Thoughts on a next-generation military sidearm

I

Ivanhoe

New member
While realizing that sidearms are rarely used in normal military combat, it seems to me that we could come up with a better handgun for military use. In this diatribe, I am primarily concerned with use by maneuver units, as opposed to MP, intelligence, security, or spec-ops forces, and I am completely ignoring the issue of the handgun as a "badge of office."

Given the minimal training applied towards the handgun by western militaries, the new gun would have to be easy to operate and shoot. Reliability in a dusty/muddy/rainy/icy environment is a must, as is easy field-stripping. Shootability should be improved over the typical autopistols, such that 1st shot hits beyond 25 yards are do-able for the average grunt. The gun should have adequate durability; lets say a design lifetime of 25,000 rounds. Of course, the gun should be reasonably safe. The cartridge should be effective with non-expanding bullets, yet have moderate recoil. Lastly, it would be nice if the "field gun" were of the same family as guns for MPs etc. and of the same cartridge as whatever subguns are in service.

Given the previous criteria, it seems like one design can't do it all. The shootability at longer ranges and simple manual-of-arms fairly scream "Revolver!" Whereas the reliability and field-stripping criteria scream "Autopistol!"

Well, here is one possibility. An autoloader with a long barrel & slide (6-7" bbl), about 35 oz empty weight, recoil operated, Sig-style lockup, single-action with ambi thumb safety, single-column. I'd prefer a striker-fired ignition system, rather than a hammer/firing-pin design. Maybe design the thing to have sacrificial frame rails that can be replaced. A wireframe shoulder stock, perhaps aluminum alloy or composite, could help in some situations. At some point, holosights might get reliable and cheap enough to be used as the primary sight. As for cartridge, we know 9x19 is not so good in FMJ, and .45 ACP is a bit much recoil-wise for some shooters. So, lets consider a .40 S&W like cartridge, but lets use a longer case to reduce pressures. Maybe design the feed ramp to handle semi-wadcutters rather than FMJ-RN to improve terminal ballistics somewhat, if semi-wadcutters are allowed by the Hague convention or whatever. Of course, MPs, spooks, and spec-ops can use hollowpoints to their hearts' content.

Now, that single-action trigger may seem to be a safety issue, but for our archetypical grunt, I'll assume the gun is carried full-mag/empty-chamber. Compact versions for MPs and whatnot can be DAO. That single-action trigger is essential to making long-range hits, I think (as is the long sight radius and stability of the "longslide" configuration).

Questions? Comments?
 
Having been a Navy Hospital Corpsman, I was issued a Berreta M9. Our training with this weapon, in Field Medical Service School (FMSS), consisted of 15 rounds at 10 yards. I'd say your simplicity criterion is a must. It amazed me that after FMSS it was assumed by the Marines that we were proficient with our pistols.

The main thing I didn't like with the M9 was the hammer dropping safety. With the safety engaged an unfamiliar person, as we all qualified, could mistake the trigger travel as some sort of malfunction for a few critical moments.

I think something with transparent safety features like a SIG P22X would be perfect.
 
Yeah - the M1911. I think it was put to pasture before its time.
The newer guns are not offering any real tangible improvements and letting idiots get away with stupid breaches of safety.
The M1911 did just fine - but did require at least SOME training.
 
Having used both the M1911 and the 92f in the USarmy, I own Sig, HK and S&W (for now...) For military use I have to go with:

A Glock in .45

These are my reasons:

1. stupid simple to use, just pull the trigger
2. striker fired means less training time for newbies
3. simple to use
4. the .45 is one of the most reliable performers in FMJ
5. stupid simple to use
6. low barrel profile means easier recoil handling properties
7. very easy to use


I really believe that for ANY sidearm to be useful the operator has to have confidence that he knows what he is doing with it. It is a fact in all armies that training time is a VERY expensive luxury. The more effective a soldier can learn to be with the least amount of training time the more likely that he will have received enough training to give him a survival edge in a hostile encounter.

Did I mention that a Glock is easy to use?

J.T.
 
In all actuality, a military sidearm isn't normally carried by grunts, only rifles. In combat, those with sidearms will more than likely also have a rifle.

A guy can pack the same # of rounds of 9mm in half the weight compared to a .45, or better yet carry 45 9mm rounds in 3 mags ready to go.

Logistics are very important in a war, and I think the 9mm was a good choice logistically. While the Sig 226 would have been a better choice for the military's pistol, the current M9 is a fine gun. It would be much cheaper to step up the training, than to rearm the entire military with something slightly simpler.

