• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

  • Site updates coming next Wednesday at 8am CT!

    The site will be down for routine maintenance on Wednesday 6/5 starting at 8am CT. If you have any questions, please PM alexj-12!

Sidearms & Scatterguns Military switching side arms again?

Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: stacyp</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1911's are made for hanging on the wall with gold letters engraved on them after retirement. They are proven battle weapon 60+ years ago. Would anyone fighting today, like to go back to using the rifles used 60+ years ago for their primary rifle? How about going on the battlefield with the WW2 era optics and tanks too?
</div></div>

Um, that has already been done on a small scale. Members of special forces have fielded the 1911. Also, there is something familiar about the M21 EBR, I just can put my finger on it. School of thought there is that you utilize what is relevant and discard the rest. Small scale the military will allow soldiers to employ firearms that cost a whole lot more. I.E. the HK Mark 23 and Sig 226 used by the seals, and the 1911 used by other SF operators. There is a specific criteria the military has in addition to cost.
-manual safety
-adequate capacity
-decent round count before wear n tear failures
-abundant and available ammo
-pass a torture test
-posess a certain degree of accuracy
-Cost low enough

Lets break it down and look at it.
Manual Safety
Scratches the Glock, M&P, XD.
Round Count
Most pistols average about the same, so this is where the bulk of manufacturers will be on the table.
Abundant and Available ammo
I like the .45ACP. To me I find it a far superior round to the 9mm. But, the .45ACP is an American round, while it is found all over, you are more likely to find 9mm ammo used by nearly every allied force, and even used by the enemy. So the 9mm isnt going anywhere.
Torture Test
I have seen all makes of pistols pass one torture test, and fail at others. You try hard enough and even the beloved Glock WILL fail. Most pistols will pass the military's test.
Accuracy
I dont care who's name is stamped on it. I have shot quals with many many pistols of diffrent makes, never less than 90%. Pistols are not a precision instument.
Cost low enough.
This is what makes or breaks the runners up. Yes, Glock is cheap and reliable, but no manual safety, so while this maked the Glock fan boys red in the face, oh well. Same goes with the M&P and XD. The Sig and HK guys? Nope, sorry. $700-800 a pop, there are better choices. 1911? Sure, you can get a decent model for the $400-600 mark, but low round capacity, and lack of ammo worldwide drops you off the list as well.

See how fast the list dropped. Really doesnt leave you with a whole lot of options. We all have what we THINK the military should use. Until they change their criteria, our opinions are just that. I am a HK and 1911 fan. Nothing will make me happier than to see something that I purchased and carry in the hands of our soldiers. FACT: The M9 is going nowhere anytime soon. Same goes for the 9mm. I am amazed how thses topics always go to the Glock vs. 1911 arguements.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: stacyp</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1911's are made for hanging on the wall with gold letters engraved on them after retirement. They are proven battle weapon 60+ years ago. Would anyone fighting today, like to go back to using the rifles used 60+ years ago for their primary rifle? How about going on the battlefield with the WW2 era optics and tanks too?
</div></div>

Um, that has already been done on a small scale. Members of special forces have fielded the 1911. Also, there is something familiar about the M21 EBR, I just can put my finger on it. School of thought there is that you utilize what is relevant and discard the rest. Small scale the military will allow soldiers to employ firearms that cost a whole lot more. I.E. the HK Mark 23 and Sig 226 used by the seals, and the 1911 used by other SF operators. There is a specific criteria the military has in addition to cost.
-manual safety
-adequate capacity
-decent round count before wear n tear failures
-abundant and available ammo
-pass a torture test
-posess a certain degree of accuracy
-Cost low enough

Lets break it down and look at it.
Manual Safety
Scratches the Glock, M&P, XD.
Round Count
Most pistols average about the same, so this is where the bulk of manufacturers will be on the table.
Abundant and Available ammo
I like the .45ACP. To me I find it a far superior round to the 9mm. But, the .45ACP is an American round, while it is found all over, you are more likely to find 9mm ammo used by nearly every allied force, and even used by the enemy. So the 9mm isnt going anywhere.
Torture Test
I have seen all makes of pistols pass one torture test, and fail at others. You try hard enough and even the beloved Glock WILL fail. Most pistols will pass the military's test.
Accuracy
I dont care who's name is stamped on it. I have shot quals with many many pistols of diffrent makes, never less than 90%. Pistols are not a precision instument.
Cost low enough.
This is what makes or breaks the runners up. Yes, Glock is cheap and reliable, but no manual safety, so while this maked the Glock fan boys red in the face, oh well. Same goes with the M&P and XD. The Sig and HK guys? Nope, sorry. $700-800 a pop, there are better choices. 1911? Sure, you can get a decent model for the $400-600 mark, but low round capacity, and lack of ammo worldwide drops you off the list as well.

