Latest version of JCP: Modular Handgun System

[ToddG]

See here (https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=74c8c60f8f146737c0240eadfb269e06&tab=core&_cview=0).

[ToddG]

Sources Sought Announcement for a Modular Handgun System
Sources Sought Notice MHS 20080424.doc 1

The Program Manager for Soldier Weapons (PM-SW) Picatinny Arsenal, NJ
07806-5000, on behalf of the US Air Force, has a requirement for a non-
developmental handgun. This effort will be conducted in three phases
consisting of a Competitive Down-selection Phase, System Development &
Demonstration (SDD) Phase, and a Full Rate Production (FRP) Phase. This
Sources Sought Notice does not reflect a complete listing of all
requirements for a Modular Handgun System.

The mandatory weapon system requirements follow. Any vendor not
meeting the following mandatory requirements may not be considered a
potential source.

System Performance.
• System Accuracy. Accuracy will be assessed by two measures:
a) To a range of 50 meters, when the weapon is mounted in a machine
rest or manufacturer’s design rest with a human shooter, dispersion
will be no greater than a 4” Circular Error of Probability (CEP).
b) When in the hands of a shooter, the weapon must enable the
shooter to successfully engage E-type silhouettes and:
1) Hit each target with 2 shots to the upper torso and one to the
head within 7 – 10 seconds at 15 meters.
2) Hit the target with 2 shots at 7 meters within 4 seconds.
• Projectile characteristics. The Handgun System should enable the
shooter to produce a wound channel larger than an M882 projectile
when firing standard ball (FMJ, non-expanding) ammunition into
ballistic gelatin from a distance of up to 25 meters where the
cavity is measured from 0-14 inches deep.
• Reliability. The Modular Handgun System shall demonstrate 2,000
Mean Rounds Between Stoppage (MRBS) (operator clearable/correctable
stoppages), and 5000 Mean Rounds Between Failures (MRBF) (non-
operator correctable).
• Service Life. The Modular Handgun shall have a minimum service life
of 25,000 rounds.

System Characteristics.
• Ergonomics. The Modular Handgun System must accommodate the 5th to
95th percentile of users. Determination will be made based on width,
length, grip circumference, location of controls, ambidextrous
controls, etc.
• Target Acquisition Enablers. As a minimum, Mil-Std-1913 rails shall
be incorporated on the weapon to enable rail mounted accessories to
be attached. Integrated aiming /pointed devices are of interest and
will also be evaluated.
• Physical Dimensions: With sights attached and empty magazine
inserted in weapon, the following dimensions are not to be exceeded:
a) The full size version shall be no more than 8.7 inches long, 5.8
inches high, and 1.6 inches wide. Weight shall not exceed 36
ounces.
b) The compact version shall be no larger than 7.5 inches long, 5.8
high, and 1.6 inches wide. Weight shall not exceed 34.5 ounces.
• Detection Avoidance: Weapon shall be of a non-reflective neutral
color. The MHS shall be operable with sound and flash suppression
kit in place.
• Safety Mechanisms: As a minimum, the handgun shall have internal
safety mechanisms in place such that a loaded cartridge will not
fire if the weapon is dropped from a height of 5 feet onto a
concrete or other hard surface. The weapon shall also have an
external, manually operated safety button/switch operable with one
hand.

The Government requests that the following accompany any submission.
Submissions shall not exceed 25 pages (8 ½ X 11”), not including test
data. Font shall be 12-pitch with one-inch borders.

• A description/matrix of how the proposed system meets the
requirements listed above. Each requirement above will be listed,
in order, with a written response detailing how the proposed pistol
performs against the stated requirements using the format provided.
Supporting rationale/data to be provided as an annex.
• Summarized and detailed test data from any test facility that
addresses the system performance requirements listed herein. Along
with this, Test Operating Procedures and independent system
evaluations are solicited.
• Detailed descriptions of candidate system to include drawings,
pictures, brochures, etc. that will convey the operating principles,
as well as general and specific system capabilities behind the
submissions.
• Production capacity estimate for the system. Provide an estimate of
maximum available monthly production capacity to meet government
requirements. This capacity should be above and beyond any current
production orders or current sales and should be able to be met
without the introduction of new facilities. If new facilities are
planned or required, state so.
• Production cost estimates for the system. For estimating purposes,
assume that each weapon system includes the handgun, 1 magazine per
weapon, and any required accessories to enable the 5th to 95th
percentile user to utilize this weapon. It is also requested that
additional magazines be unit priced, assuming 3 magazines per weapon
per year.
• Descriptions of any past or current Contracts whose deliverables
satisfy items covered in this announcement, either whole or in part.

