DevsAdvocate

Is there a way to get this rifle for cheaper with the same brake?

Glock didn't even enter the competition.

Why? When everyone is going back to 9mm? .40SW is a pretty marginal upgrade from 9mm. Even in FMJ.

When was the last time S&W sold guns to the government that weren't Model 10s and 13s? Caliber change is a backdoor way for the Army to adopt a different caliber. By selecting a 9mm up front with the ability to change calibers, they can go to a new round with less logistical impact or contractual effort.

Not likely. Entrants: * S&W M&P9 variant * Sig P320 * Deltonics STX * Beretta PX4 variant Program Requirements Solicitation To facilitate the assessment, the following information is requested: 1. Performance Improvement: Request information on potential improvements in handgun performance in the areas of accuracy and dispersion out to 50m, terminal performance, modularity, reliability and durability in all environments. * The handgun and ammunition combination should, at a range of 50 meters, have a 90% or better probability of hit on a 4 inch circle when fired from a test fixture. It must maintain this throughout the life of the system. Systems are encouraged to utilize ergonomic and design improvements to minimize the effects of greater recoil energies, reducing the degradation of shooter-in-the-loop dispersion thereby improving the probability of hit. * Modularity includes but is not limited to compatibility with accessory items to include tactical lights, lasers and sound suppressors. There is specific interest in designs that would be adaptable and/or adjustable to provide enhanced ergonomics that ensure 5th percentile female through 95th percentile male military personnel access to controls, such as the safety, magazine release, slide release and all other applicable controls. There is also interest in designs that offer these enhanced ergonomics while providing full ambidextrous controls. * The handgun ammunition's terminal ballistics will be evaluated at ranges of 0-50m, over 0-14 inches of ballistic gelatin, to determine whether it provides more lethality when compared to the current U.S. Military M882 ammunition fired from the M9. Ammunition evaluated will meet international law of war conventions that bound current general purpose military ammunition. The Pistol evaluated must be capable of chamber pressures equal to or greater than SAAMI specification for the given cartridge, with prolonged reliability equal to or greater than the current M9. However, the ability to accommodate higher chamber pressures in excess of 20% over SAAMI spec without degradation of reliability is of specific interest. * Reliability and Durability includes but is not limited to Mean Rounds between Stoppage (MRBS), Mean Rounds Between Failure (MRBF) and Service Life. There is specific interest in designs with ratings of at least 2,000 rounds MRBS, 10,000 rounds MRBF and 35,000 round Service Life. 2. Production capacity estimates. Request information on minimum and maximum monthly production rates for a military handgun and associated ammunition as well as the lead times to achieve these production rates. This estimate should consider a US based production facility by the third year of deliveries. This capacity should be above and beyond any current production orders or current sales. If new facilities are planned or required, so state. A list of State and Federal agencies, as well as foreign governments, that have adopted the handgun should also be included. 3. Detailed descriptions of proposed handguns to include pictures, brochures, etc. that will convey the principles as well as general and specific capabilities behind the submissions. Physical dimensions, weight and safety features should be included. 4. Summarized and detailed test data from any certified test facility that addresses improvements in the areas proposed. Test operating procedures utilized and independent evaluations are also solicited. 5. Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Estimate. Request estimated pricing for the submission based on the following quantities: 250,000 to 550,000 handguns. So here's the kicker: Which entrant do you think will meet the ability to swap modular grips to meet 99% of shooters hands? Which entrant has the ability to change calibers down the line? Which entrant also has previous history supplying a handgun to the DoD? Which entrant has the production capacity to meet the production quotas?

Why?

Question: would the AC review be able to eliminate the Pistol Permit extension and just make them valid for 180 days? At this point, it just makes PD's do twice the work for no tangible benefit.

I only ask because you're comparing a striker fired VP9 versus DA/SA Sigs... Why not compare to the striker fired SIg?

Why the P229/P226 and not the P320?

I don't see why someone would buy a 16" SOCOM when the 18" SCOUT is a better deal. Giving up the 2" in barrel doesn't help anything in terms of making the rifle more compact.

