Example: the “gun” is the trigger group and receiver, while the frame, barrel, and pretty much everything else can be swapped out for grip size, caliber, mag capacity, personalizing, etc. Means the army can maintain with a relatively small inventory a gun that can be used to meet the needs of post guards, special operators, small female hands, or 6’6” 280 lb soldiers alike.
Being the new design on the block, without the years or even decades of field experience like Glock, it is not surprising that a defect slipped by and a recall warranted.
...
It reminds me of the F35 trying to be all things to all people, supposedly to save money, but costing a fortune in the long run and satisfying nobody.
Not really like the F35. The army’s contract had the requirements that drove the new design. The requirements included things to keep the costs of overall life cycle of buying and maintaining the gun low. Sig cam up with the design and concept that meant replacing parts and maintaining the guns would be cheaper, while still providing a basic point and click device that worked. The other competitors thought the army would stick with more traditional designs at the expense of meeting the new requirements.
F35 was driven by several orders of magnitudes of combined requirements and meant to satisfy multiple missions and services (pushed by a far too thrifty congress where military spending is concerned). This has a history of being very difficult and there are lots of failed programs that should be a warning to this approach.