[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SIG “ The P320. It ends today.” (Page 52 of 142)
|
Quoted: I am sure that even the lowest new guy can afford any pistol he wants. Quoted: Quoted: That sucks for them considering CPD has to personally purchase their duty weapons. I am sure that even the lowest new guy can afford any pistol he wants. If I had to buy my own duty gun…….. I’m an RO so I open carry on the regular. I carry weird shit. I’ve on duty carried: German Luger made in 1920 1970s ruger blackhawk .357 S&w governor S&w .460V S&w 629 3” .44 mag Bren Ten $5000 S&w 1046 10mm 7.5” ruger super Blackhawk .44 mag 100+ year old pre A1 1911 Iwi Masada CZ PO1 Kel tec whatever the fuck .22 mag. I carry weird shit just to be weird. |
|
Quoted: I know you’re half joking, and are unlikely to be treating a GSW, but pay attention to stoppages. I went to a few ranges when these things were new, and holy shit they were stoppage machines. I’m curious if they got ironed out via “break-in”. I don’t remember there being a problem the last time I was at a M17 range, about a year and a half ago. @Backbencher, yeah, you’re probably right about stupidity vs malfeasance with deferred maintenance on the M9. Because that’s at least partly done at the unit level (which is why I’ve never experienced such a problem) However, with the locking blocks, the people that would approve that are in the same buildings as the people who would be involved in procuring a new gun, and it’s an interesting coincidence that Beretta wasn’t allowed any ECPs, though other guns were. And the USMC, who was not looking at a future procurement of a new gun, bought an A1 version of the M9, so it’s not like updating the M9 was financially unfeasible, or that Beretta and DoD can’t work together on updates. The difference is the Army wanted a new gun. It’s like dudes on this forum rationalizing upgrading an existing gun vs adding another to the safe. It’s also interesting that the proposal resulting in the M17 was written specifically to exclude M9 variants such as the OG, A1, and A3. And the already tested and issued Glocks, too. I’m not arguing that the M9 is the best handgun for every single Soldier to carry* (or a Glock for that matter), just that there was fuckery in the procurement process all the way back to the requirement(s). And there absolutely was fuckery. *also interesting that this coincides with a doctrinal change resulting in more pistols being issued per Soldier than any other time in Army history. The DoD declined to move to the 2nd and 3rd generation locking blocks in the 90s, so I don't think their failure to do so has anything to do with a mid-2010s pistol procurement. I can't agree that the MHS requirements were written to exclude Glock. I think it's theoretically possible that Beretta could have competed with the M9A3, but they pretty clearly wouldn't have been competitive. |
|
Quoted: The DoD declined to move to the 2nd and 3rd generation locking blocks in the 90s, so I don't think their failure to do so has anything to do with a mid-2010s pistol procurement. I can't agree that the MHS requirements were written to exclude Glock. I think it's theoretically possible that Beretta could have competed with the M9A3, but they pretty clearly wouldn't have been competitive. Quoted: Quoted: I know you’re half joking, and are unlikely to be treating a GSW, but pay attention to stoppages. I went to a few ranges when these things were new, and holy shit they were stoppage machines. I’m curious if they got ironed out via “break-in”. I don’t remember there being a problem the last time I was at a M17 range, about a year and a half ago. @Backbencher, yeah, you’re probably right about stupidity vs malfeasance with deferred maintenance on the M9. Because that’s at least partly done at the unit level (which is why I’ve never experienced such a problem) However, with the locking blocks, the people that would approve that are in the same buildings as the people who would be involved in procuring a new gun, and it’s an interesting coincidence that Beretta wasn’t allowed any ECPs, though other guns were. And the USMC, who was not looking at a future procurement of a new gun, bought an A1 version of the M9, so it’s not like updating the M9 was financially unfeasible, or that Beretta and DoD can’t work together on updates. The difference is the Army wanted a new gun. It’s like dudes on this forum rationalizing upgrading an existing gun vs adding another to the safe. It’s also interesting that the proposal resulting in the M17 was written specifically to exclude M9 variants such as the OG, A1, and A3. And the already tested and issued Glocks, too. I’m not arguing