USAF Request Bids on new Handguns

[max popenker]

just a little bit of history repeating...

In 1978 the USAF ordnance research laboratory at Eglin AFB began a test and evaluation process in the search for a new military sidearm.

They should wait two more years to release that requirement.

Wonder how far this will go, and at what stage Army will ring in to get a grip on the process, like it did back in '80

 

[Seven High]

9MM is still NATO standard. It is not going away any time soon. The USAF would be better served by seeking a more effective 9MM round for the M9.

 

[Ray P]

They might as well bring back the M1 G(a)rands too.

That idea does have some value; last I heard, the M14 (a Garand with a detachable box mag & a selector switch) has established a niche for itself in Afganastan & Iraq.

Why are you all assuming this RFP has Airman Snuffy as the intended recipient? OK, it could be intended for some AF specwar group; but most likely it is intended for some A-76 security contractor or a group of Iraqi pilots or IAF security police under instruction.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Wonder how far this will go, and at what stage Army will ring in to get a grip on the process, like it did back in '80

Well, USASOC is still pursuing a new pistol, despite the cancellation of the RFP for .45 cal weapons a couple months ago, so this is kind of a concurrent issue rather than one where the USAF is getting out in front of everyone else.

9MM is still NATO standard. It is not going away any time soon. The USAF would be better served by seeking a more effective 9MM round for the M9.

NATO standardization for handgun cartridges does not seem to be a real big priority right now. With SMGs being pretty much dead, it really would not be a big issue even if we did a major shooting war as part of NATO. Rifle and MG ammo matters, but pistols are pretty incidental, even with the recent major increase in basis of issue.

 

[cyco668]

My vote is for any gun that shoots 10mm.
The military usually uses US made fire arms. I think all standard issue weapons are Made in USA. The Beretta's are made in Maryland.
Since a 10mm is unlikely, my next choice would be a CZ in a .40 cal. It's the right size, super reliable, and great ergonomics. CZ's also have all the latest features: rails, ambi- safetys, polymer frames, highcap, decockers, just about anything. They are also probably the simplest to field strip with a minimum numbers of parts.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Why are you all assuming this RFP has Airman Snuffy as the intended recipient? OK, it could be intended for some AF specwar group; but most likely it is intended for some A-76 security contractor or a group of Iraqi pilots or IAF security police under instruction.

Could be, though I think certain aspects of the request don't suggest that (i.e. requirement to be able to fit a suppressor doesn't seem like a necessary idea for Iraqi security forces, decision to change to 40S&W or 45ACP). Plus it's a largish contract -- 100K weapons over five years time. And the Iraqis and Afghans don't seem to have to run their pistols through the same contract solicitation as stuff intended for US personnel -- somebody just gets the money and buys 5K Rugers, Glocks, whatever.

 

[progunner1957]

As I understand it, the design criteria requires an autoloader chambered in
.25 caliber with a triple stack magazine capacity of 30 rounds...

 

[ugaarguy]

The USAF would be better served by seeking a more effective 9MM round for the M9.

Well that's a wonderful idea, but how should we do that. LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict) pretty well restricts us to ball ammo. Expaning ammo is not allowed. So you're stuck with FMJ, and the only way to increase performance is to get a wider bullet or deeper penetration, or both.

jwalk, I'm with you on what you're saying. Where I am now I don't need a weapon, but we still take indiredt fire. However, we do train to set up our own sites outside of a fixed installation, provide our own security and run our own convoys. In fact, some time ago another squadron was here when our site was moved from it's previous location to it's current one, and they convoyed the equipment thru Iraq. We don't need it all the time, but do train for the possibility. Of Course, I'd be carrying a rifle and not a pistol in those situations. For others, such as you, a good sidearm is critical. I hope this progresses well and you and others get a great pistol out of it. I'll be keeping my eyes open. Of course 'Card is just an old grunt messin with us Air Force types, all in good fun.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Well that's a wonderful idea, but how should we do that. LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict) pretty well restricts us to ball ammo. Expaning ammo is not allowed. So you're stuck with FMJ, and the only way to increase performance is to get a wider bullet or deeper penetration, or both.

