View Full Version : Smith & Wesson dropped from MHS competition
Evidently they're the first to be dropped. It'll be interesting to (someday?) learn the reason:
The U.S. Army has dropped Smith & Wesson from its Modular Handgun System competition, according to a Sept. 23 report Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation made to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
http://kitup.military.com/2016/09/army-drops-smith-wesson-pistol-competition.html
That's interesting. I really thought they'd have a good chance after partnering with GD. And didn't the Army already tell Beretta that they're not interested in the A3?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Word is that Beretta submitted their new APX.
If all the entrants are polymer-framed, striker fired handguns then it may very well come down to price. Ironic, since that was the deciding factor in the original XM9 competition.
It'll be Glock. At least it should be.
It'll be Glock. At least it should be.
As much as I love my M&P9, I can't help but agree.
It'll be Glock. At least it should be.
It should be whatever meets the requirements if the PM wants to not get hammered :p
I would be interested to know what kind of testing was conducted up to this point and how well the S&W submission performed.
I would be interested to know what kind of testing was conducted up to this point and how well the S&W submission performed.
Me too. I'm no M&P guy. But still.
I think it will come down to P320 and Glock 17. I would get a 320 over an M&P though.
The way the competition documents read they appear to be written to the P320 so unless Glock can out 320 the 320......
The way the competition documents read they appear to be written to the P320 so unless Glock can out 320 the 320......
Glock 17M with pic rails.
Meh anything would be better than a 92
Glock 17M with pic rails.
Meh anything would be better than a 92
The P320 is still the more modular weapon. Been a while since I've read the performance metrics but IIRC the fact that a single serialized P320 trigger pack can do double duty as a full size and a compact pistol with the addition of unserialized spare parts is a big +1 in it's favor. From a contracts perspective that means you can buy actual serialized firearms with acquisition $ and then later buy more "guns" with operations & maintenance money via spare parts purchases. Something you normally couldn't do.
Not to mention that lights and lasers can be integrated via the frame allowing the same holster to accommodate pistols outfitted with either.
MountainRaven
09-26-16, 11:45
The way the competition documents read they appear to be written to the P320 so unless Glock can out 320 the 320......
The FBI contract was written for the P320 and Glock out 320'd the 320.
The FBI contract was written for the P320 and Glock out 320'd the 320.
I haven't seen the FBI solicitation so I can't comment on how they compare. Small difference in wording can mean a big difference in final outcome....
In all fairness, the "modularity" only benefits people who live in communist countries where you get only x amount of serialized guns per lifetime. In America it is kind of a gimmick. Most people just buy a second gun.
And a Glock 17M with pic rail destroys the 320.
I'm not dogging it. If I had pissaway money, I would get a 320 for giggles.
MountainRaven
09-26-16, 12:09
I haven't seen the FBI solicitation so I can't comment on how they compare. Small difference in wording can mean a big difference in final outcome....
The FBI solicitation is a matter of public record and everyone I know who has spent any time in that realm said that the FBI wanted P320s and wrote the solicitation for the P320. To the point where the P320 was the only pistol on the market that met the FBI's requirements.
And the P320 still lost.
Rather than expect the P320 to succeed, I would expect the P320 to fail DoD testing for the same reason they failed the FBI testing.
In all fairness, the "modularity" only benefits people who live in communist countries where you get only x amount of serialized guns per lifetime. In America it is kind of a gimmick. Most people just buy a second gun.
In a regime like Army contracting where spending the wrong color money on something can get you sent to the pen it has it's advantages too. I'd say stuff like this isn't a gimmick either.
http://www.sigoptics.com/product/lima55/
Word is they're working on one with an integrated light as well. Lights and laser with no added size is a win in my book....
And a Glock 17M with pic rail destroys the 320.
In the context of the army requirements, how so? Because performance as compared to the requirements is what matters....
I'm not dogging it. If I had pissaway money, I would get a 320 for giggles.
Wouldn't matter if you were. Everybody likes different things. I've tried and tried to like Glocks but just can't do it. Love the mechanical reliability, they just don't work for me ergonomically.
The FBI solicitation is a matter of public record and everyone I know who has spent any time in that realm said that the FBI wanted P320s and wrote the solicitation for the P320. To the point where the P320 was the only pistol on the market that met the FBI's requirements.
And the P320 still lost.
Rather than expect the P320 to succeed, I would expect the P320 to fail DoD testing for the same reason they failed the FBI testing.
I understand all that, but I haven't read it so I can't comment.
Just because the two groups wrote their requirements with the same goal in mine doesn't mean they're identical. The FBI and the Army exist in two different contracting regimes from a legal perspective, which can lead to big differences in the as written requirements. The differences in as written requirements can easily lead to different outcomes. The simple fact that the Army has to deal with different pots of money in procurement where the FBI doesn't can make a big difference.
Hell, for that matter, I've seen two different sets of people writing requirements under the same regime looking for the same solution come up with enough requirements differences to result in different outcomes.
BTW, what exactly did the 320 fail on the FBI testing. I knew it didn't win but didn't know why.
MountainRaven
09-26-16, 12:48
Well, if you want to read it...
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RFP-OSCU-DSU1503
CLASS I SEMI-AUTOMATIC PISTOL;
CLASS II SEMI-AUTOMATIC PISTOL;
CLASS I INERT TRAINING PISTOL;
CLASS I "MAN MARKER" PISTOL;
CLASS I & II REPLACEMENT PARTS
October 7, 2015 (https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=b572bfc31492380c0534465de4c674dc)
From what I understand, the P320 failed the FBI's drop testing.
