Re the P250 and SFA.
Well this development is probably because the P250 trigger is like a lightish double action revolver action. For police departments going to a Semi from a Revolver this would make a good choice as retraining costs would be low (sorry no work for you Todd ). There also is the fact that as a dept weapon the customization, limited parts, and simplicity is very nice. It is a great gun for administrators who come up with a bunch of criteria on paper; it looks great in matching their desires.

But, its performance (im not talking reliability) is pretty difficult to justify in terms of comparing to other choices. If maximum speed with good accuracy is important then the P250 (without ridiculous training costs and time invested) is a slower gun to put multiple rounds on target than other choices. If your job is to slow down hyped up “trigger happy” officers then you have met a very good match–the trigger will do just that (perhaps too well). The consistent P250 trigger pull is nice (as with glocks). It is very smooth. But of course the 1) long relatively heavy pull 2) long reset is both “good” and “bad”–but I see mostly bad if you have good training and habits. The external hammer is nice: 1) visual cue for trigger advance 2) great for reholstering to prevent AD/ND (cannot happen if this hammer is covered!) 3) visual cue for break point–since the P250 action does not have a defined point where you know it will break. (In general I think an external guide/indicator is a good thing and in the form of a hammer it lets you know the “state” of the gun. XD and Walter have their takes on indicators and that is a disadvantage to the Glock and M+P design in my mind.)

If you are trying to get contracts from agencies that have Glocks then guess what Sig needs to do–go “SFA”. (What type of SFA will be interesting to see.) Then they can market all the other stuff and not have the officers testing the thing criticize the action speed.

For individuals all the interchangability and sizes are way overrated due to the high total cost of ownership. Only in restrictive locales with gun quota maximums would this be an advantage due to have only “one” gun with more capabilities. For an individual who was a revolver only shooter who does not want to train much and learn new things then the P250 would be an excellent choice. He might not say it but I think that may be why John Farnham likes and carries it–because he cut his teeth on the revolver.

p.s. What do you think of the P228?