View Full Version : DHS agencies to buy up to 7,000 new 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” More a
Thought some of you may find this interesting...
http://endthelie.com/2012/06/12/dhs-agencies-to-buy-up-to-7000-new-5-56x45mm-nato-personal-defense-weapons/#axzz1xcNaLV2j
brickboy240
06-12-12, 16:58
No doubt to be used on us, after the dollar collapses and everything really goes sideways. the final chapter of "hope and change."
What....did you think they were for use guarding our southern border? LOL
- brickboy240
John Hearne
06-12-12, 17:09
As with the hysteria regarding the ammo purchase, the solicitation is not for 7,500 weapons. It is for up to 7,500 weapons. This is standard contracting language. The agencies aren't buying 7,500 weapons immediately but the winning bidder has to provide up to that number at that price.
If I had to guess, they'll buy 1/4 to 1/3 of the "up to" amount and then have an option on the others, if they decide they want them later. Given the problems of getting an approved contract, it is now common for other agencies to buy off of another's agencies contract. DHS, which includes a lot of agencies under that umbrella, may want 1,000 weapons and other agencies might buy another 1,000.
We're buying our duty .223 off of the FBI contract because they speced out a large number of rounds and got a really good price. IIRC, 10-15 agencies are able to buy ammo of that contract.
Whoever wrote the original article has no idea what they're talking about. 4,000 rounds isn't that many rounds to run through a gun as part of a selection process.
Excellent points there John. Additionally, even if they bought the 7K rifles, spread out over the contract period of 5 years, that would equate to about 1400 rifles per year. But common sense doesn't fit into the "they're coming to get us" types. . . .
Zombie hunter NUTBAG paranoid, their out to get us TEAM TARD write up. Nothing more. The border are a huge problem. Drive to San Diego from Phx and see the work being done. No easy solution.
LOL. I have no conspiratorial intent; I just thought that it was interesting. I know nothing about arms procurement. Thanks John for providing some real information.
Moose-Knuckle
06-12-12, 18:03
Hmm, I did not see a particular vendor mentioned
From the article. . .
The solicitation also specifies that the guns will be quite small for a rifle at a mere 30 inches or less with the stock fully extended and 20 inches or less with the stock fully retracted or folded.
So I would ass-u-me that DHS is going with the Colt LE6933 (NSN 1005-01-581-2925)?
I think the author of that piece may not understand that DHS now encompasses a myriad of other agencies that used to fall under other umbrellas, not the smallest of which is the US Coast Guard. With that in mind, 7,000 PDW's doesn't seem like such a large number anymore.
ffhounddog
06-12-12, 18:23
I bought Glock 22s on the FBI contract because it was $50 cheaper than the DHS contract. Wish I could buy a Glock for that price myself.
That is standard contracting stuff.
Dang I had to get one agency to stop paying $45.00 for replacement Glock magaines. It was on their contract.
You might get good prices but some prices are over what you pay retail for.
Read the proposal:
3.9.7 The action shall possess a firing pin designed to prevent accidental discharges if the firearm is dropped.
3.31 Drop Test. The firearm shall be equipped with a discharge control mechanism that is designed to prevent the firearm from firing as a result of an impact, while the hammer is in the cocked position, with the safety off. Additionally, the firearm shall be serviceable and exhibit no major damage as the result of being dropped on a concrete pad from a height of three feet in the following orientations:
a. Muzzle facing the concrete pad.
b. Butt of stock down facing the concrete pad.
c. Top of the receiver and barrel facing the concrete pad.
NOTE: Major damage is defined as damage that would result in the gun being unsafe to fire, discharging during testing, or malfunctioning during firing.
Ill defined, poorly written, requirement. It could be construed as only an HK416 type firing pin safety. Or maybe it means pass drop test with what ammo?
3.12 Overall Length.
3.12.1 The overall length of the firearm shall not exceed 30 inches with the stock fully extended.
3.12.2 The overall length of the firearm shall not exceed 20 inches with the stock fully retracted and/or folded.
HMNN.......
3.14.3 The barrel shall be equipped with a flash suppressor and/or muzzle brake. The muzzle device will be rated on its ability to reduce muzzle signature. It is desired that the muzzle devise effectively reduces muzzle rise during firing.
