The Army has extended the submission deadline to Feb 12th. The article claims that Beretta, Glock, SigSauer, Smith & Wesson and HundK are submitting proposals.
Ruger isn't and I think they're smart not to. My belief is that the costs of the MHS program will keep climbing, to the point that Congress and/or the DoD will kill the program, if only to claim that they are serious about restraining costs.
But meanwhile, the F-35 Turkey II program marches on, blowing through more cash in a few weeks than what the Army would have spent on a bunch of overpriced pistols.
(357 page proposal to buy a fucking handgun? Goddamn their eyes.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
357 pages? I think I could set the parameters down on one page.
1) Must go bang every time the trigger is pulled
2) Must never go bang without the trigger being pulled
etc.
In comparison the committee that selected the new Army pistol in 1907 took a total of 3 months to decide on two models to buy for extended trials and that was when autoloading pistols were the cutting edge of firearms design.
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/1907-us-pistol-revolver-trials/
Al_in_Ottawa
In 1907, Army officers ran things. These days, they have contractors to manage such thing, overseeing other contractors. "Incestuous" doesn't even come close to describing military procurement nowadays.
Me, I'd buy a thousand of each gun at LE pricing. I'd give 500 of each to the Jarheads, the other 500 to the Grunts and say: "Go play with these and give me a report on what you think about them. You got nine months."
So the bet is: "I bet the Army in the future cancels the program and claims they are saving money thusly."?
NO BET! Not even with odds.
Does the Army keep statistics about how many of the (perceived) enemy were killed by handguns, by long guns, by artillery, by incompetence?
And the same question for friendly fire?
Just trying to guage the importance of the proposed acquisition ;-)
Stu, I have no idea.
Stu,
I would expect that the military's are keeping some sort of data on it.
From what I've heard and read, the handgun has been used as a primary offensive weapon by some non-officers since at least Panama in '89. It's use has been increasing since then. Previously, it was not common for pistols to be carried by lower ranks, but that seems to have changed during the first Iraqi war, and continued to accelerate after 9-11.
It appears that the Beretta didn't last as long as the 1911's did, for various reasons. They seem to have worn them out in around 25years. There was a political basis behind the Beretta selection, that is no longer valid. Since they have discovered that pistols are actually useful, they have to find a replacement before the remaining ones are toast. You can't keep bandaiding these like you could the 1911's, there is a definite life expectancy.
One factor that seems to have pissed off a lot of soldiers, and more importantly their families, is the magazine problems. I suspect this may have a bearing on why there appears to be no consideration on renewing the purchase contracts.
Beretta didn't do itself any favors with their attitude toward US civilians once they got that military contract in hand.
Post a Comment