HK would be the best contender, would you figure then? I like solid...much nicer than a Glock for a polymer frame gun.

Cheers
G2G


----------



## KevinB (30 Sep 2012)

Frankly the Glock19 to me is probably the best bet.  It is definitley the cheaper option, at least half the Hk price if not 1/3rd.

The only new Hk I really have time with is the Hk45C, which I think is a great gun, but not worth 2x the price of the M&P45.  I think the Hk P30 is the most likley candidate from HK, but have maybe 250 rds thru it, so I dont think that enough to pass judgment on.


People need to remember that 99.99% of the time a Military Service Pistol will be carried around in a holster - bumped, thumped etc.  Unlike rental guns, or LE guns, these will also be subject to adverse environments for usage and carriage.

Unfortunately I think this is why the CF made the adopted by a NATO country for 2 years requirement.  However frankly I think thats not a great supporting criteria, 2 years is not long enough for the gun to show its warts.



I shoot a M&P these days - I like the Crimson Trace laser option in the backstrap - but honestly if I had one handgun to go forward with - it would be a Glock19.  I think there are better guns for many things, but I think the Glock is reliable, cheap, and simple - for a duty handgun it has a very solid track record.


----------



## Dissident (30 Sep 2012)

KevinB said:
			
		

> but honestly if I had one handgun to go forward with - it would be a Glock19.  I think there are better guns for many things, but I think the Glock is reliable, cheap, and simple - for a duty handgun it has a very solid track record.



It seems like such a simple choice to me. Yet here we are years later and still no closer to a replacement pistol. 

Would a Glock be the best or coolest pistol to get? Dunno, probably not. But it is cheap, simple to operate and reliable.


----------



## CombatDoc (1 Oct 2012)

Although I was thinking Glock 17 with the slightly longer barrel, Glock 19 makes sense for a firearm that will be carried far, far more than it will ever be shot in a defence situation.  Too bad that one of the criteria is that takedown/stripping of the firearm must be done without pulling the trigger.  One might wonder if that was put in to exclude the Glock.  Best thing about the Glocks is their ultra reliability.


----------



## JorgSlice (1 Oct 2012)

For me a Glock always felt like I was holding and firing a toy and not a hand gun but you can't ignore the testimonials of the Glock over the years stating just how versatile and reliable it is.

*Edit*: But regardless of my opinion, the CF/PWGSC will select the service pistol that best fits their needs.


----------



## Ostrozac (1 Oct 2012)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> *Edit*: But regardless of my opinion, the CF/PWGSC will select the service pistol that best fits their needs.



Isn't the elephant in the room the fact that Colt doesn't currently make a NATO style 9mm service pistol? And that Glock, Beretta, Sig, et al aren't necessarily keen to allow Colt Canada to start using their data and designs? Buying a few thousand Sig 226 or Glock 19 off the shelf might be much easier than convincing either company to allow them to be built in Kitchener.


----------



## JorgSlice (1 Oct 2012)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Isn't the elephant in the room the fact that Colt doesn't currently make a NATO style 9mm service pistol? And that Glock, Beretta, Sig, et al aren't necessarily keen to allow Colt Canada to start using their data and designs? Buying a few thousand Sig 226 or Glock 19 off the shelf might be much easier than convincing either company to allow them to be built in Kitchener.



Stimulating Canadian Economy.

I know it makes the whole procurement process that much more difficult, but at least it's creating jobs and allowing people to keep what jobs they have over at Colt. If PWGSC just decided to start buying Off-The-Shelf and stopped asking for products to be assembled in Canada, they'd have to shut down COLT or General Dynamics etc. There just wouldn't be enough work in order for it to be sensible to keep those factories/companies open and running.


----------



## Redeye (1 Oct 2012)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> Stimulating Canadian Economy.
> 
> I know it makes the whole procurement process that much more difficult, but at least it's creating jobs and allowing people to keep what jobs they have over at Colt. If PWGSC just decided to start buying Off-The-Shelf and stopped asking for products to be assembled in Canada, they'd have to shut down COLT or General Dynamics etc. There just wouldn't be enough work in order for it to be sensible to keep those factories/companies open and running.



The entire pistol buy will hardly stimulate anything, and as a practical matter, isn't likely to happen with this requirement, because I simply can't see Colt designing something new.

Government's job is not to prop up businesses, and when they do so for military procurement reasons, there's no history of really good, enduring results anyhow.


----------



## KevinB (1 Oct 2012)

Here's a small tidbit of info when I worked for DoS we got a lot of G19's -- the .gov price at the time was around $221 for a G19, w/ night sights, and 5x15rd mags from Glock.  Now since the G19 has a pretty good record down here for Federal folks it was bought for, I'd argue that for economic reasons one could write a intelligent source source justification.
Someone however is clearly anti-Glock - probably because they believe troops are too stupid to clear the gun before pulling the trigger during disassembly.  


No company in their right mind will give Colt Canada their TDP, so that is just downright stupid including that or some type of economic set aside on a requirement this small.

   The CF has maybe a requirement for say 20k pistols? Maybe 30k with a warstock overage at the most.  Well that is a big city Police Dept down here -- say NYPD or LAPD.   Can you imagine what would happen if New York City asked Glock for their TDP?
  
Items the CF decide is significant military equipment, make sense to have the ability to source in country.  Part of the reason the Cdn Gov bought the GFM hammer forges for Diemaco as part of then Devtek-Heroux, and I assume why they allowed Colt Canada to maintain them in the plant.   There is a big difference between a pistol and carbine/rifle in terms of military necessity, and making a pistol in Canada is a non starter for economic reasons (not to say that Public Works won't try), due to the number that will be produced.


----------



## JorgSlice (1 Oct 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The entire pistol buy will hardly stimulate anything, and as a practical matter, isn't likely to happen with this requirement, because I simply can't see Colt designing something new.
> 
> Government's job is not to prop up businesses, and when they do so for military procurement reasons, there's no history of really good, enduring results anyhow.





			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> Here's a small tidbit of info when I worked for DoS we got a lot of G19's -- the .gov price at the time was around $221 for a G19, w/ night sights, and 5x15rd mags from Glock.  Now since the G19 has a pretty good record down here for Federal folks it was bought for, I'd argue that for economic reasons one could write a intelligent source source justification.
> Someone however is clearly anti-Glock - probably because they believe troops are too stupid to clear the gun before pulling the trigger during disassembly.
> 
> 
> ...



True, but why then would they send out a bulletin to purchase equipment from a European or USA company/supplier and demand that they must allow it to be assembled in Canada, by a Canadian manufacturer like COLT? Does it have something to do with OPSEC?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Oct 2012)

I love my Sigs (5 of them) However I shudder to think of their fates in the hands of the well intentioned solider/officer. Maintaining the anodized coating on the frame wear points is critical to their longevity and someone who drops $1,000 on a gun will take care of them. But for the reservist who has to clean their equipment in a hurry at the end of ex will take shortcuts using stuff that will wear the finish. Also the grip screw bushings are a real bitch, and even worse on the 229. It does not take much to ruin them.

The 2022 is the only Sig I would consider for general issue. Much more forgiving of abuse than it’s alloy cousins.


----------



## KevinB (1 Oct 2012)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> True, but why then would they send out a bulletin to purchase equipment from a European or USA company/supplier and demand that they must allow it to be assembled in Canada, by a Canadian manufacturer like COLT? Does it have something to do with OPSEC?



