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 ...
Most of the double-action pistols I own have a short sear reset, though I haven't checked all of them. I think that is a pretty standard feature on semi-automatic actions; even some rifles have this. Some are shorter than others and the Glock is pretty short, but it isn't unusually short.
This "feature" is usually brought up as a response to the fact that Glocks are nominally double-action-only. But it is kind of like saying that a vegetable is cholesterol free -- it is a good thing, but it ALL vegetables are cholesterol free -- so calling it a "feature" is a bit unwarranted.
I like the Glock DAO better than any other DA or DAO action I can think of. The only thing I like better is "cocked-and-locked", and only one really modern combat pistol has that as an option that i can think of (the USP). I find Sig DA to be inferior even though they are very nice shooters.
Aye. I am not a 1911 bigot, and generally think that action was over the hill a while ago. I carry a G27 for CCW and a slightly modified G20 (longer stronger barrel) on my ranch. As you say, they'll gladly take a lot of punishment with near zero maintenance, though they aren't unique in that regard. My only assertion was that there are better combat pistols, maybe not for the line troops, but for SF, SEALs and similar. If I personally had to choose one and only one pistol for serious combat duty, I'd probably opt for a USP40 even though it isn't what I would carry around town (I have a ton of trigger time and experience on USPs -- VERY competent design).
Agreed, although I'd choose either a USP Tactical, Expert, or Mark 23 SOCOM, all in .45ACP. But then I don't carry in a thigh holster as I would if I were in combat.
Are you talking about DA/SA pistols or DAO? I've never seen a DAO pistol (other than the Glock, if you want to call it one) which did not require the trigger to be nearly fully released between shots. I've seen many SA/DA models that meet that criterion, but unless such firearms are either decocked or have the safety engaged (things one often wouldn't do after shooting them dry) they won't be in a condition suitable for safe holstering.
What I have said over and over, and obviously it hasn't made any impression, is that the boycott was successful beyond all expectations and what you're worried about will never happen. Saf T Hammer didn't keep Thompkins from losing it's royal red a## big time, and no other American gun maker will ever again make the same mistake Thompkins made unless the owners or directors have a death wish for their company.
I keep asking this same question, and I have yet to get a satisfactory answer. Why on earth would any company's directors or owners make the same stupid mistake Thompkins made in view of what happened to S&W? The right answer is, they wouldn't and they won't. The point has been made with perfect clarity, and no gun manufacturer anywhere in the world missed it. If another such agreement is made in the future, it won't be because Thompkins managed to salvage a few sheckels out of it's self-inflicted disaster. It will be forced on a company, or companies, by a future fascist or far left gun-grabbing government and the company(s) will be given no choice except to sign an agreement or close up shop.
We aren't getting anywhere with this discussion guys, so I'm calling it off for my part. No hard feelings on this end, I'm sure we all agree on many more issues than we disagree.
Need another reading lesson Pooh?
Geez, Dead... there were two, count 'em, TWO agreements inked by S&W. In the second column of that .pdf, a bit past halfway down, Robert L. Scott is quoted thus:
"...To go on, now that the HUD agreement has been abandoned by the Bush Administration and the consent decree with Boston has been vacated, we are able to move forward in a positive manner..."
Rumors of the HUD agreement's death have been greatly exaggerated.
If you want to keep hating S&W for something prior management has done, fine... that is your perogative. Me? I'll wait and see what the new management is doing before condeming them further.
Those S&W fans that you describe sound a lot like the "new" company itself. If S&W was just honest about things, it could rally tremendous support. A "Help Us Kill the HUD Agreement" advertising campaign would be huge. Instead, they try to sweep it under a rug.
We all know that if that HUD agreement is ever properly terminated, the news will be on the covers of half (at least) of the shooting-sports periodicals. I have yet to see the "HUD Agreement Dead" headline on the front of The Shotgun News.
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.