The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Semi-automatic Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 24, 2012, 02:08 PM   #101
Gats Italian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2008
Posts: 332
Quote:
Funny thing is.. the used Glocks, worn and all, still sell for more $$.
P.T. Barnum and H.L. Mencken had sayings regarding that type of phenomenon.
__________________
Leave the gun, take the cannoli.
Gats Italian is offline  
Old November 24, 2012, 02:26 PM   #102
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 4,133
The dollar value of winning a military procurement contract is incredible and putting a contract out for a highly visible defense item incredibly troublesome. It is all due to profit. You can look at the Air Force KC 46 tanker contract award. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46. The contract award started in 2003 and was delayed by procurement fraud, corruption, congressional meddling, and it was not until 2011 that a contract was finally awarded . Who wants to go through that? There is so much profit to be made by military vendors. The winning vendor gets a monopoly on parts, maintenance, supply, and big, big profits in foreign military sales.

The Program Manager who led the M92 pistol through downselect came and briefed our Gun Club a couple of years ago. It was a "process" orientated briefing and it was a very good learning experience on how to conduct a downselect between contending designs in such a political environment. The procurement for a new Army pistol was horribly politicized at the time with Corporations using their Congressional sock puppets to delay, frustrate, steer, the procurement process.

The Army has not forgot and whatever good new designs are out there, they are not so much better than the Beretta for the Army to go through the travails of buying a new pistol.
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.
Slamfire is offline  
Old November 24, 2012, 02:47 PM   #103
Rainbow Demon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2012
Posts: 397
Quote:
How common is casehead failure in a pistol cartridge anyway, assuming it's a new factory round? While I realize that it is possible to blow up a handgun, all the ones on display that were blown up are made of steel--but the ammunition probably wasn't factory ammo.
Blown caseheads have been far too common with .40 S&W ammo, especially Federal factory .40 thats been subject of factory recalls due to casehead ruptures.

The phenomena of casehead rupture is almost always due to lack of support due to a too deeply cut feed ramp that intrudes into the chamber.

While the 1911 shares this particular design defect the .45 ACP with its much lower operating pressure is far less likely to have a casehead failure so long as ammunition that meets original specs is used.

The too deep feed ramp cut is a known factor in case head ruptures, yet Glock chose to repeat that design defect in the name of more reliable feeding.
I've read of aftermarket barrels that have ramps that don't intrude into the chamber wall. I expect that Glock will do something similar if they haven't already done so.

A blown up Glock plastic frame is a total loss. A steel framed pistol is more likely to be repairable.
As for injury to the hand, I've seen nothing on that aspect. The majority of the force of a rupture is expended in blowing out the magazine, a not uncommon factor in similar centerfire rifle casehead ruptures where the magazine floorplate or detachable magazine is blown out.

PS
Just checked my S&W 59, as I'd remembered the only openings in the magazine well are those for the magazine catch and the slots for the trigger bars. Its unlikely that a casehead rupture would even damage the plastic grips.

Last edited by Rainbow Demon; November 24, 2012 at 02:56 PM.
Rainbow Demon is offline  
Old November 24, 2012, 04:39 PM   #104
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
It is worth pointing out that many long guns have plastic stocks these days, and some, such as the M14 and the SLR in British service, eventually had their wooden stocks replaced with plastic. But that was replacing wood, not metal, of course. Not the same thing but still, it must say something about the suitability of whatever kind of plastic it is.

It is also worth pointing out another law in play here. Parkinson's Law, about the behavior of people on committees, is clearly being demonstrated when the amount of discussion about a pistol is greater than the discussion about a rifle (barely) and even more so than the discussion about the machine gun. The amount of discussion is inversely related to both the monetary value of the weapon and the combat value of the weapon as well. It's still an interesting discussion, though. Typically, handguns are the last things to be replaced and often have the longest service life of any weapon, although the M16 is close to setting a record.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old November 24, 2012, 05:54 PM   #105
shurshot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2006
Posts: 761
"Why doesn't the US military use Glocks?"(OP).

Perhaps our Military leaders don't drink kool-aid.

Seriously though, RICKB had it right... "Because the U.S. government has no interest in basing missiles in Austria?"

Politics had more to do with the M-9 being chosen than most realize. The Beretta is a good gun, so was / is the Sig, Ruger & S&W that were considered. Politics.

If common sense was involved, Colt would have been contracted to produce new .45 ACP 1911A1's.....

Last edited by shurshot; November 24, 2012 at 06:01 PM.
shurshot is offline  
Old November 24, 2012, 07:47 PM   #106
Constantine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2010
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 5,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by shurshot View Post
"Why doesn't the US military use Glocks?"(OP).

Perhaps our Military leaders don't drink kool-aid.

Seriously though, RICKB had it right... "Because the U.S. government has no interest in basing missiles in Austria?"

Politics had more to do with the M-9 being chosen than most realize. The Beretta is a good gun, so was / is the Sig, Ruger & S&W that were considered. Politics.

If common sense was involved, Colt would have been contracted to produce new .45 ACP 1911A1's.....
+1 it's all about business. Unfortunately. Also.... And this is just a guess too. It's probably cheaper to supply the US military and their sidearms with 9mm than it is for .45. That goes without saying. That too could have played a factor in the purchasing of the M9.


Another thing, most soldiers don't even have a sidearm btw. 03-11 veteran. Never had a sidearm. My best friend.

I think it just depends. Most military personnel I know never had a sidearm.
Constantine is offline  
Old November 24, 2012, 10:23 PM   #107
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,561
Quote:
Please consider that the auto glass in your Honda effectively blocks almost all UV sunlight so that is to be expected.
Regardless of the amount of UV getting through the autoglass (which is more or less identical from one car to another), some dashboards stand up to it for many years while others crack relatively quickly. The point is that if the manufacturer is dedicated to producing a quality product, they can make it last. If not, it's going to be a disappointment to the owner.
Quote:
Quality plastic will last longer but the sun will "win."
Sure, it will win, but if the manufacturer cares about making a durable product, the sun won't win in your lifetime or your children's lifetime, and likely not even in their children's lifetime. Even if it's left in the sun all day, every day.
Quote:
...it's all about business
Quote:
Politics had more to do with the M-9 being chosen than most realize.
For that to be true, the entire pistol trials would have had to have been faked. I'm not saying it couldn't have been done, but think about the huge number of people who would have had to have known about the faked trials and also would have had to remain silent for the last 30 years or so. It could have been done, but it couldn't have been done and kept quiet for this long.
Quote:
The Beretta is a good gun, so was / is the Sig, Ruger & S&W that were considered. Politics.
There was no Ruger pistol considered in the trials, and the S&W offering failed the performance trials based on an both an unacceptably short service life and insufficient firing pin energy. Where are you getting the information that you're using to arrive at the conclusions you have stated as fact?

The fact is that only two of the 8 entrants completed the performance testing and proceeded to the price competition. 4 were terminated for failing to perfom in one or more aspects of the competition, 2 voluntarily withdrew and the 2 remaining were deemed technically acceptable finalists. Moreover, of those two deemed to be technically acceptable finalists, one (SIG) was allowed to pass even though it failed an aspect of the performance testing. That was done so that there would be two competitors in the pricing competition.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old November 24, 2012, 11:01 PM   #108
chadio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 29, 2011
Posts: 664
Why doesn't the US military use Glocks?

I'll throw my hat into the ring. Here are two possibilities:

1) it takes about 30 years for a design to be accepted as 'mil spec'

2) Glocks are more subject to 'limp wrist' failure to cycle, other designs (1911, P226, M9) are nearly immune to this
__________________
Ex - Navy, Persian Gulf Veteran. Loved shooting the M14, 1911, M60, M2
chadio is offline  
Old November 25, 2012, 12:00 AM   #109
shurshot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2006
Posts: 761
JohnKSA; You are correct that Ruger wasn't in that 1st trial (XM9). I bought one of the first Ruger P-85's off the line, but it was in 88 or 89, long after the M-9 had started being issued to the troops. However, Ruger DID in fact compete in 1989 at the XM10 trials. My statements were from memory, not google or Wiki.