that the M9 is the best handgun for every single Soldier to carry* (or a Glock for that matter), just that there was fuckery in the procurement process all the way back to the requirement(s). And there absolutely was fuckery. *also interesting that this coincides with a doctrinal change resulting in more pistols being issued per Soldier than any other time in Army history. The DoD declined to move to the 2nd and 3rd generation locking blocks in the 90s, so I don't think their failure to do so has anything to do with a mid-2010s pistol procurement. I can't agree that the MHS requirements were written to exclude Glock. I think it's theoretically possible that Beretta could have competed with the M9A3, but they pretty clearly wouldn't have been competitive. Beretta did compete w/ their modular striker pistol, didn't they? |
|
Quoted: Beretta did compete w/ their modular striker pistol, didn't they? That was widely reported at the time, but reporting on MHS was frequently garbage, so...probably? As far as I know Beretta never revealed what, if anything, they entered and the Army was very cagey with data from the trials. |
|
Quoted: That was widely reported at the time, but reporting on MHS was frequently garbage, so...probably? As far as I know Beretta never revealed what, if anything, they entered and the Army was very cagey with data from the trials. Wasn't it the APX? It has an FCU just like the Sig. Eta: MHS entrants |
|
Quoted: Quoted: That was widely reported at the time, but reporting on MHS was frequently garbage, so...probably? As far as I know Beretta never revealed what, if anything, they entered and the Army was very cagey with data from the trials. Wasn't it the APX? It has an FCU just like the Sig. Eta: MHS entrants This is kind of what I mean about garbage reporting. From the article: "Depending on what source you listen to, there were up to 14 pistols from 12 manufacturers offered as contenders for the MHS program. The testing ended up being a $17 million process to find a replacement. The initial bidders for the contract included Beretta, CZ, Glock, FN, Smith & Wesson and Sig Sauer, among others." They're just reporting rumors, and not even doing a good job of it. CZ wasn't an initial bidder; as the article notes farther down, they never actually entered: "In the end, CZ ended up choosing to not formally enter the XM17 MHS competition." What we know, as opposed to what's rumored, is only what the companies that entered have revealed. We know that Sig entered and exactly what they entered (or at least, what one of their entries was, maybe?) because they won. We know what Glock entered (G19MHS and G23MHS) because they publicly revealed their entries. We can guess that Beretta entered an APX variant or pair of APX variants but we don't really know because they've never revealed their entry or entries. |
|
Quoted: This is kind of what I mean about garbage reporting. From the article: "Depending on what source you listen to, there were up to 14 pistols from 12 manufacturers offered as contenders for the MHS program. The testing ended up being a $17 million process to find a replacement. The initial bidders for the contract included Beretta, CZ, Glock, FN, Smith & Wesson and Sig Sauer, among others.".... Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That was widely reported at the time, but reporting on MHS was frequently garbage, so...probably? As far as I know Beretta never revealed what, if anything, they entered and the Army was very cagey with data from the trials. Wasn't it the APX? It has an FCU just like the Sig. Eta: MHS entrants This is kind of what I mean about garbage reporting. From the article: "Depending on what source you listen to, there were up to 14 pistols from 12 manufacturers offered as contenders for the MHS program. The testing ended up being a $17 million process to find a replacement. The initial bidders for the contract included Beretta, CZ, Glock, FN, Smith & Wesson and Sig Sauer, among others.".... "so here's what we're going to do. I'm going to shoot the ever living fuck out of a shit load of guns, and you're going to pay me $17,000,000 in expenses to do it. And from that, I'm going to tell you And basically, it's going to be a production event comparable to the Steal My Sunshine video production event; of showing up at Venice Beach with my bro's and a $17MM Budget, making a bunch of shit up, and calling it my professional production; all tax deductible.  Len - Steal My Sunshine That's what I think of the Sig P320 test budget and Army test program around it. $17 million dollars for gun testing, for a pistol  |
|
Quoted: Mine are really accurate for me. More so than my gen5 Glocks, or even VP9s. I hope Sig comes up with a fix. You keep saying this, but unless you’re an exceptional pistol shooter or you’re testing from a rest, it’s probably less a question of mechanical accuracy and more about the interfaces between you and the gun. Egros, sights, trigger, etc. The P320 does a lot of that well, but so do a lot of its peers. |
|
Quoted: You keep saying this, but unless you’re an exceptional pistol shooter or you’re testing from a rest, it’s probably less a question of mechanical accuracy and more about the interfaces between you and the gun. Egros, sights, trigger, etc. The P320 does a lot of that well, but so do a lot of its peers. I would agree. I suppose I should say, they are the most accurate pistols in my hands. And no, I am not in any way an exceptional, or even good, pistol shot. I like to think above average. |
|
Quoted: The DoD declined to move to the 2nd and 3rd generation locking blocks in the 90s, so I don't think their failure to do so has anything to do with a mid-2010s pistol procurement. I can't agree that the MHS requirements were written to exclude Glock. I think it's theoretically possible that Beretta could have competed with the M9A3, but they pretty clearly wouldn't have been competitive. Beretta may have entered the M9A3 in the trial, but the requirements specifically said no slide mounted safeties. So, it was a non-starter. I beleive they developed the APX with this in mind. The MHS required modularity; it’s in the name. The Glock entry was not modular in the way the Sig is. An absolutely retarded requirement that will never get used, and I think Glock hubristically thought they had it in the bag, considering at least 3 of their guns were already well-vetted by the DoD. In any case, the last round of the trials appeared rigged anyway, and the DoD bought a gun that wasn’t mature. Hell, early field testing revealed functional problems with the ammo that it was designed together with. Which makes one question how it outcompeted a nearly perfectly reliable, inexpensive gun, that the DoD was already familiar with. |
|
I think sig was the only one that was truly modular. The concept is still unique and sig pulled it off where no one else has. Its especially awesome for civilians because of the requirement for serialized lowers. With glock, if you screw up a grip frame modifying it you're boned. Have to buy a new serialized grip. That whole concept is what drew me to buy a p320. EVERYTHING is swapable. Hell, even magpul is making grip modules and magazines now. Of course with new tech comes problems. This really sucks and I hope sig gets through it. Didn't glock take a stab at modularity recently with swapable uppers and lowers? You could have a g17 slide on a g19 grip and vice versa? |
|
Quoted: I think sig was the only one that was truly modular. The concept is still unique and sig pulled it off where no one else has. Its especially awesome for civilians because of the requirement for serialized lowers. With glock, if you screw up a grip frame modifying it you're boned. Have to buy a new serialized grip. That whole concept is what drew me to buy a p320. EVERYTHING is swapable. Hell, even magpul is making grip modules and magazines now. Of course with new tech comes problems. This really sucks and I hope sig gets through it. Didn't glock take a stab at modularity recently with swapable uppers and lowers? You could have a g17 slide on a g19 grip and vice versa? IDK how far the Beretta APX went in the trial but it has an FCU just like the Sig. And if you read the requirements, the replaceable back straps met the modular requirements. |
|
I asked Grok: Sig P320. Did it end today? "The phrase "It ends today" likely refers to a statement made by SIG Sauer on March 7, 2025, titled "The Truth About the P320." In it, they addressed ongoing controversies, lawsuits, and media claims about alleged unintended discharges, asserting, "The P320 CANNOT, under any circumstances, discharge without a trigger pull – that is a fact." They framed this as a pushback against what they called baseless accusations, aiming to end the narrative of defectiveness. However, the issue hasn’t fully concluded. Lawsuits continue, with 22 plaintiffs filing a new case in late March 2025, alleging injuries from unintended firings. Some law enforcement agencies, like Chicago’s, reportedly dropped the P320 recently due to safety concerns, though SIG Sauer maintains these are user errors, not design flaws. Courts have dismissed several cases, including one in Puerto Rico in March 2025, where the plaintiff admitted no defect existed. Yet, public and legal debates persist, with no definitive resolution as of April 12, 2025." 
|
|
Quoted: My mistake. I thought the 3rd gen block came out in the early/mid 20-teens with the M9A3. Y’all are probably right that there was no grand conspiracy against Beretta. There was definitely a “conspiracy” for Sig, though. Beretta may have entered the M9A3 in the trial, but the requirements specifically said no slide mounted safeties. So, it was a non-starter. I beleive they developed the APX with this in mind. The MHS required modularity; it’s in the name. The Glock entry was not modular in the way the Sig is. An absolutely retarded requirement that will never get used, and I think Glock hubristically thought they had it in the bag, considering at least 3 of their guns were already well-vetted by the DoD. In any case, the last round of the trials appeared rigged anyway, and the DoD bought a gun that wasn’t mature. Hell, early field testing revealed functional problems with the ammo that it was designed together with. Which makes one question how it outcompeted a nearly perfectly reliable, inexpensive gun, that the DoD was already familiar with. You've got some misconceptions about what the RFP asked for. M.3.1.3 Upon receipt of hardware submission, inspections will be conducted to ensure that the Modular Handgun System candidate has an integrated rail, an external safety mechanism, adjustability for ergonomics (by means of grip inserts, grip panels, front or back straps, different triggers, or other means) and be other than single action only. Submissions without these features will not be considered for evaluation. They did not exclude slide mounted safeties; that's the only place in the RFP that mentions the external safety. Modularity, in the context of the RFP, meant 'has an integrated rail' and 'adjustability for ergonomics'. Sig used different size grip frames to meet this requirement, Glock (and probably most of the other competitors) used removable backstraps; both met the requirements of modularity. Glock lost on price, not on features. RFP if you're interested. |
|
Quoted: ......The MHS required modularity; it’s in the name. The Glock entry was not modular in the way the Sig is. An absolutely retarded requirement that will never get used, and I think Glock hubristically thought they had it in the bag, considering at least 3 of their guns were already well-vetted by the DoD. In any case, the last round of the trials appeared rigged anyway, and the DoD bought a gun that wasn’t mature. Hell, early field testing revealed functional problems with the ammo that it was designed together with. Which makes one question how it outcompeted a nearly perfectly reliable, inexpensive gun, that the DoD was already familiar with. True. Both Sig and Glock entries passed the trials. The bid was awarded to Sig due to cost and inclusion of ammunition. I've yet to read anything about Sig ammunition being used by the military. It reeks of corruption. Not because Sig was chosen, but because it cost $17 million to choose a pistol. Trump's DOGE could have stopped this. Oh wait.......... |
|
Quoted: True. Both Sig and Glock entries passed the trials. The bid was awarded to Sig due to cost and inclusion of ammunition. I've yet to read anything about Sig ammunition being used by the military. It reeks of corruption. Not because Sig was chosen, but because it cost $17 million to choose a pistol. Trump's DOGE could have stopped this. Oh wait.......... Quoted: Quoted: ......The MHS required modularity; it’s in the name. The Glock entry was not modular in the way the Sig is. An absolutely retarded requirement that will never get used, and I think Glock hubristically thought they had it in the bag, considering at least 3 of their guns were already well-vetted by the DoD. In any case, the last round of the trials appeared rigged anyway, and the DoD bought a gun that wasn’t mature. Hell, early field testing revealed functional problems with the ammo that it was designed together with. Which makes one question how it outcompeted a nearly perfectly reliable, inexpensive gun, that the DoD was already familiar with. True. Both Sig and Glock entries passed the trials. The bid was awarded to Sig due to cost and inclusion of ammunition. I've yet to read anything about Sig ammunition being used by the military. It reeks of corruption. Not because Sig was chosen, but because it cost $17 million to choose a pistol. Trump's DOGE could have stopped this. Oh wait.......... The inclusion of ammo was a requirement for all competitors. Glock's 2 entries included ammo as well. M17s and M18s are used with the ammo Sig entered in the competition, which has been standardized as M1152 and M1153. |
|
Quoted: I think sig was the only one that was truly modular. Quoted: I think sig was the only one that was truly modular. All the entries were "modular" as the RFP described. Basically, could the pistol fit different sized hands. The RFP didn't mean an FCU that could be swapped into different sized frames, it allowed grip adapters. The concept is still unique and sig pulled it off where no one else has. Sig didn't design something unique with the FCU and as far as pulling it off?  Its especially awesome for civilians because of the requirement for serialized lowers. With glock, if you screw up a grip frame modifying it you're boned. Have to buy a new serialized grip. That whole concept is what drew me to buy a p320. EVERYTHING is swapable. Hell, even magpul is making grip modules and magazines now. Didn't glock take a stab at modularity recently with swapable uppers and lowers? You could have a g17 slide on a g19 grip and vice versa? Gen 4 Glocks met the modularity requirement. |
|
Quoted: All the entries were "modular" as the RFP described. Basically, could the pistol fit different sized hands. The RFP didn't mean an FCU that could be swapped into different sized frames, it allowed grip adapters. Sig didn't design something unique with the FCU and as far as pulling it off? Gen 4 Glocks met the modularity requirement. Steyr pistols have had the FCU long before Sig. |
|
Quoted: The inclusion of ammo was a requirement for all competitors. Glock's 2 entries included ammo as well. M17s and M18s are used with the ammo Sig entered in the competition, which has been standardized as M1152 and M1153. I think that requirement was added as an amendment to the RFP years later. |
|
Quoted: I think that requirement was added as an amendment to the RFP years later. Quoted: Quoted: The inclusion of ammo was a requirement for all competitors. Glock's 2 entries included ammo as well. M17s and M18s are used with the ammo Sig entered in the competition, which has been standardized as M1152 and M1153. I think that requirement was added as an amendment to the RFP years later. No, that was a factor from the very beginning. The Army didn't even specify the caliber for MHS; competitors were free to choose any ammo in any caliber they wanted. Companies were allowed to enter up to twice as long as their entries were in different calibers and we know that Glock did so, entering the G19MHS in 9mm and the G23MHS in .40. |
| Regarding the chassis and interchangeability: it's always been a selling point but I'd wager the percentage of owners who actually switch their FCU between grips is in the low single digits. Once you add another slide, grip and magazines you're within $100 of a new gun so why not just buy the package. |
|
Quoted: No, that was a factor from the very beginning. The Army didn't even specify the caliber for MHS; competitors were free to choose any ammo in any caliber they wanted. Companies were allowed to enter up to twice as long as their entries were in different calibers and we know that Glock did so, entering the G19MHS in 9mm and the G23MHS in .40. Quoted: No, that was a factor from the very beginning. The Army didn't even specify the caliber for MHS; competitors were free to choose any ammo in any caliber they wanted. Companies were allowed to enter up to twice as long as their entries were in different calibers and we know that Glock did so, entering the G19MHS in 9mm and the G23MHS in .40. Is this wrong? XM17 Modular Handgun System competition Request for proposal The Army delayed the MHS RFP until after January 2015 "to allow for improvements to the RFP as a result of feedback received from Industry;"[17] the second draft solicitation for the XM17 was released on 8 June 2015 following the Defense Department's decision to allow use of special purpose ammunition. |
|
It's true that the RFP was changed in between the first draft and the final competition, but the requirement for new ammo was included from the beginning. "The Modular Handgun System (MHS) will consist of a new handgun, ammunition, supporting accessories, and spare parts." https://web.archive.org/web/20170126103835/https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=8ff37255372781aeaf64d55c90753129&_cview=0 |
|
Quoted: Regarding the chassis and interchangeability: it's always been a selling point but I'd wager the percentage of owners who actually switch their FCU between grips is in the low single digits. Once you add another slide, grip and magazines you're within $100 of a new gun so why not just buy the package. I'd put off looking at them for a long time. Thought the world didnt need another plastic striker gun. Till I shot one. I sucks theres such a problem plaguing it. Mine are relegated to range guns only now. |
|
Quoted: I would agree. I suppose I should say, they are the most accurate pistols in my hands. And no, I am not in any way an exceptional, or even good, pistol shot. I like to think above average. They are ALL basic combat pistols, built to a certain level, unless match barrels/enhanced trigger groups etc are being introduced the basic accuracy of all of them is "similar". |
|
Quoted: My mistake. I thought the 3rd gen block came out in the early/mid 20-teens with the M9A3. Y’all are probably right that there was no grand conspiracy against Beretta. There was definitely a “conspiracy” for Sig, though. Beretta may have entered the M9A3 in the trial, but the requirements specifically said no slide mounted safeties. So, it was a non-starter. I beleive they developed the APX with this in mind. The MHS required modularity; it’s in the name. The Glock entry was not modular in the way the Sig is. An absolutely retarded requirement that will never get used, and I think Glock hubristically thought they had it in the bag, considering at least 3 of their guns were already well-vetted by the DoD. In any case, the last round of the trials appeared rigged anyway, and the DoD bought a gun that wasn’t mature. Hell, early field testing revealed functional problems with the ammo that it was designed together with. Which makes one question how it outcompeted a nearly perfectly reliable, inexpensive gun, that the DoD was already familiar with. Glock met the modularity requirements. |