No, but I think the Good Idea Fairie's retarded sister is involved.


----------



## BernDawg (1 Oct 2012)

:goodpost:
Amen brother!


----------



## MeatheadMick (1 Oct 2012)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I love my Sigs (5 of them) However I shudder to think of their fates in the hands of the well intentioned solider/officer. Maintaining the anodized coating on the frame wear points is critical to their longevity and someone who drops $1,000 on a gun will take care of them. But for the reservist who has to clean their equipment in a hurry at the end of ex will take shortcuts using stuff that will wear the finish. Also the grip screw bushings are a real bitch, and even worse on the 229. It does not take much to ruin them.
> 
> The 2022 is the only Sig I would consider for general issue. Much more forgiving of abuse than it’s alloy cousins.



I can really only speak for the P225, but I haven't seen too much wear on any of them to a detrimental effect. Being a meathead I've seen a lot of Sigs, and even the ones at CFMPA are in decent condition.



			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> Snip.
> Someone however is clearly anti-Glock - probably because they believe troops are too stupid to clear the gun before pulling the trigger during disassembly.
> Snip.



I've seen some pretty ridiculous circumstances for Negligent Discharges... it will happen, I almost guarantee you.


----------



## KevinB (1 Oct 2012)

Well I copy pasted this from above - I wonder what "Full size" means?

1. Full Size, DAO Trigger
2. Current NATO Service + 2 years
3. 9mm
4. Magazine >13rds, >15rds is better
5. Unloaded weight + empty magazine must be < 950g
6. Barrel must be 102mm or longer
7. Trigger pull must be between 4-8 lbs
8. Ambidextrous magazine release
9. Must not need to pull the trigger to disassemble
10. No magazine safety
11. No safety devices to manipulate
12. Must have an M 1913 accessory rail 
13. Trigger pull weight must be consistent every Shot.

Color me confused but I don't actually see a pistol that meets the criteria anywhere?

Several Federal Entities down here issue Glock's and Smith&Wesson M&P guns - but in either .40S&W or .45ACP.

Hk seems to have the only truly ambo mag release - with their dual lever.  But the USP is a brick, and a poor contender to their new designs.

28 NATO Countries use the following

Albania - M9/Beretta 92
Belgium - Hi-Power and FN 5.7
Bulgaria - Sig Pro 2022
Canada - No2 Mk1* (Browning Hi-Power) and Sig P225
Croatia - HS2000 / Springfield XD
Czech Republic - CZ-75
Denmark - Glock 17
Estonia - Hk USP
France - Hk USP and Glock 17 
Germany - Hk USP 
Greece - Glock 17
Hungary - Hk USP
Iceland - Glock 17
Italy - Beretta 
Latvia - Glock 19 and Glock 17
Lithuania - Glock 17
Luxembourg - Mk1 Browning Hi-Power
Netherlands - Glock 17
Norway - Glock 17
Poland - well GROM uses the Hk USP
Portugal - Glock 19 (replaced the Hk USP in 2009)
Romania - appears to still be their version of the Tokarev 
Slovakia - appears to still be their version of the Makarov
Slovenia - I cannot locate any info
Spain - Hk USP
Turkey - Zignana C45 - a .45 ACP gun
United Kingdom - BHP and Sig P226
United States - M9 Beretta, Glock 19, and 1911




Okay so the current Browning Hi-Power is out, as is the SigP225.

Leaving the remaining 9mm guns as:

Sig P226R - 
Sig P228R - 
Sig Pro 2022 - 
Glock 17 - squeeze trigger on disassembly
Glock 19 - squeeze trigger on disassembly
HS2000/Springfield XD - pretty poor performance in any US LE entity testing.
Beretta M-9 - Not DOA in issue configuration - and too big/heavy
CZ 75 B - not DOA
CZ PO1 - to small
HK USP – expensive and no 1913 rail 


Based on the above I believe that the spec has been written for the Sig Pro 2022 exclusively to justify a sole source award.


----------



## MeatheadMick (1 Oct 2012)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Snip.
> 
> Based on the above I believe that the spec has been written for the Sig Pro 2022 exclusively to justify a sole source award.



It definitely appears to look that way.  I still don't think they could manage to contract Sig's TDP for Colt Canada... guess we'll see what happens.

*Edit

A little more research shows that the Pro 2022 is a DA/SA trigger and 12 rd capacity in 9mm... seems like there is no current NATO Service pistol that can meet ALL the requirements...

**Edit2

Disregard, spoke to soon... apparently there is a 9mm that holds 15 rds, and from Cabelas.com


> Available in 9mm and .40 S&W, the SP2022 can easily be converted from a double-action/single-action to a double-action-only configuration through a unique integral fire-control unit.


----------



## KevinB (1 Oct 2012)

Now I fully agree with Sole Sourcing items if there is a Immediate Operational Requirement.

In situations like that it is often best to them buy what the "National Force" uses (in Canadian speak that means buy what JTF-2 has, down here that means the CAG, and England the SAS and so on).  However National Force units often have a 4 or 5 year life-cycle for small arms - meaning they replace the weapons after 4 (or5) years.  Conventional Force units tend to not be able to replace small arms like computers and operating systems.
What can happen then is the convention unit can get stuck with an item that is really not suited for longevity, or on the flip side gets a great system without the headaches of prolonged procurement.

Now since JTF-2 and other CANSOF elements don't issue the Sig Pro 2022 to the best of my knowledge (which I could be totally wrong on) I get worried about sole source selection based on somewhat subjective requirements.  Also the Canadian government does not get the best bid, as frankly if there is only one option the manufacturer is not really all that interested in being cost competitive.

Now on the other hand Sig may be interested in a channel partner role with Colt Canada - I doubt it, but I could be wrong.


----------



## KevinB (1 Oct 2012)

Sig SP2022 is a 15rd gun, that has DAO ability.

From what I remember from my Sig P series armorer class I took any Sig pistol can be converted to DOA will a little parts swap.


However the barrel length on the gun is 99.06mm

Back to the drawing board.


----------



## Dissident (1 Oct 2012)

MPMick said:
			
		

> and even the ones at CFMPA are in decent condition.



 :


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Oct 2012)

Is it just me, or does the 102mm min barrel length sound like someone in DLR shouted across a few cubicles, " Hey guys, what's 4" converted into millimeters?"


----------



## MeatheadMick (1 Oct 2012)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> :



I said _decent_ not _good_ lol  Anyone who has used them know they are not in perfect condition, but the amount of rounds put through them and the abuse students put them through, they aren't _bad._
Now having said that... I will put sim rounds through my P225 any day but generally speaking shudder at the mere thought of doing the same with CFMPA's firearms.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or does the 102mm min barrel length sound like someone in DLR shouted across a few cubicles, " Hey guys, what's 4" converted into millimeters?"



No Shit!  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Oct 2012)

They don't need DAO. That's a CYA solution for lawyers. SA\DA is fine.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Oct 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or does the 102mm min barrel length sound like someone in DLR shouted across a few cubicles, " Hey guys, what's 4" converted into millimeters?"



Makes them prohibited class for civilian surplus sale


----------



## MeatheadMick (2 Oct 2012)

Strange that all the requirements seem to fit Sig Sauer almost to a tee, minus a few features...