My point was, and is, that there were other viable options aside from the Beretta and although the M9 is a great gun, Politics did play a huge part in its selection. I do recall (I think...), reading numerous news articles in Time, Newsweek, various Gun magazines, etc. in the mid 80's on the trials, the M-9 and the protests about the US troops using Berettas instead of Colts, and 9MM instead on .45ACP, and the relationship between the US and Itl. Govts. Can I quote you specific articles or information sources 27 years later.... no. But to say that the topic was well covered by the media at the time is an understatement. I'll have to dig through my old gun magazines.
The common belief (and I'll go out on a limb and say "fact"), was that politics DID play a signifigant part in the M-9 contract.
From The American Rifleman website; "When the House Appropriations Committee gave the nod for a new U.S. military service handgun that would comply with NATO specs, the Beretta 92 was in the right place at the right time. Beretta unstintingly sent engineers back and forth across the Atlantic to ensure that the family gunmaker’s entry would absolutely conform with what the Joint Services Small Arms Project (JSSAP) mandated. The safety lever was moved to the slide to double as a de-cocker, an M1911-style magazine release button was placed in the “American position” behind the trigger guard, and an internal firing pin lock was incorporated. The original 92 morphed into what we now know as the 92F, which the U.S. military adopted as the M9. That adoption in the mid-1980s created a firestorm of complaints from M1911 fans, .45-cal. fans and, especially, rival gun manufacturers and their congressional delegations."

Pertaining to my statement in a previous post that politics played more of a role in the M-9 Contract that most people realize, you responded... "For that to be true, the entire pistol trials would have had to have been faked"(JOHNKSA).

Did I state that the trials were faked??? No, I didn't and didn't imply that either. I'm not sure where you got that from...? There were lots of questions and protests when the contract was awarded to Beretta. Wasn't there an appeal from Sig, and various legal challenges from S&W, pertaining to the trial results and overall cost factors, or process used to arrive at the listed cost? Hence the XM10 Trials in 1989???

From the Armed Forces History Museum website; "At the end of the trial period, the Beretta 92F and the SIG P226 were the only two in contention for the M9 contract. After cost analysis, the contract was awarded to Beretta. Though the P226 had a lower cost per pistol, its magazine and spare parts package price was higher than that of the Beretta."

It is difficult to remove politics from any contract process, Local, State or Fed, be the item in question handguns, hammers or construction projects. Kind of ironic how Beretta's magazine and spare parts cost came in slightly lower than Sig's... isn't it?

JohnKSA; Please clarify for me... Are you stating as "fact" that the Beretta M-9 contract was awarded based 100% on the pistols superior design, preformance and cost, and that politics / For. policy had NO role in the process? None what so ever?

I find that hard to agree with, despite the Beretta's stellar showing in both the XM9 and XM10 trials. Not that I can disprove your statement or change your mind, however the Berettta, as good as it is, had issues of its own. It was not, and is not perfect. The Sig 226 is a top notch gun, and was / is the choice of the Navy Seals over the Beretta, after some "slide issues" and facial injuries with early M9's.

Last edited by shurshot; November 25, 2012 at 02:35 AM.
shurshot is offline  
Old November 25, 2012, 02:31 AM   #110
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,561
Quote:
Ruger did compete in 89 in the XM10 trials.
The 1984 trials were the basis for the selection of the current service pistol. 1989 trials obviously couldn't have affected a decision made in 1986.

The American Rifleman quote is a good one. Even at the time it was clear to everyone that Beretta went all out to get the contract. They put a lot of effort and time into the competition and it showed in the results. Yes, there were a lot of complaints, but none of the official complaints or protests were supported with actual evidence sufficient to verify them.
Quote:
...there were other viable options aside from the Beretta...
Of the 8 pistols submitted for testing by their respective companies, only the Beretta conclusively passed all of the performance trials in the 1984 testing.
Quote:
Are you stating as fact that the Beretta M-9 contract was awarded 100% on the pistols superior design, preformance and cost, and that politics had NO role in the process?
First of all, your entire quote was that an earlier poster had it right when he said that the reason Beretta won had to do with missile basing in Italy AND that politics had more to do with it than most people realized, not JUST that politics had more to do with it than most people realized.

