The Cost of Bureaucracy: The Army’s Expensive Sidearm Upgrade

(Editor’s note: This article was a submission from freelance writer Mike Doran)

The Army is clogging up what should be a straight-forward process of acquiring a new sidearm with bureaucracy, an article from The Washington Times reports.

For 30 years, the Army has used the Beretta 9 mm, or the M9, as the standard-issued sidearm, but problems with malfunctions during firefights and soldier complaints of high-maintenance needs spurred the Army to search for a replacement firearm.

The Army’s micromanaging, however, has stretched the process into a 10-year nightmare for manufacturers who compete to win a contract. Sen. John McCain, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, will be issuing a report on the debacle called “America’s Most Wasted: Army’s Costly Misfire.”

In the report, Mr. McCain calls out the Army on creating difficulties in what should be an easy process, saying they have “managed to create entirely new acquisition problems for what should be a simple, straightforward purchase of a commercially available item.”

In 10 years, the Army has created 350 pages of requirements that demand the new sidearm follow strict rules on minute details like color and making sure that the size of the bore brush and paper size corresponds to existing cleaning kits. McCain calls these rules “unnecessary or anticompetitive.”

And all of this paperwork is adding to the cost per gun, $50 or about $15 million “wasted on paperwork and bureaucracy,” McCain says. But within the 350 pages of requirements there is one seemingly huge omission: there is no specification for caliber.

McCain says that the caliber is likely the most important aspect of the handgun and that not creating a requirement for the caliber will make it impossible for some manufacturers to compete.

“One of the principles of a commercial off-the-shelf acquisition is that the government must be clear on what it is seeking to buy,” he says. “This lack of clarity will likely result in top handgun makers not competing as many of them are not large defense contractors, which means that our soldiers won’t necessarily get the best handgun that commercial industry has to offer.”

But that’s not all, according to the report the Army has also given manufacturers a very short window of fewer than four months to comply with the 350 pages of rules and requirements. They also plan to select the top three competitors by mechanical firings instead of test firings by soldiers.

McCain speculates that the Army already has a manufacturer in mind, what he calls a “preferred outcome.” It would seem that the entire process been nothing but a waste in government spending and a clear example of how bureaucracy can create problems out of thin air.

What do you think: has the government muddled what should have been a simple search for a new sidearm?

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

{ 49 comments… add one }
  • Bill January 29, 2018, 8:26 am

    I thought the military has already gone with the Sig P320 9mm as the future sidearm! As far as a new rifle, maybe they should go with the military version of the AR-10 which is basically an AR-15 lower with a .308 upper and barrel. The M1A was standard issue in the 50s and the AR-10 is much lighter and just as accurate, instead of the 6.8 Creedmore which is a new calliber. You can get .308 ammo anywhere in the world. They could also save a bunch of money and “Kit” the M-16’s to the .300 Blackout without even having to change Mags.
    It almost sounds to me like some manufacturer has their hand in a politicians pockets.

  • Robert Blanchard USAF Ret. NRA lifetime Master pistol rated November 21, 2015, 1:47 am

    This is a no brainer. Best pistol ever made is the 1911 Colt. It was standard with all the military shooting teams. It would shoot all season with very little maint. It was much more accurate than the experts and Master shooters could hold. It handled hard ball fmj ammo and I have shot this pistol on the 50 yd range to 2.5 to 3 in groups.It still is the top contendor at the annual National Matches at Camp perry OH. Every manif,has produced their version of the 1911.and they shoot military perfect right out of the box. For the wasted money we could have equiped an army.Let pro Military shooters do the work,they get it right the 1st time.sic.

  • Stephen November 18, 2015, 9:29 pm

    We are talking about a pistol, good grief the military can’t find a jet (Joint Service Strike Fighter) to replace the A-10 and other fighters, which do not need replaced. I wonder how many of the generals go to work for a defense contractor after retirement? Just pick a pistol, say a 9mm, Ion Bond all parts and issue it.

