Who will Win the Contract

[Alaska3006]

They DOD did just recently place a order for more M9 to get them over the hump.

I believe the new testing requirements are no plastic poly frame and must be 45 ACP.

[Timbonez]

They DOD did just recently place a order for more M9 to get them over the hump.

I believe the new testing requirements are no plastic poly frame and must be 45 ACP.

Where did you see that?

[davebee456]

The Only all metal 45. I can think of that i would think about taking with me to a war would be a P220 SIG but it has no safety so I doubt they will pick that.
If a polymer frame 45 w/ safety was okay then I think M&P 45 w/ safety , Hk45 and FN 45 would be the 3 go to for testing.

[RAM Engineer]

They DOD did just recently place a order for more M9 to get them over the hump.

I believe the new testing requirements are no plastic poly frame and must be 45 ACP.

A better question would be: "Will there be a contract awarded?" Or even "will there be a RFP issued?"

There are no such things as "testing requirements" in this context. There are Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) and Key System Attributes (KSAs). These all have threshold (T) and objective (O) levels attached to them. These are all system requirements.

Where did you hear such a thing? The last List of draft system requirements did not specify no polymer. That's like saying you want a new air superiority fighter, but no composites allowed. Dumb if true, but I'm highly skeptical of your claims.

[Alaska3006]

Added: August 26, 2005 Modified: September 5, 2006Track Changes
This is an amended synopsis for the government’s requirements for a combat pistol (CP). This program was previously known as the Joint Combat Pistol. The USSOCOM intends to issue a solicitation to obtain commercially available non-developmental item (NDI) CP system, Caliber .45 (ACP). The Program will use full and open competition to fulfill the CP requirement. The CP will be delivered in accordance with specification entitled "Performance Specification Combat Pistol (PS/4081/C05/1415)” to be provided with issuance of the solicitation. The Combat Pistol System consists of: a Caliber .45 pistol and its ancillary equipment including: Magazines (standard and high-capacity); Suppressor Attachment Kit for operation of the pistol with and without sound suppressor; Holster; Magazine Holder (standard and high-capacity); Cleaning Kit; and Operator's Manual. The contract type will be an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) issuing Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) delivery orders. The contract period of performance shall be five (5) years with an option to extend for an additional five (5) years. The Minimum Quantity is 24/ea Engineering Test Units (ETU's). The estimated maximum quantities are: 50,000/ea combat pistol systems (which includes a .45 caliber CP, 2 standard capacity magazines, operator’s manual and cleaning kit); 50,000/ea Holsters; 200,000/ea Standard Capacity Magazines; 360,000/ea High Capacity Magazines; 50,000/ea Magazine Holders; 15,000/ea Suppressor attachment kits; Provisioning Item Order; associated data; and 3/ea Instructor and Key Personnel (I&KP) Training courses. Transportation shall be F.O.B. Destination. The solicitation will require, free of charge to the government, delivery of 24/ea product samples with any required spare parts support along with a concise written proposal all due on the closing date stated in the solicitation. The 24/ea product samples from the successful offeror may be accepted as the Minimum Quantity. Any subsequent delivery orders for CPs will order between 50/ea and 25,000/ea with a maximum monthly delivery rate of 2,500/ea. Any subsequent orders for the ancillary items will require delivery to commence within 60 days after receipt of order. The product samples and written proposal will be evaluated on a best value basis and the Government will reserve the right to award to other than the lowest priced offeror and other than the highest technically rated offeror. Product samples from unsuccessful offerors will be returned to the offerors upon written request to the contracting officer and at the offeror's expense. The Government cannot guarantee the condition of the product samples after testing. All responsible sources may submit a proposal, which shall be considered by the agency. Notifications, Solicitation, and other communication will be posted via FEDBIZOPS. Questions may be emailed to Contract Specialist, Mr. Pfender at john.pfender@navy.mil.
I am still digging for info

[Kain]

A better question would be: "Will there be a contract awarded?" Or even "will there be a RFP issued?"

There are no such things as "testing requirements" in this context. There are Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) and Key System Attributes (KSAs). These all have threshold (T) and objective (O) levels attached to them. These are all system requirements.

