Read this article the other day about the Air Forces $90 million request for new pistols getting nixed and instead they were granted $5 million to study joint combat pistol needs with the Army. This, in turn, reminded me of a piece Id written several years ago on the H&K Mk. 23 Mod 0 SOCOM.
A lot of money was invested in building that state of the art pistol, and theres no arguing that it is in fact, one hell of a handgun; but you dont see too many of them around. Of all the SOF personnel I saw in Iraq, none had anything other than the M9 Beretta, and of the several I spoke to about the .45 SOF pistol, none had ever seen one.
To be sure, Im sure there are more SOF folk than there are SOCOM pistols, and there might be some sort of SOP regarding the use of the SOCOM, but if that were the case, why go through all that trouble to make such a superlative firearm and either not issue it in greater numbers, or restrict the use of the ones you do have?
Now, Ive said it before and Ill say it again. I am not a gun guy. As a soldier, I use firearms as the tools of my trade. I can take them apart and put them back together, and I know how to troubleshoot them when something does not work right.
What I cant do is quote chapter and verse on muzzle energy, knockdown power, stopping power, fit, feel, or functionality of any particular firearm or bullet. This having been said, however, I think, even given my own limited gun knowledge, I could come up with a replacement for the M9 for less than $5 million dollars.
Take my experience with the M1911A1 .45 pistol and the M9 Beretta. The thing I liked best about the M1911A1 was the fact that it was made out of forged steel; You could drop it, kick it, crawl on it, you could do anything to it short of melt it, and you wouldnt affect its reliability. Moreover, properly blued or parkerized, the M1911A1 was very forgiving of the elements.
Not everything on the M1911A1, however, was perfect. I thought the ejection port on the slide to be too narrow and I remember that stove piping was a constant issue, where the spent casing would extract from the chamber, but would not eject clear of the slide. Now I dont know if this issue was the result of the small ejection port or some other issue, but it was something I noticed with the pistol. The lack of removable or adjustable sights seemed to me to be a viable point of improvement.
While I understand that the inclusion of such features would obviously drive up the price of the weapon, I would have, at a very minimum, liked to have seen replaceable sights on the pistol. Many, many of the .45s I saw had mangled front and rear sights, no doubt the result of decades of service. Adjustable sights might have been something of a luxury for a strictly defensive weapon, but I believe replaceable sights would have been an improvement.
Finally, some complained about the recoil from the .45, that it was too powerful, or that the weapon, being made from steel, was too heavy. I personally thought the recoil was manageable (more than the M9 to be sure, but not alarmingly so) and when compared to all the other gear I was hauling around, the extra 2 pounds from the M1911A1 was hardly noticeable (not to mention a loaded M9 weighs almost the same.)
As for the M9 Beretta, it fired well, it was easy to take apart and put back together, and since it was made of a non-ferrous alloy, it was again very tolerant of the elements. Moreover, it did have a nice big ejection port (right out the top of the slide.) On the downside the M9 was made of a non-ferrous alloy, which made it significantly more susceptible to damage from what I would consider routine exposure to the combat environment. Ive seen M9s crack when dropped off of vehicles, suffer significant gouging, and pinching of the frame.
With the M1911A1 if I could get the slide to work I had faith that the pistol would work, and work safely. Not so with the M9. Moreover, the M9 was a SA/DA (single action/double action) pistol, which meant that you didnt need to thumb cock it like you did with the .45 or rack the slide to cock the hammer, you could just pull the trigger and the hammer would cock itself and fire. However, with the Beretta the trigger, in DA mode (hammer down) was WAY out there and for some folk, reaching all the way out there with one finger was literally quite a reach (Ive even seen folk double pull the trigger where they pull the trigger partway and then readjust their finger position to complete the process.)
For me, coming from a M1911A1 background, I always thumb cocked my M9 during qualification. This may not have been the standard, but it was how I grew up and I didnt see the need to go to a different method simply because TRADOC said so. Others have also complained about the fat double stacked, 15-round magazine, but again, with my big hands, that wasnt an issue.
Finally, as with the M1911A1 the M9 does not have removable or replaceable sights, though again, in the grand scheme of things, this isnt really a deal breaker as much as it would have been means of maintaining the accuracy of the pistol over its service life.
