military handgun choice discussion

[Fishbed77]

Colt M45A1 for the win.

I know you're being facetious, but this is the classic example of project procurement requirements that are completely detached from reality.

Almost as soon as these pistols were adopted, they were essentially withdrawn from service. Just another waste of taxpayer money from a system with painfully little effective oversight.

 

[rodfac]

Handguns in the military are primarily status symbols. Secondary self-defense tools at most

Not where I was....two man bunkers, slit trenches, 4-holer latrines, shower points, cockpits, jeep rides...and in one instance, up a tree! At enlisted and field grade officer levels, in the jungles where I served, a handgun was life insurance, and arguably, more effective than any carbine in the above listed environs. YMMV, but grant me this opportunity to differ. Rod

 

[Seven High]

If handguns are primarily status and secondary self def3nse tools, why did the DoD purchase over 600,000 M9s and continue to purchase M17s? Their view of pistols must be different than the average person.

 

[ROCK6]

If handguns are primarily status and secondary self def3nse tools, why did the DoD purchase over 600,000 M9s and continue to purchase M17s? Their view of pistols must be different than the average person.

They have become more than just status symbols, but they are still a pretty small aspect of the military. The "battlefield" dynamics have changed over the years, and the front-lines are much more blurred. Additionally, there are more dynamic roles where handguns become a more appropriate arm...not necessarily the most effective, but more fitting for the roles.

Several occupations don't require a rifle all the time, but I still agree with the premise that service members should always be armed, even if for just the warrior ethos state of mind. My only doubts involve training and trigger time...something most service members don't get enough of and even less so with handguns. Over my career, I would easily spend more time and train with more ammo over a month on my own than I would in a two-three year period with my issued M9.

While the new Sigs are nice, I'm far more impressed with the issued handguns of the Belgian's; the FN Five-Seven. Most of the other coalition forces I work with have issued Glocks (the Germans and Mongolian forces have HKs)...and the Danish are still packing their P210s!

ROCK6

 

[Bob Wright]

A comment made during the selection of the M911 .45 went something like:

"I'll remind you gentlemen, the arm of the Cavalry is the carbine, not a pistol."


Far as I'm concerned, the Army should have stayed with the old Colt/Browning M1911A1 .45 ACP.

Or maybe the M1909.


Bob Wright

 

[4V50 Gary]

Concur. We should have stayed with the 1911.

 

[Ricklin]

I'm with you!

I just bought my first 1911, a Govt. model seemed appropos for my first.

Wow what a superb design, I've only put a box through it and I am in love. I bought the cheapo Tisas's from Bud's and I am impressed. I paid about 330 bucks. Had 3 jams on the fist box of ammo. The pistol is super tight. By the end of the box of 50 I was getting through a full magazine w/o a jam.

The trigger is darn good. It's the tactical trigger model and is about 4-5 pounds, there is some takeup so I would not call it crisp, but it is decent and I can hit with it.

I've been on the fence for .45 caliber for years. I can see I am going to need some dies, and maybe start casting after I retire.
This appears to be the perfect pistol to cast for, big chunks of Lead moving slow.

Love the 1911. Am now anxious to shoot a nice one.

 

[agtman]

Concur. We should have stayed with the 1911.

Hence, why earlier I advocated for the Colt M45A1.

It's the 'peak' of evolution for the 1911-breed - as opposed to cheapo knock-off clones - and is further 'tacticalized' with night sights, an improved recoil assembly, and by the engineering of a rail on the frame for mounting your weapon-light of choice.

Cool beans.

 

[USNRet93]

Modern times means modern weapons. For the same reason the US military went away from the M14 to the M16(lighter, shorter, more ammo carried, etc), I think the military was smart to look for a lighter, more simple, higher capacity handgun. Not a fan of thechoice of SIG, but I think that 'type' fills a lot more modern 'squares' than a 1911/.45/8 or so round capacity handgun. Plus like it or don't(not a huge fan)..a LOT of today's military have smaller hands.

