# Modular Handgun System Program Overview



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

From the Military Arms Channel: The Firearms Blog details a little more info on the Army's recent quest to replace the M9 pistol. If you ask me, this is a huge waste of time and tax dollars and will likely end like the last couple of M4 replacement trials -- with millions spent and no replacement is chosen.

Modular Handgun System Program Overview - The Firearm Blog


----------



## Smitty79 (Oct 19, 2012)

I would hope that they finish with a double stack, polymer frame 45 ACP pistol. 1911's are gimped in round count and most soldiers don't practice with it side arms to be able to shoot well. I know that I have shot almost as many rounds a weekend today, than I did 20 years in the Navy. For the special operators, weight matters. So a polymer frame can be a plus.

Of the guns I'm familiar with, I'd probably go with a Glock 21. More rounds than the M&P and it doesn't waste effort on the needless complexity of the grip safety. Maybe they will stay with a DA/SA gun. I've never handled and FN. But they have lots of rounds, a polymer frame and a decent reputation.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I am honestly torn on this. You're right about practicing though. I too have shot more in the last week than I did my 15 years in the Navy, but maybe that is going to change? IDK, but with the current path heading to a joint warfighter, maybe they plan to start having all service members work with all their weapons more. For the last several years all branches of the service has sent personnel to the dessert, and they all go through the same basic combat training regardless of the tour they're going to serve. 

As for special operators, I think the majority of them would select a 1911, if they went to a .45acp. I would also think the G21 is a good platform, but it has a large grip, and some of the personnel wouldn't be able to grip it well. The new pistol, if they do actually adopt one, will have to be "modular" like stated so that it can fit the requirements for all personnel, with a lot more female personnel serving. To be honest, the best pistol for that to date is the HK P30 or VP9, but I think they may be leaning toward wanting an American made gun, not just a gun assembled in America. S&W seems to be making a huge push for this change, and it looks like they may be making some modifications to their M&P to offer a special modular gun for this trial. It is interesting though.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Polymer?
We don' want no stinkin' Polymer Pistol on no real-life battlefield.

The Austrians have their Glocks, but then the Austrians haven't fought a successful war since 1743.


----------



## Scorpion8 (Jan 29, 2011)

I'd put my money on another 9mm weapon, solely because we're getting more and more women and smaller-statured folks into the Armed Forces. Like it or not, the .45 isn't the weapon for todays girlie-man computer geek who enlisted to be a graphic arts designer (so the tv commercial goes....). I did a tour in my day with the Navy's Operational Test and Evaluation Force (OPTEVFOR) where we tested new procurement for two criteria, effectiveness and suitability. A new piece of kit could be very effective, but not suitable and it wouldn't pass. I'd venture that if Army procurement is anything similar, they reach a similar conclusion and end up with a 9mm (or egads (!) smaller) weapon.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

IDK, scorp, I mean you make a good point, but if they were to go with a solid 1911, those are pretty easy shooting guns. That said, I don't think they will go with another 1911. One thing I did find interesting is that they said they are looking at an entirely new "system". 

Pentagon officials have been talking for years about shelving the semiautomatic M9, made by an American unit of the Italian-owned Beretta. Daryl Easlick, a project officer with the Army’s Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Ga., told the website Military.com in July that the Pentagon would replace its entire inventory of 9mm Berettas for something more accurate, lethal, and reliable: “It’s a total system replacement—new gun, new ammo, new holster, everything.” 

I found that statement most interesting of the whole thing. I wonder what they mean by "new ammo" and "everything". Think it may be that they are even considering adopting a JHP, or just going away from the 9mm? I wonder b/c the whole discussion has been about going away from the 9mm. Why make it redundant with that statement. "It's a total system replacement-new gun, new ammo, new holster, everything."


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Polymer?
> We don' want no stinkin' Polymer Pistol on no real-life battlefield.
> 
> The Austrians have their Glocks, but then the Austrians haven't fought a successful war since 1743.


About a century after that, against their own citizens? I'm guessing, there was a lot of that going on.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

Smitty79 said:


> I would hope that they finish with a double stack, polymer frame 45 ACP pistol. 1911's are gimped in round count and most soldiers don't practice with it side arms to be able to shoot well. I know that I have shot almost as many rounds a weekend today, than I did 20 years in the Navy. For the special operators, weight matters. So a polymer frame can be a plus.
> 
> Of the guns I'm familiar with, I'd probably go with a Glock 21. More rounds than the M&P and it doesn't waste effort on the needless complexity of the grip safety. Maybe they will stay with a DA/SA gun. I've never handled and FN. But they have lots of rounds, a polymer frame and a decent reputation.


