Colt won!

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Is it as "manly" and "cool" as a railed 1911? I think not! I really think that my theory best explains it.

 

[mgmorden]

One of the things that caught my eye was that the requirements sound like they were basically tailor written to make sure 1911's were what was submitted (single stack .45's basically).

I work in government (not military - just local government), and I've been on enough selection committee's to know that if you already have your mind made up its quite easy to simply craft the RFP such that the bidder that you want is the only one that can win the contract.

This single contract isn't going to bankrupt the country, but overall I do agree that we need to seek EFFICIENCY in our purchases. Its not possible now, but I'd honestly like to see what the submissions would have looked like if they were broader in scope as to the requirements.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by saturno_v: Military spending is a BIG PART of what bankrupted this country...

For FY2010, the military procurement budget, which included the cost of all small arms, missiles, aircraft, armored and other vehicles, radars, radios, drones, missiles, ships, other naval craft, uniforms, smart bombs, and other munitions combined, comprised 4% of Federal expenditures.

Posted by Mp7: Does it do anything a "cheap" 45. Glock cant do?

Well, for one thing, the Glock does not have a finish that eliminates glare and makes the weapon less identifiable at a distance.

Second, the Glock does not have a safety that blocks the trigger. That's why Glock has never submitted proposals for US military contracts and reportedly never will.

Third, we have no way to compare the prices, since your "cheap" Glock does not come with a support contract.

 

[WinThePennant]

The external safety the US Military seems to always require will keep Glock out of the running for US Military contracts.

But, I have no idea why a S&W M&P couldn't fit the bill as a fine sidearm for US Marines. I agree that the checklist almost certainly made the 1911 the only firearm that could meet the requirements.

 

[mokin]

That's a nice looking pistol. Congratulations to the good folks at Colt. It's a bit rich for my blood though. I think I'll go shopping for a Rock Island Armory piece.

 

[19-3Ben]

Second, the Glock does not have a safety that blocks the trigger. That's why Glock has never submitted proposals for US military contracts and reportedly never will.

Do I remember correctly that Glock also refused to submit pistols for trial because they would have to disclose the formula of their polymer?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by WinThePennant: But, I have no idea why a S&W M&P couldn't fit the bill as a fine sidearm for US Marines. I agree that the checklist almost certainly made the 1911 the only firearm that could meet the requirements.

S&W does, of course, manufacture 1911 pistols, but they elected to not respond to the solicitation for the CQBP.

One can only speculate in their reasons. Was it insufficient production capacity? Could their model not meet the requirements? Were the unable to meet the price point? Did they not like the terms and conditions? Or was it just just an insufficient return on investment?

One could ask the same questions about Kimber, Remington, and RIA.

 

[WinThePennant]

I think the point of contention is that the US Marines seemed hell-bent on the 1911 platform. What purpose is there in requiring a single-stack .45 for a service pistol?

I've never served, but those who have tell me that they carry as much ammo as they can when they know they are going into fight. And, that includes their sidearm.

Limiting yourself to a 7-round magazine? Gimme a break!

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by WinThePennant: I think the point of contention is that the US Marines seemed hell-bent on the 1911 platform. What purpose is there in requiring a single-stack .45 for a service pistol?....Limiting yourself to a 7-round magazine? Gimme a break!

MARSOC has been using Kimber .45s, and one would tend to trust their judgment on that issue over that of Internet commandos--even those who have heard things from "those who have [served]."

 

[WinThePennant]

MARSOC has been using Kimber .45s, and one would tend to trust their judgment on that issue over that of Internet commandos--even those who have heard things from "those who have [served]."

And, my opinion is that a single-stack .45 is a bad choice for a combat pistol in the modern age. I guess that makes me an ill-informed "Internet Commando." So be it.

 

[WinThePennant]

For FY2010, the military procurement budget, which included the cost of all small arms, missiles, aircraft, armored and other vehicles, radars, radios, drones, missiles, ships, other naval craft, uniforms, smart bombs, and other munitions combined, comprised 4% of Federal expenditures.

Well, for one thing, the Glock does not have a finish that eliminates glare and makes the weapon less identifiable at a distance.

