Colt won!


PDA






Red Cent
July 24, 2012, 11:32 AM
http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/2012/07/19/m45-marsoc-pistol-contract-is-done-deal/

If you enjoyed reading about "Colt won!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
heeler
July 24, 2012, 11:41 AM
No doubt there are some happy workers living in Hartford.

Vonderek
July 24, 2012, 11:41 AM
$1,875 per pistol? Wow.

Certaindeaf
July 24, 2012, 11:43 AM
$1900 per pistol? I cry uncle, Sam.

Ha, Von beat me to it.

Skribs
July 24, 2012, 11:48 AM
I personally see absolutely no reason for the military to spend that much on a handgun.

Certaindeaf
July 24, 2012, 11:58 AM
Now they'll sell them for $2400 to the rest of the rubes.. "it's what the military uses!".
feh

clem
July 24, 2012, 11:59 AM
If even one American life is saved because of this pistol, $1,900.00 isn't nothing.

Certaindeaf
July 24, 2012, 12:00 PM
^
By that logic, $1500 fingernail clippers make sense.

rbernie
July 24, 2012, 12:03 PM
$1900 per pistol? I cry uncle, SamThat's not a true per-unit price, since MARCORSYSCOM (as is customary) doubtless requested spares and other deliverables along with each pistol.

ETA - I found the FBO posting:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=8b5840d27b00401cfdcc1ce4011bd2c5&tab=core&_cview=0

jimbo555
July 24, 2012, 12:35 PM
Congratulations to Colt!:D

Kleanbore
July 24, 2012, 01:06 PM
$1900 per pistol? I cry uncle, Sam
That's not a true per-unit price, since MARCORSYSCOM (as is customary) doubtless requested spares and other deliverables along with each pistol.

Right--the contract amount is for "Efforts required to produce and provide logistics support for the Close Quarter Battle Pistol (CQBP)."

The CQBP is not a commercial product. It is a special design that will be produced in low quantity.

It is not possible to determine from the information now available how much the Government will pay for the pistols themselves.

The contract was priced competitively. Colt was selected over two other bidders.

scramasax
July 24, 2012, 01:09 PM
Hope they come with enough spare parts to rebuild a couple of times. I got a cons# pair for less at a retail shop. No surprise for government spending.

ts

WinThePennant
July 24, 2012, 01:25 PM
I'm actually glad to hear that Colt won this contract.

I'm scratching my head as to why this design is still desired by the US Military.

Kleanbore
July 24, 2012, 02:04 PM
Posted by scramasax: Hope they come with enough spare parts to rebuild a couple of times.They may. We don't know.

I got a cons# pair for less at a retail shop.Pair of what?

I'm sure they were not low production pistols with a special finish and recoil mechanism that had passed extensive military endurance testing.

rajb123
July 24, 2012, 03:12 PM
...that is why we have a $15.8 trillion national debt....

this is a disgrace..... I hope this contract is cancelled in January 2013 when the massive national defense cuts go into effect...

Congress is nuts....!

jogar80
July 24, 2012, 03:13 PM
I'm scratching my head as to why this design is still desired by the US Military.

It just works... and so does the round it shoots

WinThePennant
July 24, 2012, 03:34 PM
It just works... and so does the round it shoots
It just works... After it is tuned and preened and coaxed and petted and stroked and so on and so forth.

There are better combat pistols available, and at a much lower price point.

jmr40
July 24, 2012, 04:25 PM
If even one American life is saved because of this pistol, $1,900.00 isn't nothing.


A $1,900 gun won't save a life any better than a $400 Ruger would have done.

What a waste of taxpayer money!!!

Skylerbone
July 24, 2012, 04:34 PM
Not just amazing that this is the second thread this week on the subject but that we have members who believe military spending is what's bankrupted our country. As you walk around today, ask yourself which 1 in every 6 people you pass by is receiving one or more forms of government "aid". Not constitutional, unlike defense spending. As far as small arms go, I wonder how many bat an eye at Knights Armament charging $23,000 per rifle package to arm one man. Colt's Rail Gun, the basis for this model retails around $1,100. Considering the $150-$250 upcharge companies place on ceramic coatings, the additional magazines, spare pistols and spare parts, I see this as a bargain. Consider the cost of switching platforms, training armorers and re-training troops before crying foul.

To those who believe the 1911 needs pampering to work at all, how did those used in WWII survive that war, Korea, Vietnam and another decade beyond before a successor was chosen, mainly to satisfy NATO?

I'm sure someone will soon post links to the story and fake photos of these new Colts with cracked frames and failed parts.

Kleanbore
July 24, 2012, 04:44 PM
Posted by rajb123: ...that is why we have a $15.8 trillion national debt....

this is a disgrace..... I hope this contract is cancelled in January 2013 when the massive national defense cuts go into effect...You cannot begin to know the per-unit price, since the competitively awarded contract price includes a logistics support line item.

One therefore must conclude that your complaint is about the fact that the Marines are buying a small quantity of a non-standard firearm rather than M9 Berettas.

rajb123
July 24, 2012, 04:46 PM
....wasted money is wasted money. what is wrong with the old 1911s? I'm writting my Congressman and I will ask him to cancel the Colt contract which I find insulting as a taxpayer.

el Godfather
July 24, 2012, 05:06 PM
Life of a soldier is not dependant on spending more money on a pistol. If spending money alone would save lives then entire prespective would be different.

In military cost benefit analysis must be made, and I dont see what a $1900 1911 could do special.

clang
July 24, 2012, 05:15 PM
Congrats to Colt, but I am another one that can not understand what a $600 S&W M&P .45 can not do in a soldier's hands that this gun can. OR a Ruger, or one of several other great guns.

Would you be as happy if your local police department contracted for these guns at this price per unit?

Kleanbore
July 24, 2012, 05:25 PM
Posted by rajb123: ....wasted money is wasted money.True, but what is your beef?

what is wrong with the old 1911s?They were worn out back in the 1980s. The last ones were manufactured in WWII. The Kimbers that the Marine SOC have been using are worn out.

I'm writting my Congressman and I will ask him to cancel the Colt contract which I find insulting as a taxpayer.OK, but he cannot do that without a majority in both houses and the President's signature, and if you want to start making a stink, you had first better try to figure out just what it is about the contract that you do not like.

Does the total price seem too high to you, knowing what you know, even though it was competitively awarded? Is there something about the logistics support line item that you dislike? Do you not like the specification?

If it is the specification, what is that you do not like? The caliber? The endurance requirement? The finish? the Rail? The fact that the pistol must accept 1911 magazines?

And might I respectfully respect two things: none of us know why it is what it is, and none of us are charged with putting our lives on the line for our country.

Personally, I find it odd that one of the requirements was that the CQBP accept 1911 magazines, but I do not have sufficient knowledge to criticize that fact.

Kleanbore
July 24, 2012, 05:33 PM
Posted by clang: ... I am another one that can not understand what a $600 S&W M&P .45 can not do in a soldier's hands that this gun can. OR a Ruger, or one of several other great guns.

How much would your "$600 S&W M&P .45" cost with the logistics support added in?

Considering maintenance and endurance, would either the S&W or the Ruger involve a lower total ownership cost than the Colt, or a higher one?

Will either meet SOC combat requirements?

Would you be as happy if your local police department contracted for these guns at this price per unit?What is the price per unit of the hardware line item?

WinThePennant
July 24, 2012, 05:39 PM
How much would your "$600 S&W M&P .45" cost with the logistics support added in?

Considering maintenance and endurance, would either the S&W or the Ruger involve a lower total ownership cost than the Colt, or a higher one?

Will either meet SOC combat requirements?

What is the price per unit of the hardware line item?
You are suggesting that it would cost more to provide and support a polymer framed gun as opposed to an all-steel gun? Much less one that, despite its historic fame and many fans, is well-known as a model that requires a lot of TLC?

Hangingrock
July 24, 2012, 05:45 PM
The Keyboard Multitudes telling or suggesting to the Marine Corps what they the Marines should or should not do in regards to weapon procurement. The absurdity of it all should not be lost on the multitudes.

Kleanbore
July 24, 2012, 06:05 PM
Posted by WinThePennant: You are suggesting that it would cost more to provide and support a polymer framed gun as opposed to an all-steel gun? Much less one that, despite its historic fame and many fans, is well-known as a model that requires a lot of TLC?NO!

One more time--we do not know the price of the Colt pistol by itself; we do not know what the other manufacturers would charge for logistics support; and we do not know the service life either one.

We simply cannot compare the total ownership cost of a pistol that sells for $600 by itself with that of a pistol that has a unit price that we do not know.

And price aside, we have absolutely no idea about how well one would serve the Marines in combat. The Colt has been tested for that, and the others have not.

clem
July 24, 2012, 06:50 PM
A $1,900 gun won't save a life any better than a $400 Ruger would have done.

What a waste of taxpayer money!!!
If the Ruger is so hot, how come it was not the winner?

PRM
July 24, 2012, 08:12 PM
I truly love the 1911 - and to me that has always meant Colt. Although, my most recent 1911 is the REMINGTON R1, and it is a gem.

I've got almost 40 years total military service with the Marine(s), Marine Reserve and National Guard. Eight of that has been active duty, with multiple deployments. On the civilian side, I've been a cop for 35 years.

Lot of folks won't agree with this - but, I would take 16 rounds of 9MM (15+1) any day over a single stack gun, even in .45. If I could outfit three soldiers VS one on cost (and that is debatable) - I know where my money would be spent. From the military side - I've got to be out of .223 or have my M4 disabled before the handgun is even considered. In Afghanistan, the M9 was nice on the FOB - outside the wire, the M4 was the preferred individual weapon.

Good for Colt - its capitalism at its best. They sold their product and I'm sure there are a lot of folks who will welcome it to the inventory.

Skylerbone
July 24, 2012, 08:30 PM
It is evident some do not have a firm grasp on how our government does business. Ask yourself how much a Corvette would cost if you required a Hemi engine, Ford rear end, four wheel drive, six full-size spare tires and a pit crew. A far sight more than the floor model.

If those are the specs. and Chevy, Ford or Dodge want to bid, they must conform, it must work and they must demonstrate their capability and capacity to meet the contract. Clearly they wanted a 1911 platform. Ours is not to wonder why, ours is but to pay taxes and die.

Texan Scott
July 24, 2012, 09:16 PM
I am appalled and disgusted. Not by the price of the pistol (which was clearly the lowest priced that met their requirements), but by the people who are willing to send US Marines into harm's way with a "$400 Ruger" that's 'just as good'. How many of us have been issued 'lowest bidder garbage' that really was junk? Every M-16 I was ever handed bobbled 3-4 rounds per 80 under the nice, clean, dry, cover range conditions AT QUAL... thank the heavens I never actually had to do much more than carry mine! I don't know how much they paid for those guns, but I *WISH* they'd payed twice as much and spent half of it on armory support! Have you looked at the price of ONE, just ONE F-22? How can you look at that, then begrudge a Marine Spec Ops troop, one of the first men INTO DANGER, the PITTANCE that gets spent on a sidearm that costs less than the coffin you'll see his brothers BURIED IN?
:fire::cuss::fire::cuss::fire::cuss::fire:

Kleanbore
July 24, 2012, 09:22 PM
Posted by clem: If the Ruger is so hot, how come it was not the winner? Ruger did not respond to the solicitation. Colt's competitors were Karl Lippard Designs of Colorado Springs, CO; and Springfield Armory, Inc. of Geneseo, IL.

HKGuns
July 24, 2012, 09:24 PM
...that is why we have a $15.8 trillion national debt....

this is a disgrace..... I hope this contract is cancelled in January 2013 when the massive national defense cuts go into effect...

Seriously? I'm going to try to keep this response high road and tell you to go read the constitution and come back and tell me the proper role(s) of the Federal Government. (Hint, one of them is defense.)

As a veteran I have ZERO qualms about the military getting the very best equipment. I can only guess that you've served a total of ZERO days in your life. I'll authorize that spend ever single second of the day before I authorize the continued support of some nehr-do-well's that aren't worth the time spent pulling them out of their gutter.

Get somewhat of a clue about where tax dollars are truly wasted, then go back to your constitution reading assignment and you'll find those programs are not a proper function of the Federal Government.

My work is done here.

On a positive note....Where are all those posters who like to claim the 1911 is "antiquated"!! Guess they're wrong on that count. Great for Colt.

Ash
July 24, 2012, 09:26 PM
Consider that on a per-pistol basis, the SIG 226 beat the Beretta 92FS. When support, replacement parts, etc was factored in, Beretta was cheapest.

