US ArmyDown to 3

We don't see eye to eye on anything except that the Army gets the best modular hand gun that it can get.
Click to expand...

Lol, if one thread means we don't agree on "anything" that seems a bit of a waste. I imagine there are topics we do agree on. You brought up the fact that McCain wanted an all "American" deal. This lead to the discussion we had. Sometimes the conversation evolves over time.

The article this all started from is almost 9 months old at this point. We've had multiple discussions on the MHS contract in this forum. One of those three "contenders", Beretta, hasn't even really debuted its supposed entry at this point. STI-Detonics is unlikely at best given their limited production capabilities. While I get that it's very possible for the DoD to buy the design and license it to someone else to manufacture, I still think the current state of STI-Detonics leaves a lot of doubt. S&W and General Dynamics have shown nothing about their pistol right now, and the M&P as it stands isn't "modular" enough according to the current program requirements. I currently see SIG as the only one really standing.
 
TunnelRat, Nothing has been eliminated yet...Last article I read the Military wants a .45. There isn't a top 3. The article posted is the opinion of the writers and not of the actual people making the decisions.

As for the P320 pins. Bull-CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED-. I've owned 3 of them. I keep trying to like them and keep dumping them in disappointment. It is gaining popularity in competition but for REAL work, it's flawed.
 
Nothing has been eliminated yet...Last article I read the Military wants a .45.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything had been eliminated. I'm trying to present the challenges faced by a number of those competing. As for the "back to the 45" argument, I don't think a year goes by where someone in the military doesn't lament the passing of the 45 ACP and tells us we should bring it back. Unless it's specific to these competition requirements, which as I've read I see nothing specific to the 45 ACP, I don't place a lot of faith in more rumors.

It is gaining popularity in competition but for REAL work, it's flawed.
Click to expand...

It's been adopted by a number of police agencies. Your complaint seems to be that pins can get lost if you remove the FCU from the frame. I assure you that if you remove the sear housing from the frame on an M&P there are pins that could potentially get lost as well, or any number of pistols much more complicated for that matter. I've also owned a number of P320s and didn't have issues with pins getting lost. That said, I didn't make it a daily occurrence to remove the FCU.
 
Last edited:
This whole acquisition process is ridiculous. Why the whole modularity requirement in the first place? It leaves all of the major proven gun designs off of the table.

I agree with the general. Politicians like John McShame have entered the mix and made a total FUBAR out of buying a new pistol.

The other capability requirement of being able to switch calibers due to modularity sounds like a logistical nightmare waiting to happen.

They could have solved their problem in about ten minutes:

Call Glock. Buy x amount of full size Glock 17s for standard service. (These guns really do work. Just ask the British Army, and countless other military and law enforcement agencies).

Then buy x amount of Glock 19s for the various occupational specialties that require a smaller pistol, and be done with it.

Spend tens of millions less of tax payers' dollars, and still end up with a capable fighting pistol.
 
I'm an engineer by trade. I haven't lost the pins out of the P320's that I have owned either, but I work on my guns in a clean controlled environment. As for the M&P having pins that can be lost, there is the sear pin that can indeed fall out, but the sear housing isn't designed to be removed by the user in the field like the FCU in the SIG. Will the SIGs loose pins be an issue in practice? If soldiers remove their FCU's from the grip to clean the gun or change grips in the field then yes it will.

As to the M&P not being "modular", that is easily resolved. The M&P already has a stainless steel chassis molded into the polymer frame. It wouldn't take much to unmold it and make it a removable chassis like the SIG. They may have already done that to compete..
 
I haven't lost the pins out of the P320's that I have owned either, but I work on my guns in a clean controlled environment. As for the M&P having pins that can be lost, there is the sear pin that can indeed fall out, but the sear housing isn't designed to be removed by the user in the field like the FCU in the SIG. Will the SIGs loose pins be an issue in practice? If soldiers remove their FCU's from the grip to clean the gun or change grips in the field then yes it will.
Click to expand...

