Army wants a harder-hitting pistol

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Anybody know which direction they're wanting to go?

Army wants a harder-hitting pistol | Fox News

 

[Mark 1911]

I'll take a WAG and say 1911!

 

[NyleRN]

G21
/thread

 

[indyjohn]

I'll take a WAG and say 1911!

YES!

G21
/thread

Nooo!

 

[chezuki]

Army wants a harder-hitting pistol

Well. if they mean that literally, a 1911 would be a good choice.

 

[in625shooter]

These "US Military wants more powerful handguns" something threads/rumors/wet dreams comes up every couple months. More than likley pushed by the 45 is better crowd. The fact of the matter is in ball ammo configuration there is minimal gain in effectiveness over the 9mm by the 45. In all probability the US Military for GENERAL ISSUE will stay with something 9mm simply for logistics/umiformity with other NATO countries and obviously a DA/SA or DAO/safe action design (the new FN FNS comes to mind since it has the option of a thumb safety which is specified most of the time in Military specs minus the SIG M 11)
The Military is not going spend the time needed to train folks in a general issue sidearm that is harder to shoot these days. New recruits are not exactly the best learners these days on a standard 9mm let alone something a little harder (more expensive) to shoot.

Even the USMC's new(er) 1911 is not for general issue.

 

[Deathmagnetgt]

It's about time they drop the POS M9, hated that thing.

 

[nipprdog]

Just use JHPs.

 

[in625shooter]

Just use JHPs.

The USAF issue 124 gr JHP for their Security Forces duty use at stateside bases (have since 1998/99 time frame) but like most know the Hague treaty prevents HP rounds in combat. no matter if JHP or FMJ contrary to popular "myth" 9mm and 45 are fairly close to performance these days!

 

[actaeon277]

Just use JHPs.

I think they can't use that in combat, due to the Geneva Convention.
Only in peacetime roles.

 

[sharkey]

I think they can't use that in combat, due to the Geneva Convention.
Only in peacetime roles.

The Hague Conventions, IIRC.

 

[indyjohn]

It's about time they drop the POS M9, hated that thing.

Curious what your EDC is today?

 

[actaeon277]

The Hague Conventions, IIRC.

Thanks.


Then there is the matter of 9mm for NATO uniformity.
Every NATO exercise/operation I've seen or heard of was 75-90 percent USA.
So why do we conform to them?

 

[KLB]

It won't be a 1911. Found this at Wikipedia. Modular Handgun System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In January 2013, the Army released a Request for Information (RFI) to assess available handgun technologies and U.S. small arms industrial production capacity for the Modular Handgun System. The announcement seeks information “on potential improvements in handgun performance in the areas of accuracy and dispersion out to 50 meters, terminal performance, modularity, reliability, and durability in all environments.” The handgun should have a 90 percent or more chance of hitting in a 4 inch circle out to 50 meters consistently throughout the weapon's lifetime. Ergonomic design should minimize recoil energies and control shot dispersion. Features include, but are not limited to, compatibility with accessory items to include tactical lights, lasers, and sound suppressors. Full ambidextrous controls are required and there is interest in ergonomic designs that can be controlled by female shooters. There is no specific caliber, but terminal ballistics at 50 meters through 14 inches of ballistics gel will assess lethality compared to M882 9mm rounds. Specific interest is given to pistols that can accommodate higher chamber pressures over 20 percent greater than SAAMI spec for the cartridge without degradation of reliability. The RFI calls for 2,000 mean rounds between stoppages, 10,000 mean rounds between failures, and a 35,000 round service life. Manufacturers are asked to provide production capacity estimates on minimum and maximum monthly rates, as well as the lead times to achieve those rates. Estimated pricing is requested for quantities of 250,000 to 550,000 handguns

They really want a lot. 90% chance of hitting a 4" circle at 50m by whom?

I'll also guess that it ends up staying 9mm. As the article states

"I don't think anybody would argue that shot placement is the most important for terminal ballistics," Langdon said. "Even though you say a .45 is better than a 9mm, it's still a pistol caliber. Chances are if it is a determined adversary, they are going to have to be shot multiple times regardless of the caliber."

 

[sharkey]

Thanks.


Then there is the matter of 9mm for NATO uniformity.
Every NATO exercise/operation I've seen or heard of was 75-90 percent USA.
So why do we conform to them?

Yep, Hague. Went and looked it up.

The US did not ratify that particular Declaration, not sure if that means anything.

 

[30calmachinegunner]

The SIG 227

 

[padawan]

Who wants to bet that this will end up a cluster f due to politics or bid rigging or whatever-you-can-think-of?

 

[Disposable Heart]

People are all screaming for .45... Just wait until they see the bill for a massive overhaul to a new pistol, combined with costs for training with the new round... Or old round, however you want to see it.

9mm is just as effective and ineffective as .45. You can unload some hi-cap Para into a guy and if you don't hit them in the engine room or bridge, they are going to be JUST as effective as someone shot in similar fashion as a 9mm. This is purely a training and maintenance issue, not a caliber issue. Our troops training regimen is laughable at best. We have become a bloated bureaucracy and those not doing combat duty are given a pistol. They need a carbine or PDW style weapon: Give them rifle power in a compact package (as their task, driver, medic, etc... requires compact, not power... give them both).

For every ONE person I've heard pitch a fit about the M9, I've heard 10 that have either had no issue or actually had an M9 save their bacon. Then again, the same folks that pitch a fit about the M9 seemed to pitch a fit about anything else the military gave them. "Oh man, what I would have done if I had an M14!!" Well, did they give you one, have you fired one? "No." Stop depending so much on hardware, start looking at the software.

Instead of some new pistol or a larger, more expensive caliber, how about actually spending the money (that our nation DOESN'T have) into training? Oh, yeah, that would be too easy. Just like anything else related to shooting: We want it to be hardware or accessory based, not software (us) based. We want whiz bang, not actual training. We want lasers, we don't want to have to sit through a class and shoot to train. We want idiot crap on our guns, rather than learning to shoot. We want to rely on a caliber or bullet type, not train in shooting past 15 yards.

 

[Leadeye]

Meh, issue MAC 10s in place of pistols.

 

[actaeon277]

Yes, money spentnon training would be better.
People would be suprised how little training is done. Tactics are taught. Shooting on the range is taught. Thats about it for most. (Excluding spec ops)

But refitting to a new pistol would costs less than 1 f-35 airplane.