US Military switching back to the .45?

B

bermo61

New member
One thought about the selection

I completely understand that it seems that it would be best to use an american manufacturer for this weapon....but when lives are on the line as are our soldiers, can we honestly fail to give them the best tools? I do not think so. To compromise on the features and quality of this firearm is to cost extra lives in battle...not a good thing. Case in point...the body armor problem...it is now estimated that more than one half of the casualties in Iraq could have been prevented with the new body armor that had not been issued...a sobering thought.

Having owned both, I would carry a glock or and HK into battle and feel that I had an ultra reliable and combat accurate sidearm but since the Glock does not qualify for the features listed, it will probably be the HK. Furthermore the tactical has supressor threads too.

The 1911 design is an icon...but not the best out there today..there have been improvments...we must give it its due though and acknowlege that all the current designs have used it for inspiration...and then sadly we must retire it from the battlefield.

The Ruger is a decent design that does everything well but nothing fabulous...also it is missing some important features.

So I would have to give the nod to HK because a proven version of the design is already battlefield tested..the Mark 23 SOCOM. Since some operators say it is too large...looks like the HK tactical to me.
 
E

epr105

New member
I agree with BUSTER51. No contract should be given to a non us company.... Why do we want to support the foreign economy???? Our own heritage and history is dying a slow death. The fine US companies that produce firearms are going down for the count. Colt is not doing well, Winchester is closeing. Is this what the shooting community wants??? Most of the foreign firearms that you buy are marketed only in the US for civillian use. They can't sell them in there own country except to the military. Why is it that we don't support and keep alive what we like to do, shoot. I am not starting a war here and I like a lot of firearms but, with a contract like that don't you feel that it is only right to go to an AMERICAN company. I want only the best for the American troops, Hey I was one. I also know that WE can make the best equipment right here in the US.
 
A

Andrew LB

New member
Case in point...the body armor problem...it is now estimated that more than one half of the casualties in Iraq could have been prevented with the new body armor that had not been issued...a sobering thought.
Click to expand...

The body armor was upgraded as fast as it could be since they switched to a ceramic/kevlar plate material to prevent penetration by the AK-47 round.

And i highly doubt that number is correct considering body armor does NOTHING for these IED deaths which are the vast majority of combad deaths in Iraq. Another very large amount of deaths were due to head shots and RPG attacks.

Who gave you the "estimate" saying that half of the casualties in Iraq could have been prevented by this new body armor?
 
B

bermo61

New member
Good question...the article was on Yahoo news...about 4 weeks ago. Let me elaborate and understand I am not casting blame for not having the armor...just reinforcing that having the best equipment saves lives.

The article went on to say that the new armor because of the extra panels in the sides and around the neck area..and because of the ceramic plate you mentioned, would have prevented over half of the fatalities.the basis of the article was a study of where the cause of death wound took place compared with whether or not the new armor would have provided the protection to prevent it. As far as your IED thought, naturally, stepping on the explosive would negate any body armor but what about the guy hit with shrapnel from your explosive? Also you must remember we hear about the IED's because it's spectacular...but some people get shot the old fashioned way...and lots have died that way too.

Was the article valid? Honestly I did not research it....but since it was picked up by major newspapers it certainly may have been.
 
S

sig226man

New member
Why we buy foreign...

Europeans have always been more accepting of DA/SA design pistols than americans. Before the wondernine revolution in the eighties if the gun didn't have a "1911" on the slide or SA operated american sport shooters wouldn't have accepted it. A Browning BDA( later sig220) was considered exotic. There wasn't any motivation for american designers and engineers to do anything innovative. Then the big Army decides to go DA/SA in .9mm and who do you think had the most designs ready to fill the need? The europeans. Even today look at what is in the catalogues of the major domestic brands. Everyone except Ruger is pushing 1911 pistols. The non1911 pistols that are being marketed are Glock style pistols like the XD and the S&W MP. Smith even discontinued a lot of their 3rd gen pistols.

We're also responsible for the predicament by not supporting Smith and Ruger the way we should be. Look at what the majority of postings here and on other forums are about. Everyone wants a sexy Euro pistol. It's gotta be Italian, Swiss, Austrian and German for us to pay attention. So it shouldn't be suprising that when the military wants a new D/A action pistol, the Europeans are one step ahead.
 
