The perceived line is simple. A Glock is proven. It’s reliable. It’s accurate. It’s already used by many high end users. Every bit as good as these guys. And they too get a discount. LE Glocks are cheap.

Let’s not pretend they got these guns to wring out sone extra tiny bit of performance. They got them because they were given a blank check budget.

You might find that acceptable. I don’t. Pretending like two identical teams one with these and one with Glocks wouldn’t perform identically protecting the payload is silly. If this is the difference maker then let’s get them each two? How much better would that be?

If I was given a blank check I wouldn’t buy Glock either. Doesn’t make it sound policy. The US Navy has been wasting taxpayer dollars for decades. Don’t like that either. Waste is waste.

But what I'm trying to sort out is what defines enough to be "waste." If they paid $750 for these things, is that ok?

No doubt that Glock makes a reliable, durable, accurate product, but does that mean that it's what "shall" be purchased to avoid "wasting money"? If they could have bought a PSA Dagger for less than a Glock, should they have bought that?

The fact is that we don't know what they spent, so all we're left with are people's feelings about the purchase, which appear to be largely based on retail pricing.

Well it’s more than feelings less than facts. Our govt has a long proud history of wildly over paying for no bid contracts. No one can say for sure but would you really bet a paycheck that they got a screaming deal on these? Through a no bid contract?

No. Can’t say for sure but it’s a pretty good bet we the taxpayers got raked on this one.

I wonder if this deal includes the typical government procurement plan. Not just the guns, but many years of parts and armorer training. Is ZEV big enough and stable enough to guarantee long term support?

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
It’s not hard for a B ranked or higher shooter to outshoot a Glock.

What does it mean to "outshoot" a Glock? Plenty of people have made GM with a Glock, including at least one who did it with a G26. There's no way this organization "needs" the Zev when almost any standard handgun would do the job as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Blume9mm:
For those that don't want to click on the link:



Now my own opinion is if I was going to be the guard for a nuclear weapon while it is being transported.... I'd like something a little more than a 9mm semi-auto pistol.

It’s a sidearm. They carry more than just that. Not too mention the technology that goes into the actual transport vessels/vehicles/containers etc.

Me personally, of all the stupid shit my tax money funds, if these cats "want" that handgun, I am good with it. Do they "need" it certainly not, but if they feel warm and fuzzy having it, so be it. I feel a lot better about that then 98% of the other bullshit I help fund.

quote:

OST's contracting announcement says that it wants to buy 17-round Glock magazines from another company, Magpul, to go with its OZ9s.

This negates my ability to take this seriously.