Anybody else catch this?

Sig P320 fire control group in an AR platform, not sure if fake news or not.


https://www.reddit.com/r/SigSa...dule_using_p320_fcu/

Looks like a 3rd party mock up of a product.



That certainly would u
Open up a wider modularity for sig.

It has a lot going for it.

As to these images it looks like the intergral frame rails would prevent the bolt from contacting the buffer tube.

Would the 320 FCU have enough juice to fire off military primers?

If you read through the reddit, FCU (the company, not the P320 part...) teased this as an upcoming product.

They make the P320 PDW solution-looking-for-a-problem X-01

And the advantage over a standard AR would be what, exactly?
The ability to switch the FCU into other uppers /lowers?

I can't see anything positive in this. At a minimum its now a 2 gun gun since both parts are firearms. And the 320 FCU is a bugger to tune.

Interesting from a technical standpoint, but don’t see the appeal. Even if it works it’s probably a proprietary lower, bolt carrier, upper, and other important parts. Even if the P320 FCU is only serialed component, very few people are going to buy a bunch of proprietary almost complete guns and swap the FCU between them. People don’t do that very often now with the P320.

The quest for complete modularity is an obsession for some.

Yeah, but...what exactly does this accomplish? It's not as if having identical triggers in both rifle and handgun are really an obsession for anyone.

Plus at least compared to good AR trigger capabilities the 320 FCU trigger would be considered just awful. like really, really bad.

I don't think it really would do anything better than a standard AR trigger group. I think it is just a cool way to extend the modularity idea into something different than the 320.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
And the advantage over a standard AR would be what, exactly?
The ability to switch the FCU into other uppers /lowers?

quote:

Originally posted by Fundman:
I don't think it really would do anything better than a standard AR trigger group. I think it is just a cool way to extend the modularity idea into something different than the 320.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
And the advantage over a standard AR would be what, exactly?
The ability to switch the FCU into other uppers /lowers?

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
The quest for complete modularity is an obsession for some.

BINGO!

This begs question, but is the title for a new thread ...
How many people have multiple uppers for 1 lower?

I think you are being harsh calling it an obsession. Right now the modularity of this Sig trigger group has barely left the starting line. All you can do is go from a 320 with a big grip to a small grip or vice versa. Creating a rifle that uses the 320 trigger group would be the first true extension of the modular concept into a completely different firearm. We've got a long way to go before we get to beating a dead horse.

The platform would not be the registered item, the FCG would be.
So, the the platform ATF wise wouldn't be a firearm.

As such, the FCG doesn't exhibit any features that could be banned as an "assault weapon".

The platform would only become an "assault weapon" if mated with the FCG.

Interesting ban hedging possibility.

That assumes that the ATF goes along with that idea. They have a pretty long track record of calling anything that looks like an AR lower a firearm. I'm guessing there might be a way to design around that like the colt shelf or other stuff, but you would have to design around it and get a ATF letter. As far as an assault ban, in just about every version of language I've seen any lower is featureless if its not a named item.

Using what you've outlined, why isn't the grip module for a p320 considered a frame?

What difference would there be between the p320 grip module and a lower that utilized the same FCG?

Upper isn't a firearm
Nor would the lower

I think it opens a gray area that would need to be specifically addressed in legislation.

80% lower ban might encompass this.

quote:

Originally posted by DSgrouse:
As to these images it looks like the intergral frame rails would prevent the bolt from contacting the buffer tube.

I also don't see a charging handle or oprod anywhere.

If this thing actually functions, it would be interesting to know if it's gas or DI. I'd like a look at the bolt carrier.

That said, I'm not seeing the appeal, even if it does work.

But in the eyes of the ATF, what is a pistol can become a rifle, but a rifle can never become a pistol... So technically once you put an FCU in the rifle, it cannot be returned to a pistol form.

I have a different understanding. You can never go from what was originally a rifle to a pistol without SBR’ing it, but a pistol can be made into a rifle and then back into a pistol again if it started its life as a pistol.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
I have a different understanding. You can never go from what was originally a rifle to a pistol without SBR’ing it, but a pistol can be made into a rifle and then back into a pistol again if it started its life as a pistol.

Correct. Based on a court case involving T/C Contender single shots.