george burns
Member
I was taken back at first when I heard this, but after thinking about it for a while it made sense.
First the average new recruit doesn't know much about guns. they need a simple gun that parts can be changed easily on, "like the 1911 originally was", remenber, you could take any gun and put the parts from any other gun in it and it would work, "or at least should".
So fast forwrd now, does the average guy need a super accurate expensive to replace gun, or a gun that if he broke any part of the frame, would cost $40.00 retail , and "who knows what to the army, "5-15 dollars", so the entire gun should never have to be replaced all together. Only the parts that break or wear out.
Now this is not going to make the gun extremly accurate, simply because if you rub metal against Poly, a few dozen times, the tolorences will change a few thousanths of an inch. But the gun should still remain accurate enough for a man to hit a target the size of another man. I am sure that after 5-10 years most of these guns will have seen many parts replaced if not the entire gun. It alo lets them issue different size guns to various men doing different tasks, like a sub-compact for a smaller framed person or investigator or a larger frame for a combat soldier. The other guns submitted were not able to accompish this, unless they submiitted guns we haven't seen "which is probably so". But overall it was the most economical way to go, not the best gun the best gun for their purpose.
I Just read they are paying $207 per gun from the firearm blog, if correct, we know why they got the contract. I don't think Glock is going to sell their guns, spare parts and mags that cheap. Probably a $50 dollar per gun diference. If someone can look at the purchase order for the Glocks the Seals an spec- ops guys just bought we could know for certain, I would think it's public record.
First the average new recruit doesn't know much about guns. they need a simple gun that parts can be changed easily on, "like the 1911 originally was", remenber, you could take any gun and put the parts from any other gun in it and it would work, "or at least should".
So fast forwrd now, does the average guy need a super accurate expensive to replace gun, or a gun that if he broke any part of the frame, would cost $40.00 retail , and "who knows what to the army, "5-15 dollars", so the entire gun should never have to be replaced all together. Only the parts that break or wear out.
Now this is not going to make the gun extremly accurate, simply because if you rub metal against Poly, a few dozen times, the tolorences will change a few thousanths of an inch. But the gun should still remain accurate enough for a man to hit a target the size of another man. I am sure that after 5-10 years most of these guns will have seen many parts replaced if not the entire gun. It alo lets them issue different size guns to various men doing different tasks, like a sub-compact for a smaller framed person or investigator or a larger frame for a combat soldier. The other guns submitted were not able to accompish this, unless they submiitted guns we haven't seen "which is probably so". But overall it was the most economical way to go, not the best gun the best gun for their purpose.
I Just read they are paying $207 per gun from the firearm blog, if correct, we know why they got the contract. I don't think Glock is going to sell their guns, spare parts and mags that cheap. Probably a $50 dollar per gun diference. If someone can look at the purchase order for the Glocks the Seals an spec- ops guys just bought we could know for certain, I would think it's public record.
Last edited:
