 US Military's Joint Combat Pistol program |
  |
 Nov 25 2005, 01:35 AM
Post
#76
|
|||||
|
Mostly Harmless  Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176  |
Didn't mean to suggest mutual exclusion, I just phrased it poorly. Should have said "if there is enough free space in that area, it's likely to be used for the 'exchangeable backstrap' objective in the JSP specification."
Yeah. They've been doing that on Olympic competition pistols for years. In fact, the guy that pretty much pioneered it, Cesare Morini, is the same guy who designed the grip and exchangable backstrap system for the Walther P99 (which started all this business). The SIGpro is set up more like that than the others. It's not just the backstrap that is exchangeable on that one, but the backstrap and side panels as well, as a single unit. |
||||
 |
 
|
||||
|
Nov 25 2005, 01:37 AM
Post
#77
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
So why not just do that, then? And save the void space for this insane shot counter?
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 25 2005, 01:47 AM
Post
#78
|
|
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
Because it doesn't save space for anything. It actually takes up more space.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 25 2005, 01:48 AM
Post
#79
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
Well, that would be a problem, then.
Could you engineer the gun so that the whole grip (not just the thing on the outside of where you put the gun, everything that encases the mag well and trigger guard) can be interchangable? |
|
|
|
|
Nov 25 2005, 02:17 AM
Post
#80
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 269 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 752 |
yeah, Kel-Tec pistols, available in many colors, the hellokitty imac of pistols |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 25 2005, 02:34 AM
Post
#81
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
No really, don't just drop it out of hand.
I know it sounds like it probably woulden't work - stresses of firing not lending themselves well to structural supports like snap-on snap-off... But could it work? |
|
|
|
|
Nov 25 2005, 02:39 AM
Post
#82
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 25 2005, 02:50 AM
Post
#83
|
|
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
I think you're going the wrong way with this, ShadowDragon. They need to make it as easy (and inexpensive) to manufacture as possible, and the bigger you make these interchangable pieces, the more complicated and expensive things get, considering that they would need to buy a bunch of different ones for these users. What they want is something a simple as possible that alters the circumference of the grip. Using just a relatively small portion of the backstrap is all that is necessary to affect that.
This depends very heavily on the design of the firearm as you're dealing with very small amounts of space here, but I think it would probably be possible to build the shot counter electronics either into the side panels of the grip frame or into the dust cover (ahead of the trigger guard), or both if necessary. With such limited functionality, it really doesn't need to take up a lot of space. That leaves the backstrap interchangeable. Now, for an update on my opinion on the matter: On a military gun, I think both the shot counter and exchangeable backstraps are trivial and unnecessary. In a police type environment, fine. In a military environment, the gun needs to be as simple and robust as possible. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 25 2005, 02:58 AM
Post
#84
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
Re: Your opinion.
You're probably right, but this is the United States Army you're talking about. Have you ever known them to settle for something with fifteen widgets when they could cram twenty up the ass of their contractors and hope to make 'em puke out a working gun? Anyways, my money is on somehow incorporating it into the side-panels of the grip. Hell, if they can put the guts of a cell phone into that space, they ought to be able to cram in a shot counter. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 25 2005, 03:18 AM
Post
#85
|
|||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
hmm, why do that make me think of the guns in cp2020? maybe because they talk about them being molded plastic available in all kinds of fashionable colors? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 25 2005, 03:43 AM
Post
#86
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 269 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 752 |
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 25 2005, 03:44 AM
Post
#87
|
|
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
Hmm. HK is developing a .45 ACP version of the P2000, apparently. I wonder what for? Check it. Looks like that one fits the bill nicely. If Beretta gets a .45 ACP version of the Px4 going, they might have a chance, too. Wait... otomik, any reason why you're being so quiet about this? A polymer-framed 92 in .45 ACP with exchangeable grips? That's a pretty big deal...
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 25 2005, 02:00 PM
Post
#88
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 269 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 752 |
I mentioned it on another thread here, yeah PX4 and and 90TWO are possibilities but they're in 9mm and .40 only at this point. If god told the Beretta family to make a .45, they'd have to think about it and you might see it in 20 years. Every other major company has created a .45 as soon as they really entered the american market. I bitch and moan about it more here http://www.berettaforum.net/cgi-bin/ubbcgi...0306;p=1#000016 but more importantly I question their faith in the strength of the locking block, some people have experimented with .357SIG with good results and it works well from a Brig slide 96 but they've never offered it. If this is going be Berettas first foray into a locking block .45 it's got to get it right the first time because the contract stipulates M1 ball and a high pressure hollowpoint round. I wonder if it's about the strength of the frame or the strength of the locking block, they do have a Steel Beretta 92 (with frame mounted safety!) also on the 90TWO I wish they put the safety on the frame or made that an option, that would be good. I will buy a 92 Stock someday, that thing is gorgeous http://www.berettaworld.com/index.asp?url=...D53%26did%3D271 damn, take a look at Elvis' Beretta there, I need some personalized grips like that. S&W made some hideous looking P99 .45s with changable backtraps, I really hope smith and wesson doesn't cry foul because they think they're fucking entitled as an american company. I mean they discontinued the 4506, that was a great gun and would have been nice to see in the JCP. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 25 2005, 05:00 PM
Post
#89
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
what in the name of god is this
edit: gah. click on 'agents' and select... any of them. and then explain. explain as you have never explained before. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 25 2005, 05:13 PM
Post
#90
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
!!
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 25 2005, 06:39 PM
Post
#91
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
Blatent use of sex-appeal?
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 25 2005, 08:30 PM
Post
#92
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 269 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 752 |
that website I linked, Beretta World is not owned/related to the company, it's just some fan's website. It's probably just some amateur photographer practicing making pr0n. But I wouldn't mind a sexy calender put out by a gun company, sexy calenders are very popular in italy, Tanfoglio's put one out in the past. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 25 2005, 09:05 PM
Post
#93
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
hmm, guns and girls, all a man now needs is beer, and lot of it ;)
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 26 2005, 02:23 AM
Post
#94
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
Ah. The barrel profile in that picture initially looked to be bigger than the 9/40 barrel profile, but looking at them comparatively, you're right. I guess I got a little too excited about the prospect of an open top .45 ACP. :(
You'd think that with the 8000 Cougar having a .45 ACP model and the Px4 being heavily based upon it, as well as the potential for them losing incumbency and a very large contact, it would be enough to light a fire under their asses. The Px4 already has exchangable backstraps, a lanyard loop, an M1913 light mount, etc... All it really needs is to be .45 ACP.
Wouldn't doubt it. They would need to make room in that area for the fatter cartridge (which with an obviously new frame and slide, is another thing that had me going in that picture). I don't see why it couldn't be done, so long as they make a frame and slide with a little more room in the locking area. If you can make it work at ~35k psi with the .40 S&W, you can do it at ~22k psi with .45 ACP +P. Sure seems like they don't want to do that, though.
A big plus in my book (and a JCP objective). Too bad it doesn't work as a decocker, though. I wonder if they can do that without infringing on Taurus' patent (haha!).
One of the two with the gold bits and pearl inlayed grips? That's pretty Elvis, alright.
Crying foul seems to be par for the course in these kinds of competitions anymore. I'm sure someone will at some point. If S&W has a pistol that can meet specs, more power to them, I say. However, they would receive some favoritism for being an American company. I remember reading recently (during the XM8 debachle) that that's actually a law somewhere, though I don't recall where.
But for the magazine safety... Of course, that would have to go for JCP anyway. |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Nov 26 2005, 03:21 AM
Post
#95
|
|||||||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
I believe some Beretta reps were quoted as saying that the 9x19mm and .40S&W Px4s would launch the line, and if successful enough, a .45ACP variant would follow (rumored at 12 + 1, no less). I can't verify that, but it doesn't strike mas as impossible. Especially now with this contract coming up.
Honestly, I can't help but bring up Robinson again. Beretta's got huge sway, especially since they're already supplying the military's pistols. At the very worst, I can't see them at a disadvantage. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Nov 26 2005, 05:17 AM
Post
#96
|
|||||||
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
Me either. They said the same thing about the Cx4, the "x4" supposedly meaning available chamberings in 9x19mm, .357 SIG, .40 S&W and .45 ACP. But a .45 ACP version of the 92 is another story entirely.
