Posted: 1/19/2017 7:06:21 PM EDT
|
From today's DoD contract awards:
Sig Sauer Inc., Newington, New Hampshire, was awarded a $580,217,000 firm-fixed-price contract for the Modular Handgun System including handgun, accessories and ammunition to replace the current M9 handgun. Bids were solicited via the Internet with nine received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Jan. 19, 2027. Army Contracting Command, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, is the contracting activity (W15QKN-17-D-0016). |
|
Hopefully they budgeted for more training cause that's what we really need.
But that would make too much sense for the big green money spending machine. Also kind of glad they didn't go with Glock because we all know as soon as a handgun hits the Army it becomes shit (due to the lack of training and limited firearms knowledge that exists in the big army). |
|
Quoted:
Now in 10 years or so we will all be hearing about big of a POS the XM17 is... (sarcasm) No matter what weapon system was chosen, someone will be unhappy. That validation that my choice was right because government chose it. I never got that why so many get upset that the mil chose FN or Colt to make a rifle or Beretta or Sig to make a pistol. Who cares pistols are rarely used in combat and most exercise they get is on a range to qualify. I was having this discussion with a friend and he has this romantic idea GI Joe coming out of the trenches of France charging the Germans with pistol in hand single handily taking the day. I for one am glad they finally made a decision and it looks like it was a good choice and I imagine if problems exist with the 320 this will expose them to be improved and advance the 320. |
|
Now for the follow on question: What happens to those millions of M9's in service right now?
I posted long ago it would be a SIG contract, now I will say they are all shipped off as military aid and the CMP goes begging. Again. Presidents continue their predecessors policies and it will take effort to turn that around in a climate of many other higher priorities for change. We can't get 100,000 1911's released from the warehouses sitting IN the CMP. Not seeing the change happening. Quite willing to be wrong and pleasantly surprised, too. I want an issue 1911 but you know what they say, a wish in one hand and . . . |
|
Quoted:
Now for the follow on question: What happens to those millions of M9's in service right now? I posted long ago it would be a SIG contract, now I will say they are all shipped off as military aid and the CMP goes begging. Again. Presidents continue their predecessors policies and it will take effort to turn that around in a climate of many other higher priorities for change. We can't get 100,000 1911's released from the warehouses sitting IN the CMP. Not seeing the change happening. Quite willing to be wrong and pleasantly surprised, too. I want an issue 1911 but you know what they say, a wish in one hand and . . . Probably be dipped into cosmo grease and put into storage. |
|
Why are we spending so much money on a weapon that will have no outcome in any battle?
How many enemy have we killed with handgun since 9/11? Maybe a handful at most I bet. Should have just kept the M9 / M9A1 and maybe spent some money on more training and ammo. This is just waste of money by the .gov again. |
|
Quoted:
Why are we spending so much money on a weapon that will have no outcome in any battle? How many enemy have we killed with handgun since 9/11? Maybe a handful at most I bet. Should have just kept the M9 / M9A1 and maybe spent some money on more training and ammo. This is just waste of money by the .gov again. I disagree with your statement. By your reasoning we should be still shooting early production 1911s. Just need more ammo and training, not a better combat weapon. Also, how do you know if a handgun has had "no outcome" in any battle? Even if only a "handful" of bad guys have been dispatched with pistols, I'd be willing to bet a case of beer that the individual pulling the trigger was happy a secondary was available. |
|
Quoted:
I disagree with your statement. By your reasoning we should be still shooting early production 1911s. Just need more ammo and training, not a better combat weapon. Also, how do you know if a handgun has had "no outcome" in any battle? Even if only a "handful" of bad guys have been dispatched with pistols, I'd be willing to bet a case of beer that the individual pulling the trigger was happy a secondary was available. Hell, I think our soldiers will be just as well armed with 6 shot revolver than the 9mm SIG/Glock/Beretta pistol in the battlefield. I've only known 2 soldiers who had handguns in combat and that was my father and my cousin while in Vietnam. My father was a medic in Vietnam and he was issued a 38 Special revolver but he said he never took it when going out as it just got in the way and he was usually too busy during firefight to use the revolver. My cousin was a marine 2nd lieutenant in Vietnam and he said he was issued a 1911 pistol but he never look it out on patrols as they were carrying a lot of weight and he preferred to carry extra ammo than the pistol. Both of them said they never knew anyone in combat that killed an enemy with handgun. |
