Who will US Army pick

Status
Not open for further replies.
he other company is General Dynamics, which is basically unknown on the American commercial gun market, but has a long and storied history as a defense contractor and provides a substantial percentage of U.S. military ammo as I understand it. The article (which I'll search out later) made the point that GD's participation is a major coup for S&W because it offsets their perceived lack of experience with modern U.S. military contract work.
Click to expand...

GD is well known to folks who reload as the folks behind the powder plant in St. Marks FL. And now that you mentioned it, it WAS GD, not Remington I read about.
 
Frankly, except for the silly magazine disconnect, I don't see a lot wrong with the MkIII Browning Hi-Powers. It's almost certainly more small hand-friendly than the Beretta.
Click to expand...

We've used the HP as our service pistol for who knows how long without any major issues.
 
Ruger set forth the problems better than I can. The rewards of being accepted are great, but the costs of competing are high. Ruger has had enough success in the commercial/police market world wide that they probably don't see any need to go for a big US contract.

Don't forget that competing and winning is not just selling some guns to the Army. Just to compete requires tons of paperwork, endless meetings, travel, and spending hours of test time. The losing bidder sees it all go down the drain. The winner has to be able to set up production facilities in the US, put together an extensive data package, accept disclosure of proprietary information to any other company that the Army may later choose, make about any changes the army may require at little or no cost, set up a supply train, prepare documentation and manuals, prepare a training program and, almost incidentally, produce the guns on time and within the bid price.. And make less profit than they would selling the same gun to me.

I am not surprised that some companies would choose not to compete.

Jim

P.S. Hi-Point might not be a bad choice - simple, reliable, and cheap enough to be a throwaway.

Jim
 
Of all the American Arms Manufacturing, Ruger "HAS NO DEBT".

This could be why I think Ruger might not want to get into this as James stated.
The amount of paperwork, blood ,sweat and tears, to go through this is daunting to say the least.

However Fitasc picked up a very small but telling little gem of info regarding
the collaboration between S&W and General Dynamics. GD has an incredible
amount of history dealing with the Defence Department .Also, WVsig correctly
reasoned why Ruger will not participate in this bidding process.
They have been wrangling with this since 2014 when this particular discussion started.

GO ARMY

Respectfully,

Doc
 
Last edited:
There also seems to be an almost instinctive tendency among large agencies to NOT adopt Rugers, just because their name isn't Smith & Wesson, Colt, SiG, or Glock, and I think it is a mistake, given the reputation for strength, durability and reliability that most every Ruger firearm enjoys. If Ruger submits a candidate pistol to the trials, it'll have to leave its competitors in the dust to be considered.
Click to expand...

Ruger's are not selected because they are simply not competitive against other, more refined entrants! Ruger's semi-autos are not taken seriously at any professional level, they haven't a single major LE contract, there is no possible way they will even be marginally considered by DoD, such would be analogous to FBI adopting Taurus PT92 9mm pistols, ain't never gonna happen!
 
I believe Ruger had a history with the P89 with the state patrol of a northern state(maybe Wisonsin?? ) I also believe some of their revolvers were carried by departments back in the day.

Ruger could certainly compete if they choose to. They may not. They have the money, capability, American made, etc.

When is the last time you saw a Smith and Wesson in the military? But, they could certainly compete and they have partnered with a defense type organization.

The thing to remember is that the pistol is not a primary weapon for the Army. Matter of fact, many units are now just giving the soldiers who might have carried a sidearm in the past a M4.

The Glock 19 would be a vary good choice. I have one, but I just don't see it as general issue weapon for the bulk of troops. I just don't see them giving a regular troop non safety pistol with a fairly light trigger pull. The special ops guys shoot all the time and train with a pistol all the time.
 
some of the responders seemed surprosed and perhaps angry that the Army would switch from using the Beretta M9 semi automatic.
Please go to Wikipedia and check out there explanation as to why the Army wants to replace the Beretta. See Beretta 9M.

