Which would be the better handgun for the military?


PDA






Doug.38PR
September 19, 2006, 02:50 PM
1911 A1 .45 ACP (Colt, Springfield Armory, S&W, et al) (TRADITIONAL)
1911 A1 High Capacity GI .45 ACP (Springfield Armory)
1911 A1 10mm
XD .45 ACP (Springfield Armory)
XD .40 S&W '' "
XD .357 " "
Kahr .45 ACP
Sig Saur .45 ACP
Sig Saur .40 S&W
Glock .45 GAP
Glock .40 S&W
Glock .357
Glock 10mm
Berretta .40 S&W
Berretta 9mm (CURRENT)

EDIT: I went ahead and voted for the 1911 A1. I was mixed between that and the High Capacity SA 1911 A1, but some have commented that the extra ammo would add too much weight to the gun (this would be a problem with any high capacity gun as I see it). When it comes right down to it, as far as a pistol goes, you probably won't need a bunch of shots (that's what the rifle is for) but if you do, just whip out a 10-15 round single stack magazine. My vote would be for one of the two 1911 A1 .45 guns, but if I had to pick between the two, I would go for the traditional single stack

If you enjoyed reading about "Which would be the better handgun for the military?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Clipper
September 19, 2006, 03:31 PM
...Taurus 24/7...

possum
September 19, 2006, 03:41 PM
If it was up to me it would be an xd in any caliber but i choose .45acp!

bestseller92
September 19, 2006, 07:33 PM
I'm not voting because the one I think is best isn't on there. I think the stainless Ruger P90 would be a superb choice for a military sidearm. It'll last forever, it's accurate, totally reliable, and it's not that expensive, compared to some others. Plus, it's a .45 ACP.

HorseSoldier
September 19, 2006, 08:33 PM
No 9mm's hmmm? Seems like a rather pronounced omission. There are those who complain about lethality, but a military combat handgun is one of the few handguns likely to be used in a scenario where you might actually need 15-18 rounds in the gun before a mag change. I don't see any real logic in having ball .357 Sig listed but not 9mm . . .

Also, no HKs? No CZs? Walther P-99 (with AS trigger set up, probably the best polymer pistol trigger out there, in my opinion)?

Josh Aston
September 19, 2006, 10:44 PM
S&W MP9

Autolycus
September 19, 2006, 10:50 PM
I chose the Sig 220 due to my belief that the new Sig 220 Combat would be a great choice. I would have chosen an HK had they been on the list as they are the best choice in my opinion.

Doug.38PR
September 19, 2006, 10:59 PM
No 9mm's hmmm? Seems like a rather pronounced omission. There are those who complain about lethality, but a military combat handgun is one of the few handguns likely to be used in a scenario where you might actually need 15-18 rounds in the gun before a mag change. I don't see any real logic in having ball .357 Sig listed but not 9mm . . .

Also, no HKs? No CZs? Walther P-99 (with AS trigger set up, probably the best polymer pistol trigger out there, in my opinion)?

I put the 9mm Berretta in there (which is what they currently use). Actually I had 9mm for all the other brands listed too, but I had to shave them off because the poll would only allow 16 choices. This is also why some of the other brands people are asking about (Walther P99, HK, etc.) are not in there:( Sorry y'all

aspen1964
September 19, 2006, 11:27 PM
I can't vouch for the military..but if I had to choose only one centerfire automatic to own..it would be a Colt Gov't(1911) 45 and nothing else...anything else to me is a substitute..

MT GUNNY
September 19, 2006, 11:46 PM
If not that something US made .45cal 8 or more rounds reliable stainless or pastic (M&P.45would be cool)

MICHAEL T
September 20, 2006, 12:19 AM
Kel P-11 Cheap enough all members of military could carry one . Be required to carry on and off duty. Military ID your CCW. when off post.
Miss use weapon and long long time in Fed. hotel

10-Ring
September 20, 2006, 12:32 AM
The military will establish selection parameters when the time is right. Who knows what they'll look for when it's time. But for this time, I'd go w/ a poly gun (for durability), DA/SA w/ external safety or LEM (for safety), 45 acp (for effectiveness) and HK.
So, I'd go w/ HK USP 45 or the new HK45

hnk45acp
September 20, 2006, 01:00 AM
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/672/27de3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