Interested offerors should submit the information annotated above, in
hard copy, by close of business 14 May 2008 to: Commander, U.S. Army
TACOM LCMC, Acquisition Center, AMSTA-LC-WSC-C, Bldg 110, Attn: <<edited>>. Submissions
shall not exceed 25 pages (8 ½ X 11”), not including test data. Font
shall be 12 pitch with one inch borders. All information is to be
submitted at no cost or obligation to the Government. NO TELEPHONE
INQUIRIES WILL BE ACCEPTED. Documentation provided will not be
returned. This is a sources sought notice only. It is for planning
purposes only and should not be construed as a Request for Proposal or
a commitment by the United States Government.

SAMPLE RESPONSE FORM

System Performance.
• System Accuracy.
Accuracy of the _____________ pistol has been tested with the
following results:
a) From a Hardstand @ 50m:
b) Candidate weapon allows a shooter, when firing against an E-type
silhouette @ ___ meters to:
1) Hit the target with 2 shots to the upper torso and one to the
head within __ seconds. (Enter actual time to meet requirement)
2) Hit the target with 2 out of 3 shots at 5 meters within __
seconds. (Enter actual time to meet requirements).
• Projectile characteristics.
When fired from the _________________ pistol system, the _____
ammunition produces a wound channel volume of ________cubic inches
when fired into ballistic gelatin from a distance of 25 meters. The
cavity is measured from 0-14 inches deep.
• Reliability.
The ______________ pistol system has demonstrated _______ Mean
Rounds Between Stoppage (MRBS) (operator clearable/correctable
stoppages), and ________ Mean Rounds Between Failures (MRBF) (non-
operator correctable).
• Service Life.
The ____________ pistol system has been demonstrated to have a
minimum service life of _______ rounds.

System Characteristics.
• Ergonomics.
The ________ pistol system accommodates the 5th to 95th percentile of
users. This is achieved by_(describe how system is able to
accommodate users of different hand sizes)______________________.
• Target Acquisition Enablers.
a) The __________ pistol system has/does not have Mil-Std-1913
rails.
b) The __________ pistol system has/does not have Integrated aiming
/pointed devices.
• Physical Dimensions:
With sights attached and empty magazine inserted in weapon, the
__________ pistol system dimensions are as follows:
a) The full size version is ___ inches long, ____ inches high, and
____ inches wide. Weight is ____ ounces.
b) The compact version is ____ inches long, ____ high, and ____
inches wide. Weight is ____ ounces.
• Detection Avoidance:
a) The __________ pistol system color is ______________.
b) The Pistol candidate can/cannot be operated with sound and flash
suppression kit in place as demonstrated by the ___________
suppressor. The suppressor impacts performance of the weapon in the
following manner: ______________________________________________.
• Safety Mechanisms:
a) The __________ pistol system has the following internal safety
mechanisms in place: __________________________________________
The effectiveness of these devices were tested in the following
manner: __________________________________________________________.
b) The __________ pistol system has the following external safety
mechanisms in place: __________________________________________
The effectiveness of these devices were tested in the following
manner: __________________________________________________________.

[ToddG]

Interesting things to note:


Not specifically calling for a 45 Auto (major change from earlier programs/drafts)
Service life min of 25k (was 30k in previous drafts)
CEP, for those who don't know, means that 50% of shots fired must fall within that target zone (4" at 50m). It is not the same as a 4" group at 50m.
Weapon must have a manual safety (at least in previous iterations and discussions, neither the Army nor the USAF was will to accept the Glock trigger safety as an "external manually operated safety").