When I was on a Bradley crew it was always legal to engage troops with 25mm HEI. Someone just needs to figure out how to cram about 40 grains of high explosive and a delayed contact fuze into a 9mm round and -- no muss, no fuss, and no worries about JHP ammo.

Probably really a bad idea on a lot of levels, but awfully amusing in certain specific ways . . .

 

[possum]

how about this we all sit back and wait and if any change is made it will happen that is about the only way i believe anything to do with the military is when it actually happens!

 

[XavierBreath]

ugaarguy,
'Card,
Everyone knows we don't need the Air Farce or the Urmy Inpanties as long as we have NavAir, the USMC and the rest of the US Navy.

Good show gents...........
Nobility is shown in how a man makes good.

Oh, and on that 1911 gun thing........I vote that every service member in Iraq should get an extra magazine of ammo for his carbine, and adequate body armor instead. How about a pay raise for the family back home too? Keep the silly new handgun........

Of course my vote means little......

 

[jaysouth]

Xavierbreath said:

Oh, and on that 1911 gun thing........I vote that every service member in Iraq should get an extra magazine of ammo for his carbine, and adequate body armor instead. How about a pay raise for the family back home too? Keep the silly new handgun........



Xavier,

You must be the only other combat veteran on this board. A stinking silly handgun is a waste of carrying capacity for a combat solder. In vn we would have rather had dry socks and a hot meat once a week.

It might be worth noting that the Air Force abandoned the 1911 in the 50s. The reason was to give aviators a one handed gun to carry on their survival vest. Ditto, the Army, aviators were issued revolvers because a revolver could be put into action with only one hand. That is, draw and shoot.

Some of you may not remember, but armed forces doctrine expressly prohibits carrying a 1911 with a round chambered, even in combat. Indeed, the armed forces expressly probhibited their personnel from carrying a 1911 in the SOG, that is seat of government that we know as Washington, D.C. MPs working the District of Columbia carried revolvers from WWII until the time the M-9 was issued.

Dunno what it is about the services and 1911s that brings out the nitwittery in the tactical commandos.

 

[45auto]

As noted, there is no funding for this "request" anyway!
So, don't hold your breath.

There has to be some political/insider "stuff" going on in the armed forces for a request such as this again... given the previous defunct Joint combat handgun proposal...has to be!

All this for a handgun. Doesn't make much sense given all that's going on.

 

[Jkwas]

They should issue S&W model 64's with 3in barrels.

 

[Devonai]

A stinking silly handgun is a waste of carrying capacity for a combat solder.

Tell that to the M60 gunners and the 11 Charlies in my unit.

 

[DRZinn]

Dunno what it is about the services and 1911s that brings out the nitwittery in the tactical commandos.

So anyone who thinks a 1911 is a good choice of handgun is a "tactical commando," right?

 

[HorseSoldier]

Tell that to the M60 gunners and the 11 Charlies in my unit.

You guys still have 60s? I thought they were even gone in the 'Guard except for door guns. (/off topic mode)

 

[KurtC]

Keep in mind that the Air Force has issued an RFI, not an RFP. They are not looking for bids, they are still looking for ideas. The only thing you can read out of this is that they do not want another 9mm, and they do not want an open slide.

 

[Soybomb]

I'd like to know how often the air force uses a handgun. I can't imagine much of the military winds up using handguns all that often.

 

[KurtC]

Actually, the Air Force probably carries a handgun more than the Army. Everyone in a combat zone needs to have a sidearm, and most Air Force duties inhibit the carrying of anything as large as an M4 carbine. The list would include all pilots, aircrew, maintenance and logistics personnel.

