military handgun choice discussion

B

bp22

New member
I thought I would start this discussion and see how other shooters view my thoughts, would it not make a lot of sense to put glock or m&p 2.0 the military handgun, my basis for this is low cost firearms that go bang all the time and if one needs repair it's relatively easy to fix. they are both combat accurate. just a thought , lets hear your thoughts.:rolleyes:
 
The Sig is a fine gun. But I also think the Glock or M&P would do exactly the same thing. I'll end up with one of the Sigs eventually, I did rent one and tried it out.

Other than being different I don't see that it offers anything over the M&P. The military specified a thumb safety. M&P does offer that option and both of mine have it. The Glock does not normally, but I understand the version tested by the military did. I'm waiting for a civilian version of the Sig with the safety just like the military version. I've seen one, but it was priced pretty steep compared to the standard 320.
 
Based on the parameters of the question, if I had to choose between a Glock17/19 and the S&W M&P9 2.0, I'd choose the S&W every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

The S&W is just all around a better gun than the Glock, with better ergonomics, a better trigger, equal capacity, better than or equal accuracy and reliability, for significantly less money. Also, I like the fact that at no time during the take-down process do I have to pull the trigger on the S&W. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

If I could change one thing about the S&W, it'd be the length/width of the thumb safety; it should be about a quarter-inch shorter and about an 1/8th of an inch narrower, IMO. Lower profile, I guess. Which is nit-pickery really, but after having put nearly 7,000 rds through my two M&Ps, that's just how I feel.
 
Last edited:
Yeah it makes sense, those pistols also have longer track records than the Sig does. The Army brass liked the Sig because they thought switching frame sizes, barrels, etc. was modular when really all the military needed was a pistol with a rail that you could swap a threaded barrel onto in two frame sizes: full size for combat and compact for guards, officers, and women.

I think the Sig P320 will work fine, but I think a caliber change is necessary. The military wants longer range, better barrier penetration and 9mm doesn't do it. That 7.5FK BRNO cartridge fits the bill and why every pistol manufacturer is not coming up with a polymer pistol in that chambering befuddles me.
 
It might "make sense" but that's not how US govt procurement works.
If the total procurement cost is $$$$$$$, then picking a gun that's
"low cost firearms that go bang all the time and if one needs repair it's relatively easy to fix. they are both combat accurate" is only part of the acquisition calculus.

And if the acquisition is $Billions, then it gets incredibly political.
 
Glocks have been in use by several elite US military units for some time. The US Marines MARSOC issue the Glock as their duty sidearm. Since 2015. Designation 'M-007'. Pretty wise choice, as you can't go wrong with having 17-20 rounds of 9mm on your calf ready at a second's notice during the heat of a firefight.

It might "make sense" but that's not how US govt procurement works.
If the total procurement cost is $$$$$$$, then picking a gun that's
"low cost firearms that go bang all the time and if one needs repair it's relatively easy to fix. they are both combat accurate" is only part of the acquisition calculus.
Click to expand...

Historically, governments have had a tendency of being behind the times. Always. For some reason, decision-makers who are removed from the front lines and give orders exclusively from climate-controlled rooms and big wooden desks always have the tendency to go the route of "I am right...You don't know anything.......I know what is best".

In 1863, the US Department of Ordnance had two handguns to choose as their official sidearm: The Colt 1860 revolver or the Remington Model 1858. The Ordnance Dept. went with the Colt, even though front line officers and soldiers, frontier scouts, law enforcement officials, prison guards, private security contractors, and many others all attested to the Remington being far more rugged and reliable than the Colt. And the Remington was cheaper than the Colt, by the difference of 9 cents per gun, which during that time was a hell of a big deal. Yet, the Army went with the Colt. Simply because Samuel Colt himself has a private audience with the President and the Patent Dept. And as a stroke of marketing genius, Colt was known to present senators and Ordnance Dept. guys with cased sets of engraved revolvers. Colt won the approval simply because they were better advertisers and the government liked a lot of bling and sparkles.

Remington Arms Co. on the other hand? They were only concerned about making products that work. The Model 1858 New Army (actually, to be historically accurate, it is the Model 1863) was the Glock of it's day. It ain't pretty, but it is built to get the job done. Many privately funded units in the Union Army, like the Chicago Board of Trade Independent Battery Light Artillery, issued Remingtons to their troops, because they tend to be more closer to the grit and grime of the action and they know what kind of tools work best for the job they are doing.
 
TXAZ said:
It might "make sense" but that's not how US govt procurement works.
If the total procurement cost is $$$$$$$, then picking a gun that's
"low cost firearms that go bang all the time and if one needs repair it's relatively easy to fix. they are both combat accurate" is only part of the acquisition calculus.

And if the acquisition is $Billions, then it gets incredibly political.
Click to expand...
As it did with the Glock vs Sig 'decision'..low ball offer from Sig before the testing complete=sale. Too bad the Sigs needed modifications as soon as they were delivered to the military.

And for the post right below..yup, $ talks..particularly with military procurement...
 
Last edited:
The military specified a thumb safety. M&P does offer that option and both of mine have it. The Glock does not normally, but I understand the version tested by the military did.
Click to expand...

I might be a bit behind on this, but the last test I heard about, GLock didn't enter, specifically because of the requirement for a thumb safety, and they refused to do so.

I have also heard a rumor that GLock does, or did produce one of their pistols with a thumb safety for some small nation's contract. However, I don't have any other details or any shred of proof.

If any of you do, please share.
 
Handguns in the military are primarily status symbols. Secondary self-defense tools at most.
In any case, weapon procurement is a political thing that has little or nothing to do with what the military thinks.
 
I find it a bit humorous that folks are still debating the MHS outcome.

It's never an issue of "what's best." Nor should it be.

The bid that met the contract requirements for the lowest cost won.
 
bp22 said:
I thought I would start this discussion and see how other shooters view my thoughts, would it not make a lot of sense to put glock or m&p 2.0 the military handgun, my basis for this is low cost firearms that go bang all the time and if one needs repair it's relatively easy to fix. they are both combat accurate. just a thought , lets hear your thoughts.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

"What handgun should the US military use?" is a fine morass to get into.

my basis for this is low cost firearms that go bang all the time and if one needs repair it's relatively easy to fix.
Click to expand...

There's going to be much more to it than that. Logistics, parts support. Soldier tech training at various levels. "Technical package" for the gun(s). Licensing, patents and intellectual property (because other people are probably going to make it too). And, "is it made in Representative X's district?" kinds of considerations..

combat accurate
Click to expand...

a euphemism
 
Last edited:
There was no reason to switch from the Beretta, in fact it was a massive waste of taxPAYer funds as the entire training, logistic system was in place already. There wasn't any practical gain made by switching, especially with a platform that sees such little use.

PS
As far as glocks 'going bang every time', I've had more than one fail, just as multiple agencies have.
 
The United States puts in “requests for proposal” for all kinds of instruments every year, ranging from MREs to spacecrafts that will go to the Mars. The military decided the old sidearms were too old, and wanted new ones. They also explicitly wanted a modular firearm in the RFP — “a non-caliber specific weapon with modular features to allow for the adaption of different fire control devices, pistol grips, and alternate magazine options.” (Quoted from the Wikipedia page on the process).

One can debate if the military needed a new firearm, or if they really required a modular firearm, but it looks to me that the SIG 320 was the only real modular sidearm that was submitted to the proposal.
 
grinner said:
The United States puts in “requests for proposal” for all kinds of instruments every year, ranging from MREs to spacecrafts that will go to the Mars. The military decided the old sidearms were too old, and wanted new ones. They also explicitly wanted a modular firearm in the RFP — “a non-caliber specific weapon with modular features to allow for the adaption of different fire control devices, pistol grips, and alternate magazine options.” (Quoted from the Wikipedia page on the process).

One can debate if the military needed a new firearm, or if they really required a modular firearm, but it looks to me that the SIG 320 was the only real modular sidearm that was submitted to the proposal.
Click to expand...
No debate at all, it was/is a waste of money.
 
bp22: said:
military handgun choice discussion...I thought I would start this discussion and see how other shooters view my thoughts, would it not make a lot of sense to put Glock(s) or (the) M&P2.0 (in) the military handgun (armories?)
Click to expand...

It would make so much sense for the Army’s ACO to negotiate IDIQ subcontracts with Glock, S&W, and also Sig for their combat and police sidearm requirements. Set the contracts up with the individual gun manufacturers and then let the individual military commands decide which guns they want to use. It would make so much common sense which is why the military in general (no pun intended), and the Army Acquisition Command in particular, would never do it.

The military wants Commercial Off-The Shelf (“COTS”) standardization at the highest common denominator, with everything it buys, particularly with weapons systems. The gun manufacturer, in this case Sig, will give their guns practically at cost or at a loss, while making a bundle from all of the support requirements that are rolled up into the prime contract. This includes accessories, lights, holsters, cans, ammo, spare parts, training support including instructors, manuals and training aids for the soldiers carrying & using the guns, and for the armorers fixing & maintaining the guns. It’s called logistics lifecycle support and it’s what every military subcontractor desperately wants to get when they support the military with whatever the military buys.
 
Last edited:
Handguns in the military are primarily status symbols. Secondary self-defense tools at most.
In any case, weapon procurement is a political thing that has little or nothing to do with what the military thinks
Click to expand...

The recent years have seen a drastic change in the type of battlefield being faced by the modern soldier. In a traditional open field fight with equally matched combatants with infantry long arms, pistols are symbols of authority for officers.

Today's battlefield is highly unconventional. You have a lot of combatants utilizing 5th generation tactics. No uniforms, ambushes, blending in amongst civilians. To flush them out involves a lot of close-quarters fighting in urban settings. Today's soldier, especially in the war on terrorism, is more of a policeman and SWAT operative rather than a traditional grunt. I would choose a Glock or a Sig over a M-16 any day if I am doing house clearing operations in Kandahar or Baghdad. That plus a FN-PS90 or another SBR for longer range or AP purposes.

The future of the front line soldier will cross paths with that of a law enforcement officer. Today's soldiers already have to learn to operate far more hi-tech electronics, biometric equipment, scanners etc... than their ancestors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top