P226 is too heavy

P228/229/Pro2022 barrel is too short

P250 not long enough service time

Still seems like less strikes than others... they seem to have really nailed Glock with the no trigger pull on take down though, perhaps nailing themselves out of a price efficient and effective weapon. The one thing I did note about the Pro 2022 was the take-down lever. I personally prefer the P226's sliding lever wrt ease of operation, and one less removed part during a field strip.


----------



## Dissident (2 Oct 2012)

My definition of decent might include functioning pistols with (well) worn finish. However it does not include pistols prone to multiple stoppages (non mag related). Of the six pistol we had on the line last year, two were actually tagged out of service, to my great surprise.


----------



## Redeye (2 Oct 2012)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Well I copy pasted this from above - I wonder what "Full size" means?
> 
> 1. Full Size, DAO Trigger
> 2. Current NATO Service + 2 years
> ...



Albanians carry Px4 Storms in Afghanistan. Romanians seem to have a mix of Makarovs and Glock 17s. The French who don't care their old M1950 carry M92s. Sigs are popular with the US contractors here - the ones not carrying M9s are all carrying Sigs.


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Oct 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Makes them prohibited class for civilian surplus sale



Ah, seen...  :nod:


----------



## KevinB (2 Oct 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> They don't need DAO. That's a CYA solution for lawyers. SA\DA is fine.



I disagree.

 I don't like DAO - specifically - but any changing trigger pull from first to second shot is no bueno.  Regardless if your a door-kicking super stud, or an MP, you're going to shoot better with a single trigger pull, than one that changes from time to time.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Oct 2012)

The 2022 hammerbox can be swapped as a unit

See at 5:20 on this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT37_OXQKek


----------



## MeatheadMick (2 Oct 2012)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> My definition of decent might include functioning pistols with (well) worn finish. However it does not include pistols prone to multiple stoppages (non mag related). Of the six pistol we had on the line last year, two were actually tagged out of service, to my great surprise.



A little Off-topic but interesting, I did my 3's in 2010, and the pistols weren't all complete garbage... Still in better condition than many weapons in the Infantry School vault.


----------



## KevinB (2 Oct 2012)

Well I still don't know of a pistol that fits the criteria.

The other question is what is the NATO service criteria, as if that is answered it may make a little difference.


----------



## CombatDoc (2 Oct 2012)

Rather than the question of "which pistol should we procure to replace the Browning HP", perhaps the question should be "DO we need to replace the Browning HP".  Should we turn the sidearm paradigm upside down and state something like combat arms get a C7, support troops get an HK MPX?  We should, if we haven't already, analyze the data from 10 years in Afghanistan and determine how many - if any - times the pistol was used in a combat situation.  if the answer is "Never", perhaps we should rethink our doctrine.  Pistol + 3 x mags + 3 x 10+ rounds is Y pounds not carried that can lighten the soldier's combat load.


----------



## Dissident (2 Oct 2012)

Well the IS the thread about replacing the BHP/Sig 225, I am sure there is a thread somewhere here about combat loads somewhere. I think it is a valid point/topic of discussion, just not the one at hand.

In any case, Sig does not make the 225 anymore and sooner or later MPs will need a replacement pistol.


----------



## KevinB (2 Oct 2012)

Pistol Cal PDW's the answer to the unneeded question.

You're not going to carry a PDW and a Long Gun, thats wronger than two boys fucking.  Pistols have a role with the conventional army -- digging around some tunnel or crawlspace in an Afghan house is one of those.

THe BHP was a fine gun, and if the CF guns were in better shape - adding better sights would probably all that is needed.  BUT the Inglis slide is not really conducive to adding aftermarket sights - so the frame needs to get milled, recoated and sights installed into the dovetails on the slide.
AND the kicker is the Inglis guns are WWII vintage guns.  Most got the crapped kicked out of the using the old 9mm SMG ammo which makes +P+ ammo seem like weak target loads.

Now as to the priority of the Pistol Program -- obviously the SOF side has the P226R, and perhaps it makes sense to do a limited buy of those for MP's.

I love pistols - I've carried one several places, and I'd take one every time over a bayonet.  But I think the CF has better funding priorities than a new GSP, and if it is a priority then real pistol training should take place in the CF outside of CANSOFCOM.
  

I'm chiming in on this as mostly a academic exercise for fun.


----------



## Dissident (3 Oct 2012)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Now as to the priority of the Pistol Program -- obviously the SOF side has the P226R, and perhaps it makes sense to do a limited buy of those for MP's.



I'd be ok with this, especially if we can get pistol mounted lights.


----------



## NavyShooter (3 Oct 2012)

But....pistol mounted lights would require new holsters, and everyone knows that the Bianchi UM-84 is the "Best in the world" ...   :moose:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Oct 2012)

Glock did make a run of G17’s with a external safety for a military, so they could do it again, but that likely eliminates the two advantages of Glock, being price and spare parts. SW M&P has a model that is now being offered with an external safety, very similar to a 1911 safety. So that makes them more attractive if an external safety is required.


----------



## DirtyDog (3 Oct 2012)

CombatDoc said:
			
		

> We should .... analyze the data from 10 years in Afghanistan and determine how many - if any - times the pistol was used in a combat situation.


I know of more than a few rounds fired.  Some defnitely "any".


----------



## Ostrozac (3 Oct 2012)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Glock did make a run of G17’s with a external safety for a military, so they could do it again, but that likely eliminates the two advantages of Glock, being price and spare parts. SW M&P has a model that is now being offered with an external safety, very similar to a 1911 safety. So that makes them more attractive if an external safety is required.



Actually, Colin, we specified NO external safeties for our new pistol. This item also eliminates the 9mm pistols that Colt does currently make, which are variants of the 1911. But those pistols are missing a whole bunch of the criteria. 

Increasingly, I wonder if Kevin is right, and we should just get out of the general service pistol game. A C8 `Shorty Version` with a 5.56mm 10.3" barrel and iron sights would be pretty compact for most HQ types. I know that C77 ball has lethality issues with short barrels, but, then again, so does 9mm ball. 

That might have the added advantage to make the purchases for people who actually need pistols (MP, fighter pilots, etc...) small enough amounts to sole-source off the shelf.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Oct 2012)

A PDW would make an awful lot more sense, I think.


----------



## Snaketnk (3 Oct 2012)

Never fired the round, but I was happy to have my pistol . There were times I wanted to instill my will on others in places that my rifle or crew served weapons couldn't get.

Also, in Afghanistan, taking out a pistol is the universal "we mean business" symbol and will usually resolve things that long guns won't without escalating use of force.

In the grand scheme of things, carrying a pistol with two mags didn't add a whole lot to the weight of the stuff I was carrying; relative to the water, ammo, and other stuff.


----------



## KevinB (3 Oct 2012)

In Afghan and Iraq - the pistol was a very powerful tool, as the historical sense of the pistol was that it was often used to execute folks.

 You could point a M203 at someone and get less respect for your 'point' than unholstering your pistol...

Now operationally, well perhaps less effective than a frozen ski boot in many hands.

The 11.5" C8CQB is in service with CANSOF units and could be cross pollinated for a lot of roles (really driver/cc/armored crew roles) however its still bigger than a lot of folks want, however as Ostrozac said - you may be able to get away then with a "pure fleet" P226R acquisition.

