New US armed forces/DoD XM9 contract; CNN.....

[vaalpens]

Wasn't that long ago that "most people" thought that the earth was flat. The "Best and Final" price controversy is covered on pages 46-49 of the report.

My experience has been that any time someone is trying to defend a viewpoint with the "most people think" argument, you can pretty well bet that the facts do not agree with them.

That was my mistake. I should have said that most SIG supporters thought the fix was in. I did read pages 46-49 and it explained where the cost came from and probably at the end of the day SIG lost the contract due to the higher magazine cost. As long as the best gun and cost combination won, then I am ok with it, since we are talking about protecting lives and our tax dollars.

I don't know what the track record is of the Beretta in the Army, but if it saved lives and no lives were lost due to a malfunction, then the selection process worked the way it should.

 

[moxie]

The "fix" was definitely in. The M9 had been pre-ordained for a while. In the Air Force we got stuck with the M9 even though we didn't want it. At least we were able to get the Sig228 for the OSI. That was a major victory. The M9 was indisputably just too big for CC. It's 1.4" longer and nearly a half pound heavier. (Desktop show and tell works! Which one would you rather carry concealed all day General?) Also got some good hollowpoints for them. OSI doesn't use FMJs, except for training. Got a nice big pallet of them delivered right to their back door at Bolling.

 

[Schwing]

25 years after introduction and people who have never used Glock pistols STILL don't understand that the guns DO have an external safety, probably because they can't get past the fact it is mounted on the trigger and not on the frame or slide

Going back to this... This is just semantics.

Call me old fashioned but I just will never accept a trigger safety as an "Internal" safety at all. The term "Glock leg" says it all. While I doubt any verifiable statistics exist for this, I am very confident that at least 20 people have accidental self-inflicted injuries from Glocks for every 1 person that has one from just about any other hand gun with a real safety that is not on the trigger.

At this point, the conversation usually gravitates to how untrained or stupid the people are who shoot themselves in the leg while drawing or holstering their Glocks and that the GUN is not to blame. I would counter then that either the safety IS to blame, or Glock owners are 2,000% less careless. It happens and shouldn't.

For this reason alone, I would disqualify Glocks were I in a position to do so. I also would disregard any arguments dealing with conceal-ability as the standard military side arm is never carried in this concealed.

Unpopular as this view is here, I don't see any reason to abandon the M9.

 

[tipoc]

Going back to this... This is just semantics.

Call me old fashioned but I just will never accept a trigger safety as an "Internal" safety at all. The term "Glock leg" says it all. While I doubt any verifiable statistics exist for this, I am very confident that at least 20 people have accidental self-inflicted injuries from Glocks for every 1 person that has one from just about any other hand gun with a real safety that is not on the trigger.

Did you mean you couldn't accept it as an "external" safety?

tipoc

 

[fanchisimo]

I can't see with all of the pistols out there without a manual safety that your claim is valid. Glock, M&P, and XD/XDM come to mind. My point is if it was such a huge problem, I don't think pistol makers would continue without manual safeties.

Unpopular as this view is here, I don't see any reason to abandon the M9.

What if a new pistol will be less expensive than the Beretta? That is the reason I would get on board for this change. I know there are better pistols than the M9, but if it costs more to switch I would be against it. However if a better pistol can be procured at less cost, that is a win-win.

 

[Schwing]

Did you mean you couldn't accept it as an "external" safety?

I will just rephrase it so that I can say it as a fact and not my opinion. It is not a MANUAL safety.

What if a new pistol will be less expensive than the Beretta? That is the reason I would get on board for this change. I know there are better pistols than the M9, but if it costs more to switch I would be against it. However if a better pistol can be procured at less cost, that is a win-win.

I would have no problem with that. Unfortunately, working in government, I often see the side effects of not planning for all of the costs involved when changes like this are made. Things like the cost of holsters, magazines, spare parts already on hand, etc. are rarely if ever factored in. How much is it REALLY going to cost once all of that is factored in?

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here and yes, this is a little off topic. But what ticks me off about the DOD and military contracts is that the contractor will underbid the platform in order to get the contract. Once the contract is won, that private contractor will then start increasing the price of said platform. Usually, this happens with big-ticket hardware like jets, boats (subs and or surface vessels), satellitess, missles, tanks, etc...

If I'm the head honcho of the DOD and I award a contract to a bidding party, especially a free-market, privately or corporate entity, then I will insist that they deliver said platform at contracted price.

But what I see happening (for example the F-22 Raptor from Lockheed) is that the contractor will say "we can deliver this platform for this price ($95m per plane for example, I'm just making this price up)" and the DOD says "OK, contract is yours for 50 units with X specs" and then Lockheed comes back to the DOD and says something like "well, we were wrong, the actual cost has gone up, it's now $1.25m per plane." and the DOD will pay it.

Now, I understand that there's things like inflation and whatnot for the cost of doing business, but I really do believe that these private contractors are sticking to the US Military and ultimately you and me, the taxpayer. Unless the DOD is doing "change orders" to the contracted platform, the cost should not just magically inflate.

 

[Onmilo]

Wading back into this,,,,
I consider the Glock pistol a far better and safer fire and movement handgun than ANY of the decocker safety type pistols on the market today.
The only "Double action" pistols come to mind that are as safe and allow ease of transition from movement to ready fire as the Glock and these are the Variant one/two H&K USP and the later model Taurus PT92/99 guns with the safeties that operate as both a decocker and can place the weapon in condition one, chamber loaded-fully cocked-safety engaged.

On ALL decocker safety pistols one must decock the weapon before movement or face the very real possibility of shooting oneself with a hot pistol during movement.
Then one is faced with firing successive first shot by trigger cocking the weapon OR by manually thumb cocking the weapon for a precise trigger squeezed shot and both rely on the shooting remembering to push the safety OFF the safe position before those actions can be made.
Exceptions would be pistols such as Beretta 92G-Sig series-USP variant 3/4 where the decocker acts as a true decocker and kicks back into the ready fire position but one is still handicapped by that heavy trigger cocking first shot action or having to manually recock the weapon ala John Wayne and his trusty Colt SAA.

With the Glock, one fires the weapon, removes finger from trigger, conducts movement, aligns sights, returns finger to trigger and squeezes off follow up shots.
With USP or Taurus, or any weapon capable of being safely carried in condition one, the only other action one needs to remember is to click that pesky manual safety off before firing the weapon.

Having carried and shot 1911 type pistols for 30+ years and Glocks for 20 years, I myself don't have a problem with this and have yet to AD with a Glock or a 1911 type pistol.
Actually, I haven't ADed with any of my decocker pistols either, I just find the additional actions required to return to ready to fire a bit,,, annoying and slow.
Slow gets you dead in a gunfight.

 

[Zerodefect]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here and yes, this is a little off topic. But what ticks me off about the DOD and military contracts is that the contractor will underbid the platform in order to get the contract. Once the contract is won, that private contractor will then start increasing the price of said platform. Usually, this happens with big-ticket hardware like jets, boats (subs and or surface vessels), satellitess, missles, tanks, etc...

If I'm the head honcho of the DOD and I award a contract to a bidding party, especially a free-market, privately or corporate entity, then I will insist that they deliver said platform at contracted price.

But what I see happening (for example the F-22 Raptor from Lockheed) is that the contractor will say "we can deliver this platform for this price ($95m per plane for example, I'm just making this price up)" and the DOD says "OK, contract is yours for 50 units with X specs" and then Lockheed comes back to the DOD and says something like "well, we were wrong, the actual cost has gone up, it's now $1.25m per plane." and the DOD will pay it.

Now, I understand that there's things like inflation and whatnot for the cost of doing business, but I really do believe that these private contractors are sticking to the US Military and ultimately you and me, the taxpayer. Unless the DOD is doing "change orders" to the contracted platform, the cost should not just magically inflate.

Close.

The contractor bids low, knowing that the .gov is going to change their mind and add features to the system that messes everything up and ups the price. The unit price of 500 F22's is far less than if we just make 180. That messed the pricing up as well.

If the .gov just left the contractor alone, then the contractor would be obligated to provide what was contracted, for the price contracted.

