View Single Post
Old 11-21-2012, 02:59   #77
Tophatter
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD357 View Post
I figured I wouldn't get an answer here.
I'd go back and re-read.

Quote:
Right and as I said some only follow cliches from the internet. By the same theory several "tighter fitting" platforms wouldn't survive in the combat like lets say the AR or Beretta.
Ah, this may be where the issue lies. If you've never had something like a Baer, it's difficult to convey how tight 'tight' can get, and I suppose that might make you think we're talking about, say, Beretta production levels of tightness. Not the case.

Quote:
The reality is.... that "loose" or "tight" is not a measure of reliability. It's how the gun is set up and how the working parts are clearanced.
And you've verified this with extensive environmental testing, a la the acquisition process for the new M45? Excellent.

Quote:
Same parts built with a higher level of fitting. In which a properly fit gun by hand will only enhance the life of the gun. Coulda, shoulda, woulda mythical modularity aside, I think it's obvious that for any practical application it's a benefit.
You know, I'd actually go read the solicitation and, provided you can find them, the testing results. Or contact the MARSOC folks directly and let them know they're doing it all wrong. They've been working with hand-built 1911s for over two decades, and wanted a commercial replacement with parts interchangeability that required zero hand-fitting. You'll want to let them know they're making a huge mistake, because a hand-fit gun is always better. It's why everyone else uses nothing but hand-fit customs.
Tophatter is offline