Coon fingering the M9 has got me to thinking.
I notice that the XM17 trials had mandated a lot of features that appear to steer the selection to a pre-ordained conclusion.
Then I look at the pistols available when the XM9 trials began, I wonder if there were features specified to eliminate guns from the competition, rather than being features that made the gun actually better.
Double action was specified as a must have feature for the new pistol. For a second strike capability on a dud primer. This effectively eliminated the proven FN High Power and the, then new, Glock 17.
Did you ever notice that the only small arm in the entire US inventory that mandated double action was the pistol?
The double strike thing only comes up again with the M320 trials and the M17...
It's very strange to me.
Especially since it's been a very long time since I had to re-tap a round that wasn't 7.62x54mmR.
It would make me very sad to learn that we'd specified features to steer a contract away from an unfavored vendor to a favored one.
Sad, but not surprised.
Click here to submit $0.00 US for a lifetime subscription
Posts
Comments
No comments:
Post a Comment
You are a guest here when you comment. This is my soapbox, not yours. Be polite. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.
Do not go off on a tangent, stay with the topic of the post. If I can't tell what your point is in the first couple of sentences I'm flushing it.
If you're trying to comment anonymously: You can't. Log into your Google account.
If you can't comprehend this, don't comment; because I'm going to moderate and mock you for wasting your time.