The Top Three Contenders For The U.S. Military's XM17 Modular Handgun System Contract

I am skeptical that these are really the top contenders. The list assumes that they will keep the modular spec and chooses these 3 mainly based on that feature. It does not site anyone actually involved in the process. It is nothing more than an opinion piece with a misleading headline.

IMHO the Sig, Glock, S&W and Beretta are top contenders. There is a lot of time before the "real" process begins and I would not be surprised to see some changes made in the requirements.

STI Detonics could never deliver the number of pistols required of the contract. I don't think STI and Detonics combined have produced 450,000 pistols. :eek:
 
Last edited:
Someone always has to dis the 1911. At age 104, there SHOULD be better designs out there. I guess, by 1935 we had a better design, the BHP?

I would be disappointed if it is not US made and not chambered for 45 ACP.
 
...I guess, by 1935 we had a better design, the BHP?
Click to expand...
If the military has to have a 9MM, and needs high capacity, they should just adopt the BHP and teach the personnel how to use it. Those Berettas were why too big and clumsy, the BHP just right. Committees always make things too complicated and over-think the issue. What the heck is wrong with this?
browninghp.jpg
 
I would like more detail on what exactly qualifies as "modular." I would think that with interchangeable back strap and grip sizes, both the M&P and Glock (Gen4) would qualify. Also, the match grade accuracy requirement seems unnecessary.
 
I gotta say, that new Beretta APX seems like a nice new design. I'm looking forward to seeing it in a case someday, calling my name. "Buy me, Bart"

Here is Gearscout's look at it:

APX by Beretta

Now, in the original post the linked article doesn't include any mention of a thumb safety in the "expected requirements". So I would agree with WVSig that the article is mostly speculation.

But the Beretta APX is real and coming our way. Interesting they did away with the rotating barrel and used a very SIG-like barrel design.

Bart Noir
 
Quote:
What the heck is wrong with this?
It, (the BHP), is heavy and expensive among many other reasons.
Click to expand...

I dont see the U.S. Mil going to another single action pistol for general issue. Too many undertrained soldiers to safely carry cocked and locked, so that leads to condition 3 carry.

So many years of "hammer down" carry will lead to another decocked or striker fired pistol
 
dahermit If the military has to have a 9MM, and needs high capacity, they should just adopt the BHP and teach the personnel how to use it. Those Berettas were why too big and clumsy, the BHP just right. Committees always make things too complicated and over-think the issue. What the heck is wrong with this?
Click to expand...
I have more than a dozen Hi Powers (prewar, postwar, T series, C series, MkII's, MkIII's, Inglis). It is my all time favorite handgun, but there is no way in heck I would favor it as a military handgun today.

BHP- steel and heavy, requiring more maintenance, has lesser mag capacity, more expensive to manufacture, requires a knowledgeable gunsmith/armorer to properly fit parts. The manual of arms for a single action semi auto is more complicated.
VS.
Glock 17-it's plastic, its lighter, it isn't going to rust, it can run +P+ all day long with virtually no wear, cheaper to manufacture, higher mag capacity, gunsmithing is done with a pin punch, Very simple manual of arms.

If JMB & Dieudonne Saive were alive today I think they would feel the same.
 
They should just stick with the M9 for most folks, and let the elite units buy what they need (usually Glocks these days).

Oh wait. Thats what is happening now.
 
That article is clickbait.

Detonics.....lol. Yeah ok.

If it happens, it will come down to either Glock, Sig, or S&W's ability to successfully wheel and deal behind the curtain and swap contracts and jobs, etc.
 
I'm shocked that Detonics is even still in business. Even if they do have a good pistol, a Detonics/STI pistol sounds hilariously expensive. And, at STI's current production capacity, it would take OVER THIRTY YEARS to make enough pistols.

I'm disappointed that Ruger doesn't have an entry, and surprised that FN doesn't either.

If it happens, it will come down to either Glock, Sig, or S&W's ability to successfully wheel and deal behind the curtain and swap contracts and jobs, etc.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Just like last time.
 
Does the missile base contract in Italy need to be renewed again? If so, it will be a Beretta again. I have no problem with this arrangement.
 
Just issue revolvers and be done with it. 38/357 is the original modular handgun.

The military doesn't need a new pistol, the money would be better spent on training to use the weapons (rifles mainly) that they have.

We don't let our soldiers protect themselves now because "there might be an accidental discharge".

If true, that's not a gun problem, that's not a soldier problem, that's a training problem brought on by a command problem.
 
Just issue revolvers and be done with it. 38/357 is the original modular handgun.

The military doesn't need a new pistol, the money would be better spent on training to use the weapons (rifles mainly) that they have.

We don't let our soldiers protect themselves now because "there might be an accidental discharge".

If true, that's not a gun problem, that's not a soldier problem, that's a training problem brought on by a command problem.
Click to expand...

There is much wisdom here. All this money spent for bidding for a pistol.

Get new Beretta, get a new M&P, get a new Glock whatever. Get proven technology, cut the check and move on in about the time it took me to type this. The whole process everything that wrong with government procurement.
 
IMO differant sized back-straps are not a modular design, still the same frame. Even if that was accepted as "modular", Glock would have to come up with a manual safety I would think. The little bit I have been able to find about the Beretta, it has a manual safety option. And I'm assuming that the Sig 320 has a fire control group for this trial with one. Edit to add; I see that the SIG 320 does indeed has a thumb safety model.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Just issue revolvers and be done with it. 38/357 is the original modular handgun.

The military doesn't need a new pistol, the money would be better spent on training to use the weapons (rifles mainly) that they have.

We don't let our soldiers protect themselves now because "there might be an accidental discharge".

If true, that's not a gun problem, that's not a soldier problem, that's a training problem brought on by a command problem.
There is much wisdom here. All this money spent for bidding for a pistol.

Get new Beretta, get a new M&P, get a new Glock whatever. Get proven technology, cut the check and move on in about the time it took me to type this. The whole process everything that wrong with government procurement.
Click to expand...

Well this is the world of DoD procurement; the XM17 solicitation is a "Fair and Open Competition" where they have to do a long drawn out bidding and down selection process and a long drawn out pistol trials evaluation process, just so they can replicate what the British MoD went through three years ago. The Brits chose the Glock 17 which was already in use by NATO forces, and the combat track record for the G-17 in Iraq and Afghanistan by NATO forces has been excellent by most accounts. But no matter, the U.S. Military has to recreate the wheel and put its own thumbstamp of approval on the M9 replacement, regardless of what the rest of NATO has already accomplished.
 
Such an infinitely minute component of any military campaign. One could almost call them irrelevant... almost but not quite. Who really gives a rats patoot what they choose? Any halfway decent auto will fill the need, from the Walther P1 all the way to the FN Five-Seven. It's a badge of rank and a last ditch weapon. Those who use them for spec ops already get what they need. For everyone else it's scarcely worth it's bulk. Make it light, out of the road, simple, and hi-cap.

Buy some 4" plastic frame guns from Smith, Ruger or Glock, and move on to something that matters.:rolleyes:

I heard a few years ago that US Army Tank Command was switching to .45 ACP Ruger P-series guns. Don't know if that panned out, but if so it seems comically, laughably, fitting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top