Army plans to replace M9
Someone sent a link to Guns & Ammo which reports that the Army is making moves to replace the M9 Beretta service handgun currently in use since it’s introduction in the mid-80s.
On June 17, the Army released a new draft solicitation on the Federal Business Opportunities website that laid out the service’s plans to replace the M9 with the Modular Handgun System (MHS) by 2018. Army officials intend to begin the competition next year and eventually award a contract to a single gun manufacturer for 280,000 new pistols.
The new draft solicitation explains the Army’s latest proposed competition schedule, procedures and requirements for the XM17 Modular Handgun System (MHS). These have all been modified following industry feedback and the decision of the Department of Defense (DOD) to allow the use of special purpose ammunition.
The solicitation offer isn’t specific as to what the Army wants in the end;
The MHS procurement is intended to be an open caliber competition, which means the choice of caliber is left to the discretion of the Offeror. Offerors are permitted to submit up to two (2) proposals configured to the specific caliber it chooses for evaluation. If an Offeror chooses to submit two (2) proposals, their submissions must all be chambered in a different cartridge of the Offeror’s choosing. In addition, each proposal must be submitted independently from each other.
Each proposal will consist of either a two (2) handgun solution (one full size and one compact), or one (1) handgun solution that meets requirements for both a full size and compact weapon, plus the following ammunition: ball, special purpose, dummy drilled inert (DDI) and blank, as well as, accessories as listed in Section L.4.1.5.2.3. Offerors will have 150 days from the issue date of this RFP to submit proposal requirements as described in section L of the RFP.
The Army hopes to make a selection of the final product by 2017;
“When all is said and done,” Armstrong said, “the XM17 will provide Warfighters with greater accuracy, target acquisition, ergonomic design. The new handgun will also be more reliable, durable and easier to maintain.”
Each vendor, or manufacturer, will be able to submit two separate handgun proposals with different calibers for testing.
I suppose Colt will driving hard for the hoop since they filed for bankruptcy earlier this week. The day they filed, they sent me an email advertising for some “Colt” T-shirts, I hope that’s not their plan to get out of their troubles. Maybe if they dropped the MSRP for their Marine Corps 1911 a few thousand bucks, that would help, more than becoming a t-shirt vendor.
Category: Guns
Maybe bring back the M1911? No, wait, that might make too much sense. I’m sure the first thing they want to do id throw at least a few barges full of money to firms for R&D, and whoever’s model wins these days will likely do so because they’ve bribed the right pols, bureaucrats, and lobbyists. and if it doesn’t work, they’ll keep throwing bargeloads of money at it like the F-35 if the manufacturer owns enough politicians!
It would make a lot of sense. It’s tried-and-true, reliable (sorry, glocktards), customizable (sorry, glocktards), easy to use (yes, glocktards, it really is), and highly ergonomic (sorry, glocktards, you know I got ya there!). And with it being all the rage to fit the weapon to the user (not that that’s a bad thing), it’s the ideal platform.
Here’s a proposal for the M1911A2: base weapon is a basic 1911A1 .45 with accessory rail, GI guide rod, lanyard loop, Novak sights, 5-inch stainless barrel, widened ejection port, and beveled mag well. No bushing-less bull barrel or race gun funnel. Once issued, the individual user may feel free to swap out hammer, mainspring housing, grips, trigger, thumb safety, grip, safety, or even switch to a Commander-length barrel and slide if they see fit, while returning the replaced GI parts to the armorer, who can just throw them in a box someplace to be retrieved as needed (with all the government waste going on, who gives a shit about tracking a $5 grip panel?).
All of these mods are easy to do and don’t require gunsmithing–I’ve done them all myself, in my living room, while watching TV, AND receiving a blowjob! One of many great things about the 1911 is that it goes together the right way or not at all, so you don’t really need to worry about PFC Dumbass’s pistol blowing up because he messed with it.
Of course this will never happen, but wouldn’t it be nice if it did?
Pray tell, why a guide rod?
A GI guide rod, the St. John Moses Browning intended, not the full-length one or that wierdass reverse guide rod that Nighthawk puts on all their guns.
Okay, thanks. For me a pistol is a weapon so I may need to know if there is a round in the chamber. In order to figure that out with a 1911, in the dark, I can do a press check and touch the chambered round. If you put in a full-length guide rod, the press check becomes difficult unless you are willing to stick your finger in front of the muzzle. I believe in the GI guide rod. I don’t believe in those full-length accuracy guide rods that people put on race guns.
For all you kids, this is how old people get cranky.
I agree. I got a Kimberly with a full-length guide rod. Guess which part got swapped out first. They say it prevents the spring from crimping. You’d have to have a particularly-shitty spring to even have that problem in the first place.
Kimber, not Kimberly. Fucking iPhone.
You have a Kimberly with a full length guide rod? that sounds pretty interesting. Is there more to this story? Does Kimberly mind when you talk about her like that?
Hey now, my wife might read this! And her name is definitely NOT Kimberly!
Although there was that one time, years ago, with my ex-girlfriend…
I wonder what they’ll pick. I’d rather shoot a Glock than a Beretta, which is saying something because I’d rather shoot a lot of other guns than a Glock.
Wow, when did they start talking about replacing the M9? Oh yeah, they’ve been saying they’d do this since about 2002…
I’ll believe it when I see it. But at the end of the day, it’ll go to whatever business pays the most “election campaign funds” to the most policy makers. (And/or Senior Army officials looking to retire and get a civilian “consulting” job after.)
Isn’t that how Beretta first got the contract? The way I heard it, their test submission back in ’83 not only failed, but also injured one of the evaluators.
We got the Beretta because we wanted land in Italy for bases (basically).
And I have a scar on my index finger from 1999 where a beretta failed me…(granted, I was dumb enough to say, watch out for this…and Murphy heard me.)
I know back in the day, some SEAL types were using hit loads, and one of the slides cracked, ejected, and nailed a guy in the face.
For a while, the quote went, “You’re not a SEAL until you’ve eaten Italian steel.”
Hot, not hit.
Fucking autocorrect.
Back in the early ’80s Colt offered to refurbish all the military .45s to like-new condition – new barrel/links, bushings, tighten slide/frame tolerance to factory spec etc. for less than $200 a gun, less than half the cost of what was going to be charged for the M9. Supposedly by then the Chiefs were married to the ideas of a double stack magazine and 9mm NATO interoperability and the proposal was shot down.
Why does everything the Army uses have to be a damn swiss army knife? Can’t it just be a freaking gun that shoots? When you try to design something to do too many things you end up with something that doesn’t do anything very well.
Agree completely, JPJ. DoD does the US taxpayer a gross disservice by insisting that everything be “one size fits all/does everything”.
No kidding. Next thing you know, they’ll try to give us a fighter jet that is supposed to do everything…
Navy/Air Force.
F-111.
‘Nuff said.
You know the background on that abomination, Marine_7002 – don’t you?
Both the Navy and USAF wanted a new fighter in the later 1950s/early 1960s. McNamara wanted one – and forced the USAF and Navy to “work together” on the program.
The USAF’s requirements were a bit more strenuous, and the Navy didn’t really want the result. So reportedly they played along – until the program was too far along to cancel. Then the Navy found the program “unsuitable”, and developed the F-14 instead (and the Phoenix to go with it). The USAF got stuck with the Aardvark.
I’d have to tip my hat to the Navy on putting one over on the USAF – except that the F-14 didn’t turn out all that much better. Neither was all that great as an actual fighter aircraft.
And the twin programs soaked the hell out of the taxpayer in the process.
Good points, and I am not one to defend McNamara in the slightest, but I think the F-4 did work out for both USAF and USN. Eventually.
