Why is HK not submitting an entry into the competition....
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Joined
·
38 Posts
I think it's just a waste of their efforts and time, trying to deal with our US military and it's slanted testing and low ball pricing demands.
Joined
·
5,689 Posts
Except didn't they just win the CSASS contract?
Joined
·
381 Posts
I don't know how many rifles were ordered but I'm under the impression that was a limited, small quantity contract. I think HK should have entered the VP series for testing. Honestly that's the only pistol in their line up that could get close to military pricing. At the end of the day they probably didn't want to be bothered with our US military in the pistol trials. It wasn't long ago that they were having a tough time meeting production demands for their European mil/law enforcement contracts. There were even rumors that HK was going to delay shipments for civilian purchase at one time last year so they could keep up. I never noticed a shortage on the shelves though. I'd say HK is running full production as it is on the VP line.
Joined
·
2,924 Posts
In pistols, I doubt HK wanted to go out of the way for the US Military. I do not see the VP9 replacing any current issue arms. While its great for civi use, I do not see it in combat. Something like the MK23 or HK45 would be needed and there is not a huge civi call for those higher end designs so if HK did not win, they would have wasted too much in R&D IMO. They already have the tacticals and MK23. I'd rather see HK work to wark items like the MP7, although we can't have them for our own. Something similar would be nice for civi use. However, if they wish to bring back the P7 in some updated modern manner I would endorse that idea whole heatedly.
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
I don't see the US military going for a manual safety-less striker fired pistol as the standard sidearm.
Delta, MARSOC and SEALs already use Glock as a primary sidearm. Multiple military forces in the world, notably Brits, use them too. It is just a matter of time. They'll probably come up with some sort of regulations like condition 3 only for all but active operations carry. They'll keep M9 for as long as possible just on logistic and financial grounds but when they switch, it'll be a striker.
Joined
·
1,302 Posts
Personally I think the VP9 with a frame mounted thumb safety that works in the right direction would be a reasonable option to the Glock. But if I was H&K, I wouldn't be jumping at the chance to get spun up for nothing again either.
"We're going to do what we do and if you like that, buy some."
Joined
·
1,044 Posts
SOF thinking is not Big Army thinking...Yes, the Glocks are well used now in Spec Ops but that has no impact on what the Overall military procurement system wants. The Glock 17 is used by the UK now, as well as the primary sidearm of Norway, Denmark, Austria etc. As far as traditional action polymer pistols, HK seems to rule on military use: Germany, Ireland, Australia, etc.
Joined
·
53 Posts
I would also imagine special operations units would have latitude to upgrade glock barrels, sights, triggers, grips...that regular army units, etc would not have. You can have a much different pistol after all that. Also whats the scripture verse about 'not casting your pearls before swine'? Why should HK submit the best designed pistol when they've been screwed by the beurocracy and politics before and know they're going to be asked to lower the price and make changes to their design to accomodate the least qualified end users?
I don't believe it is a matter of thinking at the moment. I believe it will become a matter of existing operational experience later. "The SOCOM has run these for years without much issues, and by the way, they are much cheaper" cannot not become an argument when M9's time is up.
I personally don't care for the VP9 but I think it would be one of the better options for such role. I think it would've been the best option if HK figured out how to make their guns eat all ammo, not just good ammo. That part won't be tested in a trial though.
Because the US can't seem to get their s--t together about a replacement pistol
seriously, choosing a new standard issue service pistol should NOT cost this much, nor should it be this hard. It disgusts me how much money the government has wasted on trial after trial, just to get sticker shock on fall back when come up to pricing and actually securing a contract. This is probably....what, the 4th time they've conducted a handgun trial?
seriously, choosing a new standard issue service pistol should NOT cost this much, nor should it be this hard. It disgusts me how much money the government has wasted on trial after trial, just to get sticker shock on fall back when come up to pricing and actually securing a contract. This is probably....what, the 4th time they've conducted a handgun trial?
Joined
·
6,117 Posts
In 2 years.....they absolutely do not use it as their sidearm as of yet. That's the issue with people and rumors on boards it changes daily. Go up to anyone in a team they're still rocking the MK24 or MK25. If the glocks come, they're coming full force in 2 years. Army and MARSOC are a different story.
to be fair, credible sources to get such information is still awful these days. I hardly even trust internet "publications" that report such things - they're based off just as little evidence, with the only difference being this person posted an article rather than a forum post
Joined
·
3,804 Posts
Current HK leadership looks at the VP9/SFP as a commercial cash cow. They weren't interested in investing R&D funds they don't have is modifying the design to meet MHS specs, or those of the FBI tender that went to Glock, plus the millions in proposal costs. There is WAY TOO much risk in current Army small arms and ammo procurement programs right now. Gun makers are gun shy based on all the last minute changes and cancellations in many handgun, rifle and other "replacement" contracts since 2000.
XM8 was a different story. Yes, high risk that the Army would buy anything new to replace the M4 and M16 BUT that opportunity was dropped right in HK's hands by the then new PEO BG. No one would have walked away from being paid to develop, produce and deliver what could have been the Army's new family of rifles and 40mm grenade launchers to the tune of 800K to 1M piece. it was a sole-source contract that died due to expected political pressure from within the Pentagon, DA and from industry competitors.
G3Kurz
XM8 was a different story. Yes, high risk that the Army would buy anything new to replace the M4 and M16 BUT that opportunity was dropped right in HK's hands by the then new PEO BG. No one would have walked away from being paid to develop, produce and deliver what could have been the Army's new family of rifles and 40mm grenade launchers to the tune of 800K to 1M piece. it was a sole-source contract that died due to expected political pressure from within the Pentagon, DA and from industry competitors.
G3Kurz
Joined
·
5,689 Posts
No way the Army will trust Privates with striker fired pistols with no manual safety. And they'd be stupid to.
Joined
·
3,526 Posts
Correct me if I'm wrong (or to put it more plainly), but wasn't the XM8 just the product of breaking the failed OICW's weapon back into the two components with the XM8 being the assault rifle portion? And with their foot in the door, HK had a chance to circumvent the traditional channels for procurement/replacement of the M4/M16 and supply the XM8? And there was no way in hell Colt and those military higher-ups that were in bed with Colt were going to take it lying down.
From Larry Vicker's recent live Q&A (which probably is the most credible source we'll get on the internet imo), yes, that's about what happened
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