  • Dano November 9, 2015, 12:21 pm

    The Browning Hi-Power is used by military units throughout the world today. It holds 14 rounds, it has features that are copied by other firearms designers to this day, it is chambered in 9mm and has been proven since it’s design in 1935. Why does the military have to reinvent the wheel when it’s right there in plain sight? Secondly, the handgun is secondary and not the main combat firearm so it is not going to be used as much. Third, the ergonomics, size and dependability of the Hi-Power can not be questioned. It is an improved design of the 1911 without all the parts. Anyone who has owned and used a Browning Hi-Power knows why it is one of the best firearms ever designed. I believe the Browning HP is used by some special forces still. The 9mm round can be found all over the world. Try finding 10mm, 40 cal. or Sig 357 in some 3rd world country.

    • Boomer Taylor March 26, 2017, 3:44 am

      I’m an Air Force trained munitions specialist and small arms expert marksman.
      I own a “T” (60s) model classic Hi Power and fully agree that the Hi Power is a proven, premier weapon and, arguably, John Brownin’s finest work. Its name is derived from the fact that, at the time, it was the highest capacity handgun available at 13 rounds. It’s also true that there are 15, 20 and even 30 round magazines available from Mecgar, a quality manufacturer, and has no problem competing with other weapon capacities for varied missions. There is also a variety of rear sight options.
      The problem with the M9 is that internal parts need replacement from the factory to replace composite components with steel to assure durability during extended fire scenarios such as a long fire fight. It’s relatively heavy with a lot of moving parts. It’s also relatively high maintenance by nature with all the small parts and requires more training aND longer down time, comparatively.
      The Browning is in current use in military and law enforcement agencies around the world and there are used surplus trade-in weapons available on a regular basis. They can be had from $350-450 at any given time and, though they may be scuffed and scratched, they function just fine. Replacement and upgrade parts are readily available and aren’t particularly expensive. If you’ve never fired one, do so, as a bucket list item. You’ll probably end up owning one.
      The weapon I found happened to be a military refit and had a decent Parkerizing job, a new barrel and functioned flawlessly… For $400. Not too shabby. Good deals are out there, if you look patiently. Of course there are new production models available today from base to very nice models with checked walnut grips, etc.
      They can a bit pricey when buying new but will be used by your great grad kids with any care in keeping,

  • Rhettyopants November 9, 2015, 12:03 pm

    If the federal government was put in charge of the Sahara desert pretty soon there would be a shortage of sand. The politician does not belong in this gun battle. The search for the perfect weapon will continue, as it has, for a few more eons if they are. The federal government can eff up cream-o-wheat.

  • Kevin November 7, 2015, 6:32 pm

    Simple solution here. Call FN USA and order FNX-45 Tactical Pistols in Tan. Yes 45 ACP is what the trigger pullers want. NATO will do just fine if we decide to buy non 9mm pistols. The gun is optics and suppressor ready out of the box. 15 rnds of 45 is just fine.

    Price negotiation is simple, buy at lowest police price and you’re done. FN must release the design to the U.S Govt. as part of the deal for free or we move on, simple. This will alllow a 2nd or 3rd maker to be invovled in producing the gun for the U.S Govt. as competitive bidding keeps prices low.

    The pistol is the least important and least used of all infantry weapons except the bayonet. It is issued so soldiers who can’t or don’t need a rifle, have something. If common sense were to prevail (not going to happen), then they could just buy the Walther PPS pistols in 9mm (SEAL Issue for CCW) and issue it to all. 6,7 or 8 rounds of 9mm with good ammunition is fine. Going to the small sidearm means everyone from pilots, CID, General Officers and Grunts can use the same weapon. This saves money . Anybody needs more firepower than that should have a carbine/pdw or better issued to them. We won WWI & WW2 and Korea with 7rnd 45 pistols, so not having 15-17 rounds in each mag is not going to be a big deal.

