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,

Yep even esteemed and venerated expert Massad ADoobie states that the Glock should not be concealed carry without a manual safety.

The people establishing the specs are badly misguided.

However, I would like to see a Glock with a manual safety.

MM

I've been a police firearms instructor for 24 years.

No gun is a good fit for everybody. Good outfits issue a gun and have an 'approved list' of reliable, reputable alternatives for those that the issue sidearm simply doesn't fit. They still have to qualify with it.

Most people can qualify if they will apply the basics of marksmanship, accept constructive criticism and accept the fact that some undertakings involve a little effort and discomfort. Some are unwilling and a tiny percentage are incapable. I cull those PDQ.

I have said for decades that if puppy soldiers and policemen can't break it, it can't be broke.

Seems like a lot of Glocks out there in police land.

Yep!

Glock wanted to be the main PD gun in the US and priced their agency guns accordingly. They're reliable and durable enough but many find their ergonomics lacking. I'm one of those guys. I know from shooting many quals that I will always shoot my M&P better than my Glock. I'd much rather take the M&P to a fight since its been just as reliable and I shoot it better. Actually, forget that......in a fight I'd be happy with either in my holster as long as I had my AR in hand.

With the technology in place modular is the way to go. That is the way the AR-15's/ M-16's are designed.

The three pistol that is the closest fit for 99% of the people that pick one up is the S&W M&P the 1911 and Browning HP , but this would be to simple for a bureaucrat to ever pick.

Who would Detonics get to make their pistol if they won? They aren't anywhere near big enough to do it themselves.

Apparently they've teamed up with STI.

Partner up, is how I posted in the original thread that Detonics would go that route.

Pistols to me are secondary as well, the glock 9's work good enough most of mine have steel night sights.

I don't care about the gun being a good fit for everyone. i care about having to be at the arbitration table because a 5'2 100 pound female thought our Glock 21s were to big for her and kicked too hard for her to qualify with, and according to her lawyer it was the gun's fault she didn't meet her probationary requirements and, thus her employment terminated

The agency shouldn't have to shell out for different guns to "fit" everyone individually...you can either cut it with what is given, or find a new job

Why not give people the option of buying and using what works for them from an approved list?

We were issued M-15 S&Ws and then switched to the M-9. I qualified higher with the M-15 shooting D/A only. The factory S&W grips fit my hand far better. Aircrew do not need accessory rails, high capacity magazines, or a complicated handgun. KISS is best, especially when you qualify once every 3 years.

In theory and maybe with a large dept that gives a uniform allowance I think it would work.

But the problem around here was no one wants to spend their own money on something for work. 6 months before I left were were authorized to purchase Sig P226s. Only 3 out of 28 officers did.


It also becomes a budgetary issue. Let's say we approve 7 different firearms. That means the instructor has to potentially be sent to 7 different schools to learn manual of arms, not to mention armorers schools

Individuality is for artists.



Travis

Where have you been? This place hasn't been the same.

I took my kids to Disneyworld.

Was temporarily committed immediately after. Scheduled for release tomorrow.


Travis

Detox. LOL

Good for you, however I am going to go out on a limb and say it's Disneyworld where ever you are, in a good way. Lots of fun and entertaining.

Travis, welcome back..Things were too calm with you away....

Thanks WCH. Should be back to killing stuff by Saturday. Grin...



Travis

That reminds, your a bad influence (LOL). I think I am going to get a ctr.

The beauty of a modular system, fits more people plus only one pistol for the armerors to learn and deal with. The best of both worlds.

Buy.

But only if Gibson is on board with the idea. His gun reviews are UBER!



Travis

So, you're saying that a 5'2" girlcop should wear the same size shoes a 6'2" oldtimer should wear? One size fits all, right?

We issue Glock 22s, transitioning to 17s, but we authorize any "handgun of quality make, in calibers 9mm, 357 Sig, .40, .45, or 10mm." More than half of our agency of 50ish carry their own, primarily in 9mm. It has been this way for well over twenty years, and it has not been any sort of issue.

One size does not fit all...or even most..

I have NO idea how my agency has gotten away with the policy of "Shoot one gun or go home" but it's been that way, to the best of my knowledge, since 1948.

Back when we shot 10mm's, lots of smaller female types were culled out of the program in the range week.

Even now, with the Glock 35 in 40 S&W, we still end up losing one every now and then.

I'm not saying it's right, just that we've somehow managed to hold onto that precept.

I'd just as soon everyone have something on their belt that they can actually hit a bull in the A$$ with.

One of the other points about the new military pistol program that I caught via the intel and hasn't been discussed yet is the fact that they want the new modular system to be non-caliber specific.

To me, this speaks to a longer term sidearm that can start as a 9x19 and potentially got to other calibers should the situation dictate a change.

Not only does an armorer now have the ability to service only one pistol, and therefore get really good at it, and the parts so easily interchange that an armorer probably isn't even necessary, but it gives longer term cartridge flexibility if/should the U.S. military decide to run another round.

Exactly

Delta went to .40's a few years back in hopes of better performance in the field. They were carrying some hi-cap STI's in .40 S&W, but they dropped it due to difficulty in re-supply when abroad. If they do indeed go to a pistol that can be converted to different cartridges, then they really need to address the supply issue.

But if they went with something truly modular (like what they're looking at), then I don't see any reason why they couldn't switch all the way up to .45 ACP; which would take care of the supply issue.

Back in the '70's and '80's the US Army did some really neat stuff with the .45 ACP to improve barrier performance. If we stuck with just 9mm and .45 ACP and perhaps introduced one of those higher performance .45 ACP rounds, we'd probably be in good shape with minimal impact to our supply lines.

Hell, it could be a round none of us even know of or think of right now, but the flexibility is key.

Off topic, but I'm 99% sure that Delta never fielded STI 2011s.

I know that Delta tested some STI 5" Tactical .40s but couldn't keep them running. A few were sent to Dave Dawson and he diagnosed the mags as the problem and sent them tuned mags to use / try.

Delta didn't keep or issue those STI .40s but sent them back (all thrown together in one crate). STI then sold them at a pretty steep discount because they were so beat up. I've shot two of those Delta reject pistols.

So I don't know if Delta ever fielded any STIs or not, but knowing everything else I just doubt it.

Maybe they didn't field them, but I do recall ammo availability as being one reason they dumped the .40. They had Glock .40's also and dropped them and went with G-19's.