… what would they ask for?
According to a current RFI (Request for Information) from PM SW (Program Manager Soldier Weapons) which is part of PEO Solider (Program Executive Office) they apparently want a gun that has a lot of acronyms in its name.
OK, maybe not. But the RFI is interesting. The purpose of an RFI is twofold. First, it is a way for a potential buyer — in this case, the Army — to get a solid grasp on current and emerging technologies. After all, there’s no point in asking for a gun that can make waffles on Sunday unless someone is actually producing (or at least has the capability to develop) a gun that actually does that. Second, it’s a way for the buyer to let the industry know what it wants the gun to do. Essentially, it puts the industry on notice by saying, “If your gun can’t do this today, you better fix it before we start testing.”
So what, in particular, does the RFI tells us about the Army’s ideal handgun?
Reliability & Durability: Warning, more acronyms inbound. They’re looking for at least
- 2,000 MRBS (Mean Rounds Between Stoppage, which is what you and I would think of as a malfunction… this happens to be my own personal standard as well)
- 10,000 MRBF (Mean Rounds Between Failure, basically how many rounds you’ll go before something breaks and needs to be replaced for the gun to function properly again)
- 35,000 round service life (meaning they expect all of the major components to last 35k)
Based on my experience, these numbers will be easy to hit with any number of quality name brand pistols manufactured today.
Accuracy: They want a gun capable of hitting a 4″ circle 90% of the time at fifty meters when fired from a mechanical rest. I’d never argue against more accurate handguns. But given the overall level of training, not to mention the questionable performance of typical military ammo from lot to lot, one has to wonder who this incredibly tight accuracy standard will benefit. More importantly, what compromises might need to be made in terms of size, weight, reliability, etc. in order to get there?
Terminal Performance: They want a caliber/bullet that is more lethal than the current military-grade 9mm FMJ while still being an FMJ. The RFI also hints at a desire for a gun capable of handling 20% greater chamber pressure than the SAAMI specification for the cartridge. Remember, a “+p” ammo rating is usually about 10% higher than the normal SAAMI spec (e.g., it’s 38.5kpsi for the 9mm which has a 35kpsi limit at normal pressure; for .45 Auto the standard is 21kpsi and the +p is 23kpsi). Again this seems to be ignoring the level of marksmanship capability of 99% of the soldiers in the US Army who get little to no training and will definitely see a diminution of ability with a +uber+ pressure handgun load.
Ergonomics: In military-speak, ergonomics often comes under the rubric of “modularity.” In this case, PM SW is looking for a gun with multiple grip sizes and ambidextrous controls. Almost every major manufacturer meets that requirement now and it’s a very good example of how the firearms industry’s innovations — fueled by consumer demand and paid for by the purchases of ordinary private citizens — trickle up to major contracts like this. Worth noting is that the list of controls that should be easily accessed includes “safety.” The inclusion of a manual safety lever has always been a point of contention among some shooters and some gun manufacturers, but having discussed this with engineers at Picatinny I can tell you that they’ve got logic on their side. Every other weapon system in the US Army arsenal has a safety lever so from both a commonality of training and, you know, a safety standpoint, they feel it’s a benefit. Of course, companies that don’t have external safeties such as Glock now get, through the RFI process, a chance to plead their case and try to influence PM SW before a formal procurement, called an RFP (Request for Proposal) gets written.
Bells & whistles: The other part of “modularity” is the ability to attach as many different gizmos to the gun as possible. The RFI specifically lists lights, lasers, and sound suppressors. Noticeably absent from that list was red dot sight (RDS).
It’s also important to note that the RFI is not necessarily a signal that the Army is ditching its M9s next week. This is at least the third time a major push for new handguns has come out of DOD over the past ten years. It causes a big stir in the industry and the shooting community but then someone high up the chain of command looks at his limited budget, looks at how often handguns are a deciding factor in war, looks at the fact that the M9 for the most part is still doing everything they need from a pistol, and decides to postpone the whole thing until later.