    So whether you agree with what I have written above or not, is not the point. This whole selection process is SOP for the military in just about everything. Corupt process, run by corupt people. We all know enough about guns that we could all name the “good ones” on a short list without having to spend a dime of taxpayer money. The majority of our choices would all do just fine. Not rocket science here. No need for 1,000 specs to be met to re-invent the wheel.

    First step is to court martial the generals and other officers involved here, sweat them for the truth about “The Fix” and throw them, the congressmen and company executives in prison for a long time. Send a stern message to all of these criminals who conspire to steal our tax money, without any concern for the men who will be affected by their decisions will no longer be tolerated.

  • JPHamilton November 7, 2015, 8:09 am

    An incredible waste of my money. 10th SF Group soldiers all tend to go out and buy a Glock 17 or 19 prior to deployment, so it really doesn’t matter much what the Army finally decides on.

  • YankeeBill November 6, 2015, 7:32 pm

    Glock. Sig. 1911. S&W. Ruger. Etc, etc, etc… All good weapons. All available in multiple calibers. All are safe and as reliable as a semi-auto can be. Some are more complicated than others, which can be a factor. Pick one designed for, and used by, a modern military such as Germany, England, etc… Look at their experiences with that weapon. I personally could never understand the choice of the Beretta as the military standard sidearm. I never liked the design-cutaway slide and all. I like the 45ACP, but the 9mm has come a long way ballistically. Whatever the pick is, it should be the BEST available after the smoke clears, because our guys deserve the best!

  • hoochbear November 6, 2015, 4:36 pm

    Reminds me of the Army Camo issues. Like BS, they never end. From what I recall, the Marines selected their camo choices in about a year. While I wouldn’t expect the Army to make a sidearm decision this quickly, shouldn’t about 2 years be the absolute max? Robert S McNamara & band of ‘experts”who derailed a better M16 with things like omitting the chrome-lined barrel. BTW, while Glock is the preferred weapon of the law enforcement bean counters and public officials, SWAT team members in my city prefer a Sig. Compare a gun that will not be used or even practiced all that many times to one that has to perform near flawlessly and last!

  • Bill McGraw November 6, 2015, 3:57 pm

    The best historical handgun was and still is the Colt 1911 45 ACP and as other companies also make them. Other handguns and calibers that fit the hand (as well as fitting uniforms!) would be proper to fit, not one bureaucratic decision after millions spent and paperwork wasted. Ask the individual Army, Marine, Sailor and Air Force soldier their choice of issued weapon(s) and issue them (think M-14, as I shot Expert at Ft. Dix, NJ, as the best battle weapon after the M-1 Garand and train the troops to shoot to 600 yds accurately even with the M-16 varieties), after all we need accurate shooters! Also allow them to purchase their own sidearm handgun and ammo to carry as long as armorers can service them and have appropriate ammo allowed by the military. When I was in Korea ’69-’70, I bought 3 handguns from the PX at Yongson Garrison at Seoul, all 22 RF and there a pistol range to shoot them. I worked part time in the Arms Room and of course, kept my handguns there. At Ft. Myer, VA ’68-’69 at Arlington Cemetery, there was an indoor shooting range where I could be issued a rifle or handgun and ammo for free to shoot there. However, the 1968 GCA forbid handguns in DC that I traveled and I decided not to have a handgun with me or legally at the Arms Room. At home I already had a Colt 1911 mfg in 1918 with a Colt 22 RF conversion, a S&W M-10 38 Spl and M-28 357 Mag, CF rifles and shotguns and hand loaded for all of them. I now have many more, won’t say how many but the 1911 would be my single one if all I had to make a choice of one handgun. This is a long story for a 70 year old soldier but firearms are a better investment than the stock market and I have made plenty of profit from the market.