What I'm saying is that performance trials eliminated 6 of the 8 competitors and of the remaining 2, one actually failed one aspect of the performance trial but was allowed to continue to the pricing portion of the competition anyway.

The remaining two companies bid and Beretta won that portion of the competition as well.
Quote:
Did I state that the trials were faked??? No, I didn't and didn't imply that either. I'm not sure where you got that from...?
I don't see a lot of room for politics in that process unless you're claiming that the results were faked or manipulated.

I'm not saying that there were absolutely no "politics" involved because when humans are involved, it's hard to strictly exclude other issues, but the claim that politics played "a huge part" in the outcome, is identical to saying that the testing results were falsified/manipulated to insure that the outcome was consistent with the political motivation. There's not a lot of room for politics to play any significant part in the outcome unless the results were faked or manipulated.

There are really only two options. The tests weren't faked/manipulated and test results determined the outcome of the trials, or the tests were faked/manipulated and politics played "a huge part" in the outcome.
Quote:
Wasn't there an appeal from Sig, and various legal challenges from S&W, pertaining to the trial results and overall cost factors, or process used to arrive at the listed cost?
There were protests/complaints and, as a result, an independent investigation was performed by the United States General Accounting Office.

The independent investigation evaluated the complaints and after the investigation was completed, they concluded that performance trials eliminated 6 of the 8 competitors and of the remaining 2, one actually failed one aspect of the performance trial but was allowed to continue to the pricing portion of the competition anyway. It further noted that the remaining two companies bid and Beretta won the pricing competition.

S&W's complaints were voiced in two different court appeals and found to be without basis in both cases. That's in addition to the conclusion of the independent investigation.

SACO's complaints about the pricing were evaluated, the pricing was analyzed, and no irregularities were discovered.

The 50-60 page report by the GAO is quite thorough and worth the read for anyone who's interested in this topic. I posted a link to it back on page 3 of this thread.
Quote:
...the Berettta, as good as it is, had issues of its own. It was not, and is not perfect.
Of course it's not perfect. There are no perfect guns, in fact, nothing made by humans is perfect. If imperfection in the selected product were sufficient evidence of some sort of foul play in the selection process, then every selection process ever performed is similarly tainted given that all products made by humans are imperfect.
Quote:
...,Politics did play a huge part
Ok, let's cut to the chase.

1. What specific aspect(s) of the performance trials was/were affected by politics?

2. How were the performance trial results affected by politics?

3. How was the pricing competition affected by politics?

4. How were all the persons involved in altering/manipulating/changing/biasing the results to conform to political motivations convinced to remain silent for going on 30 years?

5. How was the independent investigation prevented from uncovering any evidence that the results were altered/manipulated/changed/biased to conform to political motivations?

6. What verifiable evidence supports the answers provided?
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old November 25, 2012, 04:34 AM   #111
stevelyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Location: Fairbanksan in exile to Aleutian Hell
Posts: 2,618
Why doesn't the US military use Glocks?


I'm guessing you haven't served in the military.

Other than for SPECOPS, military handgun training (or at least Army) is pretty antiquated and dumbed-down and has to reach down the the lowest-common denominator that'll be carrying it.
__________________
Herman Cain '12