 I'm not so aware of how the whole CANSOF funding rules work now, as it may affect things adversely - as can do down here in that the parent service of the SOF side funds common weapons needs.  However CANSOF effectively being purple (don't kill me guys - but I mean purple in not element/branch dependant like it is down here).  IF the CF allows CANSOF to acquire out of the GPF weapons it would jack the pistol beyond the way and means of a sole source?

I had understood that a former DHTC asset was being utilized to be the SME for the Pistol, both the acquisition and the new pam - and Frank likes Glocks, so I am surprised that the criteria seems to have been written to exclude it.


----------



## blacktriangle (3 Oct 2012)

If a modern pistol and better/more frequent training was an option, I'd go for that. But since some units barely seem to be able to keep people on the C7 (and nowhere near competent) maybe we are wasting our time.


----------



## KevinB (3 Oct 2012)

No reason to cater to the lowest common denominator though.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Oct 2012)

KevinB said:
			
		

> But I think the CF has better funding priorities than a new GSP, and if it is a priority then real pistol training should take place in the CF outside of CANSOFCOM.



I think you hit the nail on the head, what good is a secondary weapon like a pistol without any marksmanship training to go with it? Op Attention had/has to do quick reaction drill training while in theatre as most of the time thats the only weapon we're carrying in close proximity to the ANA/ANP. However, by the time some groups got scheduled in, it was 3 months into the tour. We couldn't do it in Canada because there wasn't any money for ammunition or instructors.

The whole "Snr NCOs and Officers" mentality for pistol training needs to go out the window if we want everyone carrying them. Unless the CF likes to keep making thousands of dollars on all the NDs on tour by troops with little to no prior exposure to the BHP.


----------



## KevinB (3 Oct 2012)

Puckchaser -- I'm sorry but I call BS on that.

 CANSOF has (or had) instructor cadre that can be called upon to conduct training.  However the biggest issue that one tends to see if either the unit refusing to budget - or refusing to accept that the internal personnel they have are not capable of instructing something - or not knowing what they don't know.


----------



## Pte. Jay (4 Oct 2012)

I wouldn't mind them picking us up some Beretta 92F's... But, of course, we're probably going to have to settle on second class equipment...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Oct 2012)

Pte. Jay said:
			
		

> I wouldn't mind them picking us up some Beretta 92F's... But, of course, we're probably going to have to settle on second class equipment...



Really? What's your experience and reasoning behind that statement?


----------



## JorgSlice (4 Oct 2012)

Sig Sauer are by no means second class, I'd hand it to you if the CF were trying to buy cheap Asian knock-offs of the M1911 or other, but Sigs... come on man.


----------



## Pte. Jay (4 Oct 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Really? What's your experience and reasoning behind that statement?


My uncle up in Barrie has a PX4 Storm, and a 92F and they're both amazing firearms. I just really like Berettas I guess :3 :yellow:


----------



## Pte. Jay (4 Oct 2012)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> Sig Sauer are by no means second class, I'd hand it to you if the CF were trying to buy cheap Asian knock-offs of the M1911 or other, but Sigs... come on man.


LOOOL, I've seen enough of those knock off 1911's :') Sings are okay I guess. Is it weird that despite the amount they're praised, I hate Glocks? I've never even fired one and I hate them.


----------



## brihard (4 Oct 2012)

Pte. Jay said:
			
		

> LOOOL, I've seen enough of those knock off 1911's :') Sings are okay I guess. Is it weird that despite the amount they're praised, I hate Glocks? I've never even fired one and I hate them.



Funny, I had the same attitude towards certain vegetables when I was six...


----------



## MeatheadMick (4 Oct 2012)

Sig's (not Sings) are much better than second class... Just remember the standard issue firearm for the US Army is a 92F, and only because it was cheaper than the Sig P226, which has been quite famously linked to DEVGRU (Navy SEALS)


----------



## JorgSlice (4 Oct 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Funny, I had the same attitude towards certain vegetables when I was six...



:rofl: 

Is there a way to extract beer from keyboards?  ;D


----------



## Redeye (4 Oct 2012)

Pte. Jay said:
			
		

> LOOOL, I've seen enough of those knock off 1911's :') Sings are okay I guess. Is it weird that despite the amount they're praised, I hate Glocks? I've never even fired one and I hate them.



It's not weird. We've already figured out that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, so we've no reason to worry about this opinion either.


----------



## Pte. Jay (4 Oct 2012)

No idea what I'm talking about? That's sort of rude... The 92FS is just a personal favourite so i , that's ME, wouldn't mind if the military picked some up. And yes, its SIG, I misspelled it :3


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Oct 2012)

Pte. Jay said:
			
		

> No idea what I'm talking about? That's sort of rude... The 92FS is just a personal favourite so i , that's ME, wouldn't mind if the military picked some up. And yes, its SIG, I misspelled it :3



What's rude is some noob breaking in on a conversation, held by people that have BTDT. People that have used those tools on a daily basis. People that know what they are talking about.

Not someone that can only make a general statement on his uncle's gun that he's held a few times. Liking the 92 because you've got a few rounds at some cans and calling the rest second rate, before having truly worked them, is amateurish and the type of comment that doesn't belong here.

Here, and now in the AK-47 thread, your inexperience and youthful enthusiasm is showing. It's starting to turn a number of members against you in your first ten posts.

Back off and do some reading here, learn a bit and gain some experience. It's OK not to know everything

Otherwise, you might end up leaving soon with a bad taste for your time here.


----------



## Pte. Jay (4 Oct 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> What's rude is some noob breaking in on a conversation, held by people that have BTDT. People that have used those tools on a daily basis. People that know what they are talking about.
> 
> Not someone that can only make a general statement on his uncle's gun that he's held a few times. Liking the 92 because you've got a few rounds at some cans and calling the rest second rate, before having truly worked them, is amateurish and the type of comment that doesn't belong here.
> 
> ...


See, this is good. I AM a noob to these forums. I've been here reading a while (a year about) but I've just recently started posting... if there's something I'm doing wrong, tell me and it won't happen again


----------



## Scott (4 Oct 2012)

No need for others to do so, the PM has been sent.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Oct 2012)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Puckchaser -- I'm sorry but I call BS on that.
> 
> CANSOF has (or had) instructor cadre that can be called upon to conduct training.  However the biggest issue that one tends to see if either the unit refusing to budget - or refusing to accept that the internal personnel they have are not capable of instructing something - or not knowing what they don't know.



I tell people that I can shoot pistol despite my army training, it was the blind leading the blind.


----------



## LordOsborne (4 Oct 2012)

My army training regarding the pistol has been very brief and generally stodgy 'by the pam' type of instruction. Granted, the instructors who taught the BHP to me were probably going through the same motions that they received when they got taught on it too. I hope that when the GSP is finally selected, someone goes through the trouble of rewriting the pam and adding new techniques to reflect the advances in pistol shooting that have occurred since the BHP pam was last written (things like a proper grip, stance, new IA drills etc). Ideally, the instructor would be someone who is actually switched on and a bit of a SME, but that's not always possible. 

