>muh modularity if you have the full size gun and want a subcompact

its objectively a revolutionary idea that will create dozens upon dozens of new firearm manufacturing companies just like AR uppers and lowers did

>>34467415
>not wanting the freedom to change any part of your pistol for any number of reasons
Stop being a fudd, this is a great thing for the pistol industry even if the gun itself is mediocre.

>>34467446
Literally this. Lego pistols when?

>>34467523
>calling me a fudd
>for criticizing their favorite thing
>not knowing what fudd means
opinion disregarded

>>34467446
so by this logic ARs aren't modular either because they don't have a serialized subunit.

I don't know how modular you want a pistol to get anyway. you can already buy a barrel and recoil spring to switch between 9mm .357 sig and .40 s&w.

>>34467542
>being illogically hard-headed about resisting a good idea because you don't understand it
>not a fudd

>>34467567
>>34467567
>criticism = just being hard-headed
also you still don't know what a fudd is.

damn summer break.

>>34467415
You gonna be ok there sweety pie? Would wearing a dress for daddy make you feel better?

File: Glock crybabies.png (166KB, 442x900px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 442x900px

>>34467415
are we still throwing tantrums because glock has been taken a big trashing lately?

>it just seems like fanboys on the adoption committees wanting their favorite gun adopted by the military.

why yes we are: stages of grief:
1. denial <---- this is where gaston glock is
2. anger <---- this is where u are glock fanboi
3. bargaining
4. depression
5. acceptance

i find it absolutely hilarious how glock fanbois are mirror images of the pompous and pretentious executives at glock

What is more pathetic than hearing a vice president of a gun company groveling and saying : "b-b-bu-bu-bu-BUT WHY ARE YOU GOING FORWARD WITH THIS DECISION THINK ABOUT THE SITUATION WHERE YOUR SON OR DAUGHTER IS SITTING IN A FOXHOLE SOMEWHERE WITHOUT A GLOCK BRAND GLOCK"

(yes he actually used this excuse)

>>34467446

no it isn't.

File: 1493887137949.webm (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>34468132
>Lost reliability and accuracy competition
>Selected because contract was $100,000,000 cheaper

G-Glock BTFO?!?!

File: bHib0PR.png (103KB, 585x453px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 585x453px

>>34468326
>b-b-b-bu-bu-buh muh glock was perfection at ____________

nice try glock fanboi

let's see how you respond
>HURR DURR MARSOC USES GLOCK DURR

>>34468132
You are quite literally supporting garbage because you want your favorite gun company to win, not because its the best pistol for the job.

You're a fanboy with a touch of fudd.

>>34467415

>GUISE...GUISE..THERE, GUISE THERE ARE PEOPLE...GUISE, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO LIKE THINGS GUISE, LIKE THINGS WE DON'T LIKE

>>34467415
From what I can tell it's a less complicated design than the glock
Which is hilarious
Was glocks tag line ever "glock simplicity" or was it always "MUHCK PERFECTION"

File: 1498958196128.jpg (73KB, 643x679px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 643x679px

>>34468354
From page 11:
>Under the factor 1 reliability evaluation, Sig Sauer’s full-sized handgun had a higher
stoppage rate than Glock’s handgun, and there may have been other problems with the
weapon’s accuracy. AR, Tab 3, SSDD, at 12.

Say it with me,

S H I T - S H O W E R
H
I
T
-
S
H
O
W
E
R

File: IMG_0412.jpg (197KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1920x1080px

Just to bring some ducation.

>>34468379
*education

File: glock fanbois.jpg (80KB, 1000x618px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1000x618px

>>34468377
>Sig Sauer’s proposal was slightly superior technically and clearly superior
in factors 4 and 5. Since there were so few other discriminators between the two proposals in most aspects, the least important factor, price, became a significant discriminator. Simply put, when taking the price
premium into account, there is no correlating superior performance factor
for Glock, as compared to Sig Sauer, to support paying that premium. Consequently, I cannot justify paying a price premium of over 37% for the Glock submission, even as a second award.