See how fast the list dropped. Really doesnt leave you with a whole lot of options. We all have what we THINK the military should use. Until they change their criteria, our opinions are just that. I am a HK and 1911 fan. Nothing will make me happier than to see something that I purchased and carry in the hands of our soldiers. FACT: The M9 is going nowhere anytime soon. Same goes for the 9mm. I am amazed how thses topics always go to the Glock vs. 1911 arguements.
</div></div>

I agree with all of your statements except last time I checked Beretta wasn't all the cheap!
To tell you the truth I don't know why it is hated so much I have heard that it shoots low left, and that the 9mm round isn't powerful enough to get the job done. What you have to look at is the high round count and the quick shot follow up you get, so 1 round doesn't do it then keep going! Military thinking is... If it ain't broke then don't fix it! Same with the M16 and M4 they won't be going anywhere either.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: stacyp</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1911's are made for hanging on the wall with gold letters engraved on them after retirement. They are proven battle weapon 60+ years ago. Would anyone fighting today, like to go back to using the rifles used 60+ years ago for their primary rifle? How about going on the battlefield with the WW2 era optics and tanks too?
</div></div>

Um, that has already been done on a small scale. Members of special forces have fielded the 1911. Also, there is something familiar about the M21 EBR, I just can put my finger on it. School of thought there is that you utilize what is relevant and discard the rest. Small scale the military will allow soldiers to employ firearms that cost a whole lot more. I.E. the HK Mark 23 and Sig 226 used by the seals, and the 1911 used by other SF operators. There is a specific criteria the military has in addition to cost.
-manual safety
-adequate capacity
-decent round count before wear n tear failures
-abundant and available ammo
-pass a torture test
-posess a certain degree of accuracy
-Cost low enough

Lets break it down and look at it.
Manual Safety
Scratches the Glock, M&P, XD.
Round Count
Most pistols average about the same, so this is where the bulk of manufacturers will be on the table.
Abundant and Available ammo
I like the .45ACP. To me I find it a far superior round to the 9mm. But, the .45ACP is an American round, while it is found all over, you are more likely to find 9mm ammo used by nearly every allied force, and even used by the enemy. So the 9mm isnt going anywhere.
Torture Test
I have seen all makes of pistols pass one torture test, and fail at others. You try hard enough and even the beloved Glock WILL fail. Most pistols will pass the military's test.
Accuracy
I dont care who's name is stamped on it. I have shot quals with many many pistols of diffrent makes, never less than 90%. Pistols are not a precision instument.
Cost low enough.
This is what makes or breaks the runners up. Yes, Glock is cheap and reliable, but no manual safety, so while this maked the Glock fan boys red in the face, oh well. Same goes with the M&P and XD. The Sig and HK guys? Nope, sorry. $700-800 a pop, there are better choices. 1911? Sure, you can get a decent model for the $400-600 mark, but low round capacity, and lack of ammo worldwide drops you off the list as well.

See how fast the list dropped. Really doesnt leave you with a whole lot of options. We all have what we THINK the military should use. Until they change their criteria, our opinions are just that. I am a HK and 1911 fan. Nothing will make me happier than to see something that I purchased and carry in the hands of our soldiers. FACT: The M9 is going nowhere anytime soon. Same goes for the 9mm. I am amazed how thses topics always go to the Glock vs. 1911 arguements.
</div></div>
M&P have ambi. manual safety!
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

Also the conventional side of the Army has a Sig under the M11 classification.
whistle.gif
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

remember, the recoil of a 45 is much too high for the average person to handle.

Oh, and it doesn't have enough rounds for the person that can't shoot.

