The truth is that the U.S. Army’s current M9 Beretta pistol works just fine; however, many women in the Army don’t shoot well with the M9 because its grip is too big for their hands. Thus the Army is caught in a conundrum finding a one size fits all handgun. The way this problem was dealt with in the past by other military and police organizations (including the U.S. Army itself at one time) was to buy different size handguns for different size people. However for some reason the Army’s current leadership doesn’t want to do that, citing cost and logistic concerns implicit in having so many different weapons in the inventory. Although it would seem the Army has reached an impasse on this problem that cannot be solved by current technology at a cost the Army finds satisfactory. Therefore it would probably be better off settling for an “80% solution”, one standard handgun that fits the hands of most soldiers. FYI The British Army adopted the Glock 17 in 9x19mm about two years ago and is very satisfied with them. Likewise the U.S. Army Special Operations Command has procured the slightly smaller the Glock 19 9x19mm handgun (same as used by the NYPD) for certain operations and is also been very satisfied with their performance. Although Actually it sounds like the recent Sig-Sauer model P320 would fit the Army’s stated desire for a modular hand gun with a high capacity magazine. But again, the Army leadership can’t make up its collective mind. Now it as reached the point where the gun companies have grown weary of the whole mess to the point that many of them are now longer interested in submitting models to the Army for testing.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
U.S Army General Mark Milley is sick and tired of the military’s Byzantine and politically-compromised procurement system, and is looking for a COTS (commercial off the shelf) solution to replace the Beretta M9 pistol instead of waiting for years for the Modular Handgun System trials to complete.
He wants Glocks, and he wants them now.
The Army launched its long-awaited XM17 MHS competition in late August to replace its Cold-War era, M9 9mm pistol.Milley criticized the program’s 356-page requirement document and lengthy testing phase slated to cost $17 million for technology that has existed for years.“The testing itself is two years long on known technology,” Milley told law makers at a March 16 House Armed Services Committee hearing.“We are not talking about nuclear subs or going to the moon here. We are talking about a pistol.”But behind the scenes, Milley has moved beyond criticism and taken steps to select a new sidearm for soldiers, including exploring the possibility of bypassing the MHS effort altogether.Milley recently asked the Army Special Operations Command’s G-8 office, which oversees fielding of equipment, if there is room for the Army to join its pistol contract to buy Glock 19s, according to a source who asked to remain anonymous because he is not authorized to speak to the media.The compact Model 19 is one of Glock’s most popular handguns. The striker-fired, 9mm pistol features a four- inch barrel and has a standard capacity of 15 rounds, although 17-round magazines are available. The polymer frame features an accessory rail for mounting lights.
General Milley has every right to gripe about a system rigged to satisfy the needs of lobbyists and pad the retirements of acquisition officers than it is to serve troops in the field.
Unfortunately, the fact remains that even if the Army could piggyback on the SOCOM contract, Glock’s pistols still have many of the same crucial shortcomings of Beretta’s M9, which has to do with the composition of the modern military itself than the it does the design of a given pistol.
The modern U.S. military has more women and smaller-statured soldiers than the military of the past. More specifically, these are men and women with smaller hands and shorter fingers than soldiers of the past.
One of the primary goals of the MHS program was to find a handgun with a grip that could fit the largest possible range of hand sizes, and therefore be shot well by a wider range of troops.
Glock’s handgun designs, including the 19 and 17, have not decreased in size from when they were first considered in the 1980s, and will not meet the key performance parameter (KPP) of fitting the 5th to the 95th percentile of hand sizes the modern military needs.
So what’s the right answer? What best suits the needs of the troops in the field?
I’d suggest that the Army should simply scrap the MHS tryouts, buy the intellectual property rights to the design that best meets the needs of the modern soldier, take the design in-house, and use the Army’s own small arms manufacturing capability to build the gun the military needs.
Is that so hard?
No comments:
Post a Comment