What you mentioned was factor 1- subfactor 1 which ended up being both rated "outstanding", as per the statement above.

If you glock was so much more reliable and accurate it would have been considered a discriminating factor. Which it wasn't. For that reason price became the most important factor in rewarding the contract, which glock was obviously BTFO in.

Next.

>>34468364
see

>>34467614
>>34467542

>>34467523
I think the point he was making is that changing out the slide/frame is still expensive. You may as well just buy a second gun and not have to worry about swapping the firing mechanism in and out.

Maybe it makes some sort of sense for large organizations, but as a private shooter, there's not much point.

File: portrait.jpg (40KB, 500x335px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x335px

>>34468429
From page 12:
>The Army “evaluated the function of the Offeror’s Modular Handgun System compact candidate design for Mean Rounds Between Stoppages (MRBS).”
13 MOL/COSF at 9. Only after testing the compact weapons did the Army realize that firing 1,500 rounds on three compact handguns would not provide an MRBS at a 90 percent confidence level. Id. at 20. The Army decided that the RFP did not reflect the intended evaluation and, despite the clear language of the solicitation, imposed a 90 percent confidence level on the evaluation. Id. at 19 (“Although the solicitation indicated paragraph 4.8.1.4 would not apply, which includes the 90% confidence level language, the Government’s intent
was only to decrease the number of rounds shot [. . .] to [. . .] 1,500, and not to remove the 90% confidence level threshold.”); id. at 20. Although the RFP expressly provided that a 90 percent confidence level was inapplicable to this subfactor, the Army nevertheless applied it because “the Government obviously had to base its evaluation on some threshold.” Id. n.8. Then, because the Army “could not mathematically
achieve statistically significant results [at the 90 percent confidence level] with the
amount of rounds fired,” it “determined the best solution was to non-rate the subfactor” for both offerors.

In other words, the Army cheaped out on ammunition for the test, was not able to acheive statistically significant results, and decided that it would be better to hand wave the sig through rather than try again and have them fail even more embarressingly.

File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (65KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1280x720px

>>34468469
and? Are you suggesting that the army was shilling for sig from the beginning? Typical tin foil hat talk from a glock fanboi turd. Or do you actually have proof that the compact variants would yield a discriminating factor against the p320 in favor of the glock?

Funny how you use the line "have them fail even more embarressingly" when there was no significant discriminating factors to be noted against the p320- yet the p320 edged out the glock in the technical factors because of the "joint warfighter ergonomics" subfactor.

Let's see, muh glock perfection wasn't able to hold a discriminating factor against the p320 in the technical portion of the test (which glock fanbois claim would brutalize any other non-perfection glock) but apparently the p320 still "failed" more "embarressingly" in your opinion.

lol just keep going the salt is the best part about this mhs selection

Glocks are only good with a custom trigger.

File: autismo glock.png (514KB, 2520x1308px) Image search: [Google]

514KB, 2520x1308px

>>34468429

>>34468555
>joint warfighter ergonomics
Yes when the bore axis is so high that it's impossible even for females, pogs, and desk officers to put their hands behind the reciprocating slide it is considered ergonomic. This program was such a shit show, HK just sat it out.

>>34468555
Yes, in other words, the sig was less accurate and reliable, and the army picked it anyway because it was cheapo, as stated in my original post.

If they were allowed to count the reliability factor towards the decision, sig would have lost it, and the army would have had to part with more shekels.

In the end, regular soldiers will get stuck with P320's, while all of SOCOM, including the navy seals, will continue to phase out sigs in favor of glocks since they need their guns to work and do not need to consider the opinions of bean counters.

File: glock A GAY.jpg (469KB, 1267x1266px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 1267x1266px

>>34468630
>Yes, in other words, the sig was less accurate and reliable, and the army picked it anyway because it was cheapo, as stated in my original post.
>still spouting glock fanboi retardation

Why is it that you have a difficult time understanding the fact that the GAO response said that there were N-O significant discriminating factors in against the sig p320 in favor of the glock.

