Marine Corps soliciting 4,000 MEU (SOC) pistols?

I’m pretty out of the loop these days but it sure looks like the Marine Corps wants to buy a bunch o’ 1911’s. If it really is 4,000 thats a lot more pistols than the current number of trigger pullers that are issued the MEU (SOC). I have to say I am surprised because I figured the MEU (SOC) pistols days were numbered in favor of something more modern. Before someone jumps all over me for saying that I was issued 1911’s for 20+ years in the Marine Corps and was around when the people who had the MEU (SOC) pistol concept were specing it and was one of the first to be issued one when MAU’s became MEU (SOC) in the late 80’s. Anyway don’t want to argue that but wondering if anyone more current knows the story behind this.

http://www.fbodaily.com/archive/2010/03-March/19-Mar-2010/FBO-02095403.htm

10 – M45 MEUSCOC Pistol

Notice Date
3/17/2010

Notice Type
Sources Sought

NAICS
332994 — Small Arms Manufacturing

Contracting Office
M67854 MARINE CORPS SYSTEMS COMMAND Quantico, VA

ZIP Code
00000

Solicitation Number
M6785410R1064

Response Due
4/16/2010

Archive Date
4/19/2010

Point of Contact
Erik Halverson, Contract Specialist

E-Mail Address
erik.halverson@usmc.mil
(erik.halverson@usmc.mil)

Small Business Set-Aside
N/A

Description
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND YOUR RESPONSE IS NOT AN OFFER. THIS REQUEST FOR INFORMATION DOES NOT COMMIT THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY ANY COSTS INCURRED IN PREPARATION OF ANY SUBMISSION TO THIS MARKET SURVEY, OR TO CONTRACT FOR SERVICES. The Marine Corps Systems Command (MARCORSYSCOM), Infantry Weapons Systems, Quantico, Virginia, is seeking feedback on the following: The Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC) is seeking sources to replenish stocks and meet increased demand for its M45 MEUSOC pistol. There is an interest in a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) pistol. MCSC is also investigating moving to a full or partial Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) model. The pistol’s operating environment is characterized by high usage in training, rough handling and environments on deployments, and limited access to repair and maintenance resources during high tempo operations. MCSC may procure up to 4,000 units, of which half will be in heavy use/deployed to combat theaters at any given time.MCSC may be interested in a pistol with the following draft characteristics: Semi-automatic,.45 ACP caliber. Single stack magazine must hold at least 7 rounds. It is desirable that the pistol function with the Marine Corps.45 ACP 7-round magazine (NSN 1005-01-373-2774) used in the current MEUSOC pistol. Pistol must have an accessory rail meeting MIL-STD-1913 specifications to mount accessories. It must have a grip safety and an ambidextrous manual safety which are operable by users wearing cold weather and NBC gloves. It has dull, non reflective surfaces and uses standard military colors. It must lock the slide or bolt to the rear after the last round in the magazine is fired. It has a beveled magazine well to facilitate rapid loading. The pistol has a lanyard loop attachment point. It can hold a five shot group to an average of no more than 4 inches by 4 inches at 25 yards. It should be no more than 9 inches in length and weigh less than 4.5 pounds with empty magazine. It has a consistent trigger pull of 5 1 pounds. The pistol can demonstrate reliability of an average minimum of 300 rounds between stoppages and 5,000 rounds between parts failures. Magazines should remain serviceable for at least 3,000 rounds. The pistol will perform reliably after being subjected to standard MIL SPEC environmental tests, drop tests, and temperature extremes. The pistol must demonstrate “drop in” parts interchangeability, with no milling, filing, or fitting required. There shall be no degradation in performance after parts are exchanged. The pistol is resistant to corrosion and chemicals, and is compatible with current military approved small arms cleaning, lubrication, and preservative and storage agents. The pistol must be marked with an Item Unique Identification (IUID) marking, as defined in MIL-STD-130M. The following are specific questions the Government is seeking responses to: 1. If the to-be-published Request for Proposal requires bid samples (estimated to be seven pistols, 6 magazines per pistol, operator and maintainer manuals), are you willing to provide at no cost to the government? 2.Please provide any test data on the durability, reliability and maintainability of your pistol. Are the results from internal testing or independent organizations? 3.What is your current monthly production rate? What is the maximum monthly rate you could manage and still meet quality requirements? How would you ensure quality is not compromised? How long would it take you to meet the maximum rate? 4.What is the market acceptance of your pistol? How long has it been in production? How many units, by year, have been sold? What agencies use your pistol? 5.If you warranty your pistol, what are the terms? How much warranty work is done on candidate pistols? What are the top four warranty issues? 6.Please provide an estimated price for one system consisting of pistol, 6 magazines, and operator manual, assuming a volume buy of your product. 7.Do you provide training or training support to current customers? Please describe. 8.If the MCSC changed to a Contractor Logistics Support strategy, how would you propose to support your pistol? Could you perform a depot level rebuild of your pistol? If so, how many per month could you process? Do you have an estimated cost range to perform rebuild? All contractors who provide goods/services to the DoD must be registered in the Central Contractor Register (CCR). Online Certifications and Representations at (ORCA), http://orca.bpn.gov, will also be required. Failure to comply with ORCA registration may make an offeror ineligible for award. This notice is NOT a request for competitive proposals and no solicitation is currently available. However, interested parties may identify their interest and capability to meet the requirements by providing electronically their commercial/non-developmental brochures or other literature that includes answers to the above-mentioned questions as well as cost and availability data to Erik Halverson at erik.halverson@usmc.mil no later than 4:00 PM Eastern Standard Time on Friday, 16 April, 2010. Companies that desire to submit by mail should address their above information to Marine Corps Systems Command, Infantry Weapons Systems, Attn: Erik Halverson, 2200 Lester Street -Bldg 2203, Quantico, VA 22134-6050. NO TELEPHONE CALLS WILL BE ACCEPTED. Contracting Office Address: M67854 MARINE CORPS SYSTEMS COMMAND Quantico, VA Point of Contact(s): Erik Halverson

Web Link
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DON/USMC/M67854/M6785410R1064/listing.html)

Place of Performance
Address: Marine Corps Systems Command2200 Lester Street - Bldg 2203, Quantico, VA
Zip Code: 22134

Record
SN02095403-W 20100319/100317235424-b363ec929bda1631f9d80eebb9335f36 (fbodaily.com)

Source
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)

Very interesting. Didn’t they buy a few SA PROs and had Kimbers at one point as well? I’m trying to get my buddy who’s in Oki to take pics of the 1911’s in the his armory. I like the idea they are trying to get a good 1911 that has parts interchangeability with not custom fitted parts.

I only ever saw the frankenpistols. Anything else was after my time.

The solicitation states the USMC MAY purchase UP TO 4000 units - my emphasis added.

MARSOC is expanding, as aggressively as selection and training throughput will allow. Add in other “special” Marines outside the MARSOC umbrella, and 4K pistols really isn’t that many…

Regards,

Kevin

Yes I saw the “may”. AFAIK the only people outside of MARSOC is Force attached to MEU (SOC) but plenty has changed and I have no idea how many in MARSOC. Still seems like a lot. Then again you figure one in the armory for each one in the field…hell I don’t know …now I’m speculating and I’m too far removed from this to do that. I do know that a whole lot of rounds will go through these during deployment workups so spare pistols and parts will be needed.

The pistol must demonstrate “drop in” parts interchangeability, with no milling, filing, or fitting required. There shall be no degradation in performance after parts are exchanged.

Thats going to be a tough one. It is also pretty much the reason I no longer shoot 1911’s.

Yeah it seems they don’t want to have a huge amount of armorer support or perhaps want repairs to be able to be done by the individual if necessary. They should have bought HK 45’s. :wink: It is interesting that they are obviously looking for heavily used commercial pistols with a good track record. 300 rounds between stoppages and 5,000 between parts failures?

Yep this was brought up in the Combat 1911 thread. I wonder why they won’t go for a Polymer pistol in 45 :confused:

Good thing they bought all those M9A1s so they could buy more 1911s. Good luck at the next budget meeting with the Obama boys, Marines!

M_P

“The pistol can demonstrate reliability of an average minimum of 300 rounds between stoppages and 5,000 rounds between parts failures.”

Man! They might be able to get by with some pretty crappy 1911s.

That doesn’t actually make any sense. Anyway politics are another forum.

OK, thanks for the advice. You are awesome.

M_P

Once they find their interchangeable parts requirement equals a sub-standard pistol they will probably send an announcement out for a modern pistol.

Not surprised in the least.

He’s right. You’re not.

The units that get MEU/SOCs and their variants ALSO have the M9s, in addition to all the other organizations that have the M9 as the standard, everyday sidearm. Last year, there was an example of an entire MARSOC company that pulled ALL of their .45s and switched back to their M9s until an issue was resolved.

There are MEU/SOC .45s that are wearing out because they’ve been around since Christ was a Corporal (relatively speaking), and they require replacing, as does every single other weapons system in the inventory, hence the reason we’re still buying M2s, M240s…shall I go on? That’s in addition to the fact that MARSOC is still building up, and Recon and FORCE Recon are being reconstituted. Add in the ahead-of-schedule 202k plus-up, and the need for more of all sidearm variants is easily explained and justified.

There’s a need, and the Dems, if they have any at all, have a hard-on for the more specialized forces. It’s unusual for those budget outlays to be significantly curtailed. Not an issue.

The recent purchase of “all those M9A1s” (also a platform that requires periodic replacement, BTW) was indeed a good thing, and please allow me to speak for the entire Corps when I extend appreciation for your good wishes. Our xenophobic little gun club kinda likes it when we get new stuff to replace worn stocks and have enough to hand out to our people.

From what I understand, one of the problems with the MEU(SOC) 1911 has been the need to send the pistols to PWS for a lot of the repairs that might otherwise be done by a lower level armorer.

Asking for a pistol that uses a 1911 magazine that also has drop-in parts interchangeability is a pretty big order though. I don’t know if anyone is making a 1911 that meets that criteria.

Asking for a pistol that uses a 1911 magazine that also has drop-in parts interchangeability is a pretty big order though. I don’t know if anyone is making a 1911 that meets that criteria.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Ah, if only Colt or Springfield could get their heads out of their ass.

I lol’d at that. Let it never be said that a Marine’s gift for language ends at stringing together elegant processions of swear words.

Sounds like something the (wisely) aborted H&K 1911 would have accomplished. It would have just cost 5 grand per pistol. I’m not a subject matter expert and I didn’t even stay at the Holiday Inn last night, but 1911 market as it sits today doesn’t really inspire me with great confidence. It may be time for everybody in the military to let ol’ slab-sides go and embrace the dark side…erm…polymer guns.

I don’t know whats up with all the 1911 hate. As long as I don’t have to take care of it, I don’t care. 1911 beats the hell out of the M9.

Sure, the Marines should have went for USP 45s, but something tells me our military will never mass issue anything made by HK.

No hate here. While the 1911 has served the nation well; I think it’s time is coming to an end. There are lighter, higher capacity, and more up-keep friendly guns out there.

Personally, if I were back on active duty the idea of a single stack gun wouldn’t excite me too much.