MHS program, XM17, surprises ....

[RustyShackelford]

The gun industry/2A website: www.bearingarms.com put out a new article about the big MHS program, now called the XM17.
The writer states only 3, three handguns have a decent shot at the military sidearm contract as of 07/2015.
The Beretta APX pistol: a new design that honestly looks weird & would take a lot of effort to win over the armed forces or panel IMO.
The SIG P320 series. This pistol line from SIG Sauer, www.SIGsauer.com offers a lot. It's light weight, easy to convert or modify, easy to service-clean, comes in different colors, takes white lights/IR/lasers(1913 rail). Costs could be in line for a new military sidearm due to the polymer frame.
STI-Detonics: this new partnership by 2 lesser known US gun company groups created the new handgun; the STX. This pistol looks cool & may meet the XM17 requirements but I doubt the company could sustain a full scale DoD/military contact for approx 285,000 new sidearms plus spare parts, cleaning kits, armorer training, etc.

Other top US brands like Glock, S&W(M&P), FN-America, etc are listed as having problems meeting the XM17 program standards. Walther and the PPQ line might enter but just for PR or recognition.
I don't know why the Glock or M&P entry guns couldn't get a decent chance but the writer feels they won't hold up to rigid T&Es.

Of the listed choices, I'd say the P320 line could do best. It's been in the US market for about 2 years with many + reviews/satisfied owners.

I guess we will see who will get the new MHS contract. The media item said the contracting phase will start in approx 10 days.

 

[Jeff White]

You do realize that we will drop several million dollars out of the defense budget that could be used to offset some of the personnel cuts, do all kinds of tests, get the civilian shooting community all fired up, sell thousands of slick page gun magazines and burn trillions of electrons debating the choices online and then most likely keep the pistols we already have, don't you?

That's been pretty much the story of US Military small arms procurement since 1985. IIRC we've been down the pistol road at least twice and the rifle/carbine road at least 3 times since then and we still are fielding M16s/M4s and M9s/M11s.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Xm17 ...

I don't disagree with the concept of the MHS program being shut down due to politics or $$$-budget but the widely known problem of M9s breaking or wearing out world-wide may push the XM17 plan further than other small arms T&Es. The 92F/M9/M9A1 series has been on active duty & reserves since about 1985.
2016-2017 may be the era when a new sidearm will be selected for our troops.

Note; before any members get uptight or race to their keyboards, USSOCOM & JSOC buy-contract whatever guns or gear they want.
They by federal law/Congress, have a different budget-$$$ from the regular armed forces/DoD.
Can this new XM17 model be the best? We will see. It seems like the US military needs a new pistol because the M9 9mmNATO isn't going to cut it.

 

[CoalTrain49]

A new military pistol, I can hardly wait. I don't even have an AR. I did my time in the military, I don't need their blessing to know a good pistol when I see one. Nothing wrong with the M11-A1 as far as I know. The military budget needs to be cut some more if they think they need to spend more money on a new pistol.

 

[Nuclear]

It is my understanding the M9's are wearing out. One one hand it makes sense, aluminum has a shorter useful lifespan than steel when subjected to stress. On the other hand, how much do handguns really get shot?

Anyways, if it is the case the M9's are wearing out, they will need to be replaced. Might as well spend money on handguns than some of the stupid military spending, like the F35.

 

[moxie]

Why would they be wearing out?

An issue pistol (outside of special forces/SEALs/shooting teams, etc.) will get fired maybe 50, possibly 100, rounds a year. So if the gun is 20 years old it won't have but 1000-2000 rounds on it. That's typical for 95%+ of the issue M9s or M16s/M4s for that matter. Hardly broken in in my book. And not all even get issued.

Small arms and ammo are way, way, down the list of military priorities.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Perspective....

I'm a US armed forces veteran and was issued a M9 9mmNATO for approx 24mo. Was it perfect? It was missing a grip screw, & had a few minor rust-wear marks(deployments & combat/Just Cause in South America will do that, ). On active duty I've seen M9s that looked factory fresh & I saw a few pistols that looked like they were in the Civil War or the War of 1812; .

About 3 years ago I read a NRA printed article about US military marksmanship standards(BRI). One of the points made in the article was how a National Guard aviation unit training to go to SW Asia had no M9 re-quals or ranges with the sidearms meant for pilots/air crews.
This is unsat. Our troops deserve working firearms in the best shape armorers can maintain them.

The new XM17 sidearm being polymer or modular is a + in my book. A unit armorer or company ordinance specialist could fix or modify a pistol quickly without DXing it or waiting for new parts-kit.

 

[moxie]

Rusty,

1. Units that don't train with their pistols for deployment typically do so because the whole concept of small arms is not on leadership's radar screen. It has nothing to do with availability of serviceable guns or ammo.