 Earlier there was some discussion about the barrel length specification - keep in mind that the GSP requirement is for a _minimum barrel length_ of 102mm. I think that ties into their criteria for the pistol to be "full length" (as opposed to compact or sub-compact). I'm still scratching my head as to which pistol could fit the bill.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Oct 2012)

Fully agree, I would choose a compact polymer pistol like the G19, mainly as it saves weight and space on a already overcrowded body and reduces weight , even if it's a few ounces 

Source wiki, unloaded
G19 unloaded is 21 ounces 
226 is 34 ounces
BHP is 31.74 ounces
M9 is 36.3 ounces


----------



## KevinB (4 Oct 2012)

Colin, years ago I had to suffer thru the PSWQ, as I had all the courses, but Eryx ( :facepalm: yeah I had to take a course for a 2 day Eryx class).  The Sgt who was teaching the pistol part was a buddy of mine for years - he was a student too (another Eryx victim) but he did not know the pistol if it ran him down, he lost a page of IA's and I had to explain it to him that he was missing some, this became a 35min lecture by me on how the pistol functions etc.
  Fortunately our section were all relatively older folks all stuck in the Eryx vacuum - and no one got bent out of shape that I ended up doing the pistol.  Having a ISCC, Small Arms Course etc does not immediately confer SME status on anything, and its not a slight on anyone to note they do not have the tools to teach something fully.


Patrick0  - barrel length and other physical characteristics always worry me - a better comment would be the Muzzle Velocity of the 9mm ball cartridge needs to be X when fired from the GSP, and the accuracy of the weapon must be Y when fired at x range (which I would recommend testing from a rest).  
   Writing requirement documents must write to a requirement/specification, and its always better to have a performance spec as opposed to a rather arbitrary paper spec.



My first personal handgun circa 1989 was a Beretta 92-FS, it was the first one I sold...
 I've been issued BHP's, Sigs, Glocks, and even a M9.  I've also carried a 1911 for work (we shall call it 'self issue'  ) - also a 9mmMak and a few Pen guns (always fun on the BRR  ;D )
Personally I've owned a plethora of handguns - I've yet to find the perfect gun, but my current gun is a M&P45


MPRick - Dev does not use the 226, the vanilla SEAL's do.  Dev uses the Hk45C


----------



## MeatheadMick (4 Oct 2012)

KevinB said:
			
		

> MPRick - Dev does not use the 226, the vanilla SEAL's do.  Dev uses the Hk45C



Fair enough, I was under the impression ST6 was renamed DEVGRU, and it's common knowledge the SEALs use the P226... sorry for blanketing them in the same light, as a Canuck, I'm not super familiar with the workings of the DOD. Cheers.


----------



## JorgSlice (4 Oct 2012)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Fully agree, I would choose a compact polymer pistol like the G19, mainly as it saves weight and space on a already overcrowded body and reduces weight , even if it's a few ounces
> 
> Source wiki, unloaded
> G19 unloaded is 21 ounces
> ...



I can't speak for having to carry a service pistol in an operational standpoint (yet... got a fancy new semi-civy-side job), but I'm sure the reduced weight is a godsend at the end of the day, however I much prefer a pistol that has some weight to it like the 226 vice the G18(C)/19(C). It makes me feel I have a little more control and confidence in my firearm (although it should be confidence in myself rather than the pistol). 

Alberta Sheriffs issue the Glock 20 10mm Auto so I have no other choice but to suck it up and get used to a Glock


----------



## MeatheadMick (4 Oct 2012)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> I can't speak for having to carry a service pistol in an operational standpoint (yet... got a fancy new semi-civy-side job), but I'm sure the reduced weight is a godsend at the end of the day, however I much prefer a pistol that has some weight to it like the 226 vice the G18(C)/19(C). It makes me feel I have a little more control and confidence in my firearm (although it should be confidence in myself rather than the pistol).
> 
> Alberta Sheriffs issue the Glock 20 10mm Auto so I have no other choice but to suck it up and get used to a Glock



Grats on getting a job with the Sheriffs!  Both EPS and CPS use Glock models too. It's a very popular firearm for policing. I'm not personally a fan of the Glock, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the way it shoots. If I had to carry a Glock, I would not have a problem with it. My preference is still Sig though, and very happy to carry one as a meathead.


----------



## JorgSlice (4 Oct 2012)

MPMick said:
			
		

> Grats on getting a job with the Sheriffs!  Both EPS and CPS use Glock models too. It's a very popular firearm for policing. I'm not personally a fan of the Glock, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the way it shoots. If I had to carry a Glock, I would not have a problem with it. My preference is still Sig though, and very happy to carry one as a meathead.



As is mine, but alas, I may grow to like it


----------



## LordOsborne (5 Oct 2012)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Colin, years ago I had to suffer thru the PSWQ, as I had all the courses, but Eryx ( :facepalm: yeah I had to take a course for a 2 day Eryx class).  The Sgt who was teaching the pistol part was a buddy of mine for years - he was a student too (another Eryx victim) but he did not know the pistol if it ran him down, he lost a page of IA's and I had to explain it to him that he was missing some, this became a 35min lecture by me on how the pistol functions etc.
> Fortunately our section were all relatively older folks all stuck in the Eryx vacuum - and no one got bent out of shape that I ended up doing the pistol.  Having a ISCC, Small Arms Course etc does not immediately confer SME status on anything, and its not a slight on anyone to note they do not have the tools to teach something fully.
> 
> 
> ...




Kevin, you make a good point regarding performance vs paper specs. My gut tells me that they're trying to shoehorn a certain pistol, or at the very least exclude a number of other pistols by demanding a certain minimum barrel length. I wonder when they're going to re-issue their updated request for proposal for the GSP and ranger rifle.


----------



## Redeye (5 Oct 2012)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> Kevin, you make a good point regarding performance vs paper specs. My gut tells me that they're trying to shoehorn a certain pistol, or at the very least exclude a number of other pistols by demanding a certain minimum barrel length. I wonder when they're going to re-issue their updated request for proposal for the GSP and ranger rifle.



The minimum barrel length only really excludes compact pistols like the G19. Most NATO standard pistols have at least a 4" barrel.


----------



## KevinB (5 Oct 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The minimum barrel length only really excludes compact pistols like the G19. Most NATO standard pistols have at least a 4" barrel.



And the Sig P2022...

My point is the barrel length issue is utterly stupid - it should be a performance spec.  

This same issue came up years ago with the IOR buy of the AR10T's - the CF demanded a 24" barrel - when the M110, Mk11's etc where 20" and there was no rationale for the 24" other than because.  KAC would not submit a 24" gun, as years ago after Somalia they had been forced to replace the 24" barrels with 20" barrels by the initial user group.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Oct 2012)

It's a shame the CF is still stuck on stupid criteria which is are an obvious attempt to exclude certain pistols from the onset.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Oct 2012)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> Alberta Sheriffs issue the Glock 20 10mm Auto so I have no other choice but to suck it up and get used to a Glock



Seriously a 10mm? man what are they escorting grizzly bears?  

a long slide 10mm glock would be my choice for a sidearm in bear country, but it's a lot of gun for everyday carry and quite beamy in the grip.


----------



## medicineman (5 Oct 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> It's a shame the CF is still stuck on stupid criteria which is are an obvious attempt to exclude certain pistols from the onset.



Sort of makes you wonder if they're actually interested in buying anything at all...just  the cynic in me coming out I guess.

MM


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Oct 2012)

I suspect it's more a lack of experiance in the people writing the criteria and to many cooks tossing in to many 'mandatory requirements".


