The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Handguns => Topic started by: MikeO on August 30, 2011, 11:02:59 AM
-
Here we go again... might get it done this time by fiscal 2014.
see: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/08/army-pistols-with-a-shot-at-replacing-m9-82811w
"Your next pistol
Officials are not allowed to discuss the selection process while requirements are being written. But Thomas did say the next pistol would be a commercial, off-the-shelf product.
Narrowing the field is not especially hard. The soldier requirements division must first consider existing programs of record. If another government agency has a pistol program that meets or exceeds the Army’s requirements, that is the one you will get.
There are some strong contenders in that category, and they are not limited to the .45 caliber and 9mm varieties. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in 2010 made a big switch to the .40 caliber, and many military leaders would like to do the same.
Smith and Wesson’s .40 cal M&P nudged the Glock 22 and 27 in the ATF competition. Scores were so close that both received a part of the $80 million contract — and prime standing as the Army enters its search.
“It’s kind of hard to beat the Smith and Wesson M&P right now,” said one industry insider from a competing company, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “It is a polymer gun with high-capacity steel magazines. It has a positive safety and ambidextrous controls ... they simply came out of the gate with the right gun.”
Discuss, don't cuss.
Some "existing programs of record" are close, but no cigar. None had a 25,000 round service life requirement (ATF's was 20,000), and none required a manual safety. The feds (DHS and DOJ) specifically did not want a manual safety. Those specs were in the USAF MHS program the Army adopted, don't know if they will remain.
-
They would not go wrong with either the Smith and Wesson M&P or the Glock. Having owned both I would personally choose the Glock. S&W did a fine job with the M&P, but care and maintanance and proven reliability remain with the Glock.
-
With no thumb safety, I doubt the military is going Glock. They're big on those....
-
I read the article in MarineTimes and noticed that the 40SW versions of the contenders actually stood a chance. I think the Sigs will be a good choice:
It's already in the inventory in 9mm in both the 228/229 and 226, including holsters
DHS and USSS use the 40 versions.
While no manual safety it's DA pull isn't to bad.
-
No HK's....
Preferably American Made...However,.the 25,000 rd. service life is like the unemployment numbers,...they can be skewed.....
IMHO, I think the M&P (hence what the "M" stands for),...is up to snuff...But I'm partial.. ::)
-
I'd go with simple DAO, like Glock, XD or M&P, no da/sa, no safety. Make a whole lineup of sizes available. I'd say make them available in 9mm and .45ACP. Both already in the supply chain. Partial to XD and this could be a push to have SA start production stateside so they'd be "made in the USA".
-
No need to get excited about this article. Considering the institutional conservatism of Big Army, untold millions of rounds of 9x19 ammo already in stock, recent large purchases of new M9's and current budgetary hits being experienced by all services, we won't see a significant change in military sidearm any time soon. I'd wager a fair amount of money that my kids will still see M9's as general issue if they chose to serve...and they're 3 and 5.
-
No need to get excited about this article. Considering the institutional conservatism of Big Army, untold millions of rounds of 9x19 ammo already in stock, recent large purchases of new M9's and current budgetary hits being experienced by all services, we won't see a significant change in military sidearm any time soon. I'd wager a fair amount of money that my kids will still see M9's as general issue if they chose to serve...and they're 3 and 5.
What he said.
Also, remember it will be a primarily political decision.
Not one based on user opinion
-
^^^^^^x2
Politics are driving the boat guys. The Pentagon as stated above just procured an additional 500,000 Beretta's for the military a year or two back. For those already in theater, I doubt they've had more than a break in period let alone 25K rounds through them.
This is a non issue for the foreseeable future and Mitch is correct, they won't go without a mechanical safety any more than they'd take the safety off the the M4 and all of it's variants.
-
...Mitch is correct, they won't go without a mechanical safety any more than they'd take the safety off the the M4 and all of it's variants.
Agreed. No matter how much Glockaholics rend their garments, it won't be one of their favorite pistols unless it's re-engineered to include a manual safety.
-
I know it will never happen but I think the answer to their search is the Para P-14 or similar double stack 1911.
If it was good enough for the last 100 years I don't see why it wouldn't be good enough for the next 100.
At least until they deploy Phasers. ;D
-
The Pentagon as stated above just procured an additional 500,000 Beretta's for the military a year or two back. For those already in theater, I doubt they've had more than a break in period let alone 25K rounds through them.
Not 'zactly. The govt has IDIQ (indefinite delivery/idefinite quantity) contracts w _options_ on up to 450,000 more M9s and up to 18 million more mags. Have only exercised about 10% of those options to date. May not run it out completely if they can sell the idea of a new gun for cheap enough.
Somebody is persistent. FHS, SOF-CP, JCP, CP, AFH, AFFH, MHS... they keep trying. Plenty of units who sold 'em on the idea they needed a compact handgun have bought Glock 19s instead of using the current M11 (SIG P228) for example. The USMC has bought M9A1s (M9 w a rail) and M45 (1911s). The Navy has bought Mk 24 Mod O Combat Assault Pistols (HK45 compact tacticals). There are feet in the door so to speak.
-
As heretical as this will be taken, I just can't see a good reason to switch from 9x19 back to .45 ACP. I've never believed that extra .09" means anything in terms of killing Uncle Sam's enemies. The 9mm will also penetrate intermediate barriers a bit better due to increased velocity. Recoil is less as well. And it's physically easier to make a handy 15+ round 9 than a .45 with the same number of cartridges.
-
As heretical as this will be taken, I just can't see a good reason to switch from 9x19 back to .45 ACP. I've never believed that extra .09" means anything in terms of killing Uncle Sam's enemies. The 9mm will also penetrate intermediate barriers a bit better due to increased velocity. Recoil is less as well. And it's physically easier to make a handy 15+ round 9 than a .45 with the same number of cartridges.
Of course with the extra .090 you don't need as many cartridges ;D
Yes, this probably is going to turn into a 9mm vs .45 debate ;D
Seriously I don't care either way as long as it goes bang every single time I want it to.
Even if one doesn't punch through body armor and the other does, I have to ask myself, "Would you rather be stabbed or hit with a bat ?"
My choice is neither of the above. ;D
-
Of course with the extra .090 you don't need as many cartridges.
Tell that to a Korean War vet! ;)
Yes, this probably is going to turn into a 9mm vs .45 debate ;D
Not from me. That was my first and only comment on the cartridge issue.
-
Tell that to a Korean War vet! ;)
Not from me. That was my first and only comment on the cartridge issue.
Sit back and watch. ;D
The only other point of debate will be every one rooting for their favorite pistol.
I think you answered the question for the foreseeable future with your earlier post.
Yes, they may keep having these competitions and proposals, but until the economy and Congressional mind set change they don't mean crap.
-
The M&P, SIG or Glock.
-
They've been getting a little farther every time. No telling how far they get this time.
It's been hard enough to get everybody within and between the players (USA, USMC, USN, USAF) to agree on what they want, let alone getting the money to pay for it.
What's best for Delta, DEVGRU, and MARSOC, etc isn't necessarliy best for everybody else for example. Or to put it another way, what's best for everybody else probably isn't good enough for Delta, DEVGRU and MARSOC...
-
I wouldn't be surprised if FN's FNP doesn't get that spot...they already handle most of the M16/M4 contracts...they'd have enough clout to get this one too....
-
I shoot both 9mm and .45acp. No matter what cartridge the Government go's with,( witch should be .45acp in my humble opinion.) I would hope they get away from the M9 platform. Just ask the vets who used them, they will give the striaght info on how well it won't perfrom. The Indiana State Police dumped their Berrettas in favor of the Glock 17 (should have been the 21). I still don't understand the armed forces need for a thumb safety unless they want a 1911.
-
The Smith and Wesson .38 Revolvers I carried in the Air Force prior to switching to the M9 Beretta did not have a thumb safety! ;D
-
It did have a looooong 10+ lb double action trigger pull. I remember cops, missile, and munitions troops still managing to ND them too!
If Glocks are safe enough for the FBI, DEA, USMS, and ATF, why not the military? MAybe cuzz federal agents that shoot about 5,000 rounds over months of initial training manage to ND their Glocks about 20 times a year. The DC PD had 120 in about 10 yrs. Imagine what troops who shoot less than 200 rounds in one day of training could do w them. While other militaries around the world seem to be handling Glocks safely, not sure we would be one of them.
