S&W and General Dynamics to partner on Army pistol
- Thread starter Bart Noir
- Start date
fastbolt, thanks for bailing me out. I posted from work and didn't realize an account was needed.
Model12, the Model 92 and M9 variation have aluminum alloy frames. The weight savings by going to polymer would be very little, if noticeable at all. The program must certainly be all about cost, so that when M9s wear out, as they will someday, the newer design is already adopted to replace them for less cost than new M9s.
The extra logistical and training costs would be more than offset by having the pistols cost less to start with.
What would make sense is for the new gun to use the same magazines as the M9. That would keep many magazines in the "useful" category and would prevent mix-ups in issuing magazines for the new guns. Although the use of a visibly polymer magazine (such as Glock) should pretty much prevent the confusion.
Bart Noir
Who is sure the Army should not adopt the new pistol as the M13. Bad ju-ju there.
Model12, the Model 92 and M9 variation have aluminum alloy frames. The weight savings by going to polymer would be very little, if noticeable at all. The program must certainly be all about cost, so that when M9s wear out, as they will someday, the newer design is already adopted to replace them for less cost than new M9s.
The extra logistical and training costs would be more than offset by having the pistols cost less to start with.
What would make sense is for the new gun to use the same magazines as the M9. That would keep many magazines in the "useful" category and would prevent mix-ups in issuing magazines for the new guns. Although the use of a visibly polymer magazine (such as Glock) should pretty much prevent the confusion.
Bart Noir
Who is sure the Army should not adopt the new pistol as the M13. Bad ju-ju there.
buckhorn_cortez
New member
Then you need to go to work for the Federal Government and get this all straightened out to your satisfaction...
No.
As a nation we all need to be much smarter about who we put up for election and vote into office.
We need to base our decisions on thoughtful and introspective reason instead of emotion and bias (oh the Army needs the M&P/HK45/Glock/etc./etc. because I have one and it's so cool and has to be the best!).
But we don't collectively do that so we have the wasteful government we deserve.
.
Deaf Smith
New member
Aw geeze....
Can't they just get the Glock 17, put a safety on the slide like a M9, and go back to sleep?
They are gonna engineer a billion dollar pistol that won't be one whit better than what they have (or what I propose.)
Guess they don't remember Sen. Everett Dirksen's comment.
Deaf
Can't they just get the Glock 17, put a safety on the slide like a M9, and go back to sleep?
They are gonna engineer a billion dollar pistol that won't be one whit better than what they have (or what I propose.)
Guess they don't remember Sen. Everett Dirksen's comment.
Deaf
If the Army and or AF purchases new pistols the cost is short money compared to many other DOD purchases. I have heard terrible stories of troops being deployed with M9s with after market mags that didn't work properly and pistols that were not properly maintained on the armorers level. There are some people that do rely on the handgun at times while deployed and they deserve an upgrade. If the handgun is so useless on the battle field than get rid of them completely, if not lets replace and get something better.
No offense meant, but no soldiers deployed in active combat only have a pistol. Maybe some folks at forward operating bases but even then typically a limited number. As was mentioned 400,000 new pistols were contracted recently with Beretta so hopefully they will make their way where needed. The folks with access only to pistols aren't likely to see combat, and if they do it means a lot has gone extremely wrong and at that point I'm not sure the pistols will save them.
Please explain how adopting a new pistol solves either of these problems.
I'll save you the time. It doesn't.
The defective low-bid mags were identified and a new vendor selected. The low-bid vendor mag problem was no fault of the pistol design. In fact, the OEM Mec-Gar design is one of the most reliable pistol mag designs ever, with variants of the same basic box design being used by a wide variety of pistols, including the 92/M9, SIG P226/228/229, Walther P99/PPQ, etc.
And you really thing introducing a new design is going to improve armorer maintenance? You just introduced an entirely new system requiring new training, new maintenance, new parts, and just threw out any accumulated knowledge.
The assumption is that the weapon will be of superior quality if it's been adopted by the government.
No, really. Stop laughing! It's true. This is why I get asked "is it mil spec?" a dozen times a day.
Truth of the matter is, the government generally adopts the product that meets certain requirements at the lowest bid. Those requirements might be completely different than what we need in the civilian world, and they may not represent the best value.
buckhorn_cortez
New member
Most of the proposals for items like this are "best value." The firms proposing on the contract have to submit two separate binders for evaluation. One is a pricing / contract binder and the other is technical binder.
The purchasing agent sends the binders to separate committees (price / contact and the other to a technical committee) where the proposals are scored. The committees are prohibited from talking with each other by purchasing rules and each committee makes their decisions on the merits of what is contained in the proposals.
Depending upon the type of item being purchased, the technical proposal may contain test data to support the manufacturer's product being evaluated.