----------



## MJP (5 Oct 2012)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Colin, years ago I had to suffer thru the PSWQ, as I had all the courses, but Eryx ( :facepalm: yeah I had to take a course for a 2 day Eryx class).  The Sgt who was teaching the pistol part was a buddy of mine for years - he was a student too (another Eryx victim) but he did not know the pistol if it ran him down, he lost a page of IA's and I had to explain it to him that he was missing some, this became a 35min lecture by me on how the pistol functions etc.
> Fortunately our section were all relatively older folks all stuck in the Eryx vacuum - and no one got bent out of shape that I ended up doing the pistol.  Having a ISCC, Small Arms Course etc does not immediately confer SME status on anything, and its not a slight on anyone to note they do not have the tools to teach something fully.



Ahhh yes That was an awesome course.  Of course the same thing happened for the 60mm mortar.   Well planned that course was...


----------



## Ostrozac (5 Oct 2012)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect it's more a lack of experiance in the people writing the criteria and to many cooks tossing in to many 'mandatory requirements".



The truth.

If they were trying to cook the books to buy a specific pistol -- Glock 17 or Sig 226 or Beretta M9 or whatever, by now someone in this group would have figured out a pistol that actually meets the requirements. Instead it looks like they phoned the army, the MP's, and the boarding parties, asked each to email what their top 5 mandatory requirements were, copied and pasted them into a list of 15 -- and sent it out to the world. Without checking to see if such a weapon actually exists. Which it doesn't.


----------



## NavyShooter (5 Oct 2012)

Sounds like JSS in a micro sort of way....

Alas, the cost of procurement/testing/etc will far exceed the actual cost of the weapons themselves I suspect.

NS


----------



## KevinB (5 Oct 2012)

MJP said:
			
		

> Ahhh yes That was an awesome course.  Of course the same thing happened for the 60mm mortar.   Well planned that course was...



I forgot you were there too.

Oh the Mortar segment -- I think I was stupider for most parts of that course, I know the Mortar, Pistol, Small Arms Coach, and Machine Gun all sucked knowledge from me rather than imparted knowledge.

But I was then Eryx qualified  :


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Oct 2012)

So Kevin was this you  ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZPOfwVhokI


----------



## MeatheadMick (5 Oct 2012)

I love that video... a little big for a BHP replacement


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Oct 2012)

Thanks, for nothing.... Marcel Masse.  GD! What a fine, fine MND he was.  Those were the days.    :


----------



## JorgSlice (5 Oct 2012)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Seriously a 10mm? man what are they escorting grizzly bears?
> 
> a long slide 10mm glock would be my choice for a sidearm in bear country, but it's a lot of gun for everyday carry and quite beamy in the grip.



I was quite surprised too! I guess when you need to punch through pick up trucks and body armour... lol


----------



## DirtyDog (7 Oct 2012)

Snaketnk said:
			
		

> In the grand scheme of things, carrying a pistol with two mags didn't add a whole lot to the weight of the stuff I was carrying; relative to the water, ammo, and other stuff.


The pistol was one of the first things I, and a lot of guys, ditched when we decided to had to start cutting weight from our loads.  It was a cost to benefit decision.

I brought it along when I thought I could afford the extra encumbrance, and it was always handy in the turret, but extended dismounted ops... it stayed at home.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (7 Oct 2012)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Seriously a 10mm? man what are they escorting grizzly bears?
> 
> a long slide 10mm glock would be my choice for a sidearm in bear country, but it's a lot of gun for everyday carry and quite beamy in the grip.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 10 mm the metric equivalent of the .40 cal.? That makes it smaller than a .45 or .44, both pretty common calibres.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Oct 2012)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> The pistol was one of the first things I, and a lot of guys, ditched when we decided to had to start cutting weight from our loads.  It was a cost to benefit decision.
> 
> I brought it along when I thought I could afford the extra encumbrance, and it was always handy in the turret, but extended dismounted ops... it stayed at home.



At least you weren't banned from carrying a pistol because it made you look like an officer or SNCO :

I still prefer to put up with the weight of a pistol and a few mags- a compact pistol would be ideal though.


----------



## Snaketnk (7 Oct 2012)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> I brought it along when I thought I could afford the extra encumbrance, and it was always handy in the turret, *but extended dismounted ops...* it stayed at home.



In that case I'd totally agree with you. I kept my pistol on my rig, and we switched a lot between "extended dismounted ops (10+ hours)" and mounted ops; I wasn't about to start rearranging my rig from day to day; and it really didn't seem to add a lot compared to the other ammo I was carrying.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Oct 2012)

10mm is about the same diameter as a .40 round, but the terminology is different because the 10mm is 10X 25mm, while .40 is 10X 22mm.

The 3mm difference in cartridge case length may not seem significant, but the recoil of the 10mm was considered so powerful (especially for shooters with small hands) that the FBI (who had adopted it first) withdrew that calibre and went to .40 for their service pistols. Obviously the units still using 10mm are filled with manly men.


----------



## KevinB (8 Oct 2012)

The FBI who originally adopted the gun - ended up getting the 10mm ammo downloaded - to the spec's of what became .40S&W.
  10mm in its full loading is a lot of bullet -- usually better suited to the 10mm MP-5's that the FBI was using.

9mm with a good JHP loading no better or worse than the other big name calibers for terminal performance.  However for Mil usage where the use of JHP ammo has been decreed to be bad, then a large FMJ bullet is often preferable - one reason that the next US Mil gun will most likley be in .45ACP

In the grand scheme Canada is going to adopt a 9mm handgun and issue ball ammo to the GPF.
  Units conducting Law Enforcement or Anti/Counter Terrorism roles are not limited to ball ammo and the necessities of the Hague Convention


----------



## DirtyDog (8 Oct 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> At least you weren't banned from carrying a pistol because it made you look like an officer or SNCO :


Indeed.  I shudder to think....


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Oct 2012)

I just had my hands on a Sig P226, what an awesome pistol.

I'm going to bet the CF in it's wisdom replaces our brownings with those  ;D


----------



## MeatheadMick (9 Oct 2012)

That it is OZ. I recently turned down the chance on owning a Sig Pro P2022 because for another 200 bucks I could get a P226


----------



## KevinB (9 Oct 2012)

Good guns - I never cared for Sig's DAO trigger, and I replaced my gun with the short trigger, but it take a lot of practise to get used to DA/SA triggers, and I was never that good as I was with a gun with a single trigger for a complete string - and especially a first round under stress.

  I still insist if I only had one handgun it would be a G19, its pretty much the perfect stupid persons gun -- pull gun, pull trigger, repeat as necessary, and reload, reholster.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Oct 2012)

MPMick said:
			
		

> That it is OZ. I recently turned down the chance on owning a Sig Pro P2022 because for another 200 bucks I could get a P226



So uhh shoot me a PM and we can work out a price for that 226 after my next purchase (.308)

Cool pics Kevin.  (Stole your grip tape idea for my .45 before)


The SIG feels like it's make to shoot evil doers in the face.


----------



## KevinB (9 Oct 2012)

On metal guns (and plastic fantastic issue guns) its much easier to add grip tape to the gun, than checker/stripple whatever.
  I know some who use Hockey tape - but I find the grip tape is better for me, I tend to sweat a ton when I'm scared 'working', and if I need my pistol, odds are I'm running a pretty tight O ring by that point.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Oct 2012)

KevinB said:
			
		

> ...I tend to sweat a ton when I'm scared 'working', and if I need my pistol, odds are I'm running a pretty tight O ring by that point.