HK45
comes in full size & compact, ambi controls, 10 rounds of 45, threaded barrel, interchangable backstraps, 9 different variants. It's all things to all people:)

heypete
September 20, 2006, 01:15 AM
I personally voted for the XD-45 for the following reasons:
* Large capacity magazine filled with .45 ACP
* Reasonably sized pistol (at least the 4" Service model is)
* Durable
* Reliable
* Same metal treatment as Glock for longevity and corrosion resistance
* Field strips easily
* Cleans easily
* Handles dirt, grime, dust, etc. well
* Grips fit a wide range of people
* Grip safety reduces chance of NDs while still allowing for the pistol to be put into action immediately without needing to sweep off manual safeties
* Loaded chamber indicator and cocked striker indicator would similarly assist with ND-reduction
* Stainless steel magazines
* Ambi mag release

The only quality of the XD-45 that would likely make it not is that it's single action only. Military primers can be hard sometimes, and it would be nice having a trigger that will drop back to DA if the regular SA strike fails (i.e. if the slide came back and re-cocked the striker, it'd remain SA. If the trigger is pulled, striker falls, round fails to go off, and trigger is pulled again it'd do DA). Sometimes those rounds just need a second hit.

Otherwise, it makes a fine pistol. That, and the Croatian military's already using it, even without the SA/DA functionality. I think the US Military would require that the military XDs, if there ever will be such a thing, be made in the US.

aspen1964
September 20, 2006, 01:20 AM
gun looks like something that should hanging on your tool peg board...

Nathan Williams
September 20, 2006, 01:26 AM
No Glock 21............:scrutiny: . High capacity .45, to hell and back reliability, good price, easy to strip, easy to clean, runs better dirty than most do clean, lightweight, perfectly acceptable accuracy for a combat pistol, never rust, and a company that is already used to dealing with large scale U.S Government orders.

Harley Quinn
September 20, 2006, 01:34 AM
I think the military has a lot more going for it then my thoughts. But I do believe there are better hand guns out there than one that is almost 100 years old.
Contrary to what many say and mention I don't see that many out on the
civilian ranges, not enough bullet capacity and for most it is not user friendly.

I do like the newer and improved but they still have there short comings on logistics and amount of ammo you can carry. It's nice in 9 mm you can carry twice the number for the same amount of weight. 357 Sig is a good round. Feeds good, in the dark they are easy to be able to tell which is the front and rear of the round. Since it is a bottle neck.

HQ:)

heypete
September 20, 2006, 01:34 AM
No Glock 21............:scrutiny: . High capacity .45, to hell and back reliability, good price, easy to strip, easy to clean, runs better dirty than most do clean, lightweight, perfectly acceptable accuracy for a combat pistol, never rust, and a company that is already used to dealing with large scale U.S Government orders.

As a Glock person myself, here's my thoughts on it as a US military weapon (based on what I know about their criteria):
* No external safety (not even a grip safety like the XD) is just asking for NDs. These are soldiers who'll be handling these guns. Murphy's law and all that. :evil:
* Grips are really large. Even me, who has large hands, has difficulty with the pistol.
* Somehow I doubt Glock would be willing to build a plant here in the US when their Austrian one works just fine.

Don't get me wrong -- I really like Glock pistols. But I just don't think the G21 would be appropriate for US military uses.

Once I'm elected Ruler of the Universe, I'd decree that the soldiers could pick their pistols based on a list of "approved pistols" like many police departments do. Of course, I'd also drive a Ferrari, own a big ranch, and lose 25 pounds. Anyone want to vote me RotU anytime soon? :D

slicknickns
September 20, 2006, 02:02 AM
You know you could lose that 25 pounds if you just went out jogging.

heypete
September 20, 2006, 02:27 AM
You know you could lose that 25 pounds if you just went out jogging.

I've been commuting by bicycle 6 miles each day since mid-August. It seems to be helping out a bit.

Tucson gets too :cuss: hot to run.

slicknickns
September 20, 2006, 03:02 AM
Good for you. Glad you enjoy it.

You make a good point, I personally think that military personal should be able to carry their own personal sidearms in combat. Didn't militaries in the 30's and 40's do that. I know a lot of Japanese officers bought Brownings back then.

Autolycus
September 20, 2006, 03:05 AM
From what I hear the old school military seems a lot better than the new one. I think they should be given a list of approved weapons and told to go from there. Maybe stick with one universal caliber. I would suggest a .40 S&W myself.

