Army Sidearm, Browning Hi-Power
 

It amazes me how something so simple, that other countries have mastered, is being made so complicated. Seems the 74 year old Browning Hi-Power used by the army is very unreliable. Highlights from the article:

-"The Canadian Army brought 20 pistols to an Arkansas shooting competition. Before events had even officially kicked off, 15 of those pistols had jammed so badly during the warmup they couldn’t be used";

-"On average, Pole found that the Canadians’ handguns has jammed once every 62 shots. Their British competitors, by contrast, squeezed off 5,620 rounds without a hitch."

-"....soldiers have been advised not to fully load the pistol because it will wear out the springs."

-"A 2016 statement by the Department of National Defence estimated that soldiers wouldn’t be able to get their hands on new pistols until at least 2026.";

-"In a 2017 story on the 10-year, $50 million process to replace Canada’s Hi-Powers...."

-"The British Army would seem to agree. Just a few years ago, the Brits were in the exact same position as Canada: Their soldiers were still carrying Second World War-era Brownings and this was starting to become a dangerous liability for deployed troops.

So, London tested some alternatives, settled on the Glock 17 and bought 25,000 of them for the equivalent of $15 million CDN - about one quarter the expected cost of Canada’s program for pistol replacement."

It is frusterating seeing incompetence like this.

Link

didnt that 50 million get tweeted away?
 

:argue2:

Our soldiers are put at risk, while we give away millions to terrorists and foreigners.

I saw the article about sidearm replacement a few years ago and could not believe how it could take the time they quoted to do the purchase, and the cash involved.
I would seem to me about five phone calls to allies to see what they bought and the cost, then say five calls to manufactures for sample firearms, so you buy 50 firearms at about $1000 per then lets say a month to test em. Say 20,000 rounds later and Bob`s your uncle all done. Buy the best. Seriously could it be any more complicated than that. Order say 70% for big hands and the rest for smaller hands.
Oh but when the did the rifle for the artic Guys n Gals they had to figure out how to get the Colt patents in house, then Quebec to manufacture, Then that got done.
Maybe same issues here, how to get Quebec to manufacture them under what patent.

Sad but true.

The brownings we have were probably great once upon a time but are now very unreliable. Also our procurement system is lacking at the best of time .

Sub for sale

We're in NATO.
Just ask the other guys in it what they got, and from who.
No need to reinvent the wheel.
I'm pretty sure America looked into it before they bought theirs.

Airplanes may be complicated and take years to replace, Small Arms not so.

Grizz

it pains me to hear when the Canadian government is looking to buy anything for the military.


LSVW
Griffon Helicopter
UK Subs
Nylon rainjacket
Cotton winter underwear
etc.

It's so pathetic that anything that has to do with procurement for the military, has nothing to do with getting our troops the tools they need to do the job. It's all about politics and getting overpriced government contracts to friends of whichever government currently pulls the strings. It's sickening. Now we are going to buy $500 M worth of Vintage Australian F-18s when we don't have the pilots to fly the ones we have, or the techs to service them. And really, what pilot in his right mind would want to fly an aircraft that is dangerously obsolete in comparison to aircraft and missile systems they might have to fly against? It's like suicide. What a mess.

I believe the costs are high to replace due to when they decide to purchase a piece of equipment that is not the only cost involved.

There is spare parts, training courses and other factors. A replacement pistol might only be $800 alone. They are kept for a long time, need to be rebuilt, someone needs proper training to do so. Parts can be expensive and need to be on hand. This usually negotiated in the contract. $800 turns into $2500.

That's my understanding anyways, may be wrong.

They do need to be replaced. I'll gladly help offset the costs by purchasing one of the old ones.:)

The British Army replaced its BHP several years back, they simply bought 25,000 Glock 17 pistols,

One would think it should be a simple operation. I worked as an Armourer for the rcmp and Public safety , Ohs and probably more all get a say not just what we felt tested best !

You don't even have to look at allies for data.

They have the Sig P226 and H&K USP already issued to some units. Simply ask them if they like them. Look at the cost and reliability of those weapons. We should have that data in house already. Input an order for 15 000 + spare parts. How hard is it?

You guys are missing the point. It has nothing to do with which pistol, at what price.

How would Liberals finance their friends with tax dollars if we did things that efficiently?

Well we just replaced the M9 made by Baretta to the M17 by Sig. The process took forever and cost millions. In reality when talking about a hand gun they aren’t reinventing the wheel and they won’t see the round count a rifle will so any quality handgun Glock Sig HK etc... would be adequate. Many police departments and other nations militaries have recently gone through the process of replacing their side arm so I agree there shouldn’t be too big a reason you can’t view your allies results to make a decision. Surely there can’t be a lot of too secret info with handgun testing....

Only the best for our military...

I'm going to say something crazy.

The Feds could cover the cost of new pistols if they sold the old Brownings to us......

Dare to dream Arnold, dare to dream.

What I don't understand is why not just switch to the Glock 17's and get it over with. They are the most widely used pistols in the world, parts are available everywhere you look and despite the opinions of others they have a very good track record. If the world got really bad you could even source parts from different agencies should the need arise.

How many times does your average soldier use a sidearm in a fire fight anyways? Seriously I don't know but I would imagine your main battle rifle would be far more effective than a pistol.

Glock 17, I second that. No need to spend money on testing, its tested.

Fellas can argue all day about pistols but the Glock is a work horse. I shot a G22 to death, took many, many years of consistent shooting, couldn't even begin to estimate the round count.

Not to mention if you got a government contract you could probably get that pistol for 350$ Or less. I’m not a big fan of glocks although my ccw is a Glock 43 and I used to carry a 22 for work, but they are like the AK, they just work and any monkey can pick it up and use it. They are a simple and durable design. You could get a 19 if a smaller frame is needed and still use the same magazines in a pinch. Add a threaded barrel for those SF types and it’s easy least!

Just piggy-back the next USMC order and save a bundle.

Unfortunately government doesn't work like that. Should but doesn't. :confused:

Grizz

thats because the USMC already piggy backs off the US Army... bahaha lol