It's also interesting to see how much of the human factors/performance stuff they've put in there as far as shooting targets for accuracy and time, etc.

[Jay Cunningham]

Todd,

In your opinion, are there viable off-the-rack contenders for this? Does this requirement seem to stack the deck in favor of a current pistol?

[Wayne Dobbs]

It's certainly a wide open set of parameters. No caliber is mandated, no SA or DA trigger pull weights, no trigger action type, no capacity minimums, etc.

Should be interesting to see what this produces or if this process actually leads anywhere, unlike the recent past processes that died in the womb.

Thekatar,

As far as COTS pistols, it seems to favor HK and Smith and Wesson's offerings with thumb safeties in either .40 or .45 to me...

[sigmundsauer]

I think RFPs like this leave it wide open for the merits of the pistol to speak for themselves. Overly technical requirements ignore obvious human factors and performance attributes that are harder to quantify. One pistol could be technically superior in every respect but fail to meet a single requirement and be dismissed (maybe of relatively litte import), which would be a tragedy. The down side is that a relatively modest, unimpressive pistol could technically meet all the requirements and receive disproportional favor based off of very low cost estimates, because they technically met the minimum requirements. I don't think that's the intent here. I want the best.

I think this is the way to go. I also think it was written to favor the .40 caliber as a viable caliber solution.

Having served in the military for 12 years now, I am NOT one to advocate a pistol upgrade just for the sake of it. I think the M9 and M11 are both excellent service pistols that both the platform and caliber have taken way too much criticism due to lack of training and understanding of maintenance/marksmanship.

I will always want a lighter, more durable, more corrosion resistant sidearm though. The M9 and M11 are neither very corrosion resistant and are moderately durable under the maintenance schedules that the Armed Forces generally follow, which is virtualy nil.

Tim

[jmart]

Nothing about trigger function.

Personally I hope the winner is a US manufacturer. And not a foreign mfg that's assembled in the US, an honest to goodness US mfg.

[Wayne Dobbs]

Do you think that there's a possibility somebody will come up with a creative 9 x 19 FMJ load that meets the terminal ballistics requirements and avoid a new caliber all together?

[ToddG]

Thekatar -- As others have pointed out, the SS is very broad. Basically, the PM office is only looking for industry feedback at this time. Smart companies will actually come out and say, "Our gun isn't like that, it has/lacks feature XYZ so you should change your specs to include us." But most, instead, will jump through hoops trying to shoehorn existing products into the description.

No mention of action, capacity, caliber, etc. So certainly .40 will be pushed by some companies who have wider and/or more robust systems in that caliber than their forty-five variants (SIG and Beretta come immediately to mind), or simply have more ergonomic offerings in medium frame guns (Glock, Springfield). I'm also sure Glock will push 45 GAP as hard as they possibly can. It would be a real coup for them if they convinced Picatinny & USAF to consider it as equal to the 45 Auto in terms of ballistics.

H&K, Beretta, and Smith can all meet the requirements right now. If you consider the Glock trigger safety and XD grip safety as "manual safeties" then so can those companies. SIG has manual safety .45's (there is a neat prototype of the P220 Combat with both the standard SIG decocker lever and a 1911-style safety) but I know in '06/'07 they were having a hard time making the mechanism work properly in a .40-cal pistol. I don't know if the FN pistols meet the dimensional specs, but if not I'm sure FN's people are drafting language right now that explains why their pistols should be considered appropriate in size.

It's important to remember that a Sources Sought isn't nearly the same as a Request for Proposal. This is the military's way of saying, "Here is what we're thinking about. What do you, the industry, have along these lines?" Based on the responses received, Picatinny can form a better picture of what kind of COTS items are really out there. Remember, they not only have to pick a great gun, they have to have a specification open enough to allow fair & complete competition.

