Want to buy the Glock that lost the Army handgun competition?
- Thread starter Big Bad
- Start date
1873shootist
Regular
Changeable grip "panels" is a far cry from a completely removable fire control mechanism and replaceable non-serial-numbered grip frames of different sizes and shapes. Swapping out grip panels is NOT a modular pistol.
Caliber interchangeability and different uppers is easy to obtain with any existing design.
Glock's greatest failing here was their refusal to progress beyond the past by not introducing a truly modular frame pistol, and simply assuming that the military would not dare to choose another pistol.
Perhaps they feared that by producing an actual modular frame pistol, that it would instantly make everything that they currently produce obsolete. Obviously a devastating move commercially.
So, like Henry Ford, they chose to stick with their version of the Model "T" beyond it's time. They hoped that the U.S. military would accept it anyway, and to revalidate their old technology for awhile.
It didn't work.
Whoa... maybe check that tone. This is a family forum.
Your post is really quite combative and unwarranted. Of course the manual of arms is about safety in a general sense - it's also ingrained on the grey-bearded headquarters soldiers making the decision, all of who trained on the 1911 or M9. But I guess the FBI, most US PDs, SOCOM forces, and (statistically speaking) nearly every LEO/Mil agency in north america are all safety-negligent because they issue standard SF weapons with no add-on safety (yes, some are even Glocks).
Saying the add-on safety was because SF weapons are inherently unsafe - which you pushed on me with the typewritten tone of am ANTIFA social justice warrior - just doesn't hold up to the lens of common sense. It's about US ARMY training, doctrine and culture - not that SF weapons are inherently unsafe in combat.
And FWIW, Glock is the issue sidearm of 24 national militaries according to Wikipedia. None of them needed another add-on safety to deem the pistol combat-capable and safe.
Wow - if only the Glock and FN people had access to the official CGN definition of "modular pistol" (and been $120M cheaper and agreed to give all their technical data pack and IP rights to uncle sam), they might be the winners of the competition.
Please, enlighten me, where did you find this US-case law legally defined definition of "modular pistol"? Clearly it's a term whose common language meaning is self evident IAW the US DoD Request for Proposal. I read the RFP myself - must have missed that.
FWIW, the DoD and the GAO both found the Glock technically compliant with the Statement of Requirements for the MODULAR HANDGUN SYSTEM Contract. Their assessment, not mine. They must also have missed your well-researched definition.
Maybe it would have proven to be at the 35000 round mark, but when they stopped testing at 33% of the specified number of test rounds for the full sized gun and at 4% of the specified number of test rounds for the compact gun, the SIG was less accurate and had a higher stoppage rate. GAO's data - not mine.
What made it "superior" (in that it won) was that it gave the best return on investment of cost vs. performance vs. intellectual property access. GAO called this the "best value for money for the government".
GAO and DoD did NOT state that the Sig performed better in their tests. The reverse was true, but it performed well enough that they could live with the lower performance. They also redacted all info on how much the gun under-performed and have refused to release the data on how much performance they gave up to get a cheap price.
We only know any of this because Glock lodged a formal complaint. They were at the tests and their legal agent witnessed the test. What they saw prompted them to challenge the result.
FN was also there, but because they opted not to challenge the results, we don't know how their product finished in relation to Glock or Sig. There is a ton of debate only because the data for Glock and Sig is public.
For all we know, the FN outperformed both guns (?)
You really are getting excitable.
When did senior military staff become "grey bearded"? I suppose a Canadian sitting in front of a key board who happens to own a Glock 34 has a far better understanding of the requirements than a senior officer in the US Army. When did you become an expert in US Army training and doctrine?
Consider having 5K 19 year old recruits going through basic training with little or no handgun experience and then ask yourself would a manual safety be a smart idea on a handgun?
Read some of the dribble you have been posting here on what you know or think you know about the requirements and testing procedures of the US Army. More to the point Canadian civilians having the arrogance to think they have direct insight into the selection process of one of the largest armed forces in the world is laughable.
You better go re-read my post #40. Nowhere did I say, "Saying the add-on safety was because SF weapons are inherently unsafe - which you pushed on me with the typewritten tone of am ANTIFA social justice warrior - just doesn't hold up to the lens of common sense. " No it doesn't nor did say any such thing. My comment was clearly directed at the possibility of reducing accidental shootings during training. It happens, and such accidents are expensive in terms of lost manpower and training investment.
Lastly if you equate the average applicant for LEO or FBI entry level work to the average applicant for US Army recruits then you really should do some research into the job requirements for all three.
Glock has won it's share of military contracts just not the US Army contract - a contract I suspect that is larger than all the other military contracts combined.
I apologize if I offended your sensitivities I am rather certain you will get over it in time.
