In order of whom you think has the best chance

Which model I guess depends on how the whole caliber things
Here's how I see it:

Top contenders:
Sig (P320)
S&W (M&P)
Glock (17 or 21)
Beretta (PX4)
FNH (FNX)
CZ (P-09)
H&K (VP9 / HK45)

Wild Cards (meaning not likely, but have a chance):
Ruger (SR Series)
Springfield Armory / HS Produkt (XD series)
Taurus (24/7 series)

Not likely, will be eliminated early on:
Detonics (MTX)


I think the big wild cards in the whole thing are:
1 - Caliber, which will they decide to go with?
2 - Modular? How modular, and what meets the requirement for "modular"?

Something union made.

But seriously I don't know.

The Ruger, Taurus and XD are dead in the water and the FN and CZ are right behind them.

I'd bet money on the 320 and M&P.

Yep.



Clark

Just some notes on that list.

I have the Sig 320 (or that series) as the top contender because as best I can tell it meets all of the requirements, and is by far the most �modular� of all the pistols out there.
My top contenders list all have a good track record for being major military suppliers (although one could argue either way regarding S&W).

Ruger is a wild card because they have never bagged any really big contracts, just a bunch of small contracts. But they�re a HUGE manufacturing concern with a LOT at their fingertips. If their gun fared well in competition, I don�t think anyone would question Ruger�s ability to fulfill their obligations.
Springfield / HS Produkt � They don�t have much track record fulfilling/supporting large orders/customers; but they do have an excellent pistol. And perhaps they can convince the US that they could setup at Springfield and build the guns�who knows.

The Detonics is under the unlikely for a number of reasons. While it�s a very interesting pistol (I�d LOVE to test drive one), I don�t see anything �modular� about it. But then again, it�s no less �modular� than some of the traditional double action pistols in the running like the FN, CZ, or Beretta. But I see two major strikes against it. 1 � The grip is what it is, doesn�t seem to be much in the way of adjustment. I guess you could change the backstrap but it�s a very small section of backstrap and the only thing you�d be able to do is increase the grip circumference; meaning, their grip frame solution is pretty weak. 2 � And to me this is what really kills the Detonics. Detonics is a VERY small company with little to no track record. I am not aware of any agency, military or LE, that has bought/adopted a Detonics product, so I just see a ZERO chance our military procurement would put that much on such a small, untested company; it would be bordering on criminal negligence. It�s too bad, Detonics has a very interesting pistol.

Yeah, I really see those two as being the real battle, and I'd have to say I'm leaning toward the Sig 320. If this program goes through, unless something fails miserably for Sig, my bet is the 320 would be our next service pistol. I see it as theirs to lose.

If they are to stay competitive S&W better start lining up Board of Directors slots for the soon to retire Pentagon brass and golf junkets for Congressmen to places where child prostitution is legal, plus make some really big campaign contributions...



Of course, I may be just a tad cynical about the military procurement process.

Which ever company has the best lobbyists and the most politicians bought off.

My money is on Beratta.
NATO and 9mm

The issue with the 320's modularity is that it's so modular. You've got three frames to keep track of with every pistol instead of just a pocket full of backstraps. It's a lot to keep track of.

S&W teamed with General Dynamics

And the 320 has absolutely NO safety. The Glock and M&P trigger safeties are a joke, but at least they can claim to have one.

The 320 controls were in the way of how I grip a pistol and I wouldn't start changing everything just to have one. It wasn't that good.

The M&P besides the trigger safety(?) can be had with an ambi. thumb safety.

from Sig's website; " A frame-mounted thumb safety version will be available for law enforcement needs."

Jerry

Don't sleep on Glock. They developed a pistol with an external safety for future military bids (per a former Glock salesperson).

More M9A1's. They're already on order

I should be a Glock, or the FNH, but it won't be. The S&W would be my 3rd place choice. Nothing against the S&W, they just don't fit me.

My bet is that they go with the Berertta in 9mm.

When the US Military is involved, the powers that be will make it a classic cluster fugg.

I understand that Glock has a safety. That to get a certain few contracts they have produced and delivered guns with a thumb safety, down to fire like it should be. They do not want to fool with it as an option so have kept quiet about it. May also be a liability thing, "If your gun is so safe why did you make some with an additional safety." $$$$ for a liable lawsuit.

I dont see DoD buying pistols without safeties.

They bought the M-11, it has no safety.

Glock 21sf and be done with it. If the f'ers can't be trusted with a Glock,they shouldn't have anything, or need more training. The Brits went with the G17.

Doesn�t matter what they purchase... Joe isn�t taught to �hit� anything with a sidearm, the powers that be want to see if he can send a proscribed amount of rounds down range in a generally safe direction.. All they want is to spend money left over or earmarked for weapons when they need to concern themselves with training and marksmanship on what they have, which ain�t going to happen.

The M-11 has a hammer and a decocker which qualify. Only striker-fired pistols require an active safety.

As for the top contender, my vote goes to S&W. They are the only manufacturer that can provide a qualifying pistol that also meets the USA-made requirements of the last couple protocols.

Which US Handgun manufacturers still run a forge at the scale needed? S&W and Colt are the only ones I know for sure.

None of the latest designs are forged. Frames are typically plastic and slides are most often made from barstock. S&W may forge their M&P slides to cut down on machine time, I really don't know.

Does the RFP state it must already be made in the US or it will be US made when awarded?

So what about Colt??

Nor did the revolvers which the Air Force issued for decades.

The primary advantage of an external safety, is if applied before holstering a pistol, a serviceman are less likely to accidentally shoot themselves in the leg. Which happens too often. A hundred or more times a year.

Frankly, considering the miniscule amount of pistol training in the armed forces, a trigger disconnect pistol safety is a money saver.

Colt doesn't have anything close to the requirements and they don't want a development gun, so they're not in the running.

look for the winner to be the lowest bidder that employs union labor.

The last "new" gun that Colt developed was a dismal failure. Anyon remember their All American 2000 ? What a POS

It will be the lowest bidder that meets the minimum qualifications. When Beretta won the contract, there was nothing stipulating they had to be union. I recall in the late '80's the UAW was trying to organize Beretta and Beretta got in trouble for violations of the NLA. I never did find out if Beretta was ever organized and put under a union contract; I have no idea.

But it wasn't a requirement.

Still, they located in Maryland (tell me a fix wasn't in on that one...who in their right mind would put a manufacturing operation in Maryland???), and if you're in Maryland, what do you think will happen to your workforce.

The problem wasn�t just the gun (which was a nightmare), but the fact that even if Colt had the best pistol in the world, they couldn�t sell a cup of water to a dying man in the desert.

You know, now that I think about it, I think the All American 2000 is the only auto pistol that Colt has ever designed from the ground up. Everything else has been an outside design they have bought(primarily Browning or Astra). So when you think about that, that doesn't bode well for Colt's.

Kevin,

I think the original design for the All American 2000 was from Reed Knight at Knights Armament with some design input from Eugene Stoner. I remember reading that when the gun first came out in one of the gun magazines.

I own an M&P 40 with a thumb safety. They'll make just about any flavor anyone wants...

Yep. That was my point. It was also planned to be one of the first "smart guns" by Colt.

The only guns that Col Colt really designed were the Paterson & the Navy Model. Even the famed Walker Colt was a failure. Very few made, and they were prone to break. And he was already dead by the time the 1873 SAA came out.

I know that Reed Knight had a hand in the design of the AA 2000. I don't recall whether Stoner did or not.

Beretta is moving to Tennessee

Where they will officially undergo a name change to "Beretty".

�so, is this breaking news or a re-hash----seems pretty current:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...s-for-new-pistol.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm

I'm unconvinced that a version of the Beretta M9 wont be the winner. There's why:

http://www.gunnuts.net/2014/12/19/5-reasons-the-beretta-m9a3-will-be-the-next-service-pistol/

I hope that ^ will in fact be the case - I really like the Beretta M9A3.
However, this recent link in Bearing Arms, posted Jan. 9, 2015 - also claims otherwise:

'REJECTED: Beretta M9A3 Will Not Be U.S. Army's New Pistol'

> http://bearingarms.com/rejected-beretta-m9a3-will-u-s-armys-new-pistol-mhs-competition-goes-forward/ <

This site claims: "Purely on technical merits the Detonixs STX is the apparent front runner."

That Detonics abomination will win the same day NASA hires me to build the next space shuttle in my garage.

Not having shot the Detonics cannot comment on it.
I did read the article.
http://bearingarms.com/detonics-siddle-stx-interview/

The army lives for crap like this. Where they have done all these studies like
"We studied the U.S. Army�s anthropometric hand size measurements (i.e. Grip Ergonomics)"

This is just one of many studies they have submitted.

Would not suprise me if they did go for something like this

What is it that you find so negative about the Detonics pistol?

That's a cool looking pistol. Until recently I haven't about them in years.

I know the old Detonics Combat Master had couple of bug-a-boos.
I think they were clip sensitive, and maybe had a occasional galling problem with the stainless. They also had somewhat of a cult following in that when they came out they were some of the first compact 1911's.

This new gun is a completely different iteration then the old ones.

Just wondering if that size company could handle a govt. contract that large??

I know where I saw something like this before. The Wilson Kz 45 a double stack .45 with a polymer frame and 1911 top end. I have handled this gun before. I have fairly large hands and this particular gun was a hand full. Another thing I am remembering now (It has been a few years), I remember looking at the mag well walls with the mag out, and thinking those are thin. I guess they had to keep them on a diet to keep the overall size of the grip down. I do not think they went over that well either.

Nothing in particular.

I'm just tired of hearing people talk about a gun that doesn't stand a chance.

Well it looks like the M9/3 is out of the running,

How did you determine that it does not stand a chance?

It's a single action (not gonna happen), double stack .45 (not gonna happen) from a maker without the capacity to fulfill the contract (not gonna happen).

My understanding is it can also convert to striker fired. Not sure they can't partner up to handle the manufacturing. Just a hurdle to cross nothing more. I have no idea which pistol they choose.

I don't see anything wrong with the pistol per-se (I don't see it as being really "modular" but that word hasn't really been defined).

The problem isn't so much the pistol as it is Detonics; they are not a proven supplier. And the pistol is brand new; completely unproven.

So it's an unproven pistol from an unproven manufacturer. Is that really what you want our military to buy?

If I had to pick one and bet on it I would say the Smith & Wesson M & P.

Testing trials could prove the design and partnering up with a proven produce could prove to be viable. Just hurdles to cross and the pistol is very close to what is being asked for.

But...but... it looks like a 1911!

This should be it...

Wasn't that one of the complaints made against the Glock in the trials back in the '80s when Beretta eventually got the contract and the Glock went on to become the most widely used, widely copied, and one of the most time-tested designs in the modern history of firearms?

No way, just on way. The testing would have to prove the design to be FAR better than anything else before they would ever even entertain such an idea, and a newcommer is not going to prove to be more reliable than pistols that have been in LE and Military service for decades. Having a good design is the starting place, and at this point that's all they have. Design is almost never where a gun goes wrong, it's almost always in materials and manufacturing. Most of those problems never rear their heads until a major organization takes on your pistol. Glock has had 20 years of development. Sig has had anywhere from 10-30 (depending on which pistol they submit).

If the Detonics even makes it out of the first round of trials, I'll be the first man to start a thread here to admit I was wrong and you were right (wouldn't be the first time).

Pretty much, Glock was just never seriously considered because it was new technology, radically different design, and a completely unproven company. Plus in tests the Beretta and Sig were both more reliable. I'm not sure if that would be the case today, but I don't doubt it would be pretty close.

The Beretta got the contract because they bought enough Congress critters and openly lied on their contract bid (price and volume guarantees).

The Glock was ruled out because of your knock on the Detonics and because it was an Austrian design (couldn't give any credence to the Austrians in the early 1980s).

Sig or HK in a 357 Sig round would be interesting for military use?

Other than the MK 23 abomination H&K made for the US and sold in very small numbers, I'm not aware of any real serious military contracts that H&K has ever won for their pistols. Everything has been small numbers of guns to very small organizations. The P7 was used by W. German police along with the Walther P1 & P5, and Sig P6. That's about the biggest H&K contract that I know of and it was shared with 3 other pistols (mostly 2, I don't think many cops in W Germany carried the P5).

Back in the '70's there were various special ops units around the world (mostly in Europe) that used the H&K P9S, but that didn't last long.

You call the MK 23 an abomination? A reliable extremely accurate combat offensive pistol. WOW. The MK 23 was designed to meet requirements of the spec ops group and did just that.

It fulfilled it's purpose, but I sure the hell wouldn't want one.

The Mk 23 was relevant in the days when suppressors didn't have a Nielson device, and the MK 23 was a decent solution to that problem. But today, it's just a freakishly huge pistol that doesn't do anything special.