M&Ps don't have a grip safety.


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Polymer?
> We don' want no stinkin' Polymer Pistol on no real-life battlefield.
> 
> The Austrians have their Glocks, but then the Austrians haven't fought a successful war since 1743.


How about the other military users of various Glock models, such as France, India, Iraq, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom, Azerbaijan (Special Military Services), Bangladesh, Denmark (Slædepatruljen Sirius special forces), Czech Republic (SF), Finland, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Montenegro, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Switzerland, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Yemen (compiled from various Wiki pages). Certain Glocks are also approved for NATO member use (G17/P80 is one).


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

How dismissive do you want me to be?
In your entire list, only the UK, Finland, and Israel have successfully fought an 18th-, 19th-, or 20th-century war, and in every case it was done with steel pistols as secondary arms.

Face it, *DJ Niner*: I'm an unreconstructed Luddite, and I'm too old to change.
And besides, they're all wrong, and I'm right!

Next thing, you'll be wanting me to use LED lightbulbs, and you'll tell me that ketchup from a squeeze-bottle tastes exactly the same as it does from glass.


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> How dismissive do you want me to be?
> In your entire list, only the UK has successfully fought a 18th-, 19th-, or 20th-century war, and in every case it was done with steel pistols.


The other countries haven't been in a recent shootin' war because they were so well prepared with issued Glocks that no other country DARED to challenge them! :mrgreen:


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

I quit. You win.
I couldn't top that if I tried.
:anim_lol: :anim_lol: :anim_lol:


----------



## Smitty79 (Oct 19, 2012)

I am very afraid that we will be invaded by Latvia and their Glocks.


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

Back on topic...

I was stationed with a USAF MSgt who was involved in the 1984 testing for the Joint Services Small Arms Program pistol tests that eventually got us the Beretta M9. After he returned, we talked about it quite regularly, and the gun magazines of the time were also constantly spewing the latest news on the testing program. It was originally supposed to be "the one pistol for everyone", to reduce the inventory of pistols and parts in all the services. At the time, there were a BUNCH of different handguns (including minor model variations) in at least 3 different calibers in use in the various services, and the logistics of keeping them all running and fed was getting out of hand. After the M9 was adopted, though, it only took a couple of years before certain groups were complaining that the M9 didn't fit their needs (usually because of its size -- too big), and that got us the M11 (SIG P228, now M11-A1) for units needing a more compact handgun (for instance, used by Office of Special Investigations agents in the USAF).

This basic problem will remain; one pistol really cannot fulfill the needs for all the many task-specific uses where military handguns are needed. The possible exception might be something along the lines of the new modular SIG pistols, where you can drop the serialized metal internal action/rail group into a small, medium, or full-size frame shell and mount a slide/barrel group of several different lengths, depending on need. But if you do that, guess what? You're back to stocking a crapload of parts to support all the variations.

Given how "important" the handgun is in the overall scheme of things in the military, and the costs (including training on the new system for armorers and operators), even if I'm around for another decade or so, I don't think I'll ever see a universal replacement service handgun.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Just an "aside"...
I found it strange that the USAF chose the Army's "rifle" (the M16 and M4), and that the Navy will evidently be a big voice in choosing the Army's new pistol.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

Be careful what you wish for, the RFI has lowered it's standards compared to what the M9 and the Sig 226 did in the Joint Service Small Arms Program of the 80's. Why?

I don't believe Glock would hold a candle to either the Sig 226 or M9 in head to head testing as was done in the Joint Service Small Arms Program of the 80's, but I may be wrong, but I know the two mentioned above really shined.. Austria's military has lower standards than we had in the 80's for it's Glock. GB, the only country I would consider to have been in any real conflict's in the past 40 years just recently transitioned from the High-power to Glock, so, the jury's still out on that one.


The RFI calls for 2,000 mean rounds between stoppages, 10,000 mean rounds between failures, and a 35,000 round service life.


vs.

