New Army Handgun: We're Really Doing This
- Thread starter TunnelRat
- Start date
- Status
I can tell you right now that we cant afford to make this happen. I am currently on Active Duty(18yrs and counting) and we are broker than broke. We are going back to pre-war times where every penny spent is micro managed. I struggle on a daily basis to order common repair parts to keep our fleet maintained. And personally, besides the current M9s being worn out, nothing wrong with the M9. Only thing I can think of is size or weight for those few troops who carry them regularly on top of the other tons of kit they carry.
Trust me. I have been vocal in the past in saying I don't think this is needed and there are A LOT of items on the To Do list that are far more critical. I sort of saw Beretta's offer as an easy out. I'm surprised they passed it so easily. I'm just curious how far down the rabbit hole we'll go.
RAfiringline
New member
Maybe they want a more modern magnum kickback type gun.
You are all going down the wrong path.
New handgun? Yes.
But an automatic? No.
It'll be the Ruger GP 100 for regular troops and
a Smith & Wesson with internal lock for the
ones not on the front lines.
Or will it be the IL for the front line troops and
the GP for the rear echelon?
I don't recall clearly as I picked up this information
in bar at midnight where two generals were slurring.
New handgun? Yes.
But an automatic? No.
It'll be the Ruger GP 100 for regular troops and
a Smith & Wesson with internal lock for the
ones not on the front lines.
Or will it be the IL for the front line troops and
the GP for the rear echelon?
I don't recall clearly as I picked up this information
in bar at midnight where two generals were slurring.
I disagree with the view that a sidearm is nonessential. As our military embraces ever expanding technology the need for powerful sidearms also expands. Imagine a trailer full of drone pilots suddenly overun by adversaries what better tool for them to defend themselves with than a hangun?
SocialAnarchist
Moderator
Maybe it's time to bring back the carbine concept that was introduced with the M1 carbine. But instead of an intermediate rifle round make it a pistol round carbine that has a folding stock and weighs in at about 5 pounds.
A Rifle or a subgun would better suit them along with a handgun. You need to deliver a lot of rounds quickly in order to retreat to a better position under the cover of heavy guns.
I guess to me the real question is what about the M9 would not allow those drone pilots to defend themselves. What is a 40 S&W with ball ammo going to do that the M9 doesn't. What would a 1911 allow them to do that the M9 doesn't.
No matter what pistol caliber you choose it is a pour substitute for a rifle in the combat arena. It is purely a defensive weapon whose role is to buy you enough time to get to a rifle or at least under the protection of one.
Do we need to waste $350 million+ in tax payers money to simply get something to do the job no better than the current side arm.
Last edited:
Those drone pilots are in compounds in the Midwest. Line of sight communication isn't needed on the modern battlefield. Rear echelon personnel are better served by carbines or shotguns as WVsig said.
Crankgrinder
New member
I can think of better things to waste taxpayer money on than new pistols, or extravagant Hawaii vacations for that matter.
My vote is the new Glock 40 in 10mm. Why not. About the same size as the current Beretta, the military is moving toward optics on rifles, why not handguns. I understand the reasoning to stay with 9mm because it is a NATO round, but who says we have to use the same ammo everyone else is carrying. Especially when the bulk of the fighting is our boys doing it. The heck with NATO.
I have no problem with 9mm BTW and would have no problems staying with that caliber, but seriously think 45 is a step in the wrong direction. We are seeing more situations where light body armor is being used by our enemies. 45 ACP is a poor choice here, 9mm is better, but 40, 357 Sig, or 10mm are even better options.
If we are going to the trouble of developing a new gun, start thinking outside the box and really get innovative.
I have no problem with 9mm BTW and would have no problems staying with that caliber, but seriously think 45 is a step in the wrong direction. We are seeing more situations where light body armor is being used by our enemies. 45 ACP is a poor choice here, 9mm is better, but 40, 357 Sig, or 10mm are even better options.
If we are going to the trouble of developing a new gun, start thinking outside the box and really get innovative.
Independent George
New member
915A said:
Crap. That means they're going to do it, doesn't it?
seeker_two
New member
I don't care for the 5.7 round in a pistol, but it does pretty well in the 10+" barrel of the full-auto P-90. Maybe most of the pistol needs can be met with a PDW instead.
....and, for the ones where only a pistol will do, a smaller pistol like a Glock 19 or M&Pc would fit the bill.
....and, for the ones where only a pistol will do, a smaller pistol like a Glock 19 or M&Pc would fit the bill.
- Status