Walt Sherrill
Member
Hangingrock said:
About the only people who seem really concerned with what ANYONE ELSE uses as their weapon are those who need to justify their own weapon purchase decisions.
.
Seals drop sig, go to Gen 3 Glock 19
- Thread starter george burns
- Start date
- Status
About the only people who seem really concerned with what ANYONE ELSE uses as their weapon are those who need to justify their own weapon purchase decisions.
.
Saleen322
Member
Not a real surprise. Like most government entities, bean counters have a lot of influence and Glock will not be beat in price even if they have to take an initial loss.
I was just watching on TV today where the government bought like $400 million in aircraft from Italy for Afghanistan, had problems with them so they bought another $200 million in spares, still didn't work and ending up selling them unused for scrap for about $35,000. Nothing the government does surprises me.
I was just watching on TV today where the government bought like $400 million in aircraft from Italy for Afghanistan, had problems with them so they bought another $200 million in spares, still didn't work and ending up selling them unused for scrap for about $35,000. Nothing the government does surprises me.
OP
OP
george burns
Member
That's SOP for the Govt.My first job was for my father, in a Defense Sub-Contracting Plant. He was Plant Mgr, and he started me out on the bench, when you still needed "working papers", doing simple assembly. Really from the time I started tagging along with him from a very young age. I went to college and worked a full time job as a Technician while attending school for engineering.
We did work for Republic, Lockheed, Grumman, and all the rest. Half those rush jobs never saw the light of day.I got out in my twenty's, but learned a lot about many things, mainly that we burned through billions of dollars for projects that ended up being scrapped before they were ever used.
As far as Walt's comment, that's just mean spirited, I had a glock in 92, before I ever heard about a seal or knew what a seal was, let alone what they carried. I just found their choice interesting now that they have become relevant.
We did work for Republic, Lockheed, Grumman, and all the rest. Half those rush jobs never saw the light of day.I got out in my twenty's, but learned a lot about many things, mainly that we burned through billions of dollars for projects that ended up being scrapped before they were ever used.
As far as Walt's comment, that's just mean spirited, I had a glock in 92, before I ever heard about a seal or knew what a seal was, let alone what they carried. I just found their choice interesting now that they have become relevant.
Old Dog
Member
Nah, not at all. Some people desire to use an effective weapons system, and presumably, if it's good enough for the most elite fighting men on the planet, it's a proven system. Those who need to "justify their own weapons purchase decisions" are typically either trying to go the budget route without regard to quality, or don't have a good enough relationship with their wife to be honest about their reasons for what gun they really want to buy.
Not everyone's a poser or a wannable, Walt.
Sergei Mosin
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 1,918
I'm glad it's not just me. The Glock 19 is supposed to be Everyman's Glock, so I was really surprised when the finger grooves felt off to me. The 17 (and the 26) fit fine, so I ended up with a 17.
helitack32f1
Member
Well said.
1911 guy
Member
While I do agree that not everyone who "jumps on the bandwagon" is an uneducated fanboy, you must admit there are a LOT of those out there.
I may not appreciate a model XYZ like you do, but when someone says "I like it because..." or maybe even "It just appealed to me", I can understand that even if i don't agree. But for someone to get all spooled up because a particular group is using it, I don't understand.
A classic example is the M9. I don't like it because it's hard for me to shoot well quickly. Slow fire, I'm good. I won't ever go out and buy one. For many people, though, they genuinely like them. Great, buy two. But for the fellow who has to have one simply because the military uses it? Meh.
Don't forget that the guys carrying them had little to no input on acquisition. That's a bean-counter issue. Maybe it was chosen because it was believed to be the best suited for the intended role. More likely, it was chosen based on expected durability, repair and replacement cost, as well as initial cost.
I may not appreciate a model XYZ like you do, but when someone says "I like it because..." or maybe even "It just appealed to me", I can understand that even if i don't agree. But for someone to get all spooled up because a particular group is using it, I don't understand.
A classic example is the M9. I don't like it because it's hard for me to shoot well quickly. Slow fire, I'm good. I won't ever go out and buy one. For many people, though, they genuinely like them. Great, buy two. But for the fellow who has to have one simply because the military uses it? Meh.
Don't forget that the guys carrying them had little to no input on acquisition. That's a bean-counter issue. Maybe it was chosen because it was believed to be the best suited for the intended role. More likely, it was chosen based on expected durability, repair and replacement cost, as well as initial cost.
Walt Sherrill
Member
To those who were offended by my comment that, "About the only people who seem really concerned with what ANYONE ELSE uses as their weapon are those who need to justify their own weapon purchase decisions"...
Unless you are really concerned about what anyone else uses as their weapon, or are constantly talking about what others have done (be it the US military, Special Ops, police SWAT teams, etc.) as justification for your own purchase decisions, that comment was not aimed at you.
Otherwise, to paraphrase Hamlet, methinks thou does protest too much.
Unless you are really concerned about what anyone else uses as their weapon, or are constantly talking about what others have done (be it the US military, Special Ops, police SWAT teams, etc.) as justification for your own purchase decisions, that comment was not aimed at you.
Otherwise, to paraphrase Hamlet, methinks thou does protest too much.
JR47
Member
People can only read what is posted. They cannot see or hear tone, posture, or any of the tells of sarcasm.
Counter-terror groups often operate in civilian garb overseas. Using a pistol associated with a specific group can become a problem. The Glock is found in a lot of backwaters, and makes a good choice for those operations.
For many years, the military refused to allow a gun without some sort of mechanical safety/decocker. Seems that most enlistees aren't denizens of the range, and managed to always find a way to go bang at the worst possible moment. Special Forces have been training specifically on pistols for over a decade. Finally, someone realized that this might make them safe with other designs.
Besides, as was mentioned, the total number of ALL SpecWar operators is only a blip in the total manning of the Armed Forces. They will add the Glock to the pile of firearms that they keep for mission specific uses. It's simply another choice. SEAL Teams have operated with Glock pistols for decades when they needed to. This is just a paperwork shuffle to make them "officially approved".
Counter-terror groups often operate in civilian garb overseas. Using a pistol associated with a specific group can become a problem. The Glock is found in a lot of backwaters, and makes a good choice for those operations.
For many years, the military refused to allow a gun without some sort of mechanical safety/decocker. Seems that most enlistees aren't denizens of the range, and managed to always find a way to go bang at the worst possible moment. Special Forces have been training specifically on pistols for over a decade. Finally, someone realized that this might make them safe with other designs.
Besides, as was mentioned, the total number of ALL SpecWar operators is only a blip in the total manning of the Armed Forces. They will add the Glock to the pile of firearms that they keep for mission specific uses. It's simply another choice. SEAL Teams have operated with Glock pistols for decades when they needed to. This is just a paperwork shuffle to make them "officially approved".
Deanimator
Member
When I was a T&E officer at the U.S. Army Armor & Engineer Board in the '80s, I found exactly the OPPOSITE to be the case.
Looking at the Infantry Board's proposals for a host of programs, they seemed not just astonishingly ignorant of what other mechanized infantry forces around the world were doing, but indeed what they'd been doing since around 1935. The idea of profiting from fifty years of prior experience was totally overridden by the urge to reinvent the SQUARE wheel.
- Status