Squished bugs on a windshield is proof the slow/heavy bullet theory works.
stevelyn is offline  
Old November 25, 2012, 05:01 AM   #112
shuler13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: Austin
Posts: 156
...because it makes too much sense.
shuler13 is offline  
Old November 25, 2012, 09:47 AM   #113
amd6547
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Posts: 1,477
I agree with JohnKsa's account of the selection process. While Beretta is not known for great customer service in the civilian realm, they went above and beyond for the XM9 trials.
In my own 9mm selection process, I owned many different brands...some classic, some not too well known. Even owned a West German SIG for a while.
At one point, I bought a 92FS, just to see if all the criticism I was reading was justified.
I found the Beretta to be an excellent pistol. Accurate, reliable, and it fit my hand well. The negative to me was the difficulty in tearing it down beyond a normal field strip. I was also disturbed by the well known tendency of the trigger return spring to break, and the possibility of locking block failure.
Eventually, I traded that 92FS straight across for a Glock 17. I was immediately impressed by the ease of completely tearing down the Glock. It can really only be compared to the 1911 in that regard.
The size and weight of the 17 are advantages to me...and I would think they would be to our service people who are carrying huge amounts of gear in rough terrain. The Glock finish and plastic frame are largely immune to wear, compared to the Bruniton finish of the Beretta.
I like the Glock trigger, and shoot it very well. I do as well at long range with the G17 as I did with the 92FS, and I like the consistent trigger pull of the Glock better than the DA/SA beretta.
The result of my personal 9mm trials? For decades, I preferred the Browning HiPower as my 9mm of choice...I owned several, and CCW'd them often. But, after shooting the Glock 17 for a while, and it's little sibling, the Glock 26, I recently sold my last HiPower. The Glock has completely eclipsed it as "best 9mm" for MY needs. YMMV, as they say, and that's fine by me.
__________________
The past is gone...the future may never happen.
Be Here Now.

Last edited by amd6547; November 25, 2012 at 09:54 AM.
amd6547 is offline  
Old November 25, 2012, 10:19 AM   #114
Guv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 24, 2012
Location: South Texas
Posts: 1,083
Just what we need right now to spend millions or more replacing a perfectly serviceable weapon with something new. How big a roll does the pistol play in the military services anyway, the caliber ain't changing any time soon. Besides M9's are prettier!
Guv is offline  
Old November 25, 2012, 02:00 PM   #115
shurshot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2006
Posts: 761
JohKSA;



Sir, once again, I was NOT referring to the testing part of the selection process, only the final decision, which, after being narrowed down to the Beretta and the Sig, came down to MONEY. I'm unsure why you continue to keep drawing a connection between my statement about politics and foreign policy playing a big role in Beretta being awarded the contract and inferring that I'm questioning the validity of the testing process?? I only stated that POLITICS played a huge role in the final decision. I never questioned the validity of the testing process, the honor & integrity of those involved and or suggested a conspiracy. After all, we are discussing a US Military M9 testing / selection process, NOT the infamous Bigfoot film shot by Roger Patterson in the 1960's.

The cost factor was the deciding factor, right? After the testing was complete, and 2 pistols remained, it came down to money. Do we agree on this point? As previously posted, (I'll re-post it), according to the Armed Forces History Museum website; "At the end of the trial period, the Beretta 92F and the SIG P226 were the only two in contention for the M9 contract. After cost analysis, the contract was awarded to Beretta. Though the P226 had a lower cost per pistol, its magazine and spare parts package price was higher than that of the Beretta."

You may feel that I have been too liberal in my use of the word ("Huge"), as you have mentioned it several times in your response. To "cut to the chase", as you suggested, my point was and is, when the trial gets down to the final stage (after the testing is complete), and the selection process comes down to COST ANALYSIS as the deciding factor between two great weapons, and there are MILLIONS & MILLIONS $$$ involved... politics and foreign policy DO indeed play a HUGE part in the outcome.

As you yourself stated in your response earlier today "I'm not saying that there were absolutely no "politics" involved because when humans are involved, it's hard to strictly exclude other issues,"(JohKSA). You are correct Sir, and even without "verifiable evidence", on this point we can agree.

Last edited by shurshot; November 25, 2012 at 02:29 PM.
shurshot is offline  
Old November 25, 2012, 02:27 PM   #116
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,561
Quote:
Sir, once again, I was NOT referring to the testing part of the selection process, only the final decision, which, after being narrowed down to the Beretta and the Sig, came down to MONEY.
First of all, it didn't exactly come down solely to money. The SACO entry actually failed part of the performance testing and was allowed to proceed to the bid portion anyway to allow there to be at least two competitive bids. I think it would be hard to argue that fact played no part at all in the final selection process.

But let's say we simplify things, and for the sake of argument accept that it really did come down to MONEY.

The price difference per pistol was about $2 and ended up favoring SACO by about $686K. Parts favored Beretta, but by a smaller amount giving Beretta a $391K advantage in that category. At that point, the SIG package (pistols and parts) was cheaper than Beretta's bid by $295K. Remember that the total price for the complete package was over $70 million, so this is really a small percentage of the total--less than half a percentage point difference in favor of SACO.

