[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Predict New Military Handgun (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 3/19/2016 9:30:40 AM EDT
|
Lets see what the early consensus is on which gun will win the military trials. Not taking into account the caliber as that remains uncertain.
Glock 17/19 S&W M&P HK VP Sig 320 Ruger American Beretta APX Walther PPQ FN-S Poll Incoming 
|
|
If they really change it, and that's a very big if, I'm betting on the M&P. Would not be my personal choice, but I think it's the clear choice in these politically charged times.
The real money is on keeping the obsolete Beretta (basic architecture dates to the pre-1938 Walther P.38 design) because side arms are a total afterthought in modern military thinking, and because, money. They already have the things, and all the infrastructure for sort of maintaining them. Nothing will change. |
|
Is the Sig available with a thumb safety?
If not, no sale to the .mil. The Sig would be my personal choice on that list, I have fired one and if I wasn't so deep in Walther P99s I'd have one, but I voted for the one I thought that would really win the contract, if it ever comes to that. |
|
Beretta M9 because the military can't get out of its own way with weapon decisions.
Although the source is the enquirer, this is amusing. "We are not exactly redesigning how to go to the moon, right?" Milley said. "This is a pistol. ... And arguably, it is the least lethal and important weapon system in the Department of Defense inventory."
Milley also criticized the lengthy testing process for MHS that's slated to cost $17 million. "The testing -- I got a briefing the other day -- the testing for this pistol is two years," Milley said. "Two years to test technology that we know exists. You give me $17 million on the credit card, I'll call Cabelas tonight, and I'll outfit every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine with a pistol and I'll get a discount on it for bulk buys." |
|
Quoted: this Quoted: Quoted: They will probably do like they have with "replacing the M-16/M-4" and decide that the M-92 is adequate and stick with it. this |
|
Quoted:
This again. If they do change pistols, I would be very doubtful they would select one without a manual safety. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They will probably do like they have with "replacing the M-16/M-4" and decide that the M-92 is adequate and stick with it. this This again, again. The M9 works well enough and is extremely reliable if they'd just maintain it. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
This again. If they do change pistols, I would be very doubtful they would select one without a manual safety. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They will probably do like they have with "replacing the M-16/M-4" and decide that the M-92 is adequate and stick with it. this +1. This. My bet is on the Smith and Wesson M&P |
|
Quoted:
This again, again. The M9 works well enough and is extremely reliable if they'd just maintain it. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They will probably do like they have with "replacing the M-16/M-4" and decide that the M-92 is adequate and stick with it. this This again, again. The M9 works well enough and is extremely reliable if they'd just maintain it. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I agree with this as well. The M9 is a good pistol. What needs improvement is the Mil's maintenance and recoil spring/small part replacement schedule. |
|
Quoted: Beretta M9 because the military can't get out of its own way with weapon decisions. Although the source is the enquirer, this is amusing. Quoted: Beretta M9 because the military can't get out of its own way with weapon decisions. Although the source is the enquirer, this is amusing. "We are not exactly redesigning how to go to the moon, right?" Milley said. "This is a pistol. ... And arguably, it is the least lethal and important weapon system in the Department of Defense inventory." Milley also criticized the lengthy testing process for MHS that's slated to cost $17 million. "The testing -- I got a briefing the other day -- the testing for this pistol is two years," Milley said. "Two years to test technology that we know exists. You give me $17 million on the credit card, I'll call Cabelas tonight, and I'll outfit every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine with a pistol and I'll get a discount on it for bulk buys." |
|
The G19 will only be for SPECOPS and other narrowly focused units, it will NEVER be the general issue sidearm, unless it is equipped with an external thumb safety.
