What's a Yankee Marshall?
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Update: On Glock's Appeal against Army's Decision on Sig 320
- Thread starter OkieStubble
- Start date
Well, Jerry Miculek shoots for S&W, not Glock. While I'd accept him as the ultimate in high speed low drag I'm not sure I'd say that for Smith. I do need to revisit them, I guess.
Then again I'm probably going back to my ancient religion. I've got a Commander sized Kimber in .38 Super on layaway.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
- Thread starter
- #64
See, this post of yours confuses me Randy. First, you say the Colt is washed up because it's old. Then you say, Jerry Miculek is the man, and yet he is old also. You're being very contradictory in our debate Randy.
- Thread starter
- #65
- Thread starter
- #66
These have a low bore axis too. Probably has a better trigger. Was the Gold Standard at some point:
Can't believe you posted a pic of that old cap n ball in a kydex holster. You're liable to give one of our old... I mean, "Traditionalists" a heart attack.
He's old but he certainly has managed to stay relevant.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
- Thread starter
- #68
Just like the Colt and Glock. Amazing coincidence when you think about it.
Imo, greatness just ages slower than most.
That was what made me save the picture a couple years ago. Found it looking for something else in my photo bucket.Can't believe you posted a pic of that old cap n ball in a kydex holster. You're liable to give one of our old... I mean, "Traditionalists" a heart attack.
The something else was a pic of my mini 1851 Mountain howitzer barrel that's mounted on a sort of naval carriage but with no wheels. It slides a couple feet each shot. I guess by the hand cannon standard I'm not using it right. Couldn't find a pic.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
....so this elephant walks into a bar..
Lowest price, technically acceptable is usually the award criteria for DoD contracts.
- Thread starter
- #72
Randy and myself have been having an intelligent debate. You should try again to attempt to join in Shawn... Cuz that post, wasn't it.
We both know intelligence isn't my strong suit.
My point was that by definition, a gold standard is :the best, most reliable, or most prestigious thing of its type.
Not the "first".
So if you are saying that Colt IS the gold standard of ARs because they were the first AR model, then that would be true of anything that was the first of it's kind. That hand cannon was the first "handgun" to be produced.
I will admit, and have, Colt WAS the gold standard for some time. Both in the AR style platform and 1911 platform. They have lost that title. There are more common, better made, and well known models of both platforms available today.
You also said:
The first Glock polymer as we know it today, was designed in 1981. The HK VP70 was in production from 1970 until 1989. So it actually discontinued 8 years after Gaston Glock "copied the blue print".
So based on the prior argument for Colt, the VP70 has got to be the gold standard, right? It was the first after all.
Was it better than the Glock? More reliable? At that time, I couldn't tell you, but in 1981 it was definitely more "prestigious" than Glock because Glock was the new kid on the block.
Glock earned their spot on the board for some time. They were the most widely known and still a reliable poly pistol. But like Colt, they are being caught up with and surpassed in fame.
As to the original posting, and reasoning behind this whole thing, Glock didn't make the price bid. Plain and simple.
Lyman was once the Gold Standard of bullet molds. Those days are far, far behind them.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
- Thread starter
- #75
Either you haven't read the entire thread, or you have missed or ignored, where we discussed Eugene Stoner/Armalite, who was the first to make the M-16/AR-15 platform. If you missed that, then you missed the fact that I know Colt wasn't the first. And you also missed, where we discussed how awful Stoner's rifle was for our troops in Vietnam. And you missed the most important part of that conversation, where I said The Colt was the "first to make it successful."
The definition you used of Gold Standard from Webster's dictionary, has nothing to do with the fact, that anybody who knows anything or has any experience with AR's knows, that every single gun forum or gun enthusiast has knowledge of this usage of phrase in the AR community, and refers to the Colt as the "Gold Standard" of AR's. And the reason they do this, isn't because it was first, But because Colt was the first TO DO THE AR RIGHT.
And since they were first to do it right, anyone and everyone who has or will attempt to make a successful or even better AR, has and or will copy that blueprint of success that was established by Colt. And I make this exact same argument for Glock.
The HK VP70 was the first polymer pistol, but it wasn't even close to being popular or successful. Glock however, made that success happen. Anyone who makes a polymer now and wishes it to be successful, is following Glock's Gold Standard of success and only hoping they too, can be as successful as Glock.
This has always been the debate I have maintained, lets not switch it up to something completely different that has no bearing. Any new AR or polymer still, has to copy/follow that model of success. No matter how great you think their gun is. And in doing so, makes and keeps the former two we have been discussing, the Gold Standards.
After 32 years, I would hope others would catch up. As to the surpassed in fame part, That is just wishful thinking, not reality... yet.
As to my OP and the reasoning behind it, I'm pretty sure I was the first to state this. Plain & Simple.
Some of the reading I have done on this topic puts the blame on the Army switching to a cheaper powder for the ammo. This created cleaning issues.
Bad day... I actually mis-quoted a couple things and confused myself. I'm going back to hide in my corner now.
- Thread starter
- #78
I have read this also, among other issues like, incorrect headspacing, chambers that were too tight, non chrome lined barrels, cycling/buffer spring issues and the like. I have seen lots of articles saying they just weren't issued cleaning kits with their rifles.
Last edited:
You are correct on the cleaning kits, Okie. Any failure of that magnitude has many causes.
- Thread starter
- #80
It makes me wonder if they thought back then, that they could run the M-16 maintenance free because the Chinese were running AK's that way?
