Saw this online this am. Interesting.
Shootout over the Army's new $580 million handgun

You know challenges are going to happen. They always do on high-dollar government contracts. Back when Beretta was first awarded the M9 contract, there were several challenges.

Nobody likes a sore loser.

__________________
Not in jail.

I thought one of the specifications was an external manual safety. Did Glock add such a safety to their submitted guns?

And why exactly does the Beretta need to be replaced for $550 million dollars.This is only a side arm.

Just print more money????

Spend the $550 million taking care of our vets or don't spend it and reduce the national debt.

__________________
NEVER GIVE UP YOUR GUN

Glock gets to protest the procurement process because the rules allow a protest. For a half billion dollar contract it's worth a protest.

Why the Army needed a new handgun is a mystery to me, too.

This makes sense, but government is not always in the business of making sense.

__________________
Just a shooter

A couple of friends who are active duty U.S. Army officers told me that the Berettas are pretty worn. Even after armory rebuilds. They have been in use for 30 years now. Even if they have low round counts, if they are issued to a soldier, the daily function checks stress the action parts and they break. Both said that a part of the problem is that the services didn't purchase enough of them in the first place, so the guns usually don't just sit around in arms rooms.

I don't know what the grounds for Glock's protest is. The specs called for a "modular" system. Only thing "modular" about the current Glock is the backstrap insert can be swapped around for bigger or smaller inserts.

Glock has made pistols with thumb safeties for foreign contracts but I have never seen one in person. The Model 18 has a selector right there, so it seems to me the addition of a thumb safety would be a simple addition.

Will all the discarded Berettas be destroyed or sold off?

$550 million might last a month, maybe a month-and-a-half if applied to veterans' health care, and it wouldn't even rate a point on a fiscal graph if applied to the national debt.

This is kind of interesting to me.

The linked article states that, "...when the Army decided to replace the M9 Beretta, the sidearm that’s been on the hips of soldiers for the past 30 years, it bypassed Smith & Wesson and Glock..."

The Army didn't exactly "bypass" the Smith and the Glock. According to the requirements to be considered, neither of those manufacturers submitted a handgun that met the requirements the Army had specified. So if they were "bypassed", it's their own fault far as I'm concerned.

The article goes on to state that, "The basis for contesting the contract is not clear from the filing..."

This sounds like B.S. to me. How can you file a legal challenge...in this case, Glock's contesting the outcome of the selection process...and not be specific about what you're whining about? This sounds to me like the author of the article just doesn't have access to all the information involved here.

And the website Bearing Arms says, “The fact Glock is protesting the decision strongly suggests that the company developed a 'modular mystery Glock' that has not yet been seen by the public."

This is nothing but an editorial opinion (again) on the part of Bearing Arms, a website known for spreading just about any half-baked firearms rumor that comes their way.

The Department of the Army, U.S. Army Materiel Command has until June 5, 2017 to respond to the filing.

Ruger should have gotten the contract that Beretta got back in the 80's. Berettas are too fragile, open slide, and the front sight is not replaceable. Rugers P series would still be going strong, not to mention the are much cheaper. Beretta's frames would crack in normal use. GI ammo is hot. When I was in the Guard we received maintenance guidelines regarding the cracked frames and slides. If they were not cracked too bad you could still fire them under certain conditions. M-9s were somewhat of a joke, a bad joke. Now go ahead with the hate mail.

__________________
SSG Ret.
TN & TX ARNG 66-06

I own a 320 and understand the ease the army feels when issuing a specific variation of the firearm at a much reduced over all cost. U buy the trigger assy. and fit the parts u want to it to have the gun you need for the mission, maybe 6 or 8 different variations for each.

__________________
Painted my Mag release red

lt needs to be an AMERICAN company. Employing American workers

making the guns HERE in America...

Agree 100%

while I never was in the contract business for government guns, I did do some on marine outboard engines, and that was the government picked out the brand they wanted and then wrote the contract requirements so narrow that only there pre chosen model would match the requirements.

a 50 hp mercury was a four cylinder, the Johnson/Evinrude was a two cylinder

so they would require a four cylinder enjine if mercury was the brand they wanted

both brands were very capable but only one had a chance

Agree, but they are being made in USA, by American workers in NH.
2/3 not bad, but S&W, Ruger are really the only 2 US companies that could handle the volume. Yes I know colt is making some handguns again, but we could never expect that a sidearm in 45 ACP, single stack would be any good??? Prob would not last 100 years!! Be Safe,

__________________
I BACK OUR BLUE

It was not lost on me that the Army awarded the contract THE DAY BEFORE the inauguration of President Trump.

On the fiscal side of the house, the US Army Modular Handgun contract is a disaster. The US should have just bought the Glock 17 and 19 off the shelf just like the UK did when it awarded a contract to replace its L105 and L9A1 pistols.

