S&W and General Dynamics to partner on Army pistol

45_auto said:
The vast majority of people don't see that as a valid option, and the multi-thousand dollar hand-fitted sidearms and the training that goes along with them are reserved for units like Force Recon that may actually be able to use the capabilities inherent to them.
Click to expand...

So as a "lowly" Infantryman, I don't rate the best equipment?

And furthermore, and mind you this is my soda straw view of the military talking here, it is hard for me to take the line of reasoning that a good pistol for everyone is too expensive when the USAF is spending more than 100 million dollars per plane on the F-35.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I used my Beretta once, fired a whopping four rounds from it, and hope to never need it again.

My girlfriend shoots her Beretta maybe twice a year (JAG lawyer) and never once drew a weapon when she deployed.
 
SPEMack618 said:
So as a "lowly" Infantryman, I don't rate the best equipment?
Click to expand...

No, you don't. At least not in the definition that you apparently believe that "best" means. While the most expensive, high-maintenance equipment (your "best") may be appropriate at certain limited levels, the vast majority of troops will not be any more well-armed or effective with the high-speed low-drag toys. It would be a waste of resources that could be used much more effectively in other areas. There is a limited amount of resources that should be used as wisely as possible for each individual.

"Best" is a balance of performance, effectiveness, maintainability, price, manufacturability, and about a hundred other things that go into a weapon system.

Same reason you don't have 5-star chefs serving you your meals while you're in your king-size feather bed on silk sheets in the morning. Food prepared by the 5-star chef is undoubtedly "better" than military chow, room service is undoubtedly "better" than you having to stand in line for it, a king-size feather bed is undoubtedly "better" than a cot, and silk sheets are undoubtedly "better" than the military-issue cotton bedding unless things have changed a lot since I was in.

Would you be a better soldier with the better food and more comfortable rest? Probably much more so than any pistol could make you, but the trade-off in resources to give you the "best" isn't worth it.
 
Last edited:
Save this kind of smart aleck response for another forum. He characterized the problem correctly.
Click to expand...

Sorry - this IS a public forum and that's about the response his "sky is falling"
assessment deserves. Having worked on a variety of government programs for the DoD and DOE, I can tell you that the people who do the budgeting have their own priorities and ideas as to what is needed - and believe it or not - generally have a rationale that backs up their budget choices.

His assessment is "correct" only in that it is ONE opinion of many, carries no weight with ANY government committee or entity and is not the end-all, be-all, universal truth.
 
Whatever the DOD decides, I believe it's time to leave the old designs behind and make something truly effective for out troops. I hate to say this, but if I was stuck with an M9 and 9mm ball ammo in the military I would be pretty angry. Our troops deserve better, more stopping power, more firepower, more reliability. To think otherwise is just selfish. The tactical warfighter mission is changing daily, and outdated weapons like the 1911 and M9 need to go the way of the dodo bird.
Click to expand...
Do you have anything in mind that has a significant advantage over the M9. ?
 
Sorry - this IS a public forum and that's about the response his "sky is falling"
assessment deserves. Having worked on a variety of government programs for the DoD and DOE, I can tell you that the people who do the budgeting have their own priorities and ideas as to what is needed - and believe it or not - generally have a rationale that backs up their budget choices.

His assessment is "correct" only in that it is ONE opinion of many, carries no weight with ANY government committee or entity and is not the end-all, be-all, universal truth.
Click to expand...

No one said the sky is falling. I'm not sure why you're so bothered by this, unless you are the type that has something to gain from such a move. Myself - I'm just a lowly taxpayer, and just expect that our servicemen and women have the best that we can provide given the realities of limited budgets.

If you can explain to us why US warfighters need a new pistol design to replace a perfectly suitable one more than they need better communications, better electronics integration, better armored vehicles, better tactical intelligence-gathering methods, better uniforms, better body armor, and better mental health, emotional, and financial support, we're all ears.
 
With the restriction of ball ammo, I think they would want something very small and fast like a 22tcm , (to have it pass through and injure others behind them), or something with a large enough diameter to do real damage, (45 gap, 40s&w, 45acp). I don't think 9mm in ball ammo is large enough or fast enough. My guess would be the 40S&W. 45 ammo is very heavy. the logistics of moving it around or carrying large amounts makes it less desirable. 165 gr, times a thousand is a lot less than 230gr. times a thousand. They could even use copper for a faster round.

I was told that one of the reasons the military went with the 223/5.56 was it takes 2 people to carry off a wounded person. So if you just wound one, you take 3 out of the fight. and you don't have to hospitalize dead people. Wounded people use up a great deal of resources for the enemy.

I don't see hand fitted parts as being good. You might have to replace parts in the field. You going to stock 5 times the parts so that one of them will fit? Most wars are fought in mud. close tolerances can be not so good when dirty.
 
Last edited:
5.56's design has been changing. Originally it was to tumble and fragment, similar to how varmint rounds fragment and tear apart tissue. More damage, lighter round, more ammo. Then we designed it to punch through light personal armor then tumble and fragment.

Creating a round with the express intent to wound probably wasn't something originally intended and became something that happened from changing the originally specified intended barrel lengths for the round. I think that would violate a few laws of war too in that it brings needless suffering.

Tactically it also makes no sense. I don't want a wounded enemy who has a chance to fight back. I want my enemy killed as quickly and efficiently as possible so that he has no chance to fire off a lucky shot, return to battle later, and so I don't waste time and ammo taking a threat down.

On topic... A pistol is a sidearm. It's a personal defense weapon or secondary for some units. Front line troops depend on rifles far more than pistols, and the M9 does fine for its intended roles as a sidearm or secondary for now. If the budget allowed for it, then maybe we could find a new pistol, if we hadn't already spent the money for a whole pot of new M9's. We might develop one for later, but it's not likely anything coming out in the immediate future. Just look at what happened with the XM8, SCAR, and OICW. We stuck with the M16/M4 but took some of the technology developed for new munitions and the M27, though we're still working on the grenade launcher (unless that project got shelved too).
 
Last edited:
SPEMack618 himself stated what the problem is. He has fired four shots out of his M9 and his girlfriend fires hers twice a year eventhough she was deployed. Practice and familiarity with any given weapon is what produces effieciency not some new magic replacement pistol.
 
I am absolutely appalled by the lack of understanding this entire process. ;) It's not about the pistols, what's best, what's outdated, what's needed. It's about jobs. No, not jobs building the guns. It's about jobs for those in the evaluation and procurement processes. So, in the end, it really doesn't matter if they choose a new pistol or what pistol it might be. Next month, they're evaluating a rounder wheel. :D
 
And furthermore, and mind you this is my soda straw view of the military talking here, it is hard for me to take the line of reasoning that a good pistol for everyone is too expensive when the USAF is spending more than 100 million dollars per plane on the F-35.
Click to expand...

This one is actually pretty easy.

China, Russia, and others are developing 5th-Generation fighter aircraft (Russian PAK FA and LMFS, Chinese J-20 and J-31) that will, when fielded, eclipse the performance and capabilities of the legacy 4th-generation fighters (F-16 and F/A-18) that make up the bulk of the American inventory of combat aircraft. Since Congress put a premature halt to the production of the F-22 at just 187 examples (less now due to attrition), that leaves only the F-35. Is the F-35 overpriced? Of course it is. But I can think of very few defense programs that aren't.

On the other hand, no nation in the world has fielded a pistol that is significantly better than the M9 (or will in the foreseeable future). The Beretta M9 is a good pistol. Yes, some are marginally lighter, and some may be marginally smaller, and some may fire a slightly hotter loading, but none are significantly better (and none likely will be until some major technological advancement happens).
 
I'm not trying to be argumentative. I used my Beretta once, fired a whopping four rounds from it, and hope to never need it again.

My girlfriend shoots her Beretta maybe twice a year (JAG lawyer) and never once drew a weapon when she deployed.
Click to expand...

A pistol you fired four times, and a pistol your girlfriend only shoots for qualification leads you to this:

My fixation on what the U.S. Soldier carries is because I am one, and I date one, so I'd very much like to have the very best sidearm possible.
Click to expand...

I guarantee you there are devices, weapons, technologies, etc. that you use on a daily basis that could be improved and have much more impact on your career as a soldier than a sidearm you barely used. The fact of the matter is you in fact can not have the best of everything. So let's focus on what will do the most good.
 
Sorry - this IS a public forum and that's about the response his "sky is falling"
Click to expand...

It's a forum with a decently high standard of dialogue, which your sniping and caricaturing of his (whether or not you agree with it) reasonable response didn't meet. It sounds like you have plenty to add based upon your own work experience, so why not just stick to that?
 
Strange......like all other threads about replacing the M9, I dont see very many "recommendations" for a 9mm service pistol with a better track record?? Yes, again...nothing but crickets. If the w. german SIG 226 couldn't hold it's own with the M9 during the trials, what has come along in the last 30 years that would somehow out perform it??
 
I used my Beretta once, fired a whopping four rounds from it, and hope to never need it again.
Click to expand...

I believe he was saying that he used his in self defense one time, 4 shots, while deployed.

And, the SIG 226 did very well compared to the Beretta. So well that the smaller version (SIG 228) was also purchased and is known as the M11.

The competition, if it ever actually occurs, will no doubt pit the latest versions of the M9 and the M11 against each other. That is, unless the specs are written such that they fail to meet the desired specs. I mean, if Big Green says it has to be striker fired, not hammer fired, both those designs will not be competing.

Army needs guns, guns wear out, Army will have to buy some new pistols someday, Army would be smart to have the winner chosen before the troops are using old, worn out guns.

Bart Noir
 
Army needs guns, guns wear out, Army will have to buy some new pistols someday, Army would be smart to have the winner chosen before the troops are using old, worn out guns.
Click to expand...

They have a contract for 400,000 new M9s through Beretta.
 
the military has a long history of messing with this stuff and doing nothing.

It gives the powers that be something to do while they get enough years in so they can retire.

M4/16 has been through the same thing.

It took them 25 years to develop the Garand.

frankly its amazing anything ever manages to come out of DOD.
 
It took them 25 years to develop the Garand.
Click to expand...

Let's see, the Rifle, M1 was adopted in 1936. If we go back 25 years, then the development was started in 1911. Somehow, I do not think that is accurate.

OK, yes I am aware that after adoption and initial use the M1 was changed at the muzzle end to the final gas port and piston system. But still, I do not think anybody was working on semi-auto rifles in the USA during World War 1. It was all the USA could do to get enough bolt action rifles into the hands of the troops, which is why some soldiers initially trained with Mosin-Nagants and why the M1917 was adopted. But that is a different story.

Bart Noir
 
Dude its just a pistol. Instead of buying a cheap plastic gun for $400 a unit you're going to spend $8 bazillion in "R&D" and ship units costing $5 grand a pop.

Buy a bunch of M&Ps, or re-op on the Beretta M9s and save inventory storage and training costs.

This is why our burdget is obscenely large now and ever growing.
 
Aw geeze....

Can't they just get the Glock 17, put a safety on the slide like a M9, and go back to sleep?

They are gonna engineer a billion dollar pistol that won't be one whit better than what they have (or what I propose.)

Guess they don't remember Sen. Everett Dirksen's comment.

Deaf
Click to expand...

Exactly. If you want domestic content just go with S&W or make Glock make them here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top