New Army Modular side arm

Skans, I still disagree with you. There maybe better weapons out there now, but they were not out there when Colt delivered the first M1911's to the U.S.Govt. They were not in development when the M-16 was developed and produced over 50 years ago.

So, I might agree when you say there were better firearms developed years after there were deliveres to Uncle Sam.

I own several Berettas to include a 92FS Inox and do not consider it junk. I also own numerous Sig Sauers to include a West German Tysons Corner pistol. To me, the two firearms are both better than mediocre. I think both are desirable pistols even today for many Forum members. Some folks would be tickled to have either.

I understood your initial statement, I took issue with, is whatever the U.S. Government selects to be their firearms you would choose otherwise and have a better firearm.

With all the above stated, I have a lesser disagreement with your statement than some of the others statements by a few others as to how the Government acquisition business is conducted. They are simply spouting off hearsay with absolutely zero knowledge of the Department of Defense acquisition process.
 
...but they were not out there when Colt delivered the first M1911's to the U.S.Govt.
Click to expand...

I would agree that 104 years ago, when Colt delivered the first M1911's to the U.S. Government, they were close to state-of-the-art. EXCEPT, you might remember that when Colt started making commercial models, several years later, the U.S. Government complained that they were better finished than the ones being delivered to the military. You may note that the commercial models are shinier and always retain more of their bluing than the government versions, and this is not due merely to use. Colt went cheap on the US government, and the government got pissed! ALSO, you may note that it was the U.S. Government that added the idiotic grip safety to the originally designed 1911 pistol which was never designed to have one. So, in that regard, the Government down-graded the M1911.

The original M16's were cheap, unreliable junk. They jammed. The pencil barrels were subject to bending. They were not "ergonomically" friendly, and they were not very compact because the buttstocks didn't collapse or fold. The plastic furniture was also easily destroyed and did not wear very well. I mean, really, could someone have POSSIBLY produced a crappier, cheaper rifle than the original M16? Yes, 50 some-odd years later, the M16 / M4 made with completely new metals, materials, having undergone numerous redesigns, is a formidable weapon. Not the best. Certainly not as good as what a Civilian can find in the private market (semi-auto version), but better than the junk it was 50 years ago.

Let's not forget The AR-18 was really a better designed weapon of the same era - folding stock, piston, reciprocating bolt handle, sturdy stamped steel construction, but I believe the M16 was simply cheaper to produce. When it comes to government, CHEAP wins, QUALITY loses - every time....except arguably once, 104 years ago.
 
Last edited:
You make some good points Skans. I know the M-16 I carried in Nam never failed me, but it was after some changes and corrections to early on encountered problems. The M-14 was a fine rifle but not better than the M-16 for the mission in Nam. It was way too heavy, and I know since I have run miles and miles all night long with the sucker held high above my head.

Yes, there were many years where the incentive of Government contracting was "low cost" as opposed to "best value". It was not the case in development type contracts where the Government had/has to share the risk with contractors. The purpose of the Government contracting is not to put contractors out of business but rather balance providing the military the weapons systems they require and keep and eye on the tax payer's dollars. They always called it best bang for the buck.

The testing was very intensive with the M-9 acquisition. Both Beretta and Sig did well in the testing. It is not just the Government doing the testing. A lot of testing is supported by non-DoD civilians working for support contractors.

You and I do agree that subsequent firearms have improved and there are more expensive and higher quality productions out there. It is not DoD's mission to acquire the very best but to meet the needs of its forces. The needs can vary dependent upon the situational requirements.

I am rather shocked the military is replacing the M-9 already. It is not the most important weapon in the arsenal. It most likely has to do with other requirements I am simply not familiar with such as soldier system interfaces.

I have enjoyed our discussion and will stayed tuned-in to your and others thoughts and comments. The announced DoD selection should also be most interesting.
 
skans said:
ALSO, you may note that it was the U.S. Government that added the idiotic grip safety to the originally designed 1911 pistol which was never designed to have one.
Click to expand...

You may want to verify your info. Someone is lying to you. In reality, the "idiotic grip safety" is all John Moses believed that the pistol needed, nothing to do with the Army. The Army required him to add the THUMB safety (is it idiotic also?).

Note the existence of the grip safety and the absence of the THUMB safety on Browning's original patent (below).

http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=...&SectionNum=&idkey=NONE&Input=View+first+page

Now imagine that you're a cavalry trooper bouncing around on a horse going full speed across rough country with the reins in one hand and a cocked and loaded single action 1911 with NO thumb safety in the other hand. Any accidental touch of your finger on the trigger will set it off. The Army wanted a way for the soldier to be able to safety the pistol while keeping it in his hand ready for action WITHOUT having to pull the trigger and lower the hammer (only way to safety a Colt SAA or a 1911 without a thumb safety - hold the hammer back while pulling the trigger then ease the hammer down).

1911 Timeline:

1905 - Army asks Colt for a .45 caliber round. Browning creates the .45ACP round and designs the M1905 around it.
1906 - Six makers submit bids to the Army; Colt is among 3 selected.
1910 - Second round of Army evaluations; only Colt suffered no malfuctions during tests. Browning patents this design and calls it the M1910 (see patent linked above).
1911 - The Army requests a THUMB safety & Browning alters the design for same. The Army accepts the altered design and issues the designation M1911.
1912 - The first batch of Colt M1911 pistols is shipped to, and accepted by, the Springfield Armory.
1913 - First combat use of the M1911.

1907 Military Trials .45 here (again, note the grip safety and lack of thumb safety):

http://www.coltautos.com/1907ci_19.htm

An original 1910 prior to the Army's request for the thumb safety is in the Browning museum in Ogden, Utah. Again, note the grip safety and lack of the THUMB safety:
 

Attachments

  • 3358184535_696f12e4cf_o.jpg
    3358184535_696f12e4cf_o.jpg
    45.3 KB · Views: 10
Last edited:
Well, 45Auto, you may be right. I thought I had read that the grip safety was required by the government. But, even if it was not required and it was part of the original design, I still maintain that it is a useless feature. Certainly by the time the Hi-Power came out, it was a useless feature, otherwise it would have been incorporated into that firearm. The fact that the Hi-Power was in military service for many years by many different countries is a testament to the grip-safety being nothing more than an intrusive relic, arguably worse than the obnoxious chamber indicator on Ruger's LC9.

PS: After doing a little checking, I found some resources that indicate the original 1905 had no grip safety or thumb safety. This was the first 1911 style pistol to be submitted for government testing. At the urging of the government, i.e. they wanted safeties, Colt developed the 1907 with a grip safety. This is the first time a grip safety was incorporated into any gun (from what I've read). I think you are correct that the thumb safety came after the grip safety, but both were developed and incorporated at the urging of the government.
 
Last edited:
As the 9mm hollow point (or other better designed projectile will be used) much cheaper to produce, it is fair to say, 9mm will be the choice.

An all steel pistol will not be picked, to heavy, to expensive to manufacture.

Something like a Glock 19 with steel night sights.

As a Pistol is not the most important weapon in the Military's inventory, that makes sense.

Reference Rifles, a Bullpup design, with a small piston (as in Steyr AUG) quite a few inches shorter than an equivalent M4, and cocking handle forward design, not the over the shoulder one, as on the M16/M4 design.
Just having those perfect magazines the AUG comes with, worth the swop.

Oh, sorry, the not invented here syndrome comes in to play. Just a thought.
 
There is some confusion here about the grip safety on the 1911. It was added before there was a 1911. The development of a 45 acp weapon for the military took a number of years, trials, competition, field tests and competition between designers (Luger and Savage being the most important). In the course of this the gun Colt offered was altered and changed. Particularly once the 45 acp was decided on. The grip safety was added in 1907 at the Army's request for an automatic safety to be added. Specifically a drop safety. When dropped from horseback the Colt entry and the Savage could both fire (the Colt entry did in trials).

The slide lock was added while the gun was still in 38acp. This was at the Army's request. All subsequent designs had the feature that locked the slide open on the last round.

The grip safety on the Colt submission first shows up on their model of 1907 Contract type which was submitted for testing. It was designed by Colt engineers. From this point on it appears in all variations of the gun until it was adopted.

If you go here you can see the evolution, in part anyway, of the design changes from the earliest submissions in 1900 to the final 1911. The model 1905 in 45acp has neither grip nor thumb safety in 1907 it does.