Not so sure. It didn’t work worth that well for air-to-air in Vietnam until after the gun pod was developed. And even then, the MIG-21 was more maneuverable.
Wasn’t bad, though. And it was fairly reliable from what I read.
That was, however, the exception that proves the rule. Designing a plane to land on a 5000′ runway is a bit different than designing one to operate off a 1000′ runway with catapult launch and cable arrest for landing. A design that works well for one rarely will work well for the other, and may not work at all. Any that works in both environments is virtually guaranteed to be a suboptimal compromise in both.
“One size fits all” only really works when everyone is the same size. And a Swiss Army Knife does many things – but doesn’t do many (if any) of them anywhere as near as well as separate tools.
You’re right. It wasn’t designed to dogfight, it was a missile armed interceptor both services thought they needed. Then Vietnam showed us fighters still needed to be able to dogfight.
The original point of frustration with a “one size fits all” acquisition strategy is one I agree with. I was just saying that sometimes it does work.
Thing is that American fighters have faced, and beaten, more maneuverable opponents since WW2.
Once the Navy created TOPGUN and began emphasizing competitive strategies, the kill ration improved dramatically.
F4F vs Zeke
P-40 vs Zeke
FTW
F-4 Phantom: a study in American aircraft design theory. Take a big, fat, aerodynamically-unsound block of pig steel, strap a pair of ginormous engines (and balls) to its ass, hang ordnance on it, and call it good.
Can that freight train fly? With enough thrust, you bet your ass it will. And we WILL find a way to give it enough thrust, by God! America! Fuck yeah!
My uncle, who was in the AF, once said of the F4 that “it’s living proof that with a big enough engine, even a brick can fly.”
Get your butts above the hard deck.
https://youtu.be/vdHBsWXaHN8
hey now, the aardvark found it’s niche as a super fast super low attack bomber. it even got the most armor kills of the first gulf war!
Well, until folks realized that that “terrain following radar” that allowed fast/low operations could be used as a beacon for SAMs. And as long as the enemy didn’t have “look down/shoot down” capability.
I’m also not too sure I’d use performance against the Iraqi Army in Gulf War I (or II, for that matter) as any yardstick by which to measure military prowess, either. Those guys weren’t exactly either the NVA or the Luftwaffe. (smile)
now the f-35 on the other hand, that’s an abomination that should be buried and forgotten.
What, you’re going to condemn a plane that hasn’t even been in combat yet? Remember back in the 80s when both the Abrams and the Bradley were constantly in the press with stories calling them gold-plated death traps?
It’s an old story; even the B-17 was (at first) touted in the press as too too expensive and too dangerous.
Now. The bit about one size fits all, that’s silly. The F-14 might have done well with the Air Force, but I expect the zoomies to be happier with the F-16 than the F-18, which started out as a two-engine competitor to the Viper in the lightweight fighter fly-off.
Yup, read all about it. You’re right, the Navy used that fiasco as leverage to get what it wanted.
I vaguely remembered that an Admiral had said something about the F-111 that was highly derogatory, so I did a search…from Wikipedia, he said this at a Congressional hearing:
“During the congressional hearings for the aircraft, Vice Admiral Thomas F. Connolly, then Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Air Warfare, responded to a question from Senator John C. Stennis as to whether a more powerful engine would cure the aircraft’s woes, saying, “There isn’t enough power in all Christendom to make that airplane what we want!”
Personally, I liked the M9. I liked the 1911,too, but I think it takes a lot more range time to maintain proficiency with the 1911 – range time that has always been sorely lacking in “normal” units.
There’s been a lot of talk at various times over the years about replacing the M9. I can’t help wondering if this most recent push is a consequence of Beretta USA’s decision to move from Maryland to a more gun-friendly state.
Have to say I also liked the M9.
Wonder how much they’ll be going for surplus?
I’d venture to guess that under this administration, they’d rather melt them down.
