The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Handguns => Topic started by: MikeO on May 02, 2008, 11:35:23 AM
-
Here we go again...
SOF-CP and FHS merged into JCP, then unmerged back to CP, that got indefinitely postponed... the AFH/Air Force Handgun got shot down... the AFFH/Air Force Future Handgun got shot down... now we have the modular handgun system. May not go anywhere either, but may give us an idea where they want to go. Eventually.
10--Modular Handgun System
Solicitation Number: W52H0928APR08MHS
Agency: Department of the Army
Office: U. S. Army Materiel Command
Location: U.S. Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command - Rock Island
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&m...=core&_cview=0
https://aais.ria.army.mil/AAIS/Solin...8MH/att1ss.pdf
The Program Manager for Soldier Weapons (PM-SW) , on behalf of the US Air Force, has a requirement for a nondevelopmental handgun. This effort will be conducted in three phases consisting of a Competitive Down-selection Phase, System Development & Demonstration (SDD) Phase, and a Full Rate Production (FRP) Phase. This Sources Sought Notice does not reflect a complete listing of all requirements for a Modular Handgun System.
The mandatory weapon system requirements follow. Any vendor not meeting the following mandatory requirements may not be considered a potential source.
System Performance.
• System Accuracy. Accuracy will be assessed by two measures:
a) To a range of 50 meters, when the weapon is mounted in a machine rest or manufacturer’s design rest with a human shooter, dispersion will be no greater than a 4” Circular Error of Probability (CEP).
b) When in the hands of a shooter, the weapon must enable the shooter to successfully engage E-type silhouettes and:
1) Hit each target with 2 shots to the upper torso and one to the head within 7 – 10 seconds at 15 meters.
2) Hit the target with 2 shots at 7 meters within 4 seconds.
• Projectile characteristics. The Handgun System should enable the shooter to produce a wound channel larger than an M882 projectile when firing standard ball (FMJ, non-expanding) ammunition into ballistic gelatin from a distance of up to 25 meters where the cavity is measured from 0-14 inches deep.
• Reliability. The Modular Handgun System shall demonstrate 2,000 Mean Rounds Between Stoppage (MRBS) (operator clearable/correctable stoppages), and 5000 Mean Rounds Between Failures (MRBF) (nonoperator correctable).
• Service Life. The Modular Handgun shall have a minimum service life of 25,000 rounds.
System Characteristics.
• Ergonomics. The Modular Handgun System must accommodate the 5th to 95th percentile of users. Determination will be made based on width, length, grip circumference, location of controls, ambidextrous
controls, etc.
• Target Acquisition Enablers. As a minimum, Mil-Std-1913 rails shall be incorporated on the weapon to enable rail mounted accessories to be attached. Integrated aiming /pointed devices are of interest and will also be evaluated.
• Physical Dimensions: With sights attached and empty magazine inserted in weapon, the following dimensions are not to be exceeded:
a) The full size version shall be no more than 8.7 inches long, 5.8 inches high, and 1.6 inches wide. Weight shall not exceed 36 ounces.
b) The compact version shall be no larger than 7.5 inches long, 5.8 high, and 1.6 inches wide. Weight shall not exceed 34.5 ounces.
• Detection Avoidance: Weapon shall be of a non-reflective neutral color. The MHS shall be operable with sound and flash suppression kit in place.
• Safety Mechanisms: As a minimum, the handgun shall have internal safety mechanisms in place such that a loaded cartridge will not fire if the weapon is dropped from a height of 5 feet onto a concrete or other hard surface. The weapon shall also have an external, manually operated safety button/switch operable with one hand.
-
Gen. "Buzz" Mosley (CSAF) is hell bent to get the AF a new side arm before he leaves his post. I understand he carries a personal .357 when he goes down range. M&P45 would be a nice upgrade for the AF (or anybody for that matter). Looks like Beretta and HK are the only ones who have registred interest so far.
-
"OH NO! Here it comes again!"
Sorry ya'll had to do it, not often I get to use a line from the very song I have in my user name ;D
So I take it that they stopped going for the HK 45? I know at one time they were trying to get it.
-
MikeO
Thanks for the post.
The AF crammed that POS AR15 down our throats in Vietnam. Maybe they will repeat with better results this time with a pistol. [The M16/M4 is much better now, I am told, than the one we had in Vietnam. Indeed I have a RockRiver myself now.]
I know that the Army guys have been wanting a new .45 since before the M9 was approved. But we kept getting shot down on this. Perhaps the AF will suceed this time. I hope so.