The Marines evidently considered it the best deal. They really did, and the Marines are not a group with a history awash in money - often being the red-headed step-children of the Navy and Army when it comes to equipment.

In the end, what ever we think, the Marines decided that for their needs - and they know better what they need than anyone here - this pistol as provided by Colt met those needs.

Texan Scott
July 24, 2012, 09:37 PM
I dont see what a $1900 1911 could do special.
Imagine the USMC having the temerity to think they know more about close-quarters combat than members of a sport shooters' forum!

rajb123
July 24, 2012, 09:40 PM
Let's produce an exact copy of a 101 year old pistol and charge the government a 600% mark up on our production costs.

That should make the taxpayers happy! ...it sure makes our shareholders happy!

Hell, I should make the government toilet seats at $800 a copy. Who cares what they are worth, I just want to get rich.

Texan Scott
July 24, 2012, 09:54 PM
If you're willing to make 4,000 toilet seats for the Corps, and throw in open-ended 'logistical support' for $800 apiece, I won't begrudge you the money! :D

ETA: point is, for whatever reason, Marines tend to be a bit rough on their equipment... Building a pistol to their specs and being on the hook to fix anything a Marine can break is a pretty tall order for less than $1,900 a pop. The fact that NOBODY was willing to do it for LESS is not the least bit surprising. These men deserve to be equipped with something that meets their expectations, which are based on their (not inconsiderable) experience with what works and what doesn't when dirt meets action, metal meets blood, and blood meets dirt.

buckhorn_cortez
July 24, 2012, 10:33 PM
Hell, I should make the government toilet seats at $800 a copy. Who cares what they are worth, I just want to get rich.

Ignorance on parade. The toilet seat canard is worth delving into. The toilet seat in question, made famous by a grandstanding congresscritter, wasn't just a toilet seat as held up by said congresscritter to make a name for himself and the expense of the manufacturer.

It was, in fact, a stainless steel fabrication that was the ENTIRE TOP surface to a toilet in an airplane. The "toilet seat" included the pump mechanism and power seal that sealed the flapper to the top assembly when not being flushed.

On top of that, the seat assembly was a low volume item, and more to the point, all the manufacturer did was make it to meet the specifications - which they did not write.

Before playing keyboard commando - you might want to have some facts instead of innuendo and ignorance.

As for the Marines - I wouldn't begin to second guess why they want a 1911. Their business is killing the enemy - if that's what they need - "hell" (I always like the fake emphasis) I'll buy at least one of the guns personally for them, any day, any time - it's the least I could do.

TG13
July 24, 2012, 10:37 PM
the 1911 works, the .45acp works.. many soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq have complained repeatedly about the M9's problematic issues and the lesser effectiveness of 9MM NATO ball rounds..

$1800.00 per pistol isn't too much to pay.. with support, parts, etc.. all that has been shown is the pistol itself, we do not know what has been done to the pistol to differentiate it from production models, we don't know what it actually comes with and how long the support is for..

to decry it as a "waste of taxpayer's money" is very short sighted.. 22,500,000.00 is literally *nothing* in the budget..

saturno_v
July 24, 2012, 10:58 PM
Not just amazing that this is the second thread this week on the subject but that we have members who believe military spending is what's bankrupted our country.


Military spending is a BIG PART of what bankrupted this country...as responsible as other expenses.......in 1971 America already defaulted on its obligation when Nixon took us off the gold standard.....the cause?? The Vietnam war and Johnson's "war on poverty"...

I find almost 2 Grand for a semi auto pistol where there was little R&D involved (it is a 100+ years old design) insulting...whatever "logistical support" was included with it....

You should feel disgusted as taxpayer....

[POLITICS MODE ON]

Democrats and GOP are exactly two face of the same coins...puppets with the same masters (the financial elite) and addicted to spending...one day the market will take care of it...not now, enjoy till it lasts...

[POLITICS MODE OFF]

Kleanbore
July 24, 2012, 10:59 PM
Posted by rajb123: Let's produce an exact copy of a 101 year old pistol and charge the government a 600% mark up on our production costs. Substantiate that or knock it off.

saturno_v
July 24, 2012, 11:02 PM
1800.00 per pistol isn't too much to pay.. with support, parts, etc.. all that has been shown is the pistol itself, we do not know what has been done to the pistol to differentiate it from production models, we don't know what it actually comes with and how long the support is for..

Sure the government always get a good deal....like $26 a gallon the Navy pay for biofuel

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/green-premium-620

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/02/us-usa-navy-greenfleet-idUSBRE86106X20120702


to decry it as a "waste of taxpayer's money" is very short sighted.. 22,500,000.00 is literally *nothing* in the budget..

One line item here and one there it all sum up....

saturno_v
July 24, 2012, 11:04 PM
Substantiate that or knock it off.

There is nothing to substantiate it...it is a 1911 type pistol....it is made of titanium??

Ash
July 24, 2012, 11:05 PM
Good golly good grief, our military issues to its men a rifle based on a 70 year old design fielded by the Swedes!!! Heck, the Armalite itself is past 50 years. It uses a rotating bolt first used in 1895 by the Austrians!!! It uses ammo fundamentally 130 years in design housed in 140 years old magazine design.

Yeah, still nothing new. We drive tanks fielded 30 years ago, and above them fly fighters flown half a decade earlier, fueled from tankers enjoying state-of-the-art 1960's air frames and at times bomb baddies using bombers first flown by the grandfathers of the current pilots.

The days of quantum leaps in flight, tanks, or small arms passed by two generations ago.

The Marines know this.

Kleanbore
July 24, 2012, 11:11 PM
Sarurno, you do not know the unit price of the pistol. The contract covers other things that you cannot describe, You cannot divide the contract price by the number of pistols and make any kind of judgement about the result.

Not that Congressmen and reporters have not done such things....

Yes, it is a 1911 type pistol. Special finish and recoil mechanism. What is the price? What should it be?

Skylerbone
July 24, 2012, 11:11 PM
I bought a six-pack of ZipLock containers last week for $3.84 at Wal Mart. Wonder what the mark up is on a Glock? What in today's market cost the same amount as it did 101 years ago, heck they're trying as we type to tax the air we breathe.

rajb, I'm curious where you work and if you'd be interested in your employer paying you at the (year) 1911 wage scale for your services. Hey, at least you'd qualify for WIC, Medicaid, housing assistance and a host of other unconstitutional programs.

As for the 1911 as a choice, it is theirs to make. It is no more antiquated than the automobile or the television set, you know, that big moving picture box that used to last 20 years? Don't get me started on the lifespan of the "modern" toaster!!!

saturno_v
July 24, 2012, 11:19 PM
Sarurno, you do not know the unit price of the pistol. The contract covers other things that you cannot describe, You cannot divide the contract price by the number of pistols and make any kind of judgement about the result.

Not that Congressmen and reporters have not done such things....

Yes, it is a 1911 type pistol. Special finish and recoil mechanism. What is the price? What should it be?

If the contract does not specify the number of units then you have a point...but on the thread I did read $1875 a piece...which including all the logistical support and extra spare parts you want it is a very high figure

If you really think Congressmen and reporters (the type of journalism we practice nowdays) have done their due diligence I have a bridge to sell you in NYC....however the contract is so small that probably is not even in the media radar screen.

I cannot tell you the "right price" but with all the tricked up finish, night sights and super-duper recoil mechanism of this world (I did read they use the recoil system of their 10m auto model...so no R&D here neither) that unit price is very high....we are talking a government contract here so huge discounts should be a given......you and I can buy as single unit a state of the art 1911 for a grand or so....

However, again, if the almost 2 grand per unit is an incorrect information then it is a different story....

berettaboy
July 24, 2012, 11:31 PM
If the MARSOC need/want this, I will continue to pay my taxes to support them. I just wish they would have let me send PMAGs to my son when he was deployed. Sometimes they don't get the best that is available. I know a couple MARSOC Marines and they can have anything they want. :)

For those of you who want to rant about expenditures, go after the synthetic fuel that we paid $53 for as opposed to $3.50 for the dino fuel which did the same thing.

Kleanbore
July 24, 2012, 11:41 PM
Posted by saturno_v: ...but on the thread I did read $1875 a piece...which including all the logistical support and extra spare parts you want it is a very high figure.The contract was for $22.5M for pistols plus other things. How can you assert that that is "a very high figure" when you do not know what the contract is for? You cannot take the price for several things and divide by the number of units for one of those things.

If you really think Congressmen and reporters (the type of journalism we practice nowdays) have done their due diligence I have a bridge to sell you in NYC....You missed my point. My point was that Congressmen and journalists have been known to make judgments as poorly based as yours.

I cannot tell you the "right price" but with all the tricked up finish, night sights and super-duper recoil mechanism of this world (I did read they use the recoil system of their 10m auto model...so no R&D here neither) that unit price is very high...What is the unit price? Take out the logistics support, please.

...that unit price is very high.What unit price? Take out the logistics support, please.

...we are talking a government contract here so huge discounts should be a given......you and I can buy as single unit a state of the art 1911 for a grand or so....The contract was competitively priced.

Was the unit price for the pistols greater than "a grand or so?" If so, by how much? Take out the logistics support, please.

Auto426
July 24, 2012, 11:58 PM
....we are talking a government contract here so huge discounts should be a given......you and I can buy as single unit a state of the art 1911 for a grand or so....


Can you buy a complete Colt Rail Gun, enough spare parts to assemble a complete second Rail Gun, plus any magazines, holsters, or rail attachments that may be required for $1900?

As Kleanbore has been trying to point out since the very beginning of this thread, you can't say that $1900 is a lot for a single pistol, because you are getting more than just a single pistol for that price. How some folks can't see that is baffling.

Sam Cade
July 24, 2012, 11:58 PM
Colt's competitors were Karl Lippard Designs of Colorado Springs, CO; and Springfield Armory, Inc. of Geneseo, IL.

Oh my. I have to laugh :what:

The Combat NCO™ - the first 400-yard accurate pistol.

A standard pistol of any make has a "Defensive" range of 12 feet to 20 yards. In contrast, A Combat NCO™ is an "Offensive" pistol and is effective from 2 feet to 400 yards. This difference in a combat setting means the battlefield is pushed back; that men survive; that we at last have a superior offensive pistol.

http://karllippard.com/military/



Uhhhh...What is the velocity of 230gr hardball at 400 yards?

Reckon it would break the skin?


3-4. COMBINED FIRE. This goes hand in hand with Cover Fire. It uses the Combined Fire of all a units’ assets to bring to bear on a given target. Combined Fire is a coordinated firing of pistol, combined with rifle, adding 10-15% to a unit’s offensive firepower strength in a time of need for maximum effectiveness. :eek:

a. The Combat NCO™ has the capability to provide cover fire up to 600 yards with existing sights. That means supporting fire on a target can be covered by a radius:banghead: of 1,300 yards; a massive advantage to tactical operations. Marksman can engage from a distance which in turn demoralizes an enemy force into withdrawal or, reduces it by effective use of a Combat NCO™


From the manual:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CH0QFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fkarllippard.com%2Fmilitary%2Fdocs%2FNCO-Manual.pdf&ei=dF8PUPztIZDA9gSQv4GwCw&usg=AFQjCNF4vNSUN0kefnDutCxEuEanJZwYRw&sig2=DMa-0QYQ40I_8gJACqhm7A

Auto426
July 25, 2012, 12:02 AM
Uhhhh...What is the velocity of 230gr hardball at 400 yards?

Reckon it would break the skin?


I believe someone worked out that at 400 yards a 230gr hardball projectile would have 377" of drop, which is pretty much impossible to hold for using the sights he shows pictured on his gun.

What speaks louder than any of Mr. Lippard's outlandish claims is that he never delivered any guns before the trial deadline expired.

ColeK
July 25, 2012, 12:18 AM
Well, guys, when went to school, $22,500,000/4,000=$5,625 per pistol!!!:cuss:

Auto426
July 25, 2012, 12:26 AM
Well, guys, when went to school, $22,500,000/4,000=$5,625 per pistol!!

I guess school was to big on reading comprehension then...

Certaindeaf
July 25, 2012, 12:32 AM
Can you buy a complete Colt Rail Gun, enough spare parts to assemble a complete second Rail Gun, plus any magazines, holsters, or rail attachments that may be required for $1900?

As Kleanbore has been trying to point out since the very beginning of this thread, you can't say that $1900 is a lot for a single pistol, because you are getting more than just a single pistol for that price. How some folks can't see that is baffling.
Show us where this is said in the article cited. The article claimed/reported $1900 per so all of the magic perks, gewgaws and extras must have already been fleshed from some other number to arrive at the $1900 per pistol statement.

