Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/3/2006 8:04:58 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 8:48:07 PM EDT
Cheaper than checkmate? Bid protest for "unreasonably low cost/bid?" This ought to be good.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 9:00:44 PM EDT
It was my understanding that the M9 was being phased out...When I left the sandbox some of the Hooahs had 1911s.

-BJohnson
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 9:05:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Glockhappy:
Cheaper than checkmate? Bid protest for "unreasonably low cost/bid?" This ought to be good.



$4.50 each
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 4:13:59 AM EDT
14 million? Are these single serve?
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 5:01:06 AM EDT
who had 1911s?

in two trips i only saw them in private hands, and Marines. I would like to know what happened to all the GI .45s, i imagine they all went to the smelter. i have heard from some who were depot level armorers that they were worn out when the beretta hit town in the 80s. i have read RFP for the new pistol, sounds interesting.

the checkmate mags are actually pretty nice mags if they werent park'd inside the tube. if they get dumped on the suplus market ill snatch some up for range use. i think if i could get them cheap enough and buff out the internal parkerization they would be just fine. id like to try putting a Wolfe spring one and then sand test it. anyone done this?
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 10:41:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DvlDog:
who had 1911s?

in two trips i only saw them in private hands, and Marines. I would like to know what happened to all the GI .45s, i imagine they all went to the smelter. i have heard from some who were depot level armorers that they were worn out when the beretta hit town in the 80s. i have read RFP for the new pistol, sounds interesting.

the checkmate mags are actually pretty nice mags if they werent park'd inside the tube. if they get dumped on the suplus market ill snatch some up for range use. i think if i could get them cheap enough and buff out the internal parkerization they would be just fine. id like to try putting a Wolfe spring one and then sand test it. anyone done this?



Most of the SF teams I encountered in Iraq had 1911s as did some of the Navy SEAL personnel. Most of the Marine and all of the Army units had M9s. I posted some mods we came up with in Iraq to make the CM mags work better in this forum a month or so ago.
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 11:45:35 AM EDT
at FOB Salerno in AFG we had a somewhat large contingent of Army SF. one of our warrant officers is a bit of a blow-hard and was going on and on about how he wished he could bring his Mk 23 with him yadda yadda yadda. i saw him bring it up in conversation at least 3 times to Army SF guys and everytime they said they were happy with the beretta. most said they wouldnt mind something in .45 though.

the pictures of the Delta shooters bringing out the bodies of uday and qusay showed 1911s but other than that i never saw any in "Regular" army hands to include SF. anyone know what happened to the 1911s once retired? we know the story of the M14s and we know the M16A1 were shipped overseas or sold to police depts but i never heard what happened to the 1911s.

can you post a link to your checkmate mag mods? were you able to get them to run reliably?
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 7:15:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/4/2006 7:26:12 PM EDT by Lester_Long]
From the article:

"The greatest improvement is that we copied magazines produced by Mec-Gar for Beretta."

Uh, Beretta produces magazines via their subsidiary MDS, do they not?

www.sarca.it
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 10:56:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DvlDog:
can you post a link to your checkmate mag mods? were you able to get them to run reliably?



Its pretty simple. First dissassembe the mag and clean very aggresively, then testfire the pistol with the mag. If you have problems, first use some steel wool or polishing cloth and polish the inside of the mag body and the follower. Then replace the spring with a Wolfe extra power spring, lube with a good dry lube like Strike Hard and you are good to go. I have seen some guys back here in the states replace the floorpate with a plastic one from Beretta but I think that was just to match their factory mags.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 6:32:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2006 6:35:57 PM EDT by Trey-W]

Originally Posted By Lester_Long:
From the article:

"The greatest improvement is that we copied magazines produced by Mec-Gar for Beretta."

Uh, Beretta produces magazines via their subsidiary MDS, do they not?

www.sarca.it



Mec-Gar did make mags for berreta for a while in the 80's.

Edit: Beretta now owns MDS
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 7:56:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Trey-W:
Mec-Gar did make mags for berreta for a while in the 80's.

Source, please. Don't cite without a source.



Originally Posted By Trey-W:
Edit: Beretta now owns MDS

Reading really IS fundamental. Beretta factory magazines produced by THEIR SUBSIDIARY MDS, i.e. MDS is owned by Beretta Holdings Corp. I believe I stated as such, did I not? And provided a link stating the same, did I not?
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 7:48:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lester_Long:

Originally Posted By Trey-W:
Edit: Beretta now owns MDS

Reading really IS fundamental. Beretta factory magazines produced by THEIR SUBSIDIARY MDS, i.e. MDS is owned by Beretta Holdings Corp. I believe I stated as such, did I not? And provided a link stating the same, did I not?