The USP9 is the German military P8 pistol.

while the HK p7 M13 is positively my very favorite semi auto rig by far--reliable and fast in the extreme--in my view it is not a pistol suited to military use and those specific environments.

it was originally designed for police usage (german p-5, p-6, p-7 candidates), and those specific environments, which are fairly "clean" environments by contrast to military settings. due to how parts within the pistol move--ie., parts actually sliding against each other, fine dirt, sand, or water--water which is well on its way to becoming ice--will definitely cause issues in those rugged combat environments...

in the 9mm vs. .45 auto debate, when distilled down to a military setting and subsequently using fmj in the battle fields, the .45 is a superior choice in my view.

therefore, in my estimation, the "ancient" HK USP .45 auto would surely make for a top shelf military rig. hammer fired, sporting second strike capability--well proven over the past 19 years. this is surely a rig that can really apply the horsepower to readily ash-can adversaries--all in a comfortable, tidy package...

Kevin,

Wrong,
Glock did not stand a chance because they did not submit any pistols for the XM9 Service Pistol Trials. Gaston allegedly withheld his pistol as He (His company) was not guaranteed manufacturing rights.

The Pistols in the trials besides the Sig and Beretta, were the HK P7M13, S&W 459M, Walther P88, Colt SSP, FN-Herstal BDA, and Steyr GB.

Jerry

Are they finally getting around to it? That's good news for both German and H&K.

I guess I mis-remember. I do recognize the list of pistols, but I thought Glock was given consideration rather late in the program. You could be right.

I think the Border Patrol carries them.

I don't know if that's more or less than the W German PoPo.



Travis

Getting around to it? They adopted it in 1994.

Clearly I haven't followed that too well. I recall when they adopt it, and then I recall the entire program being put on indefinite hold due to a lot of parts breakage (safety levers mostly). And I've seen photos with German troops carrying the G-36 and a P1 in the holster...So I just figured they never did get around to it. Glad to hear they did. I always liked the USP's.

The last I saw the standard issue pistol of the Border Patrol is an enhanced version of the Beretta 96, firing 40 S&W

You could be right.

But I think I read somewhere that they carry the P2000 now.



Travis

I think my favorite H&K so far is the new VP9. I�ve now had 2 opportunities to shoot one and all I can say is I want one. Typical of H&K they�re damn accurate and ooze quality. Ergonomics wise it�s about the best feeling double column gun I�ve felt since the Browning Hi Power. Trigger is good, sights are good. And while I don�t much care for the mag release, it never caused a problem. And I'd prefer traditional rifling to polygonal, but that's just a personal preference kind of thing; not something that would ever keep me from buying one. If that�s the one that H&K puts in the running for the new service pistol, it�s going to be very tough to beat.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol#Weapons

The Beretta 96's are being replaced by HK 2000's according to this source

CBP has been using the HK 2000's for a few years now!

CBP? Canadian Border Patrol?

U.S. Customs

I think that they just might go right back to Beretta and 9mm...wouldn't that just figure?

I think that's the likeliest outcome, Desertrat. Because these Army requirements and competitions become a soup-salad even before Congress gets involved. The best tool for opening a can is a can opener. But the Army specs are for a Swiss Army Knife.

The army already turned down the Beretta selection

Doesn't mean they can't un-turn it down in the next round.

Within the big picture of a smaller military and reduced defense spending, I gotta believe there's a lot more crucial things for the Army to be working (spending) on than replacing one 9mm handgun with a slightly different 9mm handgun.

Changing handguns is a major logistical expense. Upgrading to an improved Beretta M9 is much more likely to get through Congress.

Army says no to updated M9

I think the RG .38 revolvers would be ideal. They cost very little. The shoot a great round when they shoot. If you tear them up you just throw them away and you ain't lost much. You don't need armorers either for the same reason. You could send all the armorers to work at the post office so more than one line would be open at a time. Armorers don't take near as many breaks. You could save all the ones you trash and sell them to the Navy. They could be tied together with zip ties and used for anchors. (Even new ones could be used for this since this would probably be cheaper than the Navy pays for anchors.) They would stimulate foreign trade just like Beretta. You could carry four at a time so you would have 20 rounds of available firepower. Due to their timing and lead spitting, they could be used at close range for crowd control. They have adjustable front sights because you can turn the barrel with your hand. They could easily surpass the 10,000 round survival test if you had enough of them. They handle just like a semi auto, just pull the trigger. They ain't got no silly safety to worry about. They will still shoot even if the barrel falls off which is likely. They are very accurate at 1 yard. I just don't see much choice here besides this one.

