Did Beretta submit the APX for the FBI contract?

[Polecat]

Does anyone know if the striker fired Beretta APX was submitted for the FBI solicitation?

[JSGlock34]

I'm not sure whether Beretta ultimately submitted a model for testing, but they certainly were asking FBI questions about the APX and whether it met some of the requirements of the RFP without modification. If you review Amendment 1 (https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=452184390b2ebba91cbe4039b3235714) to the RFP, Questions 7 & 8 (pages 19-20), there are clearly pictures of the APX accompanying queries (presumably submitted by Beretta) as to whether the APX frame meets FBI requirements. Other questions may pertain to the APX, but these were the only two questions that were accompanied by APX images. In both cases the FBI replied that the APX does not meet the requirements of the RFP, though the required modifications (eliminating finger grooves and marking the exterior of the frame with the grip size) do not strike me as major changes. More significant in my mind is the requirement for two different sized pistols, as only the full size APX has been seen so far, though a compact model is a logical progression. Whether such a model would be available in time for the FBI trials in another matter.

Here are the APX related questions...

QUESTION 7:
Reference: Section C.4.15.a FINGER GROOVES
Our pistol candidate features an ergonomically profiled polymer grip unit praised by all shooters for its comfort. We are concerned that the FBI will consider our grip as having finger grooves and we request a clarification on this requirement. Please see images below. Does the FBI consider our grip to have finger grooves?

Note: The serialized receiver of our pistol is the metallic "chassis" inside the grip unit. The grip is an accessory component, easily replaceable by the user to change its color, size and configuration.

QUESTION 8:
Reference: Section C.4.15.d

"It is required the size ofa frame or insert be marked on an exterior surface (e.g., "M" for medium, "L" large) for rapid identification without disassembly.'
Please confirm the solution depicted hereunder with the marking inside the grip, visible by removing the magazine, is acceptable. Please note that the marked tab with the "M" is an integral part of the backstrap, all represented in green.

ANSWER: THE INSIDE OF THE MAGAZINE WELL IS NOT AN EXTERIOR SURFACE.

[LSP972]

What's going on with that, JSGlock34? Any idea on the progress, etc.?

.

[LittleLebowski]

Interesting...

[JSGlock34]

What's going on with that, JSGlock34? Any idea on the progress, etc.?

Sorry, I don't claim any insider knowledge. I'm just a guy who likes to read lengthy government written requirements on small arms. Thankfully there are group therapy opportunities like this forum where others share my particular disorder.

I'm personally fascinated that the XM17 MHS and FBI RFP have emerged at the same point in time. I suppose it reminds me of my youth reading about the XM9 trials while the FBI moved to the 10mm cartridge. Can't get enough of this stuff.

[BehindBlueI's]

What's going on with that, JSGlock34? Any idea on the progress, etc.?

.

Supposedly us and the FBI are the first kids on the block to field the selected pistol. We're supposed to get ours in July-ish. Not sure when they are getting theirs, and wouldn't vouch 100% that it's true they selected the same one, so I'll keep my yap shut at this point on the details. Just don't expect much in the way of a radical departure in the LE market.

[LSP972]

Not expecting anything. Just curious if they (the Bureau) had enough issues with the G22s to dump the whole line, and/or is somebody's pet baby now the favored piece in the sun?

.

[Polecat]

JS, thanks that's some great insight. I fondly recall the last join service pistol search, as I was just a teen, really into guns at the time. I can't wait to see what's coming.

While we are on topic, any idea who all has submitted ?

Really can't wait to see the FN gun.

Dave

[JSGlock34]

My understanding is that the FBI's original plan was to simply move to the Glock 9mm under their existing contract for the .40 guns. However, this proved legally untenable, and instead the FBI needed to move forward with the RFP.

The way I read the RFP is that the FBI is seeking a Glock built to their specifications (i.e. no finger grooves) to compare with emerging designs (such as the SIG P320). The RFP is very specific, and the FBI was not shy about eliminating designs or manufacturers from consideration (HK for example). They did not specify features that would require a significant redesign by Glock. From my read, Glock only has to eliminate finger grooves from the frame and design a magazine floor plate to the FBI's specifications...hardly a heavy lift.

