The link as several videos.

https://www.armytimes.com/news...Early%20Bird%20Brief

Cabela’s might have been a cheaper option for the military’s newest handgun after all, report shows

by Todd South 18 hours ago

Back in 2016, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said publicly that he could probably get a better deal on a new handgun to replace the decades-old Beretta M9 if he had $17 million on a credit card to spend at the outdoor store Cabela’s.

Well, it turns out the eventual $580 million, 10-year contract for the Modular Handgun System is a bit pricier than that speculative shopping trip, but it is still competitive with a straight commercial purchase, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report.

“We’re not figuring out the next lunar landing. This is a pistol. Two years to test? At $17 million? You give me $17 million on a credit card, and I’ll call Cabela’s tonight, and I’ll outfit every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine with a pistol for $17 million,” Milley said at the time. “And I’ll get a discount on a bulk buy.”

The two-page Congressional Research Service report noted that the four services have plans to buy as many as 473,215 pistols from Sig Sauer, the winner of the MHS contract last year. That will include a combination of the 9mm M17 handgun and its compact version, the M18.

Those numbers break down to:

Army: 238,215 weapons.
Air Force: 130,000 weapons.
Navy: 70,000 weapons.
Marine Corps: 35,000 weapons (not officially announced but in budget for next fiscal year).

While report authors Moshe Schwartz and Jason A. Purdy pointed out criticisms in other reports of the Army’s handgun procurement — including the length of the procurement effort and the lack of clarity in the original Request For Proposals to replace the M9 — the pair also wrote that observers blamed acquisition statutes and regulations that delayed decision making and ramped up administrative issues.

And though a straight apples-to-apples comparison between using the procurement process and doing a direct off-the-shelf purchase isn’t available in the report, its authors estimated that ammunition and weapons purchases to meet the quantities needed would come to about $552 million over a decade — a $28 million discount from the awarded contract.

They listed Cabela’s prices as $800 for the full-sized civilian version of the M17, known as the Sig Sauer P320, and $650 for the compact version. Holsters came out to $50 each.

The military version of the M17 and M18 are slightly different than the P320, with some internal mechanisms and external controls, according to the company.

The CRS report’s estimates didn’t include intellectual property such as technical data purchased by the Army nor the additional training that is included with the package, according to the report.

And, the authors made a very conservative estimate of cost increases at about 1 percent annually for the weapons. The estimates did not include increases for included items such as the holster, ammunition and maintenance kits.

An interesting side note showed the Army-only Beretta M9 contract made back in the 1980s for 321,260 pistols came in at about $178.9 million in today’s dollars.

The final verdict, according to CRS analysts?

“Based on the final cost of the weapon program, the Army appears to be procuring the weapon at a competitive cost, particularly if the value of the intellectual property is included,” according to the report.

They lose credibility with the $150 price difference between full size vs compact (or Carry, for that matter). All features being equal (except size), the price should be the same, regardless if Cabela's sells it or anyone else. We certainly sell them at the same price, albeit a fair bit less than Cabela's does.

Yeah but is cabellas going to provide support for those guns for decades to come.

I get where he is coming from though. Spending the time and money to slog through a process for what amounts to a weapon less frequently used in military applications then a radio seemed a bit excessive when there were perfectly good COTS guns that were already well vetted.

Personally I think they should have bought Glock 17/19s and been done with it. Not because I think they are some massively superior handgun just that they are well proven, cheap, available and already in limited use.

Yeah but without that MHS contract who knows if the P320 special drop feature would have been 'found' and 'fixed'.

Only an idiot would buy guns at Cabelas' pricing.

The only problem with this is that as of today, the true military version can’t be bought at Cabelas. I get the fact that they are talking a COTS procurement versus the process, but it’s not the same animal.

I tried to tell them that the Beretta M9A3 was the best way to go, but they wouldn't listen.

I thought the contract included ammunition. Did it not?

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
I tried to tell them that the Beretta M9A3 was the best way to go, but they wouldn't listen.

I like Sig .45's (P227 & P220) a lot. However the 320 does't do any yearning or stirring of desire.
I would take one if you gave it to me. Something about a Beretta new model 9A3-1 is making me fill my wild feralhog Bank.
Army should have stayed with Beretta for several reasons

I'm thinking the reference to Cabela's was just to make a point,

he could have taken that same 17mil to Dick's ( ) or any other firearms retailer and made a buy,

quote:

Originally posted by lyman:
I'm thinking the reference to Cabela's was just to make a point,

he could have taken that same 17mil to Dick's ( ) or any other firearms retailer and made a buy,

Yeah...well, the military could get a pistol at Dick's, though Dick's couldn't transfer outside state boundaries, but even the military couldn't get a semi-automatic rifle at Dicks sporting goods.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
I tried to tell them that the Beretta M9A3 was the best way to go, but they wouldn't listen.

Beretta said the M9A3 was going to be cheaper than the current version M9 to the military, but the civilian version is $350 - $400 more.

quote:

but the civilian version is $350 - $400 more.

Maybe recouping R&D costs..? And making $$$, the good old fashioned way...

I wonder what the "included intellectual property" is? And perhaps Beretta was planning on not including it, to allow them to use it in the civilian market.

When the contract was awarded press reports said the per gun price the military was paying would only be $207. This new report seems way off.

quote:

Originally posted by Fundman:
When the contract was awarded press reports said the per gun price the military was paying would only be $207. This new report seems way off.

Yeah per gun.

Plus magazines, frames, barrels, slides...

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by lyman:
I'm thinking the reference to Cabela's was just to make a point,

he could have taken that same 17mil to Dick's ( ) or any other firearms retailer and made a buy,

Yeah...well, the military could get a pistol at Dick's, though Dick's couldn't transfer outside state boundaries, but even the military couldn't get a semi-automatic rifle at Dicks sporting goods.

hence the smiley

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by Fundman:
When the contract was awarded press reports said the per gun price the military was paying would only be $207. This new report seems way off.

Yeah per gun.

Plus magazines, frames, barrels, slides...

$207 per gun. Plus magazines, ammo, training, maintenance support and the aforementioned intellectual property.

As the article demonstrates, the military isn't getting ripped off on the price we pay for items. The waste is driven by the extremely inefficient contracting processes and all the hoops to jump through.

DOD cost per M4 is something like $630, less than the civilian market for a Colt 6920. M249s are $4k-ish I believe, semi-auto civvie versions $7-$8k.

Plus suppressors (unknown amount), threaded barrels and tall sights to match. And as I said before ammunition.

The need to factor in all the contracting costs and overhead including the federal employees, their benefits, the building and furnishings, etc., versus 1 guy with a credit card.