Take Care
Bob
ps I have no idea what a "ANTIFA social justice warrior"is so you can be reasonably be assured I did not intend to call you one. :>) Way to cerebral for me...I am offended.
VinceDrake
Member
- Location
- Sunny South Sask.
Just thinking out loud here--
A replace-able grip assembly mitigates 80% of the (albeit minor) concerns with polymer pistols. Especially when a purchaser is looking at a service-life of 20+ years.
Damaged in extreme cold, while being used to pound nails? --Replace grips
Damaged due to extreme heat, while being used as a wheel chock for a deuce and a half? --Replace grips
Damaged due to Carb-kleen exposure while attempting to remove epithelials? --Replace grips
Damaged due to mashing grip assembly into door frame of patrol vehicle? --Replace grips
Damaged due to being run over by multiple vehicles, and 1 bicycle? --Replace grip, cerakote slide.
To my mode of thinking, there's huge value to a replace-able grip frame, a la P320, Ruger American, etc, especially in a fleet application. A huge value that would not necessarily show up in an endurance/mud/sand/damp chicken test.
Just throwing it out there.
A replace-able grip assembly mitigates 80% of the (albeit minor) concerns with polymer pistols. Especially when a purchaser is looking at a service-life of 20+ years.
Damaged in extreme cold, while being used to pound nails? --Replace grips
Damaged due to extreme heat, while being used as a wheel chock for a deuce and a half? --Replace grips
Damaged due to Carb-kleen exposure while attempting to remove epithelials? --Replace grips
Damaged due to mashing grip assembly into door frame of patrol vehicle? --Replace grips
Damaged due to being run over by multiple vehicles, and 1 bicycle? --Replace grip, cerakote slide.
To my mode of thinking, there's huge value to a replace-able grip frame, a la P320, Ruger American, etc, especially in a fleet application. A huge value that would not necessarily show up in an endurance/mud/sand/damp chicken test.
Just throwing it out there.
I think you have me confused with someone else?
FWIW, after-market producers make replacement polymer frames for cheap for many of the popular SF models. The only time I've seen polymer frames fail to the point of needing replacement is when a gun goes KB. In that case, the military would scrap the whole works anyhow and pull a new one off the shelf.
The idea behind the MHS contract specifically was to be able to re-configure the gun from compact to full-size and add things like optics by just changing the slide. In Glock-speak, that would be like slapping an MOS slide onto your regular G17M frame.
The competition had specific requirements - all the entrants appear to have met them. the ergonomists at aberdeen scored the sig panels higher than glock's (and possibly others' submissions) because they panels adjust palmswell, not just grip thickness and beavertail length.
LOL... sorry, can't help it... I give you: the SJW:
It's an internet meme - a popular one, too.
Yes, my 34 is stock. Yes, if you wanted to just say "better" instead of "a little better" you certainly could. I had the opportunity to shoot them side by side earlier this year and although I really, really like the PPQ I didn't feel it was life changing. The price point is exceptional though. If I were in the market for a striker gun today Walther would likely be getting my money.
Regarding the P320 issue being "resolved" that word typically implies that an issue no longer exists. As far as I'm aware customers still don't have their guns fixed, nor are they aware how long they'll be without them while being repaired as reports have been that SIG will be doing a reasonably extensive amount of work in order to fix the issue.
I'm thinking more of your rather firm stance on trigger feel, and other statements made where you seem to have a definite idea of what things should or should not be, but are missing an entire area of knowledge as shown in other posts. I was just curious.
Probably a wise move on your part. I think you would agree the G 34 is not holding you back on performance. Kinda where I am with my M&P PRO. I have a liking for the PPQ but as much as it has a VG trigger and looks ###y as hell I doubt my scores would fall noticeably if I made the switch. I do want to play with my M9A1 Compact in IDPA CCP Division next year so buying a PPQ is probably not something I should pursue....but when did "should", "need" or "common sense enter the equation. :>) Maybe in the spring.....
By resolved I meant the fix is available. From what I have read, a lot of owners are not all that concerned about the issue, if indeed it is an issue to worry about. The 1911, without a FPB and taped grip safety are popular in some shooting sports and folks seem to manage using the gun with very light trigger pulls. I would think those guns would have a pretty high propensity to go off when dropped and you don't hear of it happening often. In any event it is not my concern. I don't own a 320. If I did I would get the fix if there is one. They are pretty nice shooters from my limited experience with them. I know the individual whose gun I shot certainly was happy with his.
Good Shooting
Take Care
Bob
ps Your g 34 is a heck of a gun. Vogel manages to win the US IDPA SSP Division by several minutes against his peers using the gun.
I'm thinking more of your rather firm stance on trigger feel, and other statements made where you seem to have a definite idea of what things should or should not be, but are missing an entire area of knowledge as shown in other posts. I was just curious.
Don't know what to say. There are some things I have experience with and an almost infinite number of things I do not.