  • David November 6, 2015, 2:26 pm

    Unfknblvbl!! Yet more gov’t bureaucratic b.s.
    For the price of a few “toilet seats,” send a few doxen Captains or Majors into large gun stores to buy several handguns.
    After the mandatory waiting period, each of them takes a handful of men to an outdoor course (in case you still can’t bring personal firearms into base ranges), who each fires a few hundred rounds through each weapon, followed by reviews and cleaning. Do this for a few months with different groups around the country, in different seasons, and within a year, you’ll know which sidearms can handle the workload and which ones the troops prefer. No bureaucracy required, except for the actual purpose and delivery terms.

  • Rob November 6, 2015, 2:23 pm

    The Army has already chosen a manufacturer for the new pistol, They’re just trying to unsuccessfully make it look like a competition. FNH has this already in the bag, they already won the contract from Colt to produce the exact same rifle. Remember the 1980s when the Army was paying $435 for a claw hammer, the $640 toilet seat and $7,600 coffee makers, this is not different.

  • Zach November 6, 2015, 12:29 pm

    In 10 years, the Army has created 350 pages of requirements that demand the new sidearm follow strict rules on minute details like color and making sure that the size of the hair brush and fingernail size corresponds to existing cleaning kits.After all we can’t upset the women or gays

  • Alan November 6, 2015, 11:51 am

    “Nothing new under the sun”. Look at the history of this. In WWII, Army (military) interference held back or delayed such greats as the P-38 and the deployment of a heavy Tank to combat the Tiger.
    This is the NORM, not an aberration.

  • John Bibb November 6, 2015, 11:02 am

    The Springfield Armory XD .45 ACP 5 inch barrel pistol seems like an excellent choice. Grip safety, Glock type safety trigger, 13+1 capacity. About twice what a 1911 holds, and far simpler. Available in stainless for corrosion resistance.
    In firing 500 rounds I’ve only had one FTF. Looked like a bad primer. Very accurate also at 70 ft. range. Around $500 bucks each off the shelf–should be 20% less in quantity. Provides the bigger hole since the Hague convention outlaws expanding bullets. Like most Glocks–no thumb safety lever. Keep your hand off the grip safety when holstering and when pulling it out.
    John Bibb

  • Robert November 6, 2015, 10:29 am

    I believe as long as we have people in office that throw morality to the wind, we will have these types of problems. YES 350 pages of requirements is ridiculous. Simulation type testing is ridiculous! The best firearm for the soldiers is the one they are confident in and the one they are very familiar with. If you don’t care for them properly, they will fail. If you drop them in the sand or they are used in a sand storm, They can fail. I personally wouldn’t want anyone deciding what firearm I trusted my life with except me! I would suggest Glock. They are easy to work on, they are very dependable and any issues can be resolved with a minimal amount of time, parts and effort. Parts are readily available, they are made in the USA, and they are trusted by more law enforcement than any other firearm out there. Keep it clean, get familiar with how it functions and you will have a dependable firearm for life.

  • Bhorsoft November 6, 2015, 10:05 am

    In the distant past, military contracts have led to some of our more iconic guns – Colt Single Action Armies, the 1911, the 1903 Springfield and later the Garrand and “Ma Deuce”. However, starting with the M-16, the military-industrial complex took over and now there is lots of money to be made during the design, evaluation, and procurement process. This is even before actual production and delivery commences. Once you are chosen, then there is money to be made on upgrades and corrections. As mentioned, it took years before the M-16 became the excellent weapon it is today.

    These days, especially for a hand gun, wouldn’t it be easier and cheaper to take some off the shelf pistols and run them through extensive testing? There are some fine handguns out there already in use by law enforcement that could be easily be made in military grade. Just pick your caliber and test ’em. Once you have the one you want, negotiate price with the manufacturer and go with it. Shouldn’t take more than a year from picking guns to test to final contract signature. Only initial costs should be the cost to the test guns, lots of ammunition, and the time of the evaluators.

  • Walter Cobos November 6, 2015, 9:54 am

    Fire the bureaucrats and ask the men that will use the weapons!

  • JD November 6, 2015, 9:49 am

    An elephant is a mouse built to military specifications.