2. Minor rust and other obvious wear issues don't necessarily affect a gun's serviceability. That "1812" looking gun might only have had a few hundred rounds actually fired through it. I'm sure your missing grip screw was easily replaced.

3. This "XM17" sidearm, even if adopted, won't change where small arms fit in the food chain, especially for units like aviation. Military/security police have a slightly higher view. Slightly.

 

[BSA1]

I'm a US armed forces veteran and was issued a M9 9mmNATO for approx 24mo.

Then you know that handguns are not their primary weapon in combat and that the M-9 is fine for use by M.P.'s on bases here in the U.S.

I don't disagree with the concept of the MHS program being shut down due to politics or $$$-budget but the widely known problem of M9s breaking or wearing out world-wide may push the XM17 plan further than other small arms T&Es.

The M-9 has been in service for 30 years and in two wars in the Middle East along with numerous police actions and peacekeeping assignments without any serious or even minor reported issues. I hardly consider a missing grip screw even a minor issue as it will not affect the function and handling of the gun.

Why are you surprised that M-9's in service are wearing out?

About 3 years ago I read a NRA printed article about US military marksmanship standards(BRI). One of the points made in the article was how a National Guard aviation unit training to go to SW Asia had no M9 re-quals or ranges with the sidearms meant for pilots/air crews.
This is unsat. Our troops deserve working firearms in the best shape armorers can maintain them]

What does not having requalifications and no firing ranges have to do with the reliability and serviceability of the M-9? Lack of a proper training program and shooting ranges will not be overcome by issuing another handgun.

 

[BSA1]

A new military pistol, I can hardly wait. I don't even have an AR. Nothing wrong with the M11-A1 as far as I know. The military budget needs to be cut some more if they think they need to spend more money on a new pistol.

My son who is in a support unit (computer top secret stuff) says that they use M-16's in poor condition to qualify with. He says they have problems such as loose fitting stocks and feeding problems which makes shooting high scores very difficult.

He says the M-9's he uses to requalify with are also in rough condition. He loves shooting my Beretta 92 when he is home on leave and wants the gun after I die. He shoots this gun like a house of fire. and puts a serious dent in my ammo supply. The point being is it is much cost efficient and much more cheaper to replace the M-9's that are reaching the end of their service life with a new one of the same model.

I agree that since the Army is reducing it's ranks by 40,000 soldiers and firing another 15,000 civilian contractors it doesn't need a new program to reinvent the wheel that will run into multi-millions of dollars with typical R&D, numerous testing programs and cost overruns.

 

[bannockburn]

Somehow I have to believe that this XM17 program is going to be yet another collosal waste of taxpayer's money with the net result being nothing new adopted and the M9 continuing to serve on for many years to come.

 

[Mike OTDP]

We'll see. This is the fourth or fifth time in the last 20 years or so that someone has breathlessly announced a program to replace the M9.

My take? Nothing will happen. There are better pistols out there than the Beretta, but not so much better as to warrant the cost of a switchover unless someone can come in significantly cheaper.

 

[cheygriz]

This M-9 has been, and is an excellent, field proven service pistol that will be around for another 40-50 years.

As individual weapons wear out they are easily replaced by "off the shelf" weapons the manufacturer already has in inventory.

If it aint broke, don't fix it.!

 

[BSA1]

From Military.com;

"is set to cost at least $350 million and potentially millions more if it results in the selection of a new pistol caliber."

 

[jerkface11]

Is there anything the army needs less than a new sidearm?

 

[cheygriz]

Well, they could stop changing uniforms as often as I change my socks!

 

[herrwalther]

Well, they could stop changing uniforms as often as I change my socks!

Very true. I came into this Army wearing BDUs and hope to get out before I have to buy a different camo set.

I agree that since the Army is reducing it's ranks by 40,000 soldiers and firing another 15,000 civilian contractors it doesn't need a new program to reinvent the wheel that will run into multi-millions of dollars with typical R&D, numerous testing programs and cost overruns.

Depending on where and which MOS strength they cut will make little or a bit difference. From what I have read, most of the soldiers cut will be from Ft Benning. 10 years ago that means the 11 and 18 series will be smaller. Starting in 09 or 10, the 19 series also started training at Benning. Most of the troops who use M9s in the Army are MP, infantry to a degree, Armor, and CID. Other MOS may never even see one in a long career. Very few DOD/DOA civilians are authorized to carry a firearm while stateside.

 

[Jim Watson]

Well, they could stop changing uniforms as often as I change my socks!

Ay freaken men.
There was a group of guys in uniform - NG, ROTC, I dunno, we don't have any active duty installations nearer than 70 miles - where my folks ate lunch Wedensday and one had on a slightly different blotchy suit. My companion, LtC Ret., asked him if that were the new (some alphabet soup designation) BDU. Yup, coming in for GI.