True enough... that had not occurred to me.Originally Posted by JSGlock34
.
True enough... that had not occurred to me.
.
I've wondered if a gadget type device that replaces the slide backplate could provide a means to release the striker tension without pulling the trigger, and thus permit disassembly. I've come across Glock pistols with dead triggers and cocked strikers (not frequently mind you, but I've had to deal with the situation before), and the prescription called for removing the slide backplate and striker assembly. Now you needed to use an Armorer's tool to do it, but perhaps someone can come up with a different solution...
"When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."
yes
possibly down to two now... possible announcement next month...
Okay.
WHAT two?
.
PM me please.
Last edited by SLG; 06-08-2016 at 04:54 PM.
That's the way I read it too. Initially, I thought Glock would have a hassle meeting the 0.5" difference in barrel length between the Class I and Class II pistols. The answer to question 51 corrected that thought: the 0.47" difference between the G17 and G19 falls within the +/- 0.05" tolerance.
What is your take on the RFP not specifying a difference in either grip height or overall height between the two pistols Classes? It seems as though at least one of the manufactures was adamant about submitting Class I & II pistols with different slide/barrel lengths, but the same frame/grip. If nothing else, it caused quite a bit of confusion. I'm rather surprised the RFP wasn't amended to clarify the issue.
QUESTION 45:
Can the Class II frame be the same size as the Class I frame or does it have to be bigger? [REF. C.23.2, Page 7]
If the frame can be the same size, can a 15 round magazine be used in both frames if the pistol's performance is superior?
[REF. C.4.3.a, Page 9]
ANSWER: CLASS II FRAME MUST BE LARGER THAN THE CLASS I FRAME; REFER TO C.4.2.
QUESTION 112:
This question comes out of the Government's answer to Q45 from the first Q&A; In C.4.2 Physical Characteristics, there is not mention of frame sizes other than max/min dimensions for OAL/Height and Barrel Length. Additionally in C.4.15.C and C.4.15.D there is discussion of accommodation of different shooters hands, and some options to accommodate that, there is no directive that the same frame cannot be used for the Class I and Class II guns if they meet the Physical Characteristics. Nor is there any direction on the boundaries of the different frame sizes, outside of the overall size constraints in C.4.2 which a single frame can meet. Is it the government's intent on having different frames for the different class pistols, and if so, will the government be providing threshold and/or objective measurement both of the Classes, as currently as mentioned a 5.5'' height gun would fit both classes, given the measurements stated in C.4.2.b
ANSWER: IT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S INTENT TO HAVE DIFFERENT FRAME SIZES FOR THE CLASS I & II PISTOLS. THE GOVERNMENT DESIRES TWO UNIQUE FRAME SIZES IN PART TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE GREATER MAGAZINE CAPACITY BETWEEN CLASS I & II PISTOLS, WITHOUT THE USE OF MAGAZINE EXTENSIONS OR MAGAZINE "SURROUNDS."
QUESTION 120:
Clarification to question 45 pg. 15
We request clarification to the FBI's response to question #45 stating the Class II frame must be larger than the class I frame. The specification listed in C.4.2.b Pistol Physical Dimensions has no minimum height listed for the Class II frame. Based on the specification this would allow one frame to be used for both Class I and Class II pistols providing sample submitted meets all specifications listed in C.4.2 Pistol Physical Dimensions. Can the FBI please confirm that specification C.4.2.b does not have a minimum specification for height?
ANSWER: PURSUANT TO C.4.2.b, THE CLASS I MINIMUM HEIGHT IS 4.75" AND THE CLASS II FRAME HEIGHT MUST BE GREATER THAN THE CLASS I PISTOL FROM THE SAME OFFEROR.
QUESTION 120Can the Government please specify where in RFP-OSCU-DSU1503 does it require the Class II frame be larger or of a different size than the Class I frame?
ANSWER: IT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S INTENT TO HAVE DIFFERENT FRAME SIZES FOR THE CLASS I & II PISTOLS. THE GOVERNMENT DESIRES TWO UNIQUE FRAME SIZES IN PART TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE GREATER MAGAZINE CAPACITY BETWEEN CLASS I & II PISTOLS, WITHOUT THE USE OF MAGAZINE EXTENSIONS OR MAGAZINE "SURROUNDS."
Last edited by Jeff S.; 06-13-2016 at 07:27 PM.
I also thought this was interesting as the decision to specify two different frame sizes ultimately excludes a number of designs (such as the M&P). My take is simply that their prior experience with having the G19/G23 sized pistol was positive, and that an intermediate/compact sized frame was important to them. They did not entertain proposals to have a 'Class I' full size pistol (i.e. G17 or M&P9) and a 'Class II' long slide version (i.e. G34 or M&P9L). I imagine they weren't keen on the idea of the two issue choices being a full sized pistol and an even longer version of the same pistol when most of their personnel carry concealed.
Last edited by JSGlock34; 06-13-2016 at 09:14 PM.
"When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."
JS, so will it be a G17 and G19, or are they implying an intermediate size?
Thanks,
Dave
G17 and G19 sizes. Sorry for any confusion - I threw out the term 'intermediate' - as many companies don't seem to offer a G19 equivalent sized pistol (the P320 is a notable exception), and what many companies term their 'compact' model would not meet the FBI requirements for the Class I pistol (particularly in terms of capacity). Meanwhile, Glock offers full size (G17), compact (G19) and subcompact (G26) frames.
Last edited by JSGlock34; 06-14-2016 at 11:10 PM.
"When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."
Reply With Quote