Manedwolf
September 20, 2006, 09:26 AM
As to the XD...it's a fine civilian and police sidearm, but Croatia is only about fifteen years old, and still has, I believe, SIX major political parties and a lot of political scuffling...and discontent of the populace with it. Some want to join the EU, some don't, etc, etc...and there's still a bit of leftover Serbian aggression in some parts.

It's certainly growing into a decent democracy, but would you REALLY want to entrust the supply line and manufacturing of the military's main sidearm to a place where it could be disrupted if something happened politically?

Italy is a good, stable supplier. So is Brazil. The 24/7 might not be a bad choice, I agree, if the ergonomic grip is durable.

Also, I say .45 ACP or 9mm over anything else simply for the reason that if you're stuck in the middle of nowhere and there's no resupply coming soon, you'll want to scrounge what you can shoot. There's stocks of 45 and 9mm everywhere, since WWII.

That said, I also think the military could use a decent secondary small backup pistol meant ONLY for vehicle or barrier penetration or armor-wearing attackers, since that's one of the surprises they seem to keep facing in their current roles. Something new with the penetration of 7.62x25 Tok. Maybe something related to the FN fiveseven? Or even a rework of the old gyro jet concept? And yes, I know, a .223 pistol will do that, but I mean something small enough to tuck into a molle vest.

armoredman
September 20, 2006, 09:49 AM
CZ SP01, if we stick to the NATO standard of 9mm. If we swicth calibers, then we ask CZ to redesign the SP01 in whatever they choose!:cool:

I agree the FiveseveN might have some interesting applications for battlefield use.

HorseSoldier
September 20, 2006, 09:52 AM
As to the XD...it's a fine civilian and police sidearm, but Croatia is only about fifteen years old, and still has, I believe, SIX major political parties and a lot of political scuffling...and discontent of the populace with it. Some want to join the EU, some don't, etc, etc...and there's still a bit of leftover Serbian aggression in some parts.

Point taken, but, hell, I wouldn't mind if we had six major political parties here in the US just to break up the usual Dem vs Repub logjam and such . . .

It's certainly growing into a decent democracy, but would you REALLY want to entrust the supply line and manufacturing of the military's main sidearm to a place where it could be disrupted if something happened politically?

US law would require manufacture to take place here in the US for a military contract, so we would not be at the whim of an unstable democracy and such (supplies of the M9 have never been a problem and Italy is not exactly the stablest democracy in Europe itself . . . no dictators hopping up and all, but their governments tend to come and go with surprising speed . . .)

No Glock 21............ . High capacity .45, to hell and back reliability, good price, easy to strip, easy to clean, runs better dirty than most do clean, lightweight, perfectly acceptable accuracy for a combat pistol, never rust, and a company that is already used to dealing with large scale U.S Government orders.

Would need an external safety for the US military, which is apparently not a big deal as Glock has offered external safety models for contract consideration before (not won with them, AFAIK), and was planning to slap one on the G-21 they were going to submit for the USASOC trials.

Bigger problem with the G-21 is that it's simply too big for a military issue handgun. The grip and ergonomics have to work for everyone from 5'2" 110 pound female soldiers right up to guys like me with big hands. G-21 with plastic magazines simply can't do it, just too big in the hand (kind of like the HK Mk 23, which was supposed to be the greatest thing ever, as pistols go, and turned out to just be a safe/arms room queen). If they reworked the G-21 to take steel mags (or went with a plastic single stack holding 8 or so rounds) and maybe put an adjustable backstrap on it like most everyone else is doing these days they'd probably have a winner on their hands, though.

CornCod
September 20, 2006, 10:10 AM
Either a Browning HP in 9mm or an M-1911 in 9mm for the sake of NATO commonality. Frankly, I think we should withdraw from NATO, but until then.....

RNB65
September 20, 2006, 10:17 AM
I suspect that folks at THR are far more concerned about this silly issue than the military. Which sidearm a soldier carries is the LEAST of the military's worries at this point. Neither a 9mm, .40, or .45 are going to stop an IED or suicide car bomber.

HorseSoldier
September 20, 2006, 10:52 AM
Either a Browning HP in 9mm or an M-1911 in 9mm for the sake of NATO commonality. Frankly, I think we should withdraw from NATO, but until then.....