BUT, the bid was for the entire package. Pistols, parts and magazines, NOT just for pistols or just pistols and parts. The Beretta magazine bid was over $ 3.3 MILLION less than the SACO magazine bid, and that changed things significantly.

The Beretta bid was, when you total it up, over $3 million lower than the SACO bid. The package price Beretta provided was lower than SIG and so Beretta won. Where are the politics in that?
Quote:
the selection process comes down to COST ANALYSIS as the deciding factor between two great weapons, and there are MILLIONS & MILLIONS $$$ involved... politics DO indeed play a HUGE part in the outcome.
No, that's exactly how price competitions are supposed to work, and if you do some research on the topic, you'll be able to verify that fact. Once the fitness of the competing products are established, the lowest bidder wins.

That's exactly what happened in this case--the lowest bidder won. And an independent investigation concluded that there was no evidence to support allegations that the pricing competition was conducted unfairly.

I still don't understand what you think provides evidence that politics played a huge part in the selection process.

Products were tested--even you have stated that you don't believe that the results were falsified. So that eliminates all but 2 of the 8 competitors without politics being involved.

Two bids were submitted in accordance with standard government procedures and the lowest bid won. That is precisely how the process is supposed to work. Again, it's hard to see where there's room for politics to play "a huge part".

So, what evidence do you have to support your contention that the pricing competition was hugely affected by politics? If you have anything concrete, you're doing better than the U.S. General Accounting Office--they couldn't find anything that suggested anything other than a typical bid process with the low bidder winning. Just as it should be.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old November 25, 2012, 03:09 PM   #117
sailskidrive
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2008
Posts: 726
Quote:
The Beretta bid was, when you total it up, over $3 million lower than the SACO bid. The package price Beretta provided was lower than SIG and so Beretta won. Where are the politics in that?
Lowest cost, technically acceptable = AWARD.

You really need to fully experience the procurement process to understand how frustrating it is. The contracting officers constantly push schedules to the right, over and over again. At the last minute or AFTER the proposals have been submitted they come back and modify the original RFP... etc
__________________
SailSkiDrive
Hk USP 45 Expert, USP 40, USP 9, SIG P226, S&W M&P9, Hk 4, Makarov, Desert Eagle 40, Beretta FS92 Centurion, Kimber TLEII 1911A1, Glock 22, SIG P225, 1943 Rem Rand 1911A1, S&W mod 64, Walther PPQ, SIG P229, Browning BDA 45 (SIG P220), Hk45, SIG P230
sailskidrive is offline  
Old November 25, 2012, 04:02 PM   #118
shurshot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2006
Posts: 761
"First of all, it didn't exactly come down solely to money. The SACO entry actually failed part of the performance testing and was allowed to proceed to the bid portion anyway to allow there to be at least two competitive bids. I think it would be hard to argue that fact played no part at all in the final selection process".(JohnKSA). Do you have any evidence (and verifiable source) to back your statement up that the performance failure factored in to the contract being awarded to Beretta? Or is this an opinion?

According to the Armed Forces History Website... "After cost analysis, the contract was awarded to Beretta. Though the P226 had a lower cost per pistol, its magazine and spare parts package price was higher than that of the Beretta." It stated "after cost analysis". No mention was made pertaining to the performance testing failure on SACO's part factoring in the decision. Do you have evidence that proves otherwise?

So you have said repeatedly that politics were not involved "The package price Beretta provided was lower than SIG and so Beretta won. Where are the politics in that?" (JohnKSA). Any verifiable evidence to back up your original statement that politics were NOT involved, as you appear to have doubts yourself as you also stated... "I'm not saying that there were absolutely no "politics" involved because when humans are involved, it's hard to strictly exclude other issues,"(JohKSA). ??? So which is it? I thought we agreed on this point?

Last edited by shurshot; November 25, 2012 at 04:59 PM.
shurshot is offline  
Old November 25, 2012, 05:32 PM   #119
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,561
The quote from my post that you've cited twice now, is a merely an acknowledgement that humans are unable to be totally unbiased and does not, in any way, support your claim that "politics played a huge part" in the selection process. In fact, the remainder of the sentence--the part you haven't been quoting, makes it clear that I do not agree with your claim.

