New CF Service Pistol

wicked_police said:
Even in jest, that's a pretty stupid thing to say.

Do you have a personally owned AR-15 that you make good use of government property (C7, C8) for 'free spare parts'?
Click to expand...

Do you think the CF really needs a pistol?

How but just a big knife? Maybe with a hook on the end instead? :p

w:h:
 
Doc M said:
Yep.



Yep again. F*cking braindead is right. Produced in Canada, by ANOTHER MANUFACTURER WHO IS A DIRECT COMPETITOR IN YOUR INDUSTRY.

It's not like "specs will be forwarded to Weyerhauser who will saw a wood block into the shape of your pistol." It's "specs will be forwarded to someone who has been your competitor for decades and will no doubt use your engineering specs to attempt the creation of a competitive product."

F*cking bat-sh*t insane.

-M
Click to expand...

Technical data packages are handed over by the manufactures all the time. It is not a big deal as some of you think. They cost money to do up but it is the norm for a number of military items. The purpose is to make sure the military can manufacture the parts for the firearm well into the future regardless if the original manufacturer is still in business. Normal contracting for small arms, certain weapon systems, optics, and thinks like tanks, APCs etc.

Not a big deal and a significant number of manufacturers will compete for the contract. Some of you are getting excited over nothing. The technical data package is normal business in the procurement world.
 
dinsdale said:
Glock ruled out by 3-10 "The trigger not be required to be depressed as part of the dissassebly process."

M9 out by weight, DA/SA, adjustable Grip size etc.
Same for Sig.

M&PPro and HK P30L are possibilities but non-Nato adopted AFAIK.
Lots of police forces but not military.
Click to expand...

Iraqi National Police were shipped a big box of M&P's not that long ago (several thousand IIRC)...

Having said that, this whole thing is full-on retard. We shoot ourselves in the foot constantly and end up wasting the taxpayers dollars to invent a "Canadian" solution when there is perfectly acceptable COTS items available. Look at the rucksack for example - I had some MCpl from the RdeHull tell me "Sir this is state of the art, the aluminum stays are moldable to fit your back, blah-biddy-blah-blah..." When I told him that the first time I molded aluminum stays to my back to fit a pack was just before I headed to W Virginia for a climbing expedition in 19-friggin'-88 he looked at me like I had 3 heads.

Oh yeah, and I was doing the fitting of the pack in Dana Gleasons garage in Thunder Bay, back when he was just some dude who made packs, not Dr. Gleason. State of the art my narrow white Irish ass...

We're doing it to ourselves again. Just decide which one we want and use all that money that would be spent on coming up with a "Canadian" solution (read that as "dumb-assery) and buy x-amount more of the chosen pistol/mags/spare parts. Surely if we've managed to squeeze 60+ years out of the BHP we can get at least that many years out of a Glock/HK/M&P or whatever.

We were talking about this same s**t in '93 when I was shooting at CFSAC for crying out loud.
 
What would be wrong with a new order of Browning Hi-Power pistols from Colt? (wasn't it Colt who made the first ones before FN got into it?)

It doesn't seem to make much sense to require that the new GSP be produced in Canada by Colt Canada. A run of 10,000 pistols just won't be practical for Colt Canada IMHO - simply because the tooling is likely to eat the profit they'd make (that is, if they don't jack up the price to cover the tooling costs).

The CF only has a certain amount of money to spend on a new pistol, is anyone even going to bid on the contract with the current contract specs?
 
If they want Colt Canada to produce it that really narrows the field - does CC have the technical expertise required to mold polymer frames with or without steel inserts? It's a pretty bad joke anyway, replacing pistols while there are dozens of other equipment requirements that actually might affect war fighting capability.
 
Hopefully they have better luck with the handguns then they did with their light truck...

lsvw.jpg
 
wicked_police said:
Even in jest, that's a pretty stupid thing to say.

Do you have a personally owned AR-15 that you make good use of government property (C7, C8) for 'free spare parts'?
Click to expand...

Hmmm you again "Time to ignore you for now on"

Yes it was in jest, hence the " :p " and No I dont own a AR "thanks for accusing me of stealing buds" :slap:

I'll insure I run my post through you first before posting in the future ;)
 
Last edited:


Anyone who claims the DND will scrub a potential pistol candidate because of being 1) polymer framed and 2) striker-fired definitely has their 'protectionist, "1911 or bust", screw all others' hat on.

But, because the winning bidder will need to disclose and hand their TDP to Colt Canada for final assembly, one needs to consider just how much re-tooling, reconstruction of the foundries, etc that needs to be done if a polymer based platform is selected. There would a lot of initial cost involved and obviously the tax payer will be responsible for this.

There's definitely doing to be some cost-cutting BS, red tape and general bureaucratic hodge podge that will leave many face-palming for a while after the GSP is selected by the Canadian government.

Let the back-scratching, back-stabbing, golf tournaments, company-expensed this and that begin.


 
Here's the part that doesn't make sense to me for 10,000 units:
a. for National Security reasons, the weapons will be produced in Canada by Colt
Canada under license; and-
(This makes sense to me if the new firearm is going to carry the life cycle of the old H.P.):
b. 3rd line depot-level maintenance and Life Cycle support can be provided to this
weapons fleet by Colt Canada.

As for the technical data package, as I see it, would still be protected by patent or copyright by the original designer/ manufacturer.
 
Dsiwy said:
Hmmm you again "Time to ignore you for now on"

Yes it was in jest, hence the " :p " and No I dont own a AR "thanks for accusing me of stealing buds" :slap:

I'll insure I run my post through you first before posting in the future ;)
Click to expand...

Why the change?
This was your original post.
Dsiwy said:
Yes it was in jest and No I dont own a AR "thanks for assuming"
Click to expand...

If you were capable of basic comprehension, you'd know I neither accused you of stealing, or assumed you owned an AR, it was a question based on your post.

And if you're putting me on ignore, why would you bother letting me vet your posts?
 
Doc M said:
An HK USP with deleted safety would fit this contract nicely... but if you think HK is going to divulge all their prints and manufcturing tech to Colt Canada, you're on glue.

This contract is horrendously poorly written, and it wouldn't surprise me to see no serious bids.

F*cking government idiots.

-M
Click to expand...

From reading the Annex, and considering the list of companies that won't willingly share a TDP wit Colt Canada, I can only think of one gun that might fit the bill, and it's a long shot at that.

The Grand Power Mk7 DAO.

The hiccup is, is Slovakia part of Nato??

Am I reading this right. The contract is not for pistols, but for the TDP and support so Colt Canada can make them here?

If that's the case, the cost per pistol could be relatively small. I'm thinking Colt Canada already have an injection molding machine, and a hammer forging machine for pounding out the barrels.
 
This entire process seems to be designed to purchase $6,000,000 to 8, 000,000 worth of handguns at a cost of $25, 000,000.

offshore production was a real concern in the 19th century but given the current and foreseeable geopolitical situation it makes little sense to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom