It used to be that for a military or law enforcement contract you basically had to have guns run over by tanks, dropped in liquid nitrogen, fouled with maple syrup and baby powder, dropped from a space shuttle blah blah. A little hyperbole but you get the point and some legendary pistols came out of these gauntlets.

Over the past several years it’s seems to have become…..meh find the cheapest one that meets our specs and has been out long enough to not have shown to be total shit.

-Walther PDP
-CZ P10
-Springfield Echelon

Are the examples that spring to mind. Now don’t get me wrong none of those are crap and by most accounts are quite good but none of them went through the old procurement gauntlets of old.

I guess we have reached the point where we don’t need to build a “USP for example” to meet some rigorous specs and just about everything is pretty darned good.

I think that CNC machines and much better consistency in tolerances with MIM and forged parts have made a lot of guns very reliable these days compared to years ago. I remember the days where you had to take every other 1911 to a gunsmith (regardless of make) to get them to run right. I would trust my life to any of the hand guns I own except 1 of them in most all conditions.

I’d say we’ve reached that point, but with one caveat. We just need to not slip up on QC; sadly, we frequently do.

Regarding the lack of USP-like solidity, I think we find it easy to forget that the USP was the first pistol purpose-built/purpose-designed for .40 S&W, a cartridge whose “hardware requirements” took many other manufacturers by surprise. Not only that, the concurrent development of the .45 Auto SOCOM pistol, which had to meet a laundry list of some pretty ridiculous requirements and specifications, and which only HK was able to deliver, likewise benefitted the USP. However, the most popular versions of the USP, then and today, are the ones chambered in 9mm Para. This is the cartridge we’ve all moved back to, and will likely continue to the most. The USP design is by definition, overkill.

Didn't the Walther PDP go through the German military's testing? Just because the US didn't test it, doesn't mean it hasn't gone through rigorous testing.

That being said, I think you have a valid point. With CNC and modern machining techniques, and with the Glock Gen 3's patents expiring, I think it is easier for a quality weapon to pop out from a lesser known manufacturer.

Finally, keep in mind, just because a weapon receives a military contract doesn't mean it was the best weapon. It simply means they met the design parameters - which can be artificially based to get a certain result.

Not all options have righteous QC that are required to be a good choice. I think much like ARs there are tiers of quality and tiers of choices.

If “there are no bad choices” you would see a rainbow of choices at the higher levels of competition. Pretty much you see a handful of makes models on top.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Not all options have righteous QC that are required to be a good choice. I think much like ARs there are tiers of quality and tiers of choices.

If “there are no bad choices” you would see a rainbow of choices at the higher levels of competition. Pretty much you see a handful of makes models on top.

Valid point. The other side is who has the ability to service issues and in what time frame. QC is only part of the equation.

quote:

Originally posted by BB61:
Didn't the Walther PDP go through the German military's testing? Just because the US didn't test it, doesn't mean it hasn't gone through rigorous testing.
[...]

the PDP is the basis for the P14, which is the new German military pistol for their special forces. Just saying.

It was the best of times, and it is still the best of times, to paraphrase Dickens. I'm not sure that a gun that hasn't gone through the "old procurement gauntlets of old," is necessarily the gold standard metric

We live in a time where one has to actively seek out crap guns, because pretty much nearly all of them are pretty fantastic.Particularly striker platforms. I stick with the Glock operating system, in the form of Shadow Systems handguns, having switched out from Glock a few years ago, after shooting the latter since '99.

In the last 12 years I've dabbled in other polymer platforms, CZ P-07's, P-09's, P10C's, briefly with an M&P 2.0 Compact, as well as two Walther PDP Compacts. Of those the Walthers have stayed, with continued investment in the platform. As mentioned I switched to Shadow Systems a few years ago, from Glock, after test firing an MR920, (their version of the Glock 19), and was sufficiently impressed. I wonder if I would have stuck with the Glock operating system altogether, had I test fired a Walther PDP.

Again it's almost an embarrassment of riches with the choices we have, and for many quality guns, the criticisms, are now relegated to aesthetics, and how they fit. For instance I think the Echelon is a really excellent platform, but I don't care to own one "just because" it doesn't interest me, and as has been stated it is most certainly not a "crap" gun.

^^^Agreed. I’ve tried just about every duty (and compact duty) “poly-striker” on the market. Most of my disappointments were entirely subjective.