I’ve been part of the RFI process both from the industry side while working at Beretta & SIG and from the government side during the ATF New Weapon System procurement. While time consuming and sometimes contentious it is an important step in a process that leads to a long term commitment on the parts of both the manufacturer and the military. If this RFI really does lead to a formal procurement, it will be interesting to see the specifications evolve.
You can see the actual RFI at FedBizOpps.
Train hard & stay safe! ToddG
That list, other than the “more lethal than 9mm FMJ” requirement sure sounds like the P30S. Even then, I think the P30S can do +P+, but there’s probably a caveat about how that reduces the service life.
I can say that in my field (software development), the #1 worst mistake you can make is allowing a customer to dictate features. The customer needs to dictate OUTCOMES. In this case, instead of listing “features” (“must use a round more lethal than 9mm FMJ”) they need to list the desired outcome: “must improve the lethality by 20% per round fired” for example, and how the gun gets there (better ammunition, easier to shoot more accurately, etc.) should be up to the manufacturer.
That’s how you spur innovation and get the needed result, instead of getting folks to cough up something that meets your conception of what is needed.
J.Ja
The addition of a manual safety is prudent, especially with a weapon that is used around a lot of gear, like that typically worn by military personnel, that can potentially snag triggers causing an AD.
It is time to move beyond the illogical prohibitions regarding modern deforming small arms projectiles in the antiquated 1899 Hague Convention and authorize all U.S. military personnel to routinely field the same deforming ammunition used daily by American LE officers, as it has consistently proven to be efficacious in rapidly stopping hostile actions by violent opponents and highly effective at protecting both friendly forces and innocent civilians.
In many respects, the use of deforming LE type ammunition during modern combat is far more humane, as accurate and effective ammunition reduces the need for multiple shots–decreasing the chance of shots missing the intended opponent and striking innocent civilians. Deforming projectiles also mitigate the potential of innocent bystanders getting hit by bullets which first perforate the target. They may also reduce the number of times a dangerous opponent must be shot, potentially limiting the amount of surgical intervention needed to control hemorrhage.
The U.S. is not a party to the 1899 Hague treaty, but has complied with it in international armed conflict; as a result, the majority of U.S. military personnel are limited to using FMJ ammunition in battle, although DOD JAG rulings have stated that the Hague treaty prohibitions are not applicable to certain SOF or military law enforcement missions. It is patently ludicrous to conclude that incapacitating dangerous opponents in combat while using the same deforming bullets legally relied on daily by LE agencies is somehow inhumane and unlawful, while wounding or killing the same enemy using much more powerful destructive ordnance such as grenades, mines, mortars, artillery, rockets, bombs, CBU’s, FAE’s, and thermobarics is approved and condoned. This is neither logical nor just and in fact does nothing to limit the severity of battlefield casualties.
More than 100 years later, it may be time for Congress, the President, as well as the international community to re-evaluate the outmoded and archaic 1899 Hague Convention’s prohibition against routine combat use of the standard deforming ammunition commonly used by LE personnel. The Hague Convention’s guidelines are no longer relevant for today’s urban battlefield with its close intermixing of innocent civilians and irregular combatants.
Sounds like H&K should get busy making a HK357…
Excellent comments DocGKR, as a civilian who has wielded nothing but logic as his daily carry, I could never understand the reasoning behind Hague.
Doc — Outstanding comment, thanks.
I’ve always found it amazing that US military police can have hollowpoint ammunition that they may have to use against US citizens (military or civilian), but it’s inhumane to shoot our nation’s enemies with that ammo.
The Hague was to assert that peace could be achieved through dialog. Technological limitation, such as rounds that expand or flatten in the body (1889-http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp); serves to establish moral authority through the denouncement of the offending state actor. Certainly The Hague turned war into a diplomatic tool. Like all laws, nearly impossible to repeal. US is not a signatory; we do it voluntarily. Maybe a good reason why we adopted the .45 cal in the “1911.”