The scores for each proposal are sent back to the purchasing agent where the results are evaluated to determine the "best value." Generally, the technical proposal carries more points than the cost / contract proposal so that (in theory) the government gets the best technical solution at the lowest cost.
I have been part of two US Army proposals. The corporation I worked for won both contracts at a higher cost because the technical solution was better. Each contract we won was protested by a lower cost bidder and the final bid award only came after an evaluation of the process, proposals, and bids by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) - a third part, neutral, government entity.
The "best value" process can work to the advantage of the government. Does it work all the time? Probably not as the proposal scoring system has to be very carefully structured to be as neutral as possible and that in itself is a difficult task.
SPEMack618
New member
Or, maybe just maybe, we realize that every Soldier is different, and that not everyone who is issued a sidearm needs one for the same purpose.
And maybe just maybe, if we ask Congress real nicely, and promise that we won't go on Fox News no more, we can buy the M-45 likes the boys in the MEU(SOC) units get for guys who need a pistol in case their M-4 goes tango uniform, and a smaller, easier to use and carry 9mm of some sort for those who need a pistol simply because it is impractical for them to carry a rifle or carbine.
My fixation on what the U.S. Soldier carries is because I am one, and I date one, so I'd very much like to have the very best sidearm possible.
And maybe just maybe, if we ask Congress real nicely, and promise that we won't go on Fox News no more, we can buy the M-45 likes the boys in the MEU(SOC) units get for guys who need a pistol in case their M-4 goes tango uniform, and a smaller, easier to use and carry 9mm of some sort for those who need a pistol simply because it is impractical for them to carry a rifle or carbine.
My fixation on what the U.S. Soldier carries is because I am one, and I date one, so I'd very much like to have the very best sidearm possible.
DannyB1954
New member
Now this goes back closer to the days of wooden ships and iron men
, but when I was in the Navy 1972-1978 I stood watch in port with a hand gun, (no rifles). Petty Officer of the Watch was the title, and I was at the gang plank of the ship. We had the old 1911's then.
, but when I was in the Navy 1972-1978 I stood watch in port with a hand gun, (no rifles). Petty Officer of the Watch was the title, and I was at the gang plank of the ship. We had the old 1911's then.SPEMack618 said:
It would be easy for you, your girlfriend/boyfriend, and every other U.S. Soldier to have the very best hand-fitted, non-interchangeable part sidearm possible with it's attendant capabilities of accuracy and speed.
All you would have to give up are your primary weapon, armor, air support, communications, etc, to pay for it.
The vast majority of people don't see that as a valid option, and the multi-thousand dollar hand-fitted sidearms and the training that goes along with them are reserved for units like Force Recon that may actually be able to use the capabilities inherent to them.
It's been awhile since I was a U.S. Soldier, but unless things have changed drastically with the primary weapons systems, a sidearm is pretty inconsequential.
SPEMack618 said:
You really believe that a hand-fitted pistol that relies heavily on parts that can not be readily exchanged or replaced under field conditions is the best solution as a sidearm for everyone who carries an M-4?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEU(SOC)_pistol
Last edited:
While a pistol may be in development, that doesn't mean that it's getting ready to be adopted. S&W and GD may be making this primarily on their own dime rather than strictly through government grants. I don't personally think we need a new pistol, but keeping up with new developments is a good thing. It lets us know what new advances are available, and if there's anything that does offer better performance vs cost yet.
As for actually replacing the M9... I think that'd be a waste of money right now. We really do have more important issues to be concerned about, and there aren't a whole lot of personnel who require the use of a pistol. Most of the time it's a personal defense weapon for security personnel who aren't in forward areas or expected to be directly involved in combat (armorers in the armory, MP's on post, pilots). SNCO's, officers, and vehicle crews are issued M4's (if available). Even staff officers at the battalion level are issued M4's (or supposed to be), if that tells you anything.
The few times I was issued an M9 in lieu of an M4 is when the armory at my reserve unit had issued out all M4's to the MP Platoon, so the rest of the staff officers were issued an M9 until they got in more. The rest of the M4's were down for servicing. Sequestration was wonderful for that.
As for actually replacing the M9... I think that'd be a waste of money right now. We really do have more important issues to be concerned about, and there aren't a whole lot of personnel who require the use of a pistol. Most of the time it's a personal defense weapon for security personnel who aren't in forward areas or expected to be directly involved in combat (armorers in the armory, MP's on post, pilots). SNCO's, officers, and vehicle crews are issued M4's (if available). Even staff officers at the battalion level are issued M4's (or supposed to be), if that tells you anything.
The few times I was issued an M9 in lieu of an M4 is when the armory at my reserve unit had issued out all M4's to the MP Platoon, so the rest of the staff officers were issued an M9 until they got in more. The rest of the M4's were down for servicing. Sequestration was wonderful for that.