I don't know that NATO commonality is a big deal when it comes to pistol ammunition, especially not now that the pistol caliber SMG is almost entirely gone from use. NATO did okay with the US using 45 ACP from the late 1940s until 1985, and the recently cancelled pistol program for the Army and/or USASOC was opting for .45 ACP.

Rifle and machinegun caliber commonality I can see as a somewhat bigger deal within NATO, but now that the Russian steam roller is defunct and we're not going to be fending off the 3rd Shock Army in Central Germany it's less of an issue than it was back in the day.

Wags
September 20, 2006, 11:01 AM
I voted for the SA XD .45ACP. I'd like to see the .45ACP back again as the official U.S. military sidearm caliber. The price is right, very robust and I like the safety system it incorporates. But doubt it would be selected due to being stricker fired.

Manedwolf
September 20, 2006, 12:57 PM
Neither a 9mm, .40, or .45 are going to stop an IED or suicide car bomber

Car bomber, no. Explosive vest bomber, hopefully.

das028
September 20, 2006, 01:14 PM
Why are Glocks in 45 acp or 9mm not mentioned in your poll?

I would say one of those two depending on what caliber our military is going to use.

knoxx45
September 20, 2006, 01:27 PM
The USP45 would offer the best of everything while giving up the least.

Devonai
September 20, 2006, 02:02 PM
I'm having trouble making up my mind between the M9 and something else.

I'm in a National Guard Infantry unit. I have not served in combat but 80% of the guys in my unit were over there from March '04 to March '05. Of those to whom I've spoken, the M9 is regarded favorably but I do not believe any of our guys ever used one in any of the combat actions in which they were involved. They did not have any problems during the times they drove out to the local berm for some stress relief. Therefore, the effectiveness of 9mm NATO ball was not a factor of direct experience for them.

I have heard that soldiers in other units have experienced problems with certain brands of magazines, mainly Checkmate IIRC. I have seen our magazines in the arms room and they all look like factory mags.

So while we like the M9, nobody likes the idea of 9mm FMJ. I think the simplest solution would be for the Army to start issuing 124-grain +P JHP, as many discussions here on THR have convinced me that it would be perfectly legal to do so. Barring that, .45 ACP ball is obviously the best choice.

If I was in charge, my critera would be:

- .45 ACP
- Manual safety
- Grip safety
- DAO with six pound trigger pull
- Minimum of 12 round magazines

After all that, I seem to have described the Para-Ord P14 LDA, so I guess that would be my choice. I see the SA XD .45 is winning in the poll but I am wary of transiting to a pistol without a manual safety. Otherwise I suspect it would be an excellent choice.

Nathan Williams
September 20, 2006, 04:07 PM
Seems l read somewhere Glock could not get a military contract because doing so requires they sell production rights to other manufactuers to make licensed copies, and Glock was unwilling to do this. It makes sense look at Colt. F&N Herstal builds most of the Governments M-16 A2 rifles now all Colt builds is the M4.

HorseSoldier
September 20, 2006, 04:11 PM
They'd be required to manufacture them here in the US. I don't think they'd lose manufacturing rights -- Beretta has not done so.

I think there's more to the Colt/FN situation.

Manedwolf
September 20, 2006, 04:23 PM
So while we like the M9, nobody likes the idea of 9mm FMJ. I think the simplest solution would be for the Army to start issuing 124-grain +P JHP, as many discussions here on THR have convinced me that it would be perfectly legal to do so. Barring that, .45 ACP ball is obviously the best choice.

I'd actually wonder at perhaps several magazines with rounds for different purposes. Regular mags would be the JHP, yes, but maybe also have a mag of something like GECO BAT lightweight +P or steelcore AP for vehicle window/door penetration..perhaps a mag with a differently textured bottom plate to differentiate, and a different color as well?

The Swiss color-coded the cardboard chargers for their K-31, brown for FMJ, purple for AP, etc. I always thought that was a good idea.

I keep thinking that the Kel-Tec Sub 2000 or a re-worked Sub 9 in the Beretta magazine version would be a fine addition for troops who usually just carry the M9, such as people stuffed into vehicles and cockpits. Keep it folded and stowed in the vehicle or helicopter cabin, or in the ejection seat's survival pack. Use it in case of ambush. Much better accuracy than a pistol, but use the same mags you had. Perfect for fighter pilots and tight-confines helicopters like the Cobras.