1. Data from Beretta shows the average reliability of the M9 pistol to be 17,500 rounds without a stoppage

2. The 92F proved a MRBF (mean rounds before failure) of 35,000 rounds.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Just an "aside"...
> I found it strange that the USAF chose the Army's "rifle" (the M16 and M4), and that the Navy will evidently be a big voice in choosing the Army's new pistol.


That's b/c the Navy does everything right. You see, there's the right way, the wrong way and the Navy way. ;-)


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I think the Glock would hold up to what the standard soldier needs simply b/c the conventional soldier really does not use the pistol much if at all. I think DJ makes an outstanding point wrt to the universal pistol. I don't believe it is possible either, and it would be an even more wasteful endeavor than it's worth, as the quote from the MAC above states. 

The original 1911 was a crude gun made to be able to tear them all down, put all the parts in a vat and clean them being able to reassemble them using parts from any gun to be able to build another one. They rattled all the way from the holster to the delivery, and were not all that accurate. They were not nearly as precise as the custom 1911s we have today, but they weren't intended to be a precise weapon. It was a last ditch weapon in case you lost your rifle. I don't see the military going back to that process. Today's soldiers are being programmed to be more precise, more leathal and more efficient. 

I say that to say I have no clue what they will do, but they do seem intent on selecting a weapon system altogether different from anything we've seen before. Heck, I wouldn't be shocked to see them select some new "smart gun" technology to be the test bed for future gun control measures for the new world order.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

GCBHM said:


> ...The original 1911 was a crude gun made to be able to tear them all down, put all the parts in a vat and clean them being able to reassemble them using parts from any gun to be able to build another one. [see #1, below] They rattled all the way from the holster to the delivery, and were not all that accurate [see #2 and #3, below]....It was a last ditch weapon in case you lost your rifle [see #4, below]...


Um, sorry, but from long, long experience with the 1911, and with pistol shooting in general, I know that most of what you've written is legend, not fact.

1. The 1911 was never "crude." Some parts were designed to be a little loose, to make eating dirt, disassembly, and reassembly from mixed parts easier.
2. Although in some cases the slide "rattled" on the frame, this did not cause marked inaccuracy.
3. The 1911, like all combat pistols, was accurate enough for short-range self-protection. It wasn't designed to be a highly accurate, 25- or 50-yard gun.
4. In almost all cases, the infantryman carried only a rifle. Pistols were for people who hadn't the room, or the need, to swing a rifle: Officers, tankers, machine-gunners, _etc_.

When the M1911 was first issued, even the cavalry, the organization for which the pistol had been designed, was armed with a real rifle: The M1903 Springfield. The cavalry sword was well on its way out.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

I'm with Steve on this. When you look an pure an adulterer GI pistols they are none of that other than parts interchangeability. 

Most people that spout that drivel have never shot a GI 1911.

My 1944 USGI Ithaca is note more loose or rattle than a Springfield GI or even Milspec.

Most people I know that own GI pistols, even arsenal rebuilds say the same.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

On the matter of inaccuracy I will give some ground due to poor sights and not a lot of pistol training which could result in poor actual accuracy despite the mechanical accuracy being present.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

Also,

While I'm sure there are samples out there of USGI 1911s that were loose, inaccurate, and whatever else we have to remeber that in 1985 when the 1911 was replaced. The newest 1911s in inventory were all ready 40 years old.

I've seen some beat up Berettas during my time in the service but the USGI 1911 * as a whole * is a pretty good pistol even by today's standards.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=8ff37255372781aeaf64d55c90753129&_cview=0

Looks like.more than Sig has a chance.


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

There's nothing wrong with the 1911A1 except the poor sights, excessive weight, high bore axis which generates excessive muzzle flip, method of carry needed for immediate use and what you have to do to get it there (deactivate grip and thumb safeties during loading and clearing), and the non-NATO-standard caliber (we forced the 5.56mm caliber for rifles/carbines down NATO's throat, so they are not likely to be very receptive to cutting us any slack in our handgun caliber selection; I'd almost guarantee it'll be 9mm NATO caliber).

After seeing the possibility of a two-gun solution, then I think Glock has a much better chance than before. The G17 and G19 share the vast majority of their internal parts; I believe only the frame, slide, barrel, recoil spring assembly, and perhaps the locking block (installed in the frame itself) are different. The longer G17 mag will work in either pistol; the shorter G19 mag will not work in the longer grip frame of the G17. I'm fairly sure everything else will swap between the models. G17/P80 already has a NATO stock number, and I think we already have a U.S. military stock number for the G19 and mags, as we bought a bunch for the Iraqi Army.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

The M&P can do the same thing and had a thumb safety which I would assume will still be a requiement. I wish we could.gwt at the Q & A

HK could do it with the HK45 and 45c in tactical trim (tall sights and threaded barrel) and the 45c is all ready is the supply system as well.