Here's the part you have quoted.
"I'm not saying that there were absolutely no "politics" involved because when humans are involved, it's hard to strictly exclude other issues,..."
Let's look at the whole sentence in context with the part you quoted in italics.
I'm not saying that there were absolutely no "politics" involved because when humans are involved, it's hard to strictly exclude other issues, but the claim that politics played "a huge part" in the outcome, is identical to saying that the testing results were falsified/manipulated to insure that the outcome was consistent with the political motivation. There's not a lot of room for politics to play any significant part in the outcome unless the results were faked or manipulated.
The focus of the sentence is clearly to acknowledge the common failings of humanity while still pointing out that there is no evidence for the claim that politics played a "huge" or even a "significant" part in the outcome of the trials/competition. That objection is based on the fact that the investigation and at least two court cases found no evidence of faked/manipulated/unfair testing or unfair price competition, and that when retested some years later, Beretta won that competition as well.
Quote:
Do you have any evidence (and verifiable source) to back this statement up? Or is this an opinion?
Read the GAO report. I posted a link on page 3 (post #53) of this thread and referred to it earlier on this page. The test results are tabulated on page 28, and are also discussed in other locations throughout the document.
Quote:
It stated "after cost analysis".
That's how competitive bids work. The technically acceptable entrants are allowed to bid and the lowest bid is selected. "Cost analysis", in this case, is looking to see which bid is lowest. More complicated bids, for example where support contracts are included, might require a more complicated cost analysis, but this one was as simple as it gets.
Quote:
No mention was made pertaining to the performance testing failure on SACO's part factoring in the decision. Do you have evidence that proves otherwise?
Nope, and I don't intend to try to argue the point. If you think it's reasonable to believe that the selecting agency totally disregarded the fact that the SACO entrant failed part of the performance competition when that agency was making their final decision, I won't try to change your mind.

Frankly, I think it wasn't a major consideration in the final decision for one very simple reason. SACO wasn't the low bidder. Theoretically, if SACO HAD been the low bidder, but the price had been reasonably close, the selecting agency could have gone with Beretta anyway, citing the SACO entrant's failure in the performance testing as the rationale. Since Beretta's bid was lower, there was no need to make an issue of it.

Allowing SACO to continue to the pricing portion of the competition was a win/win for the selecting agency. They got reduced prices due to the competitive aspect of the bid (compared to what they would have gotten had they passed only one entrant on to the pricing stage) and they had an ace in the hole they could play later if they were unhappy about the way things turned out.

In one very real sense, this strongly supports the idea that the competition was conducted fairly. Had there really been significant political pressure to give the contract to Beretta, the selecting agency would have been perfectly justified in failing the SACO entrant based on the performance testing and giving the contract to Beretta without even forcing a competitive bid.

The fact that they didn't do that means that they ended up paying Beretta a lot less than they would have otherwise. According to the GAO report, the competitive aspect of the final bid saved the government between 9 and 10 million dollars.
Quote:
Any verifiable evidence to back up your original statement that politics were NOT involved...
First of all, it's impossible to prove a negative. There's no way to prove something doesn't exist (or wasn't involved), all one can do is show that there are no facts supporting its existence (or involvement).

Second, I haven't claimed that "politics were NOT involved"--I've acknowledged that it's likely that they were involved to some extent and explained that acknowledgement. What I have done is objected to the claim that politics played a huge or significant role in the selection process.

Third, since you made the claim that politics played a huge part it is your responsibility to provide evidence to back up your claim. It's unreasonable to make a claim without providing evidence but then require that anyone who questions your claim must provide evidence. Until you've provided some reasonable evidence to support your claim, it's reasonable for others to question your claim. It is standard for the burden of proof to rest on the person who is making the affirmative claim, or the claim that something exists, as opposed to the person contradicting an affirmative claim or the person requesting proof of a claim that something exists. In the ideal case, the person making the claim will readily provide the evidence that was used to form the voiced opinion. In practice, it is often true that the person making the claim will be forced to look for evidence to support an opinion previously formed without the benefit of verifiable facts.

