• 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 .

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,333
Points
1,260
Maybe someone will 'accidentally' put few thousand of those pistols on a different aircraft and send them off to the CAF ;)
George Costanza Reaction GIF
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,527
Points
1,140
"Weird - Ukraine is asking for new LRP aircraft, RPAS, fighters, SAR aircraft, Tactical helicopters, Maritime helicopters, Refuelling aircraft, tac vests, flight suits, and pistols!" :unsure:
Would the Russians really have a use for captured surplus Canadian pistols? If so, send them Brownings.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,137
Points
1,060
As KevinB pointed out they be worth a lot of money on the collectors market. Knowing our government, they buy 20,000 pistols for the Ukrainians overnight and spend another decade before we get some.
 

markppcli

Full Member
Reaction score
363
Points
830
As KevinB pointed out they be worth a lot of money on the collectors market. Knowing our government, they buy 20,000 pistols for the Ukrainians overnight and spend another decade before we get some.
Well we were delivering new pistols to the ANP in like 2008 ( S&W MP 9mm, which I mean aren’t the best but I’d carry one over a browning) so I think a decade may be optimistic.
 

GreggH

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
10
I'm long out of the military game, but fully immersed in public procurement. Something prompted me to look at the pistol RFP. I've read the comments in this thread about some of the requirements which excluded Glock, but I couldn't find any on one I assume it can meet. I assume it isn't controversial because isn't blocking them, but it struck me as odd.

The requirement? The need for a .40 calibre conversion kit.

Last I heard, the 40 was dead or dying in the police and civilian markets. When did it ever have a place in the military market, other than the US Coast Guard?

Anyone have any insight on the mission requirement?
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,619
Points
1,110
Which is odd because you can simply put a .40 slide on Gen4+ Glocks and shoot them on 9mm frames.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,527
Points
1,140
The requirement? The need for a .40 calibre conversion kit.
I couldn't find that requirement in the NPP documents. The only calibre references were to 9mm X 19mm and 9mm X 19mm +P.
Which is odd because you can simply put a .40 slide on Gen4+ Glocks and shoot them on 9mm frames.
The requirements to have a removeable fire control group/trigger group and for only that component to be serialized have been dropped. This no longer favours only the P320.

But wait, there's more!!!

From Annex C of the NPP documents:

"3.9.2 The C22 FF pistol must have a striker deactivation button or other mechanical mechanism that will allow the shooter to disassemble the pistol without having to pull the trigger"
 
Last edited:

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,619
Points
1,110
"3.9.2 The C22 FF pistol must have a striker deactivation button or other mechanical mechanism that will allow the shooter to disassemble the pistol with having to pull the trigger"
Did you mean Without?
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,619
Points
1,110
Yes, I did. Had to type the text out verbatim because the document would only open in preview mode so I couldn't cut & paste. That failed miserably....original text amended.
Glock actually has a model like that - and one with a manual safety.
Will they submit it to the CAF, probably not if the TDP requirement to Colt Canada still exists.
Honestly if I was Glock, I would just open up a Glock Canada shop - sure the #'s for the CAF aren't huge, but there are decent sized LEA's and a small commercial market.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,137
Points
1,060
I love my Sigs, but i can see the general army cleaning them to an early death. A Glock is likley to be more or less impervious to poor and over enthusiastic cleanings
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,365
Points
1,010
I love my Sigs, but i can see the general army cleaning them to an early death. A Glock is likley to be more or less impervious to poor and over enthusiastic cleanings
Many years ago a peer and I said we clean our weapons way too much, with the wrong stuff. When there is nothing to do "draw weapons and clean them" is not a good course of action, unless the weapons are dirty of course.
 

GreggH

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
10
I couldn't find that requirement in the NPP documents. The only calibre references were to 9mm X 19mm and 9mm X 19mm +P.

The requirements to have a removeable fire control group/trigger group and for only that component to be serialized have been dropped. This no longer favours only the P320.

But wait, there's more!!!

From Annex C of the NPP documents:

"3.9.2 The C22 FF pistol must have a striker deactivation button or other mechanical mechanism that will allow the shooter to disassemble the pistol without having to pull the trigger"
Thanks for your response. I'll take it that there is no discussion of adopting a new calibre.

I was looking at Annex C, s. 3.1.4: "Calibre Conversion Kits must be available to permit changing the calibre of the C22 FF pistol from 9 x 19 mm to .40 calibre without having to replace the trigger mechanism." (From the 1 Feb 2021 version. It may have been a draft published with the NPP.)

I have no issue with requirements which eliminate potential contenders. The issue arises when there is no reasonable explanation for the requirement, or for the importance accorded to it (e.g., the 'must haves' vs. the really nice to haves" vs. "nice, if I don't have to pay extra for it"). If s. 3.1.4 was deleted from the actual RFP, or turned into a scored requirement (if there was some potential for adoption), that would seem appropriate. Still leaves me wondering how it made through to the final draft, but I'm guessing it snuck its way into the first draft because someone cribbed from the US Army procurement docs.
 
Top