New 45 for Military postponed

[18DAI]

http://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/USSOCOM/SOAL-KB/H92222-05-R-...dification 04.html
Postponed indefinitely, does this mean the HK45 and Glock 23 with thumb safety will become available sooner, or not at all? Regards 18DAI.

 

[Recon7]

dead link

 

[Gabby Hayes]

Try this one, posted September 5: http://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/USSOCOM/SOAL-KB/H92222-05-R-0017/Modification 04.html

This notification is to inform Industry the Combat Pistol requirement is postponed indefinately. USSOCOM will no longer issue a Request for Proposal.

 

[shurshot]

Considering that the .45's from the WW2 era were used up until 1985 (and later by some accounts), if the Military decided to continue to use the current stock of M-9 9MM's for another 20-30 years, it wouldn't shock me. Despite negative feedback from the "Anti-Beretta" fans, the M-9 is a solid gun. I continue to hear how politics played a role in the decision in 85 to switch to the M-9, but I consider this to be sour grapes. Politics plays a role in most decisions made by State/Federal/Military officials. Politics played a MAJOR role when our Military chose the 1911 .45 Auto way back when. Some want to ignore the fact that the M-9 out preformed the Sig in harsh testing, hands down. The M-9 works, and works well, so if the Military keeps it for a few more decades, I won't be shocked.

 

[juliet charley]

Some want to ignore the fact that the M-9 out preformed the Sig in harsh testing, hands down.

The Beretta and SIG tied in the testing. Beretta won out in the cost department (where the politics probably came in). Are we still in Comiso, or did we give it back to the Italians since the GCLM has be OBE'd?

 

[S.Miller]

Does anyone have a link to the test results that led to the selection of the M9? I'm curious to see what brands were tested and the results for each. I'd love to see something entirely U.S. owned and manufactured get selected, but our soldiers should have the best regardless.

 

[BlueTrain]

No doubt there was but I haven't heard the story about how politics entered into the trials leading to the adoption of the 1911. There was at least one other American pistol (the Savage) and the Luger had been around for quite a while by then (Well, ten years, anyway). What else was there? Or was it that a Colt would be adopted, no matter what?

The Smithsonian, by the way, has an interesting display of competing pistols for the trials that resulted in the Beretta, which definately had been around a while. The most interesting is the Colt.

 

[Eghad]

Its not the Joint Pistol System Now.....the Army pulled out of group. So Now it will probably be a Spec Ops pistol which is going to put SA .45s back in the hunt.

 

[shurshot]

Juliet Charly; As much as I hate to admit rolleyes: )I stand corrected. I looked in an old G/A from 85, (August/J.Libourel), and he stated what you said; Beretta/Sig tied, the only 2 pistols to make through the 2nd round of testing, Beretta won the contract based on cost. Thanks for the facts!

 

[LSP972]

Beretta did win on cost... but lowered their bid at the eleventh hour. Any guesses as to how they knew to do that???

The switch to 9mm was a foregone conclusion; John Stennis, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman, and in his day one of the most powerful legislators extant, had been convinced that the military NEEDED a new 9mm, to replace all those worn-out, unsafe 1911A1s. I could be wrong about the source of the muscle; what isn't in question is the fact that Congress forced the military's hand on the issue.

The alleged skulduggery came into play when the Pentagon, wanting to base ground-launched cruise missiles on the Italian side of the Basque mountains to intimidate the Russians, supposedly conspired with the help of the State Department to win the Italian "hearts and minds"...

The rumor I was told is that Sig's bid, which was slightly lower than Beretta's, was leaked to certain Italian government officials, who took the appropriate action.

True or not, its all rather moot now. An argument can made that certain provisions of the United States Code which says that our military SHALL have "commonality" with our NATO allies, must be adhered to. This is the hammer that Congress used against the military in 1982 to force adoption of a 9mm service pistol. Of course, said code was conveniently ignored when we unilaterally decided to force the 5.56mm down everybody's throat...

Whatever. Judging from my military experience of well over 30 years ago, the rank-and-file troops really could not care less WHAT pistol they have available to them. Everybody in a combat zone WANTS a handgun; but the particular make , model, type, etc., isn't that big of a deal. During my all-expenses-paid vacation to exotic lands, the gun of choice was a S&W Chief's Special or Colt Detective Special/Agent, both in .38; blue or nickle, didn't matter. But if you had one of the then-new stainless steel Chiefs, you could name your price.

For certain, the army spec-ops guys are sold solid on the .45, as are the jarheads. But the Navy SEALs seem perfectly content with their 9mm Sigs. Go figure...

I, for one, breathed a small sigh of relief when I heard the news. You see, I was going to have to spend a large chunk of change on the new HK45 when it became available to we peons. I would wager now, that if we ever DO see it, it won't be anytime soon.

 

[fastbolt]

Not at all surprised.

Lots of equipment on which money could be spent for the branches of our Military ... and I'd have to think that sidearms are far enough down on that list to require magnification for viewing.

Nice nostalgic sort of thought to arm our combined forces with a .45 ACP sidearm again. Might even be useful ... but how much of a chance did it really have, do you suppose?

