>So you can buy
>a full-sized frame that has the 'gun' part in it, and a subcompact
>frame, and when you want to carry your gun, you don't have to go
>through all that paperwork again - just spend a minute disassembling
>the fullsize, popping the chassis into the subcompact frame, and
>reassembling it. The Army wanted this so that the same gun could be
>used within multiple mission parameters, and having common parts for
>everything cuts down on costs.

Why does this make me kind of wince and wonder if they should've called it the M35? I mean, it sounds cool on the face of it, but then reality sets in and you start remembering that nothing which is designed to bake lasagna and polish a floor is ever going to be any good at either one, a lesson the United States armed forces seem determined never to learn.

>Sadly this is unlikely to mean that the market will be flooded with
>surplus M9s in the near future, as that would require an act of
>Congress.

Eh, I don't see why not. A mathematical majority of both houses is currently owned by the NRA.

>And speaking of 1911s - Gryph, have you seen the Hudson H9? It's a
>very interesting design.

I hadn't heard of it. (google) Oh hey, it's a Colt Manhunter. Nifty. MSRP's a little rich for my taste, but maybe it'll catch on and be a little less expensive once they make back their development costs. I hope it does, there aren't enough really interesting things on the market these days—even if their bumf does lean perhaps a little too hard on the "old and busted? new hotness" angle. :)

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.