I agree the military should train more, but the hardware choice is fine IMO. Besides, I know a lot of grunts who pack their own anyway. Nobody cares once the sh*t flys what you're packing, as long as your proficient with it. That's peacetime crap. Regards,
SM
 
For an infantryman, a pistol is a weapon of last resort. It should be small and light so it won't add too much to the soldier's load. The pistol will most likely be used in situations where the soldier has been separated from his rifle and is concerned more with self defense than with taking the fight to the enemy.

For those reasons, and for the logistical benefits of a 9mmP chambering, I'd select the Glock 19. It's easy to carry, easy to maintain, and easy to shoot.
 
You guys are on the wrong track. The next military pistol is specified as follows:

1. Must be non-lethal, as we don't want to hurt the nice enemy (besides, they bribe our officials).

2. Must be programmed for the fingerprints of all U.S. servicemen so it can't be fired if captured.

3. Must include mirror, makeup kit, private latrine, and other necessities for female soldiers.

4. Must not appear to be a weapon, lest small children see it and come under its evil influence.

5. Must be power selectable to propel bean bags, feather pillows, love notes, or nastygrams at operator's choosing.

6. Must incorporate internet access and e-mail facilities, as well as play all known computer games for the younger soldiers who don't know anything else.

7. Must be able to be shut off from the White House when the enemy offers enough money, or when it is found that the user voted the wrong way.

It is understood that the enemy will use dumb guns which will kill our soldiers, but that is the way of modern warfare.

Jim
 
Although I really like the 1911 and Glock, the SIG 229 or 239 fit most of the criteria you set forth. They both have relatively short trigger pulls and very short SA for subsequent shots. Fits well and shoots easily in all hands. Field stripping is a piece of cake. Not much more difficult then the Glock. Has a hammer in case of misfire. Has a decocker. As far as the round, I do not see the Europeans using anything other then 9mm, if for no other reason then the large ammo stockpiles they have. They do not like wasting money like we in this country seem to do. As long as we are in NATO, do not look for a change there. A simple barrel change converts the SIG.357 to .40SW. If we wanted to move to the SW, I am sure SIG could facilitate the change.
 
What ever it is, my bet is that both Kolt,and Smith&Wesson hope that their 30 pieces of silver buys them a contract. :mad:

------------------
BOYCOTT SMITH AND WESSON!!!!!
The only justice for a traitor is at the end of a rope!!!!
Off my meds (quit smoking), armed to the teeth, and loose on an unsuspecting society!!!
 
Government 1911s fit the ticket. Dummying down sidearms is not the answer. Training is. Capacity? There are several notable instances of US soldiers holding off and killing way more than their fair share of enemy troops with 8 round 1911s. It truely gets academic when reading those extraordinary feats of combat.

As for longarms- I'd love to see a 7.5 pound M1A issued to our troops. Train them to shoot as in the old days, of course.

Erik
 
Capacity is not academic nor is paramount. More is better. Ask the Rough Riders assaulting San Juan hill whether they'd rather be equipped with the Krag or a stripper clip charged Mauser.

For every heroic story of a Sgt York taking out a battalion with his P17, there's a dozen more of guys getting bayoneted while reloading.

Those of us who have served recently know that weapons training is not a high priority in conventional units. My last year in the Navy, with the FMF, the Marines were alloted funds for approximately 150k troops when their actual strength was around 175k, so corners had to be cut. The solution? rolling in mud is cheap, shooting is too expensive. That's not my reasoning, but it is the reality.
 
Jim, yer killin' me! you forgot the PHD (Personal Hygeine Device) extractor... stress card included in every box! ;)

problems with the 1911;
- use of an external hammer creates a crud entry-point
- external hammer also complicates thumb-snap holster design (nothing beats the Glock for thumb-friendly holsters; no hammer, square back)
- frame rails poorly designed (no support at muzzle end)
- grip safety not good for some shooters (thumb safety + trigger safety is the way to go IMHO)
- lefty-unfriendly

problems with most or all existing service autos;
- short sight radius
- inadequate inertia to resist muscle-tremor motions
- trigger not designed for long-range shooting
remember, I am hoping for the average E-grunt to be able to make hits at 25-50 yards with this thing under time pressure in field conditions. this means the trigger, sights, and overall dynamic handling properties have to be quite a bit different from off-the-shelf service pistols.