Walther also has a gun in the supply system.

Sig could do it with the 220 and 220 compact or Carry as well as the M11 and 226...

Will be interesting to see what comes of this.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Um, sorry, but from long, long experience with the 1911, and with pistol shooting in general, I know that most of what you've written is legend, not fact.
> 
> 1. The 1911 was never "crude." Some parts were designed to be a little loose, to make eating dirt, disassembly, and reassembly from mixed parts easier.
> 2. Although in some cases the slide "rattled" on the frame, this did not cause marked inaccuracy.
> ...


I used the word crude as a comparison to the nicer custom pieces we see today, not to knock the pistol. That description in no way should have indicated that the pistol was not a well made design that was not up to the task for which it was intended, which was a short range tool for defense, as you stated. You won't shoot a 2" group at 50 yards with an M1911 as easily as you could with a Wilson Combat 1911. Actually, I contend not many would shoot a 2" group at 50 yards with a M1911.

The original M1911 was a mass produced gun made for the average soldier to use for defense, not offense. That doesn't mean all soldiers were issued the gun, but that the design was a simple one made to make it easy for anyone with basic knowledge of the weapon to be able to use the gun and fix it with any part from another gun.

It is, however, a design that has been improved upon over the years by the same makers who first produced the gun. They slides are hand tooled for tighter tolerances and smoother shooting. The sights on my MCO, for example, are really nice Novak night sights, not the small sights on the original M1911. The spring is better. The hammer is nicer. Everything about the MCO is better than the original M1911, and that isn't even getting into the nicer custom guns like Wilson Combat, Dan Wesson, Les Baer...but that does not mean the original M1911 was an ineffective weapon. Quite the opposite! It was the most highly sought after pistol of it's time, and it's time is still going...just in more improved versions.

Make no mistake, it was a great gun, but compared to the SA MC Operator I have now, the original M1911 was rather crude, by my estimation. The same can be said for the Ford F series of trucks. Actually, Steve, as I review what I said, it seems you basically just restated it.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

DJ Niner said:


> There's nothing wrong with the 1911A1 except the poor sights, excessive weight, high bore axis which generates excessive muzzle flip, method of carry needed for immediate use and what you have to do to get it there (deactivate grip and thumb safeties during loading and clearing), and the non-NATO-standard caliber (we forced the 5.56mm caliber for rifles/carbines down NATO's throat, so they are not likely to be very receptive to cutting us any slack in our handgun caliber selection; I'd almost guarantee it'll be 9mm NATO caliber).
> 
> After seeing the possibility of a two-gun solution, then I think Glock has a much better chance than before. The G17 and G19 share the vast majority of their internal parts; I believe only the frame, slide, barrel, recoil spring assembly, and perhaps the locking block (installed in the frame itself) are different. The longer G17 mag will work in either pistol; the shorter G19 mag will not work in the longer grip frame of the G17. I'm fairly sure everything else will swap between the models. G17/P80 already has a NATO stock number, and I think we already have a U.S. military stock number for the G19 and mags, as we bought a bunch for the Iraqi Army.


I think you're probably right about the Glocks. It is an extremely simple pistol, easy to operate, easy to clean, works better than most guns, and it's "inexpensive". A lot less expensive than the CQBPs!


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Just an interesting bit of reading wrt to this issue:

Bloomberg Writer Opines On Army Modular Handgun Program... And Gets It All Wrong - Bearing Arms

Based on this, the only two weapons I'm aware of that could compete would be the HK VP9/P30 and the FNs/x. Glock and S&W would have to redesign their pistols to fit.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

Again, the hk45 and 45c tactical modela meet all requirements as long as two different sized models are allowed as in the RFI I posted above. 

The killer of the P30 and VP9 is that there is no compact variant...yet. There are rumors of a P30SK and that would fit the bill.

