We just can't figure out why the DOD is willing to spend three times as much for a less reliable weapon.
Bottom line.
The glock may be ugly, but so is the AK 47..... They are both revolutionary drop-dead dependable devices.
-
If you are having trouble changng your password please click here for help.
Army Should Have Gone With Glock....
- Thread starter jcountry
- Start date
Bottom line.
The glock may be ugly, but so is the AK 47..... They are both revolutionary drop-dead dependable devices.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2014
- Messages
- 17,793
- Reaction score
- 18,714
- Location
- Metro Atlanta - Buford to Alpharetta
Like all military contracts, it isn't simply a per firearm price. Stop being all fudd and realize what else goes into the costs outside of just a gun. You should know better by now.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2014
- Messages
- 17,793
- Reaction score
- 18,714
- Location
- Metro Atlanta - Buford to Alpharetta
Like all military contracts, it isn't simply a per firearm price. Stop being all fudd and realize what else goes into the costs outside of just a gun. You should know better by now.
Isn't that the norm for any handgun?
I do and mentioned that in post 16.
Quantity purchase cost of a Glock 41 would be around $550 (at most) and even less for a Glock 17. That's with multiple back straps to adjust for individual grip and two mags. Just like we can buy at our LGS.
$2500, the cost of one Sig, divided by three equals $833. That's almost $300 more per weapon than the actual cost of the weapon.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2014
- Messages
- 17,793
- Reaction score
- 18,714
- Location
- Metro Atlanta - Buford to Alpharetta
And further proving that you have no clue what all is included in the contract costs. It's not a simple divide the gross number by the number of firearms equation and you end up with the price per gun. Sheesh man, know when to stop
Looks like someone at Arstechnica said "hey, the 2020 budget's out, find another 400 words about something Army".
The only "news" was that the program budget for M17/M18 for the Army is going to be smaller in 2020 than in 2018-19. But on its own, what does that actually tell us?
Was the previous year's higher spending including the R&D effort, the acceptance trials, or then the troubleshooting that followed the initial batches? If they've finished with testing, it stands to reason that procurement alone could well be a lower figure, and it's not as though the Army planned to replace every last M9 within the next few minutes. And as far as procurement priorities go, I'm pretty sure Big Army's trying to recap more than just their sidearms at the moment...
As far as the X dollars for Y pistols equals Z bucks apiece, it doesn't really work like that, does it? Were the $'s cited by Arstechnica for procurement, for the program itself? For the coffee makers and copiers in the MHS program office?
As for the double-feed and now-famous trigger issues, weren't those circa 2017? Weren't they resolved? Last I saw of anything semi-recent, things looked to be going better:
SIG SAUER M18 Sets New Standard for U.S. Army’s MHS Reliability Test
The only "news" was that the program budget for M17/M18 for the Army is going to be smaller in 2020 than in 2018-19. But on its own, what does that actually tell us?
Was the previous year's higher spending including the R&D effort, the acceptance trials, or then the troubleshooting that followed the initial batches? If they've finished with testing, it stands to reason that procurement alone could well be a lower figure, and it's not as though the Army planned to replace every last M9 within the next few minutes. And as far as procurement priorities go, I'm pretty sure Big Army's trying to recap more than just their sidearms at the moment...
As far as the X dollars for Y pistols equals Z bucks apiece, it doesn't really work like that, does it? Were the $'s cited by Arstechnica for procurement, for the program itself? For the coffee makers and copiers in the MHS program office?
As for the double-feed and now-famous trigger issues, weren't those circa 2017? Weren't they resolved? Last I saw of anything semi-recent, things looked to be going better:
SIG SAUER M18 Sets New Standard for U.S. Army’s MHS Reliability Test
