A couple more photos as we wait for more info on just what the 47 is...
Appears to be tests sample. As I understand it, contract guns will have "CBP" as part of the serial number. I think that's a requirement in the SOW.
]
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Last edited by Tokarev; 04-10-2019 at 05:53 PM.
I like the idea of MOS dovetail compatible Ameriglo Agent/Bold sights. Good choice.
Do we know anything about the MOS on this pistol? Did CBP specify a footprint or will the standard MOS adapter plates meet their requirement?
"When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."
Nice shooting. I'm still trying to decide if I prefer standard Dawson Chargers or Bolds. I can't make up my mind.Originally Posted by GJM
The Statement Of Work linked up thread specifies the optics mount must be modular and must be able to accept both the RMR and DPP footprints. They are buying a handgun for the next 10 years or more. Given the SOW requirements and the evolution of RDS tech it would be illogical to specify a footprint.
The MOS system has gotten a bad rap due to RDS not being properly mounted. Agencies running MOS guns with armorer mounted optics are showing good results. It’s only real negative is it results in the optic sitting higher on the slide.
The 47 seems like a weird pistol.
Much like with the G45, I'm left wondering why the reverse model - the 19L - was not chosen.
19L w/ 15rd mag = 19L
19L w/ 15+2 mag = 47/17
19L frame + 19 Slide + 15rd mag = G19
19L frame + 19 Slide + 15+2 mag = G45
You could have just 1 common frame that 4 different pistols could be built out of.
It would appear to me with the G47, this could be possible. G47 slide on G19 would give you your G19L.
Gotta wait for Gen 7 for that.
"Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA
Beware of my temper, and the dog that I've found...
Lol that's true. If nothing else the Glock fanboys can thank SIG for causing at least some innovation....
There's talk on another board about how Glock usurped the contract away from SIG. That's not the case. The specifications called for swappable top ends and not full 320-like modularity. Had the writers of the contract truly wanted the 320 all they'd have had to do was write something about disassembly without pulling the trigger and a serialized frame component that can be removed from the plastic grip shell without tools. Language like that would have immediately disqualified the Glock as we know it.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Assuming this becomes available to the public, is there any reason to choose a Glock 17 over a Glock 47?
It might have been better to sell this as the Glock 17 Gen 6, or something. Seems a waste to sacrifice the 17 name.
Yeah, losing the Army contract seems to have been good for Glock insofar as product improvement.
Last edited by LittleLebowski; 04-11-2019 at 07:22 AM.
#RESIST
Reply With Quote