Walt Sherrill
New member
From what I've read, which might not be right, the winning design becomes the property of the U.S. government. The government will then ask gunmakers to bid for the opportunity to BUILD the guns in question.
But, even if that is NOT the case, and the winning design remains the property of the company, developing a weapon to meet the MHS requirements still takes a large investment of time and capital, and some companies aren't sure it's worth the effort.
From the online NRA/American Rifleman (Feb 4, 2016)
The same article says:
More info, here: http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/2/4/keefe-report-let-it-snow-army-delays-xm17-pistol-deadline/
An earlier (09/2015) article said:
Details here: http://www.guns.com/2015/09/02/army-officially-solicits-new-handgun-finally/
But, even if that is NOT the case, and the winning design remains the property of the company, developing a weapon to meet the MHS requirements still takes a large investment of time and capital, and some companies aren't sure it's worth the effort.
From the online NRA/American Rifleman (Feb 4, 2016)
Some companies have bowed out of the process altogether. The recently introduced Ruger American Pistol was designed to meet many of the requirements set forth for the XM17. But Ruger's management decided it was a bad investment to participate in the program.
The same article says:
But that has not scared other manufacturers away. Glock will be submitting guns, as well SIG Sauer with its new P320. Fabrique Nationale—through U.S. subsidiary FN America—has confirmed it will submit a striker-fired 9 mm pistol, and Smith & Wesson is betting on a variant of the M&P. Last I checked, Heckler & Koch was on the fence, but Beretta is definitely participating.
More info, here: http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/2/4/keefe-report-let-it-snow-army-delays-xm17-pistol-deadline/
An earlier (09/2015) article said:
But the likely challenge for competitors is navigating the intricacies of the military’s program and costs — reasons why Mike Fifer, chief executive officer of Sturm, Ruger & Company, told investors in July during a conference call why Ruger is not participating.
“There’s enormous cause to participate and an extremely low likelihood for any one company of winning it,” he said.
“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,” he said.
“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,” he said. “And so those are kind of the pros and cons right there.”
“There’s enormous cause to participate and an extremely low likelihood for any one company of winning it,” he said.
“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,” he said.
“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,” he said. “And so those are kind of the pros and cons right there.”
Details here: http://www.guns.com/2015/09/02/army-officially-solicits-new-handgun-finally/