Can't field strip. Probably not very mechanically inclined, I'm not throwing stones but really? It's one of the easiest sidearms to field strip. I'll agree that it could use some tweaking such as captured MS. I'd say go linkless but in gritty conditions, it's a good thing. Maybe go double stack.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

Any sidearm can be easy to strip down with enough practice. The 9mm is a round anyone can shoot, get use to shooting and handle. Your biggest, roughest, corn-fed HS quarterback to the small frame bookworm HS virgin from the glee club, all can control the 9mm. So yeah, recoil is an issue. The M9/92FS has an MSRP of $650. Thats not a whole lot more than a lets say a Glock 17 that ranges between $499-599, depending on options. Definately less than a Sig or HK. Bout on par with a M&P or an XD. But, the M&P, XD, and Glock, while they all have safety FEATURES, they do not have a manual, lever-style safety, which is what the military wants. ND's don't usually happend from the pistol being dropped, at least not in the military. The happen because someone lacks the personal responsibility to keep their finger off the trigger. So, if the weapon has a manual safety, and its engaged like they are trained to do, then the chance of a ND is lessened. If the safety is disengaged by simply placing your finger on the trigger, the potential for a ND is alive and well.

Now I have in now way presented a biased opinion here. These are facts. As a whole the M9 dominates the US military. Despite specific sections where other makes are used, it is still the forerunner in the holsters of our soldiers. My OPINION is I would rather see them go back to a .45ACP. Whether its a 1911, HK45, Glock 21 or XD45, I FEEL its a much better chambering. We all know that the M9 is not the best, as is the 9mm, but the US military is not looking for the best for the soldiers. Its looking for the best thing that looks good on a budget report.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

Im with the XDM idea. It'll never happen but I carry the .40 concealed when i'm home and I love it. Def wouldnt mind having it as a service weapon. Main problem is the ammunition though. We have .45 and loads of 9mm. It wouldnt be cost effective I dont think.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

And the reason the XDM 9mm doesnt come into thought is the fact that the round is weak. Anybody say what you want but the fact is that you need to get at least 3 solid hits to put someone down, even their momentum will keep them coming forward. With a .40 or .45 you can hit them once just about anywhere and they're going to the ground in the very least a ton of pain.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> But, the M&P, XD, and Glock, while they all have safety FEATURES, they do not have a manual, lever-style safety, which is what the military wants. </div></div>

What the he!! are you guys talking about, there's so much stupidity in this thread...

<span style="color: #CC0000">For all the 47 different people who keep claiming the striker guns have no manual safeties, look again!</span>

The M&P can be ordering with a "lever-style" manual safety in the same position as a M1911 thumb safety, and XDs are coming out with small half-a$$ed thumb safeties too. Those are just as much of a "manual lever-style safety" as the ones on anything other military handgun.

1911ckadlkdil.jpg


mp-pistol.jpg


125.jpg
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

The 40 is not a "Nato Caliber" Kind of leaves it out. As far as the 45 having too much recoil Bullshit The Glock 21 or FN 45 would be perfect. If you need a sidearm your in the shit so small hands are no excuse. Put the small people in supply and let the men fight. Training is the answer .If you can't qualfy with a 45 your out. Hate like hell to see "Reduced Recoil" sniper ammo so the weak can fill a job they will only get others killed not doing. This one size fits all crap blows!!!
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

Tell us how you really feel, if there is so much stupidity going around here why don't you start your own forum where you only let the elite in knowledge post and the rest of us can be subject to your vast knowledge.

Otherwise thanks for the info I had no idea that you could order it with the manual saftey.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

Pistols don't win wars, Rifles and Machine Guns do. Pistols are for Officers, MPs and Special Ops and they get whatever they want. Running Convoys I carried both who knows why they gave us M9s but I would take my M4 over the M9 anytime, who cares about a pistol, what we really need a rifle with more stopping power.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KSwift</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> But, the M&P, XD, and Glock, while they all have safety FEATURES, they do not have a manual, lever-style safety, which is what the military wants. </div></div>

What the he!! are you guys talking about, there's so much stupidity in this thread...

<span style="color: #CC0000">For all the 47 different people who keep claiming the striker guns have no manual safeties, look again!</span>

The M&P can be ordering with a "lever-style" manual safety in the same position as a M1911 thumb safety, and XDs are coming out with small half-a$$ed thumb safeties too. Those are just as much of a "manual lever-style safety" as the ones on anything other military handgun.
</div></div>
Ohhh, I wasnt aware you could ORDER/REQUEST the EXTRA safety on those other guns. (To bad you can't hear sarcasm in typed words.) Who would have thought? You should send this pearl of wisdom in memo form, in triplicate of coarse, to the DOD. I am sure they will immediately reconsider all of those firearms. Why would they even consider a firearm that is mass produced with this little feature already on it? You are right, there is a lot of stupidity in this thread. A lot more nievity as well.

Here is some food for thought. Hypothetical scenario. Me, the US Military, wants a moderately priced pistol, above mentioned capabilities and features in 9mm. I contact the 5 major firearm makers...Springfield, Smith and Wesson, Glock, Beretta, and FN. (I consider FN because I had forgotten about that one, and I like their pistols as well, plus they are in the same price range.)
My request is for each maker to submit one model of pistol that fits my crietria. I want 6000 units, delivered, by the end of this fiscal year, with 4000 more by the end of the next half fiscal year. In addition, service and replacement parts for the first 5 years the pistol is in service. This is just the actual purchasing part. Not to mention the armorers that will be sent to the school provided by the manufacteurer, as this will be part of the contract as well.

Well out of those 5, I KNOW that 2 already have an off-the-shelf pistol that suits my demands. The other 3 don't really inspire me with the "You could order this, but it doesn't come standard" line. Thats great, if your the average joe or LEO looking for a new pistol. Not the government looking to start a mulit-million dollar contract. Not to mention the manufacturers and the sacrifices they would have to be willing to make to meet the demands of the contract. Is the facilities for SA, Glock or SW large enough that they can devote them to these sole pistols? Yeah, my M&P .40 is on a 9 month waiting list due to military contracts. Ok, I will wait.....ssssuuurrree. Most of the guys on here bitch and blast places when the projected wait time is exceeded by a week. Glock has military contracts with a couple other countries as it is. Why will they stretch themselves for us? S&W SA? Yeah, we will put all of our civillian sales, LEO sales, and diminish the capacity of making the other 32 flavors of pistols on hold for a contract, only to learn of all the other missed sales and other contracts I missed out on.

There is way more to picking a new side arm than than the weapon itself. Once you consider that the military has its own set agenda. They have questions that line up as "yes" or "no", not "well maybe" "I could if you want" or the dreaded "I need more time". As we have all seen, the choice is not made by public opinion polls.

 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ash24</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.....the fact is that you need to get at least 3 solid hits (9mm) to put someone down, even their momentum will keep them coming forward. With a .40 or .45 you can hit them once just about anywhere and they're going to the ground in the very least a ton of pain. </div></div>


So, 3 solid hits with a 9, or one hit anywhere with a 40/45 puts 'em down. Thanks, that's good to know.

I had no idea folks routinely shrug off a 9mm hit at center mass, armpit level, much less two. I'm going to start incorporating triple-taps into my training.

I guess with the 40/45 being so potent, there's no need to train double tap, hammer, combat reload, or any type of failure drill.

I might need to dust off the 45 and carry it more.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

I vote HK Mk23. Good enough for USSOCOM.

12 rounds of .45 so it's 1.5x the capacity of 1911, and 20x the quality of the 92.

I have both a S&W 1911 and a 92FS and both are good enough for me. But my HK USP is my go-to gun because it's so simple and reliable.

I'd even vote for USP 45 or HK-45
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JelloStorm</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I vote HK Mk23. Good enough for USSOCOM.
12 rounds of .45 so it's 1.5x the capacity of 1911, and 20x the quality of the 92.
I have both a S&W 1911 and a 92FS and both are good enough for me. But my HK USP is my go-to gun because it's so simple and reliable.
I'd even vote for USP 45 or HK-45 </div></div>

The Mark 23 was a good idea, but in reality the thing is like loading a howitzer. LOL. Sometimes it was cool.

With MY hands I could get a grip on my former Mk23, but my hands are not someone else's. The 23 is no where near as portable as a USP or a HK45, and IMO it would only be good for it's intended offensive role. The only civilian role I can really think of for it is hunting.