Building a house for yuppies is no different. Bid good, but a hair low. Then extort them for a metric ton of cash when they want to change something half way during the build.


I think this may be why the .mil is interested in a regular off the shelf pistol. They know if they make up a goofy design made just for them, that it'll be a nightmare. Modern pistols are fine just the way they are. Just pick one.

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

Close.

The contractor bids low, knowing that the .gov is going to change their mind and add features to the system that messes everything up and ups the price. The unit price of 500 F22's is far less than if we just make 180. That messed the pricing up as well.

If the .gov just left the contractor alone, then the contractor would be obligated to provide what was contracted, for the price contracted.

Building a house for yuppies is no different. Bid good, but a hair low. Then extort them for a metric ton of cash when they want to change something half way during the build.


I think this may be why the .mil is interested in a regular off the shelf pistol. They know if they make up a goofy design made just for them, that it'll be a nightmare. Modern pistols are fine just the way they are. Just pick one.

yah, that's why I mentioned "change orders" as a cost increase. The contract should be a two-way street. That is, the DOD orders a certain number of units with certain but specific specs, the contractor delivers those units at that contracted price. If the DOD comes back and lowers its order, than the price per unit should increase.

But here's the thing, the DOD should not do that. It should not order a certain number of units and then renege on that order.

This is yet another reason why the US Fed Gov should have a budget. But that is another can of worms that we don't need to discuss.

Thanks for your reply!

 

[crazysccrmd]

.
On ALL decocker safety pistols one must decock the weapon before movement or face the very real possibility of shooting oneself with a hot pistol during movement.

How does this make sense? The P226 trigger in single action has about a 4.5# weight and similar travel distance as a Glock at about a 5# pull. The exact same principle applies in both cases; don't put your finger on the trigger and you won't run the risk of shooting yourself.

 

[0to60]

I see a lot of hate for the Beretta on threads like this, and I don't get why. I can see how one might not like the M9 subjectively, but objectively? I don't get that part.

The simple fact remains that the ONLY pistols to make it through the trials were the Beretta and the Sig. Unless one can prove that the Sig is more accurate than the Beretta, then the two pistols are objectively equal. One can list off all their favorite guns as better alternatives, but the point is moot: the only guns that made it through the trials were the Sig and the Beretta.

If you're looking to buy a "wondernine" and you feel that the most intensive pistol test program in history should factor into your decision, then your choice will be between the Sig and the Beretta. If you're going to buy a zillion of them, price suddenly becomes a factor. Since both pistols are objectively equal, you'll go with the cheaper one.

 

[jhb]

Unfortunately, posts #118 and #121 are both false.

You can read the GAO's 1986 report on "Allegations on Amy Selection of Beretta
9-mm. as DOD Standard Sidearm" for yourself here:

http://olive-drab.com/archive/NSIAD-86-122_9mm.pdf

Condensed "Results" table (page 28):



Service Life: Beretta wins, test was stopped at 7,000 rounds even though Beretta and HK were still going. Sig (SACO) crapped out at just over 6,800 rounds.

Reliability: Sig wins, 2,877 to 1,750. Next closest is S&W with 434. HK is sucking hind tit at 158. Although if you read page 37 you will see that this is not significant, since the goal was to provide a 98% chance of completing a 10 round mission. Beretta and Sig both have identical 99% chances of completing 7, 10, and 15 round missions and a 98% chance of completing a 30 round mission.

Mud: Sig wins, 98% to 97%

Dry: Beretta wins, 98% to 79% (Sig's 79% was by far the lowest of all 4 competitors. Next lowest was 96%.)

Overall: Beretta wins 98% to 86% (Again, Sig is the lowest by far. Next lowest is 97%.)

Salt water corrosion: Tie, 100% both.

Firing pin energy: Tie, 100% both.

Looks like to me that the only thing that Sig won was the mud test by 98% to 97%. Everything else either tied or Beretta beat Sig by a significant margin.

If you have any additional information, I would be interested in seeing it.

well i did state going by memory, and i ain't as young as i used to be.....but thanks for posting. interesting side note you pointed out in your data chart...looks like the hk beat or matched the beretta in testing. didn't realize that.

thanks for clarifying. good info and it's appreciated.