|
Quoted:
Hell, I think our soldiers will be just as well armed with 6 shot revolver than the 9mm SIG/Glock/Beretta pistol in the battlefield. I've only known 2 soldiers who had handguns in combat and that was my father and my cousin while in Vietnam. My father was a medic in Vietnam and he was issued a 38 Special revolver but he said he never took it when going out as it just got in the way and he was usually too busy during firefight to use the revolver. My cousin was a marine 2nd lieutenant in Vietnam and he said he was issued a 1911 pistol but he never look it out on patrols as they were carrying a lot of weight and he preferred to carry extra ammo than the pistol. Both of them said they never knew anyone in combat that killed an enemy with handgun. Again, I disagree. You and I have a different perspective, based on your story. There may be reasons someone would not carry a pistol if they had the option, but I know hundreds of guys that carry them, and a few that have counted on them when things got bad. It may not be common but it happens, and when it does that sucker better go bang without fail. That is why a better pistol is necessary. |
|
Quoted:
Probably be dipped into cosmo grease and put into storage. Quoted:
Quoted:
Now for the follow on question: What happens to those millions of M9's in service right now? I posted long ago it would be a SIG contract, now I will say they are all shipped off as military aid and the CMP goes begging. Again. Presidents continue their predecessors policies and it will take effort to turn that around in a climate of many other higher priorities for change. We can't get 100,000 1911's released from the warehouses sitting IN the CMP. Not seeing the change happening. Quite willing to be wrong and pleasantly surprised, too. I want an issue 1911 but you know what they say, a wish in one hand and . . . Probably be dipped into cosmo grease and put into storage. Probably hand me downs to the USMC. Poor guys always getting shit equipment. Not that I think Berettas are shit. I like them quite a bit but the ones in my units inventory are awfully abused. |
|
Quoted:
Hell, I think our soldiers will be just as well armed with 6 shot revolver than the 9mm SIG/Glock/Beretta pistol in the battlefield. I've only known 2 soldiers who had handguns in combat and that was my father and my cousin while in Vietnam. My father was a medic in Vietnam and he was issued a 38 Special revolver but he said he never took it when going out as it just got in the way and he was usually too busy during firefight to use the revolver. My cousin was a marine 2nd lieutenant in Vietnam and he said he was issued a 1911 pistol but he never look it out on patrols as they were carrying a lot of weight and he preferred to carry extra ammo than the pistol. Both of them said they never knew anyone in combat that killed an enemy with handgun. Chris Kyle and Travis Haley have both USED their sidearms in combat. Just saying. |
|
Here is how my cousin explained it to me...
A loaded 1911A1 with 2 spare magazine weighs as much as 4 loaded M16 magazines. The total round for the 1911A1 is 3x7=21 rounds where as 4x20=80 rounds. Why carry the pistol with 21 rounds when you can carry additional 80 round for the rifle instead...and rifle kills a lot better than pistol. He said you can never carry too much ammo when shit hits the fan. I don't think the battlefield has changed so much since Vietnam that sidearm plays much bigger role today. |
|
Quoted:
Since indirect fire results in the most casualties, we can save even more weight by leaving our rifles and sidearms behind. I guess it all depends on the purpose of the battle. Look at Syria, we not only leave rifles and sidearms behind we even leave soldiers behind. We just use aircraft and drones. We're not interested in capturing territory...just killing our enemy. No need to endanger our soldiers in such situation so keep them out. |
|
Here is the full article :
New MHS contract award Waste of money in my opinion, but that's how the MIC roles. 
Also, it's been about 5 years, time to replace the camo pattern again and award a $13 million contract to a senator's pet project textile mill. |
|
Interesting. Since using a P226 9mm and carrying a P220 .45acp for several years at work, I have some experience on the platform. The P320 appears to be little more than a striker version plastic mimic of the old models. Basically, biggie wow!
