New duty gun coming down the pike....probably.....

[RamRoddoc]

Our decision to go with the P320 has NOTHING to do with the US Army’s selection of a similar handgun. Trust me on this. I’m friends with folks on the inside of the firearms testing for our next handgun. We tested a bunch of guns, for various reasons the final 2 contestants were the FN and the P320. The guys that are conducting the testing genuinely liked the P320 X5, for its combination of features and its performance in accuracy and reliability in the testing. That’s the end of the story.

Our contract has absolutely nothing to do with the US Army’s acquisition of a totally different variation of the P320. Additionally, Federal LE agency’s can’t even piggyback on a military contract; it’s not even two end users that can be linked.

The US Army’s contract is for a totally different weapon, so even if they could be linked, we couldn’t piggyback because the weapons are not the same. In order to piggyback, we have to get the same weapon. For instance, we have our current P229 .357SIG because we piggybacked for the exact same weapon off the existing USSS contract.

I have no idea what you mean about your comment on the .357SIG caliber choice. I will state that we had some specific reasons for considering that caliber, and they made sense. Now we don’t have a choice because DHS has mandated that all agencies within DHS have to switch to 9mm.

Is the rumor true that they are going to FDE color?

 

[Clarke123]

Our decision to go with the P320 has NOTHING to do with the US Army’s selection of a similar handgun. Trust me on this. I’m friends with folks on the inside of the firearms testing for our next handgun. We tested a bunch of guns, for various reasons the final 2 contestants were the FN and the P320. The guys that are conducting the testing genuinely liked the P320 X5, for its combination of features and its performance in accuracy and reliability in the testing. That’s the end of the story.

Our contract has absolutely nothing to do with the US Army’s acquisition of a totally different variation of the P320. Additionally, Federal LE agency’s can’t even piggyback on a military contract; it’s not even two end users that can be linked.

The US Army’s contract is for a totally different weapon, so even if they could be linked, we couldn’t piggyback because the weapons are not the same. In order to piggyback, we have to get the same weapon. For instance, we have our current P229 .357SIG because we piggybacked for the exact same weapon off the existing USSS contract.

I have no idea what you mean about your comment on the .357SIG caliber choice. I will state that we had some specific reasons for considering that caliber, and they made sense. Now we don’t have a choice because DHS has mandated that all agencies within DHS have to switch to 9mm.

OK, My apologizes for having jumped to a conclusion!! ... Having sold to many federal agencies as well as DoD for more than 30 years I became aware of some of the really thoughtless, and costly acquisitions that were sometimes made. Acquisitions that compromised missions with communication gear that couldn't communicate with other agencies, gear where spare parts were not available from domestic sources, gear that had no real specifications (YES, that happened a lot!). I wasn't aware that federal agencies couldn't access DoD contracts ... I do know that DoD has a program (1122), that allows local and state law enforcement to access GSA contracts whereby they buy vests, handcuffs, trucks and automobiles, bullets, and firearms, even armored cars and helicopter blades. It would appear incredible that DoD would disallow access to other federal LE agencies!! But, I have seen worse!

My (apparently mistaken) understanding of the DoD contract with SIG in that it supposedly provided for flexibility in caliber for the same basic frame. That was supposed to be the essence of the acquisition: one basic frame that could be easily adapted to mission requirements and changed back again without special tools or equipment.

Insomuch that you guys are changing from 357 SIG, I will fly more comfortably knowing that there isn't a weapon on board that could fire projectiles that easily penetrate people in the cabin then through the walls of the cabin as well as the locked door to the cockpit! Then again, I may have (once again) assumed something that isn't factual; Hopefully, the projectiles were or will be frangible!

I know that in the"Bad old Days" when hijackings were a weekly event, pilots were arming themselves with .38 Wad Cutters; mainly to minimize events of envelope compromise ...

Stay safe, and my please accept my apology as well as thanks for your service to our country!

 

[cmshoot]

OK, My apologizes for having jumped to a conclusion!! ... Having sold to many federal agencies as well as DoD for more than 30 years I became aware of some of the really thoughtless, and costly acquisitions that were sometimes made. Acquisitions that compromised missions with communication gear that couldn't communicate with other agencies, gear where spare parts were not available from domestic sources, gear that had no real specifications (YES, that happened a lot!). I wasn't aware that federal agencies couldn't access DoD contracts ... I do know that DoD has a program (1122), that allows local and state law enforcement to access GSA contracts whereby they buy vests, handcuffs, trucks and automobiles, bullets, and firearms, even armored cars and helicopter blades. It would appear incredible that DoD would disallow access to other federal LE agencies!! But, I have seen worse!

My (apparently mistaken) understanding of the DoD contract with SIG in that it supposedly provided for flexibility in caliber for the same basic frame. That was supposed to be the essence of the acquisition: one basic frame that could be easily adapted to mission requirements and changed back again without special tools or equipment.

Insomuch that you guys are changing from 357 SIG, I will fly more comfortably knowing that there isn't a weapon on board that could fire projectiles that easily penetrate people in the cabin then through the walls of the cabin as well as the locked door to the cockpit! Then again, I may have (once again) assumed something that isn't factual; Hopefully, the projectiles were or will be frangible!

I know that in the"Bad old Days" when hijackings were a weekly event, pilots were arming themselves with .38 Wad Cutters; mainly to minimize events of envelope compromise ...

Stay safe, and my please accept my apology as well as thanks for your service to our country!

No they aren’t frangible. There are many specific instances where deep penetration is an asset. There are no perfect calibers or bullet types; Murphy says when you need penetration you’ll have a round that won’t, and when you don’t need it your ammo will go far and deep. Also, we don’t just work on airplanes. Give us a round that is perfectly designed for aircraft use and it won’t work so well anywhere else.

For about 15 years now, and per FAA mandate, all commercial cockpit doors are bulletproof.

 

[Burdy]

Highway Patrol/State Patrol units like the .357 Sig for its performance through car doors, pillars, and autoglass. I've always thought it was a strange choice for an airplane but I have obviously never conducted a ballistics shoot using airplane material. .357 Sig is hell on a polymer pistol, ultimately I think the change to 9mm will be a good thing for overall quals/reliability.

 

[Mr. Goodbar]

I constantly debate changing from 357sig to 9mm in my edc, I just don’t know yet