Since they were both rated OUTSTANDING in subfactor 1, the initial reliability test (full size), it is more than enough to assume that they both satisfied the 90% confidence level threshold set forth by the army. In other words, whatever result the glock had was NOT a S-I-G-N-I-F-I-C-A-N-T difference in reliability performance.

>while all of SOCOM, including the navy seals, will continue to phase out sigs in favor of glocks

there goes the glock fanboi coping mechanism. Funny how these things materialize right after I mention it sarcastically.

>>34468630
They should have gone with hi-point then.

File: 1492633039218.jpg (49KB, 1024x673px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1024x673px

>>34468679
>BTFOing a rabid glocksucker this hard

File: cf9e5122e3ee25f87007678e5893304f.jpg (59KB, 736x697px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 736x697px

>>34468679
see
>>34468469

There was no "90%" confidence threshold achieved because there was not enough ammunition fired and the test was thus incomplete.

The sig's """"outstanding"""" rating comes with the small caveat : [The Army] “determined the best solution was to non-rate the subfactor” for both offerors.

In other words, the p320 under-performed the glock, possibly not even meeting the minimum reliability requirement initially called for, but they didn't want to spend the ammo to find out how big the difference really is. So they just gave them both an A+ and pretended it never happened. And the sig failing ANY amount inside of 1500 rounds is pretty pathetic.

>there goes the glock fanboi coping mechanism. Funny how these things materialize right after I mention it sarcastically.
>I called inb4! You can't point out that no serious fighting force would touch exetershit with a 10 foot pole!

File: donald-trump.jpg (49KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1280x720px

>>34468810
>The sig's """"outstanding"""" rating comes with the small caveat : [The Army] “determined the best solution was to non-rate the subfactor” for both offerors.
>In other words, the p320 under-performed the glock, possibly not even meeting the minimum reliability requirement initially called for, but they didn't want to spend the ammo to find out how big the difference really is. So they just gave them both an A+ and pretended it never happened. And the sig failing ANY amount inside of 1500 rounds is pretty pathetic.

lol fucking idiot, the problem is that not the sig suffered poor performance in a 1,500 round threshold. The issue is that you don't know how to read.

From the GAO response regarding the 1,500rnd test:
> the protester asserts, and the agency does not contest, that Glock’s full-size handgun could have been evaluated under this subfactor with the data obtained under the factor 1 full-size handgun reliability evaluation

That's quite an exaggeration you made when the GAO made it quite clear that during the full size trails, there were NO SIGNIFICANT discriminating factors against the p320 in reliability.

I quite enjoy how your dumbass is ignoring the fact that subfactor 1 of factor 1 clearly states that the p320 and glock BOTH received outstanding marks, meeting the 90% confidence level- aka NO indication of significant under-performance.

But you call this a "not even meeting the minimum reliability requirement initially called for" of the p320 aganist the glock? lol you're one low IQ piece of shit. Neither the glock nor the p320 were tested past the arbitrary 1,500 number.

Get over it- your shitty brick did NOT have a significantly greater reliability performance level that resulted in a discriminating factor.

File: 1487910270632.jpg (99KB, 717x510px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 717x510px

>>34468882
>lol fucking idiot, the problem is that not the sig suffered poor performance in a 1,500 round threshold. The issue is that you don't know how to read.

Maybe you should re-read what I wrote friend. I only said that in the 1,500 round test, though incomplete and thus non-rated, the sig underperformed against the glock to some undefined degree, meaning that it suffered AT LEAST 1 failure. This is the same thing said in the report.

>I quite enjoy how your dumbass is ignoring the fact that subfactor 1 of factor 1 clearly states that the p320 and glock BOTH received outstanding marks, meeting the 90% confidence level- aka NO indication of significant under-performance.

I quite enjoy how your dumbass is ignoring the fact that the army applied a non-rating of subfactor 1 of factor 1, meaning that the 90% confidence level inapplicable, making sig's "outstanding" mark meaningless, aka a VERY real possibility of SIGNIFICANT UNDERPERFORMANCE.