Wayne -- no, I don't think anyone is going to come up with a 9x19 round that will satisfy the military at this point. There have been various projects and discussions with JAG but a very conservative approach is being taken. The more cynical among us might even go so far as to believe that JAG's strict interpretation is motivated in part by a desire on the part of some to see a return to the .45 rather than simply a cold interpretation of the law. ;)

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

I predict a gun will win the contract. The fans of the other gun will claim that there was massive corruption. The fans of the other gun will "know a guy" involved that says the other gun "really" won.:D Within 2 years everybody will hate the gun that won.

[jmart]

I predict a gun will win the contract. The fans of the other gun will claim that there was massive corruption. The fans of the other gun will "know a guy" involved that says the other gun "really" won.:D Within 2 years everybody will hate the gun that won.

:D

Can I call you next time I play the lottery? I want you as my number picker.;)

[olds442tyguy]

I find it really interesting that they list the same height between compact and full size models. That makes me think they want a compact model with a shorter slide but a full size grip. I think that makes sense too, with magazine interchangeability and all. (Thunk Government and Commander).

Glock needs to add a manual frame safety, threaded barrel, and interchangeable back strap to the G21SF, as well as offer a model with a 4" barrel but a full size grip. They probably have the best cost to quality ratio. The only JCP entrants cheaper than the Glock were the XD and the Taurus OSS AFAIK.


To be honest, I don't think HK will win it. The HK45 is waaaaay to expensive for a general issue handgun. I'm not saying they're over priced, I'm just saying it's cost will be a very big negative for a general issue sidearm. (P226 versus the M9 for example).



Personally I hope the winner is a US manufacturer. And not a foreign mfg that's assembled in the US, an honest to goodness US mfg.

Smith and Wesson fan huh?

[jmart]

I find it really interesting that they list the same height between compact and full size models. That makes me think they want a compact model with a shorter slide but a full size grip. I think that makes sense too, with magazine interchangeability and all. (Thunk Government and Commander).

Glock needs to add a manual frame safety, threaded barrel, and interchangeable back strap to the G21SF, as well as offer a model with a 4" barrel but a full size grip. They probably have the best cost to quality ratio. The only JCP entrants cheaper than the Glock were the XD and the Taurus OSS AFAIK.


To be honest, I don't think HK will win it. The HK45 is waaaaay to expensive for a general issue handgun. I'm not saying they're over priced, I'm just saying it's cost will be a very big negative for a general issue sidearm. (P226 versus the M9 for example).



Smith and Wesson fan huh?

Not necessarily. Although that would be a likely contender. I just don't like the idea of the US buying sidearms from foreign manufacturers. We don't buy ships, subs, planes from foreigners, why should we buy arms? I've got to think between Colt (and Kimber and Springfield) and S&W and Ruger, someone can make decent sidearm that meets specs. Hell, just buy more 1911's. It worked for several wars before, not sure why it can't still work.

[sigmundsauer]

I find it really interesting that they list the same height between compact and full size models. That makes me think they want a compact model with a shorter slide but a full size grip. I think that makes sense too, with magazine interchangeability and all. (Thunk Government and Commander).

Glock needs to add a manual frame safety, threaded barrel, and interchangeable back strap to the G21SF, as well as offer a model with a 4" barrel but a full size grip. They probably have the best cost to quality ratio. The only JCP entrants cheaper than the Glock were the XD and the Taurus OSS AFAIK.


To be honest, I don't think HK will win it. The HK45 is waaaaay to expensive for a general issue handgun. I'm not saying they're over priced, I'm just saying it's cost will be a very big negative for a general issue sidearm. (P226 versus the M9 for example).



Smith and Wesson fan huh?

I agree that HK won't win. Excellent pistol, superior in fact, but the are plenty of lesser pistols that will ultimately meet the minimum requirements at a far lower tariff. Darn shame really.

I disagree on the compact specifications. Having carried concealed for my entire adult life and working professionally for the organizations that do most of the concealed carrying in the Army, a compact butt makes all the difference in the world. A shortened slide with a 5.8" grip is going to be a pain in the butt [multiple puns intended]. The ability to accept the longer, higher capacity mags has far more utility IMO.

Tim

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

I think hk will have a shot. This is clearly why they set up the factory with Wilcox. And wilcox and hk have a much better relationship with the military than Springfield, s&w or glock.

