New Army Handgun: We're Really Doing This

Status
Not open for further replies.
The civilian market is the icing on the cake, but a military contract is the cake
Click to expand...
I look forward to the icing and hopefully the cake is good too! :D

I'm curious if a manual safety will still be a requirement.
Click to expand...
Does sound tempting to think about. Grip safety maybe?

I hate to say it and maybe it sounds selfish but I just want to see some new designs!
 
Why are they wasting money on a new pistol few will ever use when they could be spending it on sensitivity training, new clipart for Powerpoint, and transporting the remaining A-10's to the scrapyard?
 
Billennium and Steel I according to Wiki had frame mounted safeties. So if the major problem is hitting the safety while racking the slide, have Beretta change them over to frame mounted.

Take the Army guns back and exchange with frame mounted versions as available. Sell returns to civilian market to recoup some of the cost. That fixes one of the complaints. I have zero reliability with mine but it does not live in the dirt and dust.
 
What is the need to replace the m9? it has a proven track record. Prehaps the problem is, the shooter, the cheap magazines and the old/abused guns. Upgrade/replace train and buy better magazines..
 
The whole discussion is not only moot but silly. By the time obama leaves office, there will be so many drastic manpower cuts that Beretta M-9s in storage will outnumber active duty and reserve troops.

If I remember correctly, Beretta has contractual future deliveries of several hundred thousand pieces.

If you polled every member of every infantry company in the army and USMC, and their commanders, the overwhelming consensus would be that NO hand gun is the right one for them to carry and be responsible for.

Someone please tell me which battle was lost because our handguns didn't work right or weren't powerful enough.
 
The whole discussion is not only moot but silly. By the time obama leaves office, there will be so many drastic manpower cuts that Beretta M-9s in storage will outnumber active duty and reserve troops.

If I remember correctly, Beretta has contractual future deliveries of several hundred thousand pieces.

If you polled every member of every infantry company in the army and USMC, and their commanders, the overwhelming consensus would be that NO hand gun is the right one for them to carry and be responsible for.

Someone please tell me which battle was lost because our handguns didn't work right or weren't powerful enough.
Click to expand...

Exactly... what this is is a group who is an answer in search of a question. They need to justify their budget and existence so lets have a new pistol trial at a cost of 35 MILLION to the taxpayer so we can look busy soloving a problem that does not exist. Government procurement at its finest.
 
"It would seem that the Army isn't kidding around"
On the contrary, I'd say it's evidence they aren't serious whatsoever. The gun is basically a "control," but with a few updates guaranteed to be in the req (rail, fancy coatings, etc.), and yet it is dismissed out of hand.

Regarding the decision capability of these fools, recall their requesting the very safety that's been universally hated ever since, and the ridiculous requirement of an "open top" slide for no demonstrable reason whatsoever.

Since pistols really are inconsequential, we should do what we did with Beretta, and pick a maker who will benefit us politically. I would strongly recommend CZ in this regard; solid gun and a solid ally deserving of our business.

TCB
 
I like my M9. Of course, I always viewed a pistol in the military as a last ditch weapon or backup weapon of some sort. I just think there are better things to spend time, effort, and money on.
 
5.7mm... Lighter... Higher capacity (20)... Ability to utilize armor-piercing if needed... or 30-rd.(+?) extended mags... And maybe even a version with a full-auto switch.
 
Maybe the army has learned to stop trying to design pistols. Thus the off the shelf idea. Let the experts design the pistol and let a competition pick the best for the army.

40sw has about the same energy as a 45 acp, but a magazine can hold more. NATO? Yeah...
 
What is the need to replace the m9?
Click to expand...

They need to justify their budget and existence so lets have a new pistol trial at a cost of 35 MILLION to the taxpayer so we can look busy solving a problem that does not exist. Government procurement at its finest.
Click to expand...

I greatly fear that is the answer, with my cynicism adding the possibility that some money has been relocated to one or more someone's pocket, or campaign fund, or PAC.
 
Sig P250?

I don't think changing the standard issue military handgun is going to happen myself but just in case....

What about the Sig P250? It is modular and can be sized or chambered to fit the mission.


Pico
 
Just some Army folks getting excited and free trips to firearms plants - or angling for a job on retirement.

Waste of money for limited gain. The 40 is the most ridiculous choice of all.
 
It is a silly discussion sure, but silliness can be fun. The 40 might be the most ridiculous choice, which is exactly why they'll go for it. From what I gather, everyone wants more power than 9mm, and they're not happy with the weight/capacity of .45, and then you have females. The ridiculousness of the .40 in this case may just make it seem ideal to the brass. HK or FN might be the best choice, but they're expensive. Glock is cheaper both in maintenance and unit cost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top