This forum has a diverse membership of industry professionals, top notch trainers, and dialed-in end users in the shooting community. I think this is the perfect place to both ask questions and start a discussion on something that has been on my mind lately, namely a striker-fired pistol platform not tied to a particular gun manufacturer.
I was initially drawn to this forum several years when I entered law enforcement and was introduced to shooting by job necessity. I fell in love with shooting in general and in particular the AR-15. I caught the BRD in a bad way and I was able to build a couple of rifles based on knowledge gained here. I have since returned to a career in IT, but my love for shooting and the AR-15 platform remains. How is that relevant to the topic of the post? Something I’m passionate about in IT is open-source software and hardware. I have realized that those same principles of openness and innovation are what drove me to the AR-15 platform. The design is not tied to any one company or manufacturer, and as a result the innovation and options have become unbelievably diverse and amazing.
I see the same thing in the 1911 community for the same reasons. I was introduced to shooting pistols with the Glock since it was what our agency used, and now run the Walther PPQ. I’m a firm believer in the striker-fired design and the performance of modern 9mm duty ammunition, which is why I haven’t invested in getting into custom 1911s (although I find them beautiful and very tempting). Lately I’ve been wondering what it would be like to have those kinds of options in a striker-fired pistol design. I do realize that we somewhat have that with the Glock, but it’s not the same level as the 1911 and the AR-15. I’m talking more of a completely community developed open source pistol design that is not tied to any one company or manufacturer. Any person, company, or manufacturer would have complete freedom to produce and make improvements to any component in the gun, which gives the end user lots of flexibility and lets the free market improve the system overall. Even though there is a thriving cottage industry with the Glock, it is not the same ball game. Every major manufacturer can and does make a 1911 and\or AR-15, but when it comes to striker guns they all have their own proprietary pistol. I think it would be fantastic to have one reliable, modular, modern, striker-fired, multi-caliber pistol design that ANYONE has unfettered access to and can produce and improve on, with the improvements finding their way back to the original design spec.
Points of discussion:
What are the pitfalls that keep this from happening?
I feel like the keymod and m-lok standards are proving this concept as viable and beneficial. Why not a complete firearm?
Could the open-source model of software development be modified to be successful at producing a firearm?
TL;DR - I want to build a damn striker pistol like I can an AR-15.
Thanks for reading, I look forward to the discussion.
I feel like the Sig P320 would be the best archetype. The modularity would be the outstanding for this type of gun, as any outfit with injection molding capabilities could make the grip however they want as long as the magazine channel lines up. I do think Sig dropped the ball by not redesigning that gun from scratch and taking advantage of the low bore axis you can obtain with a striker fired system. I also think an open source pistol should use a freely available current magazine and use an existing sight cut such as Novak or Glock. However, I do not think it should be based on glock magazines because then you are locked into the controversial Glock grip angle. Maybe Berreta 92 mags?
Very interesting. I’ve been looking a lot at Sigs lately, particularly the SP2022, and have just noticed that the P320 looks like a winner in several ways. Love that longer barrel length and overall sizing.
This is a very interesting question. What would it take to elevate any of several polymer designs to the level of an international standard with relatively minor variations in build?
I love this idea but it’d take deep pockets for it to happen.
Something like this in a modern design could over take the glock. It’d have to be incredibly well thought out. I see what people are saying about the sig. It would honestly help a company like sig if they could make everything but the serilized part open source. Imagine what companies like Zevtech and Salient could do will that info and how much it bring down their design time and design costs.
Deep pockets may not be necessary if the open source model of software development could carry over to a firearm design. The internet is powered by rock solid open source software that is largely community developed and under licensing that requires contributors to share their work. How many brilliant gunsmiths, engineering students, 1911 builders, subject matter experts do you think might enjoy contributing to a design that would be just as free as the AR 15 and 1911?
Something I was thinking of last night that is interesting in this regard is that in spite of being a hammer fired system, the Lionheart LH9 comes close to this ideal as a design. I don’t know what the patent situation is on the design of the Daewoo K5, but I love what the company is doing with it. You can order every single individual part from the website with no fuss, and they adopted a standard novak sight cut. It is well reviewed and reports are that it is a reliable design. I’m actually surprised it has not been more embraced.
I have to agree that the SIG system seems to fit this idea the best (in fact, it may just be done). I do worry though that SIG hasn’t had the best luck debugging their stuff (probably because they make a LOT of stuff). But presuming they are doing it right, that seems like a pretty good base. Hell, if it is full of pot-metal, MIM and crappy stampings it mike it an even better candidate since it would have a built-in need for upgraded parts.
Sig frustrates the hell out me with how they have brilliant ideas but are ALL over the place with “Scorpion” models, 2 different 1911s, Rifles with short handguards (do they pay attention to the AR market at all?) etc. Same with the 320, they come up with this great striker fired fire control unit that is completely modular but stick into the p250 frame without optimizing the design. Granted, people who have shot the p320 say the higher bore axis is not that big of a deal. But, if they’d taken the time to make it lower, imagine how different that gun would be perceived? An open source design would have already addressed it and all the major players would already have complete specs to work off of.
The bore-axis thing is one of the most over-played things ever. Genius marketing. I think the Steyr and Caracal were crazy low and they still are noting/were nothing special. I took a class with Earnest Langdon (10 time national pistol champ, etc) and he damn near dislocated his eyes at the notion (note, he won with super high bore axis guns like sigs…and pointed out that the 1911, no shooting slouch, hardly had a low bore).