And let's be fair, I think the Army has already decided who's going to win. I mean, the winner of the MHS is going to be type classified as the M17, right? And who makes a model 17? Yes, yes, Smith & Wesson does, too, but I doubt very much that the Army will be buying a .22 LR revolver. It's Glock! Glock makes an M17 - and it just happens to be one of the pistol submitted for the MHS/XM17 program. Not only that, but Glock just won the FBI contract with... a model 17M! Coincidence? I think not!
:jester:
Well, whoever wins will hang a "Used By The US Military" tag on their civvie version. More "street cred" that way.
Well, if you want to read it...
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RFP-OSCU-DSU1503
CLASS I SEMI-AUTOMATIC PISTOL;
CLASS II SEMI-AUTOMATIC PISTOL;
CLASS I INERT TRAINING PISTOL;
CLASS I "MAN MARKER" PISTOL;
CLASS I & II REPLACEMENT PARTS
October 7, 2015 (https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=b572bfc31492380c0534465de4c674dc)
Thanks but too busy doing more pleasant things like shoving needles in my eyes lol :p
I was really bored at work the day I skimmed the Army solicitation. Not that bored today lol.
From what I understand, the P320 failed the FBI's drop testing.
That's interesting. I may actually skim through the solicitation to see what the drop test metrics are. See how relevant it is to the 320 being my primary CCW....
And let's be fair, I think the Army has already decided who's going to win. I mean, the winner of the MHS is going to be type classified as the M17, right? And who makes a model 17? Yes, yes, Smith & Wesson does, too, but I doubt very much that the Army will be buying a .22 LR revolver. It's Glock! Glock makes an M17 - and it just happens to be one of the pistol submitted for the MHS/XM17 program. Not only that, but Glock just won the FBI contract with... a model 17M! Coincidence? I think not!
:jester:
I'd bet it's the S&W 17 myself. The Army did say they were open to new calibers, so why not 22LR? :jester:
And I want to be clear, I'm not saying the 320 is 100% a lock, I just think it's got the highest probability based on the requirements document. But that's probably like 60/40 between the 320 and the remaining entrants just on a feature basis. Once you factor cost, who knows where it goes. Who has the best combo of margins and production costs? Not sure anyone knows that.....
Wouldn't it be priceless if Beretta won?
MountainRaven
09-26-16, 13:45
Wouldn't it be priceless if Beretta won?
I'm still not convinced the Army won't cancel the program and buy more M9s.
I'm still not convinced the Army won't cancel the program and buy more M9s.
That's what the Marine Corps did, just modified with the rail and grip serrations.
I'm still not convinced the Army won't cancel the program and buy more M9s.
That's politically dicey I think. The whole program is at least in part an extension of the push to integrate women into all MOSs. That's why they've got a requirement for 5th-95th percentile M/F compatibility. There'd be a lot of formal justification required to buy something that doesn't meet all the requirements....
That's politically dicey I think. The whole program is at least in part an extension of the push to integrate women into all MOSs. That's why they've got a requirement for 5th-95th percentile M/F compatibility. There'd be a lot of formal justification required to buy something that doesn't meet all the requirements....
Ok, let me get this straight: we are going to replace the M9 with a Glock to accommodate female soldiers?
I can't help but smirk
Ok, let me get this straight: we are going to replace the M9 with a Glock to accommodate female soldiers?
I can't help but smirk
that whole political angle is why I think the 320 has the highest probability of winning. frames are spare parts that can be nearly any size and configuration
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
that whole political angle is why I think the 320 has the highest probability of winning. frames are spare parts that can be nearly any size and configuration
I'm just laughing at the whole "glocks are for people with small hands" future joke aspect
I don't know, but my son, who is a contract pilot flying missions in bad places advises me that due to bs policies that he and his crew--only some of whom are authorized to be armed anyway--have been out more than once lately with no personal weapons at all. Now if they auger in, that may not matter much anyway...but it says volumes about the kinds of people he works for.
Hell, I'm better armed going to town for my mail than he is flying over places they cut people's heads off for sport.
So forgive me if all this do-si-do-ing over the next mil-spec wonder pistol Leaves me a little cold.
Moose-Knuckle
09-27-16, 02:27
Wouldn't it be priceless if Beretta won?
I guess it depends if we need to put more cruise missiles on US installations in Italy.
I don't know, but my son, who is a contract pilot flying missions in bad places advises me that due to bs policies that he and his crew--only some of whom are authorized to be armed anyway--have been out more than once lately with no personal weapons at all. Now if they auger in, that may not matter much anyway...but it says volumes about the kinds of people he works for.
Hell, I'm better armed going to town for my mail than he is flying over places they cut people's heads off for sport.
So forgive me if all this do-si-do-ing over the next mil-spec wonder pistol Leaves me a little cold.
Yep, regs on contractor pilots are tight WRT to being armed. I support a bunch of contractor-owned/contractor-operated (CO/CO) aircraft operating for the Army and I think the personnel on all of them are strictly prohibited from being armed, not that many of them actually follow the rules from what I can gather. And to be honest I think that prohibition stems from DoD regs....
If they test the 320 grip with 5th-95th female population the Glock is going to fall short. The small and medium grip frames have been a hit with 4 different female shooter I tried.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.