 

[pete2]

The handgun in the military, except to make officers look pretty, is for those who can't carry a rifle. As a topcat on a track, I was issued a pistol. The pistol was a last resort firearm. Way better than a knife but that's about it. I would have liked the Glock or copy if it had a safety, It's a lot lighter than the 1911 I carried. The Lightweight Commander would be even better than the Glock, the 1911 is much easier to shoot. As for special applications, they should carry whatever is best for the job at hand, snubnose .38, Glock 19 or 1911, whatever. It ain't rocket science. With the government it is usually lowest bidder, plastic guns are a lot cheaper than metal guns. I don't see where the SIG is any better than a Beretta, I have to think the SIG is cheaper.

 

[sigxder]

As someone said the SIG, Glock, or M&P will all do the job. Have all of them except the SIG. Shot the SIG. Didn't find it any better than the G19 GEN4 or S&W 2.0 Compact.
Pretty much since I got the S&W 2.0 Compact it's been my constant companion.
Like the ergo's the best. Built like a tank. Totally reliable, accurate. Think any of them would be fine for military use. Like the M9. But it's big, heavy, and DA/SA not as easy to learn to shoot. SIG has a lot of room for optics and so on.

 

[luger fan]

Let's see. Was Glock approved by NATO? No, they were not. SIG? No. The ONLY handgun made with an NSN, NATO Service Number, is the CZ P-01.

If 29 Countries agree that the CZ is reliable enough for its military, but Glock IS NOT, that is probably a good hint.

 

[USNRet93]

Let's see. Was Glock approved by NATO? No, they were not. SIG? No. The ONLY handgun made with an NSN, NATO Service Number, is the CZ P-01.

If 29 Countries agree that the CZ is reliable enough for its military, but Glock IS NOT, that is probably a good hint.

'Might' be a little more complicated than that..
Germany, as an example, uses the H&K P8.....France uses a Sig and Glock 17..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_pistol

 

[agtman]

Let's see. Was Glock approved by NATO? No, they were not. SIG? No. The ONLY handgun made with an NSN, NATO Service Number, is the CZ P-01.

Dude, ... That's only important if anyone really cared about what NATO thinks. NATO was never going to choose any semi-auto pistol adopted by the U.S. military, let alone one made here.

If 29 Countries agree that the CZ is reliable enough for its military, but Glock IS NOT, that is probably a good hint.

If 29 quasi-socialist (Euro) countries agree that border security using drones is better and more effective than hardened barriers (walls), is that a 'good hint' we should follow?

Colt M45A1, all day.

8-rds of .45acp high-n-hard. Repeat as needed.

'Nuff said.

 

[TBM900]

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.

Smalll shoulder-able PCC PDW's like the GHM9, P90, MX4, etc, make far more sense than pistols.

The whole change out was simply payback to Sig after decades of butthurt losing out to Beretta decades ago, a complete waste of money. The entire inventory of Berettas should have been surplussed out long ago (they were not taken care of properly) and partially replaced with new ones for the very limited roles the serve in, then standardize a PCC PDW.

Staying with Beretta and procuring the PX4 / MX4 combo would have made even more sense, same caliber, same magazines, existing pipeline of existing PROVEN products. But when the military burocrats get involved the taxpayer looses and the fighter almost always gets shortchanged.

 

[kraigwy]

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and catch lots of flack but this is based on my experience as a grunt, riflemen and machine gunner in the jungles of SE Asia.

The handgun of choice if I were to get a vote (which I dont) would be the J-Frame Smith with enclosed hammer.

Silly you say...think about it. I was infantry, grunt. We had to be armed 24-7. In the bush I wouldnt be without my hands on my assigned weapon (which was a M16a1 or M60).

Now there were times when we came to rear. Pretty much secure. Had chow halls, the works. Yet no matter what, we had to be armed. It wasnt assigned but I did pick up and carry a M1911A1, and it worked but the J-Frame would have been better. I could stick it in my pocket and be armed.

Trust me, a small revolver in the pocket is a lot easier to get through the chow line then a M-60. If push came to shove I could use the revolver to fight my way to the back of the chow hall tent to get to my '60 hanging on a peg.

