Gadfly hit the nail on the head with regard to how costly testing can quickly get--and that is with only a paltry 10K service life requirement. Now imagine the test ammo requirements if an agency has a 35K or 50K service life requirement...
Gadfly hit the nail on the head with regard to how costly testing can quickly get--and that is with only a paltry 10K service life requirement. Now imagine the test ammo requirements if an agency has a 35K or 50K service life requirement...
Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie
Our guns are expected to run 1k per year for a 10 year contract. Some agents shoot way more than 10k in that time. The majority won't.
Ideally, with a 10 year contract, you have the ability to update the gun with the times. Look at the army that has clung to 1985 tech for so long. We had the 229 from '04 to '14. I am glad we won't be stuck with the DAK forever.
“A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.” - Shane
I'm glad to see an agency the size of the TDPS go with the 320. Cops neglect their handguns almost as much as soldiers do, so issuing it to a large agency is a good test of it's abilities. I'll be interested in their experience with it.
We may lose and we may win, but we will never be here again.......
The gun tested by TXDPS with the least number of failures (as in one hand's fingers with fingers left over) was NOT the Sig 320.
Regional Government Sales Manager for Aimpoint, Inc. USA
Co-owner Hardwired Tactical Shooting (HiTS)
What handguns were in the test?Originally Posted by Wayne Dobbs
But your not at liberty to say which one was?
Of course it wasn't--what government small arms test would be complete without some sort of subjective shenanigans..."The gun tested by TXDPS with the least number of failures (as in one hand's fingers with fingers left over) was NOT the Sig 320."
Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie
Most government small arms procurements are laughable; some so out of ignorance and some out of treachery. The only reason agencies get away with the shenanigans that DocGKR mentions is because few if any firearms industry sales teams actually understand the procurement laws/regulations of the jurisdictions in general. RFPs get written all the time which are illegal on their faces but result in huge contracts nonetheless.
The FBI does an outstanding job promoting their current sidearm choice (whatever it is at the time) and that has a tremendous amount of influence. That's particularly true for smaller agencies which are smart enough to understand they lack the knowledge, manpower, and budget to develop and execute any sort of meaningful test protocol. Instead they simply say, "Well, it was good enough for the FBI," and drive on. Which all things considered isn't the stupidest idea in the world.
I dealt with an agency once that had to do their own test for new guns right after a sister agency had spent tons of money doing the exact same thing. When I asked why they didn't just follow their sister agency's choice, the answer was -- I kid you not -- "We need to get guns that fit our people's hands the best." Apparently they felt the other agency hired non-humans who had a different number of fingers on their hands.
Because people with absolutely no formal training in statistics or weapon design are told to figure out which weapon is most likely to be the best design. <boggle>
In addition to that which has already been mentioned, you can not underestimate the influence that personal bias of senior command staff and/or the personnel assigned to the firearms training unit conduction the test.
Also, cost is a factor. Not only the cost of the new guns, but the trade in value of the old guns. I've seen what competing companies were willing to do to get just a 1,200 gun agency order. Amazing...
I understand if you are not able to comment further on the internet.
But I would be vary curious to see how a new Glock 17, a HK VP9 and the Sig 320 actually performed. Especially the VP9.
Once upon a time, my agency tested the Glock 17 vs the Sig 229DAK. We then got three pre-production prototype M&P9's and ran a separate test of that gun, 6 months after concluding the original test. The results were rather interesting. As was the manner in which the second test was conducted. But many factors come into play other than just how the gun performs. We've been an M&P9 agency since...
There are many other factors involved in winning an agency contract other than early how the pistol performs.
With that knowledge, I am interested in seeing any results of the VP9 actually being run through some legitimate testing procedures. I own one, but to be honest, it's a range toy for me. I'm issued a M&P9 for duty use. I carry a personally owned Glock 19 off duty.
If anyone can elaborate via PM, I'd be grateful. And I promise to keep my mouth shut if necessary.
Reply With Quote