Recently, the US Military decided on a variant of the Sig P320 for their next duty weapon.In case you’re reading this from underneath a wifi equipped rock, that weapon features a modular grip and fire control unit design. For the first time, the US Military is be able to issue one model of pistol for both deployed troops (Full Size P320) and Law Enforcement roles ( Like Air Force OSI) using the smaller grip frame.
Many are naturally upset their pet pistol didnt win the trials – unless they’re Sig fans. Regardless of what one’s brand of choice is or isnt, logistics is a powerful reason -and even for indvidual shooters it matters.
Take myself. Admittedly a self serving example, but hear this out. I have two Beretta 92 pistols, one for carry and one for training/backup. Between them I have ten available magazines, three holsters, and training experience with the Beretta’s DA/SA action of arms.
Were I to decide to switch to a Glock 17 , i’d not only have to consider the price of the pistol , but also the equipment needed to match what I already have in place with the 92.
The gun itself costs $550 dollars locally, and includes three magazines. So i’d need seven more to equal what I have with the 92FS. At $20 per, that means $140.00 in addition to the holster cost. Even if I just buy one conealable holster and two extra magazines, i’m out of pocket nearly $100.00 + the cost of the gun.
Because a Glock also uses a different action, i’d have to budget training time and ammo to become acclimated to the striker fired system. Let us assume 500 rounds of 9mm plus at least one range session. The combined cost of training : $200
So to transiton to a different pistol safely and confidently, the cost to do so would be -conservatively – $300. Plus the gun itself.
Out of pocket the cost to switch thus wouldn’t be $550 ; it would realistically be $850- a 54% premium over the gun price alone.
Is it any wonder the military went with the most modular option?