It doesnt weigh much and even in the field it wouldnt be in the way tucked into my pants pocket.

But like I said, like the rest of us in these forums, we dont get a vote. You carry what uncle sam says you carry, and the lobbyist tell uncle same what we need based on which ever lobbyist cuts loose the most money to sell their product to congress.

 

[Leaf]

Wouldn't be my first thought to arm myself with any kind of weapon to fight my way to the front of any chow line I remember from back in the Corps. Maybe to get away from the stink maybe.

 

[pete2]

Wasn't in a mess hall in Vietnam more than a dozen times. Mostly C's. Once in a while hot food brought in by chopper. .50 on the track, 1911 in my holster. Pulled the .45 once, never shot it except at tin cans. B Troop, 1/1 Cav, 67/68.

 

[ROCK6]

Smalll shoulder-able PCC PDW's like the GHM9, P90, MX4, etc, make far more sense than pistols.

This I agree with. Several Advisors just have a pistol, which I feel is pretty inadequate. Some of the Germans have their MP7, and the two Belgians we have on our team use their FN P90's. Granted, they also carry pistols, but these PDW's/SMG's are far more versatile and maneuverable when in/around vehicles and buildings.

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and catch lots of flack but this is based on my experience as a grunt, riflemen and machine gunner in the jungles of SE Asia.

The handgun of choice if I were to get a vote (which I dont) would be the J-Frame Smith with enclosed hammer.

This isn't a bad choice if just having a sidearm along with your primary rifle/LMG. J-frame may be debatable, but there are times your rifle isn't in reach and engagements are basically in a phone-booth. Primary purpose is to simply get to your rifle, and the weight would be more than acceptable with a typical combat load. There are numerous "activities" where your rifle is often outside arms-reach when not doing active missions/patrolling.

ROCK6

 

[Fishbed77]

Concur. We should have stayed with the 1911.
Hence, why earlier I advocated for the Colt M45A1.

It's the 'peak' of evolution for the 1911-breed - as opposed to cheapo knock-off clones - and is further 'tacticalized' with night sights, an improved recoil assembly, and by the engineering of a rail on the frame for mounting your weapon-light of choice.

Cool beans.

Of course, those 1911s procured up until WW2 have or will all eventually wear out if they were kept in service.

Considering that there are equally effective options today that cost far less, offer more firepower, and are much lighter (Colt definitely took MARSOC for a ride with the M45A1), it is simply foolish for the taxpayer to keep buying overpriced and out-dated combat pistols. This is not to say the M17 should have replaced the M9, unless its procurement offers a real cost-savings overall.

Sorry if this steps on some toes, but it's a rational evaluation, and economics and rationality should trump nostalgia when providing warfighters with the best and most economically responsible option.

If 29 quasi-socialist (Euro) countries agree that border security using drones is better and more effective than hardened barriers (walls), is that a 'good hint' we should follow?

Colt M45A1, all day.

8-rds of .45acp high-n-hard. Repeat as needed.

'Nuff said.

Again, without delving into the silly politics of it all, you have to detach personal feelings from rational decisions (something the left often has difficulty with). The "'Nuff said" comment indicates a close-mindedness that benefits neither the warfighter or taxpayer.

To use an example you brought up, if drones are more cost-effective than a wall why shouldn't that option be studied? Just because a politician threw out the wall idea to get elected and it sounded appealing to those who didn't really think about it much?

You may not agree with the Euros' politics (I typically don't), but good on them for looking at other options for border security. We know walls provide almost zero effectiveness in this situation, since the majority of illegal aliens cross borders via aircraft/airports anyway, and walls without constant surveillance are easily defeated (climbed, tunneled under, or simply walked or boated around). If you have to provide surveillance anyway for a wall to be effective, why not just spend the money on better surveillance and interdiction?

Never mind the physical impossibility of running a non-stop wall along an arbitrary (i.e. non-natural) border. Google "watershed" if you don't understand.

Anyway - not to get so far off topic, but you provided a good lens though which to look at the issue of government procurement, and why it is failing so hard currently.


.