Take a deep breath. I never said you were wrong on MDS.

Mec Gar states on their website front page that they supplied magazines to Beretta.
Mec-Gar

Thanks for showing your ass.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 8:11:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Trey-W:
Take a deep breath. I never said you were wrong on MDS.

So you either meant to be redundant or you have some fundamental flaw in your psyche that compelled you to state what was already stated.



Originally Posted By Trey-W:
Mec Gar states on their website front page that they supplied magazines to Beretta.
Mec-Gar

And it staes WHERE that they were manufactured for the 92/M9????? Mec-Gar produces magazines for some of Beretta's items such as the 84, but not the 92/M9. Please show a source otherwise.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 9:57:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lester_Long:
And it staes WHERE that they were manufactured for the 92/M9????? Mec-Gar produces magazines for some of Beretta's items such as the 84, but not the 92/M9. Please show a source otherwise.



Where is your source? Please post your source! Or you could just ease up a little.

Just trying to lighten things up here. I don't think that everyone believes everything they read here.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 2:22:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By blackta6:

Originally Posted By Lester_Long:
And it staes WHERE that they were manufactured for the 92/M9????? Mec-Gar produces magazines for some of Beretta's items such as the 84, but not the 92/M9. Please show a source otherwise.



Where is your source? Please post your source!

Uh, ever thought of looking at the magazines? Mec-Gar 92/M9 magazines have some differences than MDS/Beretta 92/M9 magazines, whereas the 84 magazines are identical. But hell, let's believe some bonehead "article" instead.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 4:06:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lester_Long:

Originally Posted By blackta6:

Originally Posted By Lester_Long:
And it staes WHERE that they were manufactured for the 92/M9????? Mec-Gar produces magazines for some of Beretta's items such as the 84, but not the 92/M9. Please show a source otherwise.



Where is your source? Please post your source!

Uh, ever thought of looking at the magazines? Mec-Gar 92/M9 magazines have some differences than MDS/Beretta 92/M9 magazines, whereas the 84 magazines are identical. But hell, let's believe some bonehead "article" instead.



The magazines were to help on a contract for Beretta. Ever seen a USGI M9 magazine marked Mec-Gar? Me either, but if you actually looked around on the site you would have seen that they made mags for the M9 for the US Army. And if they were not marked MecGar then common sense kicks in and says that they were marked PB.

BTW, since you are saying source, source, source! Where is yours saying that you are right. Do you have a written letter from Beretta saying that they NEVER contracted M9 magazines out to MecGar? Please post it as I would like to see your source.... It's easy to have double standards.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 4:51:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lester_Long:
Uh, ever thought of looking at the magazines? Mec-Gar 92/M9 magazines have some differences than MDS/Beretta 92/M9 magazines, whereas the 84 magazines are identical. But hell, let's believe some bonehead "article" instead.



By that arguement then they dont make Sig mags because the Mec-Gar marked mags are different and have different followers and springs to allow for 17 rounds instead of 15. Mec-Gar has done this with SW mags also.

But nope, Mec-Gar CAN'T make Sig and S&W mags can they?
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 9:25:09 AM EDT
From Mec-gar's own website:

"Our greatest success was to be qualified as the official supplier of Beretta M9/92F 15 round magazines for the U.S. Army"

www.mec-gar.com/company.html
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 5:59:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2006 6:02:28 PM EDT by Lester_Long]

Originally Posted By Ross:
From Mec-gar's own website:

"Our greatest success was to be qualified as the official supplier of Beretta M9/92F 15 round magazines for the U.S. Army"

www.mec-gar.com/company.html

That's not entirely correct or is at the very least misleading.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 6:02:04 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 6:06:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lester_Long:

Originally Posted By Ross:
From Mec-gar's own website:

"Our greatest success was to be qualified as the official supplier of Beretta M9/92F 15 round magazines for the U.S. Army"

www.mec-gar.com/company.html

That's not entirely correct or is at the very least misleading.



Your source please? Please cite your soruce that Mec-gar's statement is false or misleading.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 6:18:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ross:

Originally Posted By Lester_Long:

Originally Posted By Ross:
From Mec-gar's own website:

"Our greatest success was to be qualified as the official supplier of Beretta M9/92F 15 round magazines for the U.S. Army"

www.mec-gar.com/company.html

That's not entirely correct or is at the very least misleading.