I think the 320 will have some legs to it, unlike the 250. I know folks here bough the 250 and liked it, but it was never going to go anywhere. It was an oddball and it made sense for Sig to pull the plug on it. No LEO agency wanted it, no MIL, no one.

Right. But I think the 320 is different from the 250... the 250 had a nice trigger for a DAO, but the question is: "Why?". No PD, LEO, or MIL was ever gonna buy one for their use. Civilians would rather have DA/SA or Striker, it was an oddball. I think Sig just pulled the plug on it and went full striker, hence the loss of support. Kinda like the Remington R51. There ain't no fixing that kind of broken.

No doubt its well machined... just how it feels to me.

Really? I had the opposite feeling. The VP9 seems "cheap" to me.

Not worried at all. Parts are already available from Sig, just call and order. Folks on Reddit have already been doing it. The P250 was okay, but it never had any legs. It was the worst of both worlds not being DA/SA or striker. The P250 didn't "fail" because parts weren't available. It failed for two main reasons: 1. Poor reliability initially - the 1st Gen variants had issues... and as we know with gun buyers, this could sink any new gun design 2. Trigger as I mentioned above. 3. Lack of LEO sales (due to #1 most likely) Sig just pulled the plug on the 250 and rolled out the 320. In their mind, the 250 was Window Vista and the 320 is Windows 7. Sometimes you build off failure for success.

Great! Manual safeties are dumb and so are magazine disconnect ones.

I won't lie, this gun looks awesome, and from what I felt when playing with it, it's trigger is probably the best in the striker fired market. The modular system is awesome as I can go from full size, to compact to subcompact on one s/n. If I like how it shoots, you may end up seeing all my Glocks and equipment up for sale here shortly... They're coming out with .357SIG and .45ACP this year too.

It's his gun... and last time I checked, this is America.

The problem is: it doesn't meet the MHS requirements... the biggest ones being: * Loaded Chamber Indicator * Ambidextrous Thumb Safety * Ambidextrous Slide Release (not sure if the M9 has that) * Captured Firing Pin Assembly (not sure how the M9 is) * Captured Recoil Spring * Grip/size/caliber interchange-ability The last one is most important as the MHS is not only intent on replacing the M9, but the M11 pistol as well. The new gun needs to go from being a full-size down to a compact or subcompact depending on who uses it. US Army CIS, for example, might want a compact version they can carry concealed. Tank crews, pilots, etc. may want one for similar reasons. Officers and MPs might continue to use full-sized variants. Having the ability to change calibers is also a net benefit... the Army might not go away from 9mm now, but if it goes to a platform that can change calibers, then the logistics burden of doing so later is much less. The M9 doesn't allow that. Staying with that means staying with the 9mm, because any deviation from the 9mm means a whole new gun, and more procurement headaches. But a gun which can size up to 45ACP from 9mm doesn't need to go through that headache.

That's what I'm looking to get. Just gonna buy it and have it sent to Gemini customs... Mmmmmm... kinda like this one: http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/DSC_0316.jpg

Because $200 buys you ammo to maintain and grow firearms proficiency... But $200 for a box is just $200 for a box? Why spend that much when something else will suffice? With ammo though, there aren't many alternatives...

Honestly, it's not about looks but function. The original AK ergo is a bit of a turd, the stock is too short for us Americans, and it lacks attachment points for modern accoutrements like RDS, tac lights, etc. So while it looks nice, it's behind the times functionally. I recommend buying two: one for throwback "classic" look, and one for "tacticool" functionality. Another option is buying one with a "traditional" look and mounting an RDS using the side-rail attachment... I do that with mine.

Maybe he would've if she was white.

Actually, given how convoluted gun laws are, I don't blame her. Even in NJ with NJGF, there's still a lot of misconceptions and unanswered questions about our own gun laws. This isn't a bad person, it's a bad law.

Most people don't know half the laws out there. They figure, I got a "gun license" and they're good. Just like folks who put gas/charcoal grills on wooden balconies... on the surface, it's innocuous, but in reality, it's a $5,000 violation... unless you have a sprinkler system out there.