Army Handgun Program Again Enters Capitol Hill Crosshairs

Thomas D'Arcy McGee

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Army Handgun Program Again Enters Capitol Hill Crosshairs

Military.com

Posted By: Brendan McGarry January 12, 2017


The Army‘s troubled program to buy a new standard-issue handgun for soldiers was the subject of renewed debate on Capitol Hill.

During Thursday’s confirmation hearing for retired Marine Gen. James Mattis to become defense secretary in the Trump administration, Republican Sens. Joni Ernst of Iowa and Thom Tillis of North Carolina took turns criticizing the service’s XM17 Modular Handgun System (MHS) program, a $350 million competition to buy a replacement to the Cold War-era M9 9mm pistol.

At a time when Russia is upgrading its service rifle, “we continue to modify our M4s [and] many of our troops still carry M16s, the Army can’t even figure out how to replace the M9 pistol, first issued in 1982,” Ernst said.

The senator, a frequent critic of the program who in 2015 retired as a lieutenant colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard, said she and others would joke while in the military that “sometimes the most efficient use of an M9 is to simply throw it at your adversary.”

Ernst blasted the Modular Handgun Program’s many requirements. “Take a look at their 350-page micromanaging requirements document if you want to know why it’s taking so long to get this accomplished,” she said.

She also mocked the stopping power of the 5.56mm rifle round. “Our military currently shoots a bullet that, as you know, is illegal for shooting small deer in nearly all states due to its lack of killing power,” she said.

Tillis went even further by showing up to the hearing with the pistol program’s full several hundred pages of requirements documents wrapped in red ribbon. “This is a great testament to what’s wrong with defense acquisition,” he said, slapping the three-inch-tall stack of paperwork.

In response, Mattis said, “I can’t defend this,” but added, “I will say that at times there were regulations that required us to do things.”

Coincidentally, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley was asked about the program earlier in the day at a breakfast sponsored by the Association of the United States Army. Milley was tight-lipped about the effort but hinted the service is making progress.

Beretta, FN Herstal, Sig Sauer and Glock are reportedly still competing for the program after the Army dropped Smith & Wesson from the competition last year. We’re hoping these gunmakers will help shed more light on the status of the program next week at SHOT Show in Las Vegas.
 
Throw a bunch of politicians whose prime requirement is NOT to acquire the best tool for the job at the best price into the mix and you produce a clusterfutz.
 
Time will tell if we see any big changes in the US with their small arms procurement. I agree that if you have a bunch of politicians responsible for the procurement process, then he who has the lowest bid or the largest kick-back wins. No different in many ways to how things are done here in the People's Republik of Kanada.
 
With all the capable guns available today, you wonder why they make choosing such a difficult decision. Rather than make up their own criteria, they should let the manufacturers demonstrate the pros of the gun and then they could see the limitations without spending tons of money making up useless specs.
 
Time will tell if we see any big changes in the US with their small arms procurement. I agree that if you have a bunch of politicians responsible for the procurement process, then he who has the lowest bid or the largest kick-back wins. No different in many ways to how things are done here in the People's Republik of Kanada.

How critical is the small arms procurement in todays military a lot less I would guess..
 
They have a pistol that has served them well for over 30 years. The current ones are worn out. No secret there and I suspect most were never serviced as they should have. The current ones need replacing so why not just buy more M9 pistols in the form of the M9A3? Most of the parts interchange with the present M9 so there would be some savings there along with some of the $350 Million spent on testing new guns that do no more than the present one does. No additional training required either. We are not talking about the primary weapon used by the US Army infantry.

I would have thought replacing the .223 M4's would be a much higher priority. Assuming you are not about to go to war again against small in stature Vietnamese there are 7.62 cartridges that are more effective and can be shot from the AR platform.

Sounds like there process is about the same as that used by Cdn Army. The only saving grace is the US has some politicians who know something more about firearms than the pussy tailed versions we elect.

Take Care

Bob
 
Maybe they want a cheaper alternative than the M9 with less maintenance and parts to take care of.. a lot less techs are available these days in all the forces..
 
I would have thought replacing the .223 M4's would be a much higher priority. Assuming you are not about to go to war again against small in stature Vietnamese there are 7.62 cartridges that are more effective and can be shot from the AR platform.



Bob

The 5.56 has no trouble killing men. I have been engaged in firefights with 5.56 and had zero complaints. Hell, the US at least is lucky enough to be issued 62g green tip ammo (unlike us). 7.62 is too heavy for the entire unit to carry today.
 
^^^yup.... There's a reason the Russians have moved to 5.45mm. 5.56mm is far more than adequate.

Sidearms exist to get buy you enough time to get your carbine running again, or fight your way to another. That and arming REMFs who have no need for a carbine. The politics of the contracts needlessly complicate selection processes.

Been a few years since I was in, but isn't C77 ball 62 grain penetrator like the US SS105/M855??
 
They were supposed to convert to 300 rounds due to the 5.56 not having the ability to penetrate barriers. The problem is no other NATO member has or probably will thus the interchangeability of ammo amongst NATO forces is lost. When that nut job used an AR to shoot up the movie theatre in Colorado the media and anti gun groups criticized the 556 as a devastating military round that destroyed its target. The purpose of the 556 was to wound the enemy and cause them to use more resources to deal with the wounded soldiers as well as take more soldiers out of the fight when one or two of them stop to deal with their screaming fellow soldier who's been hit with a couple of 556s. In WWII they found a lot of the soldiers were dead before they hit the ground and easier for fellow soldiers to run by continuing the assault.
As for the M9 just give them G19s and be done with it. They should start using hollow points as well if they want to increase their effectiveness.
 
Don't be surprised under Donald Trump to see the US ignore the NATO standards. All it would take is the German Chancellor or the French President to criticize him and NATO as we know it would be gone like yesterdays supper.

Take Care

Bob
 
The purpose of the 556 was to wound the enemy and cause them to use more resources to deal with the wounded soldiers as well as take more soldiers out of the fight when one or two of them stop to deal with their screaming fellow soldier who's been hit with a couple of 556s.

That is a wives tale.

Were it true the military would be trained to wound the enemy, vice being trained to hit the target until he ceases to be a threat (Kill him)...which we are.

I have see shmit-tons of dear Talibs who sure weren't wounded by the 5.56 we shot them with.
 
The idea behind the 5.56mm was to send more bullets to the target in a given period of time than .30 cal.
Politicians are a low functioning bunch who wouldn't survive in the business world. With a couple of exceptions :).
 
Back
Top Bottom