Posts
Someone, innocently, tried to opine that the US Army has adopted, just about, the correct handgun for the moment in time it was adopted.
It's an interesting thesis.
I was going to comment that they should have adopted the S&W X100, which after some refinement we know as the Model 39, in 1955.
But the thread is no longer about the US Army generally getting it right, it's now a dick measuring contest about who's right about who won and who should have won the modular handgun competition.
On one side we have someone who's obviously been following it by reading articles in the press, gun magazines and online articles.
On the other we have someone who claims to have been part of the testing.
The second person is also an asshole.
Anyone who disagrees with them "doesn't know what they're talking about but I can't explain because of NDA."
"I know more than you but I can't prove it because I'm sworn to secrecy!"
This guy has the familiar taste of stolen valor.
Meh. Quick series of questions. Which one was less expensive than the other? Which one was ready to start manufacturing? Which one was based on an already successful model and wasn't screwed up by the reviewing committee's many stupid changes? Which one, overall, shot better? Which one, overall, wasn't a maintenance nightmare?
ReplyDeleteSimple as that. The winner should be, first, the one that overall shot better and worked better, and then answered the other questions best.
But was that the gun 'we' got?
Same questions could have been asked when the US adopted the .45 revolver, the .38 revolver, the .45ACP semi-auto, the Beretta 9mm wundergun, and now the new gun. Same with rifles. Same with any weapons.
Can't or won't answer? The results, supposedly, are out there.
He's stating flatly that the P320 and the Glock 19X did not win the shooting and endurance portion of testing and a gun which he cannot name because of the NDA should have been selected.
DeleteI'm about an inch from telling him he might as well name them because he's already in violation of his NDA by naming SIG and Glock...
But, why did the P320 win?
Because it most closely adhered to the RFP.
It's likely that the AF puke (WHY THE FUCK IS THE AIR FORCE IN CHARGE OF WRITING THE RFP FOR SMALL ARMS?!?) wrote that RFP by naming features of the SIG P250 and the P320 came along later.
The same shenanigans applied to the process that led to the Beretta M9. The specifications were changed several times to eliminate "unacceptable" candidates. The double action requirement was primarily changed to take the Browning Hi-Power off the table and it was mainly done by Smith and Wesson to get a leg up.
The competitions that led to the M1911 is amazingly straight forward and clean. "Bring your best and we'll see if the troops can destroy them." Least destroyed wins!
There was some real ground breaking technology entered to compete and in hindsight it would appear that we didn't adopt a Luger in .45 because DWM declined to enter the troop trials because they had orders all the guns they could make for years and years and tooling up to make a special model for the tiny US order wasn't going to be worth it for them.
Then there's the several RFP where the military didn't order anything after the gun makers made guns to suit the proposal. Several of them didn't bother submitting after the third or fourth revision to the requirements.
Didja know that the Ruger American was originally going to be submitted to the modular pistol competition? I think they saw the direction of the wind and said, "never mind."
Although as you know, I don't always agree with you, I do have respect that your opinions are generally without exception based on arguments that are made logically.
ReplyDelete