zincwarrior
New member
This is the military industrial complex we are talking about. If anyone gets it, it will be General Dynamics, who will charge the bleep out of it. But they have the contacts and the lobbyists.
Who will US Army pick
- Thread starter Doc Holliday 1950
- Start date
- Status
If that is the case, then we need to stop spending money on more important things like communications, better integrated command & control, better medical care, better training, or better psychological care (both deployed and at home), etc., etc.
All of these things will save more lives and better assist the military in accomplishing its mission than replacing the M9. The M9 is as good or better than 99.9% of the pistols in the world. The only reason it should be replaced at all is if it will save the public money in the long term.
.
Last edited:
More than what? I think they're about to spend enough money to equip everyone in uniform with a Hi-Power, in an attempt to determine which of those OTHER pistols is acceptable. And I suspect that whatever they choose will STILL be inferior to a Browning P-35, when the whole story is known.
"...that are cops..." Most cops never saw a real firearm before getting hired either.
Any new firearm adoption will be decided by the politicians in Washington, not the military. Just like when the Berretta(Not Barretta), M-16 and M-14 were selected. The Berretta was selected because other NATO countries were complaining about the balance of trade between them and the U.S. The M-16 was not selected by anybody. It was adopted because Robert McNamara decided it would be. The M-14 because it was invented in the U.S.
"...it's "stopping power" was insufficient..." No such thing as "stopping power". Military handguns are not selected for that anyway. Handguns are last ditch, "My rifle is empty/broken/way over there!" self-defence, MP et al issue and status symbols. Period.
"...We bitched about everything. It was part of the job..." Yep. When the OR's stop complaining, things are really bad.
"...Please go to Wikipedia..." Wikipedia is an authority on nothing. Anybody with internet access can post anything they want there.
Any new firearm adoption will be decided by the politicians in Washington, not the military. Just like when the Berretta(Not Barretta), M-16 and M-14 were selected. The Berretta was selected because other NATO countries were complaining about the balance of trade between them and the U.S. The M-16 was not selected by anybody. It was adopted because Robert McNamara decided it would be. The M-14 because it was invented in the U.S.
"...it's "stopping power" was insufficient..." No such thing as "stopping power". Military handguns are not selected for that anyway. Handguns are last ditch, "My rifle is empty/broken/way over there!" self-defence, MP et al issue and status symbols. Period.
"...We bitched about everything. It was part of the job..." Yep. When the OR's stop complaining, things are really bad.
"...Please go to Wikipedia..." Wikipedia is an authority on nothing. Anybody with internet access can post anything they want there.
I do. And I dare say that anyone with a loved one in uniform, especially one in combat arms, cares deeply. They're the ones who pay for the mistakes of the planners in logistics and supply.
Perhaps so, but I'm betting that the combatants armed with .45s and .308s seldom complain about stoppage failures.
Sorry, EM, I'm usually in agreement with you, but I can't go with you on this one. Anyway, it may not matter. I get the impression that the criteria for "unapproved weapons" gets very hard to reach, once troops are actually deployed. If the senior non-coms and officers can "look the other way" when possible, the combat arms folk may elect to arm themselves, and perhaps better than Uncle Sugar can.
ACTUALLY, it's "Beretta", not "Berretta". Just saying.
Then perhaps it's time that they ARE selected for stopping power.
So, when the use of a pistol that is well and truly capable of stopping a determined attack is MOST critical, and all other factors have failed him, THAT'S when it's okay to arm the troops with marginally effective sidearms? Hmmm.... Curious.
Last edited:
Evil Monkey
New member
Like I said before, a soldiers testimony can be filled with flaws due to his own incompetence. A soldier is a soldier, not an expert on the human cardiovascular system and the study of rheology/fluid dynamics.
The study of fluid dynamics in relation to the cardiovascular system says this is not true.
Besides, comparing 223 to 308 is unfair, as they never overlap in energy and sectional density the way 9mm and 45acp do.
The study of fluid dynamics in relation to the cardiovascular system says this is not true.
Besides, comparing 223 to 308 is unfair, as they never overlap in energy and sectional density the way 9mm and 45acp do.
Gats Italian
New member
An expressed lack of confidence in the M9 due to its use of 9mm FMJ ammo is not going to change via the adoption of a different 9mm platform also firing FMJ ammo.
Servicemen bitch about everything.
Servicemen bitch about everything.
Who cares? every few weeks there is some article about switching pistols and everyone freaks out. Like the US runs around fighting with pistols... 
zincwarrior
New member
If you're not carrying a howdah pistol, you're not carrying stopping power.
stagpanther
New member
What about the 357 ROF ??
I think those who want the Army to adopt their favorite exotic cartridge will have to wait a bit longer. The reasons for adopting the 9mm remain as valid now as they were back when, so I doubt we are going to see a four-ounce pistol in .500 S&W with a 300 round magazine.
As for a company not being willing to give the Army its production information, I will ask what we would have done in WWII if Colt's M1911 contract had not allowed the Army to have Remington Rand and Ithaca produce the M1911A1 pistol.
Jim
As for a company not being willing to give the Army its production information, I will ask what we would have done in WWII if Colt's M1911 contract had not allowed the Army to have Remington Rand and Ithaca produce the M1911A1 pistol.
Jim
What battles are our guys fighting that are being decided by pistols? What pistols are the bad guys using that are out classing our pistols? I get that you have loved ones in the Army. Thank them for their service for me, but these comments aren't realistic.
By the way the Army rejected the proposal because they determined the changes Beretta was trying to submit went outside of the scope of simple changes permitted under their current contract. That's why Beretta has to submit their changes with the new competition.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
WVSig,
Where does anyone from Ruger say they are definitively NOT participating in the trials. I read a more complete transcript than that included in the article, and he never said definitively they were not. A bunch of third party bloggers and gunrag writers assumed his realistic negative comments meant Ruger would definitively not enter a design.
For Beretta or SIG selling 600,000 pistols to DOD might be the major benefit of winning the contract. Rugers marketing department can turn the 600,000 pistol contract into that + a million or more additional civilian purchases if they win.
The Ruger American was designed with the trials in mind is what I was told. Whether it gets submitted or not is undecided as far as I know, but it was designed around the trial requirements. I think they have some minor issues to iron out with the pistol, but if they can work them out it will be the first Ruger center-fire semi-auto I have ever considered purchasing.
This is Rugers first post-Bill attempt to hit the duty pistol market and writing it off based on the failure of the SR series or Bill Ruger Era pistols succeeding would be shortsighted.
Where does anyone from Ruger say they are definitively NOT participating in the trials. I read a more complete transcript than that included in the article, and he never said definitively they were not. A bunch of third party bloggers and gunrag writers assumed his realistic negative comments meant Ruger would definitively not enter a design.
For Beretta or SIG selling 600,000 pistols to DOD might be the major benefit of winning the contract. Rugers marketing department can turn the 600,000 pistol contract into that + a million or more additional civilian purchases if they win.
The Ruger American was designed with the trials in mind is what I was told. Whether it gets submitted or not is undecided as far as I know, but it was designed around the trial requirements. I think they have some minor issues to iron out with the pistol, but if they can work them out it will be the first Ruger center-fire semi-auto I have ever considered purchasing.
This is Rugers first post-Bill attempt to hit the duty pistol market and writing it off based on the failure of the SR series or Bill Ruger Era pistols succeeding would be shortsighted.
- Status