Glock has made pistols w safeties for other contracts, could proabably convince the Army to define "commercially available off the shelf" to fit those. Or drop the spec. The military has issued G19s to some, but they were experienced NCOs and "special". Then again, maybe cuzz the military does have some experience w troops w Glocks, no matter how special, is why they want a safety? ;)
-
It did have a looooong 10+ lb double action trigger pull. I remember cops, missile, and munitions troops still managing to ND them too!
If Glocks are safe enough for the FBI, DEA, USMS, and ATF, why not the military? MAybe cuzz federal agents that shoot about 5,000 rounds over months of initial training manage to ND their Glocks about 20 times a year. The DC PD had 120 in about 10 yrs. Imagine what troops who shoot less than 200 rounds in one day of training could do w them. While other militaries around the world seem to be handling Glocks safely, not sure we would be one of them.
Glock has made pistols w safeties for other contracts, could proabably convince the Army to define "commercially available off the shelf" to fit those. Or drop the spec. The military has issued G19s to some, but they were experienced NCOs and "special". Then again, maybe cuzz the military does have some experience w troops w Glocks, no matter how special, is why they want a safety? ;)
Apparently it isn't
-
To go along w the FBI agent who shot himself in the hand, the Marshal who shot himself in the leg... ATF just recently switched from SIGs to Glocks, give 'em time to join the crowd.
-
;D I couldn't find video's of those, but here's a lesson in Glock safety just for you.*
*The rest of us have laughed at it before ;D
-
Just viewed the video and my daughter thought I'd gone insane I was laughing so hard. Thanks for that one Tom. ;D
-
Jus' tryin' to help the kids dog....... ;D
Including the DEA, FBI, ATF,.....etc,... :P
-
I swear to god a saw a video on this very website. It was SHOT '11 and some one was at the Beretta booth looking at all of the beautiful Italian made art when the Beretta rep said that a .45ACP version of the PX4 was the only pistol to actually complete the last round of pistol hunting the .gov did.
For what its worth I don't think there are very many companies that have the capability to make pistols in numbers the .gov would want for the military and besides that I don't think there are many that make a pistol that would actually pass the new gen requirements. You can like x brand all you want but there is a big difference in the way you use a pistol and the way GI joe does.
-
I swear to god a saw a video on this very website. It was SHOT '11 and some one was at the Beretta booth looking at all of the beautiful Italian made art when the Beretta rep said that a .45ACP version of the PX4 was the only pistol to actually complete the last round of pistol hunting the .gov did.
For what its worth I don't think there are very many companies that have the capability to make pistols in numbers the .gov would want for the military and besides that I don't think there are many that make a pistol that would actually pass the new gen requirements. You can like x brand all you want but there is a big difference in the way you use a pistol and the way GI joe does.
He's confused. None of the recent attempts at a new service pistol intended for everybody (JCP, AFH, AFFH, MHS) even started testing; nobody completed any rounds.
The SEALS recently tested some 45s: the winner was the HK45 Compact Tactical, now known as the Mk 24 Mod 0.
All the major players (S&W, Glock, SIG, HK, FN, Beretta,Taurus) could make the pistols in the required amounts, since delivery will be spread out over 5-10 years. Beretta delivered about 320,000 over 5 years back in 1985.
They want a pistol, and the specs will be written w an OTS (off the shelf) requirement. They will have a winner in mind before they even start.
-
I swear to god a saw a video on this very website. It was SHOT '11 and some one was at the Beretta booth looking at all of the beautiful Italian made art when the Beretta rep said that a .45ACP version of the PX4 was the only pistol to actually complete the last round of pistol hunting the .gov did.
I think you're referring to Ben Cook's interview with Nutnfancy at You Tube
-
I don't know guys. Given the future economy, I think they'll pick the HiPoint as the new side arm. ;) ;D (As a point of honesty, I do own a HP 9 mil carbine and like it a lot, so down HP fans.)
Seriously, I hope they pick the S&W M&P. It's a qulity firearm and I like the fact that Americans would be building it for our military. As an "outside choice" I'd like to see Ruger give it a try. I'm sure they want to replace the P-345 with a SR variant and here's a chance to make it "Military friendly" for the trials.
-
Seriously, I hope they pick the S&W M&P. It's a qulity firearm and I like the fact that Americans would be building it for our military.
They already build the M-9. That was the main reason Beretta got the contract in the first place. They agreed to build the Accokeek, Maryland plant, and build the pistol here if they got chosen. They did. It involved..............drum roll please......creating JOBS! This gets to be a lot like "Buying an American car". You don't really know what constitutes "buying American" to begin with?
Would it be better to have Beretta employ American workers in Accokeek, Maryland to build military sidearms here, or go to Sig or H&K who will employ Germans to build them there? As Tom said, this amounts to more political wrangling than anything else. I often wonder just how many of our enemies the M-9 has killed since it's introduction? Probably not as many as Martini's that have been drunk by Appropriation Committee members flapping about it. Bill T.
-
While the Accokeek MD Beretta plant actually predates the M9 contract, not all the M9s were made and/or assembled there.
The first year of the original M9 contract the guns were made and assembled in Italy. The second year they were made in Italy and assembled in the USA. Since then M9s have been made and assembled in the USA.
The US divisions of Glock, SIG, HK, and FN are considered "American" companies as far as the Buy America Act is concerned (as is BUSA - Beretta USA). All of them have production facilities in the US that have been making frames and/or complete pistols for several years now too.
-
While the Accokeek MD Beretta plant actually predates the M9 contract, not all the M9s were made and/or assembled there.
Correct, but Beretta would not have gotten the contract if they did not have the plant here. It gave them a lot of political leverage. My 92 FS was made in Italy, but many of them are made here as well. Bill T.
-
Correct, but Beretta would not have gotten the contract if they did not have the plant here.
Having an existing plant here was not a contract requirement. None of the foreign M9 competitors (Steyr, FN, Walther, HK, SIG, Beretta) had plants here producing the pistols submitted for testing. All of them were capable of doing what Beretta did, which was shift production of that pistol to the USA by the final 2 years of the initial 5 year contract.
Beretta didn't really have a "plant" here either. They had a small facility that assembled parts for pistols made in Italy. A handful of US employees is not a "lot" of political leverage.
The US had "memorandums of understanding" w all our NATO allies to consider each others defense equipment for contracts since the 70s. Italy had some leverage w US military bases in their country, but so did Belgium (FN) and Germany (HK, Walther). The SIG pistol was a joint effort between Switzerland's SIG and Germany's Sauer, and Germany had more US troops and bases by far than Italy did if those levers were to be pulled to make a difference.
The "errornet" keeps coughing up that small Accokeek facility and Italian bases as major players in Beretta getting the M9 contract, but the facts don't really support that.
The biggest reason Beretta got it and SIG didn't was some of the SIGs broke during extended (5K+) endurance testing and none of the Berettas did. If there was any funny business on our end during the final bidding, that was why. If the funny business was on the other end, then Beretta just had better spies than SIG.
Kinda funny considering what happened later (catastrophic Beretta slide failures) eh?
OTOH, the reason SIGs broke and Berettas did not during the testing could be due to... whatever you say, saying so isn't proving so. Numerous lawsuits and govt investigations after the slide fractures could not prove a thing. Why we bought 200,000 more Berettas after the first 300,000, and why we have options on 450,000 more. Things that make ya go hmmmm?
-
Having an existing plant here was not a contract requirement. Beretta didn't really have a "plant" here either. They had a small facility that assembled parts for pistols made in Italy. A handful of US employees is not a "lot" of political leverage.
It was not contractual, but political, as these things always are. You have to realize this has as much to do with getting "the best gun" as Solyndra has to do with "financing the best green company". The Accokeek plant was developed into one of the largest, most modern firearm facilities in the world, that is capable of running lights out for up to 48 hours on a skeleton crew. That would have never happened had they not gotten the M-9 contract.
-
I would say the sig is the most likly,
Several gov. agencys, the coast guard, and operators already use it.
The only question is which exact model.
-
It was not contractual, but political, as these things always are.
