08 August 2017

Safety

A lot of criticism was leveled on the procurement of the Beretta M9 and how many changes needed to be made going from Model 92F to becoming M9.

Changes that fell from an extended and ridiculously rigorous period of testing that subjected the guns to things that were, well, ridiculous.

Now we've got SIG P320's going off if you breathe lightly on the back of the slide?

While that's a gross exaggeration, this is the kind of flaw that gets noticed when you do the entire prescribed testing procedure for a pistol, including troop trials, and gets changes made before you order a few thousand of the damn things.

Since the P320 has been type classified with this flaw as the M17, it makes me wonder if we have to have the full procedure for going A1 on it.

It's not unheard of.

Or are we going to make a parts change silently and make no designation change?

It's not unheard of.

I get that the full testing methods are tedious and expensive.

But there's reasons for them that were written in blood.

The M16 has still to shake its reputation for bypassing those tests.  Yes, I know that the reason for the bypass was because the M14 had passed them and then all of the inherent corruption of the National Armory was laid bare when just one maker of the gun, who'd never made guns before, could make them to spec.

Embarrassments like that tend to make you doubt your methodology.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Try to remember you are a guest here when you comment. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.