The Para probably wouldn't be as reliable as the rest, with the comparatively delicate LDA and somewhat wobbly 1911 operating system, so it would get knocked out.

The Glock would probably be marginally the most reliable, but it also has the least comfortable grip to shooters lacking big hands.

The XD and M&P would be strong contenders, but I suspect the XD would win out just based on the XD .45's short but excellent history of reliability and trouble-free service.

The FN would have the backing of the Army, just because FN has been in bed with the military for so long, with the M249, M240, FN303, and M16A2 contracts.

If I personally had to pick one of these for general issue - not that I think a .45 is a great idea for that - I'd pick the XD.

Somewhere, I can hear Jeff Ward cackling.

LOL! The SIG of course!

Originally Posted by Ram Rod

LOL! The SIG of course!

Ram Rod, I have a hunch the military will look for a high capacity pistol and 7-8 rounds do not make the cut. Lastly, Sigs are expensive and that is another strike against them. Regards, Richard

My bad. We'll just leave those to the Navy Seal teams.

All the SEALS I've seen carry P226s, not .45s. But SEALs are few and far between, use basically what they want, and have little in common with an average soldier who carries a pistol.

I have also seen a couple of Navy guys I suspect were SEALs attached to the PRTs here, and they were carrying the usual M9s. Not positive they were SEALS, but they did have HK416s instead of regular M4s.

I think the Glock 21 and Springfield XD-45 would be booted due to the fact they do not have an external safety that you can actuate. And if the Glock was able to make it through it would probably have to be the SF(Short Frame) as the military wants a gun to fit all hands. I think the Para would be taken out because its grip feels like you are holding onto a 2"x 4". That leaves the M&P and FNP, which the battle would probably go to the lowest bidder as both are durable guns as are the rest. Both also have adjustable grips so it would boil down to price.

Mike, at first there was a problem with the straddle in the trigger being to miniscule and breaking, but Para Ordnance has taken care of this problem and it is no longer an issue. I know due to the barrel design of the 1911 that it doesn't lock up as well as the other guns but I wouldn't consider it more wobbly as this would be offset due to its all steel frame whereas all the other guns frames would flex due to being made of polymer. Its been proven time and time again that all metal frame guns will shoot better due to the fact that it is a more rigid platform.

Originally Posted by soldierboy029

Mike, at first there was a problem with the straddle in the trigger being to miniscule and breaking, but Para Ordnance has taken care of this problem and it is no longer an issue.

I am sure LDAs are fine for civilian carry, but military life is a tad rougher. The LDA mechanism is complex, and has way more parts to break compared to the other guns mentioned.

I know due to the barrel design of the 1911 that it doesn't lock up as well as the other guns but I wouldn't consider it more wobbly as this would be offset due to its all steel frame whereas all the other guns frames would flex due to being made of polymer.

I was actually referring to wobbly 1911 reliability. Check out the MRBF numbers from the JSSAP tests that the Beretta won. The 1911s had pitiful numbers, IIRC, of around 700 - compared to the Beretta and SIG with 30,000. The more recent (though fruitless) JCP tests required a minimum of 5000 MRBF.

Its been proven time and time again that all metal frame guns will shoot better due to the fact that it is a more rigid platform.

Who has proven this and where? I have never seen such a test. If you can provide a link to such results, I'd be very pleased to read up on it. I have two Glocks that will shoot circles around my Commander, as an example.

Anyway, the difference between a gun that will shoot a 1" group and one that will shoot a 4" group is entirely academic in a military pistol. The overwhelming majority of soldiers cannot shoot a pistol nearly well enough to take advantage of a gun with match accuracy. You handle implies Army service. I am sure you have seen soldiers shoot pistols.

This isn't to say our soldiers aren't of excellent quality, for they surely are. It's just a question of Army training priorities. Few soldiers use pistols in combat, so little time is spent training with them. Instead, training resources are (logically) allocated elsewhere.