If I were a pilot and was shot down, I would definitely want a folded carbine like that, rather than just a pistol or an outdated and anemic "survival rifle"!

mljdeckard
September 20, 2006, 04:30 PM
It looks like I will be going back, and I wish to Zeus I could just take my Kimber and not have anyone look twice, but I know this isn't realistic.

As an armorer in Germany, we switched out our 1911s for Berettas in 1992, and I had ALL kinds of problems with them. Soldiers taking off the handgrips and messing with the slide bars and springs, lousy mags, failure to fires, etc. I remembered thinking at the time, "No way in hell these things are going to last as long as the 1911s did."

The BEST is probably the H&K .45. BUT, the vast majority of the soldiers carrying this pistol will never use it. I think you will continue to see elite forces get small contracts for H&Ks, and high-end 1911s, but not for the general contract. They won't pick a SA auto for the general contract, because let's face it, the AVERAGE soldier needs the least complicated weapon thay can get. Having a pistol with a hammer AND a safety is going to mess too many E-3s up.

As long as we are with NATO and pretending to follow the Hague Accords, we will be using 115 gr, 9mm, FMJ. Which means we should issue the BEST 9mm, that is the least complicated, most reliable, and universally accepted. The G-17. (I voted for the G-22 because the 17 wasn't listed.) The XD may well be as good of a choice, but I would like more time to see it.

mljdeckard
September 20, 2006, 04:32 PM
And maned wolf, I like that kel-tec survival rifle idea a LOT.

Manedwolf
September 20, 2006, 04:46 PM
And maned wolf, I like that kel-tec survival rifle idea a LOT.

Glad to help! Are you allowed to take personal things like that? You can get a Beretta version Sub 2000 for $200 and change, put the front picatinny rail kit and stock extender on it, it folds down to 16" and weighs...well..nearly nothing.

Mine vanishes into a regular backpack on hikes. I know to make it "official" equipment takes all sorts of time and channels and money, but if people are allowed to bring their own stuff...if you've got to have the M9 anyway and mags for it are everywhere, I figure it wouldn't hurt if more people could bring along a folding, weighs-nothing carbine that can use them? The only drawback is that it doesn't like aluminum-cased ammo. The Sub 9, the earlier all-metal version, might not have that issue. The Su-16, their folding .223 carbine, uses regular M-16 mags and seems like for all intents and purposes to just be a sleeker, folding AR.

I'd like to see the Sub 2000 or the SU-16 become part of the standard survival kit in aircraft or standard equipment stowed in the tighter vehicles, though, yeah. Just for a better alternative for people who have no room to stow a full-sized M-16. Since the SU uses M-16 mags, I'd figure that'd be simplified logistics for sure?

BevrFevr
September 21, 2006, 12:25 PM
If It was for a shootin It would have to be a S&W 1911. I can't think of anything from the list that I can shoot better.

If It was just for a totin the thing around because It was required, it would be a glock with a trigger job or an xd. Because these are the light weight low to no maintenance champs.

You gotta feel for these modern troops and the loads they gotta hump. Saw some at the airport lately. Poor bastards turned sideways and they looked like a freaking freight train with the engine in the middle. I wouldn't ask em to carry an extra gum wrapper.

-bevr

riverdog
September 21, 2006, 12:46 PM
For shooting it would be a 1911A1 similar to the one the Marine's MEU/SOC pistol. For those who's primary weapon is an M-4/M-16, how about a Glock G-19 -- lighterweight gun, lighterweight ammo and very reliable in the field.

crunker
September 21, 2006, 06:09 PM
XD .357 since it's economically priced, high-capacity, high penetration, and avoids the high recoil of 10mm. 10mm would be a good carbine caliber, I'd prefer a 10mm full-auto AR-15 carbine over an M4. A .357 smg would be a nice thing to see too.

varoadking
September 21, 2006, 06:54 PM
...Taurus 24/7...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/varoadking/yelrotflmao.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/varoadking/yelrotflmao.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/varoadking/yelrotflmao.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/varoadking/yelrotflmao.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/varoadking/yelrotflmao.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/varoadking/yelrotflmao.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/varoadking/mooning_bart.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/varoadking/yelrotflmao.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/varoadking/yelrotflmao.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/varoadking/yelrotflmao.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/varoadking/yelrotflmao.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/varoadking/yelrotflmao.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/varoadking/yelrotflmao.gif

rection47
September 21, 2006, 07:23 PM
Not sure if HK still makes the MK23 but i think thatd be the best military handgun.