Second, the Glock does not have a safety that blocks the trigger. That's why Glock has never submitted proposals for US military contracts and reportedly never will.

Third, we have no way to compare the prices, since your "cheap" Glock does not come with a support contract.

What "glare" do you get from a Glock? I'm looking at mine now, and it is completely blackened with non-reflective surfaces (slide and frame). Even the barrel that peeks through the slide is blackened.

And, by "less identifiable at a distance," must mean that you're talking about the camo paint job. That's just a simple cerakote job on the slide and a (pick your color) dyed frame.

 

[vba]

WinthePennant, chill!

I'm sorry your pet gun didn't win the contract. I for one see nothing wrong with a single stack mag in a defensive firearm. Perhaps the Marines are better shots than you or me. The handgun is a last ditch arm and the 1911 is by no means archaic.

I'm in agreement with an earlier poster that said that there have been no significant advances in firearms in the last 50 - 70 years! They still shoot centerfire cartridges that were, in essence, designed at the beginning of the last century.

Our M16/M4 rifle can be traced to Eugene Stoner in 1954 with the AR-10. The M16 came from this work in the late 1950's. We are talking about a rifle designed nearly 60 years ago and fielded 51 years ago in 1961!

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by WinThePennant: And, my opinion is that a single-stack .45 is a bad choice for a combat pistol in the modern age. I guess that makes me an ill-informed "Internet Commando." So be it.

Your opinion doesn't make you anything. It is your complete lack of appropriate experience and qualifications compared to those of the trained and experienced people who use the tool for a very specialized purpose that makes your opinion impertinent.

The services have agreed with you that something else best serves the military for most purposes. The M9 was selected twenty seven years ago.

What "glare" do you get from a Glock? I'm looking at mine now, and it is completely blackened with non-reflective surfaces (slide and frame). Even the barrel that peeks through the slide is blackened.

The Glock does not meet US military requirements, so its finish is irrelevant.

And, by "less identifiable at a distance," must mean that you're talking about the camo paint job. That's just a simple cerakote job on the slide and a (pick your color) dyed frame.

And it does rule out the commercial off-the-shelf pistols that people have been suggesting here.

 

[mavracer]

First I'd like to say griping about the dollars spent arming a Marine concidering the amount spent training them is kinda like buying a Porsche and griping about how much tires cost.

Second if the Marines who put themselves in harms way to secure my freedom wanna splurge on a sidearm they have my blessing.

 

[Sapper771]

While I want our boys to have the best, "best" doesnt always equal "expensive". It also doesnt always equal 1911. I feel they could have chosen something different and been better off. Plenty of options out there these days.

Been there, done it, got the T shirt, coffee cup, and shot glass set.......I wouldnt want a 1911 if I had to go back. I didnt even like our Berettas.....but you use what you got and if it doesnt work, you make it work.

 

[Red Cent]

"....I wouldnt want a 1911 if I had to go back. I didnt even like our Berettas."

What would you want?

 

[Shear_stress]

I'm a fan of the 1911 and believe that the military should get the best tools available for their mission. Still, the Dod's enormous supply chain already has many different pistols, including more than one 1911. Was there not a single one that would've met MARSOC 's needs?

The procurement of these pistols is small potatoes compared to the total defense budget for sure. However--and I have no proof one way or another-- it isn't totally off base to say that requirements (which are often different from needs) are occasionally written specifically so that someone could get sexy new toys.

For FY2010, the military procurement budget, which included the cost of all small arms, missiles, aircraft, armored and other vehicles, radars, radios, drones, missiles, ships, other naval craft, uniforms, smart bombs, and other munitions combined, comprised 4% of Federal expenditures.

While that may be, total defense spending was 20% of US federal spending that year.

 

[brnmuenchow]

I am for this being issued to small number of Marine SOCOM units as a side arm, much like the H&K Mk.23 SOCOM for other units. I would not however be for this becoming the new std. issue sidearm to replace the M9. As much as I love the .45ACP, it just would not be good for us with excessive spending and creating a new pistol outside the NATO .9X19mm caliber at this time. However congrats to Colt!

 

[W.E.G.]

Let me guess.

The RFP specified .45 ACP, single-action trigger, grip safety, and manual safety, and the gun had to be all metal.

Oh, and a "rail."

Hmmmm... wonder what gun that might be?

 

[rajb123]

It is probably not the best choice of gun for the military. That is not the point.

The contract is too expensive and I am insulted as a taxpayer. I have to assume politics were a major factor in this decision - and that is a shame.

My hope is that the automatic federal budget cuts that will severely impact military expenditures starting in 2013, will result in the cancellation of this big fat juicy contract.

Colt needs to survive based on sales to the public and not off greedy polititans who steer outsized military contracts to their constituants.

This stuff must end or we as a country are doomed.

 

[Sapper771]

"....I wouldnt want a 1911 if I had to go back. I didnt even like our Berettas."

What would you want?

I would have preferred to have a Glock 19. Lightweight, compact, high capacity, durable, simple, and reliable. Not saying that just because I like Glocks. They have proven effective in that environment (Iraqi Police, Civilian Contractors, certain teams from 5th group, and other "Task Force/ODA" groups). Replacement parts are inexpensive and available (less headache for the armorer), no gunsmith or fitting needed (less headache for the armorer, little to no downtime). 9mm ammo was everywhere over there (on both "sides").

Not trashing the 1911 in any way, there is just more to the equation. If I were issued a 1911 , then I would use it. There were several special operations units that we ran into that used regular old Berettas. The idea behind it was logistics. No matter where they went, there was armorer support, parts, magazines and ammo for their Beretta.

 

[Certaindeaf]

A Python'd been cool. anyways.

 

[Owen]

I'm pretty sure if you went out and bought a pistol that met all the requirements $1875 would be a pretty good price. I've seen the requirements, and there is no way these are mass produced. The Marines were looking to replace a pistol that was built in the Precision Weapon Shop at Quantico with a a commercial product because the PWS couldn't keep up.

We really aren't talking about Springfield Armory/Kimber performance here. We're talking about mid-upper level of Les Baer/Wilson performance.

 

[rajb123]

I thought CNC machining was the norm in todays high tech manufacturing?

CNC machines are very accurate, fast, inexpensive and the end product is better than anything that is hand assembled and fitted by old world craftsmen.

If the product is well designed, the CNC machine can cut parts to very tight tolerances and no hand fitting or alterations of any kind are necessary or beneficial.

Yeh, the production numbers on this contract are fairly small, which increases the per unit production costs, but this is still an OUTSIZED big fat juicy contract by any measure.

I DON'T BUY THE ARGUMENT THAT THESE ARE UNIQUE HAND CRAFTED AND ASSEMBLED GUNS THAT COST A BUNCH TO MAKE.

It is not logical to manufacture and assemble products this way in today's world.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by rajb123: It is probably not the best choice of gun for the military.

MARSOC thought it to be best choice for them.

No one else is qualified to judge .

That is not the point. The contract is too expensive and I am insulted as a taxpayer.

Unless you have gained improper access to confidential information, you have no objective basis for making that judgment.

I have to assume politics were a major factor in this decision - and that is a shame.

Do you assume for some reason that the Connecticut delegation somehow influenced the decision of the Source Selection Authority?

If so, you have absolutely no concept of how the procurement process works. Every step of the competitive contracting process is governed by law and regulation, and the process is checked and double checked along the way. Had anything been detected that could have given any of the offerors an unfair advantage, the entire procurement would have been shelved immediately, and there would have been consequences, up to and including termination and re-procurement, disqualification, contractor and individual disbarment, other-than-honorable discharges and /or reductions in rank, and potentially, criminal prosection of corporations and individuals.

My hope is that the automatic federal budget cuts that will severely impact military expenditures starting in 2013, will result in the cancellation of this big fat juicy contract.

The contract may not ever be completed, but you have absolutely no basis for characterizing the deal as a "big fat juicy contract." That's a nice way of saying that you do not know what you are talking about.

Will Colt make money one the deal? That remains to be seen. Will their margins approach those of commercial non-military sales? That aslo remains to be seen. I don't know, and neither do you.