View Single Post
Old 11-21-2012, 12:04   #82
Senior Member
MD357's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,075
Oh, you want the specific parts they're looking to change between individual guns? It's everything.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're not reading what I said multiple times. I'm insterested in what YOU would switch out or THINK you'd need to switch out after use. You see, you are not a force of 4,000 heading downrange.

The other two manufacturers, by the way, are Springfield Armory with the MC Operator and something built by Karl Lippard.

So, any part, requiring any hand fitting, was a failure to meet testing requirements. The Colt failed because the new recoil system initially required a recess be hollowed out in the slide, which led to structural integrity issues that caused the much-noted frame cracks we've all seen pictures of. Colt was allowed to redesign and declared to have passed without retesting, which is a whole other ball of wax not germane to this thread.
That's all great but it's a red herring to anything I said in the previous post. You keep tapdancing and talking about the military trials..... we've established THEIR needs are different. If you feel YOU needs are simliar in the sense of parts interchangability then by all means.... again.... be specific.

I'm going on some obscure-but-open-to-the-public reports and OFUO info.
You posted nothing that showed anything to compromise what I said about reliability. You posted some fragments of a report.

No, I think the marketing is misleading because the marketing is misleading. This is a good summary from another forum by someone who, while not involved in the testing, has access to the results:
Apply some reference or critical thinking here from yourself? It's a joke to post what someone else said on the internet without reference after a quick google search. Otherwise, I could just head over to where you got it?
MD357 is offline