Replacement of Browning HP, Sig Sauer 225 begins

[R031button]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.