Contradictory traits.. How is a vendor to gauge value of each?
Holy shit, the sky is falling! I better upgrade my body armor to level 5. Bring it on DHS. :rolleyes:
So exactly which rifle was this contract written for? Sounds like a specific set of requirements for a specific rifle.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
I just hope that I will be issued one of these before long.
I can think of nothing COTs that meets the 20" length requirement.
Colt SCW 23" (10" barrel)
HK 416C 22" (9" barrel)
LWRC UICW 22" (this with a 7" barrel)
The only way I can see this working in an AR format is a 7" barrel on a colt SCW. And I wouldn't wager on reliability of such a short format.
John, I don't know what line of work you are in...and I agree that the language is UP TO 7000, with the implication to the public that DHS wont necessary buy that many. However, I am in public elected office, and being newly elected and "green" to this kind of language...my police department took direct advantage of such language of up to. They brought it right UP TO. Its all about budgets in the government world, if procured moneys aren't spent, then that budget item will/should be slashed the following year.
Our department as described above asked us (town council) for up to XXX,XXX.XX dollars for new computer systems...and we approved for the funds to the Up To language. But we strongly encouraged them they didn't need nor have the skills to utilize the type of computers they were asking for...Guess what, the chief went right up to the ragged damn edge of UP TO. It happens all the time.
However, when it comes to weapons, ammunition, training, vehicles, I rarely get bent out of shape with the government buying the latest and greatest. If that was my ass of the front lines working on a 2 way gun range i'd by god want the latest and greatest too...But in the case i described there was no damn reason for the UP TO to be utilized.
If DHS needs up to 7K new Carbines...then we should buy them up to 7,000...that's the true intentions of Gov't to provide for the Common Defense.
Sorry rant over
Funny. I just read through that whole thing and is sure sounds like an SBR such as the 6933 would fit the bill.
Hmm, I did not see a particular vendor mentioned
From the article. . .
So I would ass-u-me that DHS is going with the Colt LE6933 (NSN 1005-01-581-2925)?
GeorgiaBoy
06-13-12, 02:23
7,000 weapons could do very little against a population of 300 million... Why do these conspiracy theorists get so out of whack with these things?
Nightvisionary
06-13-12, 02:49
Interesting that ARES expressed interest in filling the 7k contract. Their production facility must be idle now that all the Shrike back orders have been filled.
Moose-Knuckle
06-13-12, 03:36
Funny. I just read through that whole thing and is sure sounds like an SBR such as the 6933 would fit the bill.
Yeah, that was the first gun that popped in my head as I read the linked article. However according to Colt (http://www.colt.com/ColtLawEnforcement/Products/ColtM4Commando.aspx):
Overall length (stock retracted) 27.5 in. (66.9 cm)
Overall length (stock extended) 30.75 in. (78.1 cm)
So as Dano pointed out, there is nothing on the market currently that’s within the scope of the stated requirements.
Maybe they want a fantasy gun? I wouldn't be surprised if the person who wrote that document had no clue as to what they were talking about.
Yeah, that was the first gun that popped in my head as I read the linked article. However according to Colt (http://www.colt.com/ColtLawEnforcement/Products/ColtM4Commando.aspx):
Overall length (stock retracted) 27.5 in. (66.9 cm)
Overall length (stock extended) 30.75 in. (78.1 cm)
So as Dano pointed out, there is nothing on the market currently that’s within the scope of the stated requirements.
Yeah, that was the first gun that popped in my head as I read the linked article. However according to Colt (http://www.colt.com/ColtLawEnforcement/Products/ColtM4Commando.aspx):
Overall length (stock retracted) 27.5 in. (66.9 cm)
Overall length (stock extended) 30.75 in. (78.1 cm)
So as Dano pointed out, there is nothing on the market currently that’s within the scope of the stated requirements.
Armstech Compak 16 may qualify.
