Time For A New Military Sidearm

Originally posted by tomcat ha
wouldnt it make a lot more sense to develop a new round? 9x19 and .45 are both very old. Im sure it is possible to design a new pistol round which has a good compromise between stopping power, penetration and weight/size.

Old doesn't always equate to "bad".

What if they do what you say and come up with a compromise? How long before that also becomes "old" and "bad"?

Maybe they've already found the ideal round and it is the .45 ACP.

reply to post by James1982

The 10mm seems like the perfect round but it is hard on gun platforms and hard for some people to handle. OK for a MP5 platform but I still think the .40 is the best for a handgun.

A new competition should be held and the winner will have to have a US manufacturing plant to make the pistols. Springfield Armory, Inc, is not the Springfield Armory many think it is. en.wikipedia.org... "The company's main products are its M1911 pistols (built with Brazilian components produced by IMBEL)[4] and the M1A rifle series. It has been importing the Croatian HS2000 pistol as the XD ("eXtreme-Duty") series since 2002. Previously the company offered clones of the M1 Garand, Beretta BM59, FN FAL, HK 91, and AR-15. They have also imported Tanfoglio and Astra semi-automatic pistols under the Springfield name."
Remember that all military ammunition must be hardball so a decision on caliber will be based on a balance between penetration, inherent accuracy, and knockdown power. Usually, pistols are a last defense so this will enter into the equation.
Given the reliability of the SIG pistols and the low cost of the SIGPro versions, I expect those, Walther P99 and PPS, S&W M&P, and Glock will be in the running also.
The least expensive option for a rifle upgrade is to use the 6.5mm MPC.

Originally posted by exile1981
Going back to the 45. I prefer the 45 over the 9mm but didn't they spend millions converting stock piles to 9mm?

www.springfield-armory.com...

They will probably just sell the Beretta's and ammo to some foreign country which in turn will use them on us in the next big war. I wonder why they haven't thought about the Glock's, cheaper and almost the standard which handguns are based on.

Deebo

Glocks are awesome and actually won the militarys testing before the phased out the 1911`s. Im pretty sure the reason Beretta got the contract is because it was the only way they would allow the U.S. to build a new base in Italy. Personally my favorite side arm is the 1911 but I still feel the Glock is pretty much unstopable as far as its reliability and is what I carry. As far as 5.56, the problem with the rounds performance is 2 fold, 1 is the M855 round, while out to about 150m in the current M4 weapon system its effective on personal,with correct shot placement, anything farther it loses its ability to tumble and it really doesnt have enough weight to be a great object penatrator. I havent heard how the new M855A1 is doing in the field but it looks like they might also use the SOST round aka hollow point? .2 The guys in Afganistan are shooting at much greater ranges than the M4 was designed for and would probably be better off with the old Hbar A2,with new optics and minus the crappy tri-burst.Its always a trade off with the amount of rounds you can carry or the size of the round. We cant forget our buddies in Nato and all the logistics involved getting it to the front with the guys.If it was up to me a M14 with modern optics,synthetic stock,a picatinny rail system and a Hi Cap 1911 would be a pretty reliable and proven fight stopper but anyone who has shot the .308 on full auto can tell you its a hand full and the ammo is not light.Though probably lighter than an M60 with 300 rounds

Bill

Originally posted by James1982
My personal opinion is that the 10mm is the best all around caliber to be used. More energy and magazine capacity than a .45, and more stopping power than a 9mm, .40, or even .357sig

It's not the most common round, which is why I would guess the military has not decided to use it, but I honestly think this would be the best idea for a combat sidearm. That's assuming we should force soldiers to use one single weapon/caliber. It should be up to the soldier, they are the one that has to put their life on it.

As for a rifle, I think there has recently been a lot of interest in the 6.8mm converted AR platform rifles. This too is supposed to be a great middle ground from .223 to 7.62x39 (orx51 for that matter)

edit on 15-2-2011 by James1982 because: (no reason given)

Disagree.

The 10mm has far too much recoil to be general issue. Secondly, follow up shots are much slower. Split seconds in war mean the difference between life and death. As far as "stopping power" goes: Pistol calibers have never been reliable man stoppers. The difference between a 9mm and a 10mm is relatively small. Additionally, cost of production would be astronomical vs most popular loadings. Not only that, 10mm weapons will have a larger heavier profile, ounces add up. Especially when you carry everything in a rucksack as a grunt would.

There are better options in my opinion.

Originally posted by Deebo

Originally posted by exile1981
Going back to the 45. I prefer the 45 over the 9mm but didn't they spend millions converting stock piles to 9mm?

www.springfield-armory.com...

They will probably just sell the Beretta's and ammo to some foreign country which in turn will use them on us in the next big war. I wonder why they haven't thought about the Glock's, cheaper and almost the standard which handguns are based on.

Deebo

They have thought about them. But they can't get over the fact that there is no manual external safety other than the obvious trigger insert. Apparently they feel that there will be a massive amount of accidents in training.

I would love to see them use Glocks, it would make their lives a lot easier.

