Sharpshooter76
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 4
Well many of the Springfield 1911s are made in Brazil and the XDs are made in Croatia.
New Army Pistol
- Thread starter markfi
- Start date
Cal44
Member
If we can't go to hollow points, then perhaps consideration should be given to designing a pistol that shoots flat point bullets.
The same concept the led to use of full wad cutters in stead of round nose lead 38 special.
A flat nosed 45 cal round would be very effective, one would think.
Would need some design changes to feed properly, but should be possible.
The same concept the led to use of full wad cutters in stead of round nose lead 38 special.
A flat nosed 45 cal round would be very effective, one would think.
Would need some design changes to feed properly, but should be possible.
A couple things at play here. First, the Army recently renewed their contract with Beretta for five years. Second, they're shedding officers and NCO's like a dog in hot weather. Allegedly to cut costs. Where would the money come from to pay Beretta and finance testing for a new sidearm? Finally, as someone else mentioned, a handgun is a secondary sidearm, a BUG if you will. When I was in Vietnam I had the beloved 1911, but as long as my M-16 was functioning and I had ammo for it, I didn't give the 1911 a second thought. Same with my son. He's done four combat tours. He'd leave his issue M-9 at the FOB when they'd go out on an OP, take extra M-4 mags instead. There's a word for anyone who thinks they'll go up against AK's with a handgun, any handgun. Dead. Finally, and this is strictly my opinion. The Army will never adopt a poly pistol. I'll bet you a cup of coffee on that.
I love 9mm HP and love my 9mm pistols, but my weapon of choice, if going into battle, is the FNX-45 tactical. That thing is a dream to shoot, hold 3 less rounds than my FS M&P, and has just about the same recoil. Love that thing. I hope it wins.
I'm not versed in the adoption of the 9mm way back when but I do have cautious optimism they'll do it right this time. I read there will be an industry day this month and the Program office is up and running full steam ahead with the project. They are looking at calibers, full and carry size, and ammunition for this go round. While any program could get stalled or cancelled the current group is doing things right.
One of the problems they face is determining what they want the pistol to do. Is it an offensive or defensive gun? Should it stop a man at 3,5,7, 17 yards and in how many rounds? Also, ammunition availability? NATO approval? Geneva? What is it they actually require? The Army can't really pick a new gun until they can decide exactly what they want it to do.
Here's my opinion and suggestion:
The Baretta costs about 3 times what the government would buy a Glock, M&P, or Springfield for. Why not just issue each new Soldier who is authorized a sidearm one of the common G26/27/M&P9/45 or whatever they decide upon and let them buy it on a prorated cost when they leave the unit? Then just buy the next new guy a new pistol for $300. Warranty covers maintenance that way. For any major malfunction that warranty won't cover the unit either fixes or just destroys and buys another new pistol for $300. Win win win all the way around and the massive maintenance trail is really no longer needed because you pretty much always have new guns on hand.
One of the problems they face is determining what they want the pistol to do. Is it an offensive or defensive gun? Should it stop a man at 3,5,7, 17 yards and in how many rounds? Also, ammunition availability? NATO approval? Geneva? What is it they actually require? The Army can't really pick a new gun until they can decide exactly what they want it to do.
Here's my opinion and suggestion:
The Baretta costs about 3 times what the government would buy a Glock, M&P, or Springfield for. Why not just issue each new Soldier who is authorized a sidearm one of the common G26/27/M&P9/45 or whatever they decide upon and let them buy it on a prorated cost when they leave the unit? Then just buy the next new guy a new pistol for $300. Warranty covers maintenance that way. For any major malfunction that warranty won't cover the unit either fixes or just destroys and buys another new pistol for $300. Win win win all the way around and the massive maintenance trail is really no longer needed because you pretty much always have new guns on hand.
Last edited:
681ismyfavorite
Member
the Glock 10mm is what they are looking for, if the small handed soldiers can handle it.
They should be looking for a pistol to fit the 95th percentile so the smallest hands won't facto into the equation. That may help.
I would be willing to bet they change from the 9mm just because whatever they decide upon must be better than the 9mm or it won't make it through the process.
I would be willing to bet they change from the 9mm just because whatever they decide upon must be better than the 9mm or it won't make it through the process.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,568
- Reaction score
- 6,335
Did I dream it, or wasn't the 5.7 designed for enhanced penetration of body armor, magazines, etc? It was never anything for which I saw a personal use and so did not follow it beyond the normal media baloney about its ability to penetrate a nuclear reactor core and touch off the China Syndrome.
Was/is it effective for the intended purpose? It certainly seems to be in keeping with current doctrine that values high round count over all.
I know a few months ago it was the only handgun ammo on the shelf locally.
Was/is it effective for the intended purpose? It certainly seems to be in keeping with current doctrine that values high round count over all.
I know a few months ago it was the only handgun ammo on the shelf locally.
Doug M.
Member
I have read reports of some LE agencies adopting it for some uses. Fail. Big Fail. Bill Madison would be ashamed kind of Fail. Sell them at a loss and replace them on an emergency basis kind of Fail.
walkin' trails
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,372
- Reaction score
- 824
The last time this issue came up, I seem to recall that the G had also 're-upped the Beretta contract. They also cited the process of testing new rounds and The length of the process to get them approved and into service. I agree with everyone else who posted that the issue is not so much the performance of the 9, but the general ballistics of pistol caliber FMJ and poor training. I would like to see something American made and user friendly, but I see it is likely that they'll stay with a 9. I don't know if they'd go back to the 45, but it would have to be a really easy-shooting pistol. The article also called for "modular," and that could be anyone's guess what the Army is thinking about. Could end up being as big as a cinder block.
BTW - the 1911 was a "baby" when it was adopted 103 years ago.
BTW - the 1911 was a "baby" when it was adopted 103 years ago.
scattershot
Member
The 1911 is a limited standard issue, is it not? They could put them back into service in a heartbeat, the way I see it, but it would limit the opportunities for graft and corruption.
Doug M.
Member
Except that they don't have nearly enough, and getting the supply chain from manufacturer on up to speed would take a couple years at best. They are also armorer labor intensive. MEU(SOC) shoots a ton as I understand it, and their pistols are getting full rebuilds pretty often. That does not even include the handwringing from the vast majority of officers and NCOs who would have fits over condition 1 1911s. I used to carry on on duty, and when we did joint ops with the AF, I got some looks from the few who even knew what a pistol is.
scattershot
Member
Granted, it might take a while to get up to speed, but the point is they wouldn't have to go through the testing and evaluation phase.
Question from the Civilian FNG: Normally in my 30+ years of working DoD procurements (I'm in Aerospace) there is a well defined written Procurement Specification that defines the requirements.
In the case of the Army (or Services, for that matter) pistol, where could one find that animal?
I spent a few minutes last night and did not easily locate anything that set out the objective measurements or specific requirements that the Army requires of a handgun.
This would be e.g. Weight, Size, required features, service life, required testing, logistics support, operational availability, etc. etc.
Could the SMEs here share where this might be found?
As an engineer type, I'd be curious to know what the non-political (ideally, objective) requirements that a (new) service pistol would have to meet...
Thanks in advance...
V/R
Rich in Tampa
In the case of the Army (or Services, for that matter) pistol, where could one find that animal?
I spent a few minutes last night and did not easily locate anything that set out the objective measurements or specific requirements that the Army requires of a handgun.
This would be e.g. Weight, Size, required features, service life, required testing, logistics support, operational availability, etc. etc.
Could the SMEs here share where this might be found?
As an engineer type, I'd be curious to know what the non-political (ideally, objective) requirements that a (new) service pistol would have to meet...
Thanks in advance...
V/R
Rich in Tampa
Doug M.
Member
I have seen some discussion on another forum that indicates such is out there, but I am not able to find it right now.
FWIW, considering that the military has such abysmal training and mindset with regard to pistols outside of a very few HSLD units, and that the budget is being constricted at a heck of a rate, assuming for the sake of argument that this goes forward, the money will stop it, and the end product will be a farce if the money does not end it. The bitterness expressed by experienced combat arms personnel about this proposal is staggering.
FWIW, considering that the military has such abysmal training and mindset with regard to pistols outside of a very few HSLD units, and that the budget is being constricted at a heck of a rate, assuming for the sake of argument that this goes forward, the money will stop it, and the end product will be a farce if the money does not end it. The bitterness expressed by experienced combat arms personnel about this proposal is staggering.
The Military in general & the Army in particular isn't all that interest in pistol lethality or pistols at all. The pistol is just an "oh, ****" weapon in CQB situations otherwise they'd be relatively ineffective against an enemy carrying rifles. About the only Soldiers I witnessed carrying pistols were Officers, MPs & SpecOps & Army SpecOps units have about carte blanche on what they carry so mostly they're .45 & many of those are 1911s. I was authorized to carry a pistol being a Senior NCO E8 in an E9 position but much preferred the M4. Had the Army been issuing 1911s I might have reconsidered. And yes - many were right in stating that hollow point ammo is not allowed for use according to international law. I doubt if that would stop a terrorist from using them, though.
I was one of those Soldiers who was very dissapointed in the switch from .45 cal 1911s to 9MM M9s. I remember coming off the range from teaching/testing Officers pistol marksmanship when I was told I'd have to do it all over again when we got the new 9MM Italian pistols. My chin still hurts from my jaw dropping so hard.
I was one of those Soldiers who was very dissapointed in the switch from .45 cal 1911s to 9MM M9s. I remember coming off the range from teaching/testing Officers pistol marksmanship when I was told I'd have to do it all over again when we got the new 9MM Italian pistols. My chin still hurts from my jaw dropping so hard.
