Hell yeah.Originally Posted by modrecoil
Hell yeah.
I know right! Follow his stuff. With crossed fingers.
“Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais
I've seen that when a cheap pistol rated for 22Long was fed 22LR. Probably 20 years ago. Didn't know anything about guns at the time, except that there was a difference between the rounds and some idiot (not me, in this case) had bought something different than what was marked on his gun. Something like 1/3 to 1/2 the rounds ended up in the dirt unfired. I suggested the plinking session be adjourned until correct ammo could be acquired, and the suggestion was followed.
With a 9mm, the only way I can imagine it happening is if the inertia of the recoil impulse allows the top round to slide forward, out of control of the feed lips, and it's pushed out of the ejection port by the next round, which is picked up by the slide returning to battery. Something like this would tend to be promoted if the slide holds the top round fairly far down below the feed lips, and if the recoil impulse moves the slide back sufficiently quickly that the frame and magazine move rearward faster than the stack of rounds can move up to the feed lips. The top round would in a sense be floating in space while the gun moves back relative to it. Anything that would slow the stack moving upward, like a dirty mag, sticky follower or weakened spring, would tend to promote it. Lube on the cases would tend to promote it. A longer dwell time of the slide behind the stack would tend to promote it. Needs some high-speed video, for sure. If it's that, someone will figure out that it can't happen if the frame doesn't move rearward, and declare that limp wristing is the root cause.
*Just thought I'd mention, I typed the above before going over and reading Jose Gordon's comments. Lest anyone think I read that and tried to take credit for the suggestion...
Last edited by OlongJohnson; 02-06-2018 at 09:07 PM.
.
-----------------------------------------
Not another dime.
I had a Drill Sergeant who would make our squad place our canteens out as 'targets' and we'd dry fire, transitioning between them like they were the pop ups on the qualification course.
"When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."
As a tax payer shouldn't you be happy that the Government didn't waste several hundred million additional dollars buying a weapons system that was not as technically compliant with the contract requirements?
I'm not sure why you refuse to believe that the P320 issue a formidable weapon. It literally would have been Government waste, fraud, and abuse to award to Glock. SIG offered the best value, not to be confused with the lowest bid.
You seem to have some inside info. Were you on the testing team?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, but it was not a "lowest Price technically acceptable contract. I have been on both sides of Government contracting and this "race to the bottom" has been an issue for several years now. Thankfully MHS was not a LPTA, it was a Best Value contract. That means that superior technical performance can justify a higher cost.
Based on both compliance with the requirements and testing performance Glock and SIG were very close (see in this thread for the evaluation performance). Glock didn't have a technical superiority over the SIG so a dramatically higher cost could in no way be justified and would have absolutely been shady government dealings to spend hundreds of thousands of additional dollars on an equal or less compliant Glock over the P320. I get that Glocks a favorite for good reason; however, over about 40,000 rounds over the last three years I have come to depend on and prefer the modular P320 over the Glock. In that time across three P320s that got most of the use I have had to replace a guide rod and one extractor. Time will ultimately tell but the P320 is absolutely a contender with the Glock and Glock, who has changed almost nothing since I bought my G19 in 2002, will find that its lack of any real Innovation will continue to provide an avenue for competitors to chip away at its domination.
Alma--you are wrong regarding this testing. It was grossly flawed. It was a major waste of tax payer funds. Contrast the poor Army testing with the well conducted FBI pistol program...
Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie
At the risk of brevity, I think one of my big frustrations, and one that is shared, is that there was little need for something as dramatic and circus-ish as what the MHS became. You may not like them but Glock has been very well vetted and received in professional circles. There was also the M9A3 proposal, which for a sidearm for conventional forces was more than perfect and again, not dramatic. This isn't a Glock vs Sig thing, IMO the Army just wanted a new toy and was determined to get it.
MPs and the like notwithstanding I just fail to see why the conventional forces needed a new handgun. All the energy and attention could have gone into invigorating small arms programs around the forces. My issued M9 was a status symbol 99% of the time, the other 1% was either searching jingle trucks or following folks around on medcap/humint type things, no real need for an entirely new gun there.
Just my $.02 for a 100% discount.
The entire MHS is a boondoggle, in my opinion. The M9 is a damn good gun. Some soldiers can't seem to run it effectively, whether due to training or fit issues. But it did not really need replaced. The M9A3 proposal would have cost literally nothing to implement, and would have upgraded the current weapon, as we have seen done repeatedly with the M16/M4 family - and that is, quite arguably, a much more important weapon to most situations than the pistol. Armies need functioning pistols. The M9 is a top quality, functioning pistol. So the hundreds of millions spent replacing it is the travesty to me. The military is still taking delivery on tens of thousands of the old pistol, even as they crow about fielding a new replacement that some soldiers don't seem to be able to run effectively, and that has some demonstrated flaws that weren't discovered in testing due to what seems to have been an inappropriately abbreviated testing.
I don't see the improvement, just a lot of money spent on the least important weapon in the arsenal. And that is what infuriates me. If we need more pistols issued to more soldiers, great! I'm all for it. I cannot understand why that need necessitated the multiple tests and proposals and all the squandered dollars to arrive at what is quite likely going to eventually be a nice gun that does basically nothing measurably better than the gun it replaces.
Last edited by Duelist; 02-07-2018 at 12:45 AM.
Reply With Quote