Army drops Smith & Wesson from pistol competition to replace the M9

These things a huge waist of money, the SEAL's already went through a pistol trial and picked Glock. I don't see why the army thinks they're so special and needs to waist taxpayers money.
 
I'm not a Glock fan but i'm pretty sure it will be the next "standard issue" handgun. I love my m&p9 but i would choose a Springfield Xdm over it. My first choice would be the H&k Vp9 for a polymer ($$$). My favorite still the Sig P226/229.
 
maxman1 said:
My take is if the M9 needs replacement, they should just adopt the 226 like they should have 30 years ago.
Click to expand...

Problem with the P226 is the grip size and training noob's on SA/DA.

It takes more time to train someone to shoot SA/DA well and you run the risk of novice troops forgetting to de-#### before holstering. Most soldiers that get issued pistol have little clue how to shoot one. I remember walking around KAF and seeing all the clerks with pistols, most did not even know how to field strip their BHP's for cleaning.

Funny thing is the Swiss Army betrayed SIG for Glock :p
 
Last edited:
Not sure... Glock is battle proven. APX is a new gun. Im a Beretta fan and can't wait to try the APX but most of agency and cops already knew the Glock, and the Seals just picked this one too...
Click to expand...
I think it will come down to those two. They already deal with Beretta so the relationship is there and Glock is the front runner of plastic guns.
 
Probably failed because one of the requirements is to hit a 4" target @ 50m 90% of the time. They can probably only do that @ 25m.

Also they want a striker for consistent trigger, switching from rifle to a DA/SA is just asking for the first shot to go wide. Even the t1 ninjas have this problem from time to time. That's why it's a no go to switch to a old platform like the 226 (among other reasons such as weight etc..) and why units that have them are moving away from those guns.
 
Interesting in that, while no caliber was selected, odds of the Army going with anything other than 9mm would be slim to none, I would say. So then why did some companies submit pistols chambered in .40 or .357 SIG, when the higher pressure rounds lead to accelerated wear (as per the FBIs own conclusions)? Especially since they're now free to use hollow points, and the 9s give them capacity, faster follow up, compatibility with their allies, and less wear and tear?

The original competitors were:

Italy: Beretta will not enter the improved M9A3, instead competing with their new APX striker-fired pistol chambered in 9mm NATO and .40 S&W.

Czech Republic: CZ P-09 MHS chambered in 9mm NATO and .40 S&W.

Belgium: FN Herstal have entered with a striker-fired pistol for which no more details have been disclosed (rumored to be chambered in 5.7x28

Austria: Glock 17M and 22M chambered in 9mm NATO and .40 S&W, respectively.

Germany: Heckler & Koch VP9-M and VP40-M chambered in 9mm NATO and .40 S&W, respectively.

United States: KRISS USA announced its entry into the program using a variant of their Sphinx SDP platform chambered in 9mm NATO.

Switzerland: SIG Sauer P320 MHS chambered in .357 SIG.

United States: Smith & Wesson M&P G2 chambered in .40 S&W; in co-operation with General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems.

United States: Springfield Armory XDM chambered in 9mm NATO and .40 S&W.

United States: STI-Detonics Defense STX chambered in 9mm NATO

Brazil: Taurus PT24/7 OSS chambered in 9mm NATO and .40 S&W.

Germany: Walther PPQ M2 chambered in 9mm NATO and .40 S&W.


In January 2013, the Army released a Request for Information (RFI) to assess available handgun technologies and U.S. small arms industrial production capacity for the Modular Handgun System. The announcement seeks information “on potential improvements in handgun performance in the areas of accuracy and dispersion out to 50 meters, terminal performance, modularity, reliability, and durability in all environments.” The handgun should have a 90 percent or more chance of hitting in a 4-inch circle out to 50 meters consistently throughout the weapon’s lifetime. Ergonomic design should minimize recoil energies and control shot dispersion. Features include, but are not limited to, compatibility with accessory items to include tactical lights, lasers, and sound suppressors. Full ambidextrous controls are required and there is interest in ergonomic designs that can be controlled by female shooters.

The MHS requirement called for a non-caliber specific weapon with modular features to allow for the adaption of different fire control devices, pistol grips, and alternate magazine options. The weapon will fit various hand sizes and will mount targeting enablers using Picatinny rails. The new weapon will incorporate detection avoidance by having a non-reflective neutral color and will be operable with a suppressor in place

There is no specific caliber, but terminal ballistics at 50 meters through 14 inches of ballistics gel will assess lethality compared to M882 9mm rounds. Specific interest is given to pistols that can accommodate higher chamber pressures over 20 percent greater than SAAMI spec for the cartridge without degradation of reliability. The RFI calls for 2,000 mean rounds between stoppages, 10,000 mean rounds between failures, and a 35,000 round service life.
Click to expand...

The Army wants a pistol and cartridge combination that will retain match-grade accuracy for 35,000 rounds, be able to handle significant pressure spikes, have increased lethality, and be very reliable with little recoil and limited wear.

Based on this, I think Glock is going to win. They have to replace the M9 as they're wearing out, and the Glock is already in use in some quarters AND Glock made a platform specifically for these tests in order to meet the requirements

glock-17m-2.jpg


glock-17m-3.jpg


These photos indicate that the next-gen Glock 17M has come a long way, incorporating an ambidextrous slide release, reversible magazine release and a re-profiled grip shape. The new model has a straight grip without fingergrooves and an enlarged, flared magazine well. The grip looks like it can accept add-on backstraps for larger hands. It also has a cutout at the front and redesigned magazine baseplate. This is probably to make it easier to remove stuck or jammed magazines.

Other changes include a new muzzle contour and a smooth trigger. There are more than just cosmetic changes here, too, as the 17M has a different pin layout and a new, enlarged recoil spring assembly. Glock also upgraded the finish, but exact details about that remain unknown.
 
Glock will win....because Glocks work....Glocks meet the requirements...The fact that they aren't as pretty as a Beretta does'nt matter..Because they work
 
Testing is for functionality, and reliability. Once these factors are documented and scored, the cost per contract (price) will pose the final factor.
 
My money is on the new FN pistol....and it's not in 5.7....I've seen it and handled it. Much improved over the FNS and a really great gun. No one is talking about it because it has not been released to the public...so we keep hearing about Glock this and Glock that. It is extremely accurate and does not require any armouring for 30000 rounds. This is a requirement in the RFP. Glock cannot meet this as parts, like recoil spring assemblies need to be changed before then.
No one has a closer relationship with US Forces than FN. They supply the largest range of weapons to US Forces.

Rich
 
After reading the specs for the new pistol it looks like they left out anti-tank and anti-aircraft capacities in their specs.

The specs also look like a quartermaster's nightmare.

The problems listed for the Beretta seem just to be a training problem.

I assume the 4 inch criteria at 50 meters is from a machine rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom