Posted on Mar 28, 2016
Should the military buy their new weapons off the shelf?
10.6K
99
56
4
4
0
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/
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2016/03/27/army-chief-you-want-new-pistol-send-me-cabelas-17-million/82132450/
Pistol Shooting
Equipment
Procurement
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 16
5
5
0
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).
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).
(5)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
LTC Thomas Tennant - meh.....even as a gunslinger, it's STILL just a pistol. Better than nothing, but if it's the only weapon you have in full fledged firefight, you are in a bad spot regardless of how good you are with it. Again, it's what I'll use to keep the bad guys at bay until I can find something more effective.
(2)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
Exactly, LTC Paul Labrador.
If your name isn't Alvin York and you're using a pistol against guys with rifles and machine guns, LTC Thomas Tennant, then you're almost certainly a reluctant target trying to discourage unwanted attention, not a shooter trying to attrit the enemy.
And if my primary weapon is already a rifle (or carbine), then 3 or 4 more magazines for feeding said rifle would be a more generally useful addition to my combat load than a pistol plus 3 magazines of any caliber.
If your name isn't Alvin York and you're using a pistol against guys with rifles and machine guns, LTC Thomas Tennant, then you're almost certainly a reluctant target trying to discourage unwanted attention, not a shooter trying to attrit the enemy.
And if my primary weapon is already a rifle (or carbine), then 3 or 4 more magazines for feeding said rifle would be a more generally useful addition to my combat load than a pistol plus 3 magazines of any caliber.
(2)
(0)
LTC Thomas Tennant
LTC Paul Labrador - I know what you mean, but if I am drawing my sidearm then things have gotten up close and personal. I just bought my Smith & Wesson MP-15 and put a red-dot sight with Magpol pop-up sights as backup. SWEET....And Nothing like the damn M-16s I had to use in the 1980-90s. Bottom line....use the right tool for the situation.
(0)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
LTC Thomas Tennant, being just an infantry-type guy, I had no problem with using M16A1s (or even the XM16E1 that I happened to get assigned) back in the 1970s and 1980s. And those old rifles gave me more options than any pistol for when things were distant as well up close and personal. "Sweet" was not a term I used to describe any of the tools I trained with -- they weren't there to provide any satisfaction, they were just there to do a job with minimal fuss.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
LTC Thomas Tennant
Spoken like a JAG officer.... ;-)
To get around the contracting issues you raised, I would give the choice of firearm, in this case pistol, to the individual service member. We give them a clothing allowance, why not give them a "pistol allowance" and hold them accountable for proper execution of this expenditure.
The only controls I would put in place is caliber (9mm or 45APC), the pistol had to be "full sized" and that the individual go through 40 hours of handgun training where they are exposed to different pistols before they buy. The end state is a individual who has a CCDW and is competent to carry. Another control I would even entertain is the idea they could only buy from an approved list of pistol types and manufacturers.
Now cost control comes in the form of getting manufatures to give military discounts and cost savings. An example is that Glock has the "blue label" program for military and law enforcement which chops off $100 to $150 off the MRP. If I am sure other gun manufactures can be enticed to have similar programs.
I personally carry a Glock 19 but also have a Ruger SR1911 45cal pistol I carry from time to time. I carry a number of smaller pistols and revolers in an ankle holster. I love my Beretta PX4 Storm Compact 9mm but it is a little heavy for day to day concealed carry when compared to my Glock 19. The same could be said about my Ruger SR1911, however all would be acceptable for a personal weapon for our soldiers.
Now, if we can get our leadership to eliminate the "gun free zone" status of most military bases....I think we will be right where we should be...2nd Amendment Heaven.
To get around the contracting issues you raised, I would give the choice of firearm, in this case pistol, to the individual service member. We give them a clothing allowance, why not give them a "pistol allowance" and hold them accountable for proper execution of this expenditure.
The only controls I would put in place is caliber (9mm or 45APC), the pistol had to be "full sized" and that the individual go through 40 hours of handgun training where they are exposed to different pistols before they buy. The end state is a individual who has a CCDW and is competent to carry. Another control I would even entertain is the idea they could only buy from an approved list of pistol types and manufacturers.
Now cost control comes in the form of getting manufatures to give military discounts and cost savings. An example is that Glock has the "blue label" program for military and law enforcement which chops off $100 to $150 off the MRP. If I am sure other gun manufactures can be enticed to have similar programs.
I personally carry a Glock 19 but also have a Ruger SR1911 45cal pistol I carry from time to time. I carry a number of smaller pistols and revolers in an ankle holster. I love my Beretta PX4 Storm Compact 9mm but it is a little heavy for day to day concealed carry when compared to my Glock 19. The same could be said about my Ruger SR1911, however all would be acceptable for a personal weapon for our soldiers.
Now, if we can get our leadership to eliminate the "gun free zone" status of most military bases....I think we will be right where we should be...2nd Amendment Heaven.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
CAPT Kevin B.
I wasn't a weapons procurement type so didn't know the historical aspects. Although the M9 is COTS as you say, it's purported flaws (underpowered, open slide dirty, limited lifespan, etc.) just begs the question of as compared to what way back when. Newer designs tend to target "flaws" so I expect the next one to be more capable, COTS or otherwise.
(0)
(0)
LTC Thomas Tennant
Oh how I hated giving up my government issue 1911 Colt 45 for the piece of crap called the Beretta M9 9mm. Back in the early 80's I am one of those old soldiers who hated that transition.
At the time ballistics and the gun itself were underwhelming particularly when you consider we were limited to jacketed rounds and forbidden to use hollow points. The other dirty secrete was the powder loads were not "full loads" because of "chamber presser" issues. This lack of consistency in the powder loads cause bullet trajectory issues and an otherwise Expert handgun instructor to have to repeatedly re-qualify much to his and everyone's amusement. I wonder how many troops' lives were placed in jeopardy because of this weapon. And this was after more than two years of testing!!!!
So please forgive me if I have no faith in this procurement process. Berreta ultimately won the bid due to cost and fitting into the "bell" curve the procurement types are so found of. I am afraid we are being "penny wise and pound foolish."
FROM AN EARLIER POST: To get around the contracting issues you raised, I would give the choice of firearm, in this case pistol, to the individual service member. We give them a clothing allowance, why not give them a "pistol allowance" and hold them accountable for proper execution of this expenditure.
The only controls I would put in place is caliber (9mm or 45APC), the pistol had to be "full sized" and that the individual go through 40 hours of handgun training where they are exposed to different pistols before they buy. The end state is a individual who has a CCDW and is competent to carry. Another control I would even entertain is the idea they could only buy from an approved list of pistol types and manufacturers. Now cost control comes in the form of getting manufactures to give military discounts and cost savings. An example is that Glock has the "blue label" program for military and law enforcement which chops off $100 to $150 off the MRP. If I am sure other gun manufactures can be enticed to have similar programs.
I personally carry a Glock 19 but also have a Ruger SR1911 45cal pistol I carry from time to time. I carry a number of smaller pistols and revolers in an ankle holster. I love my Beretta PX4 Storm Compact 9mm but it is a little heavy for day to day concealed carry when compared to my Glock 19. The same could be said about my Ruger SR1911, however all would be acceptable for a personal weapon for our soldiers.
Now, if we can get our leadership to eliminate the "gun free zone" status of most military bases....I think we will be right where we should be...2nd Amendment Heaven.
At the time ballistics and the gun itself were underwhelming particularly when you consider we were limited to jacketed rounds and forbidden to use hollow points. The other dirty secrete was the powder loads were not "full loads" because of "chamber presser" issues. This lack of consistency in the powder loads cause bullet trajectory issues and an otherwise Expert handgun instructor to have to repeatedly re-qualify much to his and everyone's amusement. I wonder how many troops' lives were placed in jeopardy because of this weapon. And this was after more than two years of testing!!!!
So please forgive me if I have no faith in this procurement process. Berreta ultimately won the bid due to cost and fitting into the "bell" curve the procurement types are so found of. I am afraid we are being "penny wise and pound foolish."
FROM AN EARLIER POST: To get around the contracting issues you raised, I would give the choice of firearm, in this case pistol, to the individual service member. We give them a clothing allowance, why not give them a "pistol allowance" and hold them accountable for proper execution of this expenditure.