It's a beast, but a defensive sidearm it is not. It's not the weight, so much as the mass of it.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

The 1911 is a great pistol, my unit is getting some new ones in as well as a few other small units. However, it is not a sidearm for the bulk of the Military being as that it takes a good bit more training then say the M9. As for the military going to a new pistol the Marine Corps as well as the Army is looking for a new one, but anyone who has been in the military knows how long that process will take
smirk.gif
. Last contenders I've seen have been the usual glock, sig, and beretta (the M&P is also up for consideration too and has my vote).
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

I love my MK 23 and last time I checked the grip wasn't any bigger than the USP. The deal killer would probably be the cost to the military, HK also has stopped production of it as well.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

With respect to the old timer, whens the last time you put someone straight down with a single round of 9mm center mass? As im sure you know, if your going to your sidearm your probably in close quarters and your target is most likely moving towards you. A heavy hitting round goes a long way. I would take the 1911 any day of the week even given the reduced mag capacity. Just bc im a newbie to this site doesnt mean im a rookie in the real world. When your target is all doped up (Afghanistan for example) he doesnt exactly lay down and die right away.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

Handguns cartridges are pretty much all marginal stoppers, including the 45.

If a 9mm isn't up to a task, I'm not reaching for my 45ACP.

I like the 45 as much as anyone, but it's not magic. People get shot the fuck up with it and live. A hit ANYWHERE with a 45 will not drop a person, that's pure horseshit.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

MM is right on... except the "anywhere" part. Headshots usually drop most people.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

This was the context of "anywhere" I was trying to communicate,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ash24</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And the reason the XDM 9mm doesnt come into thought is the fact that the round is weak. Anybody say what you want but the fact is that you need to get at least 3 solid hits to put someone down, even their momentum will keep them coming forward. With a .40 or .45 you can hit them once just about <span style="font-weight: bold">anywhere</span> and they're going to the ground in the very least a ton of pain. </div></div>
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

The 9mm is under powered and has no place in combat the 40 is a bandaid fix. The 45 or 10mm are both much more effective. Remember we are talking FMJ which is used by all NATO troops.Shot placement is ALWAYS an issue but energy helps lots . I have seen people hit with a 25acp and drop dead on the spot and have seen center mass hits with a 40 take a little while. Drugs and adrenaline let the "dead"live on borrowed time. The 45 or 10 center mass will do its job quicker and better .If the operator can put them there. The main reason for the 45 falling out of favor was the fact that troops shot the 30 carbine much better and it fit every one. Maybe the next sidearm shuold be a 30 carbine.I say bring back the m14 , the 45 and the 30 carbine they worked.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

Glock with a manual safety.
And before you say "Oh, but glock don't do manual safeties" remember who we're talking about. Mention the words 'US Military Contract' and any firearms manufacturer anywhere will give you what you want.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

Well I just wasted a bit of time reading 13 pages of what I don't know.

What concerns me, there is a new group of people in congress that are suppose to cut the deficit, if they can't come up with something, they are gonna get the cuts they need from the Military.

So is the military really thinking about deploying millions of new pistols???????

Also heard on the news this morning that our navy has fewer ships then anytime since 1915???????????

B52 pilots are flying the same plane their grandfathers flew.

The average age of our (air) tankers is 46 years.

I like pistol/revolvers as much as the next guy, but I understand reality. I rather seen the money spent elswhere, marksmanship training would be nice but that isn't gonna happen either.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
B52 pilots are flying the same plane their grandfathers flew.
</div></div>

That's because they're so versatile and well-made. Plus we can't make any new ones because of some agreement with the Russians IIRC...
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

There was an article in a gun magazine about 2-years ago that stated US SOCOM was looking for a new handgun to issue and Taurus was apparently making one for testing submission. It was their 24/7 OSS-DS. The OSS stood for 'Oh-Seven-Submission' I think. I have to laugh at the thought that Taurus was going to submit something for testing. In my opinion, the US Military would sooner switch the HMMWV for a Ford F-150 than use a Taurus.
I carry a full-size M&P .45 every single day and I love it. I grin from ear to ear when I see someone say that the M&P would be the best pick. While it hurts my feelers to know that NATO won't switch from the 9mm back to the .45 ACP anytime soon, I feel the M&P would be the best choice, not because it's what I carry, but because I know the reliability of it.
Mine doesn't have the external safety on it because I don't want it, but as far as a military sidearm, I think it would be fantastic. I don't think there is a firearm out there, aside from maybe a Sig, that could hold a candle to the M&P. Others may differ in opinion, but I stand by what I said.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