ETA: just checked and it fails the collapsed requirement by several inches so unless someone comes up with a new stock/receiver extension design, this may eliminate the entire AR family.
ffhounddog
06-13-12, 07:57
Maybe they want a fantasy gun? I wouldn't be surprised if the person who wrote that document had no clue as to what they were talking about.
http://primaryweapons.com/store/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=189&idcategory=11
Maybe they want a Diablo upper with carbine lower...someone has an affinity for video games.;)
Holy shit, the sky is falling! I better upgrade my body armor to level 5. Bring it on DHS. :rolleyes:
Thank you.....
Aren't we all hoping they buy Bushmasters or RRA's for when they turn on us? :p
Guys are missing the big point.
The AR-15/M4 family was just reclassified by DHS. They are no longer "Assault Rifles" and are now "Personal Defense Weapons".
Good Lawyer should be able to use that next time a client is charged with having an "Assault Rifle".
Thanks DHS!
The Robinson XCR mini and micro fall within the stated measurements. The Mini is exactly 20" folded.
http://xcr.robarm.com/xcrl.php
intermission
06-13-12, 09:10
I wonder if it could be a SCAR, the SCAR 16 CQC is 21" folded and 31" extended, so it might just be one with a shorter barrel.
I don't see how you can get a weapon down to 20" and then up to 30" without a folding stock of some kind.
Beat Trash
06-13-12, 09:16
I'm not going to attempt to guess exactly what kind of weapon they are looking to obtain. I read the link and the language was rather unclear to me. But then, I really need my morning coffee.
The author in the link made a big deal about DHS buying up to 7,000 weapons. He even spelled out NATO. I guess by doing so that makes things more sinister.
DHS buying up to 7,000 select fire 5.56 mm guns? OK.... AND...?
I would imagine a large chunk of this order could go to the US Border Patrol. The way things have been along our borders the last few years, they could probably use them. As far as I'm concerned, every Border Patrol agent should be issued one. Next in line should be every LEO working along the SW border.
I work for a police agency of about 1,100 officers. We have about 30-40 departmentally AR15's (AKA Patrol Rifles) to go around the Patrol Bureau. (Additional guns for SWAT and training) We could easily find a use for another 250-300 guns, funds permitting. But who knows what the idiot in the linked article would do with the idea of an urban LEO agency wanting that many sinister weapons?
The world isn't what it used to be. The threats have become more threatening. More dangerous. As a Nation, we should be prepared to respond accordingly.
My main concern is that DHS throughly conducts a T&E process prior to spending tax payer funds on 7,000 guns.
My other concern is that they are actually choosing the correct tool for the mission. I hear PDW and think of 7" barreled guns. If that's what the mission and intended task calls for, so be it. If not, I'm wondering if something along the size of the Colt 6933 might be better.
I wouldn't be surprised if the person who wrote that document had no clue as to what they were talking about.
I think this is the most plausible explanation.
eternal24k
06-13-12, 09:24
the requirements are specific and limit the possibility of many obvious choices, leads me to wonder if they have a product in mind and are writing the contract based around that item.
I am the only one who is thinking that this was written around the Remington ACR? I mean Remington did get the M4 contract and Freedom Group has enough political clout to make it seem reasonable. The only other firearm I can think of that meets all the requirements would be the Mk 16.
If someone meets the criteria given it should be an interesting weapon.
Holy shit, the sky is falling! I better upgrade my body armor to level 5. Bring it on DHS. :rolleyes:
I hear these weapons are for the Buildabears personal guard. :D
AZ-Renegade
06-13-12, 10:47
A few months back, a friend of mine in our Office of Training and Development was telling me about OTDs interestd in a .223 PDW for USBP. I assume this proposal is related to that project.
From what was described to me at the time, they were interested in a design similar to the Magpul PDR, which to my knowledge doesn't exist as an operating firearm.
According to the specifications in this proposal it sounds like they want a more conventional design now.
Personally, I would rather they just purchase 11.5 or 10.5 inch uppers for our existing M4s and "save" the tax payers some money.
hotbiggun42
06-13-12, 11:02
The Police are becoming more militarized,drone planes flying over our Country, DHS arming themselves, TSA doing roadside checks and if you question these things you are a paranoid nut? :D.
We will get what we deserve won't we.
