Is a 9mm 1911 considered an abomination?

[Scrivener]

OTHER than Glock's half-assed effort, can you name any other manufacturers have met the GCAB criteria, only to be found wanting by the AG?

 

[drgrant]

OTHER than Glock's half-assed effort, can you name any other manufacturers have met the GCAB criteria, only to be found wanting by the AG?

I wouldn't say Glock's effort was half assed. They paid gobs of money
just to get all their guns tested and on the list. And nobody has been
able to explain to me why the paint on Glock's extractor is somehow "worse"
than the paint on Beretta's extractor, or the paint in the groove on the
P99/SW99, or the paint on the extractor of the Sig P232. All are
removeable with gun cleaning fluid, yet three of them are "okay" and
Glock's is not.

IMO it's evidently clear that the AG has a vendetta against Glock. The
part I havent figured out yet is wether it's because he's getting greased, or
because he has some "liberal anti" bent towards demonizing glock due to
their "gangsta use" connotation, etc.

-Mike

 

[Scrivener]

I wouldn't say Glock's effort was half assed. They paid gobs of money just to get all their guns tested and on the list. And nobody has been able to explain to me why the paint on Glock's extractor is somehow "worse" than the paint on Beretta's extractor, or the paint in the groove on the
P99/SW99, or the paint on the extractor of the Sig P232. All are removeable with gun cleaning fluid, yet three of them are "okay" and Glock's is not.

Not to mention the moronic notches in barrel hoods, thus exposing the chamber........

As you noted, Glock spent the $5k or so for the tests; further as you also noted, virtually identical methods were deemed acceptable. Thus, Glock had both incentive to challenge the AG's denial and solid grounds for doing so.

Glock nonetheless failed to act. I consider its actions "half-assed" for that reason.

 

[drgrant]

Not to mention the moronic notches in barrel hoods, thus exposing the chamber........

As you noted, Glock spent the $5k or so for the tests; further as you also noted, virtually identical methods were deemed acceptable. Thus, Glock had both incentive to challenge the AG's denial and solid grounds for doing so.

Glock nonetheless failed to act. I consider its actions "half-assed" for that reason.

I guess if you look at it that way, then it is indeed half assed. I did not
know that they had failed to follow up.

Speaking of similar "half assed" efforts, do you know what happened with that
deal where a bunch of people were trying to sue the AG? I forget
what premise it was on, but apparently the story goes that some industry
group was doing it, and in the middle of the whole thing, that groups
leadership changed hands, and the ball was dropped, and as a result some
filings were not completed in time and the whole case got kiboshed....

It seems like every movement against the AG is mysteriously cursed, and
people are adept at taking a few pot shots at him, and then giving up when
he puts up a little bit of resistance. Seems bizarre to me.


-Mike

 

[Scrivener]

Speaking of similar "half assed" efforts, do you know what happened with that deal where a bunch of people were trying to sue the AG? I forget what premise it was on, but apparently the story goes that some industry group was doing it, and in the middle of the whole thing, that groups
leadership changed hands, and the ball was dropped, and as a result some filings were not completed in time and the whole case got kiboshed....

There was some dealers' group which challenged the edicts initially and then failed to file a timely appeal when it lost the initial suit. That blew the case and contaminated the issue for everyone else.