Army wants a harder-hitting pistol

[M67]

Hell with it, tax payer dollars, 10mm, come back of the Bren 10

 

[halfmileharry]

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

Usually does....

 

[Mgderf]

I have a question.
If they do replace the current sidearm(s), what happens to all of the old inventory?

 

[Disposable Heart]

(Excluding spec ops)

Exactly the issue. We have great equipment in the military, some of the best in the world for that matter. However, when we try to press people who aren't trained carnivores into situations that require "more gun" than they carry, of course they are going to have issues. Then there is the myriad of other variables that cloud the water:
Is the enemy determined? (Sure!) Are they wearing body armor or alot of AK mags on their chest? (sometimes on the first, often on the second) Are they high on qat? (sometimes!)

We're asking SF grade actions and the soldiers are expecting SF performance out of their mediocre training and poor weapons choice. If faced with a determined, armed, potentially armored (or improvised armor of AK mags on their chest) and all I've had was 50 rounds of training at Fort Benning years ago with an M9 that has a worn locking block, I would not win and would whine for a better weapon. Okay. If all you're going to give them is a pistol, then train the guys! Give them ALOT more training. If you want them to have a better weapon, .45 ain't gonna penetrate a loaded AK mag any better than 9mm. Give 'em a carbine or PDW. And still train them.

 

[Sylvain]

Why not use a long gun when you want something harder-hitting than a pistol?

Any handgun caliber is weak (9mm or .45 doesn't matter) that's why soldiers dont go to war with only sidearms.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Why not use a long gun when you want something harder-hitting than a pistol?

Any handgun caliber is weak (9mm or .45 doesn't matter) that's why soldiers dont go to war with only sidearms.

Pilots. Tankers. Medics. MPs. A long gun can be in the way for certain jobs.

If they want modular, Sig seems like the obvious choice.

 

[SERparacord]

I have a question.
If they do replace the current sidearm(s), what happens to all of the old inventory?

Hillary gets it.

 

[Harleyrider_50]

Pilots. Tankers. Medics. MPs. A long gun can be in the way for certain jobs.

If they want modular, [STRIKE]Sig[/STRIKE] GLOCK seems like the obvious choice.

......fix'd 'at for ya.......

 

[Jeremy1066]

G20 FTW!

 

[actaeon277]

Why not use a long gun when you want something harder-hitting than a pistol?

Any handgun caliber is weak (9mm or .45 doesn't matter) that's why soldiers dont go to war with only sidearms.

Pilots. Tankers. Medics. MPs. A long gun can be in the way for certain jobs.

If they want modular, Sig seems like the obvious choice.

Submarines can be a little tight for security wih an m-14 or m-4

 

[daddyusmaximus]

I'll take a WAG and say 1911!

They should, but I fear they won't. Doing so would be to admit they were wrong to ever give it up.

Then again, they did bring many a M-14 out of mothballs.

 

[.452browning]

Since they can't use HP rounds I say move up to the 45 again. If we could use HP rounds I'd say the 9mm is fine with quality ammo.

Glock 21
FNX45
Sig 227
S&W MP45
1911

 

[Trigger Time]

Let's be realistic. 1911 is a ****ty choice! All you Sunday gun 1911 guys would want it for about 30 seconds in a combat environment and then you'd be begging for your M9 back.
the army should go with sig. It's the smartest choice.

 

[sharkey]

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

Isn't that how the M9 was selected?

 

[ScouT6a]

I carried a 1911 for a few years when I first went in the Army 26 years ago. I was reluctant to turn it in and get an M9. That changed pretty quickly after I got an M9. They ran circles around the 1911's that were in the inventory at the time. Those things were tired.
For a military sidearm role, the M9 is a solid pistol. Only downside is the grip size for small hands. In two decades, I cannot think of one failure to feed, failure to eject or failure to fire with an M9.
And yes, I still carry one in retirement.

As far as a soldier being issued one to go to war and not having shot one in years.That doesn't happen except maybe on RARE occasion. It is determined what weapon/weapons you will carry before you deploy and you train and qualify with them before you leave CONUS.

As far as security on a submarine with an M4 or M14, hell I didn't see any submarines in Iraq or Afghanistan where I was walking anyway. ; 0)

 

[actaeon277]

I carried a 1911 for a few years when I first went in the Army 26 years ago. I was reluctant to turn it in and get an M9. That changed pretty quickly after I got an M9. They ran circles around the 1911's that were in the inventory at the time. Those things were tired.
For a military sidearm role, the M9 is a solid pistol. Only downside is the grip size for small hands. In two decades, I cannot think of one failure to feed, failure to eject or failure to fire with an M9.
And yes, I still carry one in retirement.

As far as a soldier being issued one to go to war and not having shot one in years.That doesn't happen except maybe on RARE occasion. It is determined what weapon/weapons you will carry before you deploy and you train and qualify with them before you leave CONUS.

As far as security on a submarine with an M4 or M14, hell I didn't see any submarines in Iraq or Afghanistan where I was walking anyway. ; 0)

If the Army switches sidearms, the Navy will be following.
And submarines (when I was on) carried either the M-16 or M-14, and 1911s.
Try wrestling them down the hatches and between equipment.

 

[churchmouse]

Isn't that how the M9 was selected?

Yes. It was.

 

[Redhorse]

You know, I'm going to say it. I haven't read through the thread so I'm not sure if it's been said yet but here I go, I know I'll get heat for this; 1911 45 acp and made by Colt. Why? Tradition and the fact that they can make a rugged, quality 1911, it isn't rocket science. They did before for two world wars, and still do for the marines. It'd also give American Army Personal Prestige using a classic American sidearm. Austria uses their glocks, why shouldn't we use our 1911s?

 

[Bigtanker]

Since only fmj's can be used, .45 seems logical. But then we're talking about the guberment.

.50 GI maybe?

Select fire PMR -30's?

Glock 18's?

 

[Dean C.]

How about an HKP30 or HK45 the guns are very configurable for different soldiers hands, very soft shooting, DA/SA with decocker. They would be a very very solid choice IMHO because there is a reason allot of SF units run HK weapons and that is because they just plain work.