US Army to Seek New Service Handgun

[Yosemite]

Thought maybe the handgun buffs would find this interesting.

http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2014/07/ ... MTY0NTQzS0

[Gleng]

What's interesting is that when the Beretta was chosen the reason given was the desire to standardize with NATO on the 9x19 round. Don't believe many in the military were in favor of the decision as the .45 ACP was superior as far as stopping power. If the politicians were taken out of the equation it would be interesting to see what pistol and caliber the troops would prefer. Whichever they choose realistic training and practice are the key to the individuals success with a firearm.

[Low Trq]

What's interesting is that when the Beretta was chosen the reason given was the desire to standardize with NATO on the 9x19 round. Don't believe many in the military were in favor of the decision as the .45 ACP was superior as far as stopping power. If the politicians were taken out of the equation it would be interesting to see what pistol and caliber the troops would prefer. Whichever they choose realistic training and practice are the key to the individuals success with a firearm.

I'd bet money that 9mm will still be chosen. Probably the Glock 17, or maybe Sig P226.

[JasonH]

What ever they choose..

It will have a hammer, and safety..

9mm & 45ACP are already in the Army's stock system.
I would bet they would go with the M11 which is a Sig P228 that weapon is already in the stock system, and readily available

[magpulsam]

What ever they choose..

It will have a hammer, and safety..

9mm & 45ACP are already in the Army's stock system.
I would bet they would go with the M11 which is a Sig P228 that weapon is already in the stock system, and readily available

I've heard that sig is presenting them the P226, P229 and P227. All of those seem realistic, relatively well liked and well suited of DOD needs.

[tom_nightkiller]

I'm just hoping they sell all the old beretta's to the citizens, I would love to get A cheap milsurp beretta for like 300 bux.

[Nievo]

I'm just hoping they sell all the old beretta's to the citizens, I would love to get A cheap milsurp beretta for like 300 bux.

That would be great, depending on the condition though.

I really don't think the 9mm as a caliber needs replaced though. Problem is their choice of ammo for it.

[magpulsam]

I really don't think the 9mm as a caliber needs replaced though. Problem is their choice of ammo for it.

Well all that can be used is ball, so that limits options. The shot placement people happen to be right IMHO.

[ron]

Well all that can be used is ball, so that limits options. The shot placement people happen to be right IMHO.

With ball ammo a 40 would be superior to the 9mm and the 357 sig both. The 357 sig is limited to a bullet weight of 124 grains or otherwise with a 147 grain velocities aren't much over 1000 fps and the 40 can do that with a 180 grain bullet.

The 45 is better than either of them and there isn't any reason not to go to a 1911 except maybe size and weight and the fact that it doesn't seem like "progress" to the bean-counters to go back to the gun they had in WW1

If you go the link and read the comments you'll see that I recommended the Glock 35 and gave all the reasons why this would be the best choice and would make the most sense. But "military Intelligence" is not called an oxymoron for no good reason and military procurement ultimately has politics behind decisions like this rather than matters of logic or common sense.

I also think that if they went to the 40 in the handguns they should go to the 6.8 Rem in the AR's because both cartridges share the same case head size and it would be easier to set up manufactureeing of both types of ammo in a common facility where much of the same equipment could be used for both types of ammo.

But if they were REALLY thinking logically they'd neck the 6.8 (270) down to 6.5 (264) so that the same weight bullets would have better sectional density and ballistic coefficients in 6.5 caliber than they do in 6.8 caliber. It doesn't seem like much of a difference but the 6.5 is more effective at greater ranges than the 6.8.

[Blacklion66]

Handguns used in combat is about as rare as finding a silver dime in your pocket change. On that rare occasion a handgun is used you want something proven in combat. As a military sidearm there is nothing better than the 1911 period.

[ron]

Handguns used in combat is about as rare as finding a silver dime in your pocket change. On that rare occasion a handgun is used you want something proven in combat. As a military sidearm there is nothing better than the 1911 period.

Generally it's true that handguns are not commonly used in combat mainly because sidearms are not issued to every combatant who is issued a rifle. Traditionally they are issued only to officers as a "Badge of Rank". But I when I was in the military from 1969 to 1973 during the Viet Nam war, although I was never in combat I spent a lot of time sitting around and passing the time talking to a lot of guys who had just rotated out of there. And from what I heard a lot more of our troops carried sidearms than those who were authorized to do so. And there were stories from WWII and Korea along those same lines where whoever could get their hands on a sidearm figured out a way to scrounge one up.

My Grandfather served in WWI and fought in almost every major battle in France and was wounded twice, hospitalized, but went back into battle each time.

He was a Captain in the Canadian Army and was issued a Webley revolver and actually did have occasion to use it once and then later captured a Luger from a German officer and then started carrying that instead of the Webley though he never had a chance to use it. I'm very fortunate to have that gun today considering Canadian gun laws. But my grandmother kept it hidden away and refused to register it or turn it in and even smuggled it into the US to give it to my dad.

But I agree 100% that they need to look no further than the basic 1911 which is what the Marine corps did in 2012 when they chose the M45A1 to be issued to Marine Corps Special Operations Command (MARSOC) and Marine Expeditionary Unit Special Operation Command (MEU[SOC]), as well as members of Force Recon, Special Reaction Teams (SRT).

Now those guns are basically custom built and accurized by Colt, and sold to the government at a premium cost, but what they aught to do is just have a standard version for general issue to replace the Beretta M9's.

Simple fact of life: If it ain't broke, you don't gotta fiX it!

[scrappy]

I'm just hoping they sell all the old beretta's to the citizens, I would love to get A cheap milsurp beretta for like 300 bux.

If whoever follows our current monarch into office is anything like him regarding policy you can forget this idea, splendid though it be.

[Blacklion66]

I carried a 11-B mos and a rank of e-5 in 1966, when I went overseas I carried my Dad's long barreled 38 colt. Only once was I in a situation where I removed it from from its holster and laid on the the ground if needed. For nine years prior I carried a tankers mos (11-E) our side arm was the 45 but each tank had one grease gun, now that was a weapon if you could scrounge some 45 tracer it was a hoot to shoot, kinda like using a garden hose, with lots of elevation you could get good area coverage at about a 100 yards. On guard duty the sound of that big heavy bolt being pulled back was much better than yelling "halt"

[wagunguy]

Caliber doesn't matter. 9mm is fine. Pistols are for behind the lines types. Or for those that shoot good enough that caliber doesn't matter.

[GreyGoose]

I'd bet money that 9mm will still be chosen. Probably the Glock 17, or maybe Sig P226.

...It's the Government remember... they will inevitably this up... however in the event that lightning strikes and they get one right... G17 is my bet...

...but... it's probably far to reliable, inexpensive, and easy to maintain for the US military.

[scrappy]

A further thought on the subject would be to simply ask why they feel they need to go to the considerable difficulty and expense of switching to a different standard issue sidearm in the first place. I never agreed with the decision to replace the 1911A1 in the first place, but we did. Given that, what is gained by switching away from the M-9, especially given that the next weapon will doubtless be of the same chambering and, knowing the way the morons in government think, a "safer", less user friendly design. To people who do not understand the proper application of firearms "safer" means a weapon that will be more difficult to bring into action and actually hit with, especially given the level of training given to the average soldier.

[dillonivik]

I'd bet money that 9mm will still be chosen. Probably the Glock 17, or maybe Sig P226.

...It's the Government remember... they will inevitably this up... however in the event that lightning strikes and they get one right... G17 is my bet...

...but... it's probably far to reliable, inexpensive, and easy to maintain for the US military.

Only one catch with the Glock idea, in the 80s the first trial was rejected by certain politicians because at that time the Beretta was still made 100% in Italy. A number of people in high places wanted a largely US made pistol, and got a second trial to be held, but by that Beretta had a US plant (the current plant in MD) and still won. It wouldnt surprise me if people raised the same objections today, Im not sure if Glock has any manufacturing capability in the US...

[magpulsam]

Im not sure if Glock has any manufacturing capability in the US...

[ninjassassin]

according to the geniuses at yahoo this is gonna mean certain death for us all.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/army-hand ... 00885.html

[magpulsam]

according to the geniuses at yahoo this is gonna mean certain death for us all.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/army-hand ... 00885.html

Yeah a couple of media sources ran stories about this today. What a fu*king joke!