Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/3/2004 10:47:27 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/3/2004 10:52:12 AM EST by REXLOGIC]

www.fbodaily.com/archive/2004/10-October/03-Oct-2004/FBO-00687867.htm

or

procnet.pica.army.mil/FBO/SrcSgt/W15QKN-05-X-0425/W15QKN-05-X-0425.htm

W15QKN-05-X-0425
FedBizOpps notice Date: 2004-10-01

Description:


The US Army at TACOM-ARDEC is seeking information about commercial, off-the-

shelf, non-developmental item (NDI) pistols, which can meet the Army’s needs

(with only minor modifications if required) for a future handgun system.


The focus of the future handgun system (FHS) is to augment close quarters

battle and security/force protection operations, and to offer significant

improvements over the current handgun system. Additionally, the FHS will

support the requirement for a personal defense weapon. The FHS will provide

increases in terminal ballistic potential, durability, and reliability over the

currently fielded M9/9x19mm and M11/9x19mm pistols. Specific features and

characteristics of the FHS will include, but are not limited to, an integral

accessory rail, enhanced day/night sighting capability, configurable grips (to

suit the individual soldier’s need), and will permit the use of a sound

suppressor when the threat/mission requires. The FHS will use munitions that

are optimized for Army full-spectrum contingencies/applications. The FHS will

also have a suitable, multi-configurable, holster(s) and ammunition carrier(s).


Information about existing production pistols and/or pistols of this type that

are currently in development and associated ammunition that offers increased

terminal ballistic potential is desired.


Interested parties are requested to submit a description of their product(s)

along with other available information (sketches, drawings, specifications,

brochures, and/or test results that describe current capability/on-going

development) to: U.S. Army ARDEC, ATTN: David J. DeCandia, Contract

Specialist, U.S. Army TACOM, Picatinny Center for Contracting and Commerce,

AMSTA-AQ-APD, Building 10, Picatinny Arsenal, N.J. 07806-5000 EMAIL ADDRESS -

decandia@pica.army.mil.

This Market Survey is for information and planning purposes only, and does not

constitute a Request for Proposal (RFP). This Market Survey is not to be

construed as a commitment by the U. S. Government. If a formal solicitation is

generated at a later date, a solicitation notice will be published. No award

will be made as a result of this Market Survey. All information is to be

submitted at no cost or obligation to the Government. The Government reserves

the right to reject, in whole or in part, any private sector input as a result

of this Market Survey. Respondents will not be notified of the results of this

survey or results of information submitted. Please submit your responses NLT

1700 EST, 1 November 2004.

Link Posted: 10/3/2004 12:26:46 PM EST
Sounds like a somewhat modified Kimber Series I with rail to me, or maybe even a...gasp...Colt in similar form.
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 3:08:30 PM EST
From the 1911 back to the 1911? We can hope.
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 3:14:42 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 3:22:59 PM EST
Nothing to see here. Move along
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 3:24:06 PM EST
USP tactical would be nice for this. All it needs is grips.
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 3:34:20 PM EST
BING, BING,BING,BING,BING,BING,BING,BING,BING,BING!­!!
Lumpy wins the Cupie Doll. This is probably the payback to H&K for building the plant outside Benning!
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 3:36:08 PM EST
Damn....there going to end up with another HK boat anchor.
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 5:40:11 PM EST
I hope it goes to the USP.
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 5:44:54 PM EST
HK P2000 anyone.
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 5:50:28 PM EST
Notice they want increased terminal balistic potential? New caliber baby!
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 6:03:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By ikor:
Sounds like a somewhat modified Kimber Series I with rail to me, or maybe even a...gasp...Colt in similar form.



The USP would probably be a better choice...

Personally, I'd rather see a Beretta 92 with accessory rail...

Remember: .45ACP is NOT an option... Fortunately, neither is Glock...
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 6:04:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Notice they want increased terminal balistic potential? New caliber baby!



New bullet design, or a multiple-caliber pistol (just change bbls) most likely...

9mm NATO is as mandatory as 5.56mm -> Not going annyhere...
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 6:15:11 PM EST
Being that the increased lethality requirement was issued as part of the pistol market survey, leads me to believe that they are considering other options. It would be nice to move towards a better caliber, or at least make expanding ammo legal under UCMJ.
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 9:41:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By innocent_bystander:
Damn....there going to end up with another HK boat anchor.



I happen to love my HK boat anchor thank you very much
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 12:06:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Notice they want increased terminal balistic potential? New caliber baby!



Notice they are looking for "increased terminal ballistics and lethality" over the Beretta and Sig 9mms...nothing at all said about the .45. They will play with some new stuff, but most likely it will be a .45 when it all shakes out.
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 12:33:32 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/4/2004 12:34:38 AM EST by Lumpy196]
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 12:36:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Lets pray its not an invitation to "10mm NATO."



Cheap 10mm WOO!!!
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 12:47:10 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 1:34:41 AM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Being that the increased lethality requirement was issued as part of the pistol market survey, leads me to believe that they are considering other options. It would be nice to move towards a better caliber, or at least make expanding ammo legal under UCMJ.



Thats the fight to take to Geneva, the military cannot make that decision. If that linternational law was appealed or revoked, then it would give the enemy the ability to use bullets against me that are designed to kill, and I dont like the thought of getting hit with a nosler partition in combat. I like the FMJ bullets as they are.
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 2:39:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By Taxman:

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Lets pray its not an invitation to "10mm NATO."



Cheap 10mm WOO!!!



10mm NATO = .40S&W



*SHIVER*

Make it go away mommy....make it go away....
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 4:10:01 AM EST
It sounds like it could be a sig 226/229. They could easily change the .357 barrel out with a .40 and use the same slide, frame, magazines etc and have two in one.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 12:38:57 PM EST
SVI/STI(type) with interchangeable breechfaces?


9mm
9x23
.40
.357
.38 Super
10mm
.45


You could probably build the grip in several configurations since it is a modular piece.

Just a thought.


96Ag
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 12:47:35 PM EST
It will be an HK XM-8 cut down to pistol configuration firing a 556 from a 5 in barrell
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 12:55:23 PM EST
Sounds like a P2000, P99, or the new Beretta to me. With the "configurable grips" requirement, those are about the only choices out there. And I bet polygonal rifling will be argued as a way to get better performance out of 124gr ball.



BTW, for you guys getting all excited about them maybe going back to .45 or even a 1911 style, I think you should start picturing a pile of burning puppies or something, cuz I don’t think it'll happen.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 12:55:23 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/6/2004 12:55:45 PM EST by Marksman14]
Walther P99 with night sights and a threaded barrel , and get rid of the proprietary rail.

Or the 9mm USP with the threaded barrel, with night sights of course. Kinda screwed on the grip but oh well...it meets every other requirement.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 12:58:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By nf9648:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Being that the increased lethality requirement was issued as part of the pistol market survey, leads me to believe that they are considering other options. It would be nice to move towards a better caliber, or at least make expanding ammo legal under UCMJ.



Thats the fight to take to Geneva, the military cannot make that decision. If that linternational law was appealed or revoked, then it would give the enemy the ability to use bullets against me that are designed to kill, and I dont like the thought of getting hit with a nosler partition in combat. I like the FMJ bullets as they are.



Its the Hague Convention, to which the US was never signatory anyway, which banned projectiles designed to cause suffering. Commonly this is thought to mean expanding, but thats a legal opinion, its doesn't clearly state that.

The people we go to war against will probably not care about the convention.

If the UCMJ were to be changed today, we could issue JHPs tonight.

JAG ruled that NSW could use 230 JHPs in the HK Mk23, so long as it was used against terrorists and the like.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 1:00:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By Taxman:

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Lets pray its not an invitation to "10mm NATO."



Cheap 10mm WOO!!!



10mm NATO = .40S&W



I would like to see the 10mm be the service cartridge.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 2:39:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By nf9648:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Being that the increased lethality requirement was issued as part of the pistol market survey, leads me to believe that they are considering other options. It would be nice to move towards a better caliber, or at least make expanding ammo legal under UCMJ.



Thats the fight to take to Geneva, the military cannot make that decision. If that linternational law was appealed or revoked, then it would give the enemy the ability to use bullets against me that are designed to kill, and I dont like the thought of getting hit with a nosler partition in combat. I like the FMJ bullets as they are.



The international law on ammo is the Hague, and we never signed (although we complied).
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 6:34:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By nf9648:
I hope it goes to the USP.



+1
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 7:58:35 PM EST
Glock!

A perfect pistol for military issue if there ever was one. 33 total parts, low-maintenence, rust-proof tenifer, and utter reliability.

For those about to say "Ka-boom", screw you! Not a problem with the 9 years I had my Glock 22 .40cal or the 5 years with my Glock 17 9mm.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 8:11:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lee0302:
Glock!

A perfect pistol for military issue if there ever was one. 33 total parts, low-maintenence, rust-proof tenifer, and utter reliability.

For those about to say "Ka-boom", screw you! Not a problem with the 9 years I had my Glock 22 .40cal or the 5 years with my Glock 17 9mm.



Forget the kaboom...

Glock's single-action pull is worse than most makers double-action pull...

No manual safety...

No hammer...

Sorry, PASS...
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 8:14:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Lee0302:
Glock!

A perfect pistol for military issue if there ever was one. 33 total parts, low-maintenence, rust-proof tenifer, and utter reliability.

For those about to say "Ka-boom", screw you! Not a problem with the 9 years I had my Glock 22 .40cal or the 5 years with my Glock 17 9mm.



Forget the kaboom...

Glock's single-action pull is worse than most makers double-action pull...

No manual safety...

No hammer...

Sorry, PASS...



Add 'no restrike capability'.

Link Posted: 10/6/2004 8:27:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Lee0302:
Glock!

A perfect pistol for military issue if there ever was one. 33 total parts, low-maintenence, rust-proof tenifer, and utter reliability.

For those about to say "Ka-boom", screw you! Not a problem with the 9 years I had my Glock 22 .40cal or the 5 years with my Glock 17 9mm.



Forget the kaboom...

Glock's single-action pull is worse than most makers double-action pull...

No manual safety...

No hammer...

Sorry, PASS...



Add 'no restrike capability'.




You are probably better going strait into "tap rack bang" anyway . . .
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 8:34:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Lee0302:
Glock!

A perfect pistol for military issue if there ever was one. 33 total parts, low-maintenence, rust-proof tenifer, and utter reliability.

For those about to say "Ka-boom", screw you! Not a problem with the 9 years I had my Glock 22 .40cal or the 5 years with my Glock 17 9mm.



Forget the kaboom...

Glock's single-action pull is worse than most makers double-action pull...

No manual safety...

No hammer...

Sorry, PASS...



Add 'no restrike capability'.




Implied by 'no hammer'
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 9:04:46 PM EST
Sounds like the Walther P99 or HK P2000 are the best candidates. Both are great and I don't think they could go wrong with either one.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 12:19:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By Lee0302:
Glock!

A perfect pistol for military issue if there ever was one. 33 total parts, low-maintenence, rust-proof tenifer, and utter reliability.

For those about to say "Ka-boom", screw you! Not a problem with the 9 years I had my Glock 22 .40cal or the 5 years with my Glock 17 9mm.



While things do change, Glock had the opportunity to enter the last re-test for continuation of the M9 contract. They refused because they were not willing to divulge details of their Tenifer finish nor to allow other manufacturers to be allowed to supply parts if needed. Remember, should the military need a bunch more handguns in a big hurry...a la WWII...they can, and will, farm out production in a heartbeat to anyone capable of delivering guns quickly.

Still, there are a great many ground troops who would love to see the Glock adopted, and Glock just might change its mind about the other stuff.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 12:35:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Lee0302:
Glock!

A perfect pistol for military issue if there ever was one. 33 total parts, low-maintenence, rust-proof tenifer, and utter reliability.

For those about to say "Ka-boom", screw you! Not a problem with the 9 years I had my Glock 22 .40cal or the 5 years with my Glock 17 9mm.



Forget the kaboom...

Glock's single-action pull is worse than most makers double-action pull...

No manual safety...

No hammer...

Sorry, PASS...



Add 'no restrike capability'.




Implied by 'no hammer'



Dave, some striker fired pistols, such as the P99, have a restrike capability.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 1:58:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By DarkKnight:
USP tactical would be nice for this. All it needs is grips.



++
But then, that wuold be too easy & fiscally efficient.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 5:57:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By Marksman14:

Originally Posted By innocent_bystander:
Damn....there going to end up with another HK boat anchor.



I happen to love my HK boat anchor thank you very much



+1
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 6:24:22 AM EST

Forget the kaboom...

Glock's single-action pull is worse than most makers double-action pull...

No manual safety...

No hammer...

Sorry, PASS...



Glock safe action trigger-The 5 pound single-action-like trigger is a key merit, every trigger pull is the same unlike a DA/SA. Plenty of competition shooters (IPSC, IDPA, etc) have no problem winning/scoring high with it. Besides, have you tried a Beretta DA/SA trigger? This issue is wholly personal taste.

Manual Safety-In a defensive combat weapon I like having no switch to flip in the split-second I need to use it or forgetting it altogether.

Hammer (restrike capability)-Though I've never had the need to restrike, like DonS mentioned, the doctrine for misfires is tap-rack-bang.

The benefit of having a pistol that is striker-fired, non DA/SA, with no external hammer or manual safety (or decocker) is fewer parts as evident in the 33 total parts in the Glock. Have you ever looked inside an HK USP or Sig? For a military weapon this is a salient point. I would venture to say theoretically, that Glocks used in military service would almost never need major parts replacement in their entire service life and the low maintenance is selling factor.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 9:24:28 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2004 9:27:26 AM EST by brewsky101]

Originally Posted By Marksman14:
Walther P99 with night sights and a threaded barrel , and get rid of the proprietary rail. Done!



