What's wrong with the Air Force?

[FourFans]

Sounds to me like the military took a high quality product, demanded it be changed to suit the idiocy of some of our members who should never touch a gun in the first place, then were surprised that the product doesn't function like the OTS product.

SiG makes excellent firearms.  So does Glock.  We should have just picked an OTS product and bought it outright instead demanding it have an extra safety, which is what I understood happened.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Edited yesterday at 04:51 PM by FourFans

[uhhello]

13 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

I know, which is why my inclination is to be suspicious of the P320. But there's a difference between a couple of maintainers spending 20 minutes on a maintenance issue and hundreds of gun enthusiasts, YouTubers, Federal officials, military officials, and gun industry engineers trying to unravel a mystery and coming up with nothing. 

 

I'd say it's 50/50 whether there's actually something wrong with it, which is to say, who knows 🤷🏻‍♂️?

From what I've been able to read, all the FBI testing was essentially inconclusive due to the testing requirment modifications that needed to be done to the guns.  Couldn't entirely rule out that the modifications didn't exacerbate the problem.  Where there is smoke, there is fire.  Zero reason to field/employ this system because of that.  The AF got 125,000 M18s for about $150 a pop.  

[Boomer6]

Quality control is a plausible explanation why others arent able to duplicate in significant numbers. Maybe a part in the safety mechanism is prone to excessive wear leading to failure. Either way, if this is a failure of Sig they need to be held accountable.

[uhhello]

3 minutes ago, FourFans said:

Sounds to me like the military took a high quality product, demanded it be changed to suit the idiocy of some of our members who should never touch a gun in the first place, then were surprised that the product doesn't function like the OTS product.

SiG makes excellent firearms.  So does Glock.  We should have just picked an OTS product and bought it outright instead demanding it have an extra safety, which is what I understood happened.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The added manual safety doesn't have any effect on the M18 over the 320.  The 320 was/is having issues without the manual safety.  You aren't wrong that the safety is a dumb govt requirement though.  

Edited yesterday at 04:53 PM by uhhello

[FourFans]

1 minute ago, uhhello said:

The added manual safety doesn't have any effect on the M18 over the 320.  The 320 was/is having issues without the manual safety.  You aren't wrong that the safety is a dumb govt requirement though.  

If that's the case, I am at a loss to understand why we didn't just buy the G17 and G19 and be done with it.  It's a 9mm pistol that 99% of the time will never be used.

[uhhello]

6 minutes ago, FourFans said:

If that's the case, I am at a loss to understand why we didn't just buy the G17 and G19 and be done with it.  It's a 9mm pistol that 99% of the time will never be used.

SIG came in WAY under what the other test submissions offered.  It also offered the modular functionality that the others didn't.