 

[tipoc]

From Onmilo:

On ALL decocker safety pistols one must decock the weapon before movement or face the very real possibility of shooting oneself with a hot pistol during movement.

...

With the Glock, one fires the weapon, removes finger from trigger, conducts movement, aligns sights, returns finger to trigger and squeezes off follow up shots.

So with the Sig or the M9 a person has the option of decocking the hammer then moving, (running, sliding, falling, etc.) with the hammer down and a longer double action pull or moving with the cocked pistol and "shooting oneself with a hot pistol in hand" because only a light single is needed to fire the gun.

While with the Glock one has only the option of moving and "shooting oneself with the hot pistol in hand" because only a light trigger pull is needed for the gun to be shot.

In one case we are warned not to run with a gun with only a light trigger to prevent it's firing in case you grab the trigger by accident. In the other case we're advised to run with the gun with only a light trigger pull to prevent it's firing because--Just keep your finger off the trigger!

In both cases the argument is that if one keep their finger off the trigger the gun won't fire.

In the case with the M9 and Sig the argument is that it is too hard to remember to decock the gun when needed. This action apparently poses a stumper to modern soldiers.

Seems that the primary weapon of many soldiers is a rifle or carbine. Often equipped with manual safeties and selective fire switches. These must also stump the slow thought process of the modern soldier.

Advocates of the Glock on the battle field remind us that all it takes is training to keep the trigger finger off the trigger or the booger picker off the bang switch as some are fond of saying. So while falling/sliding down a mountain side, or falling into a river, or fighting off an enemy whose grabbed your pistol just remember to not instinctively grab the gun in your hand the way it's designed to be grabbed and keep your finger off he trigger. However the same advocates believe the M9 and the M11 are too complicated to do what they have done for over 25 years now. Soldiers being slow on the uptake and all and annoyed and slow on the battlefield.

tipoc

 

[Kleanbore]

My objection to the Glock and to the M&P without a safety has to do with the risk that something--an undershirt tail or jacket string in a holster, or something in a drawer or duffel bag--might activate the trigger.

The problem with a frame mounted safety is the extra step needed to make the gun fire. That may be less important to the armed forces than it is to a civilian carrying for self defense.

My solution has been to carry a firearm with a grip safety.

While the new Army pistol will almost certainly be a COTS item, I tend to think that the XD design will not be in the running for several reasons, all having to do with business practices.

Whether the DoD will choose another DA/SA design or a striker fired pistol remains to be seen, as does the safety issue.

If they want a low cost, reliable striker fired pistol with a safety, that would seem to put the M&P in a good competitive position.

So would a decision to buy the same design in two sizes.

 

[RustyShackelford]

M9s, DoD....,

First,
I have no dispute with the Beretta USA M9/M9A1. I owned 02 96D series .40 pistols & carried a M9 9mm for nearly 24mo in the 1990s.
I just feel the design & the pistol fall short. It's bulky, awkward & unbalanced.
The DoD & armed forces waste millions every FY.
The new M9 sidearm program won't be any different.

RS

 

[RussellC]

Two of the most accomplished pistolsmiths and handgun experts in the world, Bill Wilson and Ernest Langdon, generally approve of the platform, including a recent Langdon class in which 11 92s of varying types, all straight out of the box, ran over 11,000 rounds without a single issue of any type, but I suppose your assertion of mediocrity without a single iota of data is something, too.

The remainder of your post is combative in tone and I don't really care to get into a snark match. It's totally okay to disagree with me without stating that I don't know what I'm talking about, there's no need to dial it up to 10 right away. I also think that blaming "people like ME" for a logistics issue you encountered is extremely silly. You do not have a monopoly on military service. Objective analysis of modern war will show plain as day that the pistol has clearly become less relevant, certainly less relevant than many other things that could use the money. A number of my own combat veteran acquaintances asserted that they never even touched their handguns outside out training and maintenance. Also, not to step on any toes, but military/police experience = / = firearms expertise. My 3-tour U.S. Marine friend went on a tirade about how much he liked his XD9 because it was made in America. Was stunned when I explained HS Produkt and the HS2000. Military service isn't proof of weapons knowledge or flaws of certain weapon systems. It's admirable, and should be considered, but it's not proof by itself.