Where did you hear such a thing? The last List of draft system requirements did not specify no polymer. That's like saying you want a new air superiority fighter, but no composites allowed. Dumb if true, but I'm highly skeptical of your claims.

I agree here. I will believe that they are going with a new contract when they actually announce it and place a major order and begin receiving such products. Until then everything else is just noise to me.

[Alaska3006]

I concur
This is Little old but I found it

https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=0fceb57b5ad03d9c387b98546ae5edef

It would be nice to know for investors.

[Alaska3006]

The Only all metal 45. I can think of that i would think about taking with me to a war would be a P220 SIG but it has no safety so I doubt they will pick that.
If a polymer frame 45 w/ safety was okay then I think M&P 45 w/ safety , Hk45 and FN 45 would be the 3 go to for testing.

The P220 has a half cock safety and a excellent de Cocker (still have my tired P220 from 1983)

How about the new P227 Tac Ops with the Alloy frame

You picked 3 good picks the FNX 45 Tactical most excellent.........

[JHC]

2005???
Do you suppose that was from the USMC 1911 thing? It includes Navy POC.

[lethal dose]

CZ would be a great contender... if they could keep up with production.

[KalashniKEV]

Who will Win the Contract

JCP died almost 9 years ago, Van Winkle...

[RAM Engineer]

That's stuff from JCP or Special Operations Forces Combat pistol. Older, cancelled program.

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

From everything I have read they are interested in moving to a larger caliber. Obviously if that includes .40 the range of choices is incredible. I think they would be best served by an HK or FN product given their history of quality and consistency.

[Talon167]

Didn't they just do this not too long ago... which is what spawned the HK45, M&P45 w/safety, among others.....?

[PatrioticDisorder]

From everything I have read they are interested in moving to a larger caliber. Obviously if that includes .40 the range of choices is incredible. I think they would be best served by an HK or FN product given their history of quality and consistency.

I'd have to say HK, FN & S&W will be the front runners. Smith teaming up with General Dynamics is a good indication they are serious, they offer all the vague features requested & they do it at a better price point (along with being American).

[Psalms144.1]

As far as the OP is concerned, as many pointed out, you're looking at a dead program. Scrapped, done, finished. USSOCOM did procure a number of HK45CTs, but they're polymer framed, and they only went to NSW units, as far as I'm aware.

WRT the Modular Handgun System, it's hard to imagine a more "modular" option than the P320. The "MHS" version that was leaked several months back with mandatory baby poop coloring and what looked like a decent manual safety is going to be hard to compete against, as long as it passes the reliability testing and doesn't go the way of the P250. To me, the P320's "build a bear" approach allows units to customize pistols to specific missions, IF NEEDED, and the three "grip module" sizes will likely fit well over 90% of the various hand sizes out there. The ability to caliber swap is going to be another hard-to-trump selling point (we don't have much ammo sitting around right now that's NOT 9mm, so initial adoption could be in 9mm until the supply system catches up and a "larger caliber" is widely available)...

But, I'm just an interested observer, and maybe, an end-user IF the program goes through and IF we end up with new handguns in the next couple of years.

[Noodles]

As far as the OP is concerned, as many pointed out, you're looking at a dead program. Scrapped, done, finished. USSOCOM did procure a number of HK45CTs, but they're polymer framed, and they only went to NSW units, as far as I'm aware.

WRT the Modular Handgun System, it's hard to imagine a more "modular" option than the P320. The "MHS" version that was leaked several months back with mandatory baby poop coloring and what looked like a decent manual safety is going to be hard to compete against, as long as it passes the reliability testing and doesn't go the way of the P250. To me, the P320's "build a bear" approach allows units to customize pistols to specific missions, IF NEEDED, and the three "grip module" sizes will likely fit well over 90% of the various hand sizes out there. The ability to caliber swap is going to be another hard-to-trump selling point (we don't have much ammo sitting around right now that's NOT 9mm, so initial adoption could be in 9mm until the supply system catches up and a "larger caliber" is widely available)...

But, I'm just an interested observer, and maybe, an end-user IF the program goes through and IF we end up with new handguns in the next couple of years.

Pretty much this. No one cares about the selection being eventually canceled, just like last time we'll end up with a couple new designs.

Yea, every option out there that ISN'T separate fire control group ala P320 is going to become obsolete imo more quickly than the 1911 did or the Beretta after that. We're in a rapidly evolving era of micro electronics and an emerging Internet Of Things mentality. By running the P320, when GPS/Electronic control/reporting becomes standard, the P320 can have a frame for that, same with integrated lights in the housing. Next generation mrds, or whatever. When 8mm hyper rounds are developed, the P320 can be ready for it. Optics, grip styles, attachments, calibers all easier with the P320. Nothing out there can be cleaned as easily as the P320, something for some reason some military and police groups care way too much about.


Beretta fielding a default upgrade in an attempt to cancel the competition, and M&P getting in with GD are BIG moves. IMO, M&P has little chance as is (see the constantly evolving M&P, accuracy issues, upgrades everyone makes to stock guns), my thought is that the gun they are planning on submitting is an evolution of the M&P we have not yet seen, hopefully it breaks backwards compatibility in order to fundamentally fix current issues. Glock is the elephant in the room, but counter to the SIG is probably the least modular of any of the entries (well, aside from the Beretta 92 of course).

As long as the gun actually works, I think the P320 is would be the ideal world version that seems to make the most sense.... Because of this of course the P320 cannot be selected.

[PGT]

Can a striker-fired pistol meet the minimum primer strike depth required? That's the reason for the awful DAO pull on the M9. Perhaps new ammunition regs are coming as well.

[Coal Dragger]

Reliable ignition is a strong suit of hammer fired guns, and if there is a requirement to be able to ignite hard primers (which realistically there should be...) a hammer fired gun will have an advantage.

[PGT]

I was quite surprised that both my P250 and P320 act so differently given they're both "DAO" and similar in design. No second-strike capability on the P320...

[Coal Dragger]

Well yeah, the P320 is striker fired.

[PGT]

Described as "DAO" though....its closer to a hammer-fired SAO

[Coal Dragger]

Kind of a misleading description then. No second strike like a DA or DAO, and feels like a hammer fired SAO.

Excellent! Marketing didn't talk to anyone who had handled or designed the thing.

[Psalms144.1]

Reliable ignition is a strong suit of hammer fired guns, and if there is a requirement to be able to ignite hard primers (which realistically there should be...) a hammer fired gun will have an advantage.I get that, but, frankly, I can't even begin to calculate the number of "hard" 9mm DOD primers I've reliably ignited with various Glocks (both issued and personally owned approved on duty). I wouldn't be at all surprised to find it's upwards of 100K since 2006. My G30S has no problem with the "hard" primers on the loaded-in-1985 .45 FMJ I got recently through the system. I think the hard primer argument is going to turn out to be much ado about nothing. In fact, I believe it came about in the initial 9mm handgun trials to keep DA/SA pistol manufacturers from submitted "match" grade light triggers to make their offerings more attractive.

Regards,

Kevin

[Trajan]

From everything I have read they are interested in moving to a larger caliber. Obviously if that includes .40 the range of choices is incredible. Didn't an Army unit recently switch from Gen 3 22s and 35s to Gen 4 17s and 34s?


Reliable ignition is a strong suit of hammer fired guns, and if there is a requirement to be able to ignite hard primers (which realistically there should be...) a hammer fired gun will have an advantage.

They could always make a slightly longer striker, just like some companies make for hammer fired guns running lighter triggers.

[PGT]

Did some digging....the required spec for 1984 was based on igniting any NATO standard primers. "24 inch ounces of firing pin energy"...no idea how that translates to a spec for primer strike depth.

Some other googling yields ranges for primer indentation of 0.011-0.032" depending on whether manufacturer or SAAMI numbers are used.

[jp0319]

call me a cynic but I not believe that this will change. I think they will stay with beretta just as they have remained with colt despite the fact that there are better choices available. There will be no wholesale shift for the armed forces from 9mm to .45 ACP for at least three reasons; 1) NATO a interoperability 2) capacity / combat load weight 3) controllability.

Beretta released a new tarted up FDE version of the M9 with a rail, dovetailed front sight, and a modular grip, it was shown in the Army times recently. That will likely be the "new" pistol. The military tends to stick with what they have invested in wheat her or not it's the best, the only exceptions to this are for the Special Operations guys who get smaller contracts to outfit their guys with better equipment.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[PGT]

Beretta USA posted this on their FB page today:


Beretta was contacted on Jan 9 by the US Army contracting officer of the M9 Contract, who informed us that, contrary to what is being reported, no final decision has been made regarding the M9A3 proposal and that her office will inform us of any future developments

It seems the original article quoted "an anonymous source in PEO Soldier". So much for solid journalism, eh? Likely a plant from a competitor or just a rush to be first to print for ratings.

I think it's likely the Army will accept the ECP for the M9A3 (it just makes sense) while the MHS procurement soldiers on.....at a lower level of urgency.

[Symmetry]

The US military, in all of its infinite wisdom, will follow the example of US Federal police agencies......only they are about two decades behind us. 20yrs ago we transitioned to .40 and .45 only to have agent shooting performance drastically decrease, general handling characteristics decrease, and platform durability and lifespan greatly decrease. If you call a good shoot one in which a fewer number of rounds are fired in order to stop the threat, statistically our OISs are worse than the days when we favored the .36 caliber. Like the FBI, we have gradually been transitioning back to 9mm over the last 5 years and things in general have improved.

[RAM Engineer]

I think it's likely the Army will accept the ECP for the M9A3 (it just makes sense) while the MHS procurement soldiers on.....at a lower level of urgency.

I agree, although does it get any less urgent than a NON Program of Record?

[PGT]

I agree, although does it get any less urgent than a NON Program of Record?

Sure, when the cost of procurement exceeds projected savings. The ECP softens the blow of the reconditioning the aging stock of M9's that are likely the bigger driver of total lifecycle cost.

[ltcal94]

From everything I have read they are interested in moving to a larger caliber. Obviously if that includes .40 the range of choices is incredible. I think they would be best served by an HK or FN product given their history of quality and consistency.

I would love to see our military adopting the HK45.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[foxtrotx1]

I would love to see our military adopting the HK45.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Can you explain your reasoning, or is this just a personal preference of yours?

[ltcal94]

Can you explain your reasoning, or is this just a personal preference of yours?

Admittedly, I do have a personal preference which developed after trying numerous types / mfg. of pistols. However, I believe the HK45 brings to the table a lot features that the military is looking for. To start with it is made in the United States. It also recognized that many elements of our armed forces are already using the HK45. The reliability of this pistol is unquestioned and although not specifically required there is a great deal of flexibility with the trigger / safety / de cocking system.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

The HK45 would be an excellent choice. It was developed for a similar program and was selected by the SEALS as their .45. The FN is also nice (15 rounds!) but its ergonomics are slightly inferior (IMHO). I owned a M&P45 for a while and while it had great ergonomics, it was definitely the finicky one of the bunch. Of course, maybe with General Dynamics in the mix they can get some top-level engineers on the project and come up with something truly awesome.

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

The US military, in all of its infinite wisdom, will follow the example of US Federal police agencies......only they are about two decades behind us. 20yrs ago we transitioned to .40 and .45 only to have agent shooting performance drastically decrease, general handling characteristics decrease, and platform durability and lifespan greatly decrease. If you call a good shoot one in which a fewer number of rounds are fired in order to stop the threat, statistically our OISs are worse than the days when we favored the .36 caliber. Like the FBI, we have gradually been transitioning back to 9mm over the last 5 years and things in general have improved.

The military started screaming for .45 soon after the wars started. They had been fine with the 9mm until actual stuff happened. My read of the FBIs move back to 9mm is that they are having a hard time getting new recruits to qualify (try .22, LOL) and want to save some money. Frankly, the FBI was only involved in about 150 shootings from from 1993 to 2011. That's about 19 per year and that includes rifle and pistol (regional tac teams,HRT, etc). Usually moves to more powerful calibers are based on real incidents (whether they are over-reactions or not) and moves to smaller calibers are logistical or political.

[CanineCombatives]

The US military, in all of its infinite wisdom, will follow the example of US Federal police agencies......only they are about two decades behind us. 20yrs ago we transitioned to .40 and .45 only to have agent shooting performance drastically decrease, general handling characteristics decrease, and platform durability and lifespan greatly decrease. If you call a good shoot one in which a fewer number of rounds are fired in order to stop the threat, statistically our OISs are worse than the days when we favored the .36 caliber. Like the FBI, we have gradually been transitioning back to 9mm over the last 5 years and things in general have improved.

That should be etched in braille....

[GTF425]

I don't want a new pistol. I want to see the Army finally take pistol shooting seriously and start giving us the range time and ammo we need to become more proficient with the platform we have.

The hardest thing on our M9s lifecycle in my unit is the over cleaning Joes do to them after each field exercise. I've seen them shot a whopping 200rds total in the two years I've been in my current Company, and yet we wonder why guys can't shoot them worth a shit. But everyone is all up in a roar about getting a more accurate pistol, how 9mm sucks, and how the M9 sucks, etc. The only real problem I've seen with the M9 are the 10+ year old magazines being issued with them and the lack of replacement parts at the Company level.

The overwhelming majority of M9s in the Army are carried by Officers and staff pukes on deployment who can't be bothered to carry a rifle around. It's more of a matter of convenience than a fighting tool to many of them.

The units that have a legitimate offensive need for a sidearm already issue something else. For the rest of us, give us quality training before trying to fix the hardware.

[montrala]

The hardest thing on our M9s lifecycle in my unit is the over cleaning Joes do to them after each field exercise. I've seen them shot a whopping 200rds total in the two years I've been in my current Company, and yet we wonder why guys can't shoot them worth a shit. But everyone is all up in a roar about getting a more accurate pistol, how 9mm sucks, and how the M9 sucks, etc.

Insert "wz.94 Wist" in place of "M9" and you will get exact story of Polish issue pistol in Iraq. OK, there were actual issues with this pistol, that warrant it's replacement, but 80% of the cases was troops that did not have faintest idea not only how to shoot pistols, but even how to grip it.

As I see it M9 could be phased out for something simplier to use and maintain, while lighter at same time (ounces are pounds or something like that). Polish military experience from Iraq and Afghanistan shows that in those conditions hammer fired guns are more reliable that striker fired ones (except wz.94 Wist lot of Glocks were used by our SOF). With prospect of going back to sandy landscapes sooner than later this is valid issue. Result was HK USP SD9 adopted as standard issue pistol in Polish SOF. But I think USP is bit of a overkill to replace M9. My candidate would be HK P30 or P30L with LEM trigger. Or HK45 if something more juicy than 9mm or .40sw is needed.

But I agree that training with pistol is more important, that getting a new pistol. Especially considering that it is much harder to learn shooting good with pistol than with rifle.

[calviroman]

IMHO, this acquisition should shop dead in its tracks. The problem with sidearms in the DoD is mostly policy and dumb-as-rock program office civil servants, not hardware.

[Caduceus]

The overwhelming majority of M9s in the Army are carried by Officers and staff pukes on deployment who can't be bothered to carry a rifle around. It's more of a matter of convenience than a fighting tool to many of them.
.
While I have no doubt that this statement is correct, for some of us, the M9 was the only weapon we were issued.

Yes, more range time, and a better appearing pistol, would have been welcome (it shot fine, for the record).

[JHC]

While I have no doubt that this statement is correct, for some of us, the M9 was the only weapon we were issued.

Yes, more range time, and a better appearing pistol, would have been welcome (it shot fine, for the record).

+1 I know two SNCO's that had to yank their M9s pronto at in your face distances while doing something other than patrolling. They'd both prefer a Glock.

[GTF425]

And I'd rather be issued a Glock 17, but my point is that for the overwhelming majority of Soldiers who carry a pistol, there will be no substantial improvement found over an M9.

I only know one guy who's used an M9 in combat. Thankfully, he ended the fight with it. There certainly are better choices for a sidearm, but would it really be worth the money for a forcewide adoption of a new sidearm?

I would be ecstatic about a potential change if the Army took pistol shooting seriously.

[nova3930]

A better question would be: "Will there be a contract awarded?" Or even "will there be a RFP issued?"

There are no such things as "testing requirements" in this context. There are Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) and Key System Attributes (KSAs). These all have threshold (T) and objective (O) levels attached to them. These are all system requirements.

Where did you hear such a thing? The last List of draft system requirements did not specify no polymer. That's like saying you want a new air superiority fighter, but no composites allowed. Dumb if true, but I'm highly skeptical of your claims.

JFC I just had a flashback to DAU. Thanks for ruining my day :p

[Slater]

Looks like this thing might drag out for a while:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=7002f542e312f55817172a8657f714fd&tab=core&_cview=1

[trinydex]

As far as the OP is concerned, as many pointed out, you're looking at a dead program. Scrapped, done, finished. USSOCOM did procure a number of HK45CTs, but they're polymer framed, and they only went to NSW units, as far as I'm aware.

WRT the Modular Handgun System, it's hard to imagine a more "modular" option than the P320. The "MHS" version that was leaked several months back with mandatory baby poop coloring and what looked like a decent manual safety is going to be hard to compete against, as long as it passes the reliability testing and doesn't go the way of the P250. To me, the P320's "build a bear" approach allows units to customize pistols to specific missions, IF NEEDED, and the three "grip module" sizes will likely fit well over 90% of the various hand sizes out there. The ability to caliber swap is going to be another hard-to-trump selling point (we don't have much ammo sitting around right now that's NOT 9mm, so initial adoption could be in 9mm until the supply system catches up and a "larger caliber" is widely available)...

But, I'm just an interested observer, and maybe, an end-user IF the program goes through and IF we end up with new handguns in the next couple of years.

does the military currently employ any caliber swapping firearms? it seems like that has been a novelty written into some competitions but has never actually been used.

[trinydex]

The US military, in all of its infinite wisdom, will follow the example of US Federal police agencies......only they are about two decades behind us. 20yrs ago we transitioned to .40 and .45 only to have agent shooting performance drastically decrease, general handling characteristics decrease, and platform durability and lifespan greatly decrease. If you call a good shoot one in which a fewer number of rounds are fired in order to stop the threat, statistically our OISs are worse than the days when we favored the .36 caliber. Like the FBI, we have gradually been transitioning back to 9mm over the last 5 years and things in general have improved.

is it really that simple though? the military is restricted to ball ammunition. the 9mm's benefits aren't so clear cut when you only use ball ammo.

[JonInWA]

is it really that simple though? the military is restricted to ball ammunition. the 9mm's benefits aren't so clear cut when you only use ball ammo.

Actually, the benefits of .45 ACP become questionable compared to 9mm if you remain with ball ammunition-the 9mm has greater penitrativeness and lighter weight...

Best, Jon

[trinydex]

Actually, the benefits of .45 ACP become questionable compared to 9mm if you remain with ball ammunition-the 9mm has greater penitrativeness and lighter weight...

Best, Jon

is the penetration still greater through barriers?

[Psalms144.1]

does the military currently employ any caliber swapping firearms? it seems like that has been a novelty written into some competitions but has never actually been used.Yes. The MK17 (SCAR-H) is now being fielded with conversion lowers and barrels for 5.56mm. Not widely fielded, and I'm not hearing a lot of raves about the system, but it's out there.

[brushy bill]

...greater penitrativeness and lighter weight...

New modern word to add to my lexicon...just did pen and ink change... penetration now penitrativeness.

[RAM Engineer]

JFC I just had a flashback to DAU. Thanks for ruining my day :p

Coincidentally, I just started CLE 036 "ECPs for Engineers".

[brushy bill]

http://www.janes.com/article/48217/us-army-delays-request-for-new-handgun

[nova3930]

Coincidentally, I just started CLE 036 "ECPs for Engineers".

I did a pile of the stuff in dec to meet my companies continuing education requirements. The stuff is mind numbing..