US Army selects new 9mm

[ELB]

https://taskandpurpose.com/army-apc9k-submachine-gun

Official announcement: https://www.fbo.gov/index.php?s=opportu ... bmode=list&=

$2.6M for up to 1350 Sub Compact Weapons (SCW) including slings, manuals, parts, accessories.

I believe the picture at the link is not the exact configuration the Army is buying, I've read elsewhere that the Army wants a folding stock, not the sliding on depicted at the link.

[Scott B.]

The B&T's are nice firearms. Really well thought out and just feel good.

It's taking a lot of personal discipline not to buy one. Bought too much lately, so I'm on the bench.

[rotor]

Comes to just over $7,100 each. What a bargain! Only getting 350.

[ELB]

Comes to just over $7,100 each. What a bargain! Only getting 350.

That's not correct. $2.6M is the total contract value for up to 1350 weapons plus parts, manuals, accessories, etc. The government will pay 2.6M only if it exercises the option(s) to buy all of them.. The initial buy is for 350, with an option(s) to buy 1000 more. the actual unit cost of the SCW is probably more like $1000, way cheaper than the civilian semi-auto versions I've seen.

[rotor]

This is what it said.......
"On Monday, Army Contracting Command awarded Swiss defense contractor Brugger & Thomet a $2.5 million contract to outfit the personal security details with the APC9K semi-automatic carbine.

The award will furnish the service with 350 APC9Ks, with an option to acquire up to 1,000 of the compact 9mm weapons. "

To me that meant they were getting 350 guns with an option to get a total of 1,000. I interpret that to mean that they paid $2.5 mil for 350 and got an option to buy up to 650 more for whatever the additional price they would be charged. Perhaps I am wrong.

[MaduroBU]

I think that SMGs are a lot of fun to shoot. I don't understand where one would use one in a combat setting given the options now available.

Size is the overriding concern? Use a pistol with a longer barrel and/or bigger caliber. My X5 in .357 Sig WITH A CAN MOUNTED is 2-4" shorter than an MP5 and carries 130% the muzzle energy (124 gr@1350 FPS vs 147 gr@1400 FPS)

Power is the overriding concern? Use a service rifle.

Need a mix of small size and stopping power? Get a bullpup rifle in .300 BLK/7.52x40/.300 HAM'R. My deer rifle (a K&M M17S in 7.62x40) is the same length as an MP5 and 1 lb heavier but carries 3.5x the muzzle energy (124 gr@1350 FPS vs 150 gr@2250 FPS).

An M17S with an 11" barrel .300 BLK could switch between a far more powerful supersonic round and a 1.5x more powerful subsonic round with the same dimensions. The only edge that the SMG holds at that point is stowed length, smaller magazines (though these would now be proprietary) and lighter weight (loaded mag is lighter, gun 1lb lighter, SMG can is Al, so lighter than a supersonic rated .30 cal Ti can).

In other words, the SMG is only better if all you're going to do is carry it around. This begs the question: why not use a sidearm in those cases?

[ELB]

This is what it said.......
"On Monday, Army Contracting Command awarded Swiss defense contractor Brugger & Thomet a $2.5 million contract to outfit the personal security details with the APC9K semi-automatic carbine.

The award will furnish the service with 350 APC9Ks, with an option to acquire up to 1,000 of the compact 9mm weapons. "

To me that meant they were getting 350 guns with an option to get a total of 1,000. I interpret that to mean that they paid $2.5 mil for 350 and got an option to buy up to 650 more for whatever the additional price they would be charged. Perhaps I am wrong.

Surely you don't believe everything you read in the news?

If you follow the other link I provided, it goes to the actual government announcement of the award.

Note that the $2.5M figure in the article comes from the "contract award dollar amount" which is $2,575,811.76. That is the maximum amount of money that would be expended if every option is exercised and every item within each option is purchased. It includes the cost of the firearms and anything else the contractor is to supply: training, manuals, slings, optics, magazines, spare parts, etc. This figure drives some other requirements, like how the original solicitation is to be publicized, who the Source Selection Authority can be, how the award of the contract is to be publicized, and probably some other things. It also drives the budgeting for the program, of course.

Within that 2.5M (really, almost 2.6M) figure, the government contracts are generally structured with an initial award in the first year, then up to four additional option years. I think it's possible to have multiple options in a year, but generally the maximum life of a contract by law is five years. Money has to be budgeted and approved for each year, and only one year's money can be obligate at a time. The government may or may not execute the next year's options. So that 2.5M is can be spread out over five years of budgeting, and Congress or the Army could cut off future funding at any time.

Also note in the Synopsis portion of the government award announcement the following statement: "The purpose of this P-OTA ["P-OTA" is this particular contract] is to purchase 350 SCWs, with an option for additional quantities of up to 1,000 SCWs, with slings, manuals, accessories, and spare parts." So they definitely want to buy 350 Sub Compact Weapons now, and have the option to purchase up to 1000 of them in the future, along with all the other required gizmos like slings and such. And all that has to fit in the contract award dollar amount.

Now, my acquisition experience was with buying GPS widgets for all the services, not guns for the Army, but I think the general contracting process is similar, and that's my best somewhat educated guess as to what this contract does.

ETA: I looked around for info on the original solicitation, and it says the options for 1000 more SCWs will be exercised for amounts no larger than 350 units at a time, with a maximum of 1000 total. So that fits the initial award of 350 units, plus four option years of up to 350 each, with the actual amounts purchased not exceeding 1000. For example, the Army could buy 350 in option year 1, 300 in option year 2, 300 in option year 3, and then no more than 50 in the last year. This tells the contractor how to size his production line for this contract, e.g. max 350 per year.

[ELB]

I think that SMGs are a lot of fun to shoot. I don't understand where one would use one in a combat setting given the options now available.

From what I've read in other articles, these are not intended for combat (not like infantrymen would encounter), but for personal protection details of military VIPs.

[rotor]

ELB, I went to the same site you listed...

"The P-OTA is awarded based upon successful completion of the prototype project proposed by B&T USA LLC in response to Sub Compact Weapon (SCW) Prototype Opportunity Notice: W15QKN-18-R-032M, evaluation of testing results, and subsequent updated proposal request letter for Follow-on Production Award. The purpose of this P-OTA is to purchase 350 SCWs, with an option for additional quantities of up to 1,000 SCWs, with slings, manuals, accessories, and spare parts."

So you believe that they can purchase 350 for $2.5 mil and they have the option of getting a total of 1000 without paying any additional money. I did not interpret that "option" to mean that they could get a total of 1000 for $2.5 mil. If so, I am willing to let them bid on my next gun purchase. Realistically though, if the $2.5 mil would cover a total of 1000 guns why not take all 1000?

[ELB]

So you believe that they can purchase 350 for $2.5 mil and they have the option of getting a total of 1000 without paying any additional money. ..

No. The government is not purchasing 350 SCWs for 2.5M, and the contractor is not getting $2.5M upfront. The government will actually pay only for the 350 SCWs for whatever the agreed upon price per SCW system (system meaning the gun and its accessories as defined in the contract) is. If the government chooses to buy additional SCWs, they can buy up to 1000 at whatever price is agreed to in the contract. If the government buys all 1350 SCWs and all the parts and manuals and magazines that are specified in the contract, then the final cost for the whole shebang cannot be more than $2.5M

The contract award dollar amount of $2.5M is the maximum that can be paid on this contract for its whole life. It is NOT the amount that the contactor is receiving right now. B-T will receive only a fraction of that.

[rotor]

So you believe that they can purchase 350 for $2.5 mil and they have the option of getting a total of 1000 without paying any additional money. ..

No. The government is not purchasing 350 SCWs for 2.5M, and the contractor is not getting $2.5M upfront. The government will actually pay only for the 350 SCWs for whatever the agreed upon price per SCW system (system meaning the gun and its accessories as defined in the contract) is. If the government chooses to buy additional SCWs, they can buy up to 1000 at whatever price is agreed to in the contract. If the government buys all 1350 SCWs and all the parts and manuals and magazines that are specified in the contract, then the final cost for the whole shebang cannot be more than $2.5M

The contract award dollar amount of $2.5M is the maximum that can be paid on this contract for its whole life. It is NOT the amount that the contactor is receiving right now. B-T will receive only a fraction of that.

I am unfamiliar with government contracts but it sure didn't read that way to me. So if they get 1350 (plus slings, etc) the maximum price is $2.5m plus change at a cost of just over $1800 each. Not bad I guess. Too bad we can't get in on the deal.

[philip964]

Sure is pretty. Sorry I read this, and watched the video.

[bblhd672]

PSD military personnel "require weapons with greater lethality than pistols that are more concealable than rifles," the ACC special notice posted in August stated. "The ultimate objective of this program is to acquire a highly concealable Sub Compact Weapon (SCW) system capable of engaging threat personnel with a high volume of lethal force while accurately firing at close range with minimal collateral damage."

They require a weapon with greater lethality than a pistol, yet choose a pistol caliber (9mm) weapon? The barrel is 6.9 inches, less than 2 inches longer than my M&P 2.0 5" 9mm. Can two more inches of barrel really achieve "greater lethality" than a pistol? Or is the point that the 30 round magazine/full auto capability makes it more lethal...with "minimal collateral damage" (run innocent bystanders!!)?

Seems to me for real "greater lethality" they would have gone with something like a .300 Blackout AR Pistol.

Nobody does stupid quite like the military procurement system.....

[Liberty]

PSD military personnel "require weapons with greater lethality than pistols that are more concealable than rifles," the ACC special notice posted in August stated. "The ultimate objective of this program is to acquire a highly concealable Sub Compact Weapon (SCW) system capable of engaging threat personnel with a high volume of lethal force while accurately firing at close range with minimal collateral damage."

They require a weapon with greater lethality than a pistol, yet choose a pistol caliber (9mm) weapon? The barrel is 6.9 inches, less than 2 inches longer than my M&P 2.0 5" 9mm. Can two more inches of barrel really achieve "greater lethality" than a pistol? Or is the point that the 30 round magazine/full auto capability makes it more lethal...with "minimal collateral damage" (run innocent bystanders!!)?

Seems to me for real "greater lethality" they would have gone with something like a .300 Blackout AR Pistol.

Nobody does stupid quite like the military procurement system.....

It's not suppose to be a combat weapon. It's intended to be used by military guards. Perhaps High ranking Military or Political leaders. There is a reason that you don't see secret service carrying M-4s while they are closely guarding our Presidents. With shrinking barrel lengths rifle caliber ammunition stat losing effectivness while pistol calibers tend to benefit with the longer barrels. I believe that the greater lethality is gained not just with the extra inches and select fire, but with accuracy gained with a foldable shoulder stock.

300 BO is not an approved NATO round and was probably never considered.9mm will kill someone just as dead as a 50cal BMG.

[chasfm11]

So you believe that they can purchase 350 for $2.5 mil and they have the option of getting a total of 1000 without paying any additional money. ..

No. The government is not purchasing 350 SCWs for 2.5M, and the contractor is not getting $2.5M upfront. The government will actually pay only for the 350 SCWs for whatever the agreed upon price per SCW system (system meaning the gun and its accessories as defined in the contract) is. If the government chooses to buy additional SCWs, they can buy up to 1000 at whatever price is agreed to in the contract. If the government buys all 1350 SCWs and all the parts and manuals and magazines that are specified in the contract, then the final cost for the whole shebang cannot be more than $2.5M

The contract award dollar amount of $2.5M is the maximum that can be paid on this contract for its whole life. It is NOT the amount that the contactor is receiving right now. B-T will receive only a fraction of that.

I am unfamiliar with government contracts but it sure didn't read that way to me. So if they get 1350 (plus slings, etc) the maximum price is $2.5m plus change at a cost of just over $1800 each. Not bad I guess. Too bad we can't get in on the deal.

I built software for a company to place bids with the government under their contracting system. The method described for a total contract price but actual unit pricing depending on the quantities that were selected is exactly what we had to do. It is a terrible arrangement for smaller bidders. They, the government,get to give you a very big contract number upfront but may end up buying only a few units at the heavily discounted price because of the supposed volume. A lot of people get sucked into "go out of business" pricing when they see the large opening contract number. Of course, if you get past that and get into a cozy relationship, the contract can get changed and you can charge $5,000 for toilet seats later on.