Once the .45 ACP pistol became just a SOCOM project, you could almost imagine hearing the various manufacturer's chairs being pushed back from the table of hoped-for procurement monies ...

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

With other supplies being needed for the war, it always seemed a waste of money to me to buy 600K guns given the limited use of pistols. I was talking to a marine who said the M9 was fine - just give it more up to date ammo.

Why not just introduce modern JHP and tell the world it is for humanitarian reasons to avoid over penetration. Given all the other stuff the world stews about - who cares about this?

 

[support_six]

Eghad, read Gabby Hayes' link! "NO" pistol for the Army in general "or" SOCOM!

Even when it's in writing from the gov't, the rumor dies hard.

 

[theberettaman]

Sorry to bust some folks bubble but the Italian Government and the Beretta company of Italy are two seperate identities.Leak whatever you want to the Italian government,ask them to put missles in their country,whatever but they don't tell Beretta what to do with their products.It just so happens that Ugo Beretta is a big Ameri-phile and was willing to help the US(yes and his familiy business) wanted a foothold in the US market and was willing to build a plant here to manufacture the M9.This being one of the requirements of the contract.

 

[Rob96]

Despite what a lot think and what their personal opinion is, the 9mm Beretta is doing pretty good in the two theaters of operation. Do the specop folks really need a standard issue pistol anyway? They pretty much get to pick what they want. Heck in email exchanges with Larry Vickers, he said that the Beretta worked well, and thought it to be a good sidearm.

 

[The Body Bagger]

Good I like our M9's just fine.

 

[LSP972]

[Sorry to bust some folks bubble...]

You're not busting mine. That was told to me by someone in a position to be reasonably certain of his information. It may be true, it may not be. If you will look again, I clearly used the word "rumor". Personally, I could not care less, as that particular chapter of the saga is ancient history.

And who said anything about the Italian government and the manufacturing firm being the same, etc? The government official was a conduit to get the word to the company so they could lower their bid; or so the story goes.

We'll probably never know the real story. But I'll say one thing; my version makes a lot more sense than some euphoric Italian magnate deciding to help Americans out of the goodness of his heart...

 

[Pointer]

It seems unseamly to cause all those companies to redesign and retool and spend R&D money and then drop them on their heads!!

Long Live the 1911!!!

 

[D.S. Brown]

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

How will our troops survive without a new double stacked .45 of the 21st century on their hips. Oh wait most of our troops rarely if ever carry a side arm, and those that do train with them even less. I guess they will have to rely upon their M4's, M-16's, and M249's, you know primary weapon systems.

Speaking as former Army infantry I can tell you that my handgun training consisted of the most minor orientation on the M1911A1 weapon system, going to the range that day, and qualifying expert, for the first and last time in my 4 years of service. Let me put this in a little perspective, at the range I work at part-time we give 20 minutes of handgun training to beginners who have never shot. They are taught more in the 20 minutes than I was when I went to qualify on the .45 pistol.

For all the time spent training with a handgun that our troops get (almost nil), combined with the fact that handguns in a military setting are secondary weapons on their best days, the M9 is more than suitable. The only way it could be better is to make it DAO, with a slimmer grip and single stack. The latter accomodations would make it easier to train troops on and would fit more hands universally. I think a "perfect" sidearm would be a Sig Sauer P225 DAO, 8 shot 9mm. One of those S&W MP-9 handguns would be good as long as unit armorers were able to keep the adjustable grips on hand to switchout for individual troops as needed.

Only in the realm of cyberspace could this be an earth shattering issue.

Best,
Dave

 

[KurtC]

I wouldn't read too much into this announcement.

"USSOCOM will no longer issue a Request for Proposal."

What the announcement doesn't say at this point is which Command will be issuing the Request for Proposal. I get the feeling the project is gaining momentum and will be encompassing more than SOCOM. If so, requirements will be re-written to satisfy all users. There are dissatified 9mm users throughout the military, and other Commands might be ensuring that they aren't left out of a SOCOM endeavor.

For example, 2 years ago when the military was looking to supply Iraqi and Afghan troops with econo-pistols, the solicitation came from TACOM (Tank and Armaments Command). They ended up procuring 5,000 low-budget handguns from each of the big companies. A lot of internet gurus reading the solicitation assumed that Glocks and Sigmas were being issued to US tankers, when in fact they were intended for foriegn police units. The Command that issues the solicitation may very well be different from the final end user.

The FHS project may very well be a .45, we'll have to wait and see.

SOCOM may have already found an off-the-shelf .45 to meet their immediate requirements, and no longer wish to wait for a procurement process that was a year behind schedule.

All units will continue to replace handguns lost to attrition with the pistol that is listed on their TO&E. This means that M9's will continue to replace damaged M9's right up to the day that the unit has a different pistol listed on the Table of Organization and Equipment. Even if the military adopted a new pistol tomorrow, individual units would still be aquiring new M9's while other units are being issued the new pistol. This refers to the new Beretta contract for up to 70,000 pistols.