Who will US Army pick

Status
Not open for further replies.
freethought said:

Quote:
Oh and in closing , to the individual that came off with " who cares what line troops think." ( or close to it)..........just about anybody who served cares.....and who cares what a civilian with a rather snotty attitude thinks about it?
I assume you're talking about my comments about a soldiers perspective on the 9mm's terminal performance.

A solider is not:

---A forensic pathologist
---Educated in the field of human physiology
---Educated in rheology/fluid dynamics

Therefore, a soldier's opinion on terminal ballistics is useless.
__________________
BREAKING NEWS: Local man found in the street yelling "1911" and "45" while drooling, more at 11:00.
Click to expand...
I'm not taking sides in this firefight here--but I do find this statement a bit condescending--not because I know anything at all about what the military in the field of battle do or do not need (I don't) BUT I do know service people who come from backgrounds of growing up with hunting and shooting and actually do know quite a bit about weapons and their performance.
 
Were the victims of 9mm rounds ever autopsied to examine what major/minor parts of the cardiovascular system were hit?

Were the victims shot with other rounds at the same time other than 9mm? If so, where did the rounds strike?

What is each individual soldiers definition of "effective"? How realistic is their definition of "effective"?

Too many questions unanswered. So tell me again, why the hell should I give a care about a soldiers opinion on terminal ballistics?
 
So tell me again, why the hell should I give a care about a soldiers opinion on terminal ballistics?
Click to expand...
Ummmm--maybe because they're the ones that are there and whose lives may depend on performance parameters?
 
We are reopening this thread. I've cleaned out a wave of stupidity and insults from a member no longer with us.

Discussing a new army gun seems a good topic. However, we can do it on technical aspects with respect for other opinions.

Rants and posts that just say:

1911 forever
I hate Glocks
I am a secret operator

- We don't need that.

Thank you and let the games continue.

For my two cents - a Glock 17 would just be fine. Buy them off the shelf and save us a buck or two. However, if the new Beretta saves money, buy that.
 
For my two cents - a Glock 17 would just be fine. Buy them off the shelf and save us a buck or two. However, if the new Beretta saves money, buy that.
Click to expand...

Smartest line of the thread so far.

I would say the same goes for S&W, SIG, current M9 etc. All are decent options. Whichever design passes trials (real trials - not ones designed to favor a particular design), and has the cheapest long-term price is the right choice.
 
Glad to see this thread re-opened. I kinda thought it ended a bit too abruptly just because a few voting-age adolescents elect to turn it into a venue for a flame-war.

I think there's merit to selecting/issuing the Glock 17, assuming it passes the trials. "Balance of Trade" is among the WORST motivations for choosing one sidearm over another, and if it was EVER a factor, I hope that changes, this time.

For elite-force personnel & others whose T.O. & E. requires they be issued a sidearm, I think they should have the option of using an issued Glock 17, or providing their own. I could even see reimbursing said personnel for their purchase, UP TO THE ACQUISITION COST OF A GLOCK 17.

I cringe and shudder at the thought of ANYONE in uniform fielding a Taurus Judge for a sidearm, because it's the only revolver they could afford and the service putting them in harm's way won't reimburse them for a S&W M686. But I also don't think Uncle Sugar should have to pay full fare, if the service-member wants to carry a SiG 210.
 
I'm glad the thread has been reopened too.

I still maintain that after all is said and done a LOT more will be said than done.

And although the staff doesn't seem to tolerate threads complimenting them on their efforts I think if you followed this thread in the past you could see what this site could become if it weren't for their work.
 
Remember, the basic rule is that the item that can meet the requirements at the least cost will be the new service pistol.

Jim
 
Remember, the basic rule is that the item that can meet the requirements at the least cost will be the new service pistol.

Jim
__________________
Jim K
Click to expand...
Is that an actual rule in the DOD purchasing guidelines? I know it's a "guiding force" but is it the "sole determinant?" My guess is there's a lot of wiggle room built into "meet the requirements."
 
