Page 87 of 97 FirstFirst ... 37778586878889 ... LastLast
Results 861 to 870 of 969

Thread: New Army Handgun Solicitation.

  1. #861
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ft Leavenworth, KS
    Quote Originally Posted by psalms144.1 View Post
    ...the decision to make the contract "winner take all" including ammunition was done SPECIFICALLY in order to allow for "outside the box" thinking on chambering.
    You're giving us way too much credit. You know those never-ending caliber debates out there in the derptastic masses that never really result in any agreement? From what I can tell, that was a factor throughout the program, and it was left open since nobody could make a decision. And it may well have turned out better that way, instead of someone making a poor decision to move away from 9x19mm, IMHO.

  2. #862
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe in PNG View Post
    I think we've pretty much hit the wall on the development curve in regards to handgun ammo. The hyper-velocity mini-bullets like the 5.7 or the 4.6 have proved to be a disappointment.
    They've tried bigger and faster (hello 10mm!), and that's not really lived up to the hype.
    Adopt a good, expanding bonded JHP ala the HST and call it good.
    In fairness to the dev teams at HK and FN,the 5.7 & 4.6 rounds were developed to solve Cold War specific weapon needs. In the role of equipping a support force with a round that'll penetrate body armor worn by uniformed enemy troops,they work as intended. Stopping a 350lb meth head at close range wasn't the intended use for those arms.
    The Minority Marksman.
    "When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
    -a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.

  3. #863
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Quote Originally Posted by JHC View Post
    Sig is or is about to be a manufacturer of ammo. They have been selling Sig Ammo a year but I don't know where it's made.
    Originally, I believe they were operating in Eubank, KY. Sig recently announced they were setting up their new ammo plant in Jacksonville, AR . . . about half an hour from Remington's ammo plant. Much like when they set up their optics facility just down the street from Leupold.
    Last edited by ragnar_d; 01-24-2017 at 10:09 PM.

  4. #864
    Site Supporter JSGlock34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    USA
    On another note, who is the intended user for the suppressors that will be procured via the MHS contract? Considering SOCOM components have their own sidearms (the Mk24 Mod 0 leaps to mind as a sidearm that is configured for use with a suppressor) and procurement channels, are there plans to issue suppressed pistols to some conventional forces? I could see a requirement for suppressed weapons among LRS personnel, but I understand the remaining LRS units are being deactivated.
    "When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."

  5. #865
    Quote Originally Posted by JSGlock34 View Post
    On another note, who is the intended user for the suppressors that will be procured via the MHS contract? Considering SOCOM components have their own sidearms (the Mk24 Mod 0 leaps to mind as a sidearm that is configured for use with a suppressor) and procurement channels, are there plans to issue suppressed pistols to some conventional forces? I could see a requirement for suppressed weapons among LRS personnel, but I understand the remaining LRS units are being deactivated.
    There tests ongoing to determine the viability of equipping most forces with suppressors. The USMC just finished equipping an entire battalion (incl all support personnel) with suppressors for their M4 rifles.

    The DoD is looking at mitigating long-term hearing loss and other concerns of modern warfare.

    And yes, most of LRRPs are being replaced with units specializing in unmanned surveillance systems.

    For the most part....
    Last edited by alohadoug; 01-24-2017 at 09:57 PM.

  6. #866
    Site Supporter OlongJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    "carbine-infested rural (and suburban) areas"
    Just thinking out loud, like most of us here...

    The contract provides for the DoD to purchase as much ammo as it wants to purchase from Sig, up to the limits specified, but does that make Sig the sole source? Hard to imagine that this would cancel any and all existing 9mm NATO procurement contracts from all other vendors. Seems likely they'll go on buying ammo from whatever suppliers they are getting it from now, as well as from Sig.

  7. #867
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Quote Originally Posted by OlongJohnson View Post
    Just thinking out loud, like most of us here...

    The contract provides for the DoD to purchase as much ammo as it wants to purchase from Sig, up to the limits specified, but does that make Sig the sole source? Hard to imagine that this would cancel any and all existing 9mm NATO procurement contracts from all other vendors. Seems likely they'll go on buying ammo from whatever suppliers they are getting it from now, as well as from Sig.
    Impossible to know for sure, without seeing the full contract.

    99.9999% sure no though as surely the gov doesnt sole source something so common but potentially critical.

  8. #868
    Site Supporter JSGlock34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    USA
    I'd be curious to compare SOCOM's annual budget for 9mm with the Army's...
    "When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."

  9. #869
    Member JHC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North Georgia
    Quote Originally Posted by alohadoug View Post
    There tests ongoing to determine the viability of equipping most forces with suppressors. The USMC just finished equipping an entire battalion (incl all support personnel) with suppressors for their M4 rifles.

    The DoD is looking at mitigating long-term hearing loss and other concerns of modern warfare.

    And yes, most of LRRPs are being replaced with units specializing in unmanned surveillance systems.

    For the most part....
    Off topic but regarding "studies" - I understand there is also one to see if beards can be allowed within parameters that do not conflict with the seal of a protective mask. Glory!
    “Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais

  10. #870
    Quote Originally Posted by JHC View Post
    Off topic but regarding "studies" - I understand there is also one to see if beards can be allowed within parameters that do not conflict with the seal of a protective mask. Glory!
    That one is related to Religious reasons only right now. A US Army CPT who is also a practicing Sikh, was granted a permenant waiver (he'd been granted a temporary one since 2014) last year authorizing him to wear the beard and turban as proscribed by his faith. He did pass the standard gas mask fit test (banana oil - those of you who know, know what I mean). During litigation on the matter, it was pointed out that the DoD had granted more than 100,000 waivers authorizing facial hair for medical reasons so why not for religious reasons as well.

    Frankly, I don't see a massive shift coming. Not all Soldiers are suddenly going to be authorized to run around with the "SOF Theater Beard." Maybe some level of groomed facial hair will be authorized, but I doubt it.

    Oh, here's a link to the story about the USMC Suppressor Study.
    Last edited by alohadoug; 01-25-2017 at 08:49 AM.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •