entropy
Member
Dang! How do all the novice shooters I teach know that one already......
Is it just me? When somebody uses the word ^^^protest^^^ I'm done; turn the page.
That's the good part about the SIG P320. The FCU can be swapped into a new frame in less than a minute by a trained monkey. Frames currently retail for around $40 and will (we hope) cost our military substantially less due to economies of scale.Even though it is really cheap for big contracts, reliable, and probably the least trouble to carry it relies on Glock the company to replace damaged or overly worn plastic frames, because quite frankly a plastic frame may work for a huge round count, but can not take a lot of direct damage.
Eh, I was so going to leave this silly thread alone, but it appears that there's a lot of butt-hurt extant by those who cannot let go of the Army's decision ... and presumably, most probably, likely zero people in this thread actually have a horse in this race other than their love for Glocks or distaste for SIG, otherwise, why all the fuss?
Nope, the guy wasn't just "being rude now." This statement:
"Like many others have noted in this thread, the actual use of these modular options by the military will be limited."
Sorry to say that's just projection and quite possibly wrong. It's all speculation by the "many others" (again, likely a number of folks no longer on active duty) that the military will not use the modular options. I kinda think they might, actually. It make sense to be able to change out a few pistols for different uses (and missions); giving the O's, senior NCO's, medics and a few others a full-size combat pistol for going outside the wire, on-base duty/watches or in garrison, a different pistol for aviators/aircrew, MPs and investigators ... Doesn't this make more sense than keeping a hodgepodge of assorted pistols, M9s, P-226s, M-11s, G19s and whatever, all requiring different parts, different magazines and different manual-of-arms?
Okay, I could be very wrong, but I'm just gonna go out on a limb here and say that maybe, for once, some portion of the military is going to doing something that indicates some common sense and might just in the long run, save some taxpayer dollars.
Love the way someone brings up "all the Glock-haters in this thread" when there's really been no "Glock-hate" displayed.
I highly doubt they will use them....I think this things claim to fame is going to be the "gun" part is just the little stamped metal inside.....after the plastic gets fubar, a new bit of plastic gets stuck on and away you go.
Do you really think the military is going to be stocking hundreds of thousands of different sized frames for everyone....this is not boots.
Everything will be standard....it is just the way it is.....if not it is going to be a huge waste of money.....I can see tons of frames sitting for years not going anywhere and being sold off or given away to law enforcement like all the other crap they give us. I have 100 new back packs all free, not to talk about hummers, trailers and our "tac" vehicle. All free, and most of it with very little use. Who knows it might make us give up our old sig's for these new one if the army is going to give away grips they have no use for.....great use of tax payer money.
All you offer is your personal opinion, and you do so in a rude manner. Perhaps it's you that is "butt-hurt"? Historical behavior is often times the best way to predict future behavior. It's the US Military's past behavior (and not merely personal "projection") that makes me believe this entire program is a boondoggle.