[ToddG]

Compact size. While the spec says it can have a grip as long as the full size gun, that doesn't mean a shorter grip couldn't be considered "better."

H&K and price. MHS will not be judged/decided the same way M9/M11 were. Those earlier procurements were of the "cheapest of whatever passes the test" method. A new service handgun will be judged based on "best value," meaning that if the H&K can perform well enough to justify its (presumed) greater cost, it could still win. Furthermore, it's a mistake to assume that H&K's price to the military will reflect the premium they can demand in the LE and especially commercial markets. Look at the DHS/ICE contract ... SIG's initial year contract price was under $350 (for a pistol with night sights and one magazine), and H&K was only about $40 more as I recall. That was for a max of 65,000 pistols. MHS will easily be ten times that big.

US content. Odds are a contract for service-wide pistol procurement will require manufacturing be performed CONUS, at least after an initial batch. However, the real question remains what % of US content will be required. There are so many confusing laws on the books that in some cases, material made in places like Israel or France and incorporated into a US-manufactured product can be considered "US content."

[olds442tyguy]

Compact size. While the spec says it can have a grip as long as the full size gun, that doesn't mean a shorter grip couldn't be considered "better."

H&K and price. MHS will not be judged/decided the same way M9/M11 were. Those earlier procurements were of the "cheapest of whatever passes the test" method. A new service handgun will be judged based on "best value," meaning that if the H&K can perform well enough to justify its (presumed) greater cost, it could still win. Furthermore, it's a mistake to assume that H&K's price to the military will reflect the premium they can demand in the LE and especially commercial markets. Look at the DHS/ICE contract ... SIG's initial year contract price was under $350 (for a pistol with night sights and one magazine), and H&K was only about $40 more as I recall. That was for a max of 65,000 pistols. MHS will easily be ten times that big.

US content. Odds are a contract for service-wide pistol procurement will require manufacturing be performed CONUS, at least after an initial batch. However, the real question remains what % of US content will be required. There are so many confusing laws on the books that in some cases, material made in places like Israel or France and incorporated into a US-manufactured product can be considered "US content."

HK would offer cheaper pricing for a military contract, but every other contender would as well. During the OHWS trials, yes, HK had it in the bag no matter what the cost. I'm not convinced HK can offer enough to at their cost to take the win with the competition they face now though.

As for the DHS deal, the P2000 and P229 as configured for that contract are only $50 off from each other in MSRP.

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

I don't see why HK can't get the price down now that it will be manufactured in the U.S.?

[variablebinary]

This has HK written all over it.

[ToddG]

I don't see why HK can't get the price down now that it will be manufactured in the U.S.?

Right off the bat, the HK45 is more complicated and expensive to manufacture. If the same company was making both guns in the same building, the hammer-fired HK would be more costly to produce.

Next, there's a difference between: Making some major components & assembling in the U.S. but buying many small parts from Germany; vice
Building almost every single part in the U.S.

$20 in cost here, $20 in expenses there ... it adds up to a higher price no matter how low you're willing to cut your margins.

[Failure2Stop]

US Content- While I would rather pay some Americans to make the pistol over some foreign workers, the reality is that it is more important to have a good, solid weapon in our hands. FN is a Belgian company. They make something like 80% of our inventory. I have no idea what percentage of those weapons are made in the US, by US workers, but I do know that FN employs many Americans for various jobs.

And as far as 1911s go- it ain't gonna happen. Lotsa reasons why, and quite a few of those reasons are very valid. The biggest reason: experience required to keep them working.

I do not like the wording in the document (<-edited) in several areas, in fact I am a little suprised that it was released in it's current state. I guess that's the AirFarce for 'ya ;). Can you imagine specs for a guided missile or stealth bomber to be written like that? (Not that they are exactly COTS, true.)

[ToddG]

It's not an RFP, it's a Sources Sought. Completely different thing. This is much more like an RFI than a RFP.

[Failure2Stop]

It's not an RFP, it's a Sources Sought. Completely different thing. This is much more like an RFI than a RFP.

Oops. Quite right.