Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: hsu@eng.umd.edu (Dave "bd" Hsu)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: The replacement for the 1911A1 in the US Army
Message-ID: <12856@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 6 Jan 90 02:19:41 GMT
References: <12753@cbnews.ATT.COM> <12814@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Merriversity of Uniland, College Purgatory
Lines: 32
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: hsu@eng.umd.edu (Dave "bd" Hsu)
In article <12814@cbnews.ATT.COM> rls@onondaga.crd.ge.com (Roderick Sprattling) writes:
>... why was the Glock 17
>not chosen? I believe Glock has, or is planning to, open a factory
>in the States, so availability isn't an issue. I would image that,
>especially for a gun with so little machining and so few parts as
>the Glock, that large volumes translate to far less cost to the DoD.

I suspect that Glock's offshore origins at the time had much to
do with it.  Although they're now manufactured in Smyrna, GA, at
the time of the competition, Glock had no US-based manufacturing
operations.  Beretta had been operating their factory in Accokeek,
MD for some time, and thus enjoyed the backing of Maryland's
legislators.

As to the points you raise, I think the free market says it all.
Glock 17s sell for less than 2/3 the cost of the 92F, have an
unequalled reputation for durability earned at rental firing ranges,
and are regularly praised by reviewers for their uniform if peculiar
trigger action and high out-of-the-box accuracy.  It seems to me that
the closed slide and lack of an external hammer _should_ be advantages
in "dirty" environments as well.

-dave

--
Dave Hsu	UMd EE Computer Facility	hsu@eng.umd.edu

"We must beware of needless innovations, especially when guided by logic."
							- Churchill