new DHS pistol solicitation is out.

[Mitch]

Why would an agency specify striker fired? Is that just them trying to keep the prices down?

[HCM]

Why would an agency specify striker fired? Is that just them trying to keep the prices down?

Biggest factors are the desire for one trigger pull to simplify training and a "better" trigger pull to improve performance. Keeping prices down is a plus but you get pretty good deals buying 25k guns. In the case of ICE, I beleive it was also a feature requested by the troops via the handgun preferences survey the Agency conducted prior to finalizing the SOW.

The legacy agencies which were merged into ICE went from DAO autos (96D Brigadier and S&W 6946) to the USPC LEM V2 and the Glock respectively. After the merger ICE went with the P229R DAK. The DAK has a has a smooth 6-8 lb single trigger pull but generally provides slower results than other trigger systems. The consensus among the troops is a striker fired gun is going to give you the best / easiest to shoot trigger.

[Mitch]

That all makes sense. But as a newly converted LEM fanboy I have to dislike it on principle

I am really interested to see how solicitations shake out in the next few years between glocks, m&ps, p320s and vp9s.

[BehindBlueI's]

Why would an agency specify striker fired? Is that just them trying to keep the prices down?

Easiest to train large groups of mixed ability shooters.

[runcible]

Striker-fired weapons also may have advantages over comparable hammer-fired systems, when it comes to debris intrusion and organizational maintenance. Not everyone may have to worry about rotorwash in the desert, but plenty may find themselves rolling around in the dirt.

[runcible]

Secret Service (duh, Sig 229R DA/SA .357)
Air Marshal (FAMS, duh, Sig 229R DA/SA .357)

I believe that those are using P229 legacy format's, not -R's.

[DocGKR]

"Striker-fired weapons also may have advantages over comparable hammer-fired systems, when it comes to debris intrusion and organizational maintenance."

Yup.

[joshs]

Biggest factors are the desire for one trigger pull to simplify training and a "better" trigger pull to improve performance. Keeping prices down is a plus but you get pretty good deals buying 25k guns.

Easiest to train large groups of mixed ability shooters.

Striker-fired weapons also may have advantages over comparable hammer-fired systems, when it comes to debris intrusion and organizational maintenance. Not everyone may have to worry about rotorwash in the desert, but plenty may find themselves rolling around in the dirt.

All of these reasons could be taken care of by performance based standards and testing, specifying "striker-fired" unnecessarily risks a protest.

[RJ]

All of these reasons could be taken care of by performance based standards and testing, specifying "striker-fired" unnecessarily risks a protest.

I agree, as a (former ) Systems Engineer with 32+ years in Aerospace Engineering, focusing mainly on DoD/international contracts, I think the requirement sucks.

"Thou shalt have a Striker-Fire Pistol" is specifying implementation, and should not be part of the system Functional Baseline.

But: What would the basis of a protest be, if all submittals were evaluated to the same objective (granted, flawed from an S/E) standpoint?

[DocGKR]

In general, many of the modern striker fired pistols are much easier to service than traditional hammer fired handguns--this can become a significant issue when servicing large quantities of firearms.