Fourth, I have already provided evidence that shows the facts are not consistent with the claim that politics played a significant role in the selection process. That evidence is in the form of the GAO investigation report. After you have read it, you tell me where you see any evidence that politics played a huge, or significant part in the selection process.

Finally, you started your involvement in this thread by making it clear that you weren't aware of the most basic details of the competition, citing involvement by a company that did not submit an entrant.

You were also apparently under the impression that two of the other entrants in the competition, SIG and S&W performed as well as the Beretta submission, when in reality, both failed at least one aspect of the performance testing.

You followed that up by proving that you don't understand how a typical government selection competition works--claiming that the fact that it came down to price (as is typical/intended in selection competitions) was evidence that politics played a huge part.

At this point, I'm going to suggest that, given a lack of familiarity with the facts surrounding this particular selection competition and selection competitions in general, given an apparent inability to either provide facts that support your opinion of the competition or to refute the facts I have provided and documented, it might be wise to do some research and, perhaps, re-evaluate your opinion in the light of the facts you will discover.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old November 25, 2012, 07:05 PM   #120
shurshot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2006
Posts: 761
Going in that direction, eh?
shurshot is offline  
Old November 25, 2012, 07:16 PM   #121
lamarw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2010
Location: Lake Martin, AL
Posts: 1,894
As I stated in an earlier post, it is the Buy American Act. Also, do not forget what "History" has shown and taught us with the Browning Auto 5 produced by FN Herstal. Germany seized and occupied Belgium during WWII, therfore Browning had to turn to Remington for production of the Auto 5.
lamarw is offline  
Old November 25, 2012, 07:19 PM   #122
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,561
Quote:
Going in that direction, eh?
Is your goal merely to defend your opinion regardless of the facts or is it to inform yourself and others via the tool of constructive debate?

If it's the latter, then why would you be offended by the suggestion that you inform yourself on the topic at hand given that such a suggestion is fully consistent with your own goal?

If it's the former, then what's the point of my continuing? Nothing I say will change your mind if you are unconcerned with the facts and indend to do/say anything you can think of to defend your opinion.
Quote:
As I stated in an earlier post, it is the Buy American Act. Also, do not forget what "History" has shown and taught us with the Browning Auto 5 produced by FN Herstal. Germany seized and occupied Belgium during WWII, therfore Browning had to turn to Remington for production of the Auto 5.
If you're talking about the initial competition and the selection of Beretta, all of the competitors were either required to have production facilities in the U.S. or be willing to rapidly establish production facilities in the U.S. in the event that they had won the competition. No competitor who didn't meet that requirement was even allowed to enter the competition, and therefore, it was not a factor in which entrant was ultimately selected since all of them met the same requirement in that respect.

If you're talking about the current state of affairs, Glock now has production facilities in GA and is selling made in the U.S. pistols, so they would be eligible for any future competitions--at least in that particular respect.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old November 25, 2012, 07:39 PM   #123
shurshot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2006
Posts: 761
I have nothing against constructive socratic dialectic, but when my statements are repeatedly taken out of context, I have to assume that either you are not thoroughly reading and or comprehending my posts, or you are intent on a veiled personal attack. Either way, at this point Sir, although you have brought up several good points that deserve a response, I digress, as I dislike the general tone of your words.
shurshot is offline  
Old November 25, 2012, 07:52 PM   #124
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,561
It's up to you. Since the topic obviously interests you, I still highly recommend that you read the GAO report.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old November 25, 2012, 08:23 PM   #125
B.L.E.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2008
Location: Somewhere on the Southern shore of Lake Travis, TX
Posts: 2,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guv
Just what we need right now to spend millions or more replacing a perfectly serviceable weapon with something new. How big a roll does the pistol play in the military services anyway, the caliber ain't changing any time soon. Besides M9's are prettier
Pretty much what I think.
How many battles are fought with pistols in modern warfare? Aren't pistols the modern replacement for sabers in the officer's uniform? They could be non-shooting replicas and serve their purpose just fine for the most part.
B.L.E. is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15711 seconds with 7 queries