If the big Army decided to adopt a new pistol...

Discussion in 'Semi-Auto Handguns' started by Bighead, Feb 9, 2011.

  1. Glock 21SF

    15 vote(s)
    11.6%
  2. Springfield XD45 Tactical

    26 vote(s)
    20.2%
  3. Smith & Wesson M&P 45

    21 vote(s)
    16.3%
  4. Heckler Kock HK45

    14 vote(s)
    10.9%
  5. FNP 45

    13 vote(s)
    10.1%
  6. Beretta Storm 45

    6 vote(s)
    4.7%
  7. Sig Sauer P220

    12 vote(s)
    9.3%
  8. Taurus 24/7 OSS

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  9. Kimber Custom II

    5 vote(s)
    3.9%
  10. Springfield Loaded Model 1911

    17 vote(s)
    13.2%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bighead

    Bighead New Member

    643
    0
    0
    What would you vote for if the Dept. of Defense asked you to pick a new side arm?

    Now remember, this is not for special operations, but for general issue to officers, MPs, and other personnel.

    Let's go ahead and decide it should be a .45 ACP, and in my mind I would consider ease of use, training time, and cost. I couldn't vote for a 1911 platform or the HK45, no matter how good they are. If you think that are worth the cost difference, that is fine. A couple of the more affordable 1911 pistols that I would deem reliable are included in the selections.

    Lets see how long before I get reprimanded by Cane for leaving out Colt's :D
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2011
  2. CA357

    CA357 New Member Supporter

    19,847
    3
    0

  3. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    8,411
    3
    0
    What he said!! :D




    Just trying to keep up!
     
  4. IGETEVEN

    IGETEVEN New Member

    8,358
    4
    0

    Yup. :cool:
     
  5. NGIB

    NGIB New Member

    7,143
    1
    0
    A Glock forty for sure...
     
  6. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    8,411
    3
    0
    1911, at least it is made here and no issues with production if Austria is overrun!! :D
     
  7. NGIB

    NGIB New Member

    7,143
    1
    0
    Ain't going to happen though as the pistol is WAY down the totem pole as far as weapon priorities. I don't think they'll use the recently announced 2 year test/competition to replace the M4 either...
     
  8. cpttango30

    cpttango30 New Member

    13,934
    3
    0
    What no colt? Boy bighead Cane is going to ban you for that.


    Motley Crue ROCKS!!!!!!!!!
     
  9. Bighead

    Bighead New Member

    643
    0
    0
    I don't doubt this. What amazes me is that they can field pistols with Special Operations, and other government agencies like Border Patrol, Customs, FBI, etc. can run extensive selection processes, but they can't just take all that information and update their sidearm. They would have to run through some multi-year competition to make sure enough graft & bribes got spread around to fix the choice before they could make a selection.
     
  10. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    12,358
    25
    48
    Ed brown has a "Special Forces" already.
     
  11. NGIB

    NGIB New Member

    7,143
    1
    0
    The reason is really simple - MONEY. It costs huge amounts of money that the military doesn't have to change weapons systems. Not only the cost of new guns themselves but the additional items like spare parts, ammo, training, and the list goes on and on.

    Until it's proven beyond any doubt that the current weapons are totally and utterly ineffective - there will be no change. This being said, special units with special missions will always be able to procure what they require due to the small scale of purchases needed...
     
  12. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    11
    38
    we wasted tons of money on crappy double action over complicated pistols already.

    1911A1 never shoulda been anything else there is no better easier to shoot more accurate safer to handle handgun out there.
     
  13. amoroque

    amoroque New Member

    1,229
    0
    0
    Dammit, I hit the wrong choice (accidentally hit the S&W). I'm thinking (for sake of a different opinion) that maybe the SA XD45 Tactical might be a good choice. I'm thinking that it is weighs about half a pound less?? With all the other gear, cutting a little weight might be a good thing.
     
  14. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    I picked the XD. I like mine. It is available in OD green :D . It is not complicated to operate or maintain. It is simple to use for easy training. Mine was only $570, a while back; i'd bet the military could pick one up for no more than $999.

    I think the XD would be a good compromise; it has the .45ACP of the old school GI 1911's and approaches the magazine capacity of the M-9 (well, more so than a 7 or 8 round 1911 does). Now if it got down to some hand-to-hand scrapping, i'd rather have the ole 1911 or a CZ-75b for pistol whippin.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2011
  15. BombDoc

    BombDoc New Member

    242
    0
    0
    The M9 has it's drawbacks but it works and it's cheap and cheap to maintain. The M11s a few of the AF guys were carrying were pretty nice but I'm not a Sig fan. The MUE 'necks carry/carried HK USP 45s. The SOC guys can carry pretty much what they want, but most of them that we worked with had 1911s. We had lots of nice totes provided by other agencies; Springfield 1911s, Glock 19s and HK USP 45s. All had issues since "Big Army" wants a lanyard on any sidearm. I loved getting my ass reamed by the CSM on DFAC duty every day. (That was around OIF 6. Before that nobody cared) Ruger's P345KR was looking like top dog a when it came out (no idea how that happened) and some MACOMs were trying to field them. Beretta came out with an M9A1 in 2006 which the USMC is supposed be getting. I haven't seen a Marine with one yet. The M9/M9A1 contract was renewed in 2009 for another 450,000 over 5 years. It isn't going away. A rebuild kit is cheap and it's in the supply system.

    Contracting for any replacement would be a nightmare. There is so much political crap and red tape that goes into new contracts. Anything not manufactured here is off the table. That has been policy for a while now concerning Military contracts. Must be at least 51% here to qualify. I will keep my opinion to myself concerning which in the poll I'm happy to see ineligible.

    I would love to see a Colt 1911 as the issue sidearm again. A Browning HP would be great as well and is actually much more likely thanks to that NATO 9mm issue. I have no issues with the M9 and I own one that enjoy shooting.

    $0.02

    I voted S&W.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2011
  16. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,326
    168
    63
    The way our beloved Federal Gummint works, I fully expect the next military sidearm to be quite different. The 9mm NATO has too much recoil for many of the 85 lb shooters. And having to operate slide, insert magazine, etc, is just too, too confusing. Not to mention too many SMs lacking strength to rack the slide.

    That is why I think the next sidearm will be a less complex weapon, with a lower recoil cartridge. A revolver, in .38 Long Colt. :rolleyes:
     
  17. BombDoc

    BombDoc New Member

    242
    0
    0
    That's good stuff there. Nearly compelled me to share some clearing barrel horror stories.
     
  18. Squirrel_Slayer

    Squirrel_Slayer New Member

    1,128
    0
    0
    I may be mistaken, but I think the government has already tried the .38 Koolaid with the .38 spcl from 1908-1911. And it failed miserably. This has inspired my next quest on google for irrefutable evidence.
     
  19. dnthmn2004

    dnthmn2004 New Member

    3,287
    0
    0
    Have to go with the M&P. Solid, reliable, and cheap.
     
  20. USMC-03

    USMC-03 New Member

    350
    0
    0
    Sig P220 gets my vote. I've never been a fan of carrying the M9 at all...it works well so I can't fault it for that. I just don't care for the feel of it. Plus if you can't get it done with 8 rounds of .45 then you have no business carrying a handgun anyway.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.