S

Stiofan

New member
If anyone cares, a lot of the stuff on this procurement is here: http://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/USSOCOM/SOAL-KB/H92222-05-R-0017/SynopsisP.html


Some highlights:

3. JCP Schedule: Can you please provide the schedule for JCP to include expected dates of: Final RFP Release, Proposal Response Deadline, Expected Contract Award Date. Projected First Delivery Order date and Quantities Funding.

Answer: Final RFP Release: Projected in January 2006
Proposal Response Deadline: Projected in March 2006
Expected Contract Award Date: Projected in 4Q FY06.

Projected First Delivery Order date and Quantities: The government will issue the first delivery order at time of award of the basic contract. Currently IDIQ minimum quantity is 12 each JCPs without external manual safety which will be awarded as the initial Delivery Order.

39. In RFP Technical Evaluation, (Factor 3 Management) Section 4.1.3.2, the draft request for proposals requests a plan for domestic transition of production "if applicable", but the request for proposals does not actually require domestic production or a transition to domestic production if production is currently overseas. For this reason, I had assumed that the domestic transition of production was only applicable if the bidder chose to do so, but that there is no requirement to transition to domestic production and, accordingly, no negative evaluation will be given to a proposal that retains production outside the U.S. Is this understanding correct?

Answer: Your proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the Buy American Act and Balance of Payments Program provisions which will be included in the solicitation. This clause implements the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. Section 10a-d).

43. Section 3.2.2 (Accuracy) specifies that the pistols must fire a mean radius (10 round group at 50 meters) of less than 3.15 inches or no more than 1.8 inches over the mean radius accuracy of the ammunition, whichever is less (which, if we understand the requirement correctly, means that the pistol accuracy can never exceed 3.15 inches). If the ammunition is inherently incapable of firing less than 3.15 inch groups at 50 meters (even through a test barrel and fixture), how can any pistol meet this requirement? Shouldn't the requirement speak in terms of 3.15 inches or 1.8 inches more than the accuracy of the ammunition, whichever is greater (as is the requirement, to avoid the problem mentioned previously, for the M9 pistol)?

Answer: At 50 meters, through a test barrel, the A475 ammunition achieved an average mean radius of 1.02 inches. The specification will be changed to: Accuracy. When fired from a rest, at a range of 50 meters, the mean radius of a 10-shot group fired from the JCP shall not be greater than 3.15 inches.

45. Under Section 3.2.3 (Service Life) of the draft Performance Specification, is a receiver still considered "usable" if it can still be used but has visible cracks or other signs of wear, or is some other definition of "usable" contemplated and, if so, what is that definition?

Answer: If the receiver shows signs of wear or visible cracks which have no impact on the safe operation of the pistol, it is considered usable.

49. PS 3/3.3.7 - Width. Please reconsider the width requirement of less than 1.53 inches.

Answer: Width Requirement of the specification will be modified to read, "The JCP width with external manual safety shall be less than 1.75 inches (T) and without external manual safety shall be less than 1.53 inches (T)."

51. Item 3.4.1 Action. Will all Striker Fired Actions be considered Double Action Only regardless of what the striker does during the action of pulling the trigger? Is there any Double Action definition as to what makes it a DA or DA pull? How will Double Action be defined?

Answer: The specification will be changed to state: DA/SA is defined as an action that sets and releases the sear with the first pull of the trigger, with subsequent shots being single action, only releasing the sear from a preset position, to fire the weapon. DAO/ Striker Fire is defined as an action that sets and released the sear with every pull of the trigger. Note: Any Striker Fire action that fully sets the sear will be considered DA/SA.

63. What do you mean by "Modular Action" and what will be required to for it to be considered changed. Item 4.4.1 states that the JCP must be able to be able to be changed from DAO to DA/SA, and back. If this is the case, how does the striker fired guns fall into this category? If the gun must be reconfigured from "Striker-Fired Action" which is considered DAO to a DA/SA gun which requires both a cocking action trigger pull and a pre-cocked action trigger pull as well as a de-cocking lever and external safety lever. I would appreciate some clarification on this matter.

Answer: Modular means that the action on the pistol can be changed at the unit level without modification to the weapon's major assemblies from DAO to DA/SA, or DA/SA to DAO and back.​
 
R

Rob96

New member
Posted by Powderman

It is my understanding that the US Gov't has already made a purchase of a sizeable quantity of Ruger P345's.
Click to expand...

What is your source for this. The only contract that Ruger received from the Army, was for 5,000 P95s that went/are going to the Iraqi forces.
 
P

Powderman

New member
That was what I was talking about. I had no idea they were going to the Iraqi armed forces. I was under the impression that Glock pistols were being provided.
 
S

stratus

New member
BUSTER51 said:
no weapon produced by a non American company not made on American soil should ever be considered .we need to wake up and stop takeing chances on who will be our friend when the **** hits the fan . American made weapons ,made of 100%American parts is what we need to defend this country and it's people we can't trust anyone else .we need controle of supply and quality. I prefer not to read a book titled " The Rise And Fall of America" (made and printed in CHINA) A 12 round .45acp single action semi auto pistol made in America would fit the bill nicely.
Click to expand...
Relax! Zie Germans are good guys now! :)
 
S

stratus

New member
Well, laugh it up, I guess. But Greg's right - the HK45 is the top candidate for this pistol. It meets all the basic requirements of the contract, and it has an external hammer.

Besides, if the military does go with something striker-fired, I'm the one who will be laughing from my own inconspicuous vantage point.
 
R

Rob96

New member
That was what I was talking about. I had no idea they were going to the Iraqi armed forces. I was under the impression that Glock pistols were being provided.
Click to expand...

The US probably got tired of the Iraqi's selling the Glocks.:D They may have also went to the Iraqi police.
 
G

glockmpw

New member
What about the SIG P220?

It seems like the new P220 DAK with light rail satisfies the criteria with its 8-rd magazines, though I have yet to see a comprehensive listing of all the criteria. Seems like that would be an easier gun for a wide variety of hand sizes than the mammoth H&K. The SIG is available with its short trigger module.
 
K

KurtC

New member
The army actually purchased 5,000 econo-guns from each of the major manufacturers (Glock, Ruger, S&W, Sig, etc.) to distribute to local forces throughout South Asia. I believe the total is about 25,000 guns. This was the fastest, least expensive and impartial method.

The most limiting requirement of the new JCP proposal is for a manual safety that can be installed or removed at the unit level. This pretty much eliminates Glock, Sig, XD, Ruger, and a lot of others. The HK45, S&W TSW series, and Beretta PX4 are the only guns I know of that can do this. I'm not sure Beretta or S&W are even interested.

The info on the JCP is posted http://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/USSOCOM/SOAL-KB/H92222-05-R-0017/Attachments.html

You will have to download the files to view them. While the specifications are interesting, be sure to read the "Responses to Industry Questions" links at the bottom of the page. They contain the exact details of the requirements.
 
S

shamus005

New member
from Sig226man:
We're also responsible for the predicament by not supporting Smith and Ruger the way we should be.
Click to expand...

Given your name, I'd hazard you own a foreign-made weapon. ;)

If an American company makes a gun I don't want, I won't buy it. The best pistols out there are of foreign manufacture (Sig, Glock, CZ, Beretta, HK, etc).


It's called capatilism. I vote with my $$.
 
A

ATW525

New member
The most limiting requirement of the new JCP proposal is for a manual safety that can be installed or removed at the unit level.
Click to expand...

I don't recall seeing this requirement anywhere. There is a mention of a modular action to allow switching from DA/SA to DAO only at the unit level, but even that's not an actual requirement for the pistol.
 
J

JR47

Moderator
The RFP is set as it is. The problem will be when the US manufacturers, and some of the larger overseas manufacturers point out that it's not a competitive bid, given the unusually strict requirements, and the lack of time to respond to them. Congress will lean on the Sec. of Defense, and the bid will be modified. I also think that, unless the RFP is limited to only a few thousand pistols, that the powers that be will never allow single-sourcing of a weapons system without in-country resources.

That is only my opinion, but it is one confirmed in conversation with engineers from Picatinny.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top