imfdb.org  

Go Back   imfdb.org > The Forum > Just Guns

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-06-2022, 09:51 AM
Spartan198's Avatar
Spartan198 Spartan198 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The scorched state of California
Posts: 2,303
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funkychinaman View Post
I don't doubt that, but if they didn't want bullpups, they should've specified, no bullpups. They're punishing LoneStar for something that wasn't specified.
The fact that LoneStar made it to the finals is generous enough, IMO.
__________________
"Everything is impossible until somebody does it - Batman

RIP Kevin Conroy, the one true Batman
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-08-2022, 10:34 PM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,613
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan198 View Post
The fact that LoneStar made it to the finals is generous enough, IMO.
Doesn't matter; protesting is the norm when a major manufacturer loses out on a major DoD contract. When Glock's 19X wasn't selected by the military, the fact that they still sold thousands of those guns to civilian customers - based entirely on the gun's rep as an MHS finalist - wasn't enough of a consolation prize for them not to protest. (Side note: The Glock 19X has also arguably proven to be a more influential handgun design than the P320, in more ways than one.)

In GD/LoneStar's case, even if/when they come out with a civilian version of the RM-277R, they won't even get the same consolation prize as Glock. The handgun market in the U.S. (and around the world) is much larger than the semi-auto rifle market, and handguns are also more affordable, so they're easier to market and sell to consumers. More than likely, the RM-277R will see limited production for civilian sales, won't sell at all, and will simply fade away.
__________________
Cry "Havoc," and let slip the hogs of war.

Last edited by MT2008; 07-08-2022 at 10:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-11-2022, 05:57 PM
Spartan198's Avatar
Spartan198 Spartan198 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The scorched state of California
Posts: 2,303
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
Doesn't matter; protesting is the norm when a major manufacturer loses out on a major DoD contract. When Glock's 19X wasn't selected by the military, the fact that they still sold thousands of those guns to civilian customers - based entirely on the gun's rep as an MHS finalist - wasn't enough of a consolation prize for them not to protest. (Side note: The Glock 19X has also arguably proven to be a more influential handgun design than the P320, in more ways than one.)
I think Glock already being one of the most popular handguns in the world played some part in it, too. As you probably know, some 70% of LEOs in the US use Glocks.

Quote:
In GD/LoneStar's case, even if/when they come out with a civilian version of the RM-277R, they won't even get the same consolation prize as Glock. The handgun market in the U.S. (and around the world) is much larger than the semi-auto rifle market, and handguns are also more affordable, so they're easier to market and sell to consumers. More than likely, the RM-277R will see limited production for civilian sales, won't sell at all, and will simply fade away.
It still falls back to the fact that bullpups haven't seen widespread acceptance in the US, military or otherwise. But we've seen manufacturers sink lots of money into potential military tenders only to get little to nothing back in the past (HK with the G11 being probably the most egregious example in the case of small arms) and it will probably happen again at some point.
__________________
"Everything is impossible until somebody does it - Batman

RIP Kevin Conroy, the one true Batman
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-11-2022, 11:14 PM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,613
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan198 View Post
I think Glock already being one of the most popular handguns in the world played some part in it, too. As you probably know, some 70% of LEOs in the US use Glocks.
Oh, absolutely - but Glock has had its hits and misses over the years. The primary reason the 19X is still selling, and still in production, is due to its MHS rep. Otherwise, Glock should have phased it out by now to concentrate on production of the G45.

My point, though, is that the consolation prize of the 19X's popularity on the civilian market still doesn't mean Glock didn't feel obligated to protest its MHS loss.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan198 View Post
It still falls back to the fact that bullpups haven't seen widespread acceptance in the US, military or otherwise. But we've seen manufacturers sink lots of money into potential military tenders only to get little to nothing back in the past (HK with the G11 being probably the most egregious example in the case of small arms) and it will probably happen again at some point.
Yes, this is true also, though I should point out that there is still a market for bullpup designs in the U.S., which is why firearms manufacturers continue to bring them to market. But yes, American civilians and LE agencies are so addicted to AR-15-pattern rifles that bullpups will always be a curiosity and a novelty for collectors, rather than a serious contender for most folks' go-to rifles.

I also do think that in GD/LoneStar's case, they were always going to take a bigger loss than Glock took on the 19X (which really wasn't much of a loss) by virtue of the fact that the market for expensive military-style semi-auto rifles is far smaller than the market for handguns.
__________________
Cry "Havoc," and let slip the hogs of war.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.