Your source please? Please cite your soruce that Mec-gar's statement is false or misleading.

Beretta and their subsidiary MDS supplied magazines for the original contract did they not? Checkmate supplied the additional magazines did they not? That can all be found via a net search can it not? So where is the GAO contract stating that Mec-Gar is THE OFFICIAL SUPPLIER OF BERETTA M9/92F 15 ROUND MAGAZINES FOR THE U.S. ARMY?

But you and your boy are right, let's believe some bullshit we all read on the 'net. Because if it's on the 'net, it just HAS to be true.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 6:58:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lester_Long:

Originally Posted By Ross:

Originally Posted By Lester_Long:

Originally Posted By Ross:
From Mec-gar's own website:

"Our greatest success was to be qualified as the official supplier of Beretta M9/92F 15 round magazines for the U.S. Army"

www.mec-gar.com/company.html

That's not entirely correct or is at the very least misleading.



Your source please? Please cite your soruce that Mec-gar's statement is false or misleading.

Beretta and their subsidiary MDS supplied magazines for the original contract did they not? Checkmate supplied the additional magazines did they not? That can all be found via a net search can it not? So where is the GAO contract stating that Mec-Gar is THE OFFICIAL SUPPLIER OF BERETTA M9/92F 15 ROUND MAGAZINES FOR THE U.S. ARMY?

But you and your boy are right, let's believe some bullshit we all read on the 'net. Because if it's on the 'net, it just HAS to be true.



Mec-gar themselves state that they have.

You call it false and misleading, but you provide no support for your position.

You cry about sources all through this thread, but provide none yourself when asked to.

You tell us that somehow we are to believe the faceless "Lester_Long" over Mec-gar without any support or proof. Somehow I'm supposed to take your word that Mec-gar has purposefully written on their website something:

That's not entirely correct or is at the very least misleading.

, yet you show nothing to support that.

You're the one calling BS on Mec-gar's statement. The burden's on you. Mec-gar has stated what they have stated. It's up to you to show where that statement is false or misleading as you claim it is. Yet you have none.

No amount of ranting the time-tested: It's BS because it's on the net mantra is going to do any good for your position. If anything it simply weakens it because it's an indication that you indeed have no support for your theory.

I'm still waiting. To use your own words:

Source, please. Don't cite without a source.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:05:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ross:
Mec-gar themselves state that they have.

Oh, well, that's all the proof anyone needs.



Originally Posted By Ross:
You call it false and misleading, but you provide no support for your position.

So where is the GAO data for that contract? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Beaucoup contract information on Beretta, Checkmate, and Airtronic. So where is this contract from Mec-Gar?



Originally Posted By Ross:
You cry about sources all through this thread, but provide none yourself when asked to.

See previous.



Originally Posted By Ross:
You tell us that somehow we are to believe the faceless "Lester_Long" over Mec-gar without any support or proof.

And we're supposed to believe Mec-Gar because of what? Because they're the MIGHTY Mec-Gar? Christ, come up with something better than that.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:24:46 PM EDT
Your own words:

Source, please. Don't cite without a source.


You can rant all you want, you still have shown no source, nor any support for your positon.

You were the one asking for a source, yet you still can't provide one when asked.

Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:24:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2006 7:29:31 PM EDT by Trey-W]
It's called SUBCONTRACTING. Subcontractors do not put their name on anything. If you cannot understand that then I do not know how you made it to the internet.

One example is ARMS & Troy, they do not make anything its all farmed out. Whose name is on the contract though, ARMS & Troy or some unkown machine shop? Ill let you figure it out.

Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:35:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2006 7:37:52 PM EDT by Ross]

Originally Posted By Trey-W:
It's called SUBCONTRACTING. Subcontractors do not put their name on anything. If you cannot understand that then I do not know how you made it to the internet.




You mean like when Colt subcontracted all the M16 mags for it's contract? Yet the contract still said "Colt"?

ETA: I'm not providing any support for that claim that they didn't make any (though you can ask on the mag forum and it's well-known, but this is the internet and we can't trust what people say)

I hope you will forgive me Trey-W for not citing a source
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:38:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Trey-W:
It's called SUBCONTRACTING. Subcontractors do not put their name on anything.

If you say so. That's all that really counts isn't it?
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:41:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ross:
You mean like when Colt subcontracted all the M16 mags for it's contract? Yet the contract still said "Colt"?

