Comments on: Why I Don’t Care if Military or Police Use Certain Items

By: Jaclynn

Jaclynn — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 23:06:24 +0000

hahaha.

By: Mick

Mick — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 00:02:41 +0000

A side note: I have an active-duty line-of-fire son that curses milspec ammo for his M4. He keeps plenty of lube and isn’t afraid of the forward assist. He’s in my prayers as we speak.

By: Mick

Mick — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 23:58:44 +0000

Word from a dinosaur here– as an example, I recall the ’80′s, shooting a modified form of PPC that require a duty-type weapon, but was lax if you didn’t mind your score not being in the books. So this wheelgunner took his tried and true 586 with a few hundred thousand rounds thru it against the mega-blasters with overloaded and ported .38 Supers, 5-6 magazines, all the stuff they’d read they HAD to have if they wanted to win at anything. They’d show up for practice, mainly. So $2500 worth of gear and ear-splitting plug-and muff ammo to poke holes in paper at 25 yards.. except they didn’t. You can’t buy your game. Whether it’s Colt, Smith, Sig,HighPoint,Glock,etc. etc. it’s hands on, week after week practice. That’s how an individual finds is/her gun to count on. As for departments and milspec, one has to make do with what’s there, but make damn sure it works. If that means spending your own time/money, hey, I do. Military– those in the hotspots know what to do, follow their lead, and know that weapon inside and out blindfolded; in other words, make the best of what you can, and if you can add/subtract things ad lib to suit, go for it. That’s more than 2 cents worth, so I’ll hush.

By: charles222

charles222 — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:36:08 +0000

That’s….not really true. I’m active duty in the US military and I’ve always had pretty much whatever I felt like having on my weapon; I’m also not anything special-plain vanilla 11B here.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:25:14 +0000

For further proof of this, look at the Glock pistols in use by NYPD. Sure, the dept. is huge, but that doesn’t stop them from handicapping their officers with an unnecessarily heavy trigger. As another example, the local PD out here used to issue Ruger P-series pistols. Yuck. Take a look at CounterSniper Military Optical Gunsights Corp. (countersniperoptics.com) they claim to be used by special forces, etc. but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that 1) They’re full of it and 2) They suck. People need to work on being better informed as consumers. Thanks for the excellent post Andrew.

By: Bull

Bull — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 07:20:49 +0000

manufactured? sure? i think its just assembled there. manufactured in south africa where its also designed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milkor_mgl

By: R&R

R&R — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 01:57:01 +0000

Great point Tam….

By: Andrew Tuohy

Andrew Tuohy — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:59:20 +0000

So, basically, nothing to do with actually using the rifle/carbine to kill people. “Keep it out of the dirt?” WTF?

Yeah, that’s a totally outstanding way for the military to spend tens of millions of dollars.

Alternately, your soldiers could learn to stack rifles properly.

By: Sid

Sid — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:09:34 +0000

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Who said it was used as a VFG or a bipod?

The soldiers I served with found the grip pod to be very good at keeping your weapon out of the dirt. That is the reason we used it and loved it. Lay in the prone for an hour or so. Get asked to unload the unit’s duffle bags. Have to perform vehicle maintenance, clean the TOC, sort mail, or replace sand bags around the 1SG’s sidewalk. You will be happy to have a grip pod.

Soldiers may not use equipment for the intended purpose, but that does not mean it is not a handy peice of equipment. And this is from a soldier that is old enough to have washed his face and parts in a steel pot before the first kevlar helmets arrived.

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 10:38:53 +0000

Good read as usual Andrew and surprisingly valid points raised here. To my surprise this “celebrity marketing” is not only limited to civilian users spending their own buck – I too often meet with professional users going after “who uses this?” crap. It’s all fine if you’re using that information as a reference or a source of eventual user-feedback, but it should never replace well researched needs analyzis, realistic field testing to prove actual performance and claimed capabilities of the product.