Should the military buy their new weapons off the shelf?

2016-03-28T09:52:02-04:00

I share his frustration and anger over the current process. Remember it was this same process that gave us the 9mm Beretta (aka M9) which replaced the old reliable 1911 45cal APC. Frankly with all the improvements made on John Brown's pistol and advancements in ballistics...the 45 APC is now a weapon of choice for many. The Chief is right, we need to move on.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2016/03/27/army-chief-you-want-new-pistol-send-me-cabelas-17-million/82132450/

Army chief: You want a new pistol? Send me to Cabela's with $17 million

The Army's top general improve the arduous ascquistion process.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Mar 28 at 2016 9:55 AM

2016-03-28T09:55:00-04:00

Totally agree with him.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Mar 28 at 2016 10:11 AM

2016-03-28T10:11:13-04:00

Wasn't the reasoning to get the M9 more ammo? If that is the case, then any weapon that carries only seven shots will have an issue. I don't mind the M9, but I've never fired it in combat. Stopping power...if he's close enough for you to use it, something is wrong right there. I like firing the .45, I own a .45, and can see the case for a higher caliber weapon. But at what point do we say when? If round capacity is a major factor, how could the .45 compete with the 9mm or .40? I'm not a grunt, but was always told the simple things matter. Oz = LBS = PAIN. So you take one thing away, but give me three additional items. Who is the winner in this one? Isn't this along the lines of the argument of moving away from the M4? Not enough stopping power compared to the AK or M14? But I can carry more ammo with the 5.56, and the 9mm is a fairly universal round also.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Mar 28 at 2016 10:27 AM

2016-03-28T10:27:37-04:00

I thought readers might want to know what the Chief's comments were before responding...I know I did,,http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2016/03/27/army-chief-you-want-new-pistol-send-me-cabelas-17-million/82132450/>

Second; I do not believe he referenced Cabellas as a source specifcally, it was a common, known brand he used to make a point... its not rocket science, and the "new" gun could be had by end of month if we allowed a process to do so.
None of the poll options fit IMHO, so I did not select one.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Mar 28 at 2016 11:23 AM

2016-03-28T11:23:46-04:00

I spent most of may career in the procurement game. The problem is DoD needs a one size fits all solution which means both ends of the bell curve will find the solution stinks. My Springfield Armory xDM 45 has a double stack magazine but it isn't an option for small hands even though it's better than the SIG. So it's a 9/10mm proposition if you want the capacity. DoD will spend more per unit if the specification falls outside the "Commercial Off the Shelf" (COTS) range of an acceptable pool of providers who can compete. Then they can specify a production rate which can be a problem with most of the pool. Then they specify "Buy American" which means the quality factory in Croatia that pumps out the Springfield Armory product is booted. Ramping up some new production facility in the US will mean growing pains that are inflicted on the SM, likely at a loss of life. Bottom line, anything beyond COTS rapidly increases the cost per unit. You'd think that say an order for 200,000 units should bring the price down. It does some but doesn't overcome the non COTS factor. So something that should cost about $400 a copy will cost a Grand. Never fear, about $200 of it is just dealing with the Government contracting system.

Response by 1LT William Clardy made Mar 28 at 2016 11:31 AM

2016-03-28T11:31:39-04:00

GEN Milley's procurement wet dream really begins and ends with "let me go buy it and not go through nine years of scrutiny". Because contractors are notoriously sore losers, somebody will have to void all of the existing avenues for protesting a contract to get away from that pre-award paperwork dedicated to minimizing the post-award legal challenges from the folks who didn't get to fondle GEN Milley's notional credit card.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Mar 28 at 2016 12:01 PM

2016-03-28T12:01:02-04:00

The RFI process should have proven to us that we can get top notch off the shelf equipment quickly and relatively cheaply. For things like small arms and tactical gear, there really isn't a reason to go through the whole R&D process when proven designs are already commercially available.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 28 at 2016 12:14 PM

2016-03-28T12:14:22-04:00

As much as it seems to make sense, no. There is actually a benefit to the "slow" process.

We've had the M16 platform since 1963~. That's 50+ years. Based on that, assume that any given weapon is going to be in the inventory for several decades.

Using the "common platform" concept, you want to make sure you get it right. Say what you will about the M9 (which I personally despise), it meets the requirements as defined by the procurement process. Those requirements may have been badly defined, but it met them.

Could the process be faster? Hell yes. Do we need to swap to COTS? No way. Inserts too many variables into the system and would result in something akin to the 10mm fiasco that the FBI experienced. You end up with something that is Subjectively Good, but wrong for the Services as a whole. Our process prevents that.

It's dumping A LOT of money into an insurance policy which your really don't see the benefits of because they are transparent. The policy gets rid of A LOT of bad pieces of gear early on. It also gets rid of a lot of good pieces of gear (which aren't sustainable or supportable), and you end up with mediocre but supportable gear.

Speaking from the Government SELLER side (did it for years), we don't sell the government the BEST. We sell them "best value" which is the best you can get within budget. Most of what is fielded is Objectively Good Gear (but relatively "bad" compared to what is available). The M9 (92F) is like that. It's not a bad piece of gear. It does exactly what it was designed to do for 85%+ of the people who use it. The other 15% (people with small hands, or those who have lots of experience with handguns) will hate it. But that's true of any handgun.