I really, really wish we could get to the Q&A answers from the vendor meeting.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

That would be enlightening. I didn't know the HK45/45c had modular grip panels like the P30/VP9 do. Of course, technically, the Glock Gen4 could fill that bill with the MBS, and it is by far the simplest offering to date. I wonder also if they are wanting a pistol made by an American owned company, hence why S&W seems to be pushing so hard for it. They may be making some design changes to be able to compete for the bid.


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

The article outlines some specifications that seem to be at odds with one another. If you want the handgun to fit more hands, and you also want it to convert to different calibers, then that leaves out any double-column-mag .45 just on grip size alone. If you go to a single-column mag, that limits mag capacity rather severely. The length of the .45 ACP cartridge requires a grip frame with a longer front-to-back dimension, which would be wasted space when it was converted to shorter cartridges like 9mm or .40, and might even be a source of stoppages (if short rounds have a longer "jump" to get to the chamber), or require special mags with a rear spacer already built-in. The requirement for all controls to be ambidextrous will kill many otherwise test-worthy current-production/off-the-shelf items.

One thing about the M9, it is super reliable when used with ball ammo and decent magazines. It will be difficult for any contenders to match in that area, let alone beat it by any significant amount. That alone may doom the test from the start, which would be a shame, in my opinion.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Honestly, I think they should just go with the Glock Gen4 17 & 19. Even if they decided to go with a Glock 41 Gen4 and the Glock 30S (almost identical in size to the G19), it would be the cheapest way to go and give the military a fine weapon that just about anyone can use. My wife is a petite 5'3" 120lbs with small hands, and she does just fine with the G41. It has a 5" barrel and little recoil, and carries 13+1/10+1 respectively, and still lighter than the 1911. Besides, it isn't like the pistol is going to become the new primary weapon. It wouldn't hurt to outfit the troops with a .308 rather than a 5.56 either, but the 5.56 has far less recoil.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

GCBHM said:


> That would be enlightening. I didn't know the HK45/45c had modular grip panels like the P30/VP9 do. Of course, technically, the Glock Gen4 could fill that bill with the MBS, and it is by far the simplest offering to date. I wonder also if they are wanting a pistol made by an American owned company, hence why S&W seems to be pushing so hard for it. They may be making some design changes to be able to compete for the bid.


They have the changeable back straps. I have seen any requirement for the gun itself to be multi caliber only that they have not specified a caliber.

The HK 45 and 45c are a tad slimmer than most double stack .45s and aren't too bad with the smaller back strap.

Until the actual RFP comes out its all speculation on what they are asking for.

And RFI and RFP are two different things.


----------



## Scorpion8 (Jan 29, 2011)

GCBHM said:


> I wonder what they mean by "new ammo" and "everything". Think it may be that they are even considering adopting a JHP, or just going away from the 9mm?


Aren't HP ammo against the Geneva Convention on the use of ammo designed to expand and cause a large inhumane wound channel?


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

The Hague convention. New everything is all the other stuff that goes with a handgun. We don't just have a handgun. We have holsters, cleaning kits, mag carriers and the like.

As far as new ammo it could be a redesigned 9mm round based on different slug like a 9mm 135gr or 147gr projectile at higher velocities.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Scorpion8 said:


> Aren't HP ammo against the Geneva Convention on the use of ammo designed to expand and cause a large inhumane wound channel?


Yes, as far as I know, the Hague, but who knows what these guys will do.


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

Although we generally follow all/most aspects of the Hague Convention(s), the U.S. didn't actually sign/ratify it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907
(see third declaration of the 1899 Convention)

As I understand it, even under the Hague accords, HPs are only prohibited in combat against uniformed members of other nation-states (basically, formally declared wars with other signatories). Terrorists, non-uniformed attackers, and non-state aggressors, etc., can be blasted with anything.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Good point. One I had not considered.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

This is why I like the HK offering.

These meet the initial requirements today with no further work or mods needed.




























It's got a lot of flexibility across the two sized guns and different trigger groups & control lever ability.

If they could bring that level of Flexibility to the P30 and potential P30SK they would have strong candidates in both 9mm and .45ACP.

Currently HK doesn't really support in field change of the P30 Variants but the USP and 45/45c kits are readily available. The P2000 and other P Series polymer guns can be converted too, it's just finding the parts is hard, but I'm sure for DOD training armors HK would supply the parts no problem.

The big issue with this level of customization is it's too many options to try and support but they wouldn't have to support all of them across Big Army.