Originally posted by tomcat ha
wouldnt it make a lot more sense to develop a new round? 9x19 and .45 are both very old. Im sure it is possible to design a new pistol round which has a good compromise between stopping power, penetration and weight/size.

Why reinvent the wheel? The .45 is tried and true, and even battle proven. Why add to the military spending by trying to invent something new, and then spend years trying to work out the kinks when the soldiers start complaining. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using "old" technology, especially when it has already been battle proven.

Originally posted by LightCraft

Originally posted by Deebo

Originally posted by exile1981
Going back to the 45. I prefer the 45 over the 9mm but didn't they spend millions converting stock piles to 9mm?

www.springfield-armory.com...

They will probably just sell the Beretta's and ammo to some foreign country which in turn will use them on us in the next big war. I wonder why they haven't thought about the Glock's, cheaper and almost the standard which handguns are based on.

Deebo

They have thought about them. But they can't get over the fact that there is no manual external safety other than the obvious trigger insert. Apparently they feel that there will be a massive amount of accidents in training.

I would love to see them use Glocks, it would make their lives a lot easier.

Strange how they are willing to issue SIGs to many US troops (and now on general issue to UK forces) with no manual external safety apart from a de-cocker yet won't look at Glocks. After the SIGs hammer is down it is no safer than the Glock.

Glock does make sense. It is lighter, cheaper and has a higher capacity than most of its' competetors. the reliability is excellent and its' combat accuracy is very useable. Saying that I do have a thing for the SIG P226 now that I have some real combat experience carrying it.

When it comes to the 9mm, If a pistol cartridge kicks that little, then I don't trust it enough to kick the target. I trust a .40S&W and I love a .45acp. I wouldn't bring back the 1911 simply due to the lack of ammunition capacity.

Originally posted by Ford Farmer
When it comes to the 9mm, If a pistol cartridge kicks that little, then I don't trust it enough to kick the target. I trust a .40S&W and I love a .45acp. I wouldn't bring back the 1911 simply due to the lack of ammunition capacity.

They have been making double stack 45`s for awhile.
Para P14 14rds
Glock 21 14rds
Sti eagle 16rds

Bill

For God's sake. This is about retarded.

We HAD the most reliable, combat proven pistol ever conceived in the 1911 that ALSO had fantastic "knockdown" power.

But whizkids who were also coincidentally candiasses, were scared of the big, bad, .45, and the female of the group mentioned the 9mm.

Tune up the design of the Model 1911, and let 'er rip!

Funny. Of all the special ops personnel who can have any damned weapon as a sidearm they want - I note many variations of the 1911 in .45 ACP.

Why?

Because it works.

I carried the 92fs in the Navy when I was in Auxilliary Security Forces. It's an ok pistol, easy to break down and clean, but I do feel as if it's time for an upgrade. With my job now, I carry a Ruger SR9. The only thing I can see why the military won't go to Ruger's or Glock's are due to the lower reciever being plastic. With Beretta, everything is metal. The ejection port is also more exposed limiting the chance of a "stove pipe". The military has been in the works for new small arms for awhile. Ever since Colt lost the bid on M-16's and M-4's, Bushmaster and Armalite have swooped in and started providing 16's. I can remember standing watch, and when I looked my M-16 over, it had a colt lower, and bushmaster upper. Thank God for interchangeable parts!


I'll still swear my life on the Beretta 92fs and the Colt M16. I think maybe the Beretta should just be more modernized to include a .45 feature. 9mm is a small round compared to .45, and to be honest, while defending myself and my country, I would much rather use less ammo with more damage(.45), than more ammo with less damage(9mm).

I've shot an XD and I have to say that the ONLY complaint I had was this guy apparently 'had' to make a repair himself and the slide felt like it was going to fly off of the gun on every shot. So I went to my local range to rent one, absolutely loved it. Give it a 10/10.

I love my XDM .45. tough as hell, super simple to field strip and clean, and pretty accurate. The only complaint I have is the trigger. Should be lighter and crisper. A PRP trigger kit is on my to do list. I'm sure they'd stick with 9mm. It's not just us, but all the NATO countries that use that round. An XDM in 9mm holds 19 rounds plus one in the chamber for a total of 20!! External safeties are the most useless things ever invented. You know how to use the safety? Keep your EFFing finger off the trigger!! The XDM has two built in safeties, one on the grip, one on the trigger, and neither get in the way or affect the way you shoot.

10mm has too much recoil, and .357 sig is just a hot 9mm, and too expensive to produce. If they were going to change caliber, they should go with the FN FiveseveN. 5.7x28mm is very accurate at long distance, high velocity, and great at penetrating body armor.

I am definitely not a Glock fan. The grip angle sucks and I would have to change those weirdo sights.

A 1911 chambered in 9mm with double stack mags would be great too!!