Having used an M9 downrange, you wouldn’t want a surplus one. These things are beat to hell, poorly (if at all) maintained, loose as goose shit, and have been in service since the 1990’s. Or at least that is what they handed those of us deploying.
Mine was taken away and scrapped when the cracks in the frame became apparent to the naked eye, and its replacement wasn’t much better.
I don’t mind so much firing the M9, but its just about the lack of power in it. I’ve never had one jam on me before (though as I mentioned above, I had one bite me).
I have an HK USP .40 of my own (NSA, don’t bother telling the gun control nuts, I’ve been talking about it for years. They know.). I like it and the power of it, but also the stability and ruggedness.
I think its the same as the fact we shouldn’t have to empty a magazine of 5.56 into a guy to drop him. You shouldn’t have to put 5-6 shots into an enemy at pistol range to stop him.
I liked the M9 too. Only weapon I ever shot expert with. (That only happened once so it was undoubtedly a fluke!)
Pistol shooting skills are perishable, range time is required to keep them.
From 1972 to 1976 I was active duty in HHC 172nd Infantry Brigade. I saw my personal weapon five times. Three times for annual qualification, once for winter training in December 1972, and once in October 1973 (just me and the rest of the Army). There was no other training. I HOPE that it is better now but according to number one son, it is not.
I hear the folks south of the border from “Fast and Furious” are looking for buyers.
Para-Ordinance .45 cal 1911 double-stack.
http://www.para-usa.com/
‘Nuff said.
Like button pressed!
Mine too. I “LIKED” B Woodman’s post!
The Paras are nice pistols. I’m partial to the single stack Black Ops model.
SIG’s new 320 series sounds exactly what they are looking for. The serialized part which is the trigger group is drop and use. Drop it in to any frame, grab correct slid length, barrel, and go. For a military this would be ideal because entire weapons wouldn’t be out of service due to housing defects. They instead would be easily replaced and changed out with no serialized gear involved.
There are so many great handgun designs available to today that no matter what they choose legitimate criticism will occur over th choice. Just remember, boys. A large military decision doesn’t validate or invalidate a firearm design or choice. I think we forget that often.
Very true.
Also, Sigs are good guns. I don’t care for Sigs myself, but they work as advertised, they’re hard to break, and they’re a lot more comfortable than a certain plastic obscenity that has its own loyal cult…
Anyway, while I personally think a hammer-fired SA auto is preferable to a DA or striker-fired configuration, my biggest contention against the Sig on principle (and not insurmountable) is that it should be made in the USA.
SIG has been a huge manufacturer in the US for a decade or so now. The vast majority of their manufacturing occurs in the US already.
HK recently are under fire for poor rifle design and/or manufacture in Germany right now with the Germany military concluding that their standard service rifle cannot hold zero when it gets hot.
I’ve heard that about the G36, also that it has problems with hot steel melting the surrounding polymer furniture when you shoot a lot. One probably has a lot to do with the other. I suppose I could slip a barb about plastic guns in here…
Anyway, I’m sure lessons are being learned about where polymer does and doesn’t work.
Was thinking similarly when reading this headline, FC. Haven’t seen any yet, and have no use for one, but want it anyway. I seriously like my SIG P-927, and was astounded to see what it is worth today.
Excuse the typo, that was supposed to be a P228. Duh! Always thought it funny that it’s stamped “Made in W Germany.”
Kind of weird since there was an article a month or two ago saying the Army was going to upgrade the M9 to the M9A1 which includes a rail and coyote tan finish. I’m not saying that would be better or worse than a new sidearm but its kind of strange that they can’t make up their mind.
It’s called “government efficiency.” This will be at least the third time the Army has dumped multiple millions into a competition to replace the M9. Previous efforts have resulted in tons of money being spent, a winner being declared, and the Pentagon deciding to wipe their ass with all that taxpayer money and keep the M9.
