Army wants to dump the M9?

[Boehlertaught]

I know just how awesome the accuracy can be for a 1911 but in the hands of normal guys I wonder how far the qualification scores would drop if it was generally issued again. I’m guessing quite a bit. Placement is critical so that needs to be factored heavily into the equation.

Not arguing here... But I've never understood the statements about the 1911, or the .45 in general, being difficult to shoot accurately. My wife and daughter, 5'4" & 5'2" and both 120#, shoot their .40s just fine and plink with my 1911s, in .45, with well placed and accurate shots. They perform quick follow up shots with no problems. Neither of them shoot competitively, they just shoot to stay sharp. The 1911 .45 does not intimidate them or feel physically too big for them to handle well. Is the military just not training folks enough or correctly? What's the deal?

 

[MoBoost]

That says $640. ??? 64mil/100k=$640

I don't think that's what "firm-fixed-price contract" necessarily implies.

This is data might be a bit outdated, but that's the best I could find: http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m9.htm

 

[MoBoost]

Not arguing here... But I've never understood the statements about the 1911, or the .45 in general, being difficult to shoot accurately. My wife and daughter, 5'4" & 5'2" and both 120#, shoot their .40s just fine and plink with my 1911s, in .45, with well placed and accurate shots. They perform quick follow up shots with no problems. Neither of them shoot competitively, they just shoot to stay sharp. The 1911 .45 does not intimidate them or feel physically too big for them to handle well. Is the military just not training folks enough or correctly? What's the deal?

I know you said they don't shoot competitively, but it will take just one USPSA match too see why single stacks are outgunned in dynamic/stressful environment .... pun intended.

 

[Shadowrider]

I don't think that's what "firm-fixed-price contract" necessarily implies.

This is data might be a bit outdated, but that's the best I could find: http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m9.htm

I've worked and bid on many DOD contracts.

Here you go:
Note that there are certain caveats that can be applied to a given contract for uncertainty or fluctuations in labor costs and a few things like that. But they have to justify them and show their books to prove them too and that also work both ways when those clauses are invoked.

16.202-1 Description.
A firm-fixed-price contract provides for a price that is not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor’s cost experience in performing the contract. This contract type places upon the contractor maximum risk and full responsibility for all costs and resulting profit or loss. It provides maximum incentive for the contractor to control costs and perform effectively and imposes a minimum administrative burden upon the contracting parties. The contracting officer may use a firm-fixed-price contract in conjunction with an award-fee incentive (see 16.404) and performance or delivery incentives (see 16.402-2 and 16.402-3) when the award fee or incentive is based solely on factors other than cost. The contract type remains firm-fixed-price when used with these incentives.

Edit: Oops. Here's the link: Source

That last link you posted appears to be the original contract price. As it states they were originally made in Italy, with a contract stipulation that production was to transition to the U.S. Those are 1985 dollars! No way in hell they are getting them that cheap now. Way too many parts in them for that cost, it would bankrupt Beretta. Now they might could get M&Ps for that in that kind of qty. Maybe... When you are talking $50+ million dollars a manufacturer can buy a few brand new CNC machines and dedicate them solely to the contract and still make out. Been there, done it.

 

[MoBoost]

Those are 1985 dollars! No way in hell they are getting them that cheap now.

Well, there you go - inflation adjusted 1984 $286 = $650 2014 ... ain't that something, you were right all along.

Either way, M9 ain't going nowhere, darn thing is married to 9mm, just like M16 is to 5.56 - without adopting new NATO round we are just stuck (for better or worse).

 

[Dozermonkey]

Why not bring back 7.62x25 ? Just in a modern platform. Glock , 1911 etc.
762x25 Tok is a smokin little round.

 

[SMS]

Ha..!

P.P.S. M45A1
contract - exclusive 12,000 units
delivered - 60 units
dumping the rest on civilian market - PRICELESS

Double tap. I said the same when the new M45 contract came out.

 

[JD8]

I know you said they don't shoot competitively, but it will take just one USPSA match too see why single stacks are outgunned in dynamic/stressful environment .... pun intended.

Good thing the 1911 already made it through a few wars and such so that it doesn't have to impress the hardest beyond hard in the competition world.


Either way, the Beretta needs to go, too many 9mm polymer platforms that would probably easier to service and that would perform just as well.

 

[Jon3830]

In 2002 the Army was considering sig,glock, and HK to replace the beretta but it was decided to stick with the m9 because there were still so many in the supply line that were still serviceable.

 

[Boehlertaught]

I know you said they don't shoot competitively, but it will take just one USPSA match too see why single stacks are outgunned in dynamic/stressful environment .... pun intended.

No doubt the single stacks are outgunned by high capacity...9mm or .45. I just don't see why the argument has been that the 1911 is too big and is hard to shoot for smaller folks. And a 1911 too big??? Really? Anyone that says that picked up an M9 before? Kinda funny to me anyway.