|
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,755
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,755 |
At some point in this very basic testing, the bids were released. The SIG bid was a great deal less that Glock. Mind you this includes pistols, magazines, parts, training as well as other ancillary equipment. Sometime during this revelation, the government in itâs usual consistency in decision making chose the lowest bidder and called a halt to the second and most revealing portion of the testing. The reasoning behind the governments decision was based on the first set of test where the government declared that both guns were so close in performance there was no need to continue with the second phase of testing and awarded the contract to SIG because of the much lower price that they believed Glock could never match or come close to.
Over a longer (testing) period, the ergonomics would be further tested as would the life expectancy of each entry. The expected figure before breakdown was right at 20,000 rounds. There would be the usual water immersion, mud test, sand, drop test etcetera which when done should have provided conclusive proof of which pistol was correct for our soldiers.
Would the low bidder have been the best pistol for the job or the high bidder? Weâll never know unless the test are continued and completed with both companies guns involved.
Time will tell if once again .gov bought a pig in a poke, MacNamara saved 1 cent per barrel and killed a lot of men. Somehow that doesn't sound like your writing. Did you copy it from somewhere?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424
Campfire Sage
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 |
Somebody that really knows his schit predicted Sig would take over the LE market.
So far I think he's spot on.
Clark Perhaps, and then again, perhaps not. The Beretta M9 (92FS) was adopted by the military around 1987, just about the time the Glock 17 began making inroads into the LE market (City of Miami Police Department). While some law enforcement agencies did adopt the Beretta 92, the vast majority went with the Glock and still issue or approve it for duty use today. About 65% of the nation's LEOs carry Glocks. Just because the military adopts a particular weapon is no guarantee civilian police departments will do so as well. There are a myriad of factors that enter into such a decision, and unit cost is just one of those factors. Only time will tell. Much to learn you have. Dave
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual. Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit. My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 17,098
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 17,098 |
At some point in this very basic testing, the bids were released. The SIG bid was a great deal less that Glock. Mind you this includes pistols, magazines, parts, training as well as other ancillary equipment. Sometime during this revelation, the government in itâs usual consistency in decision making chose the lowest bidder and called a halt to the second and most revealing portion of the testing. The reasoning behind the governments decision was based on the first set of test where the government declared that both guns were so close in performance there was no need to continue with the second phase of testing and awarded the contract to SIG because of the much lower price that they believed Glock could never match or come close to.
Over a longer (testing) period, the ergonomics would be further tested as would the life expectancy of each entry. The expected figure before breakdown was right at 20,000 rounds. There would be the usual water immersion, mud test, sand, drop test etcetera which when done should have provided conclusive proof of which pistol was correct for our soldiers.
Would the low bidder have been the best pistol for the job or the high bidder? Weâll never know unless the test are continued and completed with both companies guns involved.
Time will tell if once again .gov bought a pig in a poke, MacNamara saved 1 cent per barrel and killed a lot of men. Somehow that doesn't sound like your writing. Did you copy it from somewhere? Yea he pulled it from a cry a lot article from the firearms blog. They were crying the the mgs process was not fair
The government plans these shootings by targeting kids from kindergarten that the government thinks they can control with drugs until the appropriate time--DerbyDude
Whatever. Tell the oompa loompa's hey for me. [/quote]. LtPPowell
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,496
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,496 |
glock fan boys should invest in figure sized condoms
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,300
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,300 |
the gun was ready, how he saved some money by elimination of the chrome in the bore before they started using them is part of history. Please post your sources regards how the gun was not ready, it was a choice on DOD's part to send the gun non chromed and with the wrong powder...low bid choice....just like the sig320.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,300
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,300 |
sorry I copied it from the link that I posted. my apologies for the confusion.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,300
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,300 |
just for them records, I own sigs, glocks, SWMP's, Kimber and some others i cannot recall.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,660
Campfire Ranger
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,660 |
the gun was ready, how he saved some money by elimination of the chrome in the bore before they started using them is part of history. Please post your sources regards how the gun was not ready, it was a choice on DOD's part to send the gun non chromed and with the wrong powder...low bid choice....just like the sig320. Source is the book The Black Rifle by Blake Stevens. It wasnât ready in the sense that when they issued the rifle, the cleaning equipment hadnât even been made. The contract for cleaning equipment went out AFTER they put the rifle in the field. Nor had they settled on a standardized loading of the ammunition; they were still experimenting with at least 3 different powders. The lots of ammunition that were identified as problematic hadnât even been properly tested by the Army before issuance in the field. As it turns out, the port pressure was significantly higher (21k vs 16k), which resulted in a much higher cyclic rate (900 vs 650 as specâd). That caused significant reliability problems because the bolt was traveling forward again before the next round in the magazine fully advanced, causing jams (and other issues). The Edgewater buffer was replaced with what is standard in all 20â ARâs today, and that solved much of the cyclic rate problems, but they had to go back to the drawing board and re-formulate the powder. If you donât even have a standardized cartridge specification, then the rifle isnât ready. Thereâs a youtube video also with an interview with L. James Sullivan, the man who designed the AR-15 (Stoner actually didnât have a whole lot to do with the design of the AR15 until much after the fact). In that interview he states that the AR worked, but they werenât aware how on the edge of not working the rifle was as designed. Following all the crap that happened in â66, they had to make a few changes, specifically to the ammunition, buffer, extractor and extractor spring. As for chrome lining, the rifle was never specâd for chrome lining, which was an oversight. Chrome lining was a new concept to the US military, with the M14 being our first chrome lined rifle. During the M14 program they had a good deal of issues with chrome lining which lead to a very high barrel reject rate, thus driving up the cost. Even barrels that were accepted often had high & low spots in the bore which wasnât real great for accuracy. Vietnam era M21 sniper rifles all had air gauged standard M14 barrels that skipped the chrome lining. On the M16 could have skipped the chrome lining on purpose because of the issues they had with the M14 (pure speculation on my part). Still, the chrome lining thing could have been dealt with had our troops had cleaning equipment. There were oodles of M1 Carbines, Garands, Thompsonâs, 1919âs, M3âs, various shotguns, etc. that didnât have chrome lining and while they didnât go unscathed, they didnât experience anything near the disaster that was experienced with the M16âŚItâs amazing what you can accomplish when youâre given the tools to succeed. ETA - The rifles issued were Colt 603's, and they were still stamped XM16E1. They didn't even call it the A1 until '67. XM is the designation for an experimental rifle.
Last edited by GunGeek; 07/19/17.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 17,100
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 17,100 |
Actually I am glad the army didn't adopt the Glock. Now it won't interrupt the supply to the rest of us.
Let me get this straight..So the WW2 era weapons didn't have Crome lining, but the '16s are "better" ok I got itđ
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,660
Campfire Ranger
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,660 |
Let me get this straight..So the WW2 era weapons didn't have Crome lining, but the '16s are "better" ok I got itđ I donât think you took that quite right. I was contrasting how they were able to use the WWII era weapons without all the big rust related issues that the M16 had, and the difference was, they had cleaning equipment for the WWII stuff, but didnât have it for the M16âs. I see that is THE biggest critical failure with the roll out of the M16. Thatâs why the chambers got so badly rusted that rounds would get stuck in the chamber once fired. Even without the chrome lining they could have averted that kind of damage to their weapons if they just had cleaning equipment. That really was the point. To Jimmyâs point though, they really should have specâd the rifle with a chrome bore.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424
Campfire Sage
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 |
the gun was ready, how he saved some money by elimination of the chrome in the bore before they started using them is part of history. Please post your sources regards how the gun was not ready, it was a choice on DOD's part to send the gun non chromed and with the wrong powder...low bid choice....just like the sig320. I don't think I'd condemn the 320 this early... Dave
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual. Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit. My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,300
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,300 |
Where is the fun in that?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,300
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,300 |
The 320 45ACP I saw today looks cool, trigger is awesome.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,890
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,890 |
The 320 45ACP I saw today looks cool, trigger is awesome. Sig's rock
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,660
Campfire Ranger
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,660 |
Iâve shot a couple of 320âs, the full size and the compact; both in 9mm. I really found very little to complain about. Both worked perfectly, felt good in the hand, good triggers, relatively good sights, functioned perfectly, shot very straight. The military tests showed the full sized matched Glock for reliability, and I personally believed they hurried up the results and declared a winner before Mattis was in as Sec-Def, because they were afraid heâd kill the program. Ideally, they should have fully tested the compact pistols. In the end, they may get away with it, or they may not. I think once the 320 is in US military service weâre going to find some inadequacies with the pistol (that always happens), and the DOD will be criticized because they rushed the program. And theyâll take the heat regardless of whether any flaws would have been discovered during testing or not. The problem is, they didnât do what they said they were going to do, and thatâs always going to be a point of controversy.
Still, considering the submissions, and the requirements of the RFP, I think they bought the right pistol.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,300
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,300 |
i am curious how many rounds the modular frame will last, time will tell..
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,660
Campfire Ranger
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,660 |
i am curious how many rounds the modular frame will last, time will tell.. I recalled a service life of 35,000 rounds, so I looked it up. The expected/required service live is 25,000 rounds, but each pistol was to be tested with 35,000 rounds. However, they indicate that while 25k is the requirement, 35k is more desirable (duh!!) file:///C:/Users/Kevin%20Gibson/Downloads/W15QKN15R0002-RFP_Final.pdf The Government will evaluate the capability of the Offerors Modular Handgun System candidate design to meet the Service Life requirement using up to 35,000 rounds of Ball ammunition. Evaluation will consider how closely the candidate Modular Handgun System comes to meeting the threshold requirement of 25,000 rounds as found in the Performance Purchase Description Modular Handgun System (AR-PD-177) paragraph 3.7.1.c and tested concurrently with Reliability in accordance with paragraph 4.8.1. Paragraph 6.7.q of the AR-PD-177 defines criteria which constitues an unserviceable weapon. The closer a candidate system comes to meeting the objective requirement of 35,000, the more favorable the rating will be received. The rating will be based on overall test results and the risk of unsuccessful performance of this factor. While looking that up, I stumbled upon something pertinent to Glock's complaint of not testing the compact pistols. The original RFP was for 280,000 full size pistols, and just 7,000 of the compact pistols. Doesn't really excuse not fully testing them, but it does give a bit more perspective.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,660
Campfire Ranger
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,660 |
i am curious how many rounds the modular frame will last, time will tell.. Also, new frames are $40.00 retail IIRC, so probably about $20.00 for the govt.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 13,545
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 13,545 |
I think Glock was angling for the secondary contract all along. That would explain submitting a pistol that didn't even remotely meet the MHS specs, but had a chance in a standalone compact with the Glock 19. However, Glock so missed the price point they didn't even get that. This was an epic butt kicking delivered by Sig.
Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense. Robert Frost
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,749
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,749 |
what possesses you to say that sending a bare steel barrel into a rain forest was the right call? Secondly having shot early glocks with north of 50,000 rounds through them, time will tell if the modular sig will last as they shut the test down after sig bought the order. so again only time will tell. The modular frame probably cost something like $40. No biggie.
|
|
|
|
103 members (16penny, 280shooter, 257robertsimp, 10gaugemag, 1minute, 18 invisible),
1,277
guests, and
851
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,056
Posts18,463,223
Members73,923
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|