Who wants to bet that this will end up a cluster f due to politics or bid rigging or whatever-you-can-think-of?
(Excluding spec ops)
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.
I have a question.
If they do replace the current sidearm(s), what happens to all of the old inventory?
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.
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.
I'll take a WAG and say 1911!
Who wants to bet that this will end up a cluster f due to politics or bid rigging or whatever-you-can-think-of?
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)
Isn't that how the M9 was selected?