(Now, before anyone mentions it, I intentionally did not address the physical characteristics of the bullets themselves. Over the course of my military career the only thing Ive ever killed with my pistol was paper and plywood, so I cant comment on the combat utility of either the .45 ACP or the 9mm Parabellum. But bullet lethality is a whole nother can of worms, which we will get to shortly.)
My question before the court is this. What is a combat handgun and what is it that we really need and what do we want it to do. I would think that really what were talking about here is a defensive/back up/bail out weapon, not one that you would use as your primary offensive arm (yes there are many situations where a pistol is superior to a long gun in offensive operations, like searching confined spaces, vehicles, or what have you, but I dont think a pistol would be my first choice for assaulting an enemy position or defending my perimeter.)
Again, Im not a gun guy so Im not going to tell you what that ought to be, but let all of you take the ball and run with it. To better organize the discussion, though I thought it might be helpful to break down the discussion into a couple of functional areas.
Automatic or revolver? Yes, it seems a bit antiquated to ask the question, but its as good a place as any to start.
In terms of sheer reliability I would thing there would be nothing more reliable than a revolver. Up until the introduction of the M9 in fact, aviators were still issued a .38 revolver. They were small, easy to operate, and very reliable. On the down side however, I would think that, unless you trained regularly with one, reloading one under combat conditions would be something of a disaster waiting to happen (I have visions of Stanley Baker as Lt. Chard in Zulu trying to reload his revolver with shaking hands) but the same could be said of any weapon I suppose.
Something else to consider is action type. Should the pistol be SA (single action) only DA (double action) only or SA/DA? Many law enforcement agencies are adopting DA only pistols for liability purposes, but should this be a consideration for military personnel as well?
Construction. Steel or alloy? As I said, I grew up with the all-steel M1911A1 and then transitioned to the alloy M9 and now there are plastic polymer handguns, of which I have only very limited experience with (while deployed in 05 I carried a Glock Model 19 9mm compact.) I like the durability of the steel over the alloy M9, but the Glock also seemed to hold up well (it had a steel upper on a polymer lower.) Furthermore, what kind of finish should the pistol have? Blued? Parkerized? Stainless steel or some other exotic metal?
Size. How big should the pistol be? Full size (4+ inch barrel) or compact (2 inch) barrel? Should it have a double stacked magazine or single stack? Over the years many folk have complained about the weapons they were issued, that there were certain aspects regarding them that they didnt like, but Ive never heard any say that they couldnt use a weapon. Another question along these lines is, should the services field different sizes of the same caliber, or just a single unit? Should we have a pistol with a single stack or double stacked magazine? More is always better, but as would be the case with a double-stacked .45-style pistol, youre talking a lot more (in terms of grip size, that is.)
I think there is a tendency now a days to look for a satisfy everyone approach (the XM-8 with its golf bag of mission flexible barrels, for example) rather than a satisfy the requirement and learn to deal with it approach (heres your M1911A1, have a nice day.) We dont have his and hers M-16s or M2s or M249s, so coming up with five different flavors of handgun so that everyone can pick the one that feels best to them is, in my opinion, a waste of resources.
Cartridge. Ok, here comes the can of worms. Traditionally, this discussion tends to degenerate into .45 v. 9mm. Again, I have absolutely zero experience with actually using either cartridge for anything more than killing qualification targets, a task for which both are more than adequate. What I do know about them is they have both been around FOREVER, and their ballistic characteristics are well known. At a purely visceral level, when it comes to bullets, I tend to believe that bigger is better, so I like the .45, but is that really a proper basis for selecting a cartridge? Moreover, while the 9mm and the .45 are proven, theyre also old. There are many new (relative to the .45 and the 9mm) cartridges out there, such as the .357 SIG, .40 S&W, 10mm Auto, just to name a few. Should we consider one of those?
Economics. While talking about guns is great and wonderful, buying them is a completely different experience, and the bottom line here is, regardless of what the services decide to adopt as their service handgun, economics will play an important, if not THE most important, roll in the process. We currently have a lot of 9mm pistols in our inventory, and a lot of 9mm ammunition to go with them. So do our allies. Complain all you want about the 9mm, but it will require big bucks to replace the Beretta and its legacy (ammunition, spare parts, etc) But it can be done. The Coast Guard did it just recently when they dropped the M9 and went to the SIG-Sauer P229R DAK in .40 S&W while the USSS (United States Secret Service) went to the SIG-Sauer P229 in .357 SIG, siting its armor penetrating qualities among others (thats something else that has advanced significantly since the introduction of the .45 and 9mm; the proliferation of both soft and hard body armor.)
Finally, there is the question of going custom or COTS (Commercial, Off The Shelf.) Every couple of years someone will write in to ARMOR magazine about the need for a PDW (personal defense weapon) for tankers and other armored vecicle crewmen. The M4/M16 are too large they say, the M9 is too small what tankers really need is a custom weapon that is sort of M9ish, and sort of M4ish, but completely unique to their needs.
Rubbish. If tankers really needed a bail out gun, and there is a compelling argument for such a need, especially with all the urban action going on (though seriously, unless the tanks on fire, youve lost turret power, none of your MGs work, or your stuck in front of an enemy ATGM factory, you are generally safer inside the tank than outside) there are plenty to choose from.
Yes the M4 (or the full auto version, the M4A1) will work just fine, but if you want something more exotic then go with something from the Heckler&Koch MP line, such as the MP5K-PDW. I thought it sadly humerous that the Army announced the development of a combat shoulderbag after claiming that they couldnt find a suitable bag on the civilian market. To say the same about a handgun I think would just border on criminal insanity.
The bottom line here is there are enough guns out there that surely we can find one that meets our needs (youll notice that there isnt a member from any law enforcement agency in all of America walking around without some sort of duty weapon) and I dont think it would take $5 million to figure out which one we need.
HK 45
.45 caliber
Polymer frame
Double-stack mag, but reasonably slim
Accurate, reliable
Case Closed
Mostly a question, but what to you think about the hand-size issue? I have medium-sized hands. Some carry pistols are too small for me to to shoot accurately. There are bigger ones that, though they are comfortable in the hand and I can shoot them well, cause problems when having to reach for controls on the thumb side.
Might there not be some market in this age of computer-controlled manufacturing machines for pistols with a range of hand sizes? Even if just small-medium-large?
I find this whole story interesting because the Pentagon announced several years ago that they were interested in a
Deus, there’s options for thin grip panels, thick rubber grip panels, flat and high arched backstraps, and even large rubber grips with wraparound front ends to really bulk out the grip for folks with large fists. And that’s just for the 1911; if you want maximum fit-ability in a single gun then the Sig P250 is right up to what you want.
All of this is adjustable by the user: Two trigger positions for length of pull, three different grip lengths and thicknesses, and two different backstraps — and you can mix and match as you please, in a number of slide sizes and calibers. Go look it up, it’s some pretty spiff tech and certainly an option if someone wanted a DA handgun to fit a wide, wide number of shooters.
(I still hold to my prior thoughts, as the Sig is a single-point manufacturer, but the 250 is a great pistol.)
This is too easy, either the M&P in .45 or the Sig 229 in .357 an amazing weapon.
Before anyone chimes in for the Glock, let’s remember how the NYPD had to rebuild all theirs in 2003-Glock is not the cutting edge anymore. Not a bad weapon-but not the best.
Have Springfield throw together something specc’d out by some SF operators somewhere in between a milspec and a Loaded/Operator model. Problem solved. This whole conversation is rediculous. The 1911 is a damn near perfect fighting pistol for what it is designed for. It’s not meant to be an entire system ala the Mark 23. It’s not meant to be a weapon that you solely carry. It’s a second option or last ditch option.
You want the gun to last, have punch, and go bang every time. The 1911 has done that for close to a century now. Penetration and “organ” damage is all fine and dandy, but nothing beats sheer kinetic energy. A 12 gauge shotgun leaves very shallow wounds that do not really get to the inner organs. But I don’t see anyone getting up after taking a 12 gauge blast, do you? The same principle applies to the .45. Instead of precision jabs, it throws a giant hay maker of a round. When your weapon jams and you have to cover a doorway or there is someone running up on you, you don’t need 15 rounds of weak ammunition. You need as powerful a round that you can fit into a gun while being ergonomic. The 45. Though the 10mm is better all around, it’s not NATO and the FBI ditched it because female agents couldn’t handle the recoil.
The M9 is a fine example of the 9mm breed but it is not a true fighting pistol. It has many problems, including awful standard issue mags which cause all the feeding problems.
Personally, I own an XD tactical in .45 and while it is a good pistol, it is not a fighting pistol either. It just doesn’t handle the best. I would feel more than comfortable taking it into combat however. It has never jammed on me once. The 1911 handles better and absorbs the recoil better in my opinion. Remember even the smallest female soldiers will have to be able to use this pistol.
A parkerized, steel-forged 1911 with some nice parts inside and out, including adjustable night sights, would run the average American 500–800 on the retail market. The army could get a vast discount on a volume order, and Springfield already provides weapons so they have the in-road to do this. The 1911 is just a hell of a lot easier to manufacture and maintain as well.
Really, there was 0 reason to switch to the M9 in the first place and there is 0 reason to NOT switch back to a 1911 based pistol. While small arms are peanuts compared to more expensive purchases like aircraft, the NEED for a pistol should be examined. How many times have soldiers been forced to use their pistol so far in the two conflicts? Has it met their needs? If you can establish that (without spending millions, you tools) and the answer trends toward needing a better weapon, the Army knows where to find one.
The M9 was billed as sleeker, sexier and more high tech than the good ol’ 1911. It’s anything but. Between my 92FS, XD and 1911 (Cold Gold Cup) I’d take the 1911 any day. And it was my first purchase. Thought there might be something better, but there really isn’t.
This is a real can of worms, but here goes.
A big piece of defining a good “combat” pistol lies in being clear what you mean by that. A pistol can be a sidearm or primary CQB weapon (for example, the 1911, or Mk 23), or a PDW (which is the M9’s formal designation, in many military manuals). That’s two different mission profiles. Throwing a big fat slug at close range works fine for one, but for the other you might need something that shoots flatter and tighter at range.
That’s what got the 9mm its place on the perch. For most of the 20th Century, the world’s pistol cartridges were also used in SMGs. 9mm was very good at that: Schmeisser, Sten, Swedish K, Uzi, MP-5. It isn’t so much that 9mm’s a great pistol cartridge, as SMG commonality made it a great multipurpose solution.
That was part of our drive to NATO standardization 20 years ago — that, and all the 1911s and .38s wearing out, and the last grease guns wearing out at the same time. 9mm was a good compromise between the .38 and the .45, and there was talk of adopting an SMG as another PDW. Some of the SOF units had MP-5s or Uzis, and other manufacturers were pitching their solutions.
Trends in body armor also favored 9mm NATO for a while, but that changed fast. Flak jackets got even better, so dedicated PDW calibers emerged: 5.7x28mm, and 4.6x30mm. Then ceramic plates were developed. IIRC, some of them can defeat the PDW loads.
So by degrees 5.56mm has emerged as the minimum primary PDW/CQB caliber. In taking the 9mm pistol/SMG out of the PDW role, that changes the role of the pistol.
In summary, a “combat” pistol might not be a PDW anymore. If so, what is it? A sidearm/CQB weapon?
If so, maybe that means we go back to a big bore sidearm — for example, .45, .40, or 10mm. The “combat handgun” would be Plan B if the primary weapon goes down, or an offensive weapon for storming confined spaces. IIRC, the latter was the rationale for the Mk 23 “Offensive Handgun Weapon System”; it was supposed to be used to storm building and vehicle interiors. It ended up being too big for a sidearm.
Somehow, I’m not sure the PDW mission’s gone. Asymmetric warfare means the enemy could be anywhere, even inside your own wire. A lot of the GWOT is going to be waged by people whose hands are full with batteries, humanitarian aid, and whatnot — drone operators, air and vehicle crews, EOD and Civil Affairs types. Anything you give them has got to be able to shoot flat and straight, at distance.
What’s that mean — .40, .357 Sig, 9x23? I kind of favor the last, but not in its Winchester version. Don’t forget it was derived from cut down 5.56 NATO cases. Go back to that as a starting point, and 5.56 machinery can be used to draw cases, and 5.56 bolts and platforms can used for new PDW designs.
Apart from that, we might consider the possibility of going straight to caseless or case telescoped ammo. IIRC, Big Green’s looking to do that for the next gen LMG. A lot of the problems of caseless or CT ammo for general purpose infantry weapons — for example, cookoff at high round counts — just don’t apply to a pistol or PDW.
All that’s probably way off in the future. If I had to bet, I’d say most of the stalling on the next pistol is confusion over the PDW vs. CQB thing, and reluctance to field a new system in the middle of two wars. That’s maybe not the best time or way to go about things.
However, I’m starting to wonder if DoD’s giving Smith, Ruger and Sig some time to get their sh*t together on their next gen designs, and and a switch to .40, or .45.
Get a Service pistol for ALL forces & end this budget debacle & use these makes for tests:
HK 45 Cal.
Glock 9mm, 40 cal, 45 cal models
Walther PSP type (007 used).
& Issue these to Our forces in Iraq NOW ASAP.
Thanks.
Another factor in this discussion is training. 9mm is a great training round because it is much cheaper than the larger alternatives and has easier recoil. I’d rather have the members of my squadron use the M9 as a PDW and know that each may have fired about a thousand or so rounds in the past year, rather than use a larger caliber and cut that amount of training in half. The budget always dictates how much training you will get, so the pistol must make the most of it.
But if the services are looking for a new pistol, I sure hope they can find something off the shelf. There are options galore out there. I understand custom-designing a carbine or a rifle, but why blow the budget on a pistol when money is needed for more important things?
See there are so many good pistols you need to have extensive testing to find the best. If the comments are any indication, everyone have a favorite (mines the M&P.45).
As per demophilus the primary debate seems to be between CQC vs. PDW. As I indicated below, several years ago the Pentagon submitted a list of specifications for a future sidearm. This tells me that someone, or some committee (argh!), somewhere already dealt with this issue and was able to agree on specifications.
The pistols created to those specifications are now available off-the-shelf to anyone who wants one, including the Pentagon who originally requested them.
More studies, or more money for development would be a waste. (I smell politicians more than Pentagon.)
Pet peeve: when you write “$5 million” you don’t have to add the word “dollars” after it… that’s what the “$” is for…
Isn’t the discussion limiting itself by merely addressing the traditional pistol-style definition of “handgun”? In discussing a combat “handgun” ought not we to consider larger style weapons like the Russian PP2000 or the German MP7? They are about bulkier than a pistol, (the PP2000 is about twice the length and 50% heaver than a 1911, for example), but they are still waist-portable and the rapid fire and range advantages would seem to make up for that, I would think.
Give the soldiers what THEY want! If THEY want a polymer .45 then that should be our next standard issue sidearm.
Personally I would go with the FN P-45. Or go with the more powerful 10mm cartridge. But I pray the next handgun is at least .40S&W . 9mm is fine for target practice and wounding, but not for a 1 shot kill.
Construction: First the material, steel. Or more accurately one of the new steel alloys that do not sacrifice strength for lightness. There are several out now that are nearly as light as aluminum but suffer little or no strength drop off. The Grips should be of a modular interchangeable design with different types available for different hand sizes. Ideally just make it compatible with 1911 grips since there is already a huge selection of these available. Nothing is more important to shooting a pistol than a good comfortable grip. Sights should be interchangeable as well. For fast aim and ease of use it is hard to beat a set of
I still don’t understand why we switched to the 9mm. Especially when we switched to the .45 because the .38 just wasn’t cutting it. The 1911 is a great pistol and far superior to the Barretta. Mainly because I know I could beat you to death with a 1911 if I ran out of ammo.
Recently, an aquaintence of mine told me of a friend of his. His friend heard screaming from his neighbor’s house, he grabbed his 9mm and ran next door. His neighbor was being beaten with a baseball bat from an intruder, he emptied his pistol, later finding out he had hit the assailant at least five times in the torso(great shooting in an emergency). The intruder ran at least 100 yards from the house before collapsing and dying. This is not good for a last ditch weapon. A last ditch weapon needs to put them down and keep them down. The last thing a machine gunner or other crew-served weapon crewmember needs is a back up weapon that won’t kill readily. .40, .45 have proven themselves great calibers for this. I would think a .357 magnum would be a little too much for most pistol users.
I still can’t figure out why people insist on going modern all the time, the 1911 is still around after a century for one simple reason, it works. Besides, isn’t a little arrrogant to think you can outdo John Browning when it comes to weapons design? That man was truly a genius.
I imagine the $5 mil will be used to find suppliers and run a tender etc. It’s expensive to avoid lawsuits and make sure the paper balances. But I expect whoever is making the choice already has something in mind and the $5mil is just to cover the bases. “See, we spent five mil selecting this model, you can’t sue us because your product wasn’t chosen. CYA as always.
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ga_handguns/ga_fn45_200801/index.html
As much as I love the 1911, I have to bring up a point. John Browning out did John Browning. The Browning Highpower is the “product improved” 1911 basically. Yes, you can improve on many designs. One of John Bronwing’s improvements was to remove the “link” on the barrel assembly. Quite a few designs now use a straight, or modified Browning “linkless” system. This removes two parts right there. Two less parts means two less componants that can break or wear out. Many firearms have followed this tradition by looking for ways of “removing” parts from the equation. The XD is one such design (and they just added a “Browning” style saftey lever to the XD family so now its more acceptable to the military).
Yes, John Browning was an inspired man. I would love to see what he might come up with using modern materials and manufacturing processes.
Touche’
If it’s a personal defense weapon, you must have an ambidextrous safety. The standard 1911 doesn’t have that, but it’s an easy modification.
Check out this new Sig.
http://www.sigsauer.com/Products/ShowCatalogProductDetails.aspx?categoryid=54&productid=183
Having owned two 9mm pistols (Steyr M9 & CZ75 SA) as well as two .45’s (Para P14-45 & CZ 97B) I can say in general the average owner will be more accurate with a .45 auto than a 9 mm auto. The larger, heavier frame and softer recoil of a .45 means the front sight stays on target while the trigger is coming back to trip the sear.
This is easy to prove. Just go to a shooting range that rents out weapons and try one after the other. Your score with the .45 will be better.
In combat it isn’t scoring that matters of course, just putting large, heavy bullets where they need to go.
I believe that the human component is the key to this issue. Training, training and more training. Proficiency with the weapon is more important.
The Germans almost took over the world with bolt action Mausers. The Royal Marines’ “Mad Minute” drill with their Enfields were brutually effective.
As for the 9mm vs .45? The ammo is key. I can find enough anectodal accounts of people not going down even after multiple hits with a .45ACP.
I refer to a posting from this website:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003530.html#comments
”…So when I shot 9mm and 45cal. rounds through each, I was pleasantly surprised to find that although the rounds did penetrate the glass, the expanded as advertised. Having my caliper in back pocket told me that the 9mm expanded to .51 inches and the 45 cal. to .64 inches (all rounds being caught by foam and soft rubber) those numbers are an average for multiple shots on glass. The 9mm in my opinion in straight up head to head performance came out ahead of the .45, I
I believe that the human component is the key to this issue. Training, training and more training. Proficiency with the weapon is more important.
The Germans almost took over the world with bolt action Mausers. The Royal Marines’ “Mad Minute” drill with their Enfields were brutally effective.
As for the 9mm vs .45? The ammo is key. I can find enough anecdotal accounts of people not going down even after multiple hits with a .45ACP.
I refer to a posting from this website:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003530.html#comments
”…So when I shot 9mm and 45cal. rounds through each, I was pleasantly surprised to find that although the rounds did penetrate the glass, the expanded as advertised. Having my caliper in back pocket told me that the 9mm expanded to .51 inches and the 45 cal. to .64 inches (all rounds being caught by foam and soft rubber) those numbers are an average for multiple shots on glass. The 9mm in my opinion in straight up head to head performance came out ahead of the .45, I
I own and love the 1911 45acp, but I wont even go there.I will however just say that,a glock,a sig,a colt or what ever they decide,just put the dam 45acp back in the service where it belongs.Unless the army switches to hollow points,the 9mm just don’t work,PERIOD.
