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

samsmix....Ruger P Series?...thats very surprising. I am curious as to why you find it " laughable"?

I had the opportunity to shoot a friends Ruger 9E alongside my new M&P 9 yesterday (I have, in addition, a P90 and P97 as well as Colt and Springfield 1911s)

I was impressed with the 9Es ergonomics. I have relatively small hands and the grip on the 9E almost felt too small even with the arched back strap ( it reverses to flat ) It is very 1911 like in it's feel.

It is ambi and has a safety and I believe it is modular and was $339 OTD. I don't know about it's potential longevity but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be a contender given it's apparent user friendliness for all sizes of troops.
 
IIRC, one of the criteria is the gun must be "unit armorer serviceable" While the SiG 320 is simple to swap fire control units between frames, the lockwork itself is fairly complicated and is the serialized part.

My (out of left field) take on the Detonics/STI entry would be DoD buys the design TDP and farms out production to Colt (thus saving the company), or FN (thus killing Colt for good).
 
From the Sturm Ruger Q2 earnings call (last week)


Operator

And your next question is from the line of Andrea James. Please go ahead.
Andrea Susan James - Dougherty & Co. LLC


Thanks for taking my follow-up. There is a lot of industry chatter about this new army sidearm upgrade. And I just wanted to ask, do you plan on throwing a pistol into the ring, and then also in general, what's your take on the pros and cons of going after the professional market? Thank you.


Michael O. Fifer - Chief Executive Officer & Director

Quick take on the pros and cons, Andrea, is that there's enormous cause to participate and an extremely low likelihood for any one company of winning it. And there's been a lot of talk now that maybe they don't need to change caliber that maybe 9 millimeter is okay. And if that really becomes the driving force, and from a budget perspective, it probably will, especially as the military considers use of hollow point ammo instead of strictly ball ammo, that makes the 9 millimeter phenomenally more effective as the stopping weapon.

I think it's highly likely that Berreta (57:45) would get to keep it. They'd find a way to do a little cost reduction, a little bit of product improvement. And from a logistics perspective, which drives a huge portion of their budget, they're going to be nuts to change. They'd be much better off, pretty much with what they've got. And so, that adds to the risk factor of putting the huge investment of time, people and money into competing for something that there's really very low likelihood of winning even if you have a much better product. And so those are kind of the pros and cons right there. If you win it, obviously you're in the capital receipt for the next 25 years, but I have a feeling competing for it's going to be a little bit like being hit against a brick wall, and you'll feel real good when you stop.
 
Why do I find it comical, even laughable? Don't get me wrong, the P-series guns are reliable and accurate. They do what they are supposed to do. The problem most people have with them is that they are big, heavy, and...well...tank-like. If any outfit was going to go to the P-series, a tank outfit would (comically) make sense.


As far as the SR-9 & 9E goes I really like them. I think it would be one of the best of all possible choices and would reclaim the title of "Made in America" (yes I know M9s are mad here). They are some of my favorite poly pistols. They seem to be viewed on the market as lower quality than Glock, XD, SIG, etc though, and I attribute this to the bad taste people had in their mouth about Ruger autos as a result of the P-series. Let's face it, while effective the P-series was something less than elegant.
 
Last edited:
I agree , they are clunky and although a little lighter than the 1911, the 1911(FS) is flatter and for me, conceals better.

But for most military personnel, concealability is not a factor but weight is.

BTW, one of the considerations the Soviets had when selecting a replacement for the TT in the 50s was that it had to be able to easily fit and shoot through the vision slits of armored vehicles, w/o slide interference which might jam the pistol.

There has to be certain characteristics that our Military considers vital besides the obvious. We probably will never know the whole story. We will hear plenty of rumors and opinions but the govt will never weigh in with the real details and I don't blame them for that.
 
Well, now that someone has posted their opinion in a gun blog, the Army can skip to the end of their process. :p

If ... and that's a big if ... the testing not only runs to the end of the process, but is actually acted upon at some point down the road, maybe we'll see some further development in some existing pistol designs.

The suspension of the 2005 USSOCOM’s Combat Pistol (CP) Program seemingly gave us some interesting development and refinement of some .45 pistols in 2006, so maybe some new refinements might come out of this.

Then again, maybe not.

Having listened to some industry folks discuss previous military testing and competition, it certainly seems to be something much more popular and enjoyable for the average firearms enthusiasts than the companies.

Besides, there's always another potential contract around the corner, as well as international sales.
 
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.
Click to expand...

The military did purchase a batch of Ruger P-95's in 9mm that were issued to Iraqi police several years ago. They were purchased through irregular channels, probably with money diverted from tank crews leading to the false rumor.

It doesn't make much difference to me what they do. The current Beretta is just fine, if it is worn out and in need of replacement then something else in 9mm is fine with me. Most any of the common stuff including Glock is cheap enough and will do the job. I'm not even sure it really needs to be a standard issue, let individual units pick what they want.

Going to 45 would be a major step backwards and even the military isn't that dumb.

On todays unconventional battlefield a handgun is used more than in the past. Having a good one and training to use it is wise in my opinion.
 
I guess everybody except me understands what this "modular" spec refers to.
The grip "module", the barrel "module"? I mean handguns aren't like spacecraft with booster modules, crew modules etc.

What am I not getting?
 
They want a gun that can easily be adapted to fit a wide variety of roles and calibers.

For example the referenced SIG 320 has a trigger group that is easily swapped to different frames.

Need a basic 9mm no problem
Need a CID compact no problem
High speed low drags guys want a .45 can do
Some SEAL needs a subcompact shoved up his a$$ for a deep cover mission just put the Legos together and SIG has you covered.

The beretta is supposed to offer the same modularity.
 
They want a gun that can easily be adapted to fit a wide variety of roles and calibers.

For example the referenced SIG 320 has a trigger group that is easily swapped to different frames.

Need a basic 9mm no problem
Need a CID compact no problem
High speed low drags guys want a .45 can do
Some SEAL needs a subcompact shoved up his a$$ for a deep cover mission just put the Legos together and SIG has you covered.

The beretta is supposed to offer the same modularity.
Click to expand...

There would be no way to keep track of the various frame size components, and plenty of GI's (and officers) would lose their parts and have incomplete pistols.

They really need to just concentrate on guns that are similar to operate over a range of various sizes. (i.e. Glock 26, 19, 17).

Different sized frame (or even backstraps) would just get lost all the time and nobody would know where replacements are. Mandates would come down that everyone just needs to keep their pistol in standard configuration and the various size frame would be locked up in a warehouse somewhere.

The modularity concept from a frame size concept is not what they are going for IMO. I'm not sure the DoD even knows what they mean by "modularity" in this case. It's just something some guy with Stars can put on his powerpoint.
 
In regard to the Sig 320's serialized trigger pack being apart from the rest of the gun.......why would this matter in the military where most anything that can be serialized, is serialized. And they are not under the same laws/rules that civilian guns already are, so why does the serial number location matter in the first place?

The Sig 320 is just a good concept for the military to lose a ton of parts for if they ever deployed it.
 
Not saying I agree just saying what I think they are looking for.

As far as I am concerned the handgun doesn't mean a thing outside of a few specialized roles and most of them are going to get what they need or be served fine by the 92 or M11 / P228.

Personally I say stick with what you got or go to GLOCK or HK across the spectrum and be done with it. I don't say those two because of fanboiism but because both offer a wide variety of calibers and sizes in a package that is universally known and proven hell for stout with fairly good QC and the means to supply large orders.

Honestly I say get new Berettas and possibly either new SIGS or the aforementioned GLOCKS (G19) for the CID/air crew etc role.
 
yeah I agree cslinger. Let the guys who really use pistols get what they want. The system seems to work now.

Update ammo and training and everything will be fine. The M9's that are trashed now are trashed because they were not maintained for the most part.
 
The M9 is BIG and heavy for what it is. The M11 doesn't have an identical manual of operation due to the extra lever...but all Glock work the same (I know, I know: the G18, but we aren't going to adopt that)

All Glocks operate the same way, and mags are "modular" in that the general issue mags can fit the CID guys compact. We know the work with suppressors because they HAVE BEEN working with suppressors. We know they are durable because NYPD is only now seeing issues with some Gen 1 Glocks. We don't need a test for that.

Same for the U$P, XD, SR-9...whatever. We could buy more Berettas, but why? They are well made, but why pack the weight around? Right now the US Military is using like 5 handguns of vastly higher cost than needs be. A polymer framed 9mm and some good hollowpoints would make a lot of sense. One manual of arms for everything from general issue to deep cover, to CCW, to offensive pistol, to bullseye matches. Makes a lot of sense to me. I'll throw my vote in for the SR-9, but as previously stated, it doesn't really matter.
 
samsmix or anybody, you say stock some good hollow points?

I may be behind the times but I thought hollow points were prohibited for military use under international law.
 
If the military wants a handgun to cover a broad spectrum of uses, they need to get a G19 if they want a striker, or P2000 if they want hammer fired. It's that easy.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, they should just keep the M9s they have, since those pistols work well enough, and pistols, accessories, training, support, parts, etc. are already established.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top