Defensive Carry banner

Army STILL shopping for pistols!

3K views 45 replies 35 participants last post by  keepitsimple 
#1 ·
"The Army's search for a new service pistol — started in 2011 — has been delayed again, this time for another two weeks."


Army extends pistol search yet again: New deadline Feb. 12

It usually takes me about five minutes in the gun store to pick out my next one (IF I haven't zeroed in before I left the house). Our military runs better than any other government function,...this should to be food for thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OD* and hdhnict
#2 ·
They got to many silly requirements. Tell people issued 9mm here is X dollars Must be a 9mm have a barrel over 4" and hold 10+ rounds. Go shopping . Its your pistol you are responsible to maintain ,extra mags, and combat type holster.
 
#11 ·
Thats how the Victorian/Edwardian era British Army did business (at least for the Officer Corps). A new lieutenant went out and bought his "kit", including uniforms, personal equipment, and sidearm. The main consideration was that the weapon took .450 (later .455) ammo and was of quality make. Revolvers were generally selected, but the 4 barreled Lancaster also saw service amongst those who appreciated its reliability and improved ballistics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OD*
#4 ·
It's not feasible for the normal mind to comprehend the BS that goes into a decision like this. It's not just a couple of Generals making a decision. It's a dozen different working groups hiring dozens of experts.
You have to consider the logistics support for the weapon.
You need to look at whether the allies will change and if they're willing to adapt a new standard.
You have to look at different suppliers and all the federal laws that congress has passed to support minority owned businesses, women owned businesses, and small businesses. The special ops guys will want something expensive and practical. Another general will be concerned about the size of the grip and the recoil because women need to be able to shoot it. The logistics guys want something that's cheap and that uses readily available parts, holsters, and ammo. Someone else will be concerned with the overall size. There will be similar concerns over the ammo and the suppliers. We don't want to depend on foreign companies to supply the key components. Lawyers will get involved because they need to make sure it doesn't violate some treaty. They need to look at each supplier to see if they will be able to meet the demand. They'll also look at any union contracts to make sure the union can't shut down production during some contingency. There are logistics rules in place that don't allow one manufacturer to have all of the business, so the bidders will have to have a plan in place to subcontract a portion of the manufacturing to other major manufacturers. The lawyers will have to negotiate the rights to the patents and copyrights. And then the politicians get involved. All the congress critters will be trying to influence where the gun and its components will be manufactured.

Those are only some of the key things considered. I haven't been involved in this stuff in 20 years, so I've forgotten half of it.
 
#6 ·
Rhinoman you hit the nail on the head. Plus the fact that the government lawyers that are approving the solicitation going out have probably added 50 pages to it.

The government is so scared of getting sued by a company that they make these contracts/solicitations so hard it's nearly impossible to bid. In my 36 years of government work I've never seen the government really win any litigation. The contractor always find some way to get money out of it.
 
#7 ·
You also get the different Congressional committees involved. This contract means many, many millions of dollars and jobs for some congressional district. The armed services committee members will want it in their districts and the budget committees will want it in their districts. Each one has the power to stop the whole process if it looks like the selection isn't going their way.

The military want's something effective and affordable. The congress critters want something expensive to bring more money to the district that's manufacturing it.

And then you get the other services involved and the sticky mess gets even more complicated.
 
#8 ·
Like everything else, there's the right way, the wrong way, and the military way.
WETSU!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bama61
#10 ·
It usually takes me about five minutes in the gun store to pick out my next one (IF I haven't zeroed in before I left the house). Our military runs better than any other government function,...this should to be food for thought.
Sure. But then, we're not selecting it with quite the same criteria for durability and function in various combat situations. Myself, I don't think very deeply about how capable the sidearm's going to be with, say, being run over by a tank, dropped in a mud hole for a week, failing to see the armorer for a month while being stuck out in a dank wet jungle all that time, etc.


My own list of key features that I'd want, in something to support thousands of folks I was responsible for: ambidextrous controls; high capacity; to hell-and-back reliability and durability; support for a range of sight and optics options; support for silencers; offered in the same caliber as the sub-gun and sub-rifle options those people might also employ. I'd think the CZ series of all-steel pistols would suit, as would the FN, SIG or H&K contemporary sidearms. I have a hard time imagining that the H&K 45 or the 45 Compact couldn't survive the tests, or the CZ 75/85 or 97.
 
#25 ·
The HK P8 (USP9) and P12 (USP45 Tactical) survived those tests and serve with the Bundeswehr for which they were made. They have been in continuous service since 1997 and 1998 respectively.

It shouldn't be that difficult for any Government to choose a service sidearm. Cut out all of the red tape BS and just pick one. Colt, S&W, SIG-Sauer, Walther, or HK. JUST MAKE A DECISION. Nothing irritates me more than someone, or a group of someones ham-hawing around not being able to decide on something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaeger
#14 ·
Set the requirements for the sidearm, make sure all other fail except for Brand "X". Brand "X" just happens to be manufactured in the home state of a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
 
#20 ·
This discussion reminds me of the dust-up raised when the FBI decided to go back to the 9mm. Who cares what pistol the Army chooses? You really think their choice will be the best available? If you do, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. Money and politics folks.
 
#22 ·
I agree. We ended up with the Berretta because the NATO countries wanted a 9mm, not because it was the best cartridge for the job.

There's also the "tit for tat". We gave the last contract to Berretta, so this one has to go to a different contractor.

The military usually won't pick something off the shelf and they'll change the specs a half dozen times during the early production. They'll have durability issues because of the design changes and liberals will want to cancel the program because it's expensive and everything isn't working perfectly. The Air Force will want something different and the Navy will want a finish that holds up to salt water. Special ops will bow out and buy their own pistols because they don't want a pistol designed by a committee and built for a woman.

It being an election year, politicians are going to be worried about the budget so production will be delayed until after the elections. At that point Bernie or Hillary will decide that we need to just take the old weapons from the Korean war out of storage and use them. If they were good enough for their fathers, they're good enough for their kids. The Techies will want to delay the program until the light saber is perfected and integrated into the design. The old timers will want to go back to muzzle-loaders because it reduces the cost of ammo.
 
#23 ·
Many years ago Microsoft developed an F-18 fighter game. The cost of the game ballooned and the hardware requirements were beyond what most gamers had, so they shifted their marketing and decided to sell it to the military. I was part of the evaluation team and we all gathered for a demo by Microsoft. After the meeting all the members of the committee adjourned to separate rooms and each of us wrote up our assessment and recommendations. We all met the next day to compare and discuss the recommendations. Every single member of the team came to the same conclusion. The simulator was overpriced. It didn't fill a legitimate need. It would pull money from legitimate training devices. The unanimous decision of the committee was to pass on the new sim.

Three months later the AF purchased 50 of them for over $100,000 a pop. Three months after that the guy who was in charge at the Pentagon went to work for Microsoft gaming division.

The funny part of this whole thing was that a friend of mine was on the committee that recommended not purchasing and was selected to replace the previous guy who was hired by Microsoft. My buddy was the guy that everyone blamed for this fiasco, even though he had opposed it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maxwell97
#29 ·
It would pull money from legitimate training devices. The unanimous decision of the committee was to pass on the new sim.

Three months later the AF purchased 50 of them for over $100,000 a pop. Three months after that the guy who was in charge at the Pentagon went to work for Microsoft gaming division.

The funny part of this whole thing was that a friend of mine was on the committee that recommended not purchasing and was selected to replace the previous guy who was hired by Microsoft. My buddy was the guy that everyone blamed for this fiasco, even though he had opposed it.
Ah, poetic justice! Oh, wait, actually not at all. Makes ya glad the Feds are spending 20% of our GDP. Would have been better off sticking with King George...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rhinoman
#24 ·
One thing to keep in mind is the Army times is in no way affiliated to the Army. It is a civilian owned company that is in the business of selling news papers. We always take what's in there with a grain of salt. They've settled on the new side arm. The new pistol is called the M17.
 
#28 ·
The Army has a lot more to consider than what is good for just one person. You cannot compare a civilian purchase to a purchase of hundreds of thousands of guns which have to play various roles, fit various hands, be reliable and have a long service life. Then there is price.

I assume we all read that Obama now wants the Military to concentrate on safe pistols, not more lethal ones. This is not a joke like I first thought. We rather save a handful of lives than kill more of the enemy. No wonder everyone wants to fight us.
 
#30 ·
It usually takes me about five minutes in the gun store to pick out my next one (IF I haven't zeroed in before I left the house). Our military runs better than any other government function,...this should to be food for thought.
As someone who has made sales to the military, and occasionally bids government jobs, this doesn't surprise me in the least. The amount of bureaucratic hoops one must jump through just to submit a bid to the government is staggering, often on what should be a simple job or decision.
 
#31 ·
I've been a contractor for 20 years and I can relate. People are outraged over what contractors charge the government, but the truth is that the government requirements drive the cost of our bids way up. There is so much paperwork involved that we have to put two extra people on the contract just to keep up with the reports and meetings. We had to have a written plan for how we would meet every government quality requirement in the contract. The plan took up a four-tier bookcase and took two of us six months to develop. I don't remember anyone from the AF ever looking at it after we developed it.

I wrote software for the Navy for awhile. It took me four months to write and test the software and another four months to provide all the supplemental documentation. I turned it over for the Navy to review and never got any feedback. I know in my heart that no one ever looked at it. It was 600 pages of technical jargon, charts and drawings with twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one....
 
#33 ·
For the last few years, Ive been wondering if the Army actually wants a new pistol. I think the answer is no. They just want to pretend they do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wunderneun
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top