Go here, towards the top of the page there is a box which says "Search for Colt Automatic Pistol or Revolver Model" pictures are there which show the steps.

http://www.coltautos.com/1905.htm

http://www.coltautos.com/1907.htm

tipoc
 
How many times have they brought up making a change? This one seems to have lost steam. Jan 21 Trump might just order an executive opinion/clarification/whatever they need to replace with Glock 19s. Otherwise I don' see much actually happening. Think of the jobs this process is creating though.
 
You expect him to talk about such sensitive military strategy months ahead of time?
If you think you have any idea what he is going to do on the twenty-first...
The ridiculous expense of processes like this are ripe for impulsive cost cutting decisions.
 
The Army isn't even expecting to make a decision about their gun until 2018.
Click to expand...

That article is from 2013.

A bit more recent, they dropped the S&W M&P from the contest...

http://kitup.military.com/2016/10/dropping-gun-maker-army-handgun-program-track.html

Earlier this year the FBI selected Glocks...

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/6/30/keefe-report-fbi-selects-new-service-pistol/

In October it was reported MEUSOC Marines are getting Glocks.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/ar...efe-report-marine-raiders-throw-45-overboard/

So I'm thinking Oprah will soon be shouting out, "You get a Glock, and you get a Glock, and you get a Glock!" Till we can't stand it no more.

tipoc
 
You expect him to talk about such sensitive military strategy months ahead of time?
If you think you have any idea what he is going to do on the twenty-first...
The ridiculous expense of processes like this are ripe for impulsive cost cutting decisions.
Click to expand...

Well, I can't recall the last time a President made an executive order on changing military pistols. They usually leave that up to the military to decide. It isn't as if the Army is yelling that they want a particular platorm and need it right now. They haven't even decided on what they like yet.

Pistol selection is hardly sensitive military strategy. In fact, it is a fairly public process. This really isn't some or of time sensitive issue where the military needs this amazing fighting platform to be put in the hands of the troops before they go off into battle. This is simply an infrequently used secondary weapon that isn't even universally carried by Army soldiers. So no, I don't expect Trump to do anything about this. I highly doubt it is even on his radar.

That article is from 2013.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is dated from 2015...
By Douglas Ernst - The Washington Times - Thursday, June 18, 2015
Click to expand...

However, as you showed, the military is still dropping contenders (S&W) LONG after the supposed decision should have been made according to the OP's source.
 
Mark Keefe was correct when he wrote after S&W was dropped from the contest;

This trial process has been one fraught with controversy. The confusing “Industry Days” and lack of a pre-selected chambering (just tell us what you want!) led to many firearm industry veterans scratching their heads. Too, a comment by U.S. Army’s Chief of Staff Gen. Mike Milley expressed frustration with the whole confusing and cumbersome process earlier this year. “If you gave me $17 million on the credit card, I could call Cabela’s tonight and outfit every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine, and I’d get a discount on it for a bulk buy.” And no doubt, General, you would make Cabela’s quarter, too. Things like that may lead to official protests by the losers if and when the opaque process declares a winner in the end.
Click to expand...

Like the selection process back in the 1980s, this version has been marked by bureaucracy, confusing and arbitrary specs, indecision, massive spending of money on studies and consultants, the reek of patronage, systemic inability due to the above to get a simple thing done, etc.

tipoc
 
I think your missing my point.
The decision isn't going to be made anytime soon unless something crazy happens to cut the red tape. Trump might just do that though. He is a showman. I'm guessing a good number out of his base care about this issue disproportionately. It wouldnt' surprise me if he got involved after a pleading from someone like Staff General Mike Milley. They will end up spending nearly as much on trials as the actual pistols before they actually select a pistol.
 
Trump might just do that though. He is a showman. I'm guessing a good number out of his base care about this issue disproportionately. It wouldnt' surprise me if he got involved after a pleading from someone like Staff General Mike Milley. They will end up spending nearly as much on trials as the actual pistols before they actually select a pistol.
Click to expand...

So despite no information that Trump has shown any interest in said trials for a minor sidearm, you think Trump is apt to step in and made an executive order decision on what pistol the Army will be using? Of all the things Trump has going on, he is going to worry about a pistol? Your scenario is highly unlikely.

Yeah, Trump is a showman. This isn't a big show issue. It is not a headline grabber. It isn't a topic the majority of the US even knows about, much less cares about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top