 

[jwalk]

Soybomb:

The Airforce uses handguns very fequently. Ask security forces how often they use handguns. Like I said before many AF members are only issued handguns. Aircrews, and pilots are only issued M-9's they don't have the room for any M-16's/M-4's unless you're on a helicopter crew. That would mostly be search and rescue. Pararescue, tac-p's, security forces that fly with aircrews all use handguns. How often are they actually used? Not much. I'll give anone that. But, that shouldn't let that stop you from looking at a new handgun. Why even issue sidearms in the first place? If we're going to stick to regular ball ammo I believe we have to go with a bigger round than the 9mm.

On the cost or funding of a new handgun:
The AF said it was looking at purchasing 100,000. If you get a contract for $500-600 per weapon that's $60 million. Bump that up to $100 million for parts and magazines. I know 500-600 might be low, but you're generally looking at $100-150 million to get it off the ground. That's one less airplane, or cut R&D on some projects for one year, ish. I personnally feel it would be a good investment. Get all the military off the 9mm and into something bigger. We're looking at a decades-long conflict off and on in the Middle East and throughout the world. Why not give our military a reliable weapon with some knockdown power?

 

[jaysouth]

Everybody take a deep breath.

When the army carried 1911s they werre crap. The finish was worn off, they rattled, the signts and triggers were lousey, and they did not work half the time.

On my first tour in VN, we had so much trouble that they were withdrawn. No body complained.

The 11B pig gunners were happy

The 11Cs were happy

The 11Hs were happy

The 1142s(lieutenant platoon leaders) were happy

The XO and Co were happy.

The armorer was delirious.

We had never inflicted a casualty on the enemy. We had one GI dead and one GI WIA from negligent discharges.

It took half an hour a day to scrub the rust off so they could rust again overnight. We carried them in leather holsters that were as wet as we were from 24 hours daily monsoon rains.

Every thing we had and fought with we carried on our backs. We got resupplied every other day and otherwise ate, slept, deficated, fought and died in the triple canopy rainforest that covered 4,000 foot mountains. When we were relieved of those stupid .45s, we supplimented the weight with extra frags, ammo, trip flares, claymores and medical supplies that could save our lives.

We never suffered a casualty from an enemy that was located within handgun range. I never saw a tripwire or boody trap that could be taken out with a pistol. I never heard of anyone shooing an RPG or mortar round out of the air with a .45. No body ever killed a machine gunner up the mountain with a .45.

They were a stupid waste of weight and effort.

Anybody that thinks the 1911s that we had were effective weapons is probably too dumb to figure out that Mack Bolan books are fiction.

 

[Boats]

Anyone who thinks their anecdotal evidence is proof of their assertions has some issues of his own.

http://www.sightm1911.com/ Check out the "Myths & Legends" page for battlefield accounts and MOH and other individual citations from WWI through Vietnam, and you'll find the M1911 had, and has, a hard to ignore track record in actual conflict.

Is the 1911 a good candidate for reissue? No, the PC faction in the military has always been uncomfortable with the weapon, especially in peacetime. Is any other pistol really an improvement upon it? Not really.

Just like all branches of the military might have been better served by actual Armory level remanufacturing of the rattle trap 1911A1s even I used in the Navy in the late 80s, the M9 wouldn't have half the bad rap it does if the DoD spent appropriate upkeep money. Nothing would perform well with Checkmate magazines in it is my suspicion.

What would indeed be funny, should it ever come to pass, is were Beretta, already in Maryland, to win the next pistol contract with their PX4. There'd be some high-pitched whining heard that day for sure.

 

[Skywarp]

Of course the MOH winners are going to show the stunning credentials of the 1911. That's what was issued. If we issued high powers people would be goign on and on about how amazing the high power and 9x19 are.

 

[Boats]

Well, DUH! If we'd adopted the .45ACP Luger, it'd be that one. Most of my post was in specific response to this commentary:

They were a stupid waste of weight and effort.

Anybody that thinks the 1911s that we had were effective weapons is probably too dumb to figure out that Mack Bolan books are fiction.

Just because one guy's unit had crappily maintained copies of a particular weapon doesn't mean carrying one was a universal waste of weight and effort or all, or even many, were combat ineffective.