Some of the reasons were it's "stopping power" was insufficient, the level of trust was diminished, Slide failures, those who were satisfied was the lowest rate in this particular survey. This survey was open to ONLY THOSE TROOPS THAT RETURED FROM IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN AND FIRED THEIR SIDE ARMS.
The rest of the article was an eyeopener to say the least.
Basically, The Army, in Jan. 2015, rejected The M9A3 proposal from Baretta.

The GAO surveyed soldiers reurning from Iraq and Afganistan and asked them what they wanted to have under battle conditions. Again, only those who actually used and fired their Barettas were considered.

I hope this explains why Baretta M9A3 is not going to make it in this situation.
 
If they were to return to the .45 ACP with a DA/SA action they would probably be better served than they would with the 9mm Parabellum. Perhaps S&W will win out at the trials.

We can always hope.
 
Ruger set forth the problems better than I can. The rewards of being accepted are great, but the costs of competing are high. Ruger has had enough success in the commercial/police market world wide that they probably don't see any need to go for a big US contract.

Don't forget that competing and winning is not just selling some guns to the Army. Just to compete requires tons of paperwork, endless meetings, travel, and spending hours of test time. The losing bidder sees it all go down the drain. The winner has to be able to set up production facilities in the US, put together an extensive data package, accept disclosure of proprietary information to any other company that the Army may later choose, make about any changes the army may require at little or no cost, set up a supply chain, prepare documentation and manuals, prepare a training program and, almost incidentally, produce the guns on time and within the bid price.. And make less profit than they would selling the same gun to me.
Click to expand...

This is the fact, the Army's solicitation requires the eventual "successful" bidder to turn over to the US Gov't, it's intellectual property rights for a Commercial-Off-The-Shelf ("COTS") service pistol. This is fine if they are buying a Blackhawk helicopter, which was developed to a military specification, but it just does not apply to a COTS equipment procurement. Most if not all of the bidders will take exception to this contract requirement.

The DOD Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) has already approved the Glock 22/23/27 pistol series, let the regular military buy these at the brigade or division level, or let them continue to use an M9 variant.
 
Last edited:
Some of the reasons were it's "stopping power" was insufficient
Click to expand...

who gives a crap what a soldier says on the subject of terminal performance? If it was a 45, they'd complain it's not a hollow point. If it's a 223, they'd complain it wasn't a 308. If it was a 308, they'd complain it wasn't a soft point. It never ends. Did you wonder that maybe those soldiers can't shoot worth a damn? Did you think maybe they couldn't always get rounds into lethal areas of the human body because of that?

These young guys grew up on call of duty games and thought that's how bullet lethality works, that somehow it's about millimeters and grains. Give it up already.
 
This is why there are 350 pages and GD is involved. McCain is correct:

"Or perhaps that’s the whole point, and the Army already has a preferred outcome in mind and is just going through the motions with
this “competition”. By purchasing both handguns and ammunition from a single vendor on a single contract, the total value of which could exceed $1.2B, the Army’s selection process favors larger
companies over smaller ones and increases the risk that the Army will not select the best performing weapon, ammunition, silencer, holster and training system components available. "
 
I was a soldier once. We bitched about everything. It was part of the job:)

At the end of the day, I think they stay with the M9 or varient and they will on as needed basis switch to another platform other caliber. Will be a command decision.

Like someone mentioned if they go to the 45 they will say they would rather have a 15 round magazine or it is too heavy. :D
 
The people that are arming our enemies
Do not give a fig about NATO or
UN rules or regs. on using prescribed
Ammo/weapons/ etc. so, when our
regular soldiers have to use Barretta's9M
The BG's are using arms that out class
The Baretta. The Baretta 9 M is a very
excellent Side Arm, but our guys deserve the
best protection & arms possible.
It's like going to a knife fight & the
other guy has a Uzi.
GO ARMY!
 
I hope they just stay with the M9. We really don't need even more money to be spent on sidearms right now.

But if they did move to a new manufacturer, I'd hope it'd be SIG Sauer or Hk. :)
 
No. It's not the main arm. It's the main side arm and that's all I'm talking about. I have family that are currently serving. I'll take what I'm told
as accurate.

So to get back on point. The question is still who will get the replacement contract and why??

GO ARMY!

Doc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top