Why would the soldier in the field remove the FCU from the grip module? For basic cleaning and maintenance (the lack of which you can read about in another thread going on right now) you don't need to remove the FCU. Just like you don't need to do a complete detail strip of the trigger assembly on an M16/M4. Spray it with aerosol brake cleaner, spray it with an aerosol lubricant, reinstall, and enjoy! Detail servicing of weapons is usually done by armorers and the P320 doesn't have pins that are any more likely to be lost than the Beretta 92 has small parts.

As to the M&P not being "modular", that is easily resolved. The M&P already has a stainless steel chassis molded into the polymer frame. It wouldn't take much to unmold it and make it a removable chassis like the SIG. They may have already done that to compete..
Click to expand...

They very well may have. But the chassis is in part molded into the frame, not a removable component. For that matter the trigger parts and sear parts aren't connected in one unit like the FCU of the P320. If you're an engineer by trade than you know suggesting something and actually implementing it are two different tasks and it's not always that easy to do the latter. And you're right, maybe S&W did that. But until I see evidence that they have, then all we have is a hypothetical.
 
As for the M&P having pins that can be lost, there is the sear pin that can indeed fall out, but the sear housing isn't designed to be removed by the user in the field like the FCU in the SIG. Will the SIGs loose pins be an issue in practice? If soldiers remove their FCU's from the grip to clean the gun or change grips in the field then yes it will.
Click to expand...

It is NOT "designed" to be removed "in the field".... In your mind, you're picturing some soldier carrying multiple grip frame modules and different magazine sizes and randomly swapping out grips?? That's not the goal. At all. Not even a proposed use. This is just silly.
 
I don't think a year goes by where someone in the military doesn't lament the passing of the 45 ACP and tells us we should bring it back.
Click to expand...
The Army switched to the Beretta 92FS in 1985, IIRC? Anyone who was in the Army then is not likely to be in the Army now! BTW, we still had 1911s in the NAVY when I left in 1989, but I believe they have all been replaced as well, so finding s currently serving service person who used Old Slabsides for real work is gonna be kind of hard to do. ;)
Call Glock. Buy x amount of full size Glock 17s for standard service. (These guns really do work. Just ask the British Army, and countless other military and law enforcement agencies).

Then buy x amount of Glock 19s for the various occupational specialties that require a smaller pistol, and be done with it.
Click to expand...

Do you mind if I play with that one? :D

Call CZ-UB. Buy x amount of full size CZ P-09 for standard service. (These guns really do work. Just ask the Indian Army, and several other military and law enforcement agencies).

Then buy x amount of CZ P-07s for the various occupational specialties that require a smaller pistol, and be done with it.
Click to expand...

The P-09 was also adopted by the Mexican Army, if that qualifies as an endorsement.
 
so finding s currently serving service person who used Old Slabsides for real work is gonna be kind of hard to do.
Click to expand...

If the shooting community has taught me anything, it's that lack of hands on experience in no way stops nostalgia.

The P-09 was also adopted by the Mexican Army, if that qualifies as an endorsement.
Click to expand...

CZ would have to dramatically expand their operations stateside. That doesn't bother me, but it would likely be a factor in them deciding to enter the competition
 
Due to our obligation to the NATO standard, I seriously doubt a standard issue sidearm for our largest fighting force will be anything but 9x19. I don't pretend to know anything about the military so it's also likely that I don't know what I'm talking about. It just simply doesn't make sense to me for a variety of reasons.

I'm not sure what the design parameters are for the Modular Handgun System, but I would also vote for the M&P. The polymer frames of today are light, durable and cheap to replace and I think that seems like the most practical choice.
 
TunnelRat said:
If the shooting community has taught me anything, it's that lack of hands on experience in no way stops nostalgia.
Click to expand...

LOL!! Boy is THAT a fact! On another forum a guy was ranting about quality, and how guns (and implicitly other things) were better in the "good" old days.

I've been around long enough now to appreciate that the Good Old Days weren't consistently all that good -- and in some ways, pretty bad.

Guns still seem pretty good, many of the better guns that were made in the Good Old Days, now sell for about the same $ as they did 20 or 30 years ago, despite horrendous inflation (which kicks everybody's butt... Check out the price of a BHP sold in the late 1980's and check out the price of a new one. ) Even Glocks aren't a LOT more. SIGs seem to be going up, but most of that seems to be more and more models, each with new whistles and bells added.

Cars, TVs, Home Appliances, computers, cameras, etc., etc., are much cheaper, generally far more durable and reliable, easier to use, and safer. This is especially true of cars.

Handguns? They didn't have that many sub-compact or hi-capacity guns back in the day, and if you had problems, SOME gunmakers would make them right, but not all of them.
 
Last edited:
Everybody keeps focusing on "Detonics" when in reality it's just a name on a product made by STI.

Again, whoever designs the gun won't be getting all the contract for 25 years. Colt doesn't with the M16/M4, do they? Nope. If the design will be owned by Uncle Sam, it's the same as the TDP protocol for the M4. They shop it to whoever they like, or more importantly, thru the contract winner who then decides who to outsource to. Contract winner is a conglomerate, they are providing the complete fielded package including all parts AND ammo. Cartridge of choice is the Army's and Open Tip Match is allowable.

If this means we kick 9mm to the curb we've done it before with .308 by switching to 5.56 and then twisting their arm.

As for "Made in America" the precedent is set - the factory has to be on US soil for strategic purposes based on physically securing the plant and shipments. Where the money goes is not the problem - we paid royalties to Mauser in WW1, which were held in escrow until hostilities ceased. Big Business goes on regardless of national priorities. The '03 was just a 98k clone locally produced. Grandpa fired a Mauser patent gun at people firing Mauser patent guns back at him. Mauser won the trade battle. The War? Nothing solved that until 1945, and then we made the same mistakes again trying to divvy up the Balkan States. Well, the Soviet Union took advantage of that.

Now we buy CZ's and AK's. :D

Complaints about the contract process aren't about the gun, they are about how the contract is written to only allow certain sources the advantage to bid. It's Big Business all over again, same as Italy telling us "Beretta for the win or no Med refueling or airborne brigade in Italy."

Gun design has nothing to do with it. The real story is on the back pages of the Wall Street Journal.
 
In contracts that the military and government agencies enter into with its contractors, the federal government generally retains rights in data when it is buying a one-off custom design, and when it has paid the contractor for the up front and ongoing design and development of the equipment, such as the F-35 JSF.

For the XM17 MHS bid, the contractors are providing Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) weapon designs to provide the lowest possible cost for a proven design in a competitive bid solicitation. Yet the Army still wants rights in data to be able to competitively bid future requirements for the chosen design. I can't imagine they would comply with this bid requirement, the bidder companies should either take exception to this requirement, or decline to bid altogether.
 
I have NO knowledge or any inside information beyond what's in the articles already referenced but I just remember all the 'trials' and 'tests' and 'evaluations' that went on for literally years before the old 1911 was finally replaced by the M9 and I suspect the same thing will happen here...that is, talks and tests and no change for years.
 
How could a new start up small company like Detonics produce the volume required if chosen?
Click to expand...

As has been covered, a design itself can win and then the production of that design could be awarded to another company or multiple companies. It's happened a number of times in the past.

I suspect the same thing will happen here...that is, talks and tests and no change for years.
Click to expand...

You don't have to wonder if it will, it already has. Look up the Joint Combat Pistol. The doubts about whether anything will come from this has already been brought up by manufacturers, such as Ruger.
 
TunnelRat said:
CZ would have to dramatically expand their operations stateside. That doesn't bother me, but it would likely be a factor in them deciding to enter the competition
Click to expand...
As much as I would love to see that, I'm reasonably certain CZ sat this one out. :) And, as much as I like CZ, I would like to see an American made sidearm in American troops hands.
 
if they go thru this much effort might aswell scrap the rifles and give them two pistols each so they can dual fist those war winning pistols.:rolleyes:
 
As much as I would love to see that, I'm reasonably certain CZ sat this one out. And, as much as I like CZ, I would like to see an American made sidearm in American troops hands.
Click to expand...

Any gun winning the competition will be American-made -- which is not the same as American-made and American-owned. The SIGs, Berettas, and Glocks now used by US troops are all American-made. As are the FN-made long guns. Congress requires American-made. (Most of the traditional American gunmakers have foreign owners, or large foreign partners.)
 
It would be interesting to compare the full and complete procurement cost vs. the cost of the pistol to produce itself. It would probably make you cry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top