File: 1499150686754.png (479KB, 692x577px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 692x577px

>>34468922
>the sig underperformed against the glock to some undefined degree, meaning that it suffered AT LEAST 1 failure. This is the same thing said in the report.

no where does it say this in the GAO response- nice try tho
Read under Waiver if you have more than two brain cells to rub together in your iota of a brain

>I quite enjoy how your dumbass is ignoring the fact that the army applied a non-rating of subfactor 1 of factor 1, meaning that the 90% confidence level inapplicable, making sig's "outstanding" mark meaningless, aka a VERY real possibility of SIGNIFICANT UNDERPERFORMANCE.
>BUH BUH BUH I CAN READ

lmfao you fucking IDIOT. See >>34468354
Subfactor 1 of Factor 1 WAS given a rating of outstanding.
The "non-rate" given to both offerors is listed under subfactor 2, factor 2. The army determined that a 90% significance level could not be obtained using the arbitrary 1,500 rnd test. Subfactor 1, the full size reliability test, was a full 12,500 round test in which a 90% confidence level WAS achieved by both glock and sig.

Figures that a low IQ glock dick sucker is trying to contruct a flawed arguement full of red herrings when he knows fuck all about what is being referred to

go ahead and amuse me further with your blatant stupidity- doesn't surprise me that you have to pull garbage out of your rear in every reply you make

I don't understand why this is even a topic of debate. The Army chose the P320, doesn't matter what reason, it happened.

> The Army chose a new pistol
> Yay it was my pet pistol
> Glockfags BTFO
> shitposts on /k/

The people in the Army that actually use their sidearms to do real nigga shit are still gonna use Glocks.

> Operators use Glocks bro
> They're fucking perfect bro
> You can literally feed a Glock mud and nails and it'll still achieve perfect accuracy and reliability bro

Let people enjoy their toys, Jesus.

>>34468970
>no where does it say this in the GAO response- nice try tho
Right here:
>>34468377

>Subfactor 1 of Factor 1 WAS given a rating of outstanding.
You have no idea what the "Outstanding" criteria implies because it is undefined. It could mean 90% reliability and the sig got 90% while the glock got 91% or 92% or 100%. All that is known is that it was worse than the full size glock.
>B-But they acheived the same rating
That means nothing. Let's see the specific stoppage numbers then to see how "equal" they really are.

>red herring
Yeah the reliability and accuracy of a combat pistol is a red herring, the undefined "joint warfighter ergonomics" is what this is really all about.

File: IMG_1113.jpg (32KB, 248x189px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 248x189px

>>34469185
No shit faggot, nobody has the agency report

A ref herring is meant to be misleading or distracting, which you used when trying to bring attention to so called "significant underperformance" to which you have zero proof of.

You also misrepresented the "non rating" waiver as an indication of poor performance, which you then promptly moved the goal post because you can't read

Like i said, idiot, you choose to ignore the fact that all over the gao report were statements that there are NO discriminating factors aganist the p320 yet you want to still keep talking as if the glock gave the p320 a run for its money in realiability-which you have zero proof of. The army, however, gave it the same rating and that isn't going to change because your autist opinion differs

Nice strawman at the end tho, i never placed unequal weight on ergos over realiabilty. If u havent noticed, the factors are numbered by importance. In all other technical aspects, the glock did NOT gain sinificantly higher performance results, hence the same ratings. Because no discriminating factors rose, the final decision rested on cost.

Nowhere did i under rate the importance of realiabilty. Keep it up with the logical fallacies you fucking moron

Can't live with the fact that there is more than one reliabile entry for mhs? Typical glock fanboi turd

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGI2H0EjDTw

Chris Bartocci just put out a video on the XM17 program, saying that the testing phase was never even fully completed.

>>34469107
Nigga, you retarded? This thread started for the opposite reason with a glock faggot openly weeping. And someone's never seen the flick mud test that bricked it. Bitching about fanboys by acting like a fanboy? Don't be dumb.

File: 1484746318429.jpg (180KB, 1598x929px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1598x929px

have they made it so you can buy RX or X series parts yet? I would love a RX slide

>>34467415
>it just seems like fanboys on the adoption committees wanting their favorite gun adopted by the military.
This is literally what's happening across our armed forces.
>Multimeme
>M27
>M45
>M17
Our procurement process is based on fucking memes.

