Got any recommendations for how we can inspire this discussion? Ive asked the question a couple times now in different places and ways. Either it gets lost in the flow of the started thread, folks aren't interested, or they don't know???? Any ideas?Originally Posted by Mike C
Tomr if you look at Bill's started posts you can find a good amount of discussion and pics on the FN (tactical hobo's) and sig offering in compact 9mms. Not sure
On the others. If I recall Bill was impressed greatly by the FN and considered sig's quality a bygone conclusion. Check it out. I've read every technical thread Bill has posted, because I'm a nerd like that.
Sent from my iPhone, I apologize in advance for typos.
You need to be patient when asking a PhD with two jobs to sit down and answer your questions. Judicious uses of the below typed in Google would help as well.
Code:my search terms site:pistol-forum.com
#RESIST
Guns wear out, so they decided to explore other options -- DA/SA issues aside, the SIG and exposed hammer designs are not doing well in green side operations.
From my understanding of both programs the SIG's did not do as well as some other guns in testing for replacements.
Kevin S. Boland
Director of R&D
Law Tactical LLC
www.lawtactical.com
kevin@lawtactical.com
407-451-4544
What I found a bit surprising about the British big-army decision for the Glock 17 is that they didn't chose the 19, simply because it is a bit lighter and more compact. A few ounces don't make a difference for most troops, but they do if you are carrying the better part of 100 pounds of gear while walking all day and night, or at least it always seemed that way to me. Our SF units seem to have mainly gone to the 19; I wonder if the Brit specialist units will make the same choice or will stick with the 17?
My guess is they will do both -- 17's for Green side ops (they are free from large Brit Army) - and 19's and 26's for times where the larger gun is not applicable.
The same way that they and the Canadians had 228s and 239's for certain missions.
As I expect the S&W M&P will win the Cdn trial - I would expect that they will pick up the 9C and Shield for those roles. Unless Glock finally released their MRDS Slide - I see most entities going M&P CORE who have a domestic CT requirement - as shooting in a GasMask - the MRDS kicks ass.
Kevin S. Boland
Director of R&D
Law Tactical LLC
www.lawtactical.com
kevin@lawtactical.com
407-451-4544
Bill Riehl did talk about some of his impressions but I did not find a ton of technical detail as he has provided in other postings to include the metallurgical choices and consequences there of, or things like strength, natural corrosion resistance and so forth. Bill Riehl provides a fascinating amount of detail and insight. If/when he has the time it would be awesome to hear a comparative mechanical breakdown, machining quality, MIM quality, metal quality/strength and comparison between the three staple lines of say Sig, FN, and H&K.Tomr if you look at Bill's started posts you can find a good amount of discussion and pics on the FN (tactical hobo's) and sig offering in compact 9mms. Not sure
On the others. If I recall Bill was impressed greatly by the FN and considered sig's quality a bygone conclusion. Check it out. I've read every technical thread Bill has posted, because I'm a nerd like that.
Sent from my iPhone, I apologize in advance for typos.
All that I specifically remember and after rereading some of his posts is that he talked more about the complexity of lines like H&K, SIG, and FN vs Glock and a 1911. Nothing in direct comparison with detail. He has also stated that he did not like the stamped parts in the FN but over all liked the design and was able to shoot the FN very well after some much needed trigger work.
I haven't seen a lot of people on this forum with the same technical expertise speak of these things in great detail, or at least if there are they haven't shared a whole lot. I am the type of person that is always looking at the why or how behind things so it would be awesome to either be pointed in the right direction to find the answers myself or have someone break it down for me in a language that I can better understand. For me that has been one of the great things about this forum, the amount of tactical and technical experts is so many fields gathered in one place is pretty awesome.
I'm in a precarious position, as I have inside knowledge of a few of those, and I don't want to be the one that makes things public knowledge.
Thanks Bill, that was of course a 4th possibility......
Folks, Ive read all of Bills posts re the FNS, Sigs, Glocks and M&Ps. Those are great and in fact what inspired my interest in the question. I don't like stampings either, but they work and are a fact of life, powdered metal/MIM as well. In fact carbide end mills, router bits, lathe tools and fancy high end knives are using this stuff these days, (Crucible Steel). so for small parts there's way lots more to know.
The question being talked about here, for me at least, just falls out, after reading the "through hardening" thread and the "some thoughts ...." thread. As Ive written, all the conversation about triggers, sights, ergonomics, ejection pattern, reliability are important, but not the whole story. But as thats the only "information" we're given the conversation is corralled to just those things. Most of those are fixable, if not to one's liking, with additional expense, or, reasons to buy one platform or another. But to commit to a pistol, (as a citizen, spending hard earned cash), especially if being asked to pay more ala H&K or Sig, don't we want to know what we're being asked to pay for? Wouldn't we like to know that the fundamental parts, slides, barrels, frames are as good as they can be to warrant that commitment and the additional expense of customizing? If, they all use "polymer" for grips, (are all polymers created equal?), stamped and MIMed small parts and we find out the slides and barrels are essential the same, doesn't that then shed a different light on price?
LittleLebowski, I understand and am respectful of Bill's contributions and time constraints, as I'd bet he'd acknowledge. You should try asking this question to the search function some time - it may be revealing...
I can absolutely respect that. On the other hand I hear and feel what tomr is saying.
This is exactly what I am thinking. It's not like a manufacture wants to come out and say, hey buy our product though it might be inferior to whatever else your looking at and here are the technical details of why. I am typically left with more questions than answers at time but thanks for sharing what you will Bill Riehl.
Reply With Quote