Doug.38PR
September 21, 2006, 10:25 PM
I see a good following for the XD on the poll figures followed by two evenly matched play's between the Sig Sauer and the 1911.

My main problem with the XD (and the Glock) is that they don't have a hammer:confused: A handgun, in my view, needs to have a hammer. How are you going to de cock it without ejecting the magazine, ejecting the round and pulling the trigger? Also, I like to be able to cock the gun if I want with my thumb.

About the 1911. A few people here have made much about the fact that the gun is just over 100 years old. So what? It worked well up into the 1980s before they changed to Berretta 9mm for political reasons (which they shouldn't have done in my opinion). The 1911 is one of the top semi autos if not THE top semi auto to this day. In a nutshell, the 1911 worked for 100 years. As the old saying goes: If it isn't broken...don't fix it.

bb21
September 22, 2006, 01:28 PM
The real dilemma may be the caliber. Will the Military really change from 9mm? My guess is ďNoĒ if the U.N. and NATO have anything to say about it. True special forces will carry .45 and most likely in 1911 or the USP. As a whole I donít think most of the options given will ever make it, which is too bad. I think it is safe to say most hand gunnerís would never bet their lives on standard 9mm NATO ammo, thatís why we carry JHP or other expanding bullets. I think most will agree that a larger caliber bullet .40 S&W or .45ACP for a non-expanding bullet would be far superior. As for the make of the next U.S. sidearm, I think it would be cool if it were American Made, as long as that doesnít compromise reliability. I also like the idea of arming more of our soldiers with sidearmís so a good price would be nice. For me, maybe the M&P in .40!

mattw
September 22, 2006, 01:49 PM
Not sure if HK still makes the MK23 but i think thatd be the best military handgun.

That thing is huge! Much too big to be able to be employed effectively by troops of smaller stature.

Kelly J
September 22, 2006, 03:34 PM
I do not favor one brand over another but I do favor the 45 ACP as a Military weapon, it has a proven track record as a performance tested weapon, as to the Weapon itself no matter who makes it, it must be 100% reliable under any and all conditions, I would talk to the Military about Mag. Capacity, as they are the decision makers, hopefully they in turn will at least listen to the troops as to what they would like to have.

The 9mm is a fine weapon but the fact remains it has too much penetration to be a good Military weapon, the 45 ACP has a much better record of performance.

As a side note I would not have any objections to a 10mm Auto for the military with this exception I personally do not like the Clock Pistols, I'm not saying they are bad I simply said I don't like them, I would rather see an American made weapon in the hands of OUR TROOPS.

There are several advantages to a 10mm over the 45ACP, such as a smaller sized ammo with more performance, better range of Ballistics, nearly as good a knockdown power, and I do not think the recoil is any more severe that a 45 ACP.

Drewrw
September 22, 2006, 10:07 PM
If the military would switch to hollow point ammo for the Beretta 9mm, I would say stick with that definitely. However, since the ball will probably remain the standard, I say go to a .45 ACP XD.

Drewrw
September 22, 2006, 10:10 PM
The real dilemma may be the caliber. Will the Military really change from 9mm? My guess is ďNoĒ if the U.N. and NATO have anything to say about it. True special forces will carry .45 and most likely in 1911 or the USP. As a whole I donít think most of the options given will ever make it, which is too bad. I think it is safe to say most hand gunnerís would never bet their lives on standard 9mm NATO ammo, thatís why we carry JHP or other expanding bullets. I think most will agree that a larger caliber bullet .40 S&W or .45ACP for a non-expanding bullet would be far superior. As for the make of the next U.S. sidearm, I think it would be cool if it were American Made, as long as that doesnít compromise reliability. I also like the idea of arming more of our soldiers with sidearmís so a good price would be nice. For me, maybe the M&P in .40!


I couldn't agree more. :)

Doug.38PR
September 23, 2006, 01:07 AM
The real dilemma may be the caliber. Will the Military really change from 9mm? My guess is ďNoĒ if the U.N. and NATO have anything to say about it.

1) Screw the U.N.

2) Screw NATO

3) Switch to the .45 1911 for sidearm and a battle rifle in .30-06 or .308 and tell them to come and make us change with their weaker puny rifle and handgun mm rounds.:cool:

That's me. Unfortunatly, Jorge Dubya Bush, the neo-cons and their liberal allies are too busy kissing the.....feet.....of the U.N. and "the rest of the world." Okay, now I am going over into Legal and Political.

Anyway, perhaps, State Guard or State Defense forces of the various states taht have them could at least switch to the 1911 .45 and a higher caliber rifle.

valor1
September 23, 2006, 10:21 PM
Get the Glocks in 9mm and the HK's in .45. They are cheaper and mass produced guns. If something breaks, just replace it with no need to tinker.
Corrosion resistance is better, parts swapping and availability is excellent.

Cliff47
September 23, 2006, 10:54 PM
If you are looking at .45 ACP, then consider the Para-Ord series of pistols. The 1911 design, with high-capacity magazines in a number of sizes. As an alternative design, the CZ 97, also hi-capacity and accurate as the day is long.

It is my opinion that H-K's are not necessarily a firearm, but a life-style, considering the price.

The XD series from Springfield Armory seem to be the best of the latest crop of polymer designs. Time will tell.

Submitted for your consideration.....

HorseSoldier
September 24, 2006, 01:39 PM
Not sure if HK still makes the MK23 but i think thatd be the best military handgun.

Considered too big and too heavy even by the SOF units that have them issued, which tend to lack personnel like small framed women within their ranks. As a SOCOM weapon it's hardly lived up to expectations (if it had, the more recent 45 cal pistol replacement for 9mm Berettas would have never been an issue), and I'd think it would do much worse if you gave them to everyone in the army who had a handgun issued to them.

3) Switch to the .45 1911 for sidearm and a battle rifle in .30-06 or .308 and tell them to come and make us change with their weaker puny rifle and handgun mm rounds.


Just to toss a bit of reality into the equation, that "weaker puny rifle" round is the one we adopted uniliterally in the 1960s and whose use by NATO was largely predetermined by US issue of the M16 by the time of the NATO trials in the late 1970s.

If you are looking at .45 ACP, then consider the Para-Ord series of pistols. The 1911 design, with high-capacity magazines in a number of sizes. As an alternative design, the CZ 97, also hi-capacity and accurate as the day is long.


For general use by the US military, you need to be able to hand either to a woman who is about 5'0" and has small hands for her frame and see if she can effectively use the weapon and operate its controls.

If not, it's not a keeper, with current recruiting standards and such.

lionking
September 25, 2006, 08:22 AM
Quote;I chose the Sig 220 due to my belief that the new Sig 220 Combat would be a great choice. I would have chosen an HK had they been on the list as they are the best choice in my opinion

I agree the same way.

I haven't tried the XD,but I see alot of favorable things said.

jon_in_wv
September 25, 2006, 12:05 PM
Normally I condone the use of 9mm as very effective given the quality of modern ammo. The problem is that the military is still relegated to the use of ball ammo. I would love to see them adapt a .45. Preferably one that has no larger than a 10 round mag to keep the grip a reasonable size. Personally, the G21 is TOO big. I think a lot of smaller handed folks would have trouble with it. I hate to say it but a gun similar to the Taurus 24/7 PRO would fit the bill well in my book. Its single action, manual safety, second strike capable, compact in grip and overall size. I would like to see a more durable rendition of it for our service folks though.

kmrcstintn
September 25, 2006, 01:46 PM
I chose not to vote since I chose some that are not on the list...

:eek: Kel-Tec PLR-16...offers the advantage of 5.56 NATO in a smaller package...good for crews of armored vehicles and mobile artillery vehicles; these accept common ar-15/m-16 series magazines and have pictanilly rails on the top of the receiver and they are setup to accept flash hiders/ muzzle brakes, forearms with tactical rails, slings, bipod mounts, etc

:eek: S&W N-frame 8 shot .357 magnum revolver...more foolproof in sandy and dirty conditions; a while back the Navy SEALS had S&W 686's (6-shot L frame .357 magnum) in their inventory when sidearm reliability was paramount in areas that might have affected the HK's and Sigs that they had

:eek: FN Herstal USA FNP-9 in 9mm...a good reliable polymer frame sidearm that offers DA/SA configuration that the military prefers; I believe that I read somewhere that either Belgian military or Belgian police are using the FNP-9M variant of this platform

*** all 3 are United States based companies and are manufactured on U.S. soil *** :)

If you enjoyed reading about "Which would be the better handgun for the military?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!