Please tell me why a handgun, again, a nearly vestigial weapon in the modern war zone, is more important than funding things like improved communication gear. Also tell me how any gun on the market is a marked improvement over the 92. I would put a 92, cleaned and lubed out of the box, against literally any pistol on the market in terms of reliability. HK P30, Glock 17, M&P, any other gun, I'd bet the 92 would run as reliably or more reliably.

Also, if you'd care to do so, provide some evidence of the 92's mediocrity. Something other than a tiny handful of cracked slides from decades ago, cheap magazine issues that were rectified years ago, or jamming issues any pistol highly past its service window would not suffer.

Edit: For spelling

I thought the XD9 was made in Croatia?

 

[tarosean]

.looks like the hk beat or matched the beretta in testing.

How you figure when it failed reliability and salt water testing?

 

[stchman]

I knew a topic like this would spark a lot of strong feelings.

I own a Beretta and it is a nice gun, so are the other guns I own.

If we get right down to it, pretty much any 9mm pistol with a magazine capacity of 15 rounds or more made today that cost ~$400 or more would do the job as a military sidearm. Polymer or metal framed included. I don't want to hear people cry about that we can't use polymer, there are many a police department using a polymer framed Glock.

US Military, take your pick.

 

[jhb]

How you figure when it failed reliability and salt water testing?

in 1981 hk had 6 passes and berretta has 3 passes. in 1984 berretta had seven passes and hk had only 5. course i realize in the end all passes vs. some not passed is what mattered here....but found it interesting how hk was in the lead in 1981....and how close it was....

 

[Onmilo]

First,
I have no dispute with the Beretta USA M9/M9A1. I owned 02 96D series .40 pistols & carried a M9 9mm for nearly 24mo in the 1990s.
I just feel the design & the pistol fall short. It's bulky, awkward & unbalanced.
The DoD & armed forces waste millions every FY.
The new M9 sidearm program won't be any different.

RS

Exactly!

 

[Onmilo]

I thought the XD9 was made in Croatia?

It is.

 

[Onmilo]

How you figure when it failed reliability and salt water testing?

That was then, this is now.
Take a modern H&K such as the USP that outperformed everything else in Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Administration reliability tests.

Modern H&K finishing techniques are every bit as good as every other modern finish including Melonite and Tenifer.

 

[RustyShackelford]

FWIW....

If I were a lower enlisted MP and was handed a HK P2000 P30 or HK45 type sidearm in a caliber like .40Super, .41AE or .357sig; I would have no problems carrying or shooting it.

Id add that I honestly doubt Heckler & Koch has the resources or ability to fulfill a full scale multi year DoD contract. Id read & heard they fell short on the DHS pistol requirements with CBP/US Border Patrol and the SCAR/HK416 did not meet the DoD & service member specs/T&E for a new patrol rifle.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

I really don't believe there will be a switch anytime soon, either of sidearm or caliber. The money isn't there and the need isn't really there, either. The M9 is just fine for most of what it's used for. As has been mentioned there's the sunk costs of the platform; millions in service, millions of bucks worth of parts, all the holsters, etc. Plus there's the training for the armorers and trainers. When it comes to the 9mm round there's an even more entrenched supply chain. What would we switch to? .40 cal? Unlikely. With FMJ it's not going to be enough better than the 9mm to justify scrapping millions of guns and, what, billions/trillions of rouns of ammo? How about .45 ACP? Been there already and dumped it. 9mm is half the size and weight and double the mag capacity. I really don't see the US switching back.

So maybe an entirely new round? Or something like the 5.7 to penetrate armor? I'm not saying it's a terrible idea but I don't expect to see it anytime soon.

The whole safety/no-safety issue is a red herring. With proper training either will work but it comes down to what the military wants. It appears that any sidearm they choose will have to have an external safety lever so what's the point of arguing about it? I can't imagine the Army going to Glocks w/o a manual safety lever.