Both the 226 and 220 had such a high bore line, they rocked more than necessary for the rounds fired. The faster you shot them, the harder they were to keep equally accurate. When the Glock 22/23 .40S&W became standard, they were both easier to control at a faster rate of fire since recoil was straighter back. The 320 preserves all the bad features of the 226/220 bore line and barrel locking system wise. Just a striker rather than a hammer. (I really liked the SIG de-cocker system.) If the DOD wishes to use the 320 platform, OK, I guess. But it seems an odd choice, feature wise. It has so many safeties, perhaps it was just meant to be safe for the semi-trained users it will be issued to. As to versions, the P226 seemed fairly stable, but the P220 was changing as I carried it, had to be replaced since the frame split, and the replacement had different hole features to control radiational cracking. I loved carrying such a nice light .45acp, but it was not much fun to fire after 200-300 rounds in a morning. And there I was. All set to buy an M9A3 just to get a familiarization piece. |
|
There seem to be quite a few people commenting about the utility of pistols in the military who have clearly never carried one in combat. I have a friend who had a soldier that entered a room during a raid in Iraq, and an insurgent behind the door grabbed the barrel of his M4 from the side. He immediately let go of the rifle, drew his pistol, and shot the insurgent. I also know plenty of armored vehicle crewman who used their pistols to engage enemy fighters climbing on their vehicles during the initial invasion of Iraq. Machine gunners also carry pistols as a backup for when their M240B or M249 isn't appropriate or is out of commission. I have carried a pistol into many meetings with local military leaders, mayors, and police chiefs in Iraq and other countries where a rifle would be inappropriate and was left with one of my guys off to the side during the meeting. I have also carried concealed in civilian clothes on other deployments (on one of which I was fortunate to have been issued a Glock 19, and an M11 on another). I even had the chance to go through a 2-day Army concealed carry class that included a day of practicing with multiple levels of concealment and draw / dry fire training, followed by a day of live fire using the same techniques. The battlefield is constantly changing and evolving, and a pistol is a useful tool for a lot of situations and environments that you may not have imagined, even when it is a secondary weapon.
The M9s we are still carrying today are old and badly worn. I didn't have much of an issue with it (I have a personal one I used for training), but when the time comes to replenish those aging pistols after 30 years, it only makes sense to look at options for a better replacement. Just the rail alone is a huge bonus, which everyone here who recommends using a WML should appreciate. Finally having some parts commonality between our compact and full size pistols is a great improvement too (as opposed to M9 vs. M11). I'm not excited about the amount of money that was spent on the procurement process, but I'm looking forward to (hopefully) seeing these new pistols before I retire. |
|
I have no issue with the necessity of pistol carry, but I don't see the practical advantage offered by a modular pistol, esp. WRT logistics. A modular rifle make sense, given the real length/size & ballistic variances between a 20" v. 16" v. 10" bbl. configuration. But a pistol? For any given caliber, a ~1.5"-2" difference in bbl length & slightly shorter grip doesn't seem to offer any sort of game-changing tactical advantage. Besides, a pistol is a backup, not a primary. The advantages afforded in a rifle don't effectively translate to a pistol in the same way.
Not all arms need to be modular, but bean counters gonna count. |
| I don't think the modular requirement was specified with the idea that regular units are going to be changing components out, but to provide a common family of pistols for logistics purposes. This allows the military to maintain common repair parts for the compact and full size pistols, as compared to the unique M9 and M11 platforms, and it also does leave the option for special operations or special mission units to reconfigure their pistols if they choose to use this platform. They could even use different calibers if they chose to (probably by purchasing other parts with unit funds). It just provides flexibility, a little bit more than if you simple chose two pistol models from the same family, like the Glock 17 and 19. 90% of the force may not use the modular features, in fact, most units will only have full size pistols, but the option is there if it's needed. |
| Just having the same fire control group being common over the entire pistol inventory, regardless of grip or barrel length seems like common sense to me. Have a pistol go down for mechanical reasons in the field? The unit armorer slaps in a new FCG, and the pistol is immediately back in service, the FCG can just be sent back for depot level repair by itself with next to no downtime for the weapon. |
|
I had a P320 for a few months, the only negatives for me was that the trigger bit my finger and made it raw after a couple mags and at the time the only way to get the trigger tuned was to send it off to a specialist and pay half the cost of the gun to get it worked over. Oh, and there was the barrel hood peening issue that Sig said was a non issue. Other than these issues the gun functioned flawless for the 1000 rounds I put through it.
I ended up selling the Sig and switching over to an M&P and don't regret the decision. |
|
Quoted:
That contract is a retarded amount of money for a pistol package to replace the M9. I am guessing this is for the Army only or all services combined? You must remember it is for more than just 250,000 pistols. It will also be for a substantial number of magazines and spare parts inventory. I am actually surprised at the angst over this decision. The M9s in service are tired and need to be replaced. Add the fact that it is a very outdated, and over complicated, design that can be traced directly back to the Walther P.38 and it seems obvious to me that it's time the services had a pistol that reflects the current state of pistol design. |
|
Quoted:
Was the m&p or the ruger american even tested in the trials? Wandered how they came in compared to the sig? Smith & Wesson (partnered with General Dynamics) did submit a variation of the M&P pistol for evaluation, and it was eliminated very early in the trials. Ruger did not make a sumission. |