You mean like when the contract said Okay/Center/Universal, etc.

Read, comprehend, then post. In that order.

"Dis here riddin' is tuff!" -- Ross
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:42:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ross:
You can rant all you want, you still have shown no source, nor any support for your positon.

No rant, source shown, WAY over your head.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 8:15:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lester_Long:

Originally Posted By Ross:
You can rant all you want, you still have shown no source, nor any support for your positon.

No rant, source shown, WAY over your head.



Sorry I missed the source that you cited that proved Mec-gar's statement to be

That's not entirely correct or is at the very least misleading.

Apparently everyone else has as well.

Was it this?

But you and your boy are right, let's believe some bullshit we all read on the 'net. Because if it's on the 'net, it just HAS to be true.


or this?


And we're supposed to believe Mec-Gar because of what? Because they're the MIGHTY Mec-Gar?


You have shown NOTHING that supports your opinion. No proof to contradict Mec-gar's statement. Other than more ranting that other people need to cite sources, but of course "Lester_Long" doesn't need to.

What document, even a BS internet article do you have that shows Mec-gar's statement to be not entirely correct or misleading? That's right nothing. None, Zip, Nada. You fall back on the "You prove I'm wrong" every time anyone asks you to support your own position. Yet you still contiune to ask everyone else to support their's

Mec-gar's statement is far more solid than anything you've brought up...but of course that's because you've brought up nothing as support for you postion.


"Dis here riddin' is tuff!" -- Ross




And where did I say that?

Oh, that's right...I didn't. It's just an example of the integrity of a person that concocted a false statement then attributed it to me.

Actions of low integrity such as making up false statements make it easy to dismiss anything that person has said.

If you wish to quote me, please do so accurately.

Link Posted: 4/8/2006 6:33:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lester_Long:

Originally Posted By Trey-W:
It's called SUBCONTRACTING. Subcontractors do not put their name on anything.

If you say so. That's all that really counts isn't it?



Show me an ARMS or Troy product that has any other name on it.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 6:55:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ross:
You have shown NOTHING that supports your opinion. No proof to contradict Mec-gar's statement.

Just as you haven't shown anything independently supporting Mec-Gar's statement.


Originally Posted By Ross:

Originally Posted By Ross:
"Dis here riddin' is tuff!" -- Ross

And where did I say that?

Oh, that's right...I didn't. It's just an example of the integrity of a person that concocted a false statement then attributed it to me.

No, it's called paraphrasing. One short sentence summed up your other statements.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 3:13:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lester_Long:

Originally Posted By Ross:
You have shown NOTHING that supports your opinion. No proof to contradict Mec-gar's statement.

Just as you haven't shown anything independently supporting Mec-Gar's statement.


Originally Posted By Ross:

Originally Posted By Ross:
"Dis here riddin' is tuff!" -- Ross

And where did I say that?

Oh, that's right...I didn't. It's just an example of the integrity of a person that concocted a false statement then attributed it to me.

No, it's called paraphrasing. One short sentence summed up your other statements.



You've lost this and that's all there is to it.

You lost it when you asked for sources, and when shown one you can't bring up any of your own.

You lost it when you stooped to fabricating quotes, what you call "paraphrasing". It's an obvious attempt at an insult. No where have I stated difficulty in reading. The only stated difficulty is in finding anything you've posted that's worth reading.

You've posted little to read, and nothing to support your case.

You've already lost this. There's no point in carrying on with you.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 5:08:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/8/2006 5:09:22 PM EDT by Lester_Long]

Originally Posted By Ross:
You lost it when you asked for sources, and when shown one you can't bring up any of your own.

Lost? Were we competing for something? The only "source" you've shown is a claim on a website. Perhaps you need to refresh yourself on the definition of a source.



Originally Posted By Ross:
You lost it when you stooped to fabricating quotes, what you call "paraphrasing". It's an obvious attempt at an insult. No where have I stated difficulty in reading.

And you need to refresh yourself on the definition of "paraphrase."

par·a·phrase: n.

1. A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning.
2. The restatement of texts in other words as a studying or teaching device.

Tuff riddin' at dis here link thang.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 7:28:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lester_Long:

Originally Posted By Ross:
You lost it when you asked for sources, and when shown one you can't bring up any of your own.

Lost? Were we competing for something? The only "source" you've shown is a claim on a website. Perhaps you need to refresh yourself on the definition of a source.