The Police are becoming more militarized,drone planes flying over our Country, DHS arming themselves, TSA doing roadside checks and if you question these things you are a paranoid nut? :D.
We will get what we deserve won't we.
I understand your point of view and I very much agree that some of what you say could be considered violations of the 4th Amendment. However, I think you need to consider that the criminals of today are much more militant than what we have faced in the past. Just like the early FBI had to begin carrying military firearms in order to combat criminals using the military firearms (The Barrow gang, Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, and Pretty Boy Floyd) we are now confronting armed cartels that don't give a second thought about killing thousands and are better armed than some foreign militaries (The Zetas and the Sinaloa Cartel especially).
Sounds like they want Mk16 CQCs. It comes closest to the size requirement and takes STANAG/PMags.
I wonder if when they state "gas operated" that it means DI only?
My first thought was G36C until I read the magazine requirement. That's the only gun I could think of that would get that small besides a Krinkov.
Firstly, I would suggest tinfoil hat types post in a more appropriate spot. Ones feelings/theories about, insert whatever gov agency here, have nothing to do with 'General AR discussion".
The AR format has almost been ubiquitous in a service firearm, and I certainly skipped over some other possibilities.
Secondly, It would appear that a folder format it the only suitable one... I guess that would leave the:
SCAR PDW (20.5".. too long as is)
SCAR-L CQC (21")
Rem ACR-C (19.5")
ROBARM Mini (20")
So the OAL of the SCAR PDW puts it out. Perhaps they could use a fold instead of collapse stock, add few inches of barrel, and still make the OAL. However the SCAR is a bulky snag hazard IMO.
The ACR variant looks optimized for this requirement, and is a relatively snag free design to boot. Better for withdraw from concealment.
The RobArms design looks OK, I would change some angles, esp the charging handle to be snag free during presentation from concealment.
The author lost all credibility with me on this line...
Furthermore, they state that every firearm will be tested with a whopping 4,000 rounds, meaning that 28,000,ooo rounds will be spent just testing the firearms before they are put into service.
They aren't going to fire 4,000 rounds through each of the 7,000 guns. They are going to fire 4,000 rounds through a sample of each model submitted during the eval period. Idiot!
A few months back, a friend of mine in our Office of Training and Development was telling me about OTDs interestd in a .223 PDW for USBP. I assume this proposal is related to that project.
From what was described to me at the time, they were interested in a design similar to the Magpul PDR, which to my knowledge doesn't exist as an operating firearm.
According to the specifications in this proposal it sounds like they want a more conventional design now.
Personally, I would rather they just purchase 11.5 or 10.5 inch uppers for our existing M4s and "save" the tax payers some money.
I'd love to drop the SOCOM profiled 14.5" for a gov't profile 10.5 or 11.5. Being able to use personally owned optics now is great, but I'd love to get the green light to use a personally owned upper half with that optic.
My first thought was G36C until I read the magazine requirement. That's the only gun I could think of that would get that small besides a Krinkov.
G36C can use Spuhr STANAG magazine adapter with ambi magazine release. HK only need to want :rolleyes:
sinlessorrow
06-13-12, 16:51
Sounds like this bad boy
http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/albums-h90-remov-shot2009-colt-scw-01-1.jpg
ETA: NVM the scw is 22" folded, its a shame
justin_247
06-13-12, 17:23
The Police are becoming more militarized,drone planes flying over our Country, DHS arming themselves, TSA doing roadside checks and if you question these things you are a paranoid nut? :D.
We will get what we deserve won't we.
You are a paranoid nut.
"The police are becoming more militarized" has been a conspiracy mantra for years now. And how is flying drones any different than flying airplanes and helicopters? TSA roadside checks - since when was driving a right and using the public roads not a privilege? DHS arming themselves... I certainly hope so since our Border Patrol agents face some of the nastiest folks on earth coming across the border.
DeviousMind
06-13-12, 17:34
If these weapons are for the border in all honesty I don't think it's enough. What about a SAW or two? Protecting our southern border should be one of our primary concerns as a country. When and if we get hit again where do you think the easiest way is into our country? Just one mans opinion.
Moose-Knuckle
06-13-12, 18:05
I wouldn't be surprised if the person who wrote that document had no clue as to what they were talking about.