That being said, that ship has sailed. People have decided it is a big deal and therefore it will be–reality be damned.
That makes a lot of sense, I need to do some reading and maybe re-evaluate my criticism of the design decision of the P320. Come to think of it, I switched to the Walther PPQ from the Glock because I shoot it much better. It has a noticeably higher bore axis than the Glock but I don’t notice it in shooting. Maybe I’ve become a victim of group think on that point.
With that in mind it seems that the P320 would have the potential to become a new cottage industry similar to the Glock, but I’m not sure if they can overcome the stigma of QC issues in Exeter or the lackluster success of the P250.
Back to the open source discussion, how do you recreate the AR-15 and 1911 design openness without waiting for similar circumstances to occur? It looks like Glock may be the closest thing we have or ever will get. With all the aftermarket support for the Glock, maybe all that is needed is an aftermarket frame that caters to the polymer stippling and reshaping specialists. Take a page from the P320’s design and create a Glock Gen 3 frame with an oversized grip and no texture meant to be dremeled and stippled by the user. That would effectively make the gen 3 glock on par with the AR-15 from a builder’s point of view. Maybe an open source design of this frame only would create the equivalent of the AR 15 lower receiver and turn the Gen 3 Glock into a true platform.
Well, I doubt any gun will push the Glock aside until somebody comes up with a killer feature. That feature could be something we already see in different designs, and just culminate in something game-changer (Like the Glock, which was really just a bunch of other people’s ideas put together in an awesome, cheap to manufacture, package). OR it could be something new that we haven’t thought of (like the H&K P7 was (and failed).
The Glock is the 1911/AR-15 analog in this discussion. Heck, at least one outfit already makes Glock frames. You probably could make one that made the locking block, etc more modular as you propose (and might make the Glock a little less susceptible to grip issues, which leads to so many of the erratic ejection problems).
That seems like the way to go. A new frame that incorporates VP9/PPQ/M&P ergos and a modular locking and trigger mechanism. One that you could slide a factory Glock top onto. Sounds good to me!
Maybe this thought process brings everything full circle. From a certain point of view, the very concept of the striker fired pistol is in of itself an open platform. Glock was the first widely adopted version, but now we have affordable and reliable versions of the same concept gun from all the major manufacturers. Ergos differ, some have more safety mechanisms, some precock the striker more than others, but they are all the same gun in concept. The Walther PPQ hit the sweet spot for me; besides sights I don’t want for anything else as it comes from the factory. For some it’s the M&P with an Apex kit, others want a Salient Glock, some like the VP9, and so on. Looking at the market as a whole, there’s nothing stopping anyone from making a striker gun, and the market decides what is successful. It’s the same with AR-15s and 1911s, they are not all created equal and there are hits, misses, and variations on the base design.
Perhaps the P320 is the first glimpse of the next evolution of the striker fired gun. If it’s successful all the manufacturers will make them modular. Modularity is what drives our favorite rifle.
Maybe the striker fired gun has been open source all along.
Perhaps we are looking at the wrong place to open source. Rather than pushing for an open standard gun we should encourage the different manufacturers to standardize on a sight cut like they did the rail interface. If all the next generation pistols used the same sights that would be a huge win for the consumer. If an easy to install and solid interface to the slide could be developed and open sourced, it would be the same benefit as keymod and m-lok were to the AR platform. Again, maybe the Glock standard is the answer, but I don’t know if Glock would throw a fit over their dovetail winding up on a competing pistol.
Everyone needs to adopt a standard dovetail front and back. The Glock/Walther/Old School colt post front sight is a terrible idea. I know it is cheap to make, but holding the front sight on with a (possibly) loctited screw is Serpa.
I hope we’re going to see more pistols with sections of picatinny rails on the tops of the slides, or some kind of standardized cut-out for fitting red dots…
Otherwise, Glock is the striker-fired standard which you seek. Like Fjallhrafn pointed out, it’s already possible to build an entire “Glock-pattern” gun without any OEM Glock parts.
The other striker-fired pistols are in some ways doubtless better than Glock, but none of them can even come close to matching the aftermarket support for Glock.
One thing I’ve learned with my PPQ is the aftermarket becomes less important when the pistol is already where it needs to be from the factory. I can’t imagine what could be done to improve the trigger. All I really care about are holsters, sights, and maybe the availability of a threaded barrel. The PPQ has become popular enough where all three options are out there.
I do realize that with Glock aftermarket slides and barrels you can go nuts with custom milling, cuts, and configurations. The aftermarket trigger components are becoming much less necessary with the new breed of striker pistols coming out. I don’t see anyone itching for a trigger job on the PPQ, VP9, or P320. I think Glock and S&W better take notice and quit taking their aftermarket for granted.
With modern manufacturing it has been proven that there is no excuse for a gun to have a poor trigger. I’d be content that they all agree on a standard for site dovetails and a cut for a Mini RDS, the rest they can do whatever they want.
I think as far as red dot mounting goes, the Unity Tactical system is a good start vs pic rails, I don’t see that working well with holsters. At least with the ATOM mount vs milling you’re somewhat future proofed, new optic or mounting pattern = new adapter plate, instead of a new slide or pistol.