Originally Posted By Ross:
You lost it when you stooped to fabricating quotes, what you call "paraphrasing". It's an obvious attempt at an insult. No where have I stated difficulty in reading.

And you need to refresh yourself on the definition of "paraphrase."

par·a·phrase: n.

1. A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning.
2. The restatement of texts in other words as a studying or teaching device.

Tuff riddin' at dis here link thang.



Lester, I'm interested in knowing the truth and even though it may be over our heads, you aren't helping the truth be known. So you either don't know, or you don't want to share. Either way, it's not helping. MecGar's claim is the only thing official that we've known from reading this thread. It's just that simple. Could they be wrong? Sure, people claim stuff all the time. But conventional wisdom tells us that people do subcontract and the subcontractors don't always put their name on the product. Just my 2 cents.

Link Posted: 4/13/2006 2:45:31 AM EDT
JJREA-

I e-mailed Mec-gar. I asked if they were ever the OEM supplier to Beretta for the 92/M9 and if so did they supplied them to Beretta or directly to the Govt. I also asked how their mags were marked. Here's their reply:

Thank you for your interest in Mec-Gar magazines.

When the US Military changed to the M9 pistol in the 1980's, Mec-Gar was the primary supplier of magazines to Beretta. As their primary supplier we manufactured almost 2 million magazines for this contract. These magazines were marked with the military assembly number and supplied directly to Beretta.

We were OEM supplier to Beretta for many years for different model magazines including the 92. Currently we do not supply Beretta magazines, as they have purchased a metal stamping company in Italy Mechanica Del Sarca (MDS) and are making their own magazines. We stopped supplying Beretta in the early 1990's.

We currently are the OEM supplier of magazines to Walther for the P99 and to S&W for their version of this pistol. Also we went under contract with SIG in 1998 to become their primary OEM supplier of pistol magazines.

The Beretta magazines we offer currently have the Mec-Gar name, logo and model stamped on the magazines.

Sincerely,
David Kochol
Vice President
Mec-Gar USA, Inc.


Link Posted: 4/13/2006 2:49:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ross:
JJREA-

I e-mailed Mec-gar. I asked if they were ever the OEM supplier to Beretta for the 92/M9 and if so did they supplied them to Beretta or directly to the Govt. I also asked how their mags were marked. Here's their reply:

Thank you for your interest in Mec-Gar magazines.

When the US Military changed to the M9 pistol in the 1980's, Mec-Gar was the primary supplier of magazines to Beretta. As their primary supplier we manufactured almost 2 million magazines for this contract. These magazines were marked with the military assembly number and supplied directly to Beretta.

We were OEM supplier to Beretta for many years for different model magazines including the 92. Currently we do not supply Beretta magazines, as they have purchased a metal stamping company in Italy Mechanica Del Sarca (MDS) and are making their own magazines. We stopped supplying Beretta in the early 1990's.

We currently are the OEM supplier of magazines to Walther for the P99 and to S&W for their version of this pistol. Also we went under contract with SIG in 1998 to become their primary OEM supplier of pistol magazines.

The Beretta magazines we offer currently have the Mec-Gar name, logo and model stamped on the magazines.

Sincerely,
David Kochol
Vice President
Mec-Gar USA, Inc.





Thank you sir, that clears some things up in my head.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 3:45:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ross:
I e-mailed Mec-gar. I asked if they were ever the OEM supplier to Beretta for the 92/M9 and if so did they supplied them to Beretta or directly to the Govt. I also asked how their mags were marked. Here's their reply:

Thank you for your interest in Mec-Gar magazines.

When the US Military changed to the M9 pistol in the 1980's, Mec-Gar was the primary supplier of magazines to Beretta. As their primary supplier we manufactured almost 2 million magazines for this contract. These magazines were marked with the military assembly number and supplied directly to Beretta.

We were OEM supplier to Beretta for many years for different model magazines including the 92. Currently we do not supply Beretta magazines, as they have purchased a metal stamping company in Italy Mechanica Del Sarca (MDS) and are making their own magazines. We stopped supplying Beretta in the early 1990's.

We currently are the OEM supplier of magazines to Walther for the P99 and to S&W for their version of this pistol. Also we went under contract with SIG in 1998 to become their primary OEM supplier of pistol magazines.

The Beretta magazines we offer currently have the Mec-Gar name, logo and model stamped on the magazines.

Sincerely,
David Kochol
Vice President
Mec-Gar USA, Inc.

All arguments and differences aside, thanks for posting that.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 3:57:18 PM EDT
Woot all is good.
Top Top