We just need to keep trying, because 9mm hardball is not getting the job done according to the reports I am getting from the front. It is an old story.
-
While the AF may be taking the lead, this is intended for everybody. Congress directed the next pistol be a joint project in fact if not name.
You can blame the AF for the M9 too. AF tested 9s in the 70s, liked the Beretta. The Army saw where that was going, took over the JSSAP. We still ended up w the Beretta in 1985.
-
You probably shouldn't take all the blame, the SEALS were using it back then too.
Even if we were to change pistols tomorrow it would take years for them to be distributed. My dad was tested on the 45 until around the Gulf War, and just like every other Marine at the time he didn't like the change in caliber.
-
MikeO
Thanks for reminding me about the AF and the M9. I had forgotten that because I retired before they starting issuing the M9. The M9 was plagued with problems at the start as well as I recall. And the selection was mixed because they selected the SIG as the M11 at the same time.
The selection of the 9 mm cartridge was dictated by congressional funding as I recall. The AF may have been playing politics here again. There was much controversy about the 9 mm at the time. The Ordinance School said that their supposed concurrence was as a result of being asked a question, the wrong question, and having the answer twisted. This was in a small arms class at the Ordinance School in 1981 before there was a selection of the M9. The buzz was that the 9 mm was not going to cut it as our pistol cartridge given the way the US used the pistol in combat. If you recall the Ordinance School did not concur on the 5.56 and were told to stuff it by McNamara because AF GEN LeMay wanted it, we all would get it.
I hope it goes better this time around and there is a selection of a .45 or at the very least a .40. This has been perculating for years and years.
-
The push was on for a 9 minimeter soon after WWII ended. Some were tested in the 50s. After the USAF tested and liked the Beretta in the late 70s, the Army tested several pistols in 81 and again in 84. In 85 we got the Beretta (M9), in the late 80s the the P226, in 91 we got the SIG P228 (M11), and in 96 the .45 MK23 MOD O...
-
While the AF may be taking the lead, this is intended for everybody. Congress directed the next pistol be a joint project in fact if not name.
You can blame the AF for the M9 too. AF tested 9s in the 70s, liked the Beretta. The Army saw where that was going, took over the JSSAP. We still ended up w the Beretta in 1985.
Thanks for the info MikeO.
Is this another case where Congress does not know what is going on? The Army (brass) has been so satisfied with the M9, it recently ordered another 25,000 pistols from Beretta to be supplied over the next two years.
If it is a "joint project", and a new direction in the caliber of handgun is on the horizon, is our government wasting our money (again)? Or is this project only for the Air Force who wants to replace 100,000 Beretta's?
-
The Army was fielding 9mm handguns to SOF in Vietnam, the S&W 39 comes to mind and with a suppressor it was called a "hush puppy". From the articles and information I've been reading/hearing is that the big Army and Navy are fine with the 9mm for some time to come, the Marines and Air Force want a new pistol caliber.
Army I think its because 9mm is cheaper than 45 and for Navy I think its because the SEALS prefer it over the 45, most combat soldiers aren't trained well enough to use the 9mm cartridge and its capacity to its fullest advantage, SEALS however, are or at least pretty close to it so they like the capacity (plus some of them use hollowpoints) over the size of the round.
-
The Army was fielding 9mm handguns to SOF in Vietnam, the S&W 39 comes to mind and with a suppressor it was called a "hush puppy". From the articles and information I've been reading/hearing is that the big Army and Navy are fine with the 9mm for some time to come, the Marines and Air Force want a new pistol caliber.
Army I think its because 9mm is cheaper than 45 and for Navy I think its because the SEALS prefer it over the 45, most combat soldiers aren't trained well enough to use the 9mm cartridge and its capacity to its fullest advantage, SEALS however, are or at least pretty close to it so they like the capacity (plus some of them use hollowpoints) over the size of the round.
Thanks for the information Neon Knight. Being one who was drafted during Vietnam I don't know about your information concerning the SOF in Vietnam as well as the "hush puppy". Are you getting the information on hush puppy from a book written by Alan Paulson?
I still think that the government may be wasting our money on this project.
-
I'm sorry it was the SEALS that I was thinking about! My apologies!
There were pistol trials in 1949 for a 9mm and the S&W 39 was one of them, along with the Colt lightweight commander 9mm and I think a few other. The SEALS like the 9mm and in Vietnam many used the S&W Mk 22 Mod 0 hush puppy for taking out dogs and sentries. Also I remembered that Richard Marcinko in his book Rogue Warrior talked about using one in Vietnam.
There's also a book called The Weapons of Navy SEALS and it goes into the SEAL/9mm history. I knew I wasn't completely crazy.
-
Marcinko also made no bones about the fact that he loaded his 9mm rounds so hot he actually broke the Beretta. John Weismann, being a Heckler and Koch shill, took the opportunity to bad mouth the Beretta every chance he got, but Marcinko liked the design, even if he DID hotrod it to death.
-
Neon Knight
The out come of the 9 mm trials in the 40s was that the decision was made to stick with the .45 as the more effective round as I recall. Same story that came out of the Philippines so long ago that led to the .45 replacing the ineffective .38.
Several friends of mine did purchase the M39 with their own funds to take to Vietnam. I took a M19 .357 Mag as my every day sidearm -- but when I knew the stuff was going to hit the fan I borrowed a .45 for the operation. We got there early --1963,64,65 -- most of us were there when the Army and Marines finally arrived in force. In those days personal weapons were allowed for officers and NCOs.
There was a lot of 9 mm available for our submachine guns at the time. So, there was free ammo for the M39. I had to buy my own .357 ammo and take it with me.
-
Neon Knight
The out come of the 9 mm trials in the 40s was that the decision was made to stick with the .45 as the more effective round as I recall. Same story that came out of the Philippines so long ago that led to the .45 replacing the ineffective .38.
Several friends of mine did purchase the M39 with their own funds to take to Vietnam. I took a M19 .357 Mag as my every day sidearm -- but when I knew the stuff was going to hit the fan I borrowed a .45 for the operation. We got there early --1963,64,65 -- most of us were there when the Army and Marines finally arrived in force. In those days personal weapons were allowed for officers and NCOs.
There was a lot of 9 mm available for our submachine guns at the time. So, there was free ammo for the M39. I had to buy my own .357 ammo and take it with me.
Thanks for the lesson Billstryker, I knew the pistol trials didn't lead to anything but its amazing we have such a short term memory isn't it? I thought they stopped personally owned weapons long before that, very interesting. I'll bet it was kind of a bummer to have to bring your own ammo.
-
Neon Knight,
Re your, "I'll bet it was kind of a bummer to have to bring your own ammo."
Never gave it a thought. I had a wife and a baby on the way. I wanted to get home to them. So, I bought the best .357 ammo I could find -- hollow points -- and was ready to fight my way off the plane since my M19 was loaded. We did not have speed loaders back then but we did have dump boxes that would dump six rounds in your hand all at once. I felt ready. I wore that M19 all the time except when on patrol along with a little Bayard .32 for backup.
I rarely carried a handgun on patrol, only when I knew I was going into a fight and then it was a .45 for a number of reasons. Ammo resupply being only one of them. I finally settled on an M2 carbine as the best available weapon for what I was doing as a junior infantry officer - 1LT. It was light, handy and you could carry a heck of a lot of ammo in one ammo pouch. When I felt I needed a backup to the M2, I would carry the .45.
-
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/04/military_handguns_070425w/
Congress halts Air Force plan for new handgun
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Apr 26, 2007 10:36:43 EDT
"Congressional negotiators have put a hold on the Air Force's plans to
replace the M9 9mm handgun so the Defense Department can consider the
possibility of a joint plan for upgrading or replacing pistols.
The M9 is the standard issue sidearm for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and
U.S. Special Operations Command, but the Air Force asked for $89.8 million
in the 2007 wartime supplemental appropriations bill to start purchasing a
replacement.
The request was not included in the compromise version of the bill approved
Monday by congressional negotiators. Instead, lawmakers would provide $5
million for a study of the joint sidearm requirements, including any
service-unique requirements, according to a report accompanying the bill."
This stuff changes direction every time the wind blows... ;)
This is through the Army on behalf of the Air Force but everybody has their eye on it.
-
At least we get another $5 Million dollar study!
-
Whats best for the operators (a full size fighting handgun in .45 ACP) isn't necesarrily best for most of the rest of the military who carry handguns. Law enforcement, security, pilots, armor, and aircrews, etc would do fine w a compact pistol. The US Coast Guard does fine w the compact SIG 229 in .40, NCIS does fine w the comapct SIG 239/229 in .40, and the compact HK P2000 in .40 rides the border just fine w CBP... many in the military would like to go that way too, but the ones who want another big .45 and a manual safety (remember the MK23 MOD O?) are sticking to their guns. ;)