• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Will 2021 see a new pistol buy?

Will the CAF's new pistol be a:

  • the new US service pistol, the Sig Sauer P320 (M17/M18)?

    Votes: 7 43.8%
  • the British version of the Glock 17?

    Votes: 3 18.8%
  • a Beretta APX?

    Votes: 1 6.3%
  • a Canadian designed Black Creek Labs PX17?

    Votes: 3 18.8%
  • a Norinco?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • something else?

    Votes: 2 12.5%

  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .

Czech_pivo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
199
Points
530
Just go to the Toronto Police Force and ask them to put out a contract to the CF's preferred manufacturer and then sell the pistols back to the CF as surplus goods and be done with it. I'm sure that the size of the order to arm the Toronto Police would be in comparable size to what we need to buy.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
674
Points
910
To sum things up, the Department tried to do an illegal sole-source buy of the Sig P320, got called out for it by the distributor for Glock and CZ, and now DND has to go completely back to the drawing board in addition to paying all legal costs for the challenge.

Do I have that about right?
It wasn't really a sole source. There were a few other pistols which could've fit the bill (someone else listed them in a previous post).

Notwithstanding the CITT decision, the project NPP is still open on buyandsell.gc.ca.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,140
Points
910
LOL - Not the Frame OR Pistol trigger group - it was a really interesting way to try to sole source the Sig 320 as it uses a trigger box - and the frames (historically the Firearm portion of the pistol) have a window to view the S/N


Question 66:
#3.5.2 The C22 FF pistol trigger group must be permanently stamped or engraved with a unique serial number~“ & #3.5.3 The C22 FF pistol trigger group serial number must be visible when the C22 FF pistol fully assembled.

It is impossible to be permanently stamper or engraved serial number on the trigger group due to very narrow space. And because of the narrow space, it’s impossible to show the serial number when the C22 FF pistol fully assembled. So we’d like to ask you whether this clause can be deleted or not.

Answer 66:
No your offering must meet requirements 3.5.2 and 3.5.3 to be considered compliant.



I would have chosen a different route to argue their point, and used the CCC Requirements for Frame Marking of a Firearm.
 

LoboCanada

Full Member
Reaction score
72
Points
330
Judging from their website, Colt Canada doesn't manufacture pistols in Canada, so would CZ just have to fly CZ or Colt pistol machinery over or build a copy here. Either way, I can't imagine much of a difference in cost.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,140
Points
910
Judging from their website, Colt Canada doesn't manufacture pistols in Canada, so would CZ just have to fly CZ or Colt pistol machinery over or build a copy here. Either way, I can't imagine much of a difference in cost.
With the C7/C8/C9 Diemaco was starting to produce in Canada, and Colt and FN where providing some parts from home, until Diemaco was 100% up and running with made in Canada items.

The difference then, was Diemaco was given the job of manufacturing what the CF had selected and that was contracted via PWGSC.
Then Colt and FN provided the TDP to the CF/Cdn Gov for manufacture -but Diemaco had no rights to sell outside of Canada.
That changed and Colt had Diemaco do European Sales when it was at Max Cap down here with M4's - and then Colt bought Diemaco.

The fact is that Colt Canada/CZ would still need to provide a complaint item, or be given first right of refusal to produce one.
Since they do not produce any pistols in Canada now, one can assume Colt had no interest in the CF Pistol - and if CZ will or won't remains to be seen.

Admittedly I am more surprised that no one attacked the SOW for really just being a fairly poor attempt at a Sole Source - as there is only one complaint item with all the "requirements" - and one can't really defend a lot of the "needs" than someone wanted the 320 over Glock, FN, CZ, etc.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
674
Points
910
I would have chosen a different route to argue their point, and used the CCC Requirements for Frame Marking of a Firearm.
The regulation that has been repeatedly had it's CIF date pushed to the right?
Judging from their website, Colt Canada doesn't manufacture pistols in Canada, so would CZ just have to fly CZ or Colt pistol machinery over or build a copy here.
Not yet, they don't.
Either way, I can't imagine much of a difference in cost.
Cost matters little to this Government if it results in more votes..
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,140
Points
910
The regulation that has been repeatedly had it's CIF date pushed to the right?
The marking law changes would help Sig - currently they NEED to be frame marked - and the CF SOW requirement is in direct violation of the CCC. The changes allow for them to be marked in the manner the Manufacture thinks is best - and visible - so it would allow for the tigger box type systems to be "the firearm" and marked as so.

Right now I do not see how any Sig 320's are legally marked by letter of the law in Canada.

While it doesn't stop the CF from doing that or having guns marked that way for issue -- it doesn't allow for submission samples not owned by the CF etc.

Cost matters little to this Government if it results in more votes..
Very true
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,869
Points
910
The marking law changes would help Sig - currently they NEED to be frame marked - and the CF SOW requirement is in direct violation of the CCC. The changes allow for them to be marked in the manner the Manufacture thinks is best - and visible - so it would allow for the tigger box type systems to be "the firearm" and marked as so.

Right now I do not see how any Sig 320's are legally marked by letter of the law in Canada.

While it doesn't stop the CF from doing that or having guns marked that way for issue -- it doesn't allow for submission samples not owned by the CF etc.


Very true
I thought the CAF was explicitly exempted from CCC firearms regulations?
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,140
Points
910
I thought the CAF was explicitly exempted from CCC firearms regulations?
They are - but in this instance only guns bought by the CF would have the exemption - so the distributor couldn't hold stock themselves...

At least in how I read the current guidelines on the Marking provisions - I would guess that Sig got some sort of allowance for the 320 - seeing as how I strongly doubt JTF-2 bought them solely out of a brochure (although the Mk43 and Mk14 buys in the early days lend a possibility to that...)
 
Last edited:
Top