Originally posted by Camperguy
Glocks are awesome and actually won the militarys testing before the phased out the 1911`s. Im pretty sure the reason Beretta got the contract is because it was the only way they would allow the U.S. to build a new base in Italy. Personally my favorite side arm is the 1911 but I still feel the Glock is pretty much unstopable as far as its reliability and is what I carry. As far as 5.56, the problem with the rounds performance is 2 fold, 1 is the M855 round, while out to about 150m in the current M4 weapon system its effective on personal,with correct shot placement, anything farther it loses its ability to tumble and it really doesnt have enough weight to be a great object penatrator. I havent heard how the new M855A1 is doing in the field but it looks like they might also use the SOST round aka hollow point? .2 The guys in Afganistan are shooting at much greater ranges than the M4 was designed for and would probably be better off with the old Hbar A2,with new optics and minus the crappy tri-burst.Its always a trade off with the amount of rounds you can carry or the size of the round. We cant forget our buddies in Nato and all the logistics involved getting it to the front with the guys.If it was up to me a M14 with modern optics,synthetic stock,a picatinny rail system and a Hi Cap 1911 would be a pretty reliable and proven fight stopper but anyone who has shot the .308 on full auto can tell you its a hand full and the ammo is not light.Though probably lighter than an M60 with 300 rounds

Bill

edit on 22-2-2011 by Camperguy because: M60 flashback of how heavy the pig was with that Mr T necklace of 300 rounds

Actually HK won the testing and Glock came in 3rd behind the Sig's, but since HK was going to nick the US taxpayer 600 a pop they didnt win out on the contract, but only due to the sheer economics of it.

There is a reason that most who can carry something aside from standard issue go with an HK, SiG,Glock and XD's...the Beretta is pure garbage...so is the 9mm unless you are a girl.

BRING BACK THE .45....DAMNIT!

Originally posted by CerBeRus666
reply to post by centurion1211

 

As a warrior, stationed in various conflicts, and a weapons collector, I find this decision to be wise. The unmentionable "sidearm", you refer to, is probably the worst piece of crap I had the displeasure of using (only in training). I will, of course, be keeping one for my collection. Same could be said about most US light-infantry weapons...goes to show just how high US Policy-makers regard the soldiers...give them the cheapest available weapons, and let them sort it out (it does keep unemployment statistics down, after all).

Fortunately, I was not US military. I also had the fortune, and money, to equip myself, and my partner. However, your post, not because of it being your intention, is a bit misleading.
I "worked" along side many US forces, in Somalia, Iraq I, in the Balkans, and Afghanistan, and none of them used that ridiculous "Sidearm". Guess it was only for infantry, and those whose families didn't have money, or means, to send them a proper gun.

I had very little contact with USA's light infantry, but I saw, and was told, that most of them used personal weapons, sent by family, or bought on the nonofficial local markets.
All US forces I worked with where issued other sidearms: HKs in 45 ACP; 1911s in 45 ACP; various models of the SIG P228 (M-11); Heckler & Koch MK23; SIG P226-9-NAVY; M-45 MEUSOC (based on the 1911, chambered for the .45 ACP cartridge); SIG P229R DAK (chambered in .40 S&W or .357 SIG); Heckler & Koch HK45, along with some other, more "exotic" guns - anything but the Beretta M9, that was reserved for the "poor bastards" that, either didn't have the money to buy something else, or where commanded by some "by-the-book" pencil-pusher.

As such, the M9, even though officially adopted as the universal sidearm, was never universally accepted...
Good riddance, you where never remember, so cannot be forgotten.
Just hope, this time, they are more concerned with soldiers safety, and well-being, then with the budget.

The beretta is a lot more expensive than a lot of sidearms.. The deal to buy the m9 was a political one. And in the military you cannot use personally owned weapons in war, at least not when I was in. 03-06.


Deebo

Originally posted by FarArcher
Tune up the design of the Model 1911, and let 'er rip!

Funny. Of all the special ops personnel who can have any damned weapon as a sidearm they want - I note many variations of the 1911 in .45 ACP.

Why?

Because it works.

Yep, on a team we always had a lot of choice in what we carried and I carried the 1911.

I own my own and carry it every day as my personal side arm for with a CCW permit; some say it’s too big for that - I say BS, I don't really care if anyone knows I have it (that is a deterrent) and it's what I am comfortable with.

I chose the SOCOM M1 (with the short barrel) as my regular weapon and carried some others as mission dictated. However, as an SF team leader I didn't really fire all that much - not my role.

IMO 8 rounds (or 9 if you always have one in the chamber yourself) is plenty if you can hit what you are shooting at and with a larger caliber round and a man stopping round you only need one shot to take a man down.

If you need to use the side arm something has gone wrong and the shots need to count.

could it be the choice for 9mm was women in the service? i have always prefered the 1911 colt..but i have a police officer friend who flinches when fireing his personal .45 ruger.and does not have that problem with his 9mm duty weapon or his .38 revolver..in my opinion if you arnt accurate with the.45 stick with something you can hit with..thats probably why we have 9mm as our service weapon..accuracy

I have owned a Springfield XD ,45 for a few years now and have no regrets about it. a good shooting gun easy to take down and clean, i love it and believe it would be the best choice