World's most interesting man: "I don't always need my pistol, but when I do, I run a pretty tight 'O' ring..."

 ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Oct 2012)

Just for comparison to the 226 pictures here are the Sig 2340 and 2022, the 2340 is out of production, basically same as the 2022 but uses the Sig rail


----------



## ouyin2000 (23 Aug 2013)

So the recent PM's visit to the north has brought back the issue of the Rangers needing new rifles. Has anyone heard anything about the BHP replacement lately? Is it still shelved until they figure out a better criteria?


----------



## NavyShooter (23 Aug 2013)

Are there any other new pistols on the market that will fit the requirements yet I wonder?

Or have they changed the requirements?

NS




			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> Well I copy pasted this from above - I wonder what "Full size" means?
> 
> 1. Full Size, DAO Trigger
> 2. Current NATO Service + 2 years
> ...


----------



## Haggis (24 Aug 2013)

Unless I missed it (scrolling through this thread after midnight), has this august group of posters considered the Beretta PX4 Storm, similar to what's used by the CBSA?

Granted the CBSA model has a 102 mm barrel and a magazine disconnect, but Beretta offers much more than one model of the PX4 Storm.


----------



## KevinB (25 Aug 2013)

Not in use by a NATO military...


----------



## J.J (25 Aug 2013)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Unless I missed it (scrolling through this thread after midnight), has this august group of posters considered the Beretta PX4 Storm, similar to what's used by the CBSA?
> 
> Granted the CBSA model has a 102 mm barrel and a magazine disconnect, but Beretta offers much more than one model of the PX4 Storm.



They're junk and pray the CF avoids them. They require frequent servicing, break easily and several have come from the factory with some serious issues (sights, pitted barrels etc)


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Aug 2013)

I wonder how much of the issue is CBSA lack of firearms experience and how much is the market pressure on Beretta to supply guns? A lot of manufacturers seem to suffer Quality issues attempting to keep up to the demand. A quick google does not show a horrendous level of complaint, most of it seems directed towards how the company handles customer issues rather than the guns.


----------



## KevinB (26 Aug 2013)

Even folks I know who work for Berretta tell others to avoid that gun.
  It stunk in any US entity testing I am aware of.

I would SERIOUSLY question who tested the CBSA guns, and what the test criteria was.


Looking at the current crop of 9mm guns, I think the Hk P30 is probably the "best gun" - barrel is too short for the CF.

The UK is going Glock, but the requirements of the SOW say that the trigger must not need to be depressed for dis-assembly.

Smith and Wesson M&P9 can be dis-assembled without firing the trigger - but I am not aware of NATO Army adoption.
  
My current CCW is a M&P9 CORE (with Leupold DeltaPoint and SF X300 WML) - as much as I like the ability to place an optic, I don't think the Miniature Red Dots are yet ready for a service pistol beyond some limited HR and covert pistol only roles inside SMU's.


As an honest look at what the CF needs, the S&W M&P9 is probably the best candidate for the weapon (I have no financial ties to S&W BTW).
  Smith may be willing to allow the CF to buy a version of the TDP
  They are in MA, and not too far from the border (8 hrs by car) that Tech Visits would be problematic (Hk or Glock).
However once again not in NATO service - and the mag release is ambi by swapping, so it would depend on the interpretation of ambi, and is striker fired not DOA

Hk P30 is a nice gun - the P30L (longer barrel and slide) - the advantages to it are the grip is modular (which I cannot believe in this day and age that no one required in the SOW for the Pistol...) so the shooter can change the width and length of the grip to accommodate their hands.


----------



## Ostrozac (26 Aug 2013)

The criteria for our new service pistol will simply have to be revised, since the original pistol that was described didn't exist, and due to the requirement that it already be in service with a NATO country, no company could modify an existing pistol to meet the requirements. The CF will have to think carefully about what they want, which they didn't do the last time around. If some of the requirements are driven by legal liability issues for military police, or are features intended to reduce negligent discharges, maybe those requirements will have to be met, and things like an inch of barrel length can be handwaved away.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Aug 2013)

The G19 is likely a great choice, but I agree with kevinB, I think the M&P is a tad better. I have the basic M&P and now also the Compact 9mm, shooting it yesterday, it's a fabulous gun to shoot and from the draw every round went into a 8"x11" target at 20m. Despite the pistol being operated by self.....


----------



## KevinB (26 Aug 2013)

For a small fee I would be willing to liaise with the user communities and distill a viable RFP.

 :nod:


----------



## J.J (26 Aug 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I wonder how much of the issue is CBSA lack of firearms experience and how much is the market pressure on Beretta to supply guns? A lot of manufacturers seem to suffer Quality issues attempting to keep up to the demand. A quick google does not show a horrendous level of complaint, most of it seems directed towards how the company handles customer issues rather than the guns.



How can a pistol coming from the factory with sight issues or a pitted barrel have ANYTHING to do with a level of experience? I am speaking from my experiences and knowledge, I don't need Google. The PX4 has been in service for 6 years and it is still has several issues. 



			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> Even folks I know who work for Berretta tell others to avoid that gun.
> It stunk in any US entity testing I am aware of.
> 
> I would SERIOUSLY question who tested the CBSA guns, and what the test criteria was.



It was contracted out to the RCMP (who have some experience with firearms). The selection tests appear to have been conducted fairly, they looked at 5 or 6 different products, but service issues and longevity are whats wrong now.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Aug 2013)

I was speaking to this line: _They require frequent servicing, break easily_

I should have been clearer in my comment that it addressed both issues.


----------



## KevinB (27 Aug 2013)

Perhaps I get spoiled dealing with my customer base but most folks who test a firearm do the following.

1) Write an articulated Requirements Document based on the needs (real and perceived) from their entity.
2) Sometimes they even publish a draft RFP to get feedback from Industry to ensure they have a real product identified
3) Screen the responses to get viable candidates
4) Conduct Baseline testing with the viable candidates (Assess for paper conformity to SOW, Initial Testing (Accuracy, Reliability, User/Human Factors)
5) Short List Candidates to a manageable field (entity dependent) 
6) Conduct Limited Operational Testing with small sample size, in conjunction with enhanced reliability & lifecycle testing, Environmental testing 
7) Award Contract - and perhaps award it to three companies to give "failure option" with the preferred option.


For those not familiar with #6
  This typically will be done with a No Cost Loan Agreement and samples sent by the manufacturer.
If we say 10 samples - 5 would go for Operational Testing, 3 would be placed in Enhanced Reliability and LifeCycle testing (estimate service life is say 100,000 rounds and/or 10 years - so each gun would be run thru 100,000 round with MRBS and MRBF calculated to that point.  As well 2 weapons would be shot to MRBF in Environmental testing - extreme hot, extreme cold, Salt Spray, Mud, wet/water immersion, dusty etc.  Whatever is service relevant.

 While I agree the RCMP has some good experiences and resources in terms of people and facilities - I am curious as to what the CBSA asked the RCMP to do, as that would have determined what the Firearms Lab was allowed to do in the testing protocols.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Aug 2013)

I was shooting an HK P30L last week and it's an amazing pistol to shoot. It feels like a lot of work was put into making it comfortable and ergonomic. Hopefully if I managed to get my hands on an HK45 it will be just as smooth.