That's not the same. IIRC, the law in question says that if two products perform identically and one is made by an American company, the American company gets the contract. Robinson didn't even get that opportunity. The official "no BFAs shipped" reason was bullshit, but I have my suspicions that Robinson really got the shaft because of a lack of manufacturing capacity (not to mention the whole EGLM thing). It doesn't matter how good of a product you have, if there's no way you can manufacture at the rate forecasted, you aren't going to be taken very seriously. Beretta's got no problems there.
Not having a pistol ready is a pretty big one. Seems like everyone else has been gearing up for this over the last three months, which is another thing that had me going with the 90Two. I see everyone with a contender but them. Doesn't mean they don't have one, obviously. Maybe I just haven't dug deep enough yet or they're just being particularly sneaky about it. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Nov 26 2005, 05:37 AM
Post
#97
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
I should have clarified; I didn't mean that in response to the law (which I am not familiar with, but does not surprise me). Specifically, I just don't see being an American company to be that much of an advantage when it comes to military small arms contracts, these days, and I think Beretta has a potentially strong competitor with the Px4 if they decide (or have decided, and simply kept it under wraps) to use it as a base for a JCP bid.
Also, in regards to Robinson and the XCR thing, I personally felt that given the intended use of the weapon, concerns about manufacturing capability were more or less manufactured to cover up political pressure from FNH. Maybe that was insubstantiated conspiracy nuttery. I'm not in a position to say; but it did strike me as quite plausible. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 26 2005, 06:27 AM
Post
#98
|
|||||||
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
Other than it putting the vast majority of that money directly back into the US economy, I don't either, especially considering that any company involved must have manufacturing capabilities for the contracted items on US soil. (For example, the Beretta factory in Maryland, SIG Arms in New Hampshire, FNMI in South Carolina, HK setting up shop in Georgia, etc...)
I agree. But I also think that in the interest of keeping maintenance and training as close to the M9 as possible, they might be going another route with that. That's their trump card, really.
I suppose it is plausible. The addition of the EGLM to the specs could be considered to point in that direction (ooo! shiny object!). FN already had a system like that in the F2000, whereas Robinson had a rifle and that's pretty much it (and nowhere near the resources of FN to develop an EGLM). But even if SCAR specs did stick to the rifle only, I really don't think FN had reason to be that worried about it. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Nov 26 2005, 05:41 PM
Post
#99
|
|||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 269 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 752 |
The .40 PX4 isn't even available yet, just 9mm. funny to name a weapon for how many calibers it's available in when making them available in a variety of calibers isn't priority. I'm also glad they aren't discontinuing the Cougars in favor of the PX4 entirely, word is production is being shifted to turkey and it will be under another name in Beretta Holdings. I think the Benelli or Stoeger brands would be most likely but I'm not sure which companies have factories in Turkey. Turkey has put out a lot of quality products lately at a competitive price. SIG's innability to get the lowest bid last time during the M9 contract may determine the fate of the JCP. Viewed from this perspective other viable competitors come to the fore, such as Glock, CZ, Taurus, Bersa, and a pet favorite of mine Zastava Arms of Serbia. The Zastava CZ99 and CZ999 has lot of interesting features including a button that switches the gun from DAO to DA/SA, that kind of commonality will help keep costs down, and their controls are fully ambidextrous and innovative (add a 1911 style ambi frame safety and every users favored mode of operation is accomodated). and another thing if they use the same mainspring for the DA/SA as the DAO then we are in for a very sweet trigger, probably one with a 8lb DA and 4lb SA.
I've said it before, I like having a decocker but I don't think that decocker is well thought out, Beretta still wins. http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/TaurusPT92.htm
absolutely correct. that's why I think the CZ99 has it so right when they combined the decocker and slide release into one button, that way the controls are the familiar 1911 type (but with a decocker also and ambidextrous).
|
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Nov 26 2005, 11:17 PM
Post
#100
|
|
|
Resident Legionnaire Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,136 Joined: 8-August 04 From: Usually Work Member No.: 6,550 |
go Glock!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 6th November 2025 - 04:50 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.