Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 50
  1. #1
    bigjohn56 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    55

    Military to Change Handguns

    Interesting read about the drive to change military handguns.

    Army wants a harder-hitting pistol | Fox News

  2. #2
    Cait43's Avatar
    Cait43 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    West Allis, WI
    Posts
    898
    What goes around comes around........ The Army used the .45 for eons then switched to 9mm and now want to go back up to a larger caliber/mm....... Oh well....... America can afford it...... Oh wait America is broke........

    As stated in the article its more about shot placement than caliber/mm size.......

  3. #3
    hud35500's Avatar
    hud35500 is offline Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    469
    The Pentagon is just trying to get a better price from Beretta. It's all politics. I like Berettas, but are they really the best handgun for military purposes? Not hardly!

  4. #4
    dondavis3's Avatar
    dondavis3 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Dallas / Fort Worth Texas Area
    Posts
    1,871
    Agree ^^^


  5. #5
    GCBHM is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,469
    Army officials, however, say the M9 does not meet the MHS requirement.

    "The M9 doesn't meet it for a multitude of reasons," Easlick said. "It's got reliability issues; the open slide design allows contaminates in. The slide-mounted safety doesn't do well when you are trying to clear a stoppage -- you inadvertently de-cock and safe the weapon system."

    This may very well be true, and the M9 probably isn't the best pistol for the military, but there is merit to the 9MM vs larger rounds. Shot placement is paramount, and although some of the personnel will be able to shoot the .45 or .357/.40 accurately, on the whole the 9MM is going to be a much more accurate round. Like the expert said, pistol cartridges suck! You're going to have to shoot an attacker several times to stop them. This won't hold quite as true in the civilian defense world, but in a combat situation where you're likely to face a very tough and determined enemy, a pistol is your last ditch effort for survival. You'd better be able to hit the target, or it won't matter what you're shooting.

  6. #6
    VAMarine's Avatar
    VAMarine is online now Administrator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    3,341

  7. #7
    rustygun is offline Member HGF Gold Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Canton, Oh
    Posts
    246
    A friend of mine spent some time in the desert out east. They would trade almost anything for a .45.

  8. #8
    GCBHM is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,469
    I think it would be a mistake to go back to a 1911. Today's battlefield is not like it was in the 40s, and anything with less than 10 rounds is insane, especially when you can get a Glock .45 with 13 rounds or the FN45 with 15. Personally, I think they should stick with the 9MM, but if they do choose a bigger bullet, the .45 should be the choice. Something tells me the .357 Sig may be the choice as it has blazing penetration with a lot of punch from the bottle-necked .40 casing. The Secret Service has been using this round for some time now, and it has good reviews. My guess, if they do actually get a new pistol, it will be something with a modular backstrap system; therefore, a polyper gun. The logical choices are the Glock, M&P, FN, Sig, HK. All have a polymer variant, and it seems there is a reason or two for that.

  9. #9
    denner's Avatar
    denner is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,972
    Quote Originally Posted by VAMarine View Post
    I'll believe it when it happens. This comes up every couple of years.
    Yep, heard the same thing from the same person Daryl Easlick back in Aug of 2011. M9's are not reliable oh my. If you want 357 sig speed go +p+ in 9mm, but you won't get better ballistics than a slow moving 147 grain HST, GD, or Ranger T. Shot placement is key, 2 to the heart and one to the brain should do it. Relegated to Hardball does not help soldiers in the field either, unless seeking deep penetration.

  10. #10
    GCBHM is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,469
    Well we do know the Army moves slowly, and they will eventually change the pistol. They seem more determined to change caliber than pistol, but making the argument about the pistol and caliber only serves the agenda. To spend money! They will buy some 400,000 guns??? WOW! Just save us all time and money, and go with the Glock 17 Gen 4. It is the simplest, most reliable and cost effective pistol available.

  11. #11
    hud35500's Avatar
    hud35500 is offline Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    469
    So the Army has issues now with design elements that existed when they chose the pistol back in the 80's??

  12. #12
    GCBHM is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,469
    Well, there are some things you just can't figure out until you put something to real use. Most everyone hated the M9 when it was first introduced. I loved the idea bc I loved the way the pistols looked, and they are great shooters. Very accurate. After I got more familiar with other quality handguns, I learned that I liked other designs better, which are a lot easier to maintain, break down, etc., so I took up with Sigs and Glocks. The same issue arose when the M-16 was first introduced. Everyone loved the M14, and the M-16 had a lot of issues initially, but it has evolved into several designs that are a lot more reliable. Truth be told, some guy in the Army purchasing department has a bur in his saddle and wants to award some rep he likes with a huge contract, so the Army wants to change pistols.

  13. #13
    Smitty79's Avatar
    Smitty79 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    300
    A key thing to remember about military rounds is that you aren't allowed to use hollow points. My personal defensive ammo is high tech 9mm. But for our military, the best trade off would be double stack 45 ACP with a choice of steel or polymer fame. I don't know of any gun that has the frame options. Maybe Sig will do something like that for a Sig 320 like gun. I'd probably buy Glock 21s. Combat accurate, light weight for someone who had to carry it up and down hills, high reliability, simple to use and train on... Is it the prefect gun; nope. Is it the right one for this job, I think so.

  14. #14
    PatC is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Round Rock, TX
    Posts
    7
    I have spoken to several vets that spent time in Iraq and Afghanistan about the firearms. In the cold months the guys were having some issues with the ammo when the combatant wore so much clothing penetration was a problem. One Sgt was given an M14 and a retired Green Beanie from Viet Nam rebuilt it for him. Another uniform gave him two cases of match ammo. He corresponded the rifle shot very well. The guys shooting the black guns when the received the newer/heavier high speed ammo said it worked great. Still a hand gun is the weapon used to get to the rifle. Yes, good shot control with a handgun/rifle is most important. The first shot should be on the X. Personally I use a 1911 and train with it. The Texas Department of Public Safety is changing out the Sig 357 with 9mm but it is not mandatory except for new officers. I think the duty weapon for the Austin, TX PD is the M&P 40 and they have taken down so bad guys with them.

  15. #15
    GCBHM is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,469
    Whatever the Army decides to do, I think a Glock is the best choice for a combat pistol. Regardless of caliber chosen, the Glock is easy to train to, extremely user friendly (requiring little maintenance to operate effectively), accurate, safe, reliable and probably the most cost effective all the way around. It may be smart to go with the Glock 41. A double stack .45 with a five inch barrel...hard to beat for a combat pistol.

  16. #16
    VAMarine's Avatar
    VAMarine is online now Administrator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    3,341
    I don't think we will ever see a Glock as a general issue side arm in the US until a manual safety is incorporated. If i had to put money down on three contenders it would be Beretta, S&W and HK.

  17. #17
    GCBHM is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,469
    Quote Originally Posted by VAMarine View Post
    I don't think we will ever see a Glock as a general issue side arm in the US until a manual safety is incorporated. If i had to put money down on three contenders it would be Beretta, S&W and HK.
    I think Beretta is out given that is what is being "replaced". You may be right about the Glock; however, it is as safe as any handgun on the market, if not safer. My other four considerations would be: Sig, HK, SW, FN.

  18. #18
    rustygun is offline Member HGF Gold Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Canton, Oh
    Posts
    246
    I like glocks but I would rather see a American company step up with something like S&W or Ruger.

  19. #19
    TAPnRACK's Avatar
    TAPnRACK is online now Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    967
    A gun is only as safe as the person using it... regardless of whether it has a safety or not.

    Sig came close to getting the contract last time... be interesting if Beretta is actually phased out or not... and if a striker fired handgun will replace it, maybe the P320? It has been designed with applications for Military & LE in mind (as least that's what they advertise).

  20. #20
    GCBHM is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,469
    Quote Originally Posted by rustygun View Post
    I like glocks but I would rather see a American company step up with something like S&W or Ruger.
    Me too, to be honest, but nothing American made comes close to the Glock wrt durability. You can literally shoot thousands of rounds through a Glock without cleaning it. Not that I recommend that, but still...I like the M&P and would be ok with that, but they are not quite as durable as the Glock is in this regard. Now, as often as the miitary cleans their weapons, this won't be an issue, which makes the M&P a top consideration. However, the FN45 can hold 15 rounds...15!!! And it comes DA/SA hammer fired version with exterior safety. That alone makes it a top consideration. Honestly, with the Glock capacity at 13+1 and the FN at 15+1, I really don't think anything else makes sense, especially when you factor in cost.

    I would say Ruger has no chance, and probably for a reason. It just does not come up to par with the other top tier guns like Sig, Glock, M&P, HK, FN or Beretta.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

army change in handgun
,
army hand gun change
,
distinctive advantage fnx price
,
hand gun changes in the army
,

military changing handguns?

,
military to replace hand gun
,
us military changing handguns in 2014
,
what handguns is miltary looking to replace m9
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Springfield Armory

» HGF Sponsors

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.2.1