I am a huge fan of the 1911 design. I can take an unfitted slide and frame and make a good-looking good-working very accurate gun with a great trigger. I think that the 1911 is great! I used to have 1911s, Sigs and Glocks but they all fell overboard in an unfortunate boating accident. Given the choices today, for a military weapon I think that a 1911 has too many small pieces to get lost in the dark. Field strip a 1911 and you get an action, slide, barrel, bushing, spring, buffer plug, and a GI guide rod. On one of my 1911s the link pin is insecure. If it falls out, the link can be lost. In my opinion and in that respect, both the Sig and the Glock are better. For both the Sig and Glock, field strip yields an action, slide, barrel and recoil group. The Sig might have two parts in the recoil group vs one for the Glock. That is a lot more manageable than all of the fiddly bits on a 1911. If I had to choose today, I prefer the Sig 226 size/style – longer barrel, double stack magazines, good trigger, easy and fast to field strip, drop-in barrels, non-fussy magazines, light enough, good sights, good finish. I can say almost the same about the Glock but the trigger feels weird to me – no doubt that is a training issue, I don’t have enough trigger time with a Glock. The Glock has a long record with police forces. The US Military has used Sigs in the past – I recall reading that the SEALs used to carry Sig 229s. Unless I have a lot of trigger time on one I find that I don’t shoot it as well as I used to shoot my 1911s. Both the Sig and the Glock can take a short rail for lights and longer barrels for a suppressor. In my opinion either would serve well in the military. FWIW, I think that caliber is strictly a training issue too but nobody gives a damn what I… Read more »
FWIW, when they brought the M9 aboard they said when comparing the 9 to the .45 that a) It took about 2/3 as long to train shooters to the same level of proficiency, b) it took abut 2/3 the ammo to train to that level and c) they had about the same ratio of bolos who just flat could not be trained up adequately (there’s always some…) In an era of tight budgets, those can be compelling numbers. Plus they got double stack higher-round counts and interoperability with the Brits and Herms’ 9mm P35s and P38s (excuse me, P1s)
Brits and Herms…we’re allied with the hermaphrodites?
Yeah, I’m ready for the weekend to start.
Herm – short for “Hermann the German”.
Then they should have picked the HiPower. It’s ten times the gun the Beretta will ever be.
I think I read somewhere that the Coast Guard boarding teams carry the P229 in .40
(I liked my P229 before it sunk.)
P229R-DAK is the standard service sidearm of the US Coast Guard since 2004.
In .40 S&W
I wonder if that woman owned business on Bethesda is going to be an offeror in this RFP feeding frenzy. Nothing to it, once you get the font size right. The DOD really wants a .222Ruger pistol. Think of all the mailbox doors that would buy…
I know, I know, they could do with handguns over the next 15 years what they’ve done with uniforms over the last 15.
I expect to see at least one Offerer propose a replacement in .25 ACP. This will be immediately followed up with several limos full of lobbyists being dispatched to Modor on the Potomac. The main push will be into the DoD Diversity machine where the obvious benefits of the design (same # rounds for less mass, negligible recoil for those with revised physical requirements) will be trumpeted.
Shh! Don’t give them ideas, dammit!
It never should have been adopted in the first place. A completely sub-mediocre firearm.
Well, shit, Lars. For once you’re actually right. If dogs and cats start living together, I’ll be worried.
XD 9mm, .40, or .45 is a much better choice.
Forget a 1911. Too heavy and too much recoil for the increasing number of women.
EAA Witness. 1 frame, several swap out top ends 357sig, 9mm, 40cal etc
I don’t get that argument. My wife (skinny Asian chick, tiny hands, poor grip strength) does fine with a full-size 1911. In fact, I’ve never seen a female have trouble with a 1911 Of course, this by itself doesn’t automatically mean it’s the greatest pistol ever, but that particular argument gets thrown around all the time, and runs counter to everything I’ve seen.