“… the ability to accommodate higher chamber pressures in excess of 20% over SAAMI spec without degradation of reliability is of specific interest.”
That’s not a hint. That’s a hammer, being applied to the side of the head. If you can’t meet this spec, don’t bother showing up.
Frankly, if you’re going to exceed SAMMI by 20%, it shouldn’t be hard to improve on lethality by the same amount based on their test measurement (ballistic gel penetration) even if you stayed with 9mm. The real question is, what caliber is most likely to be able to meet that 4″/50 meters combo for the lifespan of the system? The harsher the loading, the more it’s going to beat up the gun, and the harder it will be to keep it within tolerances for that 35K round lifespan of the weapon.
The way I read this, these specifications are biased heavily towards a modernized .45 ACP. A .45, with it’s low recoil and low standard SAAMI rating, will be the easiest to overload to this level. (SAAMI for .45 ACP is 21000 PSI; 9mm and .40 S&W, 35000 PSI; 10mm, 37,500 PSI.)
This “SAAMI+20%”specification in .45 ACP will still result in a lower PSI load than the standard loading for any of the major calibers. And a +P+ .45 load is certainly going to be able to meet that lethality requirement.
It looks like the army is looking for an HK45. Realistically, what else could meet that accuracy standard combined with their desire to run overpressure ammo for an extended period?
Hopefully the overpressure thing is designed to speak to the merits of the platform, and not a foreshadowing of some new high-pressure 9mm designed for service use. Especially after the M855A1 disaster.
I see the Taurus 24/7 in the US military’s future.
Honestly? HK already did this with the HK45 but if they want the power of 20% pressure increase they are going to need to use the recoil system found on the USP and Mark23. Honestly I think the requirements would be met well with taking a USP45 and putting a picatinny rail on it instead on the standard proprietary rail and then having the ARMY use +P loads… although 45 has plenty of stopping power all its own… they want the +P because they’re used to 9mm
1. Don’t anyone get fired up about this. The military is going to have its budget slashed repeatedly until at least 2017–it’s going to be the 1970’s all over again–and there will be no money for a new handgun.
2. DOCGKR–you continue to say the most intelligent things about firearms and ballistics of probably anyone in the country. I wish you were on the procurement committees. Sadly, the State Department is populated by ninnies who regard firearms as completely revolting things and aren’t about to risk an insult from their equally clueless European counterparts by trying to change the Hague Convention, and State would throw a hissy fit if DOD tried to unilaterally change things.
So, I don’t see any change coming to military pistols (the M-9 isn’t bad, just too heavy and bulky and the Army SOF’s are all going Glock anyway)or ammunition. Maybe we could get 9mm 124 gr. truncated cone FMJ for the same price as round nose, and that would to be some improvement I suppose.
Perhaps a HK45 with 45 Super ammo. Or G20 with full house loads. I couldn’t imagine the ‘average’ soldier being happy to shoot/qual with such a set up, but that wasn’t one of the requirements listed.
Curious, is the 20% over SAAMI for pressure tests only…?
Here we go again… can one gun work for everybody? Is what the LE/security/investigator people need what the pilots, air and armor crews need? Is that what the SOF people need?
Aren’t the DHS and ATF tests good enough? If it works for the FBI, USMS, USCG and CBP, why wouldn’t work for the Army and Navy?
Sounds like a lot of words. Every weapon I read about has their ifs,buts,and failings about the weapons ability to fulfill the military requires except one. We’ve been using the caliber and weapon for well over a hundred years. Mr. John Browning’s invention, the 1911 and 1911A1. We tried some junk and it failed . We may have even lost some troops because of it. The combat troops are back to the 45ACP.They may be using Sigs or H&Ks but they are loading 45ACP in them Even our local county sheriff went back to the 45. He went with Glocks because of contract costs.Why mess with something so tried and proven.
BS stands for ballistic statistics