  • SimpleSimon November 6, 2015, 9:38 am

    If McCain’s been studying this for years and knows how to fix the problems, why is he holding up issuing a report. I read where he was ready to go to print on it, in 2014.

  • WillB November 6, 2015, 9:28 am

    I doubt this is a lowest bidder competition. Most likely it is based on cost (price) and other factors. That allows the government to consider things like delivery schedules and manufacturing quality controls for example. A defective pistol delivered late but at the lowest price, is no bargain.

  • stravo lukos November 6, 2015, 8:48 am

    what’s wrong w/ the 10mm? imho, it’s a show stopper.

    • Scamp August 10, 2018, 5:08 am

      10mm recoil is too powerful for the 5’5″ boy or girl with their tiny hands, that sits in the tent doing paperwork. It was too ‘scary’ for the FBI, that’s how we got the 40. I say give them an allowance, specify a caliber, and let them buy their own. Darwin will weed out the wrong ones. I read once that it required 250,000 rounds fired for every casualty during WW2, I don’t think the difference of 7 or 17 rounds, or 9mm thru 45 acp is going to make a difference.

      I believe that ALL of the politicians in office should be fired, they have not cared what the people need for the last 50 years, only what high profile bill they can get their name on and what are they going to do when they get fired. President is in office for 2 terms, should be all of them. Lifetime politicians are a waste of space and oxygen.

  • Jim November 6, 2015, 8:36 am

    Typical US government bureaucracy with unelected people posing as knowledgeable authorities. They are, at all times, making rules and expounding on edicts that make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Very small people trying to laud it over the general populace that they have the “power and authority” to do so, and taking years and performing countless studies, just to protect themselves and their jobs. Bull hockey! Any normal person with average intelligence could make a decision about a new military sidearm in a week. This action by Federal employees used to be called “featherbedding.” With the government having becoming the behemoth that it has, nobody has to answer for anything any more. We need to clean house. VOTE in 2016! And, make sure you’re taking a careful look at ALL of the candidates. Some, however, may not be worthy of your consideration.

  • Oliver November 6, 2015, 8:01 am

    There is nothing more wrong than saying bureaucracy is bad. Bureaucracys are created for efficency in dealing with large undertakings. Politicians on the other hand, are the culprit. Most just want something for their area to add to their accomplishments.

  • Elnonio November 6, 2015, 7:53 am

    If the requirements are that the firearm must be compatible with existing bore brushes and cleaning kits, does it not follow that the caliber is 9mm….

    • TPSnodgrass November 6, 2015, 1:18 pm

      Better JHP ammunition issued to ALL military members would resolve the field performance issues, without having to piss into the taxpayers wallets, yet again. This is sheer stupidity one more time.

  • Willy Roentgen November 6, 2015, 7:18 am

    Use a 1911A1 cambered for 9mm. Reliable and cheap.

  • BRASS November 6, 2015, 5:25 am

    The USA has been overtaken by politicians and bureaucrats from within. Too many politicians in uniform, empire builders in civilian clothes working for those in uniform and an intermixed mess of both intermingled have ruined the Army’s ability to function decisively in a timely manner.
    The Marines made decisions on an entire weapons T/O (handguns, & long guns, including squad automatic weapons) in less time than it takes the Army to produce the paper requirements for the RFP, for one, a pistol.
    Embarrassing. The only thing dumber is the Navy’s uniform board which mandates more changes over a decade than diapers in a day care.

  • Jim November 6, 2015, 12:47 am

    It’s really pretty simple, you need to look no further than the fact that the more complicated you make a process. The less likely you are to accomplish anything useful.

