Skip to comments.
TSA handgun contract draws ire of firearms makers.
GovExec.com ^
| July 16,2003
| Richard H.P, Sia
Posted on 07/18/2003 7:45:20 AM PDT by heckler
Through a series of missteps, the Transportation Security Administration has run afoul of the world's leading gun manufacturers in an attempt to award a three-year, $5 million contract for the semiautomatic handguns it plans to give commercial airline pilots to defend their cockpits.
The agency drew the heaviest fire after it appeared to bow to pressure from the office of Rep. J. D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., to drop a possible deal with the Austrian gunmaker Glock and focus instead on buying guns from venerable Smith & Wesson, an American-owned firm based in Hayworth's district.
(Excerpt) Read more at govexec.com ...
TOPICS: Government; US: Arizona; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: armedpilots; bang; banglist; buyamerican; glock; gun; smithandwesson; tsa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 161-171 next last
To: Eric in the Ozarks
Nope, it's a fairly new handgun cartride.
I mistyped though, it is "Rowland."
It's like a .45 upgraded.
Developed by a red neck from LA (the state not the city) named Johnny Rowland
Try .460 rowland in a google, there were many "hits."
101
posted on
07/18/2003 10:26:42 AM PDT
by
ASA Vet
("Those who know, don't talk. Those who talk, don't know." (I'm in the Sgt Schultz group))
To: Shooter 2.5
"Now there is a group of new owners who had nothing to do with the old agreement."
They have PLENTY to do with it. They were essentially complicit in trying to get the old owners lots of money, with the expectation that WE would cave in given an ownership change. The company is forever tainted, because those who own it paid the evil ones handsomely.
It might not seem "fair", but if we give in now (or ever), our future boycotts will have no teeth, since future offenders can always get their money out by selling to a "different" buyer.
I want future bussinesses contemplating selling out citizen rights to see BANKRUPTCY and personal financial ruin as their only future, if WE decide to make it so.
To: FreedomPoster
I'd be curious if you could explain the distiction. I'm not sure I see it. Ironically, the Glock is a police weapon (it was designed to be as such, so no surprise), and something like a Sig or USP is a military weapon. There are a handful of design differences due to the different operational focus. Some differences, which are evident in various contract trials:
- Accuracy standards for combat firearms are higher than for police firearms, because there is a reasonable expectation that combat pistols will be regularly used at distances far exceeding "self-defense" range.
- Re-strike capability, which is something most civilian and police users never have to think about. Some ammo (e.g. originally intended for subguns) has very hard primers, and in some places around the world this is the only ammo you tend to get, particularly if it is military ammo. The military requires pistols that allow you to pull the trigger twice ("re-strike") a hard primer. I know soldier whose ass was once saved over in Africa because his Sig could re-strike.
- Very strong action. Military pistols are expected to be able to shoot through blockages (e.g. squibs) and digest proof-level rounds repeatedly without a catastrophic failure and preferably still stay functional. Some actions, such as the USP, have been known to still meet military accuracy standards after shooting through squibs.
- Magazine design. Military pistols generally have ambidextrous, spring-assisted magazine release -- an optimization for efficient mag-swapping in a firefight. Many pistols designed for police use have passive systems since mag swapping in a firefight is not a principle use scenario.
These are just some of the things off the top of my head. There ARE important differences between police designs and military designs, with the military pistol designs being more rigorous generally. A nearly perfect embodiment of a military combat pistol is the H&K USP, which was specifically engineered to meet US military standards and preferences perfectly in almost every detail. A really good example of a police pistol is the Glock, which WAS specifically engineered as a police pistol to the specs of a police contract.
Most people would do very well with a police pistol for self-defense purposes, since that is the primary function of that pistol. "Offensive" military pistols tend to be really nice, but you are unlikely to see any additional benefit from them as a pragmatic matter.
103
posted on
07/18/2003 10:51:48 AM PDT
by
tortoise
(All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
To: ALASKA
I carry a USP Compact everyday. With a Bladetech holster, it is the ultimate CCW in my own personal, correct opinion. I carry a Glock 27 for CCW (lighter, smaller), but the USPs are one of the finest all-purpose "social" pistols currently being made. Super-tough, super-reliable, and superbly engineered for skilled operators. Not what I would carry around town, but if I was going hunting for unfriendlies it would be my first choice.
104
posted on
07/18/2003 10:56:10 AM PDT
by
tortoise
(All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
To: spunkets; hattend; No.6
"I must be missing something here. Why aren't the pilots buying their own guns?" Hear, hear. Government handouts do not suddenly become a good thing just because they're for buying guns.
105
posted on
07/18/2003 10:59:06 AM PDT
by
Maurkov
(Patriots respect freedom foremost)
To: Space Wrangler
I there take is more along the lines of "there's a republican in office now, and if even if someone else takes it up, we will we argue in court that we aren't responsible for it". It does our cause no good at all to try and run a company out of business for the sins of it's former owners. The gun industry learned a valuable lesson out of all this. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Run that by any competent corporate lawyer and see if it floats. You buy a corporation, you buy the assets, liabilities, and contracts of that corporation, unless the previous owners agree to take on certain portions of it. A corporation is a legal entity unto itself, just like a person. Who owns it doesn't change what the corporation is obligated to do. Otherwise Owner 'A' of a corporation would just run up debt and sell it to owner 'b', who wouldn't be liable for the things owner 'A' did, but would still benefit from what owner 'A' built up.
That's what S&W is trying to do. Saf-T-Hammer (which isn't a very pro-gun outfit to begin with - look at their record of trying to further their gun-lock design at out expense) buys out tompkins at fire sale prices due to the boycott. They benefit from the agreement in a sort of twisted way. Now I would admire them if they had the guts to work with a lawyer to get this agreement dissolved like they did with boston, but they haven't. They've simply tried to constantly spin and deceive gun owners to get them to believe the agreement is gone. It isn't. For that alone they should be boycotted. I don't like being lied to about something that important.
The bath water is stale and the baby is a baby snake. Until S&W / saf-t-hammer starts respecting the 2nd amendment and gun owners, instead of merely making money off of them, the boycott still stands from my perspective. They haven't done anything honorable in regards to this agreement. I don't accept lying from a clinton, and I don't accept it from a gun company, either.
To: Beelzebubba
Handsomely? Tomkins paid $112 million. Safe-T bought it for less than half that.
107
posted on
07/18/2003 11:13:00 AM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
To: Eric in the Ozarks
Nope, it's a fairly new handgun cartride.
I mistyped though, it is "Rowland."
It's like a .45 upgraded.
Developed by a red neck from LA (the state not the city) named Johnny Rowland
Try .460 rowland in a google, there were many "hits."
108
posted on
07/18/2003 11:15:05 AM PDT
by
ASA Vet
("Those who know, don't talk. Those who talk, don't know." (I'm in the Sgt Schultz group))
To: crazykatz; msdrby
They belonged to my late dad My late grandfather had a pair of Blackhawks in 357 and 44 magnum. Hence my nostalgic choice with no regret.
My better half has a beautiful flintlock pistol made for her by her late father.
109
posted on
07/18/2003 11:36:35 AM PDT
by
Prof Engineer
(I'm a man, But I can change, If I have to, I guess)
To: flashbunny
I don't know the exact details of the buy-out, but Saf-T-Hammer could have ditched the HUD agreement by simply buying the assets of S&W piece by piece.
To: RogueIsland
Sorry, but the Glock is less forgiving of carelessness than most other action types. That doesn't make it a bad action type, but it does make it one that must be respected. That's the truth - love my Glocks, but, like pet Cobras, they do not favor the inept.
111
posted on
07/18/2003 11:52:02 AM PDT
by
xsrdx
(Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
To: tortoise
A really good example of a police pistol is the Glock, which WAS specifically engineered as a police pistol to the specs of a police contract. Nope....
GlockMart
In 1963 Gaston Glock created Glock Ges.m.b.H in Deutsch-Wagram, Austria. Glock started off manufacturing various products such as doorknobs and hinges. Later, Glock went on to make several items for the Austrian military. Some of these items included knives, entrenching tools, hand grenades, and machine gun belts.
In 1980 the Austrian army began searching for a new 9mm pistol to issue it's troops. In 1982, after learning of the army's search for a new 9mm pistol, Gaston assembled a team of firearms experts from throughout Europe. The prototype Glock Model 17 pistol was then developed in only three months!
The pistol was submitted to the Austrian military for testing. In late 1982 the Austrian government notified Glock that the Glock Model 17 had been accepted and would be the new standard issue for the Austrian army. The Austrian army placed an initial order for 25,000 Glock Model 17 pistols.
In 1985, after evaluating the U.S. market for the Glock pistol, Glock began taking steps to bring the Glock pistol to the United States. In July, Glock submitted a model 17 to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms for import evaluation.
The BATF required two changes be made to the Glock pistol before they would allow it to be imported. These changes included the addition of a metal serial number plate and replacement of the fixed rear site with an adjustable one. Later that year Glock, Inc. was formed in Smyrna, Georgia as the importer and distributor of Glock pistols in the U.S.
Final approval for importation of the Glock pistol came from the BATF in January 1986. An additional plant was constructed at the Smyrna, Georgia home of Glock, Inc. in 1990.
Although all Glock pistols are still manufactured in Austria, the new Glock facility at Smyrna now assembles and test fires all pistols imported to the United States.
112
posted on
07/18/2003 12:01:58 PM PDT
by
xsrdx
(Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
To: spunkets; Maurkov
I must be missing something here. Why aren't the pilots buying their own guns?
My understanding is that the law was written in such a way that the pilots who volunteer are actually deputized as federal law enforcement officers after their training. As such, the fedgov is obligated to provide the tools required to perform their new additional duty, just like the air marshalls, FBI, IRS, and all of the other tens of thousands of federal agents from every agency you can imagine must use fedgov-issued guns.
To: xsrdx
I invited my insurance man with me to the range a month or so after I got my Glock back from the smith's work-over. I had fired it a couple of times and taken note that the trigger was on the light side.
I went over the basics at the range and was about to mention the 3 pound trigger pull when my pal put a round in the ceiling as he was lowering the piece toward the target.
To: xsrdx
Your Glock history is a touch misleading. The Austrian Army was one of the recipients of the original contract product, but they were not the contractee.
The original Glock design was to meet the specification of an Austrian government contract intended to fulfill the pistol needs of various government police departments, both civil and military, under the auspices of a single contract. Various military organizations received the majority of the contract, but it was not a military design contract per se.
As popular as it is for police use, it has tended to fall short in US military trials. Nonetheless, some countries have adopted it for general military usage. It is worth noting however, that generally military issue pistols are primarily for "defensive" purposes. US military units that require more "offensive" pistols tend to use different systems than the general issue (e.g. Sig and HK versus Beretta).
115
posted on
07/18/2003 12:33:25 PM PDT
by
tortoise
(All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
To: Dead Corpse
"Tomkins paid $112 million. Safe-T bought it for less than half that."
And if we continue the boycott until the company is dead, future prospective buyers of/investors in sell-out companies will know that they will lose all of their investment, and thus the sell-outs will not even get 50 cents on the dollar.
To: tortoise
Various military organizations received the majority of the contract, but it was not a military design contract per se. That'a a tough distinction to sell.
US military units that require more "offensive" pistols tend to use different systems than the general issue (e.g. Sig and HK versus Beretta).
The M11 SIG was adopted for it's concealability, only the SOCOM/Mk23 HK fits the DoD characterization of an "offensive" pistol.
Otherwise, you'd be hard pressed not to include the many M1911 variants in DoD service, which have neither your "re-strike" capability nor an ambidextrous mag release.
I agree that police and military units have different requirements - your characterization of military requirements as more stringent, though, is misleading.
The FBI's Springfield TRP .45 is just as tough, accurate and reliable as any SiG or HK, and just as useful in any "offensive" role.
117
posted on
07/18/2003 12:49:20 PM PDT
by
xsrdx
(Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
To: xsrdx
That'a = That's
118
posted on
07/18/2003 12:50:50 PM PDT
by
xsrdx
(Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
To: tortoise
. . . it has tended to fall short in US military trials.
I don't believe "fell short" is quite accurate. My understanding is that Glock did not compete in either of the two M-9 trials because they did not meet the specification issued by the procuring agency, specifically the requirement for a manual safety lever independent of the trigger, and that Glock refused to modify his guns to meet that requirement.
To: Taipei Personality
Thanks for the clarification.
120
posted on
07/18/2003 1:17:41 PM PDT
by
Maurkov
(Patriots respect freedom foremost)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 161-171 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson