US Army wants new hand gun

[mikeo80]

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/07/03/army-wants-harder-hitting-pistol/?intcmp=obnetwork

I read this article and had a serious attack of the giggles.

Please remind me of just what the hell was wrong with the Colt 1911???

There are MANY references to one shot kills with 1911. In Philipenes, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam.

My $0.02

Mike

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Ya know... the US Army seems to be using the same notion for a handgun replacement that they used when they did the advanced rifle trials - that is to say, they want a more lethal version of the weapon.
But they missed (or ignored) two points: -
1. that smallarms fire accounts for just a small percentage of enemy killed in 20th/21st century warfare, (most enemy casualties are caused by artillery & aerial bombing) - so as appealing as the idea is, a rifle more capable of both hitting and killing the enemy isn't quite as important as it would first appear.
2. most importantly, the stresses of combat drastically reduced the ability of the soldier to hit the target regardless of how lethal the rifle was.

It seems they are doing the same sort of thing here, ignoring very real information from the police community that says handguns just aren't a good way to stop a determined enemy and multiple hits on the target are often required.
Overall, the US Army should probably be spending more effort on increasing the soldiers' ability to cope with the stresses of combat (so that they are better at hitting the target) than spending money and time on finding a wonder weapon that is better at hitting the target because ultimately, the tired, stressed individual pulling the trigger has a much bigger impact on if they score a hit.

But that's bureaucratic process for you, it's cheaper to replace the weapon than it is to continually train soldiers...

[waiting4something]

The article points out some good points. However, in the long run its all about money. Sure pistol ammo might suck compared to rifle ammo, but unless you want your grip to be bigger then a Desert Eagle, what are you going do. It's a pistol. It's made as a back up weapon for the soldier, not a primary.

The biggest problem with pistols is no one really takes them that seriously. Either they don't get the care needed to them, or soldiers don't get the range time with them they should. If a soldier is only getting use out of his pistol two times a year for pistol qualification, how good can he or she be? The military just doesn't have the funds to make avid great shooters. Even if they did they be more concerned that your SHARPS training is up to date.

[Panther Al]

I think I might have said this in another thread, but I just get a laugh out of it all.

Back, way back, in the day,

Then, the US was fighting Muslim Insurgents in the Philippines. Our standard pistol back then was a .36 calibre revolver. Well, it didn't cut the mustard. So, after trial and tribulation, we went with the .45ACP.

Now, we are fighting Muslim Insurgents in various parts of the world. Our standard pistol now is a .36 calibre automatic and yet again, we are looking at replacing it. The leading contender? The .45ACP. Again.

Everyone keeps saying History never repeats itself, but I wish someone told history this so that it wouldn't!

[CDAT]

I think I might have said this in another thread, but I just get a laugh out of it all.

Back, way back, in the day,

Then, the US was fighting Muslim Insurgents in the Philippines. Our standard pistol back then was a .36 calibre revolver. Well, it didn't cut the mustard. So, after trial and tribulation, we went with the .45ACP.

Now, we are fighting Muslim Insurgents in various parts of the world. Our standard pistol now is a .36 calibre automatic and yet again, we are looking at replacing it. The leading contender? The .45ACP. Again.

Everyone keeps saying History never repeats itself, but I wish someone told history this so that it wouldn't!

I remember when I first joined the Army back in the early 1990's even though the M1911A1 had been replaced for for years you still had units holding on to there 1911's fro as long as they could. My frist unit held on to theres tell 94 every unit that I know of wanted to keep them just rebuild them.

[stormlion1]

Simple solution, allow the soldiers to use the pistols of there choice. If they choose to use the standard issue pistol they get resupply for ammo and parts but if they choose a superior pistol there responsible for there own ammo supply. If I could have had my 45 when I was in, I would have and I would have gladly have taken care of the ammunition myself.

[Raellus]

Simple solution, allow the soldiers to use the pistols of there choice. If they choose to use the standard issue pistol they get resupply for ammo and parts but if they choose a superior pistol there responsible for there own ammo supply. If I could have had my 45 when I was in, I would have and I would have gladly have taken care of the ammunition myself.

I'd imagine that there would be some safety and liability issues with that. And, acquiring non-standard ammo in the field during combat ops might be difficult. And how would the army make sure that troops weren't loading ammo that didn't comply with the Geneva Conventions and all that jazz?

[.45cultist]

Most people also will forget that pistols are like a first aid kit, when you need one you NEED one. The 1911 would mean egg on the face of command staff somewhere, so I see H&K in the future.

[stormlion1]

Not really, the gents who decided the 1911 had to go are long retired so I could see the younger generation who had the 1911 wanting them back because they used them and liked them.

[mikeo80]

A few things that come to my mind about pistols.

1) There were many vets of many wars who NEVER drew their pistol.

2) IF they did, it was an "OH S***" moment.

3) I, for one, will put up with a seven round clip in a 1911. The odds of using more than that are very small. Not impossible, just not likely. I want a round that when I shoot at the bad guy, he goes down. And STAYS down.

My $0.02

Mike

[.45cultist]

I'm in the return to the M1911 crowd, but use the "series 70" design, not the "series 80" the USMC did.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Unfortunately, the problem is, and will always be, the military needs a "one size fits all" handgun because not everyone meets the requirements for the M1911 (as in hand size and physical abilities to control the recoil).
And I totally agree with something waiting4something said earlier, the biggest problems with pistol use by the military, is that the soldiers rarely get enough practical training to be able to use them effectively.

It's the same problem some police forces here in Australia have, the officers carrying handguns on a daily basis only do three maybe four range shoots a year to keep their shooting "qualification". I think most would agree that you cannot maintain good shooting skills if you're only using live rounds for training two or three, or even four times a year.
So as I hinted at originally, I don't believe that any handgun the US Army selects is going to solve the perceived problem because the real problem is most likely that the soldiers are not getting enough effective training time with whatever handgun they have.

[Panther Al]

Simple solution, allow the soldiers to use the pistols of there choice. If they choose to use the standard issue pistol they get resupply for ammo and parts but if they choose a superior pistol there responsible for there own ammo supply. If I could have had my 45 when I was in, I would have and I would have gladly have taken care of the ammunition myself.


Yep - Allowing a soldier, with the permission of his Chain of Command, the ability to pick his own sidearm, and provide himself with his own ammo (After all, that used to be allowed way way back in the day) would prevent a hypothetical 3d ACR Trooper from sneaking a Kimber .45 into a hidey hole in his tank, along with a store of a few hundred rounds before it got shipped overseas, because he hates the mouse gun. It would have also prevented said trooper from having to hand it off to a deserving Marine who shared his belief in the 45, and promised to pass it on to another deserving soul when his time was up.

Of course, this is all Hypothetical, for I would never have been silly enough to buy a high quality 45 only to bring it on a one way trip.. against regs, where he could be busted so hard for doing so.


Nope.. not me.

*cough*

*cough* *cough*

[.45cultist]

Unfortunately, the problem is, and will always be, the military needs a "one size fits all" handgun because not everyone meets the requirements for the M1911 (as in hand size and physical abilities to control the recoil).
And I totally agree with something waiting4something said earlier, the biggest problems with pistol use by the military, is that the soldiers rarely get enough practical training to be able to use them effectively.

It's the same problem some police forces here in Australia have, the officers carrying handguns on a daily basis only do three maybe four range shoots a year to keep their shooting "qualification". I think most would agree that you cannot maintain good shooting skills if you're only using live rounds for training two or three, or even four times a year.
So as I hinted at originally, I don't believe that any handgun the US Army selects is going to solve the perceived problem because the real problem is most likely that the soldiers are not getting enough effective training time with whatever handgun they have.

The M1911 has an advantage over the newer pistols, all can change grip shape, the M1911 can change trigger length. The M9 had a higher bore axis, so it kicks more than it should. Plenty of small women compete with .45ACP M1911's which goes back to the comments on trigger time.

[Raellus]

So what make and model will get selected?

http://bearingarms.com/army-wants-new-handgun-way-can-now/

Seems like wishful thinking to me. This company has neither the pedigree/track record or the manufacturing capacity to win and then fulfill a big government contract.

My money is on H&K. Their Mark 23 has been in use with US SOCOM for some time. I think the HK45 has a better than average shot at meeting the US military's criteria for a new service pistol.

Although the article slags Sig, their P250 in .45 ACP seems like a strong contender as well.

Both could be manufactured in the U.S.A.

What make and model do you guys think is a likely M9 replacement?

[rcaf_777]

Who want to take bets that in three to five years when there is a budget cruch, this program will be canceled?

[waiting4something]

If this is anything like the M4A1 carbine replacement trial, you might be right. The military just had too much invested in the M16 series rifle. The U.S.M.C. had just not to long ago upgraded to the Beretta M9A1, so they aren't getting away from it. Even if the Army did replace it would be a slow transition just like the M9 was to the M1911A1. If it's not broke don't fix it, and if you do try to fix it......... make sure it's worth it.

[rcaf_777]

lets not forget pistols for most coventional army units are not primary weapons but a PDW issued as back up weapons. Unlike police and spec ops pers who use them as primary weapons.

Not to meation how much dose the US Army spend on 9mm purchases in a year? You think those companies are going to let the Army change the round they make?

On a side note the Canadain Military has released a contact for new handgun system, however all biders where told the you have to had over your designs to Colt Canada as they will making the new handgun.

I am hoping for the Colt Delta Elite but if we adopt the Colt Officer's ACP which is a .45, I might be able to trade for a M1 if I go on exchange to the US

[CDAT]

When the US Army turned in there old 1911's does anyone know what happened to them? Maybe we could do what the Army wanted back in the 80's and just refurbished them.

[stormlion1]

I believe they were either sold at auction to Law Enforcement agency's or foreign governments, Stockpiled away inside of armory's and forgotten about, or destroyed. I remember back in the mid-90's we still had some still in the armory rusting away.

[.45cultist]

Given to Turkey, sold to clubs through DCM/CMP, 300,000 destroyed at the Alabama arsenal, along with a lot of M14's. Just another reason to dislike the president of the time! :mad:

[pmulcahy11b]

When the US Army turned in there old 1911's does anyone know what happened to them? Maybe we could do what the Army wanted back in the 80's and just refurbished them.

We still had 1911s at my first duty station as Stewart, but I didn't see one that wasn't beat to shit. (Sorry for my language, but it's appropriate in this case.) That was mid-1980s. I couldn't see them refurbished then, let alone now.

[Tegyrius]

Not to meation how much dose the US Army spend on 9mm purchases in a year? You think those companies are going to let the Army change the round they make?

Because, uh, none of them can re-tool their lines to produce .45?

- C.

[bobcat]

Unfortunately, the problem is, and will always be, the military needs a "one size fits all" handgun because not everyone meets the requirements for the M1911 (as in hand size and physical abilities to control the recoil).


actually the M1911 is essentially "one size fits all" my arthritic grandmother can easily handle it. the limited magazine does pose some issues in a close quarters fight. but given how few people have big enough hands for a double stacked .45ACP you can't really issue one with a higher capacity that your average combat soldier can use given that for some reason most of the people i've encountered in combat arms are rather scrawny (makes us harder to shoot :D).

[bobcat]

though granted i still say there should be a position for a "terminal E-4" in every branch acquisition office to provide common sense to the minds behind every dumb idea they push on us. after all a soldier who know's he's never getting promoted has no problem telling a staff officer that there is a reason why every unit that can scam an excuse to is deploying with M1911's rather than the MK23 or M9.

he might also want to provide some "wall to wall counseling" to the guy that thought a 30lbs, flammable, IBA that provides no circulation was a good idea when faced with IED's in a dessert.

[copeab]

The magazine doesn't have to go in the hand grip ...

[Targan]

The magazine doesn't have to go in the hand grip ...

Yes indeed. The 5.7mm FN PDW and the G11 both have novel magazine positions. The latter is a rifle obviously but the FN PDW isn't all that larger than a pistol.

[Webstral]

This is a little tangential, but the comment about practice resonated with me. The US Army has huge sums of money for all kinds of marginal frippery, but the Army gets very stingy when it comes to ammunition for practicing. It's absurd. The Army would rather ship mountains of ammunition into combat areas than fire half a mountain in training deep in the rear. How many casualties are caused by rifle fire is only one consideration. Soldiers who are confident in their ability to handle their primary weapon are better soldiers in general as a result. Confidence and the habits instilled by constant training yield major dividends when the soldier is subjected to the stress of combat. A little ammunition goes much further when the rifleman has been habituated to firing aimed shots.

We've had this discussion about having a Marksmanship Corps and a Physical Fitness Corps so that the fundamentals of soldiering are being taught by people dedicated to nothing else, so I won't belabor the point here.

[CDAT]

Yes indeed. The 5.7mm FN PDW and the G11 both have novel magazine positions. The latter is a rifle obviously but the FN PDW isn't all that larger than a pistol.

If by FN PDW you are talking about the FN P90 it has a 10.1 to 10.4 inch barrel (depending on source) and a full stock. I have one of the civilian legal ones (only visable differance is the 16 inch barrel) and it is much larger than any pistol that I have ever seen. If you are talking about the FN 5.7 Pistol it has it magazine in the normal location.

[copeab]

If by FN PDW you are talking about the FN P90 it has a 10.1 to 10.4 inch barrel (depending on source) and a full stock. I have one of the civilian legal ones (only visable differance is the 16 inch barrel) and it is much larger than any pistol that I have ever seen. If you are talking about the FN 5.7 Pistol it has it magazine in the normal location.

I was thinking about the C 96 Mauser.

[CDAT]

I was thinking about the C 96 Mauser.

There is also the Scorpion SMG that is very close to handgun size but has the magazine in the "normal" SMG spot.

[Sanjuro]

Two downsides with moving the magazine forward:
1. Barrel length becomes more restricted;
2. Centre of gravity moves forward away from the user's hand.
The Mauser C96 was often used as a carbine replacement with the wooden holster used as a stock, so problem 2 was countered. Problem 1 was never an issue because the C96 would have been a primary weapon, rather than a CQB/backup weapon which needs to be drawn in a hurry.
(Incidentally, Winston Churchill used a C96 at Omdurman when he rode with the 21st Lancers, as a shoulder injury prevented him using a sword).

[Schone23666]

All I can say in regards to all this: LOL! :p

It's good to always keep your small arms inventory current and be on the lookout for something better that inevitably comes along, but this, again? The service branches (U.S. at least) have got some weird neurotic process sometimes about deciding just what the hell they want in regards to small arms, yeesh.