  • DRAINO November 5, 2015, 9:14 am

    Anyone who has served or had first hand dealings with the military can tell countless tails of how much fraud waste and abuse there REALLY is in the military….even more so in the rest of the Govt. There is so much red tape and hoops to jump through, and mis-managed spending, it baffles the mind!! Base line budgeting needs to GO!!! For a start. There is an ENORMOUS amount of money that is not being spent properly…..and even needlessly/foolishly in the military. It has become a victim of the political cesspool that is our government. Its going to take a long time to change the current military culture that has been infected. But it will have to happen if we are going to get this government/budget/debt under control. With that said, you can’t expect to get high quality products from the lowest bidder… just doesn’t work that way….but red tape gets in the way. Just look at the GPC program the military uses…..they tell you to buy things, but you can only use certain vendors, or get 3 quotes and submit them and blah blah blah…you can’t even just go out and buy printer paper that’s on sale… have to use paper that is certain % recycled and produced/bundled by blind/handicapped people that costs twice as much! THAT IS NON-SENSE!!!! And as far as I’m concerned, McCain is part of the problem. He brings up issues when its beneficial for him.

    • Elnonio November 6, 2015, 8:04 am

      The lowest bidder platitude needs to stop, too. You make it sound as if price is the only consideration.

      The requirements spell out the degree of quality that is needed (hence why you end up with detailed specs). The business that provides that degree of quality required at the lowest price gets the bid.

      Only a fool would think that a business would provide, at the same price, a higher quality item than is required. Only another fool would allow the government to spend funds on unneeded quality. Lest we get accused of wasting funds…

  • WillB November 3, 2015, 9:32 pm

    When it comes to deciding what the guy on the ground needs, I think the guy on the ground has a far better idea than John McCain. McCain’s worry is that his preferred manufacturer in Arizona might not be the one selected and he would lose some campaign donations.

    • Fred C November 6, 2015, 4:12 pm

      Did you even read the article? McCain was complaining about the Army possibly having a preferred vendor. He is not involved in it.

  • Pro2Aguy November 3, 2015, 8:58 pm

    This is yet another example (among many) as to why the Republican “outsiders” POTUS Candidates seem to be appealing to so many American “Citizen” Voters…Namely, the entire U.S. Government is FUBARED.

    • rouge1 November 7, 2015, 8:49 pm

      Corrupt is the word.

  • James M. November 3, 2015, 2:00 am

    This issue has been going on for decades. Look at the M-16. Nothing like 35 years of failure before an acceptable rifles started to take form. Military has a tendency to worry too much about people’s pockets rather than choose a worthy firearm. I wonder how much money our government has spent on r&d of weapons that weren’t battlefield ready when purchased. Or how much money has been spent on items that were dropped before ever seeing combat.

  • Will Drider November 2, 2015, 10:57 pm

    If the Army is requiring a handgun replacement that can use the same current pistol bore brush and cleaning kit that pretty much limits caliber to 9mm. As far as buying an “off the shelf” commercial handgun he does not understand is the 9mm NATO load. This cartridge with a 124 bullet runs at 36000 PSI. This would be considered a civ 9mm +P as it is 1k PSI over SAAMI standard loading spec. Many 9mm pistols are not engineered to handle P+. Others allow for occasional P+ or are +P rated. Use of the 9mm NATO round means a steady diet of +P. This in turn creates higher stress on the handgun and accelerated wear and failure potential. Please recall the Beretta M9 slide failures! So its not just the beast you buy, its also what you feed it.

    • Robert November 6, 2015, 1:59 pm

      In 2006-07 I worked at Altus AFB as an armed gate guard. The weapon we were issued was an M9, a well designed weapon but unreliable because of the slide problems. The problem we had was the guide rod in the slide in our guns was plastic, causing many to break in use. Dangerous when you are defending the gates of a critical military base. The guide in the regular military police guns were made of aluminum that has a tendency to bend, making them undependable. Why not just make them like an high quality gun and make the guide rods out of steel? Problem solved, no higher cost. If the weapons don’t work there is a problem in the design or engineering.

      • Lying Bastard March 3, 2017, 8:43 am

        The M9 is based on a pistol that first entered in service in mid 30s as a blowback in .380 and then became short recoil in 9mm in the 50s. So, I would think Beretta, might have possibly got the design kinks out by the time the 92 was created. But since it had to be made in the US, the US military and politicians did not resist the opportunity to second guess a company older than this country. Which is why the material choice was different than what Beretta spec’ed it, which led to cracks and failures. Reminds someone of the screwups int he M14 and M16 projects?