M&P would be a great choice IMHO. I don't have an M&P45 but I EDC an M&P9c and have a 9mm Full-size as well. Both well made and ultra reliable and for those gripping about having to "order" the manual safety model check out S&W's website: the manual safety is a standard option, not "special order". Both local shops where I buy most of my pistols carry both models in stock and regularly advertise both in their sale flyers.

Another great option IMHO would be the FNP45. US made (yes I know the parent, FNH, is based in Belgium), great ergos, 14 + 1 mag capacity (actually 15+1 with the optional hi-cap mag), very accurate and extremely 'shootable', and last but not least: significantly less money than any of the HK .45 offerings and you don't have to put up with the crappy HK customer service (although I guess that's not an issue for .mil).

...hey that makes me a Sergent... at this rate I'll <span style="font-style: italic">never</span> get to use the swap meet
crazy.gif
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Remoah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Glock with a manual safety.
And before you say "Oh, but glock don't do manual safeties" remember who we're talking about. Mention the words 'US Military Contract' and any firearms manufacturer anywhere will give you what you want. </div></div>

If I remember correctly, it wouldn't be the first time Glock has put manual safety on some of their guns.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kthomas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Remoah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Glock with a manual safety.
And before you say "Oh, but glock don't do manual safeties" remember who we're talking about. Mention the words 'US Military Contract' and any firearms manufacturer anywhere will give you what you want. </div></div>

If I remember correctly, it wouldn't be the first time Glock has put manual safety on some of their guns. </div></div>

I should know this, because the guys who use this are only a skip across the pond from us!

Tasmania Police use an old-model 17 with thumb-safety (apparantly these were once available, but once glock became popular they discontinued the model but kept up production for TASPOL?)

Edit.
No offence intended to the Glock, they're great pistols undeniably. But isn't the point of the Glock to be a pistol without a manual safety, if you're adding a Manual safety to it, the advantage of the 'draw-point-shoot' design is lost.
Just a thought?
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

In the end, since this contract will be huge, it will boil down to which company takes care of the right people.

All the other stuff will be secondary and the units will be changed slightly to match requirements.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

I don't care if they decide to change there has been some great handguns to come out of them running these tests. Like the FNP .45 Tactical, HK 45 and HK45CT.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

The 1911 is great but as has been said it has to many moving parts. When it comes down to it there are other guns id rather have in my hand if my life was on the line such as the S&W M&P.45 or the HK45.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

The M9's broke in your instance because they are training weapons. they are the bottom of the barrel. The ones we shot never broke or malfunctioned and there were 94 of us shooting that day. I think the m9 is a pretty accurate pistol. I score perfect every time I qualify (45 shots). The grip is a bit bulky for my tastes but the trigger is pretty dang nice. Would I take something better? ABSOLUTELY! Do I trust the military to decide what is better? HELL NO! lol. Knowing how they make decisions I'll end up with a dang freakin HiPoint on my thigh.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

Not sure the truth of it but I actually heard the other day the military is trying to work out a contract to swith to the FN FNP 9mm
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

to the 1911 i have only one thing to say Glock, there proven they dont fail and there a great price...
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

I'm a die hard 1911 fan. I have owned several high end 1911's over the years. My current gun is a Wilson Professional. I can shoot circles around my M9 with them.

That being said, they all have failed me at some point in time. The Wilson had a part break rendering the gun useless until the part came in. It was a piece that held the magazine in. Not sure what it's called. It has on occasion jammed now and then mostly due to magazines. You have to admit 1911's feel great in the hand, but they do have some issues. Some are pretty picky on what ammo they will shoot or what magazine they like. They generally need to be kept pretty clean also.

I have shot thousands of rounds out of my M9 without cleaning it and I have yet to have it go bang with cheap ammo. I"m confident my M9 will go bang 100% of the time no matter what magazine or ammo I have in it.

