GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-21-2012, 00:36   #76
MD357
Senior Member
 
MD357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,886
Quote:
As a civilian? I rarely need to swap much of anything. I also have never needed my JHPs to expand, but I still like the feature.
I figured I wouldn't get an answer here.

Quote:
I'm not sure round counts have much to do with getting it muddy, sandy, bloody, etc., but I'd generally prefer a looser-fit 1911 if I had to, say, swim ashore and take a beach.
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.

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.

Quote:
Bottom line on this thing: same parts, built differently. If that equals the same gun to you, so be it.
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.
MD357 is offline  
Old 11-21-2012, 01:59   #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  
Old 11-21-2012, 08:06   #78
MD357
Senior Member
 
MD357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,886
Quote:
I'd go back and re-read.
Read it just fine. Asked for specific parts, that you think you're gonna drop in, got an analogy.

Quote:
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.
Try again my friend, there's a well broken-in TRS in my safe, among other semi-customs and full house customs. I've tried just about everything at one point, including a Colt custom shop gun. Rather, I'm speaking from experience of ownership..... you?? Hint: They're not SACS or Baer, hardly anybody is in terms of building em that tight. Only those with limited experience will assume the extreme that any "hand fit" 1911 will lock up as tight as these guns. Otherwise, ownership of..... take your pick of several custom and or "hand-fit" 1911s that don't lock up that tight...... will provide otherwise.

The original point really should be obvious though, many people think relatively tighter built platforms will fail in combat, and history and experience proves different.

Quote:
And you've verified this with extensive environmental testing, a la the acquisition process for the new M45? Excellent.
I'm going on anecdotes just as you are for sure, unless you can provide any reference of your own? However, I'll stick with logic and understanding of the platform with reaffirmation of some of the best of the business. If you disagree, great, most people tend to just parrot what they hear or see on the internet instead of investigating how things work.

Quote:
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.
Why would I contact them? Even though your points are erroneous to a degree, I stated earlier that I understand THEIR situation, regarding the logistics of equiping a 1911 for a force. My comments were pertaining to YOU.

This all started because you think the marketing is misleading you because of your experience with other platforms yes? I then asked for the signficance of the difference of hand fitting as pertaining to the civilian market or even you. Problem is, and what I've been hinting to, in terms of part wearing out in a 1911 I understand which are likely to go first. I understand that properly hand fit parts are likely to increase the life of said parts and the 1911, opposed to anyone believes that these critical parts in a 1911 are truly drop-in or that they could drop them in without any knowledge? If they DID have a rememdial amount of said knowledge, maybe they'd understand they'd want a properly spec'ed 1911 and fitted in the first place IF they were to start switching out parts to make life easier. The whole TRUE modularity, drop-in theory just doesn't pertain to 1911s as a whole relative to let's say..... polymer platforms.

Last edited by MD357; 11-21-2012 at 08:10..
MD357 is offline  
Old 11-21-2012, 08:11   #79
FLIPPER 348
Happy Member
 
FLIPPER 348's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bend Oregon
Posts: 21,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD357 View Post
This all started because .......



....because y'all are a bunch of 1911 drama-queens
FLIPPER 348 is offline  
Old 11-21-2012, 09:00   #80
Tophatter
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD357 View Post
Read it just fine. Asked for specific parts, that you think you're gonna drop in, got an analogy.
Oh, you want the specific parts they're looking to change between individual guns? It's everything.

From the Initial Technical Evaluation Report:

Quote:
5. A summary of the evaluation of the Offerors follows:

a. [redacted]: Unacceptable.

Deficiencies:

a. Interchangeability: The offeror's bid samples did not fully interchange and pass the Limited Technical Inspection (LTI). After complete interchange of parts between all ten (10) bid samples per reference (d), paragraphs 3.5.3 and 4.6.3, one bid sample failed to fully interchange. The failing sample demonstrated an inability to function with the interchanged grip safety or any other grip safeties installed from the spare parts block.

...

b. Colt Manufacturing LLC: Unacceptable.

...

Stengths:

...

e. Parts Interchangeability: The offeror's bid samples met the requirement for parts interchangeability...All components interchanged, passed LTI, and passed the dispersion test.

...

c. [redacted]: Unacceptable.

Deficiencies:

a. Interchangeability: The offeror's bid samples did not fully interchange and pass the Limited Technical Inspection (LTI). After complete interchange of parts between all ten (10) bid samples per reference... three bid samples failed to fully interchange. Per enclosure (6), one sample would not lock closed, and two others displayed excessive lock up.
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.

