US Army Selects B&T for Sub Compact Weapon

Less than a year after releasing its requirement for a Sub Compact Weapon, the US Army has selected the Brugger and Thomet APC9K as it’s new Sub Compact Weapon.

The SCW requirement arose from the Military Police. United States military operations take place worldwide and in all types of terrains as well as under every environmental condition. The Secretary of the Army and/or the Chief of Staff approves senior commanders and key personnel as High Risk Personnel (HRP). HRPs are authorized a Personal Security Detail (PSD), which are assigned to guard against outlined threats. To address this operational need, PSD military personnel require weapons with greater lethality than pistols that are more concealable than rifles. The ultimate objective of this program was 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.

An initial requirement was issued in May of 2018 and the Army issued contracts to multiple companies to investigate their weapon systems. However, they soon retracted the offers and instead, issued a prototype opportunity notice to industry for the Sub Compact Weapon. Six companies were selected and eventually provided a total of 15 weapons each.

The companies who competed are:
Angstadt Arms
Global Ordnance, LLC
Shield Arms
Trident Rifles, LLC

Note that B&T USA and Trident Rifle’s, LLC both offered B&T produced options, but that B&T USA was awarded the contract.

The timeline of the PON was fairly quick and the 15 weapons from each company were put through a test regime. The B&T offering came out on top of the source selection.

The Army will initially purchase 350 weapons with slings, manuals, accessories, and spare parts, but has an option to purchase up to 1000. The value of the contract is $2,575,811.76.

The adoption of the SCW is significant as this is the first service program of record to adopt a 9mm subgun and the first subgun service-level program of record since the M3 greasegun.

Please note that the weapon in the images is the commercial version of the APC9K. The contract SCW is very similar.

37 Responses to “US Army Selects B&T for Sub Compact Weapon”

  1. G says:

    Still not 100% convinced this isn’t somehow an Aprils Fools prank, but anyway… uNpOsSiBlE tHe ReQuIreMeNtS wErE wRiTtEn FoR sIg

  2. Jeff says:

    I will believe the opposite of everything today.

  3. G-man says:

    Awesome win for B&T!

  4. Gerard says:

    April Fools Day thats just a new Airsoft weapon

  5. stewpidbear says:

    It’s a SCAR pistol!

  6. Maroon Beret says:

    Just another example of good taxpayer money being thrown after bad. There are plenty of perfectly fine similar weapons available either in the inventory or available of a GSA schedule instead of going out on contract especially for an off-brand weapon. Instead someone who needed something to write in their narrative for their efficiency report got hold of funding and here we go. However no need to fret. Just taxpayer dollars. The only fool on this April Fool’s Day is the taxpayer once again.

    • ShiroTheHiro says:

      Well Baret, I’m assuming you’ve never shot or handled a B&T firearm. They are excellent quality, simple and accurate. Regardless if they truly ‘needed’ to upgrade and couldn’t use existing MP5Ks (or similar) on hand, these BT firearms will outlast the next several governmental regimes.
      I purchased a GHM9 several months back and was quite honestly floored at the quality and precision of their work. Out of the stack of 9mm pdw’s I own (MP5/K, MPX, CMMG, AR9 Colt, AR9 mp5) it’s hands down the best made, solid and precise of the bunch.

    • SSD says:

      This is a program of record which specifically addresses a validated requirement.

    • SSD says:

      Btw, what are these similar weapons in the inventory you speak of?

    • George says:

      Being an end user of these weapons and having handled the MP5s that are in the inventory, this is a much needed contract. Have you ever had an issued weapon that couldn’t be fixed to 100% because the replacement parts are “out of stock” in the supply system and were told to use it still as the basic function of the weapon still works? There may be plenty of firearms in the “inventory,” but most do not have the parts to maintain after 3 decades of daily carry and use. As far as bullets for ratings, this has been requested by the end users for the last 5-10 years and is now happening.

  7. Joe_momma says:

    April fools pranks are getting quite involved these days

  8. Big Beard Scott says:

    Not a joke…I know the owner, Tim Nickler, and sent him a text earlier:

    20:01 Yo! Is this fer real dawg, or just some April Fool’s BS??

    20:02 Real

    20:04 Bro…u just started made history. I’m so happy for you… Congrats Tim!

    20:04 Thanks

  9. Jeff S says:

    Now we just need CBP to announce their new pistol…

  10. Mike p says:

    Maybe my math is off, but the contract is $2.5 mil for 350 weapons, that’s over $7k for each gun!

    • SSD says:

      It’s off. Reading is fundamental. They may buy up to 1000 guns.

      • Mohican says:

        $2.5 mil for up to 1000 guns, $2.500 each?

        • SSD says:

          Sort of, much closer to the truth. You have to consider that they are delivering spare parts and some other bits and pieces as well.

          • Da jones says:

            It read $2,500,000 for 350 guns, ($7500 each) with an option to buy up to 1000 guns. I believe that option is extra money for the contractor.
            I hope the extra parts were like 3 extra firearms per each one bought.
            The mags look like they have polymer feed lips. If my mission and my life depends on a magazine functioning 100% , l would want steel feed lips. Like the mpx mags

            • SSD says:

              No, that’s not how it works. That’s the ceiling. What do you mean by “option is extra money for the contractor?” That they’ll pay more? The amount paid to the contractor is specified in a delivery order. Those funds are counted against the ceiling.

  11. Tounushi says:

    Will it be the M4 SMG?

  12. Mike p says:

    And they may make 350.