IMHO, had the FBI wanted to artfully exclude Glock and move to a new design, they would have specified an ambidextrous slide release or disassembly without pulling the trigger. Neither of these are requirements.

[BehindBlueI's]

My understanding is that the FBI's original plan was to simply move to the Glock 9mm under their existing contract for the .40 guns. However, this proved legally untenable, and instead the FBI needed to move forward with the RFP.

The way I read the RFP is that the FBI is seeking a Glock built to their specifications (i.e. no finger grooves) to compare with emerging designs (such as the SIG P320). The RFP is very specific, and the FBI was not shy about eliminating designs or manufacturers from consideration (HK for example). They did not specify features that would require a significant redesign by Glock. From my read, Glock only has to eliminate finger grooves from the frame and design a magazine floor plate to the FBI's specifications...hardly a heavy lift.

IMHO, had the FBI wanted to artfully exclude Glock and move to a new design, they would have specified an ambidextrous slide release or disassembly without pulling the trigger. Neither of these are requirements.

Ambi slide release seems easy enough. Taking the slide off without a trigger pull, on the other hand...

[LSP972]

IMHO, had the FBI wanted to artfully exclude Glock and move to a new design, they would have specified an ambidextrous slide release or disassembly without pulling the trigger. Neither of these are requirements.

True enough... that had not occurred to me.

.

[JSGlock34]

Ambi slide release seems easy enough. Taking the slide off without a trigger pull, on the other hand...

I've wondered if a gadget type device that replaces the slide backplate could provide a means to release the striker tension without pulling the trigger, and thus permit disassembly. I've come across Glock pistols with dead triggers and cocked strikers (not frequently mind you, but I've had to deal with the situation before), and the prescription called for removing the slide backplate and striker assembly. Now you needed to use an Armorer's tool to do it, but perhaps someone can come up with a different solution...

[hrt4me]

While we are on topic, any idea who all has submitted ?

Dave

yes

[hrt4me]

possibly down to two now... possible announcement next month...

[LSP972]

possibly down to two now... possible announcement next month...

Okay.

WHAT two?

.

[SLG]

possibly down to two now... possible announcement next month...

PM me please.

[Jeff S.]

My understanding is that the FBI's original plan was to simply move to the Glock 9mm under their existing contract for the .40 guns. However, this proved legally untenable, and instead the FBI needed to move forward with the RFP.

The way I read the RFP is that the FBI is seeking a Glock built to their specifications (i.e. no finger grooves) to compare with emerging designs (such as the SIG P320). The RFP is very specific, and the FBI was not shy about eliminating designs or manufacturers from consideration (HK for example). They did not specify features that would require a significant redesign by Glock. From my read, Glock only has to eliminate finger grooves from the frame and design a magazine floor plate to the FBI's specifications...hardly a heavy lift.

IMHO, had the FBI wanted to artfully exclude Glock and move to a new design, they would have specified an ambidextrous slide release or disassembly without pulling the trigger. Neither of these are requirements.


That's the way I read it too. Initially, I thought Glock would have a hassle meeting the 0.5" difference in barrel length between the Class I and Class II pistols. The answer to question 51 corrected that thought: the 0.47" difference between the G17 and G19 falls within the +/- 0.05" tolerance.


What is your take on the RFP not specifying a difference in either grip height or overall height between the two pistols Classes? It seems as though at least one of the manufactures was adamant about submitting Class I & II pistols with different slide/barrel lengths, but the same frame/grip. If nothing else, it caused quite a bit of confusion. I'm rather surprised the RFP wasn't amended to clarify the issue.

QUESTION 45:
Can the Class II frame be the same size as the Class I frame or does it have to be bigger? [REF. C.23.2, Page 7]
If the frame can be the same size, can a 15 round magazine be used in both frames if the pistol's performance is superior?
[REF. C.4.3.a, Page 9]
ANSWER: CLASS II FRAME MUST BE LARGER THAN THE CLASS I FRAME; REFER TO C.4.2.



