Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Detonics makes the cut, in top 3 for US Service Pistol

http://bearingarms.com/top-three-co..._medium=fbpage&utm_campaign=baupdate

I'd say they're still the big under dog, but I'm delighted to see the little David amongst the Goliaths. But honestly the surviving 3 are the only 3 that actually meet the modular requirement .

No surprise that Beretta made the final three list. They've still got enough pull inside the Beltway to buy themselves the contract, and politically if they don't get this contract then Beretta is OUT of Maryland, taking that tax revenue and all those jobs with it (though, that might happen anyway, given one of Beretta's other facilities and it's location and access to the Beltway).

Good ol' Detonics. Didn't Sonny Crockett carry a Detonics Combat Master in an ankle holster on Miami Vice?

They have an ineresting pistol.

Yep, I do believe you are right.

It's a very different Detonics. I would really love to see one up close. Like John said, it's a very interesting pistol.

I don't really get the "modular" aspect as being a neccessity


As i've always said with cops. If you can't qualify/ handle the issued gun then the problem is you, not the gun-go find another job

Agreed our military decision makers are idiots. Forever trying to over complicate the most obvious basic needs. The military needs a tough reliable pistol in a sufficient fighting caliber. All that other is simply BS. Just like the F-35. Try to make it do everything so that it ends up doing nothing well.

Mark in GA

I see it, and it makes a lot of sense. Right now we have two pistols, the M9 and the M11. The M11 was deemed necessary because of the need for a more compact pistol. It makes sense from a logistical and support standpoint if you were supporting one pistol rather than two. We had to debug both the M9 and the M11, and this way you really only debug one pistol.

For armorers, the modular design means fixing them is a snap. With the Beretta and Sig designs, the trigger mechanism is just a snap in unit. So anything that's not working, just snap in another unit like they're Lego's (that may be over-simplification, but not by too much). What you learn with the full size carries over to the compact pistol.

For an individual I see it as window dressing; about worthless. But for a large military that needs some versatility, I see it as essential.

St John's County, FL tried to issue me a Taurus. It was timed so poorly it was like looking and a quarter moon when you looked down the barrel at lockup. It was NOT my problem but I admit I refused it and carried my Python instead.

Another bone-head project to give a procurement officer a chance to be a Program Manager. It will end up the same as the XM-8 project, and then Kevin will find something else to speculate about.

I don't think it will, I think they'll replace the M9...we'll see.

That's a horse of a different
color Scott....i'm referring to a properly functioning weapon...i would have refused solely based on it being a Taurus

OK I guess functioning is important.

I am surprised they did not ask you to be on the evaluation board.

You mean like a Glock G19/G17, G30/G21 or a S&W M&P 45/S&W M&P 45 Compact, etc.

They may not be lego like in that you replace in-expensive individual springs/parts instead of an expensive fire control unit for example!

As MarkinGA said above what they need is a reliable,durable pistol in a hard hitting caliber. Instead of a $500 pistol they will be paying some absurd price (in the thousands) per unit.

Jerry

Maybe I'm half asleep, but I've read that article several times and I don't see anywhere it actually states that DoD has narrowed it down to those three designs. Seems like it's just the opinion of the guy who wrote the article. They even admit hey have no idea what S&W/General Dynamics has cooked up. The intro sentence to the whole thing sounds like it's talking about the fourth in a series of what I would call pre-bid meetings. What am I missing?

If i was in charge it would be a easy decision to make, the Glock 17 with only one change, the pistols would be required to have steel sights.

This. It is the opinion of the author of the article.

A G17/19 with steel sights would be the logical choice for me, but when money is no object and you are dead set on paying more for less...

I agree with the Glock, but that won't happen until Glock's come with a manual safety,