    • JMG169 November 6, 2015, 3:20 pm

      Plenty of great pistols out there, but the military has to define what caliber they want as part of the selection process. The Browning Hi-Power is a great and proven 9mm design if that’s the way we want to go, and does fit smaller hands as well. Secret Service has their 357 SiG, FBI is just dropping the 40 S&W, and tons of other calibers out there. Just use some commercially available firearms, have soldiers shoot a few thousand rounds out of those pistols at various types of targets, then look at the results.

      First look at which caliber does what you want it to do, then pick the most reliable and accurate pistol that shoots that caliber. The manufacturers can then add all the rails, fancy sights, integrated lights and all the other bells and whistles afterward. I can’t believe it’s taken us 10 yrs to figure all this out. Colt still has the M1911, with lots of modern variations on that venerable gun. SiG, Glock, S&W, Beretta, Ruger also have outstanding weapons worthy of evaluation. Just hoping we get the right sidearm, and get it soon. This is costing us a fortune, I’m just hoping it’s not costing anybody their lives.

    • DonM November 6, 2015, 5:17 pm

      You say many gun manufacturers prohibit +P Ammo!

      Please provide a list of this so called many gun manufacturers that actually state this in writing.

      I am on the opposite side of this notion and believe that few actually prohibit +P Ammo. And the gun makers only say that use of +P Ammo may result in accelerated wear of the weapon.

      For the record I think a 9mm variant such as a round like the 357 Sig would be a very good replacement to the 9mm. or another viable alternative would be to adopt the 9×25 round.

      • Kalani June 7, 2016, 8:03 pm

        Almost all do unless chamber is marked +P Ruger, Smith and Wesson, Colt, tanflogio, Walther. Ironically Hi-points are +P rated. Actually function better with the hot stuff till broken in.

  • John November 2, 2015, 10:25 pm

    Where can we get a copy of this 350 page document?

  • John November 2, 2015, 10:24 pm

    If something can get complicated, in any way, shape or form, leave it to the government to do it. Making it look simple, is the way they roll. The government can waste money, in a way I find hard to comprehend. It might be time to get some employees in
    Washington DC who actually care about the good of this Nation. Instead of getting reelected.

    • Jim November 6, 2015, 11:04 am

      I work in SAP. And trust me, it’s not just the government that can be inefficient and waste money. There have been more SAP project deployments than I could name that have blown tens and hundreds of millions of dollars with absolutely nothing to show for it. The whole “Govt can’t do anything right ” and “big business is efficient and can do anything better” mentality is unsupportable.
      That said, a big bureaucracy is never advantageous in any decision making process. And the military is notorious for overcomplicating any equipment acquisition. Too many lobbyists, from too many companies, with too much influence, IMO.

  • SuperG November 2, 2015, 6:11 pm

    I thought we all knew that military intelligence was an oxymoron when speaking of generals?

    • petru November 6, 2015, 1:11 pm

      The military always wants a weapon to do things it was never meant to do and be capable of so many add ons they end up with a Frankenmonster weapon that does not do any of its required tasks very efficiently. If the military needs a specialized weapon for specialized situations then they need to quit being so cheap ass when it comes to small arms and adopt other models to fulfill other specific needs not expect one weapon to do it all.

      They have always needed a smaller pistol to fit women’s hands or men with short fingers. I have seen men over 6 foot tall with fingers so short that their fingers barely had enough reach to shoot a “J” frame S&W revolver but the military has always ignored such problems. Their philosophy has always been, we don’t want another model and besides people are expendable anyway.

      There was nothing wrong with the original Beretta pistol or its caliber for that matter and if the military needed more or newer pistols they should just have had Beretta make more pistols and saved the tax payers a lot of money.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend