Re: Military switching side arms again?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jtwodogs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I love a 1911 design, I have had one in one form or another for ever.
That being said, I would be first in line for a Glock of any kind with and external safety. I think they would garner a larger following if they were available in that flavor </div></div>
Um . . . . . Glock doesn't have a large following???
I don't see Glocks being a .mil issued pistol. Frankly, it seems the longer they go and the more design "revisions" they make, the less reliable they seem to get (still better than any 1911 I've owned). BTW, I carry a Glock at work and off duty, and totally trust them and think they are great pistols - some of the best ever made. But I just don't see them being in the .mil's holsters.
The military is firmly stuck on external safeties. The glock wasn't made with an external safety, and the more parts you start adding to the original design, the less reliable it's going to be. What made the Glock work so well was the simplicity. Few parts to screw up, and those parts are well refined for what they do.
The 1911 is not a modern design, it has lots of moving parts, it's expensive to build and maintain, and they aren't reliable out of the box at a comparable price to more modern designs. There is a reason that not very many police agencies carry them - and it's not just because admin pogues are always looking for the lowest bid (I've been involved in buying police agency pistols - if you have not, don't add your two cents about something you don't know anything about . . . . please).
The M&P seems to be a good option, especially if they go away from the 9mm (which would be a huge deal since there is so much 9mm NATO ammo out there). There are some things I don't like about it, but it seems a solid design. It is what I'd likely pick if I were to buy a single pistol to carry and didn't have to worry about fixing a bunch of them or buying parts for it a bunch of people.
I was issued a Sig when I first became a cop, and I think they suck balls. I didn't start out thinking that. Hell, I read a lot of articles that told me how awesome they were. Sig went out of their way to prove me wrong. They broke an awful lot. The finish was made from compressed rust I think, and they broke a lot (yes I said that twice on purpose - because they broke alot). We still have a bunch of spare parts for our old sigs down in our arms room because it was so important to keep parts on had before we dumped those hunks of crap. I just hope the .mil doesn't end up with the Sig P220.
HK is a decent gun, but is expensive and mags are stupidly expensive - two reasons the military would end up with them.
. They were designed around the .40 also, so that's a point in their favor. I just never liked them much (basically because of the trigger - but moving from the M9 to a similar trigger would make sense training-wise). Do I think they'd be better than the M9? Yeah. I carried the M9 in the Marine Corps, it shot well enough, but there are lots of things that more modern designs do better for less money.
But all of this is pure speculation, and it is kinda funny to watch people argue why their pet pistol should be the next military pistol. Strange why people attach their ego to a pistol because they like it.
Hell, I've carried a G31 in .357 auto for almost 10 years. So since I've carried that and it's saved my ass and I shoot well with it, every other design sucks and anyone who argues with me is stupid. Oh, wait. I shoot the Smith Model 66 great, and it's never failed me in any way. So that's the best military pistol. No . . . wait . . . .
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jtwodogs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I love a 1911 design, I have had one in one form or another for ever.
That being said, I would be first in line for a Glock of any kind with and external safety. I think they would garner a larger following if they were available in that flavor </div></div>
Um . . . . . Glock doesn't have a large following???
I don't see Glocks being a .mil issued pistol. Frankly, it seems the longer they go and the more design "revisions" they make, the less reliable they seem to get (still better than any 1911 I've owned). BTW, I carry a Glock at work and off duty, and totally trust them and think they are great pistols - some of the best ever made. But I just don't see them being in the .mil's holsters.
The military is firmly stuck on external safeties. The glock wasn't made with an external safety, and the more parts you start adding to the original design, the less reliable it's going to be. What made the Glock work so well was the simplicity. Few parts to screw up, and those parts are well refined for what they do.
The 1911 is not a modern design, it has lots of moving parts, it's expensive to build and maintain, and they aren't reliable out of the box at a comparable price to more modern designs. There is a reason that not very many police agencies carry them - and it's not just because admin pogues are always looking for the lowest bid (I've been involved in buying police agency pistols - if you have not, don't add your two cents about something you don't know anything about . . . . please).
The M&P seems to be a good option, especially if they go away from the 9mm (which would be a huge deal since there is so much 9mm NATO ammo out there). There are some things I don't like about it, but it seems a solid design. It is what I'd likely pick if I were to buy a single pistol to carry and didn't have to worry about fixing a bunch of them or buying parts for it a bunch of people.
I was issued a Sig when I first became a cop, and I think they suck balls. I didn't start out thinking that. Hell, I read a lot of articles that told me how awesome they were. Sig went out of their way to prove me wrong. They broke an awful lot. The finish was made from compressed rust I think, and they broke a lot (yes I said that twice on purpose - because they broke alot). We still have a bunch of spare parts for our old sigs down in our arms room because it was so important to keep parts on had before we dumped those hunks of crap. I just hope the .mil doesn't end up with the Sig P220.
HK is a decent gun, but is expensive and mags are stupidly expensive - two reasons the military would end up with them.
But all of this is pure speculation, and it is kinda funny to watch people argue why their pet pistol should be the next military pistol. Strange why people attach their ego to a pistol because they like it.
Hell, I've carried a G31 in .357 auto for almost 10 years. So since I've carried that and it's saved my ass and I shoot well with it, every other design sucks and anyone who argues with me is stupid. Oh, wait. I shoot the Smith Model 66 great, and it's never failed me in any way. So that's the best military pistol. No . . . wait . . . .