Contrary to the popular mythology on this board, the G19 is NOT the answer to every question posed regarding hand guns. |
|
Quoted:
Britain just switched to Glocks Quoted:
Quoted:
There will never be a standard issue NATO military sidearm without an external safety. Britain just switched to Glocks MoD Glocks have a manual push button style safety like an SA-80. At least I recall seeing pictures of ones that did. I think they were designed for a Mexican contract, and I recall reading that the Brits adopted one with a similar safety. |
|
Quoted:
I was......speaking in general terms.  Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They will probably do like they have with "replacing the M-16/M-4" and decide that the M-92 is adequate and stick with it. M92A1 as purchased by the Marines. I was......speaking in general terms. Not disagreeing with you. Since the M92A1 is already in stores, the Army will call it an "improved" M92, while touting the advantages of already trained armorers and small parts stores. I don't know about the Army M9s, but every USAF one I ever saw was beat to Hell and back again. |
|
Quoted:
Not disagreeing with you. Since the M92A1 is already in stores, the Army will call it an "improved" M92, while touting the advantages of already trained armorers and small parts stores. I don't know about the Army M9s, but every USAF one I ever saw was beat to Hell and back again. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They will probably do like they have with "replacing the M-16/M-4" and decide that the M-92 is adequate and stick with it. M92A1 as purchased by the Marines. I was......speaking in general terms. Not disagreeing with you. Since the M92A1 is already in stores, the Army will call it an "improved" M92, while touting the advantages of already trained armorers and small parts stores. I don't know about the Army M9s, but every USAF one I ever saw was beat to Hell and back again. I hate being that guy but you mean the M9a1. |
|
Quoted:
MoD Glocks have a manual push button style safety like an SA-80. At least I recall seeing pictures of ones that did. I think they were designed for a Mexican contract, and I recall reading that the Brits adopted one with a similar safety. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There will never be a standard issue NATO military sidearm without an external safety. Britain just switched to Glocks MoD Glocks have a manual push button style safety like an SA-80. At least I recall seeing pictures of ones that did. I think they were designed for a Mexican contract, and I recall reading that the Brits adopted one with a similar safety. No, the L131A1 does not have any additional manual safety. Its a standard GEN4 G17. |
|
Well thus far the following have opted out
H&K Ruger Walther CZ Glock has been quiet on the whole thing, not sure if they’re in or out. S&W will submit a “new M&P” presumably one that meets the criteria. Beretta has submitted the APX Sig has submitted the 320 Detonics has submitted their modular 1911. I see about a 10% chance at best this thing will go all the way through. If it does, I think it will come down to Beretta and Sig once again. |
|
Problem is you can't sole source a purchase this big, it goes against government regulations...even though the G19 would be a damn decent choice. What the military is trying to do with the MHS is solid reasoning; they're trying to elevate the current state of the art of the handgun; not a bad idea. What they're asking for would be great for a very large organization with a wide variety of needs from a handgun. And the modular concept is VERY sound from the standpoint of maintenance. Sure that kind of modularity doesn't mean much to individual users like us, but to a huge military like ours, it would be a Godsend. People just don't understand the pruchasing process and WHY it's so convoluted. It's certainly not because the military likes all the red tape. It's because the bidders cause so much trouble through the process, but mostly after the selection is made. Example; Boeing didn't win the bid for the KC-46A; their lawyers won it after Airbus was awarded the contract. The problem is, the RFP is a bit overwhelming. And unfortunately it kinda has to be. In the past 5 years most military contracts awarded end up in litigation, so about 200 of those pages is legal crap to make the award air tight. |
|
Quoted:
they won't change it somewhere in the pentagon is a colonel that wants to be a general. so he cooked up that if he ran a test to replace an issued arm he will get a very good OER so every few years the pentagon gets a new colonel & we get a new test  I'm no expert, but it seems like it's probably about time for a change though.... |
|
Quoted:
Problem is you can't sole source a purchase this big, it goes against government regulations...even though the G19 would be a damn decent choice. Quoted:
Problem is you can't sole source a purchase this big, it goes against government regulations...even though the G19 would be a damn decent choice. |
|
The M9 was sole sourced from Beretta on the condition we buy it and continue to get a refueling station for the Navy in the Med and keep the current location for the 173 Airborne Brigade there.
