TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017 ... sauer-win/

SIG Sauer is not quite out of the woods yet regarding their recent Modular Handgun System contract win. Finalist Glock – who for many was the favorite to win – has protested the XM17 contract award. SIG won the MHS contract earlier this year with a variant of their P320 handgun based on the Compact frame. The news of SIG’s win was announced on January 19th, the day before the inauguration of the new US President and his administration.

It's interesting that SIG, Glock, and Beretta were all given indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts.

The Annoyed Man wrote:...
It's interesting that SIG, Glock, and Beretta were all given indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts.

Why do you think so?


ETA: I was thinking you were focusing on the fact they were IDIQ contracts, but rethinking it, I think you were looking at the fact they were awarded at all. This must have been in the RFP and the acquisition strategy from the beginning.

ELB wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:...
It's interesting that SIG, Glock, and Beretta were all given indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts.

Why do you think so?


ETA: I was thinking you were focusing on the fact they were IDIQ contracts, but rethinking it, I think you were looking at the fact they were awarded at all. This must have been in the RFP and the acquisition strategy from the beginning.

Well, I guess I thought it was interesting because it implies that (A) the Army will begin buying Sigs in whatever quantity they need; (B) the Army will buy as many Glocks as certain branches would seem to prefer, and (C) the Army will continue to issue and support Berettas for the foreseeable future.

...and the Army isn't standardizing with one and one only because?

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me, that preference of some throws a wrench into standardizing.

Standardization with numbers as high as the armed forces need to include not only the Army, but all of the rest of the armed forces requirements doesn't makes sense, unless they're staying away from a single source contractor that can have it's own underlying problems?

I would have to see the acquisition strategy to know, but I am guessing that the Beretta contract is a bridge to cover the period of time between now and when Sig provides enough pistols, spares, ancillary equipment to replace entire large units of the Army and for the Army to have training in place for those units. I don't know what the deployment strategy is either, but I don't think they would replace pistols one-for-one -- they may go division by division or some other increment that makes sense to the Army. In the mean time, there are a lot of old Berettas out there, and so there will probably be relatively small buys off of the Beretta contract to replace wornout or broken M9s in units that haven't made the swap yet.

And it does seem that Glock has a substantial footprint in the military, so there may be units with enough pull to keep them, and I am sure other services will be able to buy off of the Army's pistol contracts.

It will take a long time to replace the standard pistol in regular units, Just as it did with the M1911A1/M9 change. The FORSCOM unit I served in during Desert Storm still had 1911A1's, which we didn't exchange for M9's until 1992, IIRC. Not that I minded. Several of the Reserve and National Guard units in Desert Storm already had M9's.

No idea on the IDIQ contracts.

What happens to the replaced pistols?

rm9792 wrote:What happens to the replaced pistols?

That question occurred to me, although I don't have any particular desire for an M9. I would imagine that the gov't will sell/give them to military client nations. Then, 20 years from now, they'll find their way back into the country via importers, and into the civilian population.

I have a 1943 Inland Carbine, that G26ster was kind enough to come over and examine the provenance for me. The gun received an arsenal refurbishment at the end of the war, in which the only part that appears to have been replaced is the rear sight - which was swapped out for one of the later ramp-type sights. Otherwise, all the numbers match. After the arsenal refurbishment, it was shipped to Norway as part of a US program to help Norway stand up its post-war police forces and military. FN-Herstal had the maintenance contract for Norwegian arms, and some time in the 1950s, FN replaced the stock with a brand new one (which still looks brand new). In the 1960s, the gun was reimported to the US, into the civilian market, where it was purchased soon after by my son's former employer. He kept it until he sold it to my son a few years ago, who gave it to me for Christmas that year.

I would imagine something like that is how it will play out for the M9 pistols. But that's just a guess.