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...
|