|
Quoted: They are ALL basic combat pistols, built to a certain level, unless match barrels/enhanced trigger groups etc are being introduced the basic accuracy of all of them is "similar". I think between the good sights, grip and trigger, I can shoot it well. I hope Sig fixes them, no way in hell I would carry one right now. Odds are mine are fine, but even if I tripped the sear 100 times and the striker block worked 100 times, I still wouldn't trust it personally. Not when Glocks are available. And M&Ps, etc. |
|
Quoted: Wonder why they lost? https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/sig-sauer-wins-patent-infringement-suit-brought-by-steyr-arms/ It reads like the court just didn't care or understand the case. |
|
Quoted: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/sig-sauer-wins-patent-infringement-suit-brought-by-steyr-arms/ It reads like the court just didn't care or understand the case. Thanks for the link. |
|
Quoted: And now, Beretta Apx and the Ruger RXM. Quoted: Quoted: Particularly since they'd had a chassis in their Glock competitor since the early 90's. And now, Beretta Apx and the Ruger RXM. |
|
Quoted: True. Both Sig and Glock entries passed the trials. The bid was awarded to Sig due to cost and inclusion of ammunition. I've yet to read anything about Sig ammunition being used by the military. It reeks of corruption. Not because Sig was chosen, but because it cost $17 million to choose a pistol. Trump's DOGE could have stopped this. Oh wait.......... The trial was never completed, they stopped short and declared sig the winner. |
|
Quoted: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/sig-sauer-wins-patent-infringement-suit-brought-by-steyr-arms/ It reads like the court just didn't care or understand the case. Quoted: Quoted: Wonder why they lost? https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/sig-sauer-wins-patent-infringement-suit-brought-by-steyr-arms/ It reads like the court just didn't care or understand the case. It's a winning strategy. Gaston and Sam Colt grudgingly tip their hat to Ron. |
https://www.instagram.com/achillesheeltactical/reel/DIXsR1KMOJ2/ A 320 goes pop in class! |
|
Damn! But I thought Sig said it ended a few weeks ago.
|
|
Quoted: My mistake. I thought the 3rd gen block came out in the early/mid 20-teens with the M9A3. Y’all are probably right that there was no grand conspiracy against Beretta. There was definitely a “conspiracy” for Sig, though. Beretta may have entered the M9A3 in the trial, but the requirements specifically said no slide mounted safeties. So, it was a non-starter. I beleive they developed the APX with this in mind. The MHS required modularity; it’s in the name. The Glock entry was not modular in the way the Sig is. An absolutely retarded requirement that will never get used, and I think Glock hubristically thought they had it in the bag, considering at least 3 of their guns were already well-vetted by the DoD. In any case, the last round of the trials appeared rigged anyway, and the DoD bought a gun that wasn’t mature. Hell, early field testing revealed functional problems with the ammo that it was designed together with. Which makes one question how it outcompeted a nearly perfectly reliable, inexpensive gun, that the DoD was already familiar with. Quoted: Quoted: The DoD declined to move to the 2nd and 3rd generation locking blocks in the 90s, so I don't think their failure to do so has anything to do with a mid-2010s pistol procurement. I can't agree that the MHS requirements were written to exclude Glock. I think it's theoretically possible that Beretta could have competed with the M9A3, but they pretty clearly wouldn't have been competitive. Beretta may have entered the M9A3 in the trial, but the requirements specifically said no slide mounted safeties. So, it was a non-starter. I beleive they developed the APX with this in mind. The MHS required modularity; it’s in the name. The Glock entry was not modular in the way the Sig is. An absolutely retarded requirement that will never get used, and I think Glock hubristically thought they had it in the bag, considering at least 3 of their guns were already well-vetted by the DoD. In any case, the last round of the trials appeared rigged anyway, and the DoD bought a gun that wasn’t mature. Hell, early field testing revealed functional problems with the ammo that it was designed together with. Which makes one question how it outcompeted a nearly perfectly reliable, inexpensive gun, that the DoD was already familiar with. The modular aspect was covered by glocks backstraps. It wasn't required to have a removable fcu. Even beretta covered it by the extra grip/vertec frame Eta, looks like that was covered
|
|
Quoted: The whole 'the trial was not completed' thing isn't true. Quoted: Quoted: The trial was never completed, they stopped short and declared sig the winner. The whole 'the trial was not completed' thing isn't true. |
|
Can't wait for the next round of excuses the P320 blowhards will come up with for this. |
|
Another one! When are you guys going to wake up? AHT is teaching a class today in Knoxville. His video is current. A 320 goes pop in class! |