I wasn't relying on it, it was just another piece of the jigsaw. There is a difference between not winning and not even making it through a testing regime due to failures or reliability issues. There are other cases, but the one I provided didn't even let SIG complete the test (move on to phase 3) due to reliability issues. That by itself means not much, but added with the other failures and people who are in the know does add up to something IMHO. It could just be a coincidence that these things started happening around the time SIG hired Kimbers dear-leader, but that seems unlikely given all of the evidence. Strangely enough the same coincidence happened when he was at Kimber too.Micro wrote:We could do that, but I'd lose. At 8.2 posts per day on this website alone, Gunderwood has far too much energy for me.grumpyMSG wrote:Does Rick sell the Red Man suits? or maybe somebody has got some of those massively padded Sumo suits. We could let gunderwood and Micro beat on each other for a while and neither of them would get hurt.
Just to clarify, it's not that I don't believe what I read on the internet. I'm just of the opinion that relying on the results of a government competition that Sig failed to win as evidence of their poor quality it nonsense. Especially when the contracts they did win are ignored. Truth be known, neither Smith and Wesson, nor Glock, won that ATF competition at that time, either. None of the candidates received a contract as a result of that test particular test. And that's not eviendence of Glock's or Smith's poor quality, either.
In the end they are still very good guns, but I wouldn't classify them as great like they once were IMHO.