QUESTION 112:
This question comes out of the Government's answer to Q45 from the first Q&A; In C.4.2 Physical Characteristics, there is not mention of frame sizes other than max/min dimensions for OAL/Height and Barrel Length. Additionally in C.4.15.C and C.4.15.D there is discussion of accommodation of different shooters hands, and some options to accommodate that, there is no directive that the same frame cannot be used for the Class I and Class II guns if they meet the Physical Characteristics. Nor is there any direction on the boundaries of the different frame sizes, outside of the overall size constraints in C.4.2 which a single frame can meet. Is it the government's intent on having different frames for the different class pistols, and if so, will the government be providing threshold and/or objective measurement both of the Classes, as currently as mentioned a 5.5'' height gun would fit both classes, given the measurements stated in C.4.2.b
ANSWER: IT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S INTENT TO HAVE DIFFERENT FRAME SIZES FOR THE CLASS I & II PISTOLS. THE GOVERNMENT DESIRES TWO UNIQUE FRAME SIZES IN PART TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE GREATER MAGAZINE CAPACITY BETWEEN CLASS I & II PISTOLS, WITHOUT THE USE OF MAGAZINE EXTENSIONS OR MAGAZINE "SURROUNDS."


QUESTION 120:
Clarification to question 45 pg. 15
We request clarification to the FBI's response to question #45 stating the Class II frame must be larger than the class I frame. The specification listed in C.4.2.b Pistol Physical Dimensions has no minimum height listed for the Class II frame. Based on the specification this would allow one frame to be used for both Class I and Class II pistols providing sample submitted meets all specifications listed in C.4.2 Pistol Physical Dimensions. Can the FBI please confirm that specification C.4.2.b does not have a minimum specification for height?
ANSWER: PURSUANT TO C.4.2.b, THE CLASS I MINIMUM HEIGHT IS 4.75" AND THE CLASS II FRAME HEIGHT MUST BE GREATER THAN THE CLASS I PISTOL FROM THE SAME OFFEROR.

QUESTION 120Can the Government please specify where in RFP-OSCU-DSU1503 does it require the Class II frame be larger or of a different size than the Class I frame?

ANSWER: IT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S INTENT TO HAVE DIFFERENT FRAME SIZES FOR THE CLASS I & II PISTOLS. THE GOVERNMENT DESIRES TWO UNIQUE FRAME SIZES IN PART TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE GREATER MAGAZINE CAPACITY BETWEEN CLASS I & II PISTOLS, WITHOUT THE USE OF MAGAZINE EXTENSIONS OR MAGAZINE "SURROUNDS."

[JSGlock34]

What is your take on the RFP not specifying a difference in either grip height or overall height between the two pistols Classes?

I also thought this was interesting as the decision to specify two different frame sizes ultimately excludes a number of designs (such as the M&P). My take is simply that their prior experience with having the G19/G23 sized pistol was positive, and that an intermediate/compact sized frame was important to them. They did not entertain proposals to have a 'Class I' full size pistol (i.e. G17 or M&P9) and a 'Class II' long slide version (i.e. G34 or M&P9L). I imagine they weren't keen on the idea of the two issue choices being a full sized pistol and an even longer version of the same pistol when most of their personnel carry concealed.

[Polecat]

JS, so will it be a G17 and G19, or are they implying an intermediate size?

Thanks,
Dave

[JSGlock34]

JS, so will it be a G17 and G19, or are they implying an intermediate size?

Thanks,
Dave

G17 and G19 sizes. Sorry for any confusion - I threw out the term 'intermediate' - as many companies don't seem to offer a G19 equivalent sized pistol (the P320 is a notable exception), and what many companies term their 'compact' model would not meet the FBI requirements for the Class I pistol (particularly in terms of capacity). Meanwhile, Glock offers full size (G17), compact (G19) and subcompact (G26) frames.