Quote:
I'm going on anecdotes just as you are for sure, unless you can provide any reference of your own?
See above. I'm going on some obscure-but-open-to-the-public reports and OFUO info.


Quote:
Why would I contact them? Even though your points are erroneous to a degree, I stated earlier that I understand THEIR situation, regarding the logistics of equiping a 1911 for a force. My comments were pertaining to YOU.

This all started because you think the marketing is misleading you because of your experience with other platforms yes?
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:

Quote:
But the Marine Corps solicitation specifically requested that it not be hand fitted - meaning either one of two things - the actual components used to build the Marine Corps pistols are different, most likely more expensive to produce parts built with tighter tolerances, and possibly different materials or methods, while the civilian versions will be built with the same "run of the mill" parts that need to be hand fitted.

Or, the civilian pistols are being built with rejected parts that are outside of the tolerances, and consequently need to be hand fitted.

Odd as it may seem to say that being hand fitted is a negative aspect of a 1911, the point is, they won't be exact copies of the military issued pistols, and in fact, the details of their manufacture will run counter to one of the main features of the pistol - namely that they do not require gunsmith support to maintain, but can be simply repaired at an armorer level.

If your goal is to get an exact copy of the Marine Corps pistol, you're still missing one of the critical points of the solicitation, and one of the main selling points to the Marines in this pistol.

The "spec" was for interchangeable parts - not hand fitting, whether hand fitting on the level of a full custom shop, or hand fitting on the level of a standard production Rail Gun.

Last edited by Tophatter; 11-21-2012 at 09:12..
Tophatter is offline  
Old 11-21-2012, 10:27   #81
MD357
Senior Member
 
MD357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLIPPER 348 View Post
....because y'all are a bunch of 1911 drama-queens
Jerry..... Jerry...... Jerry..... Jerry......
MD357 is offline  
Old 11-21-2012, 11:04   #82
MD357
Senior Member
 
MD357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,886
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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 arf.com where you got it?
MD357 is offline  
Old 11-21-2012, 11:30   #83
Tophatter
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD357 View Post
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.
I don't recall saying I'd need to switch anything out, barring something breaking - which has been known to happen. Why is that your focus?


Quote:
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.
We're talking about the military trials because you refuse to acknowledge that the military version of the gun is built differently than the civilian version.

Quote:
Apply some reference or critical thinking here from yourself?
I have. It's going to be built differently than the Marines' version. Said it plenty of times, pointed to the video of the Colt rep saying it plenty of times. Somehow, it still hasn't sunk in on your end.

It's not the same gun. I'm not sure why you're insisting so hard that it is, but the facts simply don't favor your interpretation.

Quote:
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 arf.com where you got it?
No Google-fu needed, I was pretty involved in that thread, and Augee summed up my feelings on it nicely.
Tophatter is offline  
Old 11-21-2012, 12:15   #84
MD357
Senior Member
 
MD357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,886
Quote:
I don't recall saying I'd need to switch anything out, barring something breaking - which has been known to happen. Why is that your focus?
I was incorrect in my assumption that you weren't reading what I said.

Quote:
We're talking about the military trials because you refuse to acknowledge that the military version of the gun is built differently than the civilian version.

I'm providing that it doesn't make any difference to a civilian and it's only a plus that they are fitted a little closer. (if certain parts need extensive fitting at all) What you're not getting is that their considerations for the military are moot for YOU, unless you can provide otherwise. Hence my line of questions you didn't understand.

Quote:
No Google-fu needed, I was pretty involved in that thread, and Augee summed up my feelings on it nicely.
Yep, he's the guy that pretty much agrees with what I've been saying on terms of signficance of perceived difference. I however disagree with the authenticity as the guy that actually builds 1911s in that thread, has a point.



Quote:
It's not the same gun. I'm not sure why you're insisting so hard that it is, but the facts simply don't favor your interpretation.
As stated earlier for any practical purposes it is with a bonus, I guess if true authenticity is your only goal then there's a ton of slippery slop there. Same parts, specs, coating, steel, etc.
MD357 is offline  
Old 11-21-2012, 12:23   #85
3rdgen40
.45 fanatic
 
3rdgen40's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLIPPER 348 View Post
....because y'all are a bunch of 1911 drama-queens
3rdgen40 is offline  
Old 11-21-2012, 12:36   #86
Paul7
New Guy
 
Paul7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 13,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD357 View Post
Gun sold for $1300. I've found used Colts for as little as $500.



