Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Glock releases photos of their MHS submission

Somehow that doesn't sound like your writing. Did you copy it from somewhere?

Much to learn you have.




Dave

Yea he pulled it from a cry a lot article from the firearms blog.

They were crying the the mgs process was not fair

glock fan boys should invest in figure sized condoms

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.

sorry I copied it from the link that I posted. my apologies for the confusion.

just for them records, I own sigs, glocks, SWMP's, Kimber and some others i cannot recall.

Source is the book The Black Rifle by Blake Stevens. It wasn’t ready in the sense that when they issued the rifle, the cleaning equipment hadn’t 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 hadn’t 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 spec’d). 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 20” AR’s 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 don’t even have a standardized cartridge specification, then the rifle isn’t ready.

There’s a youtube video also with an interview with L. James Sullivan, the man who designed the AR-15 (Stoner actually didn’t 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 weren’t aware how on the edge of not working the rifle was as designed. Following all the crap that happened in ’66, they had to make a few changes, specifically to the ammunition, buffer, extractor and extractor spring.

As for chrome lining, the rifle was never spec’d 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 wasn’t 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, Thompson’s, 1919’s, M3’s, various shotguns, etc. that didn’t have chrome lining and while they didn’t go unscathed, they didn’t experience anything near the disaster that was experienced with the M16…It’s amazing what you can accomplish when you’re 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.

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 it😉

I don’t 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 didn’t have it for the M16’s. I see that is THE biggest critical failure with the roll out of the M16. That’s 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 Jimmy’s point though, they really should have spec’d the rifle with a chrome bore.

I don't think I'd condemn the 320 this early...




Dave

Where is the fun in that?

The 320 45ACP I saw today looks cool, trigger is awesome.

Sig's rock

I’ve shot a couple of 320’s, 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 he’d 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 we’re going to find some inadequacies with the pistol (that always happens), and the DOD will be criticized because they rushed the program. And they’ll take the heat regardless of whether any flaws would have been discovered during testing or not. The problem is, they didn’t do what they said they were going to do, and that’s 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.

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


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.

Also, new frames are $40.00 retail IIRC, so probably about $20.00 for the govt.

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.

The modular frame probably cost something like $40. No biggie.