Politics and economics favored SIG/Sauer, not Beretta, even w the Accokeek facility factored in.
If lobbying by the govts involved in favor of the competing companies is taken into consideration, the Accokeek plant simply doesn't matter.
Germany (SIG, Walther, HK) had more political leverage (troops and bases) than Italy did. Germany had more economic leverage (US jobs and trade) than Italy did too.
The Accokeek facility is not the leverage you think it was. Beretta would not close it if they lost, that would be cutting off their nose to spite their face; it's an empty threat. Expanding it is no leverage either. No M9s were made and/or assembled in Accokkek for several years. In that 2-3 years SIG, HK, or Walther would have built a plant as big as Beretta ended up w for the same reason Beretta did.
SIG and Beretta made the final M9 cut. The Beretta had the edge because none broke during testing while several SIGs did. Despite that, SIG was in fact declared the apparent winner w their initial low bid. Then the contract was modified (10% more pistols) and there was another round of bidding. SIG kept their same low bid, essentially throwing in the extra guns for free. Beretta dropped their bid 18% and won.
Lottsa funny stuff during M9 testing and bidding going on. The political and economic leverage favored SIG/Germany, not Beretta/Italy. Politics explains why they won at first, even though their guns broke during testing? Better industrial espionage by Beretta during the final bidding explains how they pulled the rug out from under SIG and sealed the deal more than anything else IMO (if you have to explain it any other way than straight up). We'll have to agree to disagree.
-
What ever they pick will probably work well enough.
Will it be the best ? No, it will be the least expensive of the best.
Will every one be happy with the choice ?
Of course not, most likely no one will be completely happy about it.
Will it happen in the immediate future ?
With congress looking to cut about 50% of the defense budget what do you think ?
-
What ever they pick will probably work well enough.
Will it be the best ? No, it will be the least expensive of the best.
Will every one be happy with the choice ?
Of course not, most likely no one will be completely happy about it.
Will it happen in the immediate future ?
With congress looking to cut about 50% of the defense budget what do you think ?
Amen....remember the M16 and McNamara?
Men died, McNamara should have been shot! Has anything really changed politically in the last fifty years?
-
Amen....remember the M16 and McNamara?
Men died, McNamara should have been shot! Has anything really changed politically in the last fifty years?
Only for the worse :-\
-
Amen....remember the M16 and McNamara?
Men died, McNamara should have been shot! Has anything really changed politically in the last fifty years?
Exactly. As long as the dems control both the White House and the Senate, this is like spinning wheels in the mud. Remember the military under Carter, then under Regan. Right now it stands more to reason to hope for a better President, than a better sidearm. At least from a military standpoint. I'll buy more guns than they do under Hussein.
-
Exactly. As long as the dems control both the White House and the Senate, this is like spinning wheels in the mud. Remember the military under Carter, then under Regan. Right now it stands more to reason to hope for a better President, than a better sidearm. At least from a military standpoint. I'll buy more guns than they do under Hussein.
You and Dave buy more guns than they did under FDR ! ;D
Yes I do remember that peanut peddling POS.
We did not have enough ammo for every one to qualify more than every other year.
My Platoon Sgt qualified for welfare and food stamps.
-
Carter was just another reason I decided to leave the Military rather than re-enlist and make a life with it! I separated in Sept '79 because we didn't know who the next POTUS was going to be. Reagan didn't commit until December if I recall!
Things did change under Reagan but it still took time, and money!
I made 564 bucks a month then, by Oct of that same year, I was making 500 bucks a week at GM and nearly 800 a week after I got laid off and started to tend bar!
-
I hit 19 yrs last week. One more year but I need to push out a little. I'd hate to get a retirement letter with BHO's signature on it.
-
I hit 19 yrs last week. One more year but I need to push out a little. I'd hate to get a retirement letter with BHO's signature on it.
I wondered about that when he gave that Marine Hero his MOH a few weeks ago!
-
I wondered about that when he gave that Marine Hero his MOH a few weeks ago!
At least he requested, and was granted, the White House Home Brew Summer Ale. (on the house).
-
All the major players (S&W, Glock, SIG, HK, FN, Beretta,Taurus) could make the pistols in the required amounts, since delivery will be spread out over 5-10 years. Beretta delivered about 320,000 over 5 years back in 1985.
I remember reading in a 1911 book that 1 reason Glock would not get the contract was that they would not allow their design to be licensed to other mfgr. to allow ramp up during a war. During WWII there were lots of contract mfgrs singer sewing machine, etc. for 1911s. Is this not an issue anymore? I would think that most poly pistols would be hard to contract out.
-
I remember reading in a 1911 book that 1 reason Glock would not get the contract was that they would not allow their design to be licensed to other mfgr. to allow ramp up during a war. During WWII there were lots of contract mfgrs singer sewing machine, etc. for 1911s. Is this not an issue anymore? I would think that most poly pistols would be hard to contract out.
Nowadays, nearly all manufacturers offer some type of polymer framed pistol so no, I don't believe it would be any more of an issue than with traditional steel and wood. there would be exactly the same problems with start up, proving out the molds, dies, and tooling, but only the material would actually be different.
Some time , if you get the chance, read up on the bear of a time Rock Island had tooling up for Springfields -03 during WWI.
-
I remember reading in a 1911 book that 1 reason Glock would not get the contract was that they would not allow their design to be licensed to other mfgr. to allow ramp up during a war. During WWII there were lots of contract mfgrs singer sewing machine, etc. for 1911s. Is this not an issue anymore? I would think that most poly pistols would be hard to contract out.
Since S&W, Glock, SIG, HK, Beretta, and Taurus have all expressed a desire to compete in previous and current service pistol competitions over the last 7 years, and all make polymer pistols, looks like it's not an issue to them anymore, if it ever was.
-
Since S&W, Glock, SIG, HK, Beretta, and Taurus have all expressed a desire to compete in previous and current service pistol competitions over the last 7 years, and all make polymer pistols, looks like it's not an issue to them anymore, if it ever was.
I can't imagine it would have been. I mean they would get royalties from all those other producers., In the highly unlikely event that Uncle Sam actually needs more pistols than Gaston (or whomever) can make, they will be at full capacity, and so every one made by someone else is like free money to them.
FQ13
-
I can't imagine it would have been. I mean they would get royalties from all those other producers., In the highly unlikely event that Uncle Sam actually needs more pistols than Gaston (or whomever) can make, they will be at full capacity, and so every one made by someone else is like free money to them.
FQ13
That is not how it has worked.
I don't know about the M-9 but all other US Military weapons have been Govt owned so the Gov could just assign manufacturing to who ever with out regard to patent rights.
That's how everyone and their brother can build 1911's and AR's, the patents are either publicly held or expired.
-
That is not how it has worked.
I don't know about the M-9 but all other US Military weapons have been Govt owned so the Gov could just assign manufacturing to who ever with out regard to patent rights.
That's how everyone and their brother can build 1911's and AR's, the patents are either publicly held or expired.
And hey, you learn something new everyday. I thought manufacturers sold X number of their products and allowed them to be licensed if required. I didn't realize they sold the patent itself.
FQ13
-
For example, the govt had FN make M16A2s for them. I was issued and FN made M16A2 in '94... it was made by FN USA in South Carolina.
Back in the 70s, Brazil contracted w Beretta for the M92 pistol. When the contract expired, Brazil sold the Beretta built plant to Taurus, who sold the guns as the PT92/99. Or sumthin' like that...
-
That is not how it has worked.
I don't know about the M-9 but all other US Military weapons have been Govt owned so the Gov could just assign manufacturing to who ever with out regard to patent rights.
That's how everyone and their brother can build 1911's and AR's, the patents are either publicly held or expired.
Yeah, I think the issue for Glock at the time was that their process of bonding steel and plastic was secret and they would not share it as it was their competitive advantage. They apparently would not bid on the military contract at least that is my memory from this single book...
-
A little trivia I learned the other day, of all the guns John Browning designed up to, and including the BAR, the only one he received royalties on was the Auto 5. He knew he had a winner but Winchester would not give him a deal that included royalties, they got all his other work for a regular pay check. So he broke with them, got the deal he wanted from FN in Belgium and became fairly wealthy on that one design.