They are selling at the prices I listed, whether you like it or not. Buying used is a whole different story and to follow that red herring is moot.



As I figured, you couldn't provide any proof other than "on this other site this guy says." I dunno which exact colt you are trying to compare to, but they go for ~850-900 new around here. Rail guns are just a bit more.
Are you trying to say the Colt is as good as the DW?
__________________
I dont believe that people should be able to own guns. Obama to John R. Lott Jr. in a private conversation at the University of Chicago.
Paul7 is offline  
Old 11-21-2012, 12:43   #87
MD357
Senior Member
 
MD357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul7 View Post
Are you trying to say the Colt is as good as the DW?
Dunno how anyone could get that from what I said. To put it in plain english, all things being equal in terms of new or used..... A DW is significantly more than a Colt in terms of cost.... as it should be. Again, wanting to compare used prices to new is a joke and thus my original price points are accurate.

Whether or not these particular guns hold up to DW remains to be seen.
MD357 is offline  
Old 11-22-2012, 13:28   #88
fnfalman
Chicks Dig It
 
fnfalman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: California & New Mexico, US
Posts: 54,748


Quote:
Originally Posted by FLIPPER 348 View Post
....because y'all are a bunch of 1911 drama-queens
YOU TAKE THAT BACK!!!

Colt had served America for nearly two hundred years of honorable service!!!

Are you some sort of commie?
__________________
Can you dig it?
fnfalman is offline  
Old 11-27-2012, 11:26   #89
Paul7
New Guy
 
Paul7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 13,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD357 View Post
Dunno how anyone could get that from what I said. To put it in plain english, all things being equal in terms of new or used..... A DW is significantly more than a Colt in terms of cost.... as it should be. Again, wanting to compare used prices to new is a joke and thus my original price points are accurate.
When I brought up the DW for $1,350, I wasn't comparing new to used.
__________________
I dont believe that people should be able to own guns. Obama to John R. Lott Jr. in a private conversation at the University of Chicago.
Paul7 is offline  
Old 11-27-2012, 12:38   #90
SigFTW
Senior Member
 
SigFTW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: TX
Posts: 2,155
Pass, I could get two Kimbers for the same price!
__________________
Spent brass to me is like the ring to Gollum "We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious"
SigFTW is offline  
Old 11-27-2012, 14:16   #91
Paul7
New Guy
 
Paul7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 13,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by SigFTW View Post
Pass, I could get two Kimbers for the same price!
There's a reason for that.
__________________
I dont believe that people should be able to own guns. Obama to John R. Lott Jr. in a private conversation at the University of Chicago.
Paul7 is offline  
Old 11-27-2012, 14:18   #92
MD357
Senior Member
 
MD357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul7 View Post
When I brought up the DW for $1,350, I wasn't comparing new to used.
Dunno why you're so thickheaded about this. You jumped in this thread beating your chest about your DW Valor in comparison to a colt. I said the going rate is ~1500-1700 depending on the model. You SAY you supposedly got yours for $1350 shipped. More power to you if true, however, as I said earlier those types of deals are now few and far between, if they exist. As proof, you posted a USED gun that sold for the same neighborhood. All things being equal, there's a significant price difference between the two.
MD357 is offline  
Old 11-27-2012, 14:49   #93
Wil Ufgood
CLM Number 263
GTDS #88
 
Wil Ufgood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Out There
Posts: 1,577
Bring these babies back

1911 Forums
__________________
Jimmy Feldman: A stretcher for his balls?
Wil Ufgood is offline  
Old 11-27-2012, 16:29   #94
Paul7
New Guy
 
Paul7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 13,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD357 View Post
Dunno why you're so thickheaded about this. You jumped in this thread beating your chest about your DW Valor in comparison to a colt. I said the going rate is ~1500-1700 depending on the model. You SAY you supposedly got yours for $1350 shipped. More power to you if true, however, as I said earlier those types of deals are now few and far between, if they exist. As proof, you posted a USED gun that sold for the same neighborhood. All things being equal, there's a significant price difference between the two.
Do you want to see the receipt from April? If so, I expect you to be man enough to apologize here, since you're saying I made it up. Go over to the DW forum, people do get deals like that, at least those who know how to look.
__________________
I dont believe that people should be able to own guns. Obama to John R. Lott Jr. in a private conversation at the University of Chicago.

Last edited by Paul7; 11-27-2012 at 16:36..
Paul7 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:18.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 777
228 Members
549 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42