This is the conclusion that I am drawing, as with all .gov procurements.
IMHO, if DHS goes with anything other than the AR platform it would prove to be counterproductive. Not to mention the vast majority of Fed LEOs have time on the AR manual of arms.
Find ManBearPig!
06-13-12, 20:19
To bad it has to be a 5.56 gun, the KAC PDW looks like it would fit the bill perfectly, and I have a lot of faith in KAC to not provide a POS, unproven rifle to the DHS.
hotbiggun42
06-13-12, 20:21
You are a paranoid nut.
"The police are becoming more militarized" has been a conspiracy mantra for years now. And how is flying drones any different than flying airplanes and helicopters? TSA roadside checks - since when was driving a right and using the public roads not a privilege? DHS arming themselves... I certainly hope so since our Border Patrol agents face some of the nastiest folks on earth coming across the border.
I am a nut :D Is being paranoid of a Tyranical .Gov a bad thing?
Freedoooom
06-13-12, 23:12
I love the people saying its not possible, but quick look at the ACR and XCR showed it was already in existence.
Both whether its in the future or now that its decided 5.56 is a stupid caliber, they could go ahead and get the 130% more power out of 9.5 inch barrel and go 6.8 spc.
Our Colt SOPMOD M4's with with the Eotech just plain suck as an urban entry weapon. They are too just too big to move around discretely in an urban, hell, even in a suburban environment, let alone store discreetly and securely in plain vehicles. A small side folding SBR is much better suited to our investigative uses and it is nice to see NFTTU finally listening to the end-users in the field, rather than ordering the cheapest setup available. A small SBR, especially a side folding SBR that would fit in a bookbag can be moved in and out of the "office setting" to the field without sending the other tenants into hysteria.
Right now, I can think of two weapons that fit this bill. The SBR versions of the Remington ACR and the FN SCAR. Hell, at this point I'd settle to have my AUG-P back, I'll buy my own damn optic.
Moose-Knuckle
06-14-12, 02:32
I love the people saying its not possible, but quick look at the ACR and XCR showed it was already in existence.
Both whether its in the future or now that its decided 5.56 is a stupid caliber, they could go ahead and get the 130% more power out of 9.5 inch barrel and go 6.8 spc.
Well this was posted in the AR General Discussion forum and given the requirements stated in the article and the relationship of the .gov and the AR platform . . .
Besides the AKS-74U and Sig 552 pre-date the SCAR, XCR, and ACR by DECADES.
The 6.8 SPC vs. 5.56 NATO debate is a whole other thread unto itself.
I wish they would have went with the MP7. Just so more of those little guns might be available to possibly play with at various LE trainings. As LAV has stated it's like a fully auto .17HMR!!! Hell for the Paranoid guys, that might even be considered less lethal. Everyone would be happy!!
sinlessorrow
06-14-12, 11:02
I wish they would have went with the MP7. Just so more of those little guns might be available to possibly play with at various LE trainings. As LAV has stated it's like a fully auto .17HMR!!! Hell for the Paranoid guys, that might even be considered less lethal. Everyone would be happy!!
Having read dr roberts study on theose PDR's i would never choose one.
I just figured this request was dreamed up buy someone who wants to see the XM-8 Compact Carbine make it to market with a NATO magazine.
I also think by making the top end of the contract 7,000 guns - they would stand a better chance of finding a manufacturer to put together a system that meets the size requirement.
Guys are missing the big point.
The AR-15/M4 family was just reclassified by DHS. They are no longer "Assault Rifles" and are now "Personal Defense Weapons".
Good Lawyer should be able to use that next time a client is charged with having an "Assault Rifle".
Thanks DHS!
This ^ was my first thought :)
If I use an AR to defend my home, I will be certain to use the term our government used for themself: personal defense weapon.
With the exception of caliber,the HK PDW could fit the bill size wise.
Please stop with this sillyness. It doesn't matter if you use an AR or a musket to defend your home. If it is a bad shoot you are going to get nailed.
This has been discussed time and time again.
This ^ was my first thought :)
If I use an AR to defend my home, I will be certain to use the term our government used for themself: personal defense weapon.