The only controls I would put in place is caliber (9mm or 45APC), the pistol had to be "full sized" and that the individual go through 40 hours of handgun training where they are exposed to different pistols before they buy. The end state is a individual who has a CCDW and is competent to carry. Another control I would even entertain is the idea they could only buy from an approved list of pistol types and manufacturers. Now cost control comes in the form of getting manufactures to give military discounts and cost savings. An example is that Glock has the "blue label" program for military and law enforcement which chops off $100 to $150 off the MRP. If I am sure other gun manufactures can be enticed to have similar programs.
I personally carry a Glock 19 but also have a Ruger SR1911 45cal pistol I carry from time to time. I carry a number of smaller pistols and revolers in an ankle holster. I love my Beretta PX4 Storm Compact 9mm but it is a little heavy for day to day concealed carry when compared to my Glock 19. The same could be said about my Ruger SR1911, however all would be acceptable for a personal weapon for our soldiers.
Now, if we can get our leadership to eliminate the "gun free zone" status of most military bases....I think we will be right where we should be...2nd Amendment Heaven.
(0)
(0)
CAPT Kevin B.
I grew up on the 1911 as well, hence carried one of those in the badlands. The kids were envious. The junior ENLs would say they have to protect the Old Man because he only had 8 rounds. I'd just smile and say my mag had 6 kills in it while yours had 4. When I got the quizzical looks, I'd just say it's the "New Math". I always shot better with it vs. the M9 so it was a matter of comfort and safety with me.
(0)
(0)
CAPT Kevin B.
1LT William Clardy Thanks for the input. One thing COTS does is ultimately give you an 80% product. That's the general fit that the item will give "adequate" service to the highest percentage of users. Since the M9 came out, there was still a need for more specialized items typically found in the SOF arena. With the extreme work they do, the extra percentage points towards optimal make a difference, hence you'd see the "Not your Father's" 1911, Sig, and other weapons out there. The question is whether or not COTS is the best answer overall in the grand scheme of things. FAR rules pretty much say you have to have a good business case analysis to move away from COTS. SOF work passed muster. So I would presume if the current solicitation being put together has SPECS outside of COTS, then the BCA must have passed muster. I don't follow it enough to have any particular opinion either way.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
LTC Thomas Tennant
CPT Strobl....give me two days and you will be an expert. Better yet, if I fail, my back up is the NCO who taught me...SFC(R) Mike Jones will make you a gun slinger as well.
(1)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
Capt Mark Strobl, I'd ask why bother drawing the pistol if you could pack a couple more magazines for the rifle instead -- unless SFC(R) Mike Jones could teach you how to consistently hit targets at more than a hundred meters away with a pistol.
(1)
(0)
Capt Mark Strobl
LTC Thomas Tennant - Hey, I'll always accept any training from those who can make me better. I was (am better now) a spaz with the pistol. Although I always qualified, I did wear all three pistol qaul badges. Tough for a jarhead to go to the PX and buy the Marksman badge --even tougher to pin it on.
1LT William Clardy - You parrot my sentiments exactly. The rifle meant that I could engage at a comfortable distance. Should I ever have had to use the pistol, I knew that I was out of .223 rounds.
1LT William Clardy - You parrot my sentiments exactly. The rifle meant that I could engage at a comfortable distance. Should I ever have had to use the pistol, I knew that I was out of .223 rounds.
(1)
(0)
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
LTC Thomas Tennant
In the end we have an overall good weapon system. But frankly there is something very personal about handgun selection.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SFC Marcus Belt - The 10mm issue you describe (not enough voice) is what I meant by "individual discretion." Our procurement process weeds that out FAST. That's a good thing. We want "committee" decisions. We don't want executive decisions when it comes to equipment or you end up with things like the 10mm.
(0)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
Let me rephrase, LTC Paul Labrador.
If you only have a 4-pound weight allowance (because of all the other cru... er, "mission essential stuff" you are carrying), which would you rather have?
If you only have a 4-pound weight allowance (because of all the other cru... er, "mission essential stuff" you are carrying), which would you rather have?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google