Texan Scott
July 25, 2012, 12:35 AM
ColeK, the actual contract is for UP TO 12,000 pistols, and is worth 22.5 mil.
They're actually only exercising the option to BUY 4,000 pistols at this time, at a cost of 7.5mil. the price per unit remains the same.

Auto426
July 25, 2012, 12:42 AM
Show us where this is said in the article cited. The article claimed/reported $1900 per so all of the magic perks, gewgaws and extras must have already been fleshed from some other number to arrive at the $1900 per pistol statement.

I never said that the items I listed were exactly what is included in the price. Rather I was trying to make a point, which still seems to be lost on some here.

Here's a quote from the Military Times article:

The contract is for 400 to 12,000 pistols as part of a contract worth up to $22.5 million, according to Marine Corps Systems Command. That means the price per pistol is $1,875. Sources tell us the Marine Corps is ordering 4000 pistols.

Here's some simple math:

$22,500,00 ÷ 12,000 pistols = $1,875

So $1,875 per pistol right? Wrong. The $22.5 million contract is for more than just pistols. Again, from the Military Times Article:

In the email to Marine Corps Times, the MARCORSYSCOM spokeperson says, “Colt Defense LLC, West Hartford, Conn., was awarded a $22,500,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract July 18, 2012 for production, delivery and logistical support of the Close Quarter Battle Pistol. Work will be performed in West Hartford, Conn., and is expected to be completed by July 2017. No contract funds will expire by the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured using full and open competition with three offers received. The Marine Corps System Command, Quantico, Va., is the contracting activity.”

It's unknown exactly what goes along with each pistol that Colt ships out, but what is known is that the contract is for more than just pistols. History tells us that these types of deals usually include spare parts for each gun purchased and in some cases a set of accessories for each weapon.

C0untZer0
July 25, 2012, 12:56 AM
I'm sure the union is happy - they almost killed the company, now they get to jump back on board the gravy train and ride indefinately...

Mr.357Sig
July 25, 2012, 12:57 AM
You'd think they would release a better photo of that sweet 1911. I'm sure it is one nice-looking slabside, but that photo makes it look like craphola!

Certaindeaf
July 25, 2012, 12:59 AM
^Auto426
"Logistical support" very often and conventionally means the ability and or promise to supply what might be needed in the future.. at an additional cost.

C0untZer0
July 25, 2012, 01:05 AM
I don't even beleive the story.

Military times is horrible... the journalistic standards are so low, it's a joke.

IMO - it was pretty much cooked up by a bunch of old Chester Puller curmudgeons who were dead set on the .45 anyway and the hell with the rest of NATO - blah blah blah. If they bought a few thousand of these for some special unit or something then maybe it's possible, but I don't see the entire corps throwing away the nines.

Snag
July 25, 2012, 01:07 AM
I don't know why everyone is mad at the price of this pistol. I'm totally fine with our troops having a fine ass pistol to pack, good for them. I can think of worse ways to spend my tax money.

Texan Scott
July 25, 2012, 01:09 AM
Did you read the story? it's 4,000 guns for the MARSOC... spec ops.

ETA: what was the point of disparaging Chesty Puller, or men like him? and... keeping the .45 is not novel. Most of our spec ops units do.
EATA: disparaging the 'journalistic standards' of a publication because one us not pleased with the information they convey is a weak tactic employed all too often by people incapable of rational debate on the basis of reported facts they find inconvenient.

Further, the USMC cosists of men (and a few women, too) who voluntarily serve their country's interests with their lives and sometimes their deaths. I cannot comprehend how ANYONE could begrudge them even the cheapest tool that meets their needs.

I'm done with this one.

JEB
July 25, 2012, 01:21 AM
I don't know why everyone is mad at the price of this pistol. I'm totally fine with our troops having a fine ass pistol to pack, good for them. I can think of worse ways to spend my tax money.

my thoughts exactly. with all the spare parts and support and what not, it dosent seem all that bad. in the end, they are the ones putting their lives on the line for our country and i whole heartedly feel that they should have the best equipment available, and if that means a $1,900 colt then so be it.

saturno_v
July 25, 2012, 01:33 AM
I give you the benefit of the doubts...someone can break down "logistic support"?? because as a standalone pistol, not taking in consideration the "logistic support" and considering the amount the government buys, that should be a $700-800 pistol give or take if not even less...


And please spare me the patriotic rant about giving the best to our troops.....you need to give them the best at the best price you can get....when it comes to guns some of you guys would justify even a 10 grand pistol the hell with taxpayer money...they do not grow on trees.....


We do nto even know if this unit really need that pistol in the first place....or if was a way to burn up taxpayer money (aka other's people money)

Georgia45cal
July 25, 2012, 01:45 AM
It's great to hear the Marines are getting good gear to use.

As a tax payer, I say buy them more Colt Rail Guns.

FIVETWOSEVEN
July 25, 2012, 02:01 AM
'm scratching my head as to why this design is still desired by the US Military.

My theory is that it's a macho thing. They are the Marines, they get the cool looking .45s while the Army gets their run of the mill Beretta M9 in 9mm because the Marines are the best!

Mauser lover
July 25, 2012, 02:05 AM
Why the single stack still? If they used a double stack, it would be able to fulfill all the needs that the Beretta does, and still be able to do some reasonable damage. I would like to see the military go back to .45, if only because it is an American cartridge. S&W M&P would be a good place to start looking for a good platform if you ask me. Not that I dislike 1911s, but they are a bit spendy...

crazyjennyblack
July 25, 2012, 02:17 AM
I kinda see both sides of the issue. On one hand, I can buy a Glock or a bargain 1911 or a Beretta and be well under the $1000 mark, and the gun will go bang every time. Why the need for what looks like an expensive custom piece? On the other side, I've heard from a cousin who is in the military what a Marine can do to his equipment. (Something along the lines of if you put a tied up gentleman in a locked room with two stones overnight, one will be broken and the other missing by morning...)

I'm assuming this contract basically comes with gunsmithing by Colt prepaid. In that case, I can only imagine that the anticipated gunsmithing could cost more than the actual pistol during the life of the weapon. Ever had someone do custom work or repair work on a 1911? I have, and the cost rises quickly. I'm thinking part of why this contract costs so much is because the Marine Corps is having Colt do guaranteed lifetime repairs, rather than having unit armorers do it?

The only part I have a real beef about when it comes to this is simply a personal one. All this talk about a "competitive" contract seems a lot like those job ads in the newspaper that offer "competitive" salary :barf: but wont tell you what that salary actually is before you fill out the stinkin' application. Too much fly-by-night stuff where the real details of how and why aren't laid out. This whole thing needs more info to satisfy taxpayer curiosity, and I'm sure if that were provided in greater detail there might be a few less naysayers.

FIVETWOSEVEN
July 25, 2012, 02:27 AM
Why the single stack still? If they used a double stack, it would be able to fulfill all the needs that the Beretta does, and still be able to do some reasonable damage. I would like to see the military go back to .45, if only because it is an American cartridge. S&W M&P would be a good place to start looking for a good platform if you ask me. Not that I dislike 1911s, but they are a bit spendy...

Handguns don't win wars and are rarely used. Mag capacity doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Personally I would rather see the US military go to the .40 S&W cartridge.

1SOW
July 25, 2012, 02:39 AM
The Close Quarter Battle Pistol is modeled after earlier versions of the semi-automatic 1911 pistol used since the 1980s by Force Reconnaissance units. The contract is for 400 to 12,000 pistols as part of a contract worth up to $22.5 million, according to Marine Corps Systems Command. That means the price per pistol is $1,875. Sources tell us the Marine Corps is ordering 4000 pistols

The civilian 1911 rail gun usually has a stainless or carbon steel finish and rosewood grips, but Colt’s prototypes for the Corps have a desert-color Cercoat finish, eliminating glare on the weapon and making it less identifiable at a distance. As the name suggests, this model has a section of 1913 Picatinny rail under the barrel to mount accessories such as a light or laser aiming device. They also have more stainless steel internal components to reduce corrosion. They’re equipped with a tritium night sight made by Novak of Parkersburg, W.Va..

Interesting

Mauser lover
July 25, 2012, 02:57 AM
I understand that magazine capacity isn't usually an issue, but it takes one argument away from staying with the Beretta. And I dislike the Beretta. I wouldn't have a problem with the .40 Short & Weak, as it is a uniquely American cartridge as well. But please, at least get a gun that is designed by an American. And manufactured by a REAL American company (Colt, S&W, etc.), not some pseudo American offshoot of a European company.

Kleanbore
July 25, 2012, 08:44 AM
Posted by Certaindeaf: "Logistical support" very often and conventionally means the ability and or promise to supply what might be needed in the future.. at an additional cost.What the term "very ofter and conventionally means" in other contexts means nothing; in this case it is a line item in a contract.

Mp7
July 25, 2012, 09:13 AM
plain stupid. Does it do anything a "cheap" 45. Glock cant do?

FIVETWOSEVEN
July 25, 2012, 09:59 AM
Is it as "manly" and "cool" as a railed 1911? I think not! I really think that my theory best explains it.

mgmorden
July 25, 2012, 10:31 AM
One of the things that caught my eye was that the requirements sound like they were basically tailor written to make sure 1911's were what was submitted (single stack .45's basically).

I work in government (not military - just local government), and I've been on enough selection committee's to know that if you already have your mind made up its quite easy to simply craft the RFP such that the bidder that you want is the only one that can win the contract.

This single contract isn't going to bankrupt the country, but overall I do agree that we need to seek EFFICIENCY in our purchases. Its not possible now, but I'd honestly like to see what the submissions would have looked like if they were broader in scope as to the requirements.

Kleanbore
July 25, 2012, 11:21 AM
Posted by saturno_v: Military spending is a BIG PART of what bankrupted this country...For FY2010, the military procurement budget, which included the cost of all small arms, missiles, aircraft, armored and other vehicles, radars, radios, drones, missiles, ships, other naval craft, uniforms, smart bombs, and other munitions combined, comprised 4% of Federal expenditures.

Posted by Mp7: Does it do anything a "cheap" 45. Glock cant do?Well, for one thing, the Glock does not have a finish that eliminates glare and makes the weapon less identifiable at a distance.

Second, the Glock does not have a safety that blocks the trigger. That's why Glock has never submitted proposals for US military contracts and reportedly never will.

Third, we have no way to compare the prices, since your "cheap" Glock does not come with a support contract.

WinThePennant
July 25, 2012, 11:24 AM
The external safety the US Military seems to always require will keep Glock out of the running for US Military contracts.

But, I have no idea why a S&W M&P couldn't fit the bill as a fine sidearm for US Marines. I agree that the checklist almost certainly made the 1911 the only firearm that could meet the requirements.

mokin
July 25, 2012, 11:29 AM
That's a nice looking pistol. Congratulations to the good folks at Colt. It's a bit rich for my blood though. I think I'll go shopping for a Rock Island Armory piece.

19-3Ben
July 25, 2012, 11:33 AM
Second, the Glock does not have a safety that blocks the trigger. That's why Glock has never submitted proposals for US military contracts and reportedly never will.

Do I remember correctly that Glock also refused to submit pistols for trial because they would have to disclose the formula of their polymer?

Kleanbore
July 25, 2012, 11:49 AM
Posted by WinThePennant: But, I have no idea why a S&W M&P couldn't fit the bill as a fine sidearm for US Marines. I agree that the checklist almost certainly made the 1911 the only firearm that could meet the requirements.S&W does, of course, manufacture 1911 pistols, but they elected to not respond to the solicitation for the CQBP.

One can only speculate in their reasons. Was it insufficient production capacity? Could their model not meet the requirements? Were the unable to meet the price point? Did they not like the terms and conditions? Or was it just just an insufficient return on investment?

One could ask the same questions about Kimber, Remington, and RIA.

WinThePennant
July 25, 2012, 12:13 PM
I think the point of contention is that the US Marines seemed hell-bent on the 1911 platform. What purpose is there in requiring a single-stack .45 for a service pistol?

I've never served, but those who have tell me that they carry as much ammo as they can when they know they are going into fight. And, that includes their sidearm.

Limiting yourself to a 7-round magazine? Gimme a break!

Kleanbore
July 25, 2012, 12:28 PM
Posted by WinThePennant: I think the point of contention is that the US Marines seemed hell-bent on the 1911 platform. What purpose is there in requiring a single-stack .45 for a service pistol?....Limiting yourself to a 7-round magazine? Gimme a break!MARSOC has been using Kimber .45s, and one would tend to trust their judgment on that issue over that of Internet commandos--even those who have heard things from "those who have [served]."

WinThePennant
July 25, 2012, 12:32 PM
MARSOC has been using Kimber .45s, and one would tend to trust their judgment on that issue over that of Internet commandos--even those who have heard things from "those who have [served]."
And, my opinion is that a single-stack .45 is a bad choice for a combat pistol in the modern age. I guess that makes me an ill-informed "Internet Commando." So be it.

WinThePennant
July 25, 2012, 12:39 PM
For FY2010, the military procurement budget, which included the cost of all small arms, missiles, aircraft, armored and other vehicles, radars, radios, drones, missiles, ships, other naval craft, uniforms, smart bombs, and other munitions combined, comprised 4% of Federal expenditures.

Well, for one thing, the Glock does not have a finish that eliminates glare and makes the weapon less identifiable at a distance.

Second, the Glock does not have a safety that blocks the trigger. That's why Glock has never submitted proposals for US military contracts and reportedly never will.

Third, we have no way to compare the prices, since your "cheap" Glock does not come with a support contract.
What "glare" do you get from a Glock? I'm looking at mine now, and it is completely blackened with non-reflective surfaces (slide and frame). Even the barrel that peeks through the slide is blackened.

And, by "less identifiable at a distance," must mean that you're talking about the camo paint job. That's just a simple cerakote job on the slide and a (pick your color) dyed frame.

vba
July 25, 2012, 01:10 PM
WinthePennant, chill!

I'm sorry your pet gun didn't win the contract. I for one see nothing wrong with a single stack mag in a defensive firearm. Perhaps the Marines are better shots than you or me. The handgun is a last ditch arm and the 1911 is by no means archaic.

I'm in agreement with an earlier poster that said that there have been no significant advances in firearms in the last 50 - 70 years! They still shoot centerfire cartridges that were, in essence, designed at the beginning of the last century.

Our M16/M4 rifle can be traced to Eugene Stoner in 1954 with the AR-10. The M16 came from this work in the late 1950's. We are talking about a rifle designed nearly 60 years ago and fielded 51 years ago in 1961!

Kleanbore
July 25, 2012, 01:14 PM
Posted by WinThePennant: And, my opinion is that a single-stack .45 is a bad choice for a combat pistol in the modern age. I guess that makes me an ill-informed "Internet Commando." So be it.Your opinion doesn't make you anything. It is your complete lack of appropriate experience and qualifications compared to those of the trained and experienced people who use the tool for a very specialized purpose that makes your opinion impertinent.

The services have agreed with you that something else best serves the military for most purposes. The M9 was selected twenty seven years ago.

What "glare" do you get from a Glock? I'm looking at mine now, and it is completely blackened with non-reflective surfaces (slide and frame). Even the barrel that peeks through the slide is blackened.The Glock does not meet US military requirements, so its finish is irrelevant.

And, by "less identifiable at a distance," must mean that you're talking about the camo paint job. That's just a simple cerakote job on the slide and a (pick your color) dyed frame.And it does rule out the commercial off-the-shelf pistols that people have been suggesting here.

mavracer
July 25, 2012, 01:59 PM
First I'd like to say griping about the dollars spent arming a Marine concidering the amount spent training them is kinda like buying a Porsche and griping about how much tires cost.

Second if the Marines who put themselves in harms way to secure my freedom wanna splurge on a sidearm they have my blessing.

Sapper771
July 25, 2012, 02:29 PM
While I want our boys to have the best, "best" doesnt always equal "expensive". It also doesnt always equal 1911. I feel they could have chosen something different and been better off. Plenty of options out there these days.

Been there, done it, got the T shirt, coffee cup, and shot glass set.......I wouldnt want a 1911 if I had to go back. I didnt even like our Berettas.....but you use what you got and if it doesnt work, you make it work.

Red Cent
July 25, 2012, 02:48 PM
"....I wouldnt want a 1911 if I had to go back. I didnt even like our Berettas."

What would you want?

Shear_stress
July 25, 2012, 04:13 PM
I'm a fan of the 1911 and believe that the military should get the best tools available for their mission. Still, the Dod's enormous supply chain already has many different pistols, including more than one 1911. Was there not a single one that would've met MARSOC 's needs?

The procurement of these pistols is small potatoes compared to the total defense budget for sure. However--and I have no proof one way or another-- it isn't totally off base to say that requirements (which are often different from needs) are occasionally written specifically so that someone could get sexy new toys.

For FY2010, the military procurement budget, which included the cost of all small arms, missiles, aircraft, armored and other vehicles, radars, radios, drones, missiles, ships, other naval craft, uniforms, smart bombs, and other munitions combined, comprised 4% of Federal expenditures.

While that may be, total defense spending was 20% of US federal spending that year.

brnmuenchow
July 25, 2012, 04:42 PM
I am for this being issued to small number of Marine SOCOM units as a side arm, much like the H&K Mk.23 SOCOM for other units. I would not however be for this becoming the new std. issue sidearm to replace the M9. As much as I love the .45ACP, it just would not be good for us with excessive spending and creating a new pistol outside the NATO .9X19mm caliber at this time. However congrats to Colt!

W.E.G.
July 25, 2012, 04:46 PM
Let me guess.

The RFP specified .45 ACP, single-action trigger, grip safety, and manual safety, and the gun had to be all metal.

Oh, and a "rail."

Hmmmm... wonder what gun that might be? :rolleyes:

rajb123
July 25, 2012, 04:52 PM
It is probably not the best choice of gun for the military. That is not the point.

The contract is too expensive and I am insulted as a taxpayer. I have to assume politics were a major factor in this decision - and that is a shame.

My hope is that the automatic federal budget cuts that will severely impact military expenditures starting in 2013, will result in the cancellation of this big fat juicy contract.

Colt needs to survive based on sales to the public and not off greedy polititans who steer outsized military contracts to their constituants.

This stuff must end or we as a country are doomed.

Sapper771
July 25, 2012, 05:07 PM
"....I wouldnt want a 1911 if I had to go back. I didnt even like our Berettas."

What would you want?



I would have preferred to have a Glock 19. Lightweight, compact, high capacity, durable, simple, and reliable. Not saying that just because I like Glocks. They have proven effective in that environment (Iraqi Police, Civilian Contractors, certain teams from 5th group, and other "Task Force/ODA" groups). Replacement parts are inexpensive and available (less headache for the armorer), no gunsmith or fitting needed (less headache for the armorer, little to no downtime). 9mm ammo was everywhere over there (on both "sides").

Not trashing the 1911 in any way, there is just more to the equation. If I were issued a 1911 , then I would use it. There were several special operations units that we ran into that used regular old Berettas. The idea behind it was logistics. No matter where they went, there was armorer support, parts, magazines and ammo for their Beretta.

Certaindeaf
July 25, 2012, 05:19 PM
A Python'd been cool. anyways.

Owen
July 25, 2012, 05:25 PM
I'm pretty sure if you went out and bought a pistol that met all the requirements $1875 would be a pretty good price. I've seen the requirements, and there is no way these are mass produced. The Marines were looking to replace a pistol that was built in the Precision Weapon Shop at Quantico with a a commercial product because the PWS couldn't keep up.

We really aren't talking about Springfield Armory/Kimber performance here. We're talking about mid-upper level of Les Baer/Wilson performance.

rajb123
July 25, 2012, 05:43 PM
I thought CNC machining was the norm in todays high tech manufacturing?

CNC machines are very accurate, fast, inexpensive and the end product is better than anything that is hand assembled and fitted by old world craftsmen.

If the product is well designed, the CNC machine can cut parts to very tight tolerances and no hand fitting or alterations of any kind are necessary or beneficial.

Yeh, the production numbers on this contract are fairly small, which increases the per unit production costs, but this is still an OUTSIZED big fat juicy contract by any measure.

I DON'T BUY THE ARGUMENT THAT THESE ARE UNIQUE HAND CRAFTED AND ASSEMBLED GUNS THAT COST A BUNCH TO MAKE.

It is not logical to manufacture and assemble products this way in today's world.

Kleanbore
July 25, 2012, 05:52 PM
Posted by rajb123: It is probably not the best choice of gun for the military.MARSOC thought it to be best choice for them.

No one else is qualified to judge .

That is not the point. The contract is too expensive and I am insulted as a taxpayer.Unless you have gained improper access to confidential information, you have no objective basis for making that judgment.

I have to assume politics were a major factor in this decision - and that is a shame.Do you assume for some reason that the Connecticut delegation somehow influenced the decision of the Source Selection Authority?

If so, you have absolutely no concept of how the procurement process works. Every step of the competitive contracting process is governed by law and regulation, and the process is checked and double checked along the way. Had anything been detected that could have given any of the offerors an unfair advantage, the entire procurement would have been shelved immediately, and there would have been consequences, up to and including termination and re-procurement, disqualification, contractor and individual disbarment, other-than-honorable discharges and /or reductions in rank, and potentially, criminal prosection of corporations and individuals.

My hope is that the automatic federal budget cuts that will severely impact military expenditures starting in 2013, will result in the cancellation of this big fat juicy contract.The contract may not ever be completed, but you have absolutely no basis for characterizing the deal as a "big fat juicy contract." That's a nice way of saying that you do not know what you are talking about.

Will Colt make money one the deal? That remains to be seen. Will their margins approach those of commercial non-military sales? That aslo remains to be seen. I don't know, and neither do you.

Owen
July 25, 2012, 05:52 PM
did you know that the ways on CNC machines are finished by hand?

The-Reaver
July 25, 2012, 06:00 PM
" You think the government really spends $150.00 dollars on a toilet seat? or $100.00 on a hammer? "

saturno_v
July 25, 2012, 06:26 PM
For FY2010, the military procurement budget, which included the cost of all small arms, missiles, aircraft, armored and other vehicles, radars, radios, drones, missiles, ships, other naval craft, uniforms, smart bombs, and other munitions combined, comprised 4% of Federal expenditures.


For 2011 strict DOD budget is about $700 billion over a total US defence spending budget of $1.0-1.3 trillion versus a total US Federal government budget of $3.6 trillion...so strictly DOD expenditures were 19% of the budget, total defense spending was about roughly 30% of US federal budget....


http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/1625/usfederalspending2011.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/InflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG

Total defense spending breakdown for 2012

http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/5439/totaldefensespending.jpg

JustinJ
July 25, 2012, 06:31 PM
For 2011 strict DOD budget is about $700 billion over a total US defence spending budget of $1.0-1.3 trillion versus a total US Federal government budget of $3.6 trillion...so strictly DOD expenditures were 19% of the budget, total defense spending was about roughly 30% of US federal budget....

I do not know what you were smoking when you mentioned 4%

He said military procurement budget, not total defense budget.

I don't know what the cost per unit was and what all the cost entails but i would be highly surprised to find out the cost per gun for a Colt 1911 does not significantly exceed what a Glock 21 would have been. I would have chosen the latter in a heartbeat. If grip size is a major issue then i would have gone with HK45 although it's price would have been higher although much less than what civilians pay.

And the notion that only the military is qualified to make such a decision seems to imply that the military never makes mistakes. Uh, huh.

saturno_v
July 25, 2012, 06:39 PM
He said military procurement budget, not total defense budget.


He replied to my observation about excessive military spending not a subset of the defense budget

We spend too much on defense...way too much and often wrong spending too...

Owen
July 25, 2012, 06:48 PM
I don't know what the cost per unit was and what all the cost entails but i would be highly surprised to find out the cost per gun for a Colt 1911 does not significantly exceed what a Glock 21 would have been. I would have chosen the latter in a heartbeat. If grip size is a major issue then i would have gone with HK45 although it's price would have been higher although much less than what civilians pay

the way the system works is that the users, in this case MARSOC warfighters, write a requirement document. That document goes to a systems command, in this case MARCORSYSCOM. That systems command puts out a solicitation based on the requirements document. Companies bid on the solicitation. The syscom awards the contract to one or more bidders. If a bidder does not submit, they can not win an award. If any bidder fails to meet all of the requirements, and any other bidder does, the non-compliant bidder can not win the award.

HK, GLOCK, etc did not meet the requirement, and did not submit, so there is no way that they could be awarded a contract.

Certaindeaf
July 25, 2012, 07:00 PM
.
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/1625/usfederalspending2011.jpg..
Yea, that's a real drop in the old chamber bucket.

WinThePennant
July 25, 2012, 07:01 PM
the way the system works is that the users, in this case MARSOC warfighters, write a requirement document. That document goes to a systems command, in this case MARCORSYSCOM. That systems command puts out a solicitation based on the requirements document. Companies bid on the solicitation. The syscom awards the contract to one or more bidders. If a bidder does not submit, they can not win an award. If any bidder fails to meet all of the requirements, and any other bidder does, the non-compliant bidder can not win the award.

HK, GLOCK, etc did not meet the requirement, and did not submit, so there is no way that they could be awarded a contract.
And, why would Glock submit a bid for a single-stack .45?

If we can smell it out, then the gun makers can as well. This bid was rigged to favor Colt.

Hey, that's fine. I love Colt. I think US Military contracts should show favoritism to American manufacturers (to some degree).

Certaindeaf
July 25, 2012, 07:10 PM
Speaking of potatoes, doesn't it cost us like $500 per **** on a shingle dollop over "yonder"?
Why is that? Can't a grunt or whatall peel a tater and slap it on a freaking tray? Guess not. Boondoggle ineptitude pass the buck to my pocket times perhaps. never know

Auto426
July 25, 2012, 07:13 PM
If we can smell it out, then the gun makers can as well. This bid was rigged to favor Colt.

The bid was "rigged" to favor 1911's. Colt wasn't the only maker who entered the competition, but they came out on top with the best bid. Had Glock wanted to modify a 21 to take 1911 magazines plus add a grip safety and thumb safety they could have, but the cost to engineer a new pistol to have these features wouldn't be justified by the size of the contract.

Kleanbore
July 25, 2012, 07:19 PM
Posted by saterno_v: He replied to my observation about excessive military spending not a subset of the defense budget.Your observation was made in the context of a discussion about the contract for the CQBP, the hardware part of which comes out of Procurement funds. The total budget includes a lot of other things, including military personnel costs, operations and maintenance, RDT&E, military construction and so on.

We spend too much on defense...way too much and often wrong spending too...Which is completely irrelevant here.

saturno_v
July 25, 2012, 07:26 PM
Kleenbore

Again, we need to look in detail at what the client is getting for the money in the case of this contract....lifetime warranty and support?? Unconditional part replacement?? and so on.....another story is why they need that "new" pistol in the first place...but it is another discussion for another time...

Which is completely irrelevant here.

It is relevant because a bit of overspending here and there it all sum up....

Kleanbore
July 25, 2012, 07:38 PM
Posted by saturno_v: another story is why they need that "new" pistol in the first place...but it is another discussion for another time...Owen addressed that in Post #88.

Kleanbore
July 25, 2012, 07:46 PM
Posted by WinThePennant: This bid was rigged to favor Colt.the solicitation could only be competed for successfully by a bidder capable of delivering1911 type pistols that met the specific requirements.

Current producers of 1911 pistols include Colt, Kimber, Remington, Rock Island Armory, Ruger, and Springfield armory Corporation, plus a few others.

Of those, only two chose to submit proposals, but I am not aware of anything in the solicitation that put any of them at a comparative disadvantage.

Are you?

michaelbsc
July 25, 2012, 08:30 PM
...Will Colt make money one the deal? That remains to be seen. Will their margins approach those of commercial non-military sales? That aslo remains to be seen. I don't know, and neither do you.

Yes, Colt will make money. All of the government contracts I have ever been involved in have explicit margins built into the bid structures, and you have go delineate those margins as line items in the bids. So yes, the profit is there and already determined and fully disclosed to the selection team.

Will their margins approach those of commercial non-military sales? Almost assuredly not. The reason companies like government contracts is not because they are so lucrative. They really aren't that lucrative after you get done with the horrendous government BS. They like government contracts because they're steady and reliable revenue streams.

A good government contract can be counted on to keep the lights on without having to worry about next quarter's sales figures. Then you can spend your creative time trying to come up with a killer commercial product that you really can make a lot of money on.

If you accidently make a lot of money on a government contract they come ask for it back. If you make a lot of money with a great gun at the sporting goods store you get to keep it.

saturno_v
July 25, 2012, 08:43 PM
Owen addressed that in Post #88.


At post #98 Owen talk about the stated requirements...we do not know if these are really needed...

Ash
July 25, 2012, 08:52 PM
Perhaps not. But they are what the Marines wanted.

Kleanbore
July 25, 2012, 10:57 PM
Posted by saturno_v: At post #98 Owen talk about the stated requirements...we do not know if these are really needed..Yes, we do. You may not, and I do not, but we charter others to decide that. It starts with a Mission Meeds Statement, from which is developed an Operational Requirements Document.

What arrogance leads you to believe for a moment that you know better than those who develop and approve the MNS? Do you know the mission of MARSCOM? Have you ever deployed with them?

saturno_v
July 25, 2012, 11:06 PM
Yes, we do. You may not, and I do not, but we charter others to decide that. It starts with a Mission Meeds Statement, from which is developed an Operational Requirements Document.

What arrogance leads you to believe for a moment that you know better than those who develop and approve the MNS? Do you know the mission of MARSCOM? Have you ever deployed with them?


I do not know the details in this case but I know human nature....when people are in the position to get the toys they want they usually find the reason why they need them....military personnel are not saints...they are humans too....


And it would not be for sure the first time what waste and abuse has been found in the military procurement business over the decades...

Ash
July 25, 2012, 11:07 PM
So, would you have approved of the whole thing had it been a Glock with extensive training, parts, holsters, magazines, and the like?

saturno_v
July 25, 2012, 11:13 PM
So, would you have approved of the whole thing had it been a Glock?


What particular pistol it is has nothing to do with it....there could be not even a real need for this new pistol as far as I'm concerned.....who knows maybe if we can figure out what they are getting for each unit price it could be even a bargain....I'm only saying that I do not take autmomatically as a gospel whetever the military says it needs.....

Skylerbone
July 25, 2012, 11:13 PM
Saturno, questioning whether military hardware is needed is simply a question that cannot be answered by individuals or the military for obvious reasons. You continue to beat that horse as with others because YOU are not satisfied with how each dollar is spent by OUR government. I feel the same when I view those charts. I see a number of pieces of that pie that would not exist were it ME in charge but that's not howit works. The entire government is not subject to any single taxpayer's line item veto. Clearly they chose the same platform they currently use. They know it, they like it, they use it, they want it.

Back to cost: cheapest I could find a Colt Rail Gun for at retail $1089 in SS. Substitute the slide stop, hammer and sear which are tool steel for a limited run of stainless ones, add $100 set of night sights, a $200 (what my local smith charges) Ceracoat finish, three extra magazines ~$60 and say a Pelican waterproof case at $150. That's around $1,600 plus the expense of a limited run of small parts.

With regard to Colt and a steady revenue stream; I can say as a buyer they're in short supply (with the exception of the Defender/New Agent models). They could care less about contract sales as they have dealers they cannot currently supply with merchandise. Our military and Colt have a long history because Colt has consistently produced arms that meet specification.

CNC machines do not produce finished 1911s. Safeties and fire control parts (trigger, hammer, sear, disconnector) must be fit by hand and are fit by hand whether a Colt or S&W or RIA or Ruger 1911.

miles1
July 25, 2012, 11:46 PM
If the Marines think a 1911 meets their needs that Im just fine with my tax dollars going to this contract.Although im not in love with 1911's as some are here,If it saves another marine,army,navy or airmen's life, I'm all for it.

TG13
July 25, 2012, 11:50 PM
i am glad the Marines are getting exactly what they want..

dondavis3
July 26, 2012, 12:20 AM
Congrats to Colt.

I'm glad the .45 is back. (it never really left me)

I personally wish it was a double stack & a DA/SA model tho.

:cool:

michaelbsc
July 26, 2012, 12:29 AM
Congrats to Colt.

I'm glad the .45 is back. (it never really left me)

I personally wish it was a double stack & a DA/SA model tho.

:cool:

I wouldn't want a double stack. That's a lot of my complaint about most of the 9mm pieces out there. My hands are small, and the fat grip is too hard for me to hang on to and control. What good is 8 extra rounds I can't place? None. Just a bunch of noise. Maybe I'll scare the BG.

Single stack and an extra magazine is better for me at least.

But I really would like a DA/SA.

Kleanbore
July 26, 2012, 09:09 AM
Posted by saturno_v: What particular pistol it is has nothing to do with it....there could be not even a real need for this new pistol as far as I'm concerned.....Are you suggesting that MARSOC somehow does not need sidearms, or do you somehow think that the M9 from USMC inventory might meet their special needs?

who knows maybe if we can figure out what they are getting for each unit price it could be even a bargain....Actually, if one of the new CQBPs happens to somehow contribute to bring about success in a critical SOCOM mission, the entire procurement would be a bargain no matter what the price.

But even if "we" could "figure out what they are getting for each unit price," what would "we" do with that information? To what would "we" compare it? How would "we" value the utility of the weapon?

I'm only saying that I do not take autmomatically as a gospel whetever the military says it needs.....The current SECDEF and his predecessor have cancelled enough USMC programs to satisfy anyone but the "Occupy" zealots. For every CQBP the Marines buy, they have to give up something else.

The current DoD procurement process has more checks and balances than anything else in the world, except possibly the permit system for nuclear powerplant construction. "We" can rest assured that the Mission Needs Statement was developed by knowledgeable and responsible people among the warfighters, and that it was extensively challenged before it was responsibly approved. "We" can be assured that the Operational Requirements Document was thoroughly vetted. "We" can know that the utility of the expenditure has been compared with alternative uses of the money and found necessary. "We" know that the contract was awarded competitively.

The fact of the matter is, the process for this procurement began years ago. The requirement was released in 2010. The solicitation was public. Were you looking into it then?

It is interesting to compare that with the history of the M1 carbine. In the days in which reasonable people could put their best judgment into play without going through the trip wires of today's DoD bureaucracy, they came up with a requirement, released solicitations, received and evaluated completely new designs, and awarded a contract to Winchester. It now takes longer to get a Request for Proposal out of the DoD than it took to develop, test, and buy the M1 carbine and its cartridge.

We have instituted so many protections against "fraud, waste, and abuse" that we just might lose the next war.

Owen
July 26, 2012, 09:50 AM
I'm fairly convinced that the government spends so much money trying to not get ripped off, that it would be cheaper and more cost effective for the government to just get ripped off.

michaelbsc
July 26, 2012, 10:37 AM
I'm fairly convinced that the government spends so much money trying to not get ripped off, that it would be cheaper and more cost effective for the government to just get ripped off.

Touché.

Ash
July 26, 2012, 02:43 PM
The deal here is nothing compared to security procedures that literally keep employees reading magazines for two weeks or so, at full pay, in the thousands upon thousands across the nation, while full back-grounds are run, cards issued, etc. This week alone, I imagine the defense department spent more money paying people to do nothing while they were checked out than Saturn worries about on these pistols.

Notice that almost half of the money spent by the government is for two specific social programs.

PabloJ
July 26, 2012, 02:54 PM
The winners are Colt Manufacturing and those that find shoebox of cash under their desks. The FBI got Glocks with night sights and several mags with each pistol for about $330 if I remember correctly our Marines should have gotten Glock 21s that way EVERYONE would win.

Kleanbore
July 26, 2012, 03:03 PM
The winners are Colt Manufacturing and those that find shoebox of cash under their desks. The FBI got Glocks with night sights and several mags with each pistol for about $330 if I remember correctly our Marines should have gotten Glock 21s that way EVERYONE would win.Pablo, do you have reason to believe that the purposes for which MARSOC uses sidearms and the conditions under which they use them are the same as those of the FBI?

Skylerbone
July 26, 2012, 03:35 PM
Time for me to quit this one too, far too many eternal pessimists unwilling to yield to the point that their arguments, devoid of facts or proof, have nothing to do with this contract.

Hangingrock
July 26, 2012, 03:47 PM
Worth Repeating: The Keyboard Multitudes telling or suggesting to the Marine Corps what they the Marines should or should not do in regards to weapon procurement. The absurdity of it all should not be lost on the multitudes

WinThePennant
July 26, 2012, 03:51 PM
Worth Repeating: The Keyboard Multitudes telling or suggesting to the Marine Corps what they the Marines should or should not do in regards to weapon procurement. The absurdity of it all should not be lost on the multitudes

As another person said, we should just blindly follow the US Military's advice because they're perfect and never make mistakes.

:rolleyes:

Hangingrock
July 26, 2012, 04:01 PM
WinThePennant, what is your expertise in special operations and the military?

Certaindeaf
July 26, 2012, 04:54 PM
The way I figure it, it would be beneficial to have trained hard with what works and is endemic worldwide or at least within your/that theater. It just slaps as silly/shortsighted to arm men with an arm with rare ammo and a dissimilar manual of arms that might cause problems were the high speed low drag boy to pick up an M9 out of necessity and, conversely, some convoy driver to pick up this fancy old gat with no ammo. Commonality is a good thing very often. The military knows this but has chosen to make some sort of "special" status/statement apparently in this case.

Orion8472
July 26, 2012, 05:11 PM
Interesting thread, thus far.

My question. For those military operaters who receive this gun, . . . what percentage of time will they potentially be called upon to use their sidearm?

For me, I would rather have more rounds in my gun, . . . but if I'm carrying a rifle, I probably won't be going to my sidearm as much.

Anyway, nice looking Colt. Some day, I may get into a .45acp 1911 pistol.

Kleanbore
July 26, 2012, 06:13 PM
Posted by Certaindeaf: It just slaps as silly/shortsighted to arm men with an arm with rare ammo and a dissimilar manual of arms that might cause problems.... That is a point worth pondering.

Fact is, though, the CQBP is intended to replace the service-built M-45 MEU(SOC) pistols that the Force Recon units of the Marine Expeditionary Unit Special Operations command have been using for twenty seven years, so that decison was made years ago and has evidently not caused major issues.

One can only speculate, but there would seem to be three possible reasons for the adoption of the M-45 MEU(SOC):

The .45 ACP round--remember, they do not use JHP ammunition
The advantages of the SA trigger pull with a manual safety for their usage
Choosing anything else would probably have required an act of Congress


The MARSOC people are already trained on this design--that involves firing up to 15,000 rounds per Marine. That's a reason to stay the course.

The LAPD SWAT team and the FBI Hostage Rescue Team both use special .45 caliber 1911 pistols, even though .40 caliber Glocks are standard issue for both agencies.

Certaindeaf
July 26, 2012, 06:34 PM
To be honest, it just strikes me as disrespectful/a form of disrespect. Who/what is the fighting man? Well, the man that carries (for us) the issue pistol which so happens to presently be the M9. They die as well as any and may God bless their souls and I thank them. So these men that lay down their lives daily are apparently "not good enough" for this fancy pants pistol is what is being said in deed. Perhaps some begrudgement might be sown. The morale issue is quite important I've heard at least once or so.
Anyway, I'd be happy to carry and use about anything, especially a gold plated slabside, but the larger picture is sometimes important and must be considered.

Skylerbone
July 26, 2012, 06:44 PM
I thought I was done until I read that ^^^^. What would you have snipers shooting if not the $25,000 package delivered to outfit him and his spotter? For that matter, is it disrespectful to have another service member flying a 1.2 billion dollar plane at safe altitude? What gives with the logic? Each has a job, each will require specific skills and equipment, or must that be a source of contention as well?

StrikeFire83
July 26, 2012, 06:50 PM
I for one don't give a flying fig what the Marines carry. Do they have a sidearm? Yes. Great, I'm glad they can defend themselves. The DOD's procurement decisions have ABSOLUTELY no impact on what I carry and shoot. Period.

Certaindeaf
July 26, 2012, 06:50 PM
^Skylerbone
Um, a pistol is not a sniper rifle/system nor a fighter jet. Morale is cheap and valuable, unless you don't think.

Trent
July 26, 2012, 06:52 PM
Give them the best WE, as a nation, can afford.

If a person who competes in weekend competitions can afford to use a tricked out 1911 to keep his Grandmaster ranking, why in the HELL wouldn't we afford the same level of awesomeness for our people using the weapons to plug something MORE than 2/3 scale cardboard representations of a human?

Man, I'm not even a fan of 1911's and *I* became irate at reading some of the drivel in this thread.

Ash
July 26, 2012, 07:14 PM
Had anyone wondered just what the forces to be issued these pistols wanted? Is it even possible that they got exactly what they asked for? Would you deny them their request because it is not what you think they should have?

A side arm to a major overseeing transportation duties - an important job that never-the-less means a handgun is for self-defense - is different than a side arm to a man who intends to use it as an offensive weapon. If these men asked for the 1911, who are we to say nay?

infmp32
July 26, 2012, 07:25 PM
To be honest, it just strikes me as disrespectful/a form of disrespect. Who/what is the fighting man? Well, the man that carries (for us) the issue pistol which so happens to presently be the M9. They die as well as any and may God bless their souls and I thank them. So these men that lay down their lives daily are apparently "not good enough" for this fancy pants pistol is what is being said in deed. Perhaps some begrudgement might be sown. The morale issue is quite important I've heard at least once or so.

In my 10 years I can't recall anyone begrudging Spec Ops units for their gear or other policies, aside from Sergeants Major who couldn't wrap their heads around anyone violating AR-670-1 in a combat zone regardless of their mission. Spec Ops units get to use and do a lot of things that "Big Army/Corps" doesn't get to. I can see why I as a plain old infantryman or MP would be given an M9 pistol and a Recon Marine a .45. Our missions would rarely be similar.

CmdrSlander
July 26, 2012, 07:37 PM
I think is somewhat analogous to US special forces buying (from US dealerships) and using Toyota Tacomas in Iraq. You could argue that the humvee and other vehicles already at the military's disposal were better all round military vehicles but for the very specific needs of the special forces unit in question the lowly Tacoma fit the bill.

In the case of the 1911 I believe that for whatever the Marines plan on using it for, it is likely a good choice and will serve them well.

Skylerbone
July 26, 2012, 07:38 PM
^Skylerbone
Um, a pistol is not a sniper rifle/system nor a fighter jet. Morale is cheap and valuable, unless you don't think.

Um, a cook is not a Ranger and as such does not receive training or equipment specific to Rangers. An Admiral is not a cook therefore someone else prepares his meals. Each man has a role to play, a duty to perform and is given tools specific to his task. Give everyone the same tools and you'll have a cluster.

Not good enough? Are you suggesting the adoption of Public School mentality where everyone is the same because they all participate? In your military do the fighter pilots hand off the flight suits to the cooks and take their turn at cooking or do we still test for ability, train and allocate resources? If the grunt were good enough he would be elite so no, to answer the question bluntly, the "average" soldier is not good enough to carry that "golden gun" anymore than the cook who is not allowed to field a sniper rifle.

jdmb03
July 26, 2012, 07:42 PM
Very cool!

PabloJ
July 26, 2012, 08:05 PM
Why should anyone even care what some Marines Carry? They are not walking around shopping malls like most CCW holders do! Fact of the mater why should we even care what Colt sells. They used to make pretty good revolvers a long time ago but I have seen anything impressive about anything they are making lately. Has anyone else? I did read somewhere that they were going bankrupt too. Who cares?
Because wasteful spending takes food out of our kids mouths and puts their future in jeopardy.

cuba
July 26, 2012, 08:07 PM
Skylerbone:
to answer the question bluntly, the "average" soldier is not good enough to carry that "golden gun"
What makes you think that the average soldier is not good enough to carry the 1911, they did during the first part of the 20th century, very effectively, I'm sure that Alvin York was not part of a special elite group, but a lowly Corporal in the Army, and look at how that turned out.

PabloJ
July 26, 2012, 08:09 PM
What makes you think that the average soldier is not good enough to carry the 1911, they did during the first part of the 20th century, very effectively, I'm sure that Alvin York was not part of a special elite group, but a lowly Corporal in the Army, and look at how that turned out.
Actually the antiquated 1911 isn't good enough for the average soldier.

cuba
July 26, 2012, 08:14 PM
I call BS on that

semperfi63
July 26, 2012, 08:43 PM
" You think the government really spends $150.00 dollars on a toilet seat? or $100.00 on a hammer? "

I can't speak to 150 dollar toilet seats or 100 hammers, but back in the day I watched Marine Mustang 1st Lt with about 16 years in the corps, chew the hell out of a newer 2nd Lt that signed for the delivery of tank tread rivets at $21.00 each when they had been bid at $0.21 each.

Worked in a Supply unit at Pendleton whose job was to catch these kinds of mistakes.

Skylerbone
July 26, 2012, 09:37 PM
Cuba, not talking about the 1911 specifically but specifically the contract pistol in question.

I have more than one 1911 and more than one says Colt. It is not an expert's pistol. It is not difficult or impossible to use or service. Anyone who believes as much knows far too little about the platform to reply to this thread.

cuba
July 26, 2012, 10:26 PM
I think you've lost prospective, is the contact pistol as you put it, not a 1911 ?

Ash
July 26, 2012, 10:31 PM
Antiquated...

And yet there STILL is nothing that establishes that. Toss a word about and it must actually apply.

CmdrSlander
July 26, 2012, 10:35 PM
The fact that we are having this debate, the fact that there are threads like "Glock vs 1911" 101 years later prove that the design is not antiquated. If it were there would be nothing to discuss. No one argues that we should go back to the M1903 or the M1 Garand, yet the M1911 soldiers on.

Kleanbore
July 26, 2012, 10:42 PM
Posted by PabloJ: Actually the antiquated 1911 isn't good enough for the average soldier.I don't know what you mean by "good enough" or by "average" or by "antiquated", but it is true that the 1911 is not the US military staandard issue sidearm today.

However, what we are discussing is the MARSOC requirement, and the CQBT is intended to replace what they have been using--the M-45 MEU(SOC) pistol, which is a 1911 design, hand built.

They are not "average soldiers" by any standard. Nor are the LAPD SWAT members, the FBI Hostage Rescue Team members, or the FBI SWAT members "average" law enforcement officers. They also use very special 1911 pistols.

cuba
July 26, 2012, 11:06 PM
And what makes those 1911 so very special ? or better than any other Army spec 1911.

shoot safe, shoot straight, and have fun

Ash
July 26, 2012, 11:13 PM
The Marines.

cuba
July 26, 2012, 11:18 PM
What does the Corps have to do with the attributes of the 1911, unless this thread has side tracked and lost perspective, I believe that the whole issue is that an elite fighting group has again validated the 1911 as being the best fighting pistol ever invented, JMB sure was light years ahead of his time.

shoot safe, shoot straight, and have fun

bob barker
July 26, 2012, 11:44 PM
For FY2010, the military procurement budget, which included the cost of all small arms, missiles, aircraft, armored and other vehicles, radars, radios, drones, missiles, ships, other naval craft, uniforms, smart bombs, and other munitions combined, comprised 4% of Federal expenditures.

Well, for one thing, the Glock does not have a finish that eliminates glare and makes the weapon less identifiable at a distance.

Second, the Glock does not have a safety that blocks the trigger. That's why Glock has never submitted proposals for US military contracts and reportedly never will.

Third, we have no way to compare the prices, since your "cheap" Glock does not come with a support contract.
Total Spending $1.030–$1.415 trillion for 2012. I would say that pretty much can bankrupt a country!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

cyclopsshooter
July 26, 2012, 11:48 PM
Toss a word about and it must actually apply

We should be used to that by now... Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox have been doing that for years... and Fox

Skylerbone
July 27, 2012, 12:01 AM
Cuba, you're talking in circles and twisting words as you go. This thread is not another "The 1911 is older than my grandma" thread. The question was asked as to why such a presumably expensive pistol is being fielded by a select number of individuals and, if it's the best, why every soldier is not issued one. My answer was and is: this unit is an elite one. If you are issued this specific Colt 1911 contract pistol then you are good enough. If you don't find one in your holster then you're not good enough to be an elite Marine. I am not judging the worth of one soldiers life vs. another, I am differentiating the roles of various service members.

I'm not qualified to claim any specific pistol is "the best fighting pistol ever invented", I've yet to try them all. I do know the specs. removed any other known style pistol from contention, that SA Inc. likely doesn't have the resources to fulfill the contract (remember to be US "manufactured" they must drill/mill the frame) and Mr. Lippard while actually rather knowledgable seems nuttier than a Mars Bar and has no manufacturing capabilities. All this contract affirmed was that the old batch was worn out.

Kleanbore
July 27, 2012, 12:04 AM
Posted by cuba: And what makes those 1911 so very special ? or better than any other Army spec 1911.Trigger, accuracy, durability, corrosion resistance (stainless steel--the guys operate in a salt water environment), the rail, the sights, and finish.

cyclopsshooter
July 27, 2012, 12:48 AM
I really don't get why we are debating the cost of these pistols while the National Guard is spending 26 million sponsoring Dale Ernhart Jr.

B!ngo
July 27, 2012, 01:33 AM
There's just not enough info in the contract disclosure about who exactly will receive them, for what purpose will they be used, and what is the scale of the surrounding services and support that accompany the weapon. And the size of the deal is mouse nuts so to me, no use getting in a lather over it.
I will say that, due to the specs I suppose, Colt's competitors seemed a bit, um, odd which leads me to think that this is some trophy item.
Nonetheless I too support providing our fighting men and women the best we can dish up. I'm not certain that this offering fills that bill, and may just be a continuation offering to bolster the weapons and parts that are wearing out.
I'd happily grant this deal to them for help on the morale side, but I'd hope that they'd also seek out a more modern, reliable and higher capacity sidearm for their real work. Regardless of who and where it was invented.
B

Ash
July 27, 2012, 07:23 AM
Bingo, if the Marines wanted a 1911, do you suppose they had an understanding of what they want? Or are you supposing they had no idea and are having some piece of junk foisted upon them?

