I congratulate Boberg on telling the public what will work in their guns but I may not be able to find that ammo.
I hate to be insistent, but did you look at the list? I
wish any gun store or big box retailer near me had a fraction of the selection that has been thoroughly vetted. For 45acp, which I assume has not been thusly vetted as of yet (seeing as Boberg probably isn't blowing thousands of rounds just to satisfy picky customers once the gun has been shown to work with a number of common loads, same as every other maker) I can understand the argument.
But the 9mm has been out for 3 years now, with either rave reviews, or people that fell out of love with it (often for non-mechanical reasons; it is a unique/niche gun after all). Even if a few lemons or gremlins make it out, the owner's have had nothing but good things to say about the business and service side of the purchase. Still we have people saying the design itself is 'unproven,' and too big a risk to undertake unless priced the same as a Glock
. Crimp the bullet right, and it's a complete non-issue. Same thing for light strikes on hard primers (an issue in most striker fired guns).
Didn't see the military poo-poo the design, the solution was quite simple, crimp the rounds......problem goes away.
Good point; don't most belt-feds violently yank the rounds backward from their links? If it is not a far-fetched request to ask that people 'dress for the gun' or whatever, how is requiring they avoid a short list of bad ammo types a bridge too far? Whoever mentioned oblivious and petulant consumers was on to something. Boberg has consistently done
everything right by us buyers, other than to copy the gun a few of us already own
I don't see the bullet separation issue ever being resolved
I don't either, but neither will magazine feed issues in push-throughs (I have to imagine the X9R design is at least slightly more resistant to feed lip/ramp geometry issues), nor dangerous bullet setback, for that matter.
Don't confuse COST with PRICE. Making them quicker and more cheaply might mean more profit, not necessarily a lower selling price point. Something as unique as this would also seem to require a lot more handwork - most of the quality small pistols do - so it might just remain one that will be out of some folks' price range.
Ya'll do realize the parts are (the only pistols'?) made on a 5-axis CNC machining center, right? The handgun is a compilation of aircraft parts, to put it simply, and there is a certain cost associated with this as opposed to a Browning slide/barrel that's been optimized for 100 years, now.
As far as the Ford; it was
so cheap that it was, and is, still the second most expensive purchase a consumer will ever make
by far . Much like cell phones, the true genius of Ford was in convincing the public to divert such a large portion of their earnings toward a new consumable item that was previously non-existent. Fords were also cheap due to extensive foreign/domestic sourcing of materials in 3rd world plantations/colonies, which was not terribly unlike the modern practice of outsourcing what you can to keep costs low; Ford couldn't have outsourced the manufacturing operations even if he'd tried. I also question how many of the workers outside the publicly-touted manufacturing operations had wages high enough to buy the vehicles as is always claimed (like the miners or tree-fellers far away in the backwoods US & South America). Lots of historical revision to the Ford mythology, same as every other famous tale
TCB