S&W and General Dynamics to partner on Army pistol

Bart, the article is hidden behind a paywall. Can you provide any further input?

Given the reduced role of the pistol in modern military usage, I'm not sure why we'd need a modular system. Sure, it's a good idea, but is it worth the cost and retraining involved in replacing the M9?
Click to expand...

They're tailoring the contract to the bidder...

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

In short, no. After all you're not walking around in your own personal armored robot suit with indivudalized drone and artillery support. Economics rules the world.
 
Last edited:
Glock has a factory in Smyrna, GA. So they do make them in the US.
Click to expand...

So like I said,

just get the Glock 17, put a safety on the slide like a M9, and go back to sleep.

It's still just a 9mm and the Glock is so easy to fix up and repair. And nobody says a Glock ain't reliable nor inaccuate.

And that will free up more money for Obamacare, once we go bankrupt cause of it.

Deaf
 
So like I said,

just get the Glock 17, put a safety on the slide like a M9, and go back to sleep.

It's still just a 9mm and the Glock is so easy to fix up and repair. And nobody says a Glock ain't reliable nor inaccuate.

And that will free up more money for Obamacare, once we go bankrupt cause of it.

Deaf
Click to expand...

I'm OK with it. But some find the Glock grip angle uncomfortable or unnatural.

The S&W M&P is really a rework of the Glock any way, though it has more parts. However, having a grip that can be adjusted may be a good feature to incorporate. The Trigger on a M&P isn't quite as "nice" as the Glock out of the box but it is manageable for a service grade pistol.

I do fine with the Beretta M9, qualified expert with it, Carried it on deployment when Corpsmen only got issued sidearms. (Only drawn it and pointed it in anger once, but never had to pull the trigger in that instance.) Never had problems with it funtioning in quals, field exercises, deployment quals, shooting it from the top of a submarine at floating targets in the sea (Yeah, I had a Captain who liked to shoot and made sure we go extra training ammo). The trigger reach is a little long for my liking in DA, and the transition from DA-SA is not easy to master but doable, (Navy pistol quals include several DA-SA transitions now).

I find the Glock and M&P have a bit more "universal" or manageable grips for fitting more people. (The Sig 226 , M11/228, and 220 pistols still find me adjusting my grip for DA trigger reach or mag changes and my high grip usually ends up keeping the slide catch depressed preventing slide lock on the last round out of a mag.)

My first pistol qual was with 1911a1 pistols, and I shot those in Fleet matches. I find that they fit well, and have built one up for match use, and reworked a Springfield Armory 1911A1 for more "practical use". But I don't see us going back to a single action pistol or the .45 with NATO ammo compatability still in the mix.
 
Then I may stand corrected as well. I just figured between Removeable Palm swells, the take down tool/ Palm swell retainer, separate sear, sear release lever, mag safety and thumb safety (for those so equipped), that it would end up with more parts. Of course I haven't detail stripped my M&P like I have my Glock 17 or 19.

Thanks for the info.
 
If I look at the Brownells schematics of a GLOCK and a M&P pistol I count 37 parts on a GLOCK and over 40 parts on an M&P. There may be a technicality, that S&W bundles some of those parts as assemblies, but there really are more small parts on an M&P that make up the assemblies.
 
KyJim said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the lobbyists, salesmen on commission, the bartenders relying on tips from the vendors, the hotel workers and restaurant employees catering to them, plus the strippers expensed out as 'entertainment expenses' on the corporate AmEx...
 
not sure whether I got this right, but to me it seems that one of the main reasons for replacing the M9 is not its actual performance but the fact that many of the pistols are reaching the end of their active service life, thus the replacement should also be seen in the light of saving repair and refinishing costs.

It might be true that the average M9 will never see active use, yet it seems logical to me that the training rounds run through it (and simply time) will not improve on the pistols' condition.

So IF you have to replace something, why not updating it? Of course the actual difference between the M9 and any contemporary "3rd gen" poly / striker / rail / you-name-it-you-have-it pistol should be negligible, still it makes even less sense to buy more of the same simply because the difference admittedly isn't quite a big one.

Just my two cents.
 
simonrichter said:
not sure whether I got this right, but to me it seems that one of the main reasons for replacing the M9 is not its actual performance but the fact that many of the pistols are reaching the end of their active service life, thus the replacement should also be seen in the light of saving repair and refinishing costs.

It might be true that the average M9 will never see active use, yet it seems logical to me that the training rounds run through it (and simply time) will not improve on the pistols' condition.

So IF you have to replace something, why not updating it? Of course the actual difference between the M9 and any contemporary "3rd gen" poly / striker / rail / you-name-it-you-have-it pistol should be negligible, still it makes even less sense to buy more of the same simply because the difference admittedly isn't quite a big one.

Just my two cents.
Click to expand...
Because the handgun itself is only part of the cost. Magazines, holsters, training for the soldiers, training for the armourers, probably some other changes to the logistics department.
 
I just bought a Sig Sauer p290. It is marked Made in USA. If the contract is big enough I am sure that any company will accommodate any requirement.
Has a caliber change been ruled out? Could NATO adopt the .22 TCM or FN 5.7×28mm?
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_5.7×28mm , In 2002 and 2003, NATO conducted a series of tests with the intention of standardizing a PDW cartridge as a replacement for the 9×19mm Parabellum cartridge.[11] The tests compared the relative merits of the 5.7×28mm cartridge and the 4.6×30mm cartridge, which was created by Heckler & Koch as a competitor to the 5.7×28mm.[11] The NATO group subsequently recommended the 5.7×28mm cartridge, citing superior performance in testing, but the German delegation objected and the standardization process was indefinitely halted.
The Rock Island 22TCM can use a 9mm barrel, which would make a changeover painless. If they had 9mm ammo, just put the correct barrel in it. Other companies might have to purchase a licence to make similar guns, but it is all do able.
 
Last edited:
Replacing the M9 would be an appalling waste of taxpayer money.
Click to expand...

Read and article yesterday about how the Chinese now announce they have nuke ICBM's in new stealthy subs. AND intelligent anti ship missles that do 1700 mph 9' over the swells that can decide, autonomously, if they want to work as a pack or as lone wolves when they approach a carrier group. Yeah, I think we need to budget appropriately.
 
Could NATO adopt the .22 TCM or FN 5.7×28mm?
Click to expand...

I would hope that they're smart enough not to waste time on the .22 TCM. It's about twice as heavy and half as fast as the FN 5.7x28, with about half the energy.
 
If they go with a necked down cartridge, they may be able to use the same guns with just a different barrel. Except for Germany, NATO liked the idea of a smaller faster round.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top