Stagpanther,

I spent a whole lot of time writing specs for DoD, though not for guns, and can only answer maybe, maybe not. If the requirement is for a minimum 20 round magazine, then 19 doesn't cut it. If the requirement is for ease of disassembly, then there is some subjective "wiggle room". They will usually write the requirements to be as objective as possible, though, and as easily quantified and qualified as they can be.

For example, I would not require that a grip be "usable for women with small hands." I would write that "the circumference of the grip shall not exceed x.x centimeters at any point." I would not require "ease of disassembly" but that the gun must be "disassembled as much as the manufacturer deems necessary for adequate cleaning, and reassembled, in not more than 10 minutes after not more than 20 minutes instruction and without tools other than parts of the pistol that are normally removed in the field disassembly procedure" or words like that.

Jim
 
Stagpanther,

I spent a whole lot of time writing specs for DoD, though not for guns, and can only answer maybe, maybe not. If the requirement is for a minimum 20 round magazine, then 19 doesn't cut it. If the requirement is for ease of disassembly, then there is some subjective "wiggle room". They will usually write the requirements to be as objective as possible, though, and as easily quantified and qualified as they can be.

For example, I would not require that a grip be "usable for women with small hands." I would write that "the circumference of the grip shall not exceed x.x centimeters at any point." I would not require "ease of disassembly" but that the gun must be "disassembled as much as the manufacturer deems necessary for adequate cleaning, and reassembled, in not more than 10 minutes after not more than 20 minutes instruction and without tools other than parts of the pistol that are normally removed in the field disassembly procedure" or words like that.

Jim
Click to expand...

That was pretty much my experience too. You have to kind of write it like you almost expect the vendor to take advantage of "loose language" if that makes sense.

In the few years I worked with sourcing as contractor for the DoD I was pretty impressed with the vetting and bidding process. I didn't find it to be underhanded at all. In my experience, the lowest bid wasn't necessarily the one that was chosen. It was usually the one who had the best ideas.

All that said, I had nothing to do with arms, this was for the Corps of Engineers so that might make a difference.
 
Well, in three days we will know for sure who is an is not competing.
I still maintain that after all is said and done a LOT more will be said than done.
Click to expand...
That is probably the closest we will get to the end result with our premonitions.
 
James K said:
Remember, the basic rule is that the item that can meet the requirements at the least cost will be the new service pistol.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that is true. I'm curious about requirement(s) for item "x" that seem to exist for the purpose to ensure company "Y" gets that particular contract. And what about cost overruns? Does the Military/DOD typically pull the plug on a company for cost overruns after spending millions or billions of dollars on item "x" and start over with a new company/item?
 
Last edited:
They should pick Hi-Point 45's. Cheap, reliable, disposable and made in the USA. After all, its only a sidearm; not meant to be a combat tool.

FWIW, the original AR's were equally as cheap and disposable as the Hi-Point, and the military had no problem embracing that gun.
 
The Grandaddy of cost overruns is the Lockheed F-35 program. So far they've not pulled the plug.
Click to expand...
And they better not if anyone wants to win Ohio in 2016, and I've heard they do. The F-35 is all that keeps Dayton's economy above water. Cut that program and a lot of votes are lost :) Oink Oink!
Like going to the moon, the project does have a lot of important spin-off technologies.
Which competing company is in Florida?
 
The Grandaddy of cost overruns is the Lockheed F-35 program. So far they've not pulled the plug.
And they better not if anyone wants to win Ohio in 2016, and I've heard they do. The F-35 is all that keeps Dayton's economy above water. Cut that program and a lot of votes are lost Oink Oink!
Like going to the moon, the project does have a lot of important spin-off technologies.
Which competing company is in Florida?
Click to expand...
:D:D
 
And they better not if anyone wants to win Ohio in 2016, and I've heard they do. The F-35 is all that keeps Dayton's economy above water. Cut that program and a lot of votes are lost Oink Oink!
Like going to the moon, the project does have a lot of important spin-off technologies.
Which competing company is in Florida?
Click to expand...

Lockheed Martin has a pretty big presence in FL. Their main office is in DC as you might expect. I used to work for them but on a different contract. They treated me well. I wish I'd never left sometimes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top