What more could you ask for?
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 9:32:46 AM EST
Kel-Tec P-32.
If you are going to fuss about bullets being less lethal, why don't you just use a less lethal round. stupid line of crap.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 10:16:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By Lee0302:

Forget the kaboom...

Glock's single-action pull is worse than most makers double-action pull...

No manual safety...

No hammer...

Sorry, PASS...



Glock safe action trigger-The 5 pound single-action-like trigger is a key merit, every trigger pull is the same unlike a DA/SA. Plenty of competition shooters (IPSC, IDPA, etc) have no problem winning/scoring high with it. Besides, have you tried a Beretta DA/SA trigger? This issue is wholly personal taste.

Manual Safety-In a defensive combat weapon I like having no switch to flip in the split-second I need to use it or forgetting it altogether.

Hammer (restrike capability)-Though I've never had the need to restrike, like DonS mentioned, the doctrine for misfires is tap-rack-bang.

The benefit of having a pistol that is striker-fired, non DA/SA, with no external hammer or manual safety (or decocker) is fewer parts as evident in the 33 total parts in the Glock. Have you ever looked inside an HK USP or Sig? For a military weapon this is a salient point. I would venture to say theoretically, that Glocks used in military service would almost never need major parts replacement in their entire service life and the low maintenance is selling factor.

It isn't whether or not you agree or can overcome the "problems' with the Glock. The problem is that the US Army requires those features (or at least, they did when they tested the last line of pistols, which is why Glock wasn't chosen then, either).
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 10:19:25 AM EST
hold your breath
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 10:37:34 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2004 10:43:03 AM EST by _DR]

Originally Posted By brewsky101:

Originally Posted By Marksman14:
Walther P99 with night sights and a threaded barrel , and get rid of the proprietary rail. Done!



What more could you ask for?
www.praxagora.com/lunde/WaltherP99FAQ/VIII/p99-as.jpg



What more could I ask for?

This:

HKp2000
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 12:31:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By ikor:
Sounds like a somewhat modified Kimber Series I with rail to me, or maybe even a...gasp...Colt in similar form.



The USP would probably be a better choice...

Personally, I'd rather see a Beretta 92 with accessory rail...

Remember: .45ACP is NOT an option... Fortunately, neither is Glock...

Yeah, they shouldn't have anything that's simple and works.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 12:34:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Glock's single-action pull is worse than most makers double-action pull...




Proof you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Have you even shot a Glock?
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 2:10:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By voilsb:

Originally Posted By Lee0302:

Forget the kaboom...

Glock's single-action pull is worse than most makers double-action pull...

No manual safety...

No hammer...

Sorry, PASS...



Glock safe action trigger-The 5 pound single-action-like trigger is a key merit, every trigger pull is the same unlike a DA/SA. Plenty of competition shooters (IPSC, IDPA, etc) have no problem winning/scoring high with it. Besides, have you tried a Beretta DA/SA trigger? This issue is wholly personal taste.

Manual Safety-In a defensive combat weapon I like having no switch to flip in the split-second I need to use it or forgetting it altogether.

Hammer (restrike capability)-Though I've never had the need to restrike, like DonS mentioned, the doctrine for misfires is tap-rack-bang.

The benefit of having a pistol that is striker-fired, non DA/SA, with no external hammer or manual safety (or decocker) is fewer parts as evident in the 33 total parts in the Glock. Have you ever looked inside an HK USP or Sig? For a military weapon this is a salient point. I would venture to say theoretically, that Glocks used in military service would almost never need major parts replacement in their entire service life and the low maintenance is selling factor.

It isn't whether or not you agree or can overcome the "problems' with the Glock. The problem is that the US Army requires those features (or at least, they did when they tested the last line of pistols, which is why Glock wasn't chosen then, either).



Who cares about the actual requirements for the contract when they could just get glocks and have perfection???

BTW, it's time for another installment of "ask a glock fanatic":

Dear Glock Fanatic:

I'm looking for a 6 inch .44 magnum revolver in stainless steel. Which one do you recommend?

Signed,

Searching for a revolver.

---

Dear Searching for a Glock

Get a glock. They rule. Everything else suxxors.

Signed,

The Glock Fanatic.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 6:34:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By brewsky101:

Originally Posted By Marksman14:
Walther P99 with night sights and a threaded barrel , and get rid of the proprietary rail. Done!



What more could you ask for?
www.praxagora.com/lunde/WaltherP99FAQ/VIII/p99-as.jpg



You can scare your enemy with the looks of the pistol, same goes for the XD. I think a standard USP would fit the bill just fine or the beretta 92 vertec to replace the old style beretta.
Top Top