Sig P320

[RAM Engineer]

I have read it. There is only one pistol on the market that fits the description.


C4

How about the forthcoming Beretta chassis gun?

[nova3930]

I've been involved in writing specs for vehicles a couple of times in the fire service. All the supposed experts always try to tell me how unethical it is to write a spec that can only be met by one company. Personally I think that notion is complete BS and tailor the spec to the exact item the department wants to buy. If you have all the technical information it's very easy to write your spec so that nobody else can meet it without actually calling the make/model by name.

My experience working with Uncle Sam in procurement is that unethical has no repercussions while illegal gets you thrown in jail. Therefore as long as it is legal it flys. I'm supporting a nearly billion dollar program right now that I "know" the requirements were drafted with specific integrators and solutions in mind. Other competitors lost so badly they didn't even protest which is an anomaly in and of itself....

I have read it. There is only one pistol on the market that fits the description.


C4

Then like I say, tough luck on the other guys. They can either meet the requirement or stay home. Drafting requirements for a desired solution happens all the time. For that matter it probably IS happening with the Army pistol "competition." Considering the monstrous size of that RFP I've only had a cursory look but I'd bet $$ those requirements were drafted with the P320 in mind.....

[SteveL]

My experience working with Uncle Sam in procurement is that unethical has no repercussions while illegal gets you thrown in jail. Therefore as long as it is legal it flys. I'm supporting a nearly billion dollar program right now that I "know" the requirements were drafted with specific integrators and solutions in mind. Other competitors lost so badly they didn't even protest which is an anomaly in and of itself....



Then like I say, tough luck on the other guys. They can either meet the requirement or stay home. Drafting requirements for a desired solution happens all the time. For that matter it probably IS happening with the Army pistol "competition." Considering the monstrous size of that RFP I've only had a cursory look but I'd bet $$ those requirements were drafted with the P320 in mind.....

I'd be willing to bet it was written using the technical specs of the P320.

[matt7184]

How about the forthcoming Beretta chassis gun?

Does not qualify in its current form because of finger groves per the amendments.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...=core&_cview=1

[jpmuscle]

So how is the quid pro quo working on this?

[nova3930]

Does not qualify in its current form because of finger groves per the amendments.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...=core&_cview=1

Reading that sow, imo it would pass muster if questioned. I've seen worse anyway.

Secondarily, they've got some crap requirements in there from a test and eval perspective. Things hard to test in an objective way...

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

[C4IGrant]

How about the forthcoming Beretta chassis gun?

I would assume that it would (if produced in time). They would also have to make some minor tweaks to it.




C4

[nova3930]

BTW what's the current go to OWB holster for the 320? Never really carried OWB before but I want to try something different with the 320. IWB I'll probably just get another shell for my MTAC....

[MStarmer]

Bravo Concealment, CNC Holsters, JM Kydex, Blade-tech, Ozark Holster co. Lot's of choices, ironically RCS does not even offer anything for them.

[Hedgelj]

Where's the best place to get the caliber exchange kits at?