|
Post by Erick on Feb 5, 2016 23:05:14 GMT -5
How does a country 18 trillion in debt just decide to replace a perfectly good firearm? Handguns don't sway the damn battle. This
|
|
|
Post by omnivorous on Feb 6, 2016 4:01:11 GMT -5
How does a country 18 trillion in debt just decide to replace a perfectly good firearm? Handguns don't sway the damn battle. The fault in the logic in this question, is it assumes the ruling class has the best interests of the country above their own.
|
|
|
Post by eddiewouldclearhot on May 15, 2016 10:03:51 GMT -5
so, the reason a new pistol is so important is because all the the berettas are broken. all of them. I haven't seen once in 4 units that works. with the new emphasis on insider attacks, its important to replace pistols in deployed units.
that said, pretty much all of SOCOM is using the G19 now. officially or otherwise. really, theyve had them for a while, like someone said, this i really just a formalization. for petes sake AFSOC is even using them.
pretty much every other NATO SOF element or other government agency ive run into is using some variant of 9mm glock. that was the biggest reason i personally switched for my personal handgun. that many dudes cant be wrong.
i havent been able to find a plain gen 4 G19 at my local gun store either. maybe thats why.
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on May 15, 2016 11:18:28 GMT -5
I seem to recall a figure of $2Bn USD to keep, without flying, the high end stealth aircraft you chaps have airworthy (because of fancy materials and black paint costs etc...) EVERY YEAR. Replacing handguns is a fucking drop in the water, compared to that. Especially when you weigh up how often they get used (and how many there are in total, compared to how many have been in use at any one time. (I get 'spares' are required, but...) Cutting ONE aircraft and purchasing all those new pistol and some ammo to go with for 'retraining' would probably break somewhere around even.
|
|
|
Post by eddiewouldclearhot on May 15, 2016 20:39:15 GMT -5
aircraft win wars, pistols do not, granted. really its the bloated acquisitions process making something simple and relatively cheap into a 17 billion dollar nightmare.
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on May 16, 2016 4:52:14 GMT -5
aircraft win wars, pistols do not, granted. really its the bloated acquisitions process making something simple and relatively cheap into a 17 billion dollar nightmare. True that. It should've been as simple as "Is there any reason NOT to buy a fuckton of glocks?" "No?" "Done."
|
|
|
Post by waffenmacht on May 16, 2016 5:08:10 GMT -5
Just like every year they do this, nothing will happen. The M4 and M9 are no more likely to actually get replaced then any other year they come up with this nonsense. Here's how it actually goes: "Is there any reason NOT to buy a fuckton of glocks?" "YES" Cost to replace all parts and support equipment in service, Time to retrain all personnel in the use and deployment of the new platform "How much and how long?" Too much and too long "Let's just keep the M9 then" Done.
They've been saying for 30 years we are going back to 45ACP and 7.62.
|
|
|
Post by whitebear620 on May 17, 2016 0:09:59 GMT -5
Another reason I think is the lack of a manual safety on Glocks just gives some general nightmares over negligent discharges, whether or not that would happen more because of Glocks, those generals get to decide that crap.
|
|