Actually it's a very minor purchase and logistical matter in comparison to other major equipment upgrades. The M9's in service have seen a decade of war, and many of them are getting a bit long in the tooth. It's probably a good time to review the whole program since you're going to have to replace the lion's share of M9's anyhow.

It should be pretty easy to waste a couple $trillion all around with that logic.



How do you figure? Has someone inspected a couple thousand of them to get a baseline and published a report?

It's gonna be the Glock, Sig, or M&P. Whichever comes in cheaper.

Speaking comparatively, not encouraging waste.



Not that I know of, but that's what the US Military typically does at the end of a war, they take stock of what they have, and determine what gets rebuilt and what gets replaced.

They have been trying to get rid of the M9 since around 2001 so I'm just assuming rather than replace any M9's that are nearing the end of their lifespans, they'll just replace the whole kit & kaboodle.

I personally have no issue with the M9 as a military sidearm, it has proven itself capable. Just need to train people how to use it, how to deal with the safety not being where it belongs, and it will continue to do just fine. It's not much of a concealed carry piece, but that's not what the military is looking for. So I for one wouldn't care too much if they decided to stay with the M9.

As good as the M9 is, there are pistols out there more suitable to military service.

Yeah, but it's not always just lowest bidder...it's lowest bidder who meets the spec/requirements. Which is how it ought to be...provided the spec/requirements are solid.

I'm sure they'd like to, but having just bought something like 100K new ones in the last four or five years, I'm having a hard time imaging they can't make do with those and refurbing the remainder.

The new M9A3 will get the nod. Bank on it. Some SOF units will continue to buy their own Glocks. Big Army/Air Farce ain't buying anything without a manual safety, ever.

If I were King for a Day, this would be my choice.

Just because the design is "old" means nothing, it works still & is a proven commodity with NATO power level ammo.

Not sure the other top contenders can take a steady diet of that ammo??

Choice will boil down to cheapest gun that meets minimum requirements built in a state with the administration's favor when the decision is made.

I'd bet on S&W, Sig 2nd, Glock 3rd if they all have a qualifying gun.

MM

I guess you missed that the Army has already shot it down?

As an aside, if Beretta does lose out on the .mil contract, I'd almost guarantee that they'll move their HQ out of Maryland and with remarkable speed. VA and TN both have Beretta plants, so either of them would make sense and both offer far better gun laws and better tax structures than does MD.

I thought the same thing. Accokeek will be shutting its doors.




Travis

TAK doesn't miss anything. MARSOC told him so.

Considering what the US military has to deal with for training, I would insist on a manual safety as well. They will NEVER train their soldiers well enough to where all are safe with a trigger cocking gun with no safety. In LE there have been SO many ND's that wouldn't have happened if there was a manual safety that was engaged. If we go with a trigger cocking gun with no safety, we're going to see these things happen a LOT more. People holstering a gun, a piece of clothing sticking out gets caught in the trigger guard and boom. I'll agree it's the user's fault, but it's also hard to argue the same thing would happen with a gun that has a manual safety that's engaged.

If I were big Army, I'd also insist that if a trigger cocking gun is chosen, that it's takedown either doesn't require pulling the trigger, or it can't be taken down until you open up the action.

There are two of the most common ND's that are encountered with trigger cocking guns with no manual safety.

When you don't have the money to properly train people, sometimes you have to apply a hardware solution to a software problem. Not perfect, but that's just the way it is.

Manual safeties are stupid.




Travis

Correct. I have to say (again) the M9 was a POS from the start. When I was Weapons Officer on NIMITZ, we received the first batch of them and by the time cruise was over, they already looked worn. Our folks carry the M9, but only because our company likes to mirror what USN has here.

The breakage rate with us has been nil so far (the guns are new), but over on the Navy side the breakage rate is up there. Also, they use milspec ammo whereas we buy ours direct from the manufacture and maybe they have less pressure. I have to say they've been completely reliable when it comes to operating though. I ask our RSOs to keep track of malfunctions for me, and to date, I can't recall any. Our annual consumption is about 30K rounds through about 100 guns.

That's a fairly important, but sometimes overlooked distinction.......the NATO 9mm ammo is a fair amount warmer than standard commercial ammo is unless it's of the +P version.

A steady diet of the warmer stuff will have an effect on many designs.

MM

Bump.

Looking back on this thread was interesting. I'm a bit surprised I called it on the nose, even the fact the military would insist on a safety. I'm usually not that good.