Either gun in LIGHT LEM with thumb safety would be good and if any specialized units want to deviate further they can as they do it now.

Knowing that the P30 is also available in .40S&W that could be another contender too.

The current M&P is a strong contender with it's optional thumb safety as well.

All in all I doubt this will go anywhere but the previous round of this (Joint Combat Pistol) in 2005 brought some very nice guns to market as a result so I'm looking forward to picking the fruit that this round brings. :mrgreen:


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

"All in all I doubt this will go anywhere but the previous round of this (Joint Combat Pistol) in 2005 brought some very nice guns to market as a result so I'm looking forward to picking the fruit that this round brings."

Exactly right!


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

Interesting:

http://www.beretta.com/en-us/berett...eration-handgun-to-the-department-of-defense/












> The M9A3 features a thin grip with a removable, modular wrap-around grip, MIL-STD-1913 accessory rail, removable front and rear tritium sights, extended and threaded barrel for suppressor use, 17-round sand resistant magazine, and numerous improved small components to increase durability and ergonomics, all in an earth tone finish.
> 
> "Furthermore, the M9A3 benefits from having a law enforcement and commercial variant that will be launched at S.H.O.T. Show 2015 in Las Vegas, NV" stated Rafe Bennett, Vice President of Product Marketing for Beretta USA. Mr. Bennett added, "The M9A3 offered to the DOD is the exact gun that consumers will be able to purchase in the second quarter of 2015.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I was just about to post this!


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

*Army Rejects M9A3 Proposal, Opts for New Pistol | Military.com*



> U.S. Army weapons officials will not evaluate an improved version of the service's Cold War-era 9mm pistol, choosing instead to search for a more modern soldier sidearm.
> 
> ....
> 
> ...


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Very interesting. I just handled the FNX 45 Tactical yesterday, and it is a monstrosity of a gun. No way it could be adopted! It's HUGE!!! I am curious to see what comes of this trial.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

There is talk of STI making a striker fire 1911 for S&W to enter into the fray. The article below speaks of this and gives pics.

Bearing ArmsThe Army Wants a New Handgun. Here It Is. And By The Way... You Can Have It NOW - Page 2 of 2 - Bearing Arms


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

GCBHM said:


> There is talk of STI making a striker fire 1911 for S&W to enter into the fray. The article below speaks of this and gives pics.
> 
> Bearing ArmsThe Army Wants a New Handgun. Here It Is. And By The Way... You Can Have It NOW - Page 2 of 2 - Bearing Arms


You might want to reread the article.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

VAMarine said:


> You might want to reread the article.


Why?


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

The gun referenced in the article is a Detonics not a STI. And the article is basically a hype piece for the same gun. Detonics has been basically defunct for the last 15 years and despite what the article says a poly gun has a very good chance and S&W will more than likely submit their own gun . Probably the M&P 45. Articles like this keep talking about the modular aspect but when you look at what the Army actually asked for the modularity isn't that big a deal if they stick to the info that was made public.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

VAMarine said:


> The gun referenced in the article is a Detonics not a STI. And the article is basically a hype piece for the same gun. Detonics has been basically defunct for the last 15 years and despite what the article says a poly gun has a very good chance and S&W will more than likely submit their own gun . Probably the M&P 45. Articles like this keep talking about the modular aspect but when you look at what the Army actually asked for the modularity isn't that big a deal if they stick to the info that was made public.


Well, to be fair, I never said the gun in the article was being made by STI. I said I heard talk that STI was working on developing a striker fire 1911 for S&W for the MGS trial. I posted the article, what I said speaks to this (this being that a striker fire 1911 has been worked on) to show that a striker fire 1911 wasn't just rumor. The concept is not just talk. I don't know if STI will end up making a SF 1911, but anything is possible. I agree the modular issue isn't that big a deal. I think the bigger deal is that the Army is actually looking at striker fire guns.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

Didn't see this coming: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/sto...stols-approved-for-marsoc-operators/23548847/


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

VAMarine said:


> *Army Rejects M9A3 Proposal, Opts for New Pistol | Military.com*


Beretta M9A3, Down But Not Out - The Firearm Blog

but, it looks like this dynamic duo may be hard for any manufacturer to beat. We will have to see how the approved entry's fair in the open competition and trials.

Smith & Wesson to bid on Pentagon handgun contract with General Dynamics as a partner | masslive.com


----------

