View Full Version : US Army's Modular Handgun System
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2013armament/Lucas.pdf
According to the above presentation this effort is still alive, with a final RFP due in July. Interchangeable slides and barrels are on the "nice to have" list.
Given current budgetary realities, is this thing going to be dead on arrival (again)?
I dont know but i would like a squad common optic :D
Brought to you by the same brilliant minds that brought you the wildly successful XM8 and XM25.
It's called COTS kids - Commercial Off The Shelf. Identify the requirement, survey available COTS solution, procure samples, validate samples with end user, field the validated system, sustain it until the next requirement. How hard is this? Really?
Units that have a choice go with Glock 19s, unless they need a .40cal Glock. Add required TAD (Target Acquisition Devices - lights, lasers, optics) - mission accomplished on time and under budget.
They will stroke the dog on this thing for another 10 years and Joe will still have a beat down M9 with an old recoil spring and a cracked locking block. Good job. Sounds like an OER bullet.
And the only way they can come up with to save money is to cut retirement pay and mid-rats for deployed troops....
BoringGuy45
02-03-14, 11:09
I'm so sick of "modular" this "and "universal" that and "advanced" this and anything simple, like a gun, with the word "system" in it. For God's sake, fix flaws in current systems, use quality parts, and only spend time and money for advancement when the technology is there. If there's a better option out there that can switched to (let's say, hypothetically, from the M9 to the G19 or HK P30, or something) then that's probably ok, but I'm getting tired of my tax dollars chasing the red herrings every year.
While it is my opinion that handguns should not be so highly prioritized, and that there are many good COTS solutions, COTS is most of the time a short term fix.
If the mil always chooses COTS, while it might fix an "urgent" need, it does not promote advances in technology and improved longevity.
Sometimes technological advances need an incentive to get started.
Pistols such as the 1911 and Glock 17 were designed to meet a military requirement. In recent times, when was the last time a "clean sheet of paper" pistol design was produced to meet a military specification?
In recent times, when was the last time a "clean sheet of paper" pistol design was produced to meet a military specification?
HK45 I believe. Although I guess I wont say anything "ground breaking" was achieved.
Grand58742
02-03-14, 19:15
Pistols such as the 1911 and Glock 17 were designed to meet a military requirement. In recent times, when was the last time a "clean sheet of paper" pistol design was produced to meet a military specification?
I think it's also due to the fact there really isn't any new pistol technology on the horizon. Other than hammer or striker fired, what new technology requiring a blank sheet of paper is there to come up with?
Pistols have pretty much reached the zenith of what we can do for the most part. I could be wrong, but unless a great leap forward into energetic weapons is achieved, I don't foresee any great leap of technology in their design.
Grand58742
02-03-14, 19:19
On the OP though, I know the USAF is looking at a COTS purchase to replace the M9 and getting help from the Army. My guess is they will piggyback on what they happen to go with providing it's not too retarded a decision.
I figure in the near future we will see new designs from most of the major manufacturers. The new Sig for example fits the bill of the RFP that came out. Probably not going to be long before Glock, Smith, H&K, et al gets on board with new designs or slight changes to existing designs.
Sometimes technological advances need an incentive to get started.
Such as?...
The history of successful small arms and most individual military equipment is one of a COTS solution coming to the rescue. Honestly, I am having a hard time thinking of a successful system that was not COTS before it was actually adopted. In the PARTICULAR case of the Army Ordnance Dept, they have a gift for getting it wrong. In no particular order, some of their biggest blunders:
Ignoring 6mm cartridges over 30cal even though the Navy was using 6mm for some time.
Forcing Garand to build the M1 in 30-06 even though the .276 won in the COTS trials.
Developing the M-14 when FN had already built the better rifle.
F-ing up the M16 and fought it tooth and nail from the beginning.
The XM8. Next slide.
XM25.
Rigging the pistol trials in the 80's to favor the 92F and completely disallowing the Glock 17. Then choosing the 92F because the Sig 226 was a whopping 4 dollars more.
No, I would say the Army Ordnance Dept is the last place I would go if I was looking for innovative solutions. I dare say, in every instance, our troops would be better with a good COTS solution now over a "perfect" solution delivered at the end of the war at 10 times the price.
It'll be interesting to see if striker-fired guns are allowed in this go-round or if hammer-fired is still the requirement.
Such as?...
The history of successful small arms and most individual military equipment is one of a COTS solution coming to the rescue. Honestly, I am having a hard time thinking of a successful system that was not COTS before it was actually adopted. In the PARTICULAR case of the Army Ordnance Dept, they have a gift for getting it wrong. In no particular order, some of their biggest blunders:
Ignoring 6mm cartridges over 30cal even though the Navy was using 6mm for some time.
Forcing Garand to build the M1 in 30-06 even though the .276 won in the COTS trials.
Developing the M-14 when FN had already built the better rifle.
F-ing up the M16 and fought it tooth and nail from the beginning.
The XM8. Next slide.
XM25.
Rigging the pistol trials in the 80's to favor the 92F and completely disallowing the Glock 17. Then choosing the 92F because the Sig 226 was a whopping 4 dollars more.
No, I would say the Army Ordnance Dept is the last place I would go if I was looking for innovative solutions. I dare say, in every instance, our troops would be better with a good COTS solution now over a "perfect" solution delivered at the end of the war at 10 times the price.
Uhm....SCAR (Mk 16 and Mk 18), HK416, M203, M60 just to name a few. I'm betting that there are several areas, not just weapons, where COLLABORATIVE efforts between military and industry have produced good results.
True, not every effort is a success, but that was not my point. If the germans (Hugo Schmeisser) did not invent and design the Stg-44, who knows which direction modern assault rifles would have taken. I'm not saying that noone else was capable of doing something similar, but it was the first assault rifle of it's kind.
Is there a reliable handgun system that does what the project is after, in terms of modularity?
Again, I am not saying that all COTS solutions are bad. However, with COTS you get the technology that exists today. Now. Again, not neccessarily bad.
With a developmental project, the chances are greater that you will get technology that will sustain you for many more decades.
Then again, we might be at a stage in small arms technology that you will only be able to wring out incremental improvements, until someone has success with something truly revolutionary.
My personal opinion is that the handgun should be reserved for units who have an actual operational requirement for a sidearm, and thus the neccessary funding and time to sustain a skill level required to be effective with the weapon. So from that point of view, if it is a service wide issue item, then I agree it is a waste of money.
It's called COTS kids - Commercial Off The Shelf. Identify the requirement, survey available COTS solution, procure samples, validate samples with end user, field the validated system, sustain it until the next requirement. How hard is this? Really?
Probably the most valuable and smartest way would be to use the impending budget cuts to pigeonhole short term development stuff into taking the best from GOTS, and as needed COTS and put that into place - I see no reason for the development costs already sunk why we couldn't have soldiers equipped with Crye improved fighting uniforms, have the M4A2 (just take the RIS-II M4A1, and throw the SCO (or M68 CCO/ACOG as a stopgap) as the effective issue weapon, and be able to just stock G19's miles deep, and issue Mk318/Mk319 as default ammunition, and just take the Eagle QRPC and make that the universal ESAPI armor carrier... ugh.
My personal opinion is that the handgun should be reserved for units who have an actual operational requirement for a sidearm, and thus the neccessary funding and time to sustain a skill level required to be effective with the weapon. So from that point of view, if it is a service wide issue item, then I agree it is a waste of money.
Food for thought, pistols should also be going to those that don't need a rifle. Eg, medical personnel in the Role 3's, logistics units staying on the larger bases, etc. If the requirement is all personnel in theater need to be armed, it's silly to lug around a rifle. In fact, I'd argue that most of the -240 and -249 gunners would love to carry a pistol when in the rear vice their full size firearms.
Grand58742
02-04-14, 23:13
No matter what, it's past time to crap or get off the pot concerning a new handgun system. Either a PIP for the M9 like the Marines did or outright replacement with existing technologies. This stop and go nonsense gets old. The other problem is the fact they are wearing out. It's not like the 1911 where they produced several million units and had sufficient reserves to be able to replace as they wore out or were destroyed. The numbers of M9s are finite and either production of new units has to occur as the Army is doing or outright replacement of the platform as the USAF is looking at.
The other half that I don't understand is why this fascination with a full sized handgun when compacts can and probably do perform just as well. Is there really any huge difference in a Glock 19 versus a 17? Or a Sig 229 versus a 226? It's almost like the whole M16 FOW debate on the 20 inch barrel versus the 14.5. Is there anything to be gained by adding another inch onto the barrel of the pistol? We aren't talking about a commander sized 1911 here that can be a little finicky. It's supposed to be a personal defense weapon, not an offensive system.
Overall, I think the M9 system has been eclipsed by newer designs and technologies. It's not like the military would be making a huge gamble by adopting a COTS solution that is already in widespread use by police and military around the world.
Magic_Salad0892
02-04-14, 23:42
Such as?...Forcing Garand to build the M1 in 30-06 even though the .276 won in the COTS trials.
Didn't the original design call for a detachable 20rd magazine in .276?
We would've had the M14 a whole lot sooner...
Probably the most valuable and smartest way would be to use the impending budget cuts to pigeonhole short term development stuff into taking the best from GOTS, and as needed COTS and put that into place - I see no reason for the development costs already sunk why we couldn't have soldiers equipped with Crye improved fighting uniforms, have the M4A2 (just take the RIS-II M4A1, and throw the SCO (or M68 CCO/ACOG as a stopgap) as the effective issue weapon, and be able to just stock G19's miles deep, and issue Mk318/Mk319 as default ammunition, and just take the Eagle QRPC and make that the universal ESAPI armor carrier... ugh.
That about sums it up.
Uhm....SCAR (Mk 16 and Mk 18), HK416, M203, M60 just to name a few. I'm betting that there are several areas, not just weapons, where COLLABORATIVE efforts between military and industry have produced good results.
The M60 was a turd until the E4 model and the SCAR is a questionable improvement over the M4. Collaboration with industry works, but works best with large weapons systems rather than small arms. The US is a large enough market for military pattern weapons that private R&D can be conducted here without the risk of failure that would happen if you can't make a semi version of your weapon and sell it to the public.
My personal opinion is that the handgun should be reserved for units who have an actual operational requirement for a sidearm, and thus the neccessary funding and time to sustain a skill level required to be effective with the weapon. So from that point of view, if it is a service wide issue item, then I agree it is a waste of money.
The US military needs a PDW. They also shouldn't use Glocks because you'll lose a few million dollars worth of servicemen a year to NDs when they try to break it down for cleaning.
The M60 was a turd until the E4 model and the SCAR is a questionable improvement over the M4.
With regards to the M60, I have heard both positives and negatives. I cannot comment as I have not shot one. And who cares how the SCAR compares to the M4? How is that relevant to my post? The SCAR is a good weapon on it's own.
Food for thought, pistols should also be going to those that don't need a rifle. Eg, medical personnel in the Role 3's, logistics units staying on the larger bases, etc. If the requirement is all personnel in theater need to be armed, it's silly to lug around a rifle. In fact, I'd argue that most of the -240 and -249 gunners would love to carry a pistol when in the rear vice their full size firearms.
Negative. In my opinion it is a flawed idea to issue handguns to support personnel who have even less weapons training. We do the same, issue handguns only to legal advisors, nurses and doctors, higher staff officers and so forth. The people with the LEAST amount of weapons training are issued the HARDEST weapon to be proficient with? Not a good idea. Ideally, they should be issued an SBR or PDW of some kind.
Wrt to the 240 and 249 gunners, that is a different kind of issue. They should have a sidearm.
Wasn't the old M1 carbine originally intended as a PDW for rear-echelon personnel?
crusader377
02-05-14, 10:10
With regards to the M60, I have heard both positives and negatives. I cannot comment as I have not shot one. And who cares how the SCAR compares to the M4? How is that relevant to my post? The SCAR is a good weapon on it's own.
Even with some of the improvements with later model M60s, the M60 is still probably one of the worst GPMGs in its class. It is inferior to the FN MAG (M240) which incidentally came out the same time as the M60 and was rejected because it wasn't invented here but was adopted 30 years later as the M60 replacement. It is also inferior to the PK and PKM series and the MG 42/MG 3 which is older technology.
The SCAR is a good weapon but it really is nothing groundbreaking and the SCAR could have just as easily been made by private industry.
AS RyanB stated in the last post, the U.S. Military does need a PDW and I don't know why they simply don't do a COTS solution and adopt a SBR style M4. My thought is a 11.5" carbine gas carbine with a lightweight/pencil barrel using a micro aimpoint would be a perfect PDW which would be affordable and very easily fielded. Something like this would be my thought http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/BCM-Standard-11-5-LIGHT-WEIGHT-Upper-Receiver-p/bcm-urg-car-11lw.htm
crusader377
02-05-14, 10:15
Wasn't the old M1 carbine originally intended as a PDW for rear-echelon personnel?
Yes it was. I also was widely used by frontline personnel who didn't need a full size rifle. Individuals such as RTO's, Forward Observers, assistant gunners and ammo bearers, mortar crews, etc.. all used the M1 Carbine due to it being half the weight of the full size M1 while still having a much more effective engagement range than a pistol.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.