I was issued the M15(38), M1911A1, M9 and M11. Saw special folks argue over who had to carry the MK23.
Here we go again…
SOF-CP and FHS merged into JCP, then unmerged back to CP, that got indefinitely postponed… the AFH/Air Force Handgun got shot down… the
AFFH/Air Force Future Handgun got shot down… now we have the Modular Handgun System. May go nowhere too, but may give us an idea where they want to go. Eventually. That being compact and full size guns w manual safety to start: Capacity, caliber, action TBD.
10–Modular Handgun System
Solicitation Number: W52H0928APR08MHS
Agency: Department of the Army
Office: U. S. Army Materiel Command
Location: U.S. Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command — Rock Island
The Program Manager for Soldier Weapons (PM-SW) , on behalf of the US Air Force, has a requirement for a nondevelopmental handgun. This effort will be conducted in three phases consisting of a Competitive Down-selection Phase, System Development & Demonstration (SDD) Phase, and a Full Rate Production (FRP) Phase. This Sources Sought Notice does not reflect a complete listing of all requirements for a Modular Handgun System.
One size does not fit all, and one handgun does not fit all missions. What the operators need is not what most of the rest of the military who carry pistols need. Law enforcement, security, investigators, pilots, armor/aircrew, etc are served just fine w the same kind of compact pistols that cruise the waves w the Coast Guard (P229) or ride the border w CBP (P2000). They have 40/357/45 and/or bigger tactical versions too for those w special needs who seem to need something smaller, lighter, and/or more ergonomic than the 45 they already have (MK23 MOD 0).
Govt/Commander 1911s w ambi safety and rail could work too, but little chance of going there again.
Interesting debate about pistols. In the Danish Army we use an 1949 SIG P210 (Neuhausen) — a nice piece but after almost 60 years in service, not suited for todays combat missions.
Our Army PSD and Special Operations Forces uses HK USP Tactical 9 mm — and .45 will properbly never enter service in DK Armed Forces.
For crying out loud, the idea of a side arm is a secondary weapon. Not the do all, end all. By the time a tanker, a marine or a SOF type are down to a handgun, that trooper is combat ineffective. It becomes a fight and flight situation. Keep that in mind, and make it the simplest and easiest to maintain system with all the punch you might need. My money, the Glock 17. High capacity, light weight and durable as hell itself. As for the 9mm vs .45 ACP debate, I used a Browning High Power in bowling pin mathches, and consistently cleared the table. Shot placement is a preachers point here, but then again, the pins were not shooting back.
I stand by the Glock.
with regards to stopping power..that thing about the 45 having knockdown power is all bull. if somebody hits you between the eyes even a 25 acp will send you down. it is placement. don’t you notice that people who side with the 45 always quote somebody else about some story about somebody dancing after being hit by a dozen 9’s? in ww2 the germans used the 9 and did very well by it. I notice that most of the participants in this discussion group has not had any combat experience always relying on he said/she said stories about the effectiveness of the 45. If you want to evaluate the 45 vs 9 then to be objective you must use both calibers on the same person and hit him in the same place and then ask him which hit harder. sarcasm aside there are other things to consider one is that the proliferation of body armour has made the 45 totally useless, even ++p with armour piercing heads do not work (you need a high velocity to penetrate armour and the big frontal area of the 45 does not help) the 9 though with armour piercing slugs cn go right thru the standard gi helmet that is currently being used the 45 even ++p loads with armour piercing heads cannot. i am not a fan of either round i prefer the 10mm. if you are such a big follower of this knockdown thing i suggest you get a casull 454 or a 500 sw magnum or a 460 sw mag.….…
>40 S&W.…. the FBI has done EXTENSIVE testing and chosen the .40 to issue to it’s agents. I believe it to be the best cartridge-all things considered. It is the right balance of power, controlibility and capacity. It’s popilarity with law enforcement has elevated ammunition availibilty to comparable levels with the 9mm and.45. As far as which handgun should replace the M9, the M&P has demonstrated itself the be reliable and accurate. it has interchangeable grip sizes to accomodate different shooters and it is American made(which still means something to me). next choices would be Glock or XD. Most law enforcement agencies around the country either have or are moving toward DAO or striker fired pistols due to simplicity and ease of training.
.