I believe that we have a much better chance of the M9 being surplused out through the CMP with the current administration than through the last administration and his heir apparent.

I would definitely buy one if they go on sale to the civilian market, even if they are worn out.

I'm still wondering why they abandoned (mostly) the 1911A1, but I'm an old throwback.

I know the rationale for the switch. I still wonder.

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

An Armourer friend of mine was asked to look into why they were experiencing fire control parts breakage in low round count M9s. He noted the parts broke because they were brittle. He pointed out that fire control parts are made from steel that is soft and tough on the inside, but then face hardened for good wear resistance. He also pointed out that over the course of thousands of impacts, the crystalline structure of the metal changes and the hardened surface moves deeper, making the part as a whole harder, but much more brittle. Eventually it breaks.

This is a known issue with older decocker equipped pistols, like the Walther PP and PPK, which originated the concept (1929 and 1931 respectively). Over the course of 80 or so years, even normal de-cocking creates enough impacts to embrittle the parts. When you add in the US Army's rather over the top function check, and then factor in that M9s used in classroom training may be function checked numerous times per day, it's not surprising that some low round count M9s are failing due to be function checked pretty much to death.

On the other hand, the frames on these M9s are still solid and an arsenal rebuild replacing the fire control parts will put them back in working order.

The other problem however is the actual high round count M9s that do in fact have worn frames and pretty much need to be replaced.

The 1911 and 1911A1 remained in service for so long after WWII in part because we had a large number of them in the inventory. The US military looked at replace them in 1952-53, but canceled the procurement due to the number of 1911s on hand. By the mid 1970s (30 years after the end of WWII) the situation had changed as most of them were in a condition where an arsenal rebuild wasn't enough to return them to suitable condition.

When you consider that the M9 entered service in 1985, it's obvious that they are at a similar stage of life - over 30 years of active service - and unlike the 1911, it has an aluminum frame that has a useful life of approximately 20,000 rounds.

However that's not the case for all M9s as a large number of M9s and M9A1s were ordered in 2006, and in 2009 Beretta was awarded a $220 million contract for another 450,000 M9s and M9A1s to be delivered between 2009 and 2014, and the US Army added another 100,000 in 2012.


But here's the rub....

The US Army has purchased over 550,000 M9s just since 2009, but it says it is only going to procure 280,000 Sig P320s (as the M17) and 7000 compact models with an option for 212,000 more M17s for the other services. The contract includes spares, holsters and accessories for a total of $580 million. That's an awful lot of spares and accessories given the resulting unit cost of $1162 per pistol (which was supposedly bid at a cost of just $207 per pistol). That's not surprising because putting a new service pistol in the inventory is expensive, which is why it is done so infrequently.

However, any way you slice it, it is still a lot more than the $220 million the US Army paid for 450,000 M9s just 3 years ago ($489 per pistol), and it will not be not nearly enough M17s to full fill the US Army's needs. It's obvious that this initial $580 million contract is just a drop in the bucket as the US Army will have to more than double the order to meet the projected need.

That raises questions about Sig's bidding strategy and the potential that the follow on contracts will cost a lot more than $207 per pistol, because once Sig is in the barn, changing horses is once again a very expensive proposition and Sig will be able to command a much higher price for subsequent pistols.

This was an issue way back in the day in the competition between the OH-6 and OH-58 helicopters. Hughes Aircraft had a much better helicopter in the OH-6 and low bid the initial contract at $19,700 per helicopter to get its foot in the door and lost about $100,000 on the 1,370 helicopter contract in anticipation of making money on the follow on contract. That 2,700 helicopter contract was won by Bell and the OH-58 with a cost of $54,200 per helicopter compared to the OH-6 cost of $56,550 per helicopter.

That's an increase from $19,700 to $56,550 and if Hughes has bid $53,550 as it had initially planned, rather than getting greedier, it would have again won the follow on contract.

The same potential exists here for Sig to significantly up the cost for the inevitable follow on contracts, despite changes in procurement that are supposed to prevent this type of bidding strategy. Thus, I am not surprised that Glock has filed a protest.

----

In the end, it would have probably been cheaper to buy more M9s than to procure a new service pistol given the high initial costs of making a change, but that would not solve the underlying problem that the M9 just isn't all that satisfactory as a service pistol.

GI ammo is not that hot, it's loaded to the equivalent of SAAMI 9mm +P. If you want truly hot, check out the Russian 7N21.

__________________
Release the Kraken

I found the hirtenberger 124gr +p+ to have some heat too.
Brother & I would add a recoil buffer, and PJ1 chain lube to our 92's.

Sometimes it's "only a sidearm" that stands between a soldier and death.