Anyone think of the G36C when reading this request? I believe the G36C is 19.5" with the stock folded and 28" with the stock unfolded. It would fit this requirement very well.
I hope so, we don't have a single carbine at my port.
I hope so, we don't have a single carbine at my port.
These are destined for HSI.
Mod Edit: When told "Stop," you were not given the "....unless you have one more thing to say about it..." option.
"The police are becoming more militarized" has been a conspiracy mantra for years now. And how is flying drones any different than flying airplanes and helicopters? TSA roadside checks - since when was driving a right and using the public roads not a privilege? DHS arming themselves... I certainly hope so since our Border Patrol agents face some of the nastiest folks on earth coming across the border.
Agreed except for the driving not being a "right".
Many court cases have upheld that driving is indeed a right. The degree to which it is regulated is another matter entirely.
I will cite exact court cases if you would like.
And derail the thread further...?
Like hell you will.
leibermuster
06-15-12, 10:27
KAC PDW all the way..
Whatever happened to the 416C? I have only herd rumors about it being scraped, did a lot of searches nothing came up. If 556 is the round of criteria then this would be a good option in theory with a suppressor I guess..
Holy shit, the sky is falling! I better upgrade my body armor to level 5. Bring it on DHS. :rolleyes:
Now THAT is funny.
Anyone think of the G36C when reading this request? I believe the G36C is 19.5" with the stock folded and 28" with the stock unfolded. It would fit this requirement very well.
Fails the magazine requirement.
These are destined for HSI.
****ers!
:D
leibermuster
06-15-12, 15:33
Fails the magazine requirement.
They have conversion magwell adapter kits that will overcome that pitfall..
KAC PDW all the way..
Whatever happened to the 416C? I have only herd rumors about it being scraped, did a lot of searches nothing came up. If 556 is the round of criteria then this would be a good option in theory with a suppressor I guess..
I had read on the HK Froum that HK shelved the 416C due to inability to get it to work if I recall correctly.
Fails the magazine requirement.
The last time I checked HK made an adapter for the G36 to accept standard magazines.
AZ-Renegade
06-17-12, 21:10
I really hope they don't go with H&K on this one. It's hard enough to get parts for our P2000s and I'm beginning to believe the "U" in UMP stands for Unobtainium.
Our Colt SOPMOD M4's with with the Eotech just plain suck as an urban entry weapon. They are too just too big to move around discretely in an urban, hell, even in a suburban environment, let alone store discreetly and securely in plain vehicles. A small side folding SBR is much better suited to our investigative uses and it is nice to see NFTTU finally listening to the end-users in the field, rather than ordering the cheapest setup available. A small SBR, especially a side folding SBR that would fit in a bookbag can be moved in and out of the "office setting" to the field without sending the other tenants into hysteria.
Right now, I can think of two weapons that fit this bill. The SBR versions of the Remington ACR and the FN SCAR. Hell, at this point I'd settle to have my AUG-P back, I'll buy my own damn optic.
I miss my AUG. It was easy to use, I could break it down in a large backpack, and maintenance was a breeze. It didn't have a light mount and had a fixed optic, but hey, it was adopted in the late 1980's when Von Raab was the Commissioner of Customs and things like red dots and picatinny rails didn't exist.
justin_247
06-17-12, 22:01
I had read on the HK Froum that HK shelved the 416C due to inability to get it to work if I recall correctly.
I'm interested in hearing more about this...
I still don't understand why HK doesn't simply redesign the upper receiver to accommodate a shorter BCG on rails, and eliminate the problem of carrier tilt entirely.
I'm interested in hearing more about this...
I still don't understand why HK doesn't simply redesign the upper receiver to accommodate a shorter BCG on rails, and eliminate the problem of carrier tilt entirely.
See attached link for the thread on HKPro. http://www.hkpro.com/forum/hk416-hk417-hq/149570-sad-news-416c.html
sinlessorrow
06-18-12, 13:32
See attached link for the thread on HKPro. http://www.hkpro.com/forum/hk416-hk417-hq/149570-sad-news-416c.html
isnt the HK416C the exact same size as the Colt SCW?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.