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Mar 28 at 2016 12:40 PM

2016-03-28T12:40:55-04:00

LTC Thomas Tennant - Every time we prepared to disembark, I would go to below decks to draw my 9-mm. After I holstered my weapon, I'd return to the end of the line... to draw an M-16A2 as well. The armorer asked why I wanted the rifle in addition to my pistol. My pat answer: "Have you seen my pistol qual scores?!" Some might say it wasn't the pistol's fault. However, I felt if I needed it (the rifle, that is). Otherwise, I might as well be throwing bullets at the bad guys.

Response by 1LT William Clardy made Mar 28 at 2016 12:48 PM

2016-03-28T12:48:10-04:00

One other item which I feel compelled to remind folks about: Replacing the M9 is only marginally mor important to the overall effectiveness of the U.S. armed forces than the color of issue underwear.

In military operations, the purpose of a pistol is to make reassuringly loud bangs while throwing tiny metal rocks in the general direction of the enemy to discourage them from chasing while the soldier runs to safety (or at least to get closer to friendlies whose job it is to actually kill the enemy).

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Mar 28 at 2016 1:31 PM

2016-03-28T13:31:50-04:00

I believe most understand the need for standardization and the terrible procurement system throughout the DOD and most law enforcement. But, it would seem that for the purpose a sidearm serves, there should be commonality. There are plenty of spec available for the intelligentsia to analyze to come up with the best caliber and style to meet the needs of the person carrying the firearm. Our local law enforcement has gone all the way around the bend and now goes with the .45, you know the one,

"A highly religious man who was a former pacifist and the legendary pistol he carried are responsible for one of the most impressive acts of an American fighting man in the nation’s history.
His name was Sgt. Alvin York and during World War I he used a M1911 .45-caliber pistol to stop an attack by six German soldiers while he helped assault a German machine-gun nest near Chatel-Chéhéry on the Western Front.
On Oct. 8, 1918, York drew his pistol after emptying his Enfield rifle at the enemy. Then he was rushed by the bayonet charge—and had one bullet left in his M1911 when four German officers and 128 German soldiers surrendered to him and his command."

Response by SFC Marcus Belt made Mar 28 at 2016 2:10 PM

2016-03-28T14:10:11-04:00

9mm vs .45ACP ball ammo...which is still what we're using...the answer is: it doesn't freaking matter. The M9 is no better than the 1911, but it's no worse than the 1911s they replaced, the newest of which were over 40 years old a the time. 9mm gives supply commonality with our allies. And if you put the bullet where it's supposed to go, it doesn't matter. If you don't, it doesn't matter.

The General's point is that we're wasting time, money and energy worrying about the least lethal weapon in the entire inventory. The most formidable military force on the planet is wrapped around the axle on piece of gear just about anybody can buy.

I like Glocks. I learned to shoot on a 1911. I'm issued an M9 in addition to my M4. I currently own a S&W. And I don't care.

Response by SPC(P) Jay Heenan made Mar 28 at 2016 3:12 PM

2016-03-28T15:12:49-04:00

I think that this article shows his frustration with the whole procurement process. He certainly didn't mean drive over to Cabela's and purchase a crap ton of pistols for everyone. There isn't a 'universal' gun for everyone. Some hands are bigger or smaller, etc. I believe he is just getting people talking about the procurement system. There are many, already proven, pistols produced. The issue is money, when we go through the process for a new weapon, it all comes down to money and how many people get paid during the process. Take the M4 as an example. There is a mass produced replacement that fit the requirements...piston driven, larger caliber, cost effective, etc., it is the H&K 416. You would only have to switch out the upper saving THOUSANDS of dollars over buying a whole rifle. We stayed with Colt, even though it failed compared to most all of the other rifles.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Mar 28 at 2016 3:48 PM

2016-03-28T15:48:57-04:00

I had no issue with either 45 or 9 mm, but we need to keep one side arm only because of the ammo issue; and if we are that close to fighting were we have to use our side arm things are bad and ammo conservation is critical.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2016 4:02 PM

2016-03-28T16:02:07-04:00

I would just like to try and see someone go into Cabela's with a GPC and say give me all the Glock 19s you have.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Mar 28 at 2016 6:02 PM

2016-03-28T18:02:13-04:00

I think that he was just using Cabella's as an example. Our current system is expensive, ineffective and just plain stupid.

Response by CW4 Scott Hyde made Mar 31 at 2016 5:03 PM

2016-03-31T17:03:48-04:00

No need for a maintenace program. Just slap down some cash for a new pustil and go. If you gave cash to buy a pistol, Joes would be buying High Points and dropping the rest on beer. Their buddy said High Point was the way to go so why not?

The 1911 is a great pistol but those in the racks through the 90s were bought/made in the 40s and rebuilt over the years. I like the 1911 better than the M9 but what we had needed replacing. No single pistol will satisfy everyone. 9mm is a NATO standard, .45 ACP is a better round. If you cannot shoot, neither work well.

The procurement process is long and costly but you buy the maintenance support over the life of the system. While you and I can buy a pistol for seemingly far less than the government, we are not buying a cradle to grave log and maint package with it.