More modern and reliable, when applied to the 1911, is akin to the left's endless use of the words "common sense gun control."

Or, let's consider this. A 1911 is perfectly reliable - 1911tuner has pointed this out and he is more an expert on the pistols than I am. But it is an odd argument that occurs here and is seldom refuted. We compare a generalized design - 1911, with a specific product from a specific company, Glock for instance. Consider that an Auto Ordnance, Para Ordnance, Wilson Combat, Dan Wesson, Ed Brown, Rock Island, and Llama (just to name a few) 1911 falls in the former category, but a Glock alone falls in the previous one. The Auto Ordnance and Llama jam-o-matics imply that 1911's are faulty junk. Throw AMT into the mix (and I do mean pre Kahr AO's). But Wilson, Wesson, and Brown are not known for performance problems. At the price point, the Marines did not get AMT, AO, or Llama performance, yet some in the back of their minds think on those pistols (or on owner-tuned examples that, like a teen-ager's customized street-racing Kia, have become unreliable junk).

The Colt that the Marines are purchasing is not a Llama nor Numrich-era Auto Ordnance. It makes little sense to then compare the lumped, no-longer-patented design of the 1911 family with its PhD's in phsyics on one side and its high-school drop-outs on the other, with what somebody considers "modern."

Double action only pistols like a Glock are the definition of modern? How would one provide an advantage over the 1911 when every other arm with which the soldier has trained is single action? You notice any rifles which operate like a Glock? Any small arms at all? The fact is that the carbine, SAW, heavy machine gun, or any other other small arm carried by troops (which includes submachine guns) in any branch operate more like a 1911 than anything else. They have to mess with a safety and pull a single-action trigger with every other arm they have, insisting they use a "modern" double action only pistol with its utterly different manual of arms and way of thinking, really makes little sense.

Kleanbore
July 27, 2012, 08:00 AM
Posted by B!ngo: I'm not certain that this offering fills that bill [("the best we can dish up")], .... I'd hope that they'd also seek out a more modern, reliable and higher capacity sidearm for their real work.Do you have a better appreciation than MARSOC of what the ir "real work" is and what best suits their needs? Have you ever expressed similar concern about the Marine Force Recon units' use of the similar M-45 MEU(SOC) pistol? Do you have the same opinion about what is needed by the LAPD SWAT, FBI Hostage Rescue Team, and FBI SWAT for their "real work", and if not, why not?

Kynoch
July 28, 2012, 05:29 PM
What a waste of taxpayer $$$. Pure politics. Apparently they needed to create some jobs around election time.

cacoltguy
July 28, 2012, 05:44 PM
Rest assured that some high ranking Marine Corp officer will be working for Colt shortly after retirement. Top level brass vying for post retirement defense contracting jobs are responsible for the majority of wasteful spending on pet programs and weapons. A $600 Ruger or Glock would do just as good a job and if a part ever did break you could throw the whole gun away and buy a new one for less money than this contract.

Oh and I did serve in the Marine Corp and I own a Colt 1911 but I recognize fiscal irresponsibility as good as anyone.

jmr40
July 28, 2012, 06:02 PM
Third, we have no way to compare the prices, since your "cheap" Glock does not come with a support contract.

All Glocks automatically come with a support contract. I can, and have taken my gun back to Glock. They will take it apart replace any worn parts, clean reassemble,and test fire it for free. Break anything, any time, they fix it. They will do this with any gun they have ever sold.

Kleanbore
July 28, 2012, 06:02 PM
Posted by Kynoch: What a waste of taxpayer $$$.Basis for that assertion?

Pure politics.Basis for that assertion?

Apparently they needed to create some jobs around election time.The requirements were finally released in 2010, and the competition has just been concluded. Anyone who knows anything about the DoD procurement process knows full well that it would be impossible to time the release of the first order with an election.

Posted by cacoltguy: Rest assured that some high ranking Marine Corp officer will be working for Colt shortly after retirement.Not if he or she had anything at all to do with the procurement at hand, unless someone wants to go to jail.

If you read this (https://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%203_1.html) carefully enough to comprehend it, you will learn something.

A $600 Ruger or Glock would do just as good a job and if a part ever did break you could throw the whole gun away and buy a new one for less money than this contract.So why do the FBI SWAT, FBI Hostage Rescue Team, and the LAPD SWAT use high-grade 1911s? Do you really know exactly what is needed to "do the job?"

...I recognize fiscal irresponsibility as good as anyone.Do you think it would be fiscally responsible to skimp on something as small as a pistol contract if it might endanger the success of a mission?

savanahsdad
July 28, 2012, 06:18 PM
realy??? name one thats not baised on the 1911 , and that is American made

clem
July 28, 2012, 07:48 PM
CACOLTGUY
"Rest assured that some high ranking Marine Corp officer will be working for Colt shortly after retirement. Top level brass vying for post retirement defense contracting jobs are responsible for the majority of wasteful spending on pet programs and weapons. A $600 Ruger or Glock would do just as good a job and if a part ever did break you could throw the whole gun away and buy a new one for less money than this contract.

Oh and I did serve in the Marine Corp and I own a Colt 1911 but I recognize fiscal irresponsibility as good as anyone. "



Sort of like the M16 back in the 60s and during the Vietnam War.

Ash
July 28, 2012, 07:53 PM
Besides, what is the turnaround for a Glock when you send it in? Two weeks if you're lucky?

You have a trained armorer on site with all the replacement parts he could possibly need and you have a day's turn around.

Fiscal irresponsibility is allowing welfare EBT cards to buy booze and cigarettes.

cyclopsshooter
July 28, 2012, 07:55 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/28/marines-pay-22m-to-go-back-to-their-old-guns-colt-45-caliber-pistols/

76shuvlinoff
July 28, 2012, 08:48 PM
Bravo for the Marines, the 1911 and for Colt!!!

For those so concerned about tax dollar waste please check the crap that goes on in you closest inner city.

royaluno
July 28, 2012, 09:15 PM
I have done alot of construction for the military bases in NC. Contractors basically Double the price Because of all the red tape (anal) that slows the job down and more paper work in the office. It has nothing to do with gauging. Contracts are bid on.

DeathByCactus
July 28, 2012, 09:50 PM
That's a lot of money for one pistol. Why couldn't they get a cheaper model. Around $1k or so.

Skylerbone
July 28, 2012, 10:23 PM
Brent, manager of the Colt Custom Shop has assured folks on another forum (I read his post) that the per unit price is substantially less than $1875. Marines fielding these pistols don't have the luxury of demanding a cease-fire while waiting on warranty repair or drawing their third Ruger in hopes it isn't on the recall list. I must wonder how many of our membership hold the same attitude toward their own defensive pistols.

Kleanbore
July 28, 2012, 11:20 PM
Posted by DeathByCactus: That's a lot of money for one pistol. Why couldn't they get a cheaper model. Around $1k or so.What is a lot of money for one pistol? the contract price includes more than pistols.

michaelbsc
July 28, 2012, 11:20 PM
I have done alot of construction for the military bases in NC. Contractors basically Double the price Because of all the red tape (anal) that slows the job down and more paper work in the office. It has nothing to do with gauging. Contracts are bid on.

As someone said earlier, the government spends so much money making sure it doesn't get screwed it would be cheaper if they just said to hell with it and accepted the occasional crook.

String up the ones you catch as examples and the majority of the rest would be satisfied to do fair business just like they do with the local butcher and barber shop.

cacoltguy
July 29, 2012, 12:49 AM
"So why do the FBI SWAT, FBI Hostage Rescue Team, and the LAPD SWAT use high-grade 1911s? Do you really know exactly what is needed to "do the job?""

They use high end 1911's because some chief, CO or man in charge has a fetish for them. Why do SEALS use Sigs? I'm a fan of the 1911 (own two of them) but any halfway decent modern handgun is capable of being as durable and tough as a 1911 and possibly more so depending on the brand and models compared. I'm sure this Colt will be high quality and more than capable but I'm pretty darn sure so many off the shelf pistols for a lot less money could equal it. It's a handgun for crying out loud. If it's reliable, has a light rail for special ops and fires a man stopping round what other requirements are there? By the way whats with this "logistics and support" added into the cost. I thought Colt's had a lifetime warranty and how much do replacement springs really cost?

wlewisiii
July 29, 2012, 01:00 AM
What a waste of taxpayer money. Issue them M9's & teach them how to shoot them.

Auto426
July 29, 2012, 01:14 AM
They use high end 1911's because some chief, CO or man in charge has a fetish for them.

And I assume you know that for a fact and have evidence to back that up?

Skylerbone
July 29, 2012, 01:19 AM
8 pages! Well, maybe some have a Sig fetish. Maybe some have a Glock fetish. Maybe some are cheapskates, some spend lavishly and some consider the mission first regardless of cost. Guesses are not truths.

Thus far Colt, the 1911, the Marines, the Government and forum members have been maligned with speculation, accusation and outright nonsense. In the spirit of THR I think this one needs an ending soon.

cyclopsshooter
July 29, 2012, 01:24 AM
motion seconded

danez71
July 29, 2012, 01:51 AM
What is a lot of money for one pistol? the contract price includes more than pistols.

Kleanbore,

After 8 pages of you saying forty-eleven times that the contract includes parts and logistics (and probably armory training) and therefore the unit cost is NOT $1875 ea.

.... for old times sake.....


Could you please say it again?

I think some must have not seen you say it the other forty-eleven times. :scrutiny:;)

76shuvlinoff
July 29, 2012, 08:26 AM
I think some must have not seen you say it the other forty-eleven times.

It sure as hell didn't sink in.....

Kleanbore
July 29, 2012, 09:39 AM
Posted by cacoltguy: They [(FBI SWAT, FBI Hostage Rescue Team, and the LAPD SWAT)] use high end 1911's because some chief, CO or man in charge has a fetish for them.Snide contention, that.

It is most assuredly because they evaluated the alternatives and made their choices based on the results.

Why do SEALS use Sigs?Their choice. Their 9 MM SIG pistol is not an off-the-shalf model, nor is it the same as the DoD substitute standard M11 version. They also have the MK23 Mod O .45 cal SOCOM offensive handgun. Try pricing that.

If it's reliable, has a light rail for special ops and fires a man stopping round what other requirements are there?

Among those publicly listed:

Compatibility with firearms on which each MARSOC and MEU(SOC) Force Recon Marine has been trained--up to 15,000 rounds each
Trigger pull
Safety system


They decided upon the requirements, and their Operational Requirements document, which was based on their Mission needs Statement, led to the specifications, which were made public in 2010.

Did you question them then?

By the way whats with this "logistics and support" added into the cost. I thought Colt's had a lifetime warranty and how much do replacement springs really cost?Do not confuse a limited warranty of whatever duration with maintenance and the replacement of parts that have exceeded their design life and worn out or failed though use and that were not defective in terms of materials or workmanship. Different animal.

Squeaky Wheel
July 29, 2012, 11:32 AM
Man, what a bunch of greedy, selfish, money-grabbers in MARSOC! I'm with all of the other irate taxpayers on this one. But I'd take it a step further -- we should have some PFCs drive around and find the best deals at pawn shops. Heck, it's just a handgun. If it goes bang every time, we could maybe find some Ravens or Charter Arms for under $100.00 each. Think of the huge cost savings! With the amount of money saved, just think what HUD or the Welfare Dept could buy!

michaelbsc
July 29, 2012, 11:54 AM
Man, what a bunch of greedy, selfish, money-grabbers in MARSOC! I'm with all of the other irate taxpayers on this one. But I'd take it a step further -- we should have some PFCs drive around and find the best deals at pawn shops. Heck, it's just a handgun. If it goes bang every time, we could maybe find some Ravens or Charter Arms for under $100.00 each. Think of the huge cost savings! With the amount of money saved, just think what HUD or the Welfare Dept could buy!

For that matter we could do like the commies used to do. Round up the poor blokes living in the projects (instead of fielding a professional force), feed them just enough to keep them alive, and shove them onto the front line as fodder.

Send mama a beautiful certified letter from glorious leader about sonny's brave sacrifice when he doesn't come home so she'll feel better.

Mosins can still be found by the crate if you look around.

Trent
July 29, 2012, 12:18 PM
For those complaining about the cost - please consider how utterly insignificant some PISTOLS are in the overall scheme of things.

As far as bankrupting this country.. get real. TWO things, and two things ONLY, has bankrupted this country. (And wait! It's NOT social security or medicare).

"According to a retrospective Brookings Institute study published in 1998 by the Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Committee (formed in 1993 by the W. Alton Jones Foundation), the total expenditures for U.S. nuclear weapons from 1940 to 1998 was $5.5 trillion in 1996 Dollars.[132] The total public debt at the end of fiscal year 1998 was $5,478,189,000,000 in 1998 Dollars[133] or $5.3 trillion in 1996 Dollars. The entire public debt in 1998 was therefore attributable to the research, development, and deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons-related programs during the Cold War.[132][134][135]"

Reiterate once again for the hard of hearing.

The entire public debt in 1998 was therefore attributable to the research, development, and deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons-related programs during the Cold War.

Now please keep this discussion on the topic of Pistols, and not what you think may or may not bankrupt this country.

(I'll leave the second reason for our financial troubles alone, obviously doesn't pertain as it's not defense related)

Seriously folks, thinking that 1911's are going to bankrupt this country's financial system and using such a concept in an argument only shows how ill-thought your grounds for such an argument are.

I have seen modern 1911's. I have used high quality modern 1911's. They are very fast, very accurate, and I have no doubt they will get the job done.

I have personally fixed or repaired a number of handguns during my period as an FFL and frequent sport shooter. All models of guns (including Glocks), can and will fail with a certain regularity when they are shot and used frequently. Unless you can cite failure rates of components which are not anecdotal - something I do NOT believe is public knowledge from ANY gun company - there's no statistical or scientific basis (other than internet heresay) for you do back your claim off of.

Essentially..

IF 1911's WERE PRONE TO PROBLEMS AND HAD RELIABILITY OR OTHER ISSUES WHY WOULD MARSOC MAKE THE BID SPECIFICALLY FOR 1911'S AND WHY WOULD THEY CONTINUE USING THEM *LONG* AFTER THE M9 WAS INTRODUCED?

No lobbyist or corporate sponsor or "paranoid-conspiracy-retirement plan for the man behind the desk" would keep them using 1911's over any other firearm.

Man I just don't understand this. I own *1* 1911 out of 20-some handguns, rarely even take it out of the box - I'm not especially fond of or fervent of 1911's - but this entire conversation just .. baffles me.

Just be happy that they're back to using .45's (on the books) and move on.

You know. It's a real man's cartridge. There's something to THAT, at the very least.

easyg
July 29, 2012, 02:15 PM
I think this is a waste of the taxpayer's money.

A large, heavy, low capacity, .45 is not what any fighting man needs.

Kleanbore
July 29, 2012, 03:43 PM
Posted by easyg: I think this is a waste of the taxpayer's money.You are entitled to your opinion, and you may be right. It may also be an excellent investment. None of us are in a position to know.

Fortunately, the total value of this IDIQ contract pales in comparison to most everything else that we spend money on for MARSOC--personnel costs, sniper rifles, ground vehicles, stinger missiles, training, fuel, watercraft, flight hours in Air Force MH-47 and MH-53J rotorcraft and CV-22 tilt-rotor aircraft--you name it.

A large, heavy, low capacity, .45 is not what any fighting man needs.These fighting men have been using hand-built 1911s quite successfully for some time, and when it comes to deciding what they need, their credibility trumps that of the rest of us.

michaelbsc
July 29, 2012, 04:19 PM
...Fortunately, the total value of this IDIQ contract...

It's an IDIQ instead of a fixed delivery quantity?

OK. That changes things a little. Now you can guarantee that it isn't overpriced. Every penny in it is justified. That's how IDIQ works.

It may not be justified "out in the open" so you and I can look at it, but it is looked at by enough eyes that there isn't anything under the table. And there are enough guys not willing to go to federal prison to keep it clean.

And the thing about an indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contract is that if they don't take delivery, then they don't get a bill. And Colt won't get the money.

Colt probably has a setup cost that specified $X to support the contract in case the government bought 3, or 3000 units. They'll probably recover that regardless.

Then there's only justifiable costs for every unit delivered. IDIQ is not a get rich scheme for manufacturers. If the price seems high it's because the government is demanding a whole bunch of "other" stuff as part of the deliverables.

Like someone said, you can't send it back for warranty from the jungle and expect the enemy to wait two weeks for customs to clear.

Auto426
July 29, 2012, 05:37 PM
A typewriter company by the name of Remington Rand made a far better 1911 platform pistol in 1944 than Colt ever could. That's my 2 cents for what it is worth.

:rolleyes:

2wheels
July 29, 2012, 05:57 PM
9 pages of the same old boring arguments, often repeated a dozen times even once they've been answered. It costs too much, it's old, my Glock does a better job, somebody bribed a general...

Sheeesh... You'd think the ENTIRE military dumped the M9 and went back to the 1911, instead of a relatively TINY unit of elite Marines CONTINUING to use the same pistols they've been using for a long long time. They're just getting new ones, their old ones are on their last legs from what I understand.

My favorite quote of the thread, from Kleanbore.

"MARSOC has been using Kimber .45s, and one would tend to trust their judgment on that issue over that of Internet commandos--even those who have heard things from "those who have [served]." "

Auto426
July 29, 2012, 06:11 PM
Well they did and so did Ithaca and even the Singer Sewing Machine Company!

Which shows how much you know...

During WWII the various 1911 makers were all producing M1911A1 pistols built to exacting government specifications. The guns produced by the various makers were nearly identical, save for the inspection marks and the company markings. The guns were all made to the same exact standards and parts could freely interchange between all of them.

We get that you have some personal bias against Colt, but there's no need to come in here and spout off a bunch of BS.

jdmb03
July 29, 2012, 06:42 PM
This thread went from discussing a Colt contract with a special military unit to people giving their opinion of what the military should use a defensive sidearm. If the military wanted a high-capacity piece of plastic they would have asked for it. Let's get past the low capacity, large bore, slow bullet, antique Colt debate.

Auto426
July 29, 2012, 07:15 PM
Well who made them during WWII? I know that Singer made 500 pieces and they never made it to our troops and the last time I looked they were selling for about 10 grand on the collectors sites. Now I also know that Remington Rand supplied more 1911 platform pistols to our military forces than Colt ever did. The electric razor division of Remington Rand Typewriter company also made and supplied more 1911 magazines than any other company did as well. You might want to read this before you start name calling

Approximate WWII production figures:

Remington Rand: 1,030,000
Colt: 480,000
Ithaca: 370,000
US&S: 55,000
Singer: 500

Production numbers have no correlation to the actual quality of the weapons. They do however have an effect on collectability, because the least produced are the most sought after and as such the highest priced.

Auto426
July 29, 2012, 10:02 PM
Like I told yeah Remington Rand Typewriter Company made the most and the best military 1911 platform small arms. I personally would not give a plugged nickle for any Colt pistol. My best shooting 1911 is a United Switch and Signal made by a railroad signaling company. It is what it is friend.

And like I said earlier, you're lack of knowledge and you're bias is readily apparent. What your saying is what it is: BS.

Ash
July 29, 2012, 10:05 PM
Colt made closer to 600,000 pistols if I recall correctly and Remington Rand made less than 900,000, the first of which did not have good parts interchangeability.

However, by the time WWII ended, Colt had made more than 1.1 Million 1911's (granted, the first 500,000 occurred with WWI - but those pistols were still in use during WWII).

So, more soldiers/sailors/marines carried a Colt than a Remington Rand. Indeed, since RR didn't even start production until 1943, those troops on Guadalcanal , Makin, New Guinea, North Africa, and Sicily were armed for the most part with Colt 1911's - not to mention sailors and marines at Pearl Harbor, Coral Sea, Midway, the Solomons, as well as the Med and North Sea.

It wasn't until D-Day that sizeable numbers of US troops would have a chance to carry a Remington Rand - and even then a great number were already carrying Colts.

As to the Nuclear Arms Race, such arms races have always been a problem. The Dreadnaught race inspired the Washington Naval Treaty which resulted in the Nelson class in the UK and the South Dakota and North Carolina classes in the US.

The nuclear race was expensive, but how expensive would a conventional war have been had deterrence not been a policy? That war would have happened with the Soviets without the dire implications imposed by "The Bomb."

PokeyOkie
July 29, 2012, 10:22 PM
I've watched this post with interest because I'm one of those guys who actually procure stuff for the airmen, sailors, soldiers and marines. There is a lot that goes into an acquisition of this size and a lot of paperwork just to be considered. We fill 6 in binders full for things like this. Last one I had of this size was 9 volumes and we aren't paperless so we kill trees to justify every little thing.

The price may be high but because there was competition, it is considered fair to the government and the contractor. If they went just low price technically acceptable, it was who met the requirements and had the cheap price. That is what is in favor right now because of the limited funds everyone has. If they went 'best value' they considered the logistic support and other factors like past performance, quality, etc and could have gone to someone who was higher but had more benefit to the government.

Either way, it is hard for anyone to guide a source selection like this (please note, I didn't say impossible so don't start in on me there). There are so many levels of scrutiny and the losing companies get the chance to protest as soon as they are debriefed. Look at KC-46 the first time. Any time there is incongruity, someone will scream.

It Colt won, it will be reviewed by a lot of people and screwing with it will get noticed. That is one of the few things in the government that can get you fired.

It's also why it takes years to get anything to the guys in the field. The red tape keeps guys from getting what they need when they need it.

jdmb03
July 29, 2012, 10:25 PM
Like I told yeah Remington Rand Typewriter Company made the most and the best military 1911 platform small arms. I personally would not give a plugged nickle for any Colt pistol. My best shooting 1911 is a United Switch and Signal made by a railroad signaling company. It is what it is friend.

Well, I guess your opinion of Colt would only matter in this situation if you were part of the unit that is going to be using them. And my guess would be that you are not part of this particular unit.

ldgrey1963
July 29, 2012, 10:32 PM
I am glad COLT got the job, I just wish COLT would make a double-stack with and without the rail...

cacoltguy
July 29, 2012, 10:38 PM
My whole point is this, I feel the U.S. military as a whole grossly overspends on all weapons and could be getting a whole lot more value for its dollar if some fiscal responsibility was used. All of this will be our undoing one day. The 1911 pistol is just a microcosm of a larger problem and while I'm certainly not saying this pistol is breaking the U.S. financially, I didn't want to digress too far from the main topic. I'm also certainly not saying this money should be used for social welfare programs either (not sure how that got started) When we consider our possible future enemies like China we need to realize that small numbers of technologically superior weapons usually lose to a country with larger numbers of low tech weapons backed by a country with a superior manufacturing base. Just ask the Germans what happened when their superior Tiger tanks, weapons systems etc.. faired against American production capacity. In my own insignificant, personal opinion I feel that blowing all this money on a handful of stealth planes, ships, $1800 dollar pistols (regardless of "logistical support") is misguided.

Ash
July 29, 2012, 11:16 PM
Then gripe about the Great Green Fleet.

They wasted more money in a single day than was the entire cost of the Marine 1911 project.

Auto426
July 29, 2012, 11:23 PM
It did matter in Vietnam and none of us wanted the Colt pistols, we all wanted the Remmies and would not accept the Colt junk

You wouldn't accept a Colt 1911 even though by that time a Remington Rand probably had more Colt parts in it then anything else. Never mind the fact the all the military 1911's were made to the same exact standards and were rigorously inspected to make sure they met those standards.

At this point I'm just going to go with troll instead of ignorant.

Glock has made and sold more pistols worldwide than all the other gun maker in history combined!

I was waiting for it. I've seen it a dozen times before, every time one of these posts full of uneducated remarks and BS shows up they almost always end the same exact way: praising Glock.

Please, either get a little education about what you are saying, or just leave us all in peace. This thread has enough BS in it already, we certainly don't need any more trolling.

Auto426
July 29, 2012, 11:40 PM
Call me what you want to. Does it make you feel better now. I have probably been around guns longer than you have been on this earth.

You can't please all of the people all of the time and you will be lucky to please some of the people some of the time. Colt is total junk to me and calling me names just isn't going to change my mind on that fact. Here I will say it again.

I think Colt is junk!

Your opinion is your opinion and that doesn't bother me.

What does bother me is all the BS and lies you are spreading in an attempt to back up your opinion. Phrases like "Glock has made and sold more pistols worldwide than all the other gun maker in history combined" just show everyone here that your a fool who has no idea what he's talking about, and they will treat you accordingly.

Art Eatman
July 29, 2012, 11:51 PM
Time for a :barf: break.

If you enjoyed reading about "Colt won!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!