The must be in use by nato critia seems pretty silly to me.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Aug 2013)

The NATO requirement at first blush sounds reasonable, a tried and combat tested platform. Except that pretty much all the NATO partners are in the same boat in regards to pistols. Technically the Glock now qualifies for that bit, as does the M9. The local sheriffs here have almost all transitioned to the M&P and everyone I have talked to is pleased.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (27 Aug 2013)

What happened to private purchase? Done deal.


----------



## KevinB (27 Aug 2013)

I love the 1911 - however it is 1) an enthusiasts pistol 2) Armorer and Part intensive.

  Anyone suggesting it for a combat duty pistol needs to be taken out and beaten to death with one...


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (27 Aug 2013)

I do my smithin' myself; saves a lot of moneys.

Didn't you carry one the mid east?


----------



## KevinB (27 Aug 2013)

I did -- I built it from parts along with a Aussie SAS Assaulter who was a machinist in a previous life.
  
I had the ability to work on it, a supply of parts and ammo, and a Glock19 that was issued as a backup.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (27 Aug 2013)

Glock as a back up, eh? I can hear TDC raging right now in debt free Alberta.


----------



## JorgSlice (31 Aug 2013)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> Glock as a back up, eh? I can hear TDC raging right now in debt free Alberta.



"debt free"

Hahaha haha not anymore sadly


----------



## a_majoor (10 Nov 2013)

Since finances will probably push a new pistol purchase to when I become Imperator, a question becomes "what sort of new unconventional technology exists for sidearms?"

We know that telescoped caseless or semi cased ammunition has progressed to the point that plausible service weapons like LSAT, a rifle derived from the LSAT and the HK G-11 rifle were developed and in the case of the G-11 even adopted by the armed forces (for a breif moment anyway). Miniature explosive rounds like the 20mm rounds for the XM-25 and the Korean K-11, or explosive Frag-12 gauge shotgun shells for the AA-12 are another evolutionary path that longarms are going, but this seems a bit unlikely for sidearms (Of course, saying "Go ahead, make my day" when holding a 20mm pistol would be pretty convincing....).

So looking down the road, is there some new concept that will change sidearms, or maybe we should be thinkig of something entirely different like PDWs to replace the idea of sidearms?


----------



## KevinB (11 Nov 2013)

I'm fine with PDW's in a useful cartridge -- however the subcal handgun/PDW round from several manufacturers have some significant shortcomings.

The AAC Honeybadger in .300BK may prove to be a good option for troops who don't need a full sized rifle/carbine -- however I still do feel there is a role for a pistol.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Nov 2013)

Pistols are restrained by the hands that hold them. People struggled with the 10mm. Not much is likely to change in pistols except lighter materials. There is the Boberg pistol that uses a feed mech similar to MG's which gives you a smallish gun with a longer barrel.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Nov 2013)

Honeybadger is nice, but seems a bit on the large side for a PDW. Of course the .300 cartridge makes this more of a carabine than a PDW anyway.

Reading about the Boberg pistol was also very interesting, although in its present form it certainly does not have many of the "features" wanted for the replacement pistol program. Perhaps especially odd for long time semi-auto pistol users is the fact the slide does not lock to the rear on the last round due to the way the ammunition feed works. I wonder how clearing stoppages will work aside from holding the slide manually to the rear while trying to shake out the obstruction, or the old favorite of having the slide locked to the rear to prove the weapon safe on a range. Still worth looking into for its innovative design.


----------



## KevinB (17 Nov 2013)

Problem with micro caliber PDW's in the ammo does not have any terminal performance.
Go thru Soft Armor sure - but a 4-6mm ice pick wound track.   

The PWD armed soldier still needs to fight a AK armed opponent -- hopefully outfight them which means 300m performance


----------



## a_majoor (18 Nov 2013)

The claimed performance of the 5.7mm X 28 is that it is supposed to allow engagements up to 200m against armour and have sufficient terminal power to kill or disable an opponent (particularly since the bullet tends to tumble end over end in ballistic gelatin).

Still, bigger is better in most cases, and while I'd certainly take this over a 4.7mm round, something like a .40 or even a 10mm in a pistol or PDW would be more comforting.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Nov 2013)

Not really adding to the discussion but talking about PDWs made me think of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magpul_PDR


----------



## KevinB (1 Dec 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The claimed performance of the 5.7mm X 28 is that it is supposed to allow engagements up to 200m against armour and have sufficient terminal power to kill or disable an opponent (particularly since the bullet tends to tumble end over end in ballistic gelatin).
> 
> Still, bigger is better in most cases, and while I'd certainly take this over a 4.7mm round, something like a .40 or even a 10mm in a pistol or PDW would be more comforting.



I've I could ever fathom how to upload PDF's to my photobucket account I'd list a good review on the 5.7 and 4.6 rds "a great way to ensure mission failure" by LCdr Gary Robert.
  I know several folks who used to be issued P90's and their entities have shelved them due to significant failures to stop.  
The Hk MP-7 in 4.6 is in the same boat -- but it is small enough to stick under a set of man jammies if your doing low-vis work.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Not really adding to the discussion but talking about PDWs made me think of this.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magpul_PDR



Actually, I think that adds a lot to the discussion, since we now have a way of delivering the desired effect without having to change ammunition or even magazines. Without full scale development, it is hard to say how it will perform "for real", but if it is easily controllable then I could totally see somthing like this with a reflex sight being perfectly acceptable as a PDW/pistol replacement.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Dec 2013)

Not much different that the Mini-tavor


----------



## a_majoor (6 Dec 2013)

Started thinking about that design in 6.5mm; you would _never_ say it had a lack of knock down power then...


----------



## KevinB (9 Dec 2013)

Old pics - but gets the point across.












Even a small PDW like ours (KAC) is a lot bigger than a pistol.   There are some roles that you really want a pistol for that a PDW will not fill.


----------



## Dissident (9 Dec 2013)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaj2TnQjPHE


----------



## a_majoor (9 Dec 2013)

I think the argument for a PDW (in the military context) is that pistols don't really have much utiltiy on the modern battlefield, at least in regular military formations. The only reasons I was _ever_ issued a pistol was to emphasise that I was a person in a command position (which did leave me with an uncomfortable feeling on more than one occasion, as I was clearly a target with little ability to respond). If I was carrying a PDW, then it would be clear that not only I was in a command position, but I had the ability to respond in kind. PDWs can also provide the compact firepower for CQB; naval boarding parties use H&K MP-5's with similar size/weight profiles.

Now for operators, maybe a PDW might not meet the bill for some mission profiles, but then they have the sort of budget that buying something like the H&K USP in .40, 10mm or .45 ACP would not be a problem.


----------



## KevinB (10 Dec 2013)

I've never seen a pistol issued without another weapon for cbt arms folks.

Pistols overseas communicate a bunch of things -- in Afghan and Iraq folks used to get execute with pistols, so pull a pistol and folks think your serious (yeah the pointing a carbine, MG or Grenade Launcher did not make the point).

Confined spaces - this is where the pistol comes into its own - also as a secondary weapon if the primary has a stoppage, and in tube entries (bus, train, a/c etc) you may have two pistols.

Other than the MP-5SD - no one is intentionally carrying a 9mm/.40/.45 long gun anymore, and for most folks the 9".300BK uppers are replacing the SD, as you still have a 300m gun, as opposed to a 100m gun.


----------

