RGN Round 2
 

After playing email tag with CMP I was able to get my RGN today! 04-29-21

RGN 25,8XX I was was a little shocked that it was so high a number since I sent in my paperwork on Jan 4th. Now that the smoke is clear I'm just happy to have one. Not a problem on the wait...maybe I will get a call close to the end of the year.

Since the numbers were generated randomly from all received packets, it shouldn't have mattered if you sent it on day one versus last day. You having a number like that actually strengthens the "random" nature of things.

At least you folks are getting RGNs.
Nothing here.

I continue to be amazed that the process hasn't trickled down. As stated, no matter if you got application in on the first day or the last, everyone's application was given a RANDOM NUMBER, which means exactly what the word says. It was random.

Could someone PM me when CMP gets close to 23600 so I don't miss the call? :)
Thanks in advance! :)

I have a Colt dated 1918 and can't wait to get an A2 to add to my collection and with my RGN at 250xx it will be here before i know it, my brother got a service grade with US Army stamped in it in the first round and that's where he served in Vietnam and that's what he wanted, Congrats to all receiving these pieces of history and Thanks to those that have served !

If you actually look at the data we have, that is not true. The majority of low numbers went to those submitted on 1/4. Anyone that submitted in March, received 28,000+. They did assign "random" numbers to the boxes of packages, as they went through them, but the boxes appear to be 1st come first serve. It's fine, they can do it however they see fit but it wasn't communicated that way. The only caveat is, those posting is a fraction of the total submitted, but that's the trend based on the data we do have.

That is what I observed as well looking through the RGN's

So I should be getting close now. Appears 21121 was called today although it's a little past my RGN.

First, @SIG4EVA - this is not personally directed at you and please don't take it that way. But your points are representative of a large number of commenters on this thread as to the "randomness" (or lack thereof) of the process.

Second, "the data we have" is really just a handful of self reported data points. As SIG4EVA even says, "those posting is a fraction of the total submitted." So, we don't have the complete data set, and there's no way to eliminate bias from the points we do have. For example, it's not unreasonable to expect that more applicants with low RGNs are likely to report early in the process simply because of excitement at receiving a low RGN. There is also (obviously) a 100% correlation of low RGNs with pistols already received, and those posts are also where a lot of the data points come from.

Third, we don't know how many applications were postmarked on 4 January. It could be that out of 14K or so total applications, 12K were postmarked on 1-4 and the rest trickled in over the remainder of the 2 month application period. Assuming applications were postmarked and received on an evenly distributed basis over the 2 months is just that, an assumption. If the bulk of applications were postmarked early, then of course the bulk of low RGNs would be assigned to early postmarked applications.

Fourth, we don't know the method used to assign RNGs to applications. But, even if this is true 'They did assign "random" numbers to the boxes of packages, as they went through them, but the boxes appear to be 1st come first serve.' the placing of applications in boxes, is a randomizing process in and of itself. If the "complaint" is that boxes were filled as applications arrived, and therefore that the physical assigning of RGNs to applications may have been chronological, that still doesn't contradict the randomness of the individual RNG. And, we don't even know what order the boxes were actually gone through by CMP. Assuming boxes were processed in the chronological order they were filled is, again, just an assumption.

Fifth, there were no criteria established by CMP 1911 to give precedence or priority to any one applicant over another. Previous CMP customers, 1st time CMP customers, veterans, women, minorities, Americans with Disabilities, you name it. The only selection criterion was that the application be postmarked between January 4th and March 4th, inclusive. And again, we don't know how many applications were postmarked on 1-4, and we have no idea what the distribution of applications across the application window looks like. So this perception that the RGN process was biased toward early applications is simply not founded on actual data.

Finally, if there was no RGN process and CMP simply processed applications in the order received, probably the number of applications postmarked 1-4-21 would have been close to 100%. Even then, the order received by CMP would, be entirely random in and of itself, based on date mailed by the applicant, method of delivery (USPS, UPS, overnight, priority, etc.), all factors outside the control of CMP. The RGN process actually just further randomised an already random assortment of applications. The real value of the RGN process is not that it randomized applications in the first place, but that it assigns sequence numbers that informs applicants their place in the queu, and enables them to track the progress of sales and have at least an idea when to expect a call to select a pistol.

Sorry for the long rant, I just couldn't stand it anymore. And no, I have not already received a pistol nor did I get a low RGN. In fact, I'm one of the 1800 or so who hasn't even been notified of my RGN yet.