|
|
|
|
#1
07-08-2017, 11:39 AM
|
||||
|
||||
It seems Glock just won't accept that they were passed over.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...kly+Newsletter
__________________
"Everything is impossible until somebody does it - Batman RIP Kevin Conroy, the one true Batman 
|
|
#2
07-08-2017, 08:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"
|
|
#3
07-09-2017, 01:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Everything is impossible until somebody does it - Batman RIP Kevin Conroy, the one true Batman
|
|
#4
07-09-2017, 04:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I like SIGs, but the P320 is not one of my favorite SIG pistols, and I think the Army's requirements were misguided. Personally, I would have gone with Glock, given existing customer base in SOF units, and the fact that it is now a more mature design than the P320 family. Quote:
__________________
Cry "Havoc," and let slip the hogs of war.
|
|
#5
07-09-2017, 08:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
By the way, the lawsuit between Helga Glock and Gaston Glock was settled in Gaston's favour in early 2017. I have a feeling some highly-placed people in the company want some increased market share so as to help pay the legal fees.
|
|
#6
07-11-2017, 01:15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
From what I've read, the SIG and Glock both met specs with the performance differences between them trivial at best, so picking the cheaper option makes obvious sense. The Beretta 92 is widely believed to be inferior to the SIG 226 (an opinion I share), but can anyone say it hasn't proven to still be an excellent pistol over the years?
Glock is pushing for the MHS program to be restarted, but if it is, I suspect it will end up backfiring on them and get the program cancelled altogether.
__________________
"Everything is impossible until somebody does it - Batman RIP Kevin Conroy, the one true Batman Last edited by Spartan198; 07-11-2017 at 02:20 PM.
|
|
#7
07-11-2017, 02:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The whole underbidding of contacts is always a staple. We wish the best money can buy should be afforded to the guys in uniform but politics and costs will always put it down
__________________
 "There's a fine line between not listening and not caring...I like to think I walk that line everyday of my life." Blessed be the LORD, my rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle Psalm 144:1 “It is always wrong to use force, unless it is more wrong not to.”
|
|
#8
07-11-2017, 02:35 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Everything is impossible until somebody does it - Batman RIP Kevin Conroy, the one true Batman
|
|
#9
07-12-2017, 02:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm also questioning the purpose of something a gimmicky sounding as "Modular". As if it was purpose built to be that mindset. For basic infantry that are issued a sidearm, why does it matter if it can be changed into a more compact weapon? It's a sidearm that will most likely not see use. While Special Forces type will most likely see more uses with pistols, their loadout should change depending on the mission they are on, unless they plan to bring different frames and slides to drop the P320's internal while out on the field?
I can understand the concept of having a purpose built weapon if it was a rifle, but I don't see the need to have it on a pistol.
__________________
"There's a fine line between not listening and not caring...I like to think I walk that line everyday of my life." Blessed be the LORD, my rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle Psalm 144:1 “It is always wrong to use force, unless it is more wrong not to.”
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