It was international politics then, and no reason to think that will change. After all, the pistol is the LEAST IMPORTANT weapon in the inventory, says the boss. He's asking the Pentagon to get out of the way wasting money and it's an under the table appeal to Congress. The contract will go to the consortium who provides the ammo, parts, etc. Not just the gun. Listing the gun only on the poll is deceiving as the contract once awarded is parceled out to the overseer, not the gun maker. The TDP for the gun becomes .Gov Property same as the M4. Two or three companies might wind up producing the sidearm same as the 1911, the M16, etc etc. It could be bid as a subcontract. Like, S&W plus SIG making a Glock based firearm. Then we get to play "Which G19 do you prefer, the Glock, S&W, or SIG?" There will be collectors attempting to get their hands on them just to compare who has the better fit and finish. Somebody might get their contract cut short or not extended and we wind up with a whole new generation of "Singer" and "Union Switch and Railway" guns in inventory. BTW, what will the new guns nomenclature be? M13? |
| I know not everyone is a fan of the Beretta 92 series/design, but the pistol seems to work fairly well and is certainly durable enough. I am unsure that a change is needed all that much. I could see switching to the M9A1 or the M9A3 in order to improve or modernize, but dumping the Beretta all together seems like a waste. If you want to rectify the problems with the M9s you would likely have to change calibers as well. In the end what would any of the pistols in the original post or listed since do that the M9 would not? The M9 in any of its variations probably wouldn't be my first choice, but I wouldn't feel put out or under equipped if it was what I was given. Just my 2 cents. |
|
Quoted:
The M9 wasn't sole sourced from Beretta? Quoted:
Quoted:
Problem is you can't sole source a purchase this big, it goes against government regulations...even though the G19 would be a damn decent choice. No, it wasn't. A sole source contact is one where the government says "we need this product/service, and only one company can provide it." A handgun example would be "We need handguns and only Glocks are acceptable." The M9 was chosen through a competition, where the government put out specifications and a number of companies submitted products. |
|
Quoted:
No, it wasn't. A sole source contact is one where the government says "we need this product/service, and only one company can provide it." A handgun example would be "We need handguns and only Glocks are acceptable." The M9 was chosen through a competition, where the government put out specifications and a number of companies submitted products. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Problem is you can't sole source a purchase this big, it goes against government regulations...even though the G19 would be a damn decent choice. No, it wasn't. A sole source contact is one where the government says "we need this product/service, and only one company can provide it." A handgun example would be "We need handguns and only Glocks are acceptable." The M9 was chosen through a competition, where the government put out specifications and a number of companies submitted products. Sole source purchasing of big ticket items (thousands of pistols vs. onesy-twosey) is very difficult to do, and for good reason. Sure there are lots of people who could just make an executive decision and say you're all getting Glock 19's; live with it. The problem is, what if the G19 turns out to be a failure in one of the roles that it's employed? Then there's all sorts of shit flying in Congress about how someone made some massive purchase without considering the needs of the various services. IIRC the M9 was originally an Army & Air Force program for a new pistol. After the Army and Air Force had adopted it, the Navy decided it was a good fit for them and purchased the M9 also. But the M9 was a program that actually saw 10 years of pistol development before the final bid that lead to the selection of the Beretta 92F. This one is weird. For the past 10 years they have tried a couple of times to replace the M9, but they were doomed before they even started because we were involved in two wars; and we learned the lesson of changing weapons mid-stream of a war. But during that time the industry has been able to see where the Army has been heading with what they want. But the industry hasn't really responded very well with the exception of Sig who has developed up pretty much what the military is looking for (like Beretta did from '76-'85), and has a semi-proven product with the 320. So Sig is sitting in a good position even though it's unlikely this bid will actually go through. Still, as convoluted as the whole thing is, what the Army is trying to do makes a whole lot of sense for a military the size of ours. |
|
Quoted:
I'm no expert, but it seems like it's probably about time for a change though.... Quoted:
Quoted:
they won't change it somewhere in the pentagon is a colonel that wants to be a general. so he cooked up that if he ran a test to replace an issued arm he will get a very good OER so every few years the pentagon gets a new colonel & we get a new test I'm no expert, but it seems like it's probably about time for a change though.... Its really not though. There isnt a handgun that does anything significantly better than an m9. Going to a polymer framed gun would be good just to reduce weight. The Marines going to the m9a1 was a step in the right direction for using wml. |