Who will US Army pick

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anyone paying attention this last year to news tidbits knows that Beretta's proposal to update the current sidearm was rejected. It is evident by now that the Army is serious about this project. Of the big three candidates, my money is on Smith and Wesson, they seem to be steamrolling on this. Besides S&W are part of my stock portfolio.
 
Just a waste of tax dollars, spend the money on veteran health care.
So tired of see the government waste my money
Click to expand...
It's a tough job--but somebody has to get rich of the labor of the masses. LOL

I know the vet care thing is really bad most places--but up where I live sometimes vets have access to care that I can't get in the private sector. My feeling is the whole healthcare system in general is a total cluster fubar--the difference being the vets are not getting their promised care fulfilled in many cases.
 
Stagpanther.

As a veteran (Navy) I have to run 64 miles to Portland, OR to get help. Glasses aren't a problem, but they'll only extract teeth on an emergency basis. They'll lodge you in the hospital if necessary, by they will do everything they can to keep beds open for severe cases. (Triage and all that).

Back to the pistol:

Since the Marines (special units) are using the .45 ACP (once again) a "blackened" SA/DA double stack may not be out of the running. The only peoblem is that some hand may find the configuration difficult to grip. Aside from this, S&W might have a chance.
 
Last edited:
What battles are our guys fighting that are being decided by pistols?
Click to expand...

None, and you know that.

What is OFTEN decided by pistols is the longevity of the individual fighting man (or woman), so equipped. If I was incapable of no other feeling in the matter, I would want the sidearm carefully selected, so as to increase the longevity of the combatant so equipped.

Sidearms have been compared to parachutes in that if you ever truly have need of one and are without it, you'll probably not need much of anything ever again. I want the people who fight for ME to have the best "parachute" available. To equip them with any other than the best equipment available is well nigh an engraved invitation to a morale problem, which is too easy a thing to instigate, as it is.

Economize somewhere ELSE, damn it.
 
What is OFTEN decided by pistols is the longevity of the individual fighting man (or woman), so equipped. If I was incapable of no other feeling in the matter, I would want the sidearm carefully selected, so as to increase the longevity of the combatant so equipped.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that the longevity of the combatant is better prolonged by more ammo for his/her primary, more water, or other such supplies.

Sidearms have been compared to parachutes in that if you ever truly have need of one and are without it, you'll probably not need much of anything ever again. I want the people who fight for ME to have the best "parachute" available. To equip them with any other than the best equipment available is well nigh an engraved invitation to a morale problem, which is too easy a thing to instigate, as it is.
Click to expand...

I don't buy this analogy. The people actually seeing combat already have a parachute. It's called a carbine/rifle. If anything the pistol is a backup parachute. Everyone either jumping out of a plane or as a pilot in a plane needs a parachute of some sort. We don't, however, give parachutes to all people traveling in a transport plane from one destination to another, just as we don't give pistols to all combatants. At some point the likelihood of someone needing that item comes into play. For that matter, the percentages of combatants using pistols in combat is even smaller than the percentage of those jumping out of planes.

Congressmen and women have used the mantra of "only the best for our fighting men and women" to justify the allocation of funds for a number of ridiculous projects. It makes them seem strong on defense and gets jobs in their districts. It's a political win-win. It's why the Navy gets told to keep making ships they don't want and why the Army gets told to keep making tanks they don't need.

Economize somewhere ELSE, damn it.
Click to expand...

No. I can think of any number of projects that would have notably more impact on the lives of US soldiers, sailors, etc. Pistols rank very far down the list of priorities to successfully fight a war/conflict. For that matter, I am not convinced the design of the M9 is notably more deficient than other pistols currently available. What we have in inventory has been used and abused with little thought to maintenance. Neglect has lead the M9s to their current state, not the design.
 
Thanks Kosh,
I've been trying to make this point. If a soldier's main weapon fails and it comes down to side arms and knives, guess what I want??? You bet I want both.

I've spoken to too many vets who were alive today because they carried that extra protection.
You guys moaning about money, I hope you are never in that position.

GO ARMY

Doc
 
I've been trying to make this point. If a soldier's main weapon fails and it comes down to side arms and knives, guess what I want??? You bet I want both.
Click to expand...

But what if the pistol fails? Do you need a backup pistol for the pistol? No, not everyone gets a pistol. You can let the "what if" fairy drive you to madness and when you're done the common soldier will be so inundated with gear that he or she will have lost any trace of mobility and is longer effective. Most actually in a combat position would prefer more ammunition for their primary (from those I've talked to and read). And if things have gotten so bad that it's down to side arms and knives, then there will be additional primary weapons available from the dead. Is that gruesome? Yes, but if a military unit has exhausted its supply of ammunition for their primaries then a real feces storm has occurred.

I've spoken to too many vets who were alive today because they carried that extra protection.
You guys moaning about money, I hope you are never in that position.
Click to expand...

I take personal offense to the notion that me not being behind a new service pistol directly translates to me not caring about the American in uniform. I have no problem spending money. The reality is the DoD has $500 billion worth of budget cuts in 10 years already, and another $500 billion with sequestration. The budget is tight as is. Given that, the military needs to do some triage when it comes to the budget. I don't see pistols as important as other projects that could use that money. I would argue that some have a better notion of the realities of the situation than others.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Kosh,
I've been trying to make this point. If a soldier's main weapon fails and it comes down to side arms and knives, guess what I want??? You bet I want both.

I've spoken to too many vets who were alive today because they carried that extra protection.
You guys moaning about money, I hope you are never in that position.

GO ARMY

Doc
Click to expand...

What exactly is your complaint that would support a 10 year search, millions of $ down the drain, and a 350 page manual designed so that only a few insiders could hope to win fat contracts?

If there was a problem with the M9, that new M9s wouldn't solve (or just, JHP ammunition), it should take ten minutes to look around in the market, maybe a nice afternoon test and then let the ordering begin. Pistols are a mature weapon system and there's not been much difference pragmatically since the first Mauser broomhandle (ok I admit, that would be cool).

Here's a revolutionary thought evidently never contemplated by the US government. Lets have the DOJ, FBI, Marshals and whatever other endless supply of agencies with standard issue sidearms AND the military just use the same pistol? Grab a Sig, Glock, M&P, XDM, or any of them - PICK ONE-and call it a day. The practical difference is nil.
 
It is evident by now that the Army is serious about this project.
Click to expand...

Shrug.

I would say we'll agree to disagree on this.

I say this because of so many times there were studies about replacing the venerable .45 ACP and nothing came of the studies.
 
Tunnel Rat,

Have you ever been in a Fire Fight?? If so, then I have no complaints to your views.
Click to expand...

No. But that neither validates nor invalidates any of my points, many of which are shared by people that have. Avoid the ad hominems and refute my points with facts.
 
Last edited:
How about keep present guns and take time to teach the troops how to shoot them I don't mean standing and shooting at bulls eye targets either. :rolleyes:
 
Well, let's look at the bright side of this--chances are whatever makes it will in turn be made available to the public at a price that would likely be lower than if it were exclusively a retail product--no?
 
It will have to be, in the current climate, a US company, so KelTec or Hi Point to meet price points.

Alternately, an Israeli company might be permissable, so Desert Eagle 50.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top