>>34467415
Well, this escapade was certainly good for showing who the Glock haters and sig shills are

>>34473241
>people who disagree with me are shills and Glock is innocent, unbiased, and perfect.
Faaaaaaaaaaaaaag

>>34467415
>LOL GLOCKFAG BTFO WILL NEVER RECOVER
>REEEEE SIG FANBOI ENJOY SHIT GUN NO TASTE
>NO U
>NUH UH
Do you guys even own the fucking guns you rage about so much? Everyone else be like yeah I have this gun it's pretty cool while another twenty of these same threads get made to argue over fucking nothing.

>>34473403
See what I mean?

>>34473494
No of course they don't. 4chan is not the worst discussion website, but it's still pretty fucking bad

>>34467415
>if you have the full size...
most will have the compact and change between the compact and subcompact frame depending on weather and wardrobe imho. Much cheaper than getting a g19 and g26. Also, slide length matters very little for ccw where as handle length is the biggest single factor in concealability.

In other words you're a retard.

>mwap mwap mwap just rebranded 250, mwap mwap bore axis.

Way to reveal yourself for the ass angry manlet you are. Bore axis means next to nothing and the p250 failed because people hate DAO sigs(that's why they're cheaper) and people especially hate cheap sigs(just look at the sp2022's reception), of course they would hate a cheap DAO sig.

>wines about how useless the gun is, complains that any success it gets is just fanboyism.

Hilarious.

The thing it has on it's competitors is modularity(lol literally it's main selling point), likely soon to be wider acceptance, optional safety if wanted, and doing everything else that the competition does just as well. Furthermore, the p320 is not super popular with traditionalist sig fans, steel gun fans(often the same thing), or in this example even die hard striker fired fans as they would almost all prefer that glocks were adopted. The sig is popular with people who want a single gun that can take on multiple rolls and give a lot of bang for the buck. Can't even imagine why the military would side with those types.

Seriously starting to think you're a brainlet as well as a manlet.

>>34469185
It's very clear from your response that you don't have any idea how confidence level and therefore statistics work. Stop replying. Failing to differentiate at a 90% confidence level pretty much means it's indistinguishable by any standard that someone with more than 10 braincells would set. God. I read that shit and had to walk away from my phone for 5 minutes.

I've fondled the P320 at the funshop, it manages to be even chunkier than my SP2022. I think if I were still in the Army I'dve prefered the Glock. But whatevs, it's a pistol, they're hardly gonna get used at all anyway.

>>34470965
What part of that post didn't you see both sides being condemned? Was it me forgetting an extra line of green text against your preferred brand?

Both sides sound like tremendous fucking faggots. That should be your one and only take away.

>>34473494
Literally this.

>>34471465
its plastic
its ugly
may as well have selected some FN squishy block

>>34467415
Agreed. I see this gun as the most pointless striker gun of this decade.

I don't driver a Hummer, I don't wear baby blue pajamas as camouflage, and I don't shoot fucking direct impingement, and I sure as shit don't shoot SIGs. Our military makes poor decisions, face it.

>a gun that won entirely because Sig undercut everyone else's offers

De facto proof that the Army ultimately cares about costs, not performance

Ruger might have been able to offer even lower costs, but even they decided to sit this one out

File: 19748735_1384130624997411_1525027616237816647_n.jpg (51KB, 490x490px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 490x490px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGI2H0EjDTw&t=0s

just leaving this here.

also /r/ing the gaston glock version of xbox kid

>>34476423
>jumping to conclusions because you are a crybaby fanboi loser

Cost was the last and one of the least important factors during the MHS program, dumbass. Glock didn't have a significant difference in performance compared to the p320.

The report itself said that both pistols fared well in the technical measures resulting in no "discriminating factors". For this reason they used price to determine the final decision.

The sig won the contract because it had BOTH performance and price

But that fact doesn't matter to brain dead glock fanbois, because to be frank, how else would you morons cope?

>>34471465
Nope.

In 5 or 6 years you'll be able to buy the parts to take advantage of the promised modularity, for about 90% the cost of just buying a full RX or X pistol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGI2H0EjDTw
Chris Bartocci dropping some truth bombs

I'm a Glockfag, and even I think Glock's temper tantrum is ridiculous. They lost the moment Sig said the words "modular" and "cheaper".

>>34476723
>Overweight hairlet neckbeard heavy breaths his way through angry youtube video

Wow thanks for that hilarity

File: image.gif (2MB, 390x277px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 390x277px

>>34468630
Glock submits non modular handgun to modular handgun competition and wants another 100 million for it over an actually modular handgun, still surprised when they lose. MFW.

>>34476925
dude has some serious gun industry credentials and connects. his point in the video was this is just like the M14 rifle tests, and a bunch of beancounter retardation bullshit.

>>34477072
Oh yeah I'm super impressed by him. He was a technical writer and then tested cleaning products.

Wow yeah he is fully qualified to assess army procurement sure.

>>34467415
>what does this ugly brick do that glock does not
Have a good trigger

>>34477100
he worked for Colt, and has been involved with testing and procurement.

>>34477142
I know he worked for colt he was a tech writer there. Some engineer walked him through how an M16 worked, he took good notes, then drew up manuals and shit. One of those jobs the guys who graduate in the bottom half of their class take.

https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=6b270ab67d59ba947c5fdbc3e97ee8e2

Some advantages I see with the P320 is if you want the P320 as a "system"

>get Bruce Gray from GGI to upgrade your trigger
>have a fullsize with aggressive stippling for competition or duty use
>have a compact or subcompact with whatever stippling you want
>have essentially 2-3 guns with the same exact custom trigger job
>don't have to send out your "firearm" to an FFL to have it professionally stippled
>you can do it yourself and you're only $40 out if you fuck up

The P320 has subcompact .45 frames that cost $20 since nobody wants them, resulting in extremely affordable frames to stipple.

If you're poorfag and want a gun to conceal and one to learn how to shoot with, you can get a subcompact P320, carry that and if you want something more shootable, a $40 compact frame and some compact length mags will basically get you 2 guns for the price of one. My only gripe with the P320 is the mags that cost $30-$35 a pop.

imho, the P250 Gen 2 is a very good handgun and only scrubs cry about it because DAO is """hard""" to shoot.

File: 1481821539477.webm (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>34473841
Wow look at this, someone who actually has a brain here on /k/ that can actually articulate some reasons as to why the P320's modularity is a potentially good thing.

Have a webm of someone shooting a P320 better than any faggot that points out high bore axis here on /k/. Everyone who complains about bore axis has a sloppy grip technique so it shouldn't even warrant such a concern, the same way a 5 moa shooter complains that their rifle is 2 moa. They flat out can't accept the fact that they suck ass at shooting so they blame their hardware.

>>34477250
Yeah, this is a strong point people were ignoring. You do probably have to get a new barrel/slide depending, but the guy saying it was costing as much as a whole pistol wasn't quite right. A lot of it seems shockingly cheap.

>>34477281
A bad workman blames his tools.

>>34477250
Really curious to see if you can mate a full sized slide and barrel to a compact frame. I might end up buying one, if that's the case. Anyone got trigger time with one? Got an old 250 that's decent but the trigger pull is pretty heavy. It's a problem for my wife.

File: A9060054-Edit.jpg (390KB, 1024x740px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 1024x740px

>>34478101
>Really curious to see if you can mate a full sized slide and barrel to a compact frame

doesn't everyone do this? looks better imo

>>34478571
I've been wondering why Glock doesn't offer compatibility between the 19 and 17 for years. Just makes sense for CC.

>>34467415
>the thing is only a feature in shitholes which limit the number of guns you can have.

Actually it isn't, because in those countries, you'll need an authorisation to buy any serialized part, be it the barrel, slide or frame. Meaning that you'll need one authorisation for the gun, and another authorisation for the conversion, counting as two guns.

>>34478644
the "chassis" IS the only serialized part on a P320