I wouldn't trade my 1911 for one, but if I was giving a bunch of 20 year olds a sidearm in the sandbox, I'd say the current issue is hard to beat.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dbateman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know it has been said but I think they should go back to the 1911 .

</div></div>

They should go with the 40S&W like the coast guard did. They should go with the S&W M&P if they want American. Glock would be a good choice also.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Silver_Bullet_00</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dbateman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know it has been said but I think they should go back to the 1911 .

</div></div>

They should go with the 40S&W like the coast guard did. They should go with the S&W M&P if they want American. Glock would be a good choice also. </div></div>

I am not a big fan of the 40S&W round they don't call it 40 short and weak for nothing , the Military would probably stay with 9mm .
I would like to see them go back to 45acp but I cant see that happening .

However my all time favourite round in a pistol is 38super it is a very good round ,it is pretty underrated in my opinion .
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

Well there seem's to be a lot of 1911 hate in here.

Apparently the 1911 is not reliable ? um yes it is I run mine for around 1000rd's with out cleaning just oil them and they run just fine , I can and have run them longer but like to strip and clean them at 1000rd's I use gun grease to lube them when I stip them and oil in between .

as far a the USMC getting the best 1911 money could buy and them not running

they bought Kimber witch are notorious for not running , go buy a colt or a springer they just run . if you gave me a kimber I would smash it with a sledge hammer and give it back .

seems to me they say the same thing about the glock as they did about the 1911

If I had the choice of carrying a M9 or a M&P or a mil spec 1911.

I would go with the 1911 every time .
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

Actually I like 357sig better than 40. But it's hard to argue that the 9mm is better than the 40 ballistics wise. You can call it short and weak, but it has the velocity of a 9mm using a heaver bullet. I see the 40 as an upgrade over 9mm.

Given that if you have to use fmj, I would not really want any of the above. Give me at least a 45acp or 10mm, if it has to be a semi auto FMJ round.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

I havent had anything to do with the 357sig personally only what I have seen other's at the range and what I have read , it dose look like a pretty good round it is also a round I would like to try .

I wasn't trying to say the 9mm is better than 40S&W just that the 9mm is pretty much the standard hand gun round with most Mil force's around the world so I can't see them changing , I wish they would .

My understanding of why the 40 S&W was developed is that it was developed out of a need to bridge the gap between 45acp and 9mm .

for me I just like 45acp and 38Super .

The most important thing is you have conference in the tool's you have .
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

well you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But as a man who serves, I think I'll keep the M9. 15 rounds vs 7-10 on the 1911. and it runs through anything. If anything I'd rather have something striker fired (less moving parts and the hammer can't get caught or jammed up) but the chances that the military will oust something they own millions of to try something new when the current one works fine is pretty slim. Hell they can't even afford to buy me my CDC's, which are just a big pile of paper we all train and test on.
-Thomas
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

As Ken Hackathorn, and many other legitimate 1911 guys have said, unless you are practically a qualified 1911 gunsmith, it is NOT the gun for your average person. Besides, it's not even being considered so STFU about it!

M&P .45 will be a VERY big contender. It has a safety,big-bore, reliable, durable, like the article in Army-times said, almost perfect right out of the gate for their needs. Plus, American made. Can't beat that.
 
Re: Military switching side arms again?

I don't think anyone here can argue the relevance or track record of the 1911. I shoot mine better than anything I own, including Glock, Sig, M&P etc. It's a hammer. However, for military purposes, there may be better suited pistols for the job.

It's not a sleight against the 1911. It's still one of the most widely used competition platforms and winner of numerous world titles. Doesn't mean it will excel in a combat situation where it may end up in sand, mud, dropped, abused, neglected. Other designs are better suited for that particular POU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Gibbz arms upper
Replies
2
Views
133
Austin3580
A
KiloGolf
300PRC/ 338 Edge switch barrel build. Possible Charlie Tarac problem??
Replies
6
Views
146
Taylorbok
Taylorbok
J
Ways to ship primers and powder?
Replies
3
Views
207
Terry Cross
Terry Cross
PussySlayer
Dual band AND coti - does this work or too much info ?
Replies
5
Views
245
st1650
S
B
Sierra problems
Replies
9
Views
752
Maverick3009
Maverick3009
Top Bottom
Back