I am vehemently opposed to DA/SA designs. it hinders the abilities of skilled users, while not preventing NDs by unskilled users. plus it complicates the lockwork.

if we had a more field-usable sidearm, we could issue them to machine gunners, grenadiers, and such. its a bit much to ask a grunt to carry his main weapon plus a personal rifle/carbine. for regular rifleman I don't see much use for one.
 
Ivanhoe,
I think you've found the question for which the H&K VP-70 was the answer.

Unfortunately, the arena of western military small arms procurement tends to be predominated by parochial processes and disinclined to accept ingenuity and the heralding of new technologies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
authentication signature:

[This message has been edited by Mykl (edited March 20, 2000).]
 
Ivanhoe, it seems to me that you described the beretta M9 pretty well. i own a 92FS and i think its a great gun. besides for the more effective cartidge part the military's choice was a good one. besides they had to use NATO standard ammo (9mm) so there's no way we can go back to the .45. i think the officers who get the M9 should be thoroughly trained with it as if they knew they would have to use it. well they should be prepared shouldn't they?
 
it's gonna be a Five seveN kinda world http://www.fnmfg.com/products/ind-pr.htm
ADVANTAGES:

The Five seveN Pistol is the companion weapon to the P90 sub-machine gun. The Five seveN is an easily concealable double action pistol with a larger, 20-round
magazine capacity. A maximum use has been made of composite materials in the frame and slide to result in an extremely light weight, 1.7 pound, design. The
5.7x28mm ammunition has the capability of penetrating body armor at extended ranges. This new ammunition features a lead-free projectile to eliminate environmental
concerns. a NATO STANAG classification for the ammunition is currently underway.

TECHNICAL DATA:

Length:
8.2 inches
Height:
5.4 inches
Weight (empty):
1.4 pounds
Weight (loaded):
1.7 pounds
Magazine Capacity:
20 rounds
Penetrate PASGT vest
300 meters
Penetrate PASGT helmet
240 meters
Penetrate CRISAT vest
100 meters
 
I would like to weigh in on this. I am an active duty Army officer, and carried a 1911 and an M16A2 in the Gulf. After 15 years of wearing BDUs, and as an NRA and tactical shooting instructor, I would have to say that the Glock 17 is probably the best candidate. It is utterly simple to use in time of stress, holds a high number of rounds, is lightweight (an incredibly important factor when lugging lots of stuff) and extremely reliable. The fact that the trigger is the same for each shot is a defeinite plus. For what it's worth, my primary off-duty carry guns are a custom 1911, H&K P7 or a Glock. The Beretta is a great weapon, but since you do not have civil liabilities (necessitating a DA/SA pistol) that Police Departments have to contend with, the Glock is a great choice. Having said that, most new users, and in today's world, generally unfamiliar with firearms, seem to perform well with a minimum amount of training with the Glock. Simplicity, reliability and accuracy are the qualities most new shooters identify with the Glock. The consistent trigger works well when firing with both hands, strong hand only or weak hand only. The finish is tough and the pitsol requires very little maintenance. Beleive me, in combat, simpler is better, and the Glock is about as simple and effective as it comes in regards to training large number of relatively unskilled folks in a short amount of time. Plus it is extremely inexpensive (in relative terms) per copy for large field orders. Just my two cents. Check us out at www.tacticalshooting.com Stay safe, Robert
 
Mykl, the VP-70 I handled many many moons ago had an awful trigger. I doubt Joe Dogface could hit anything at 25 feet, much less 25 yards. interesting gun, though.

I can't say I'd have much desire to carry the Beretta. it fails a bunch of my criteria; double column, 9x19, DA/SA lockwork, plus a longslide version would weigh a ton.

that FN pistol may work out OK, though I'm skeptical about the downrange performance of that cartridge. time will tell, I suppose. I'd like more weight in the pistol, as well as a longer barrel and sight radius. again, I'd replace the DA lockwork with SAO-only lockwork. at 5 yards, DA is fine, but at 25+ yards, the average shooter might as well be throwing rocks.

Virginian, how was it you carried a 1911 in SWA? was this a mil-issue piece that was "grandfathered" in, or did you have to bend some rules? I agree conceptually with the niceties of the Glock, but there's room for improvement. if I were to configure a Glock for military use, I guess I'd put together a model 24 (longslide .40) withe 3.5lb connector and maybe add some lead to the frame. a heavy gun is a steady gun. you could add 5 oz of lead (or maybe a barrel weight) to a Glock 24 and still have it weigh less than a Beretta or 1911.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top