If the U.S. military went back to .45 ACP....

I think the S&W M&P has proven itself to be a very capable performer. It meets the criteria you specified for being a plastic gun with interchangeable backstraps, DAO action, accessory rail, and service record.

HK45 with a safety decocker. If one came with a manual safety, the VP45 when released.

The VP series is highly modular and would fit lots of soldier's hands.

S&W M&P for sure.

Flawed....

In my view, the remarks of this post are flawed.
The MHS(modular handgun system) or XM9 trials may be for a .45acp(230gr FMJ milspec round) but in 2015/2016 I highly doubt it will fly.
A standard service pistol meant for service members of all age ranges, skill levels, sizes, genders, etc won't really work with a .45acp.

A .40 or 10mm sidearm will be a better fit. I always liked the .40Super, it's like a .357sig but with 10mm like ballistics.
The Action Arms/IMI .41AE(Action Express) of the early 1990s was potent too. That could work well for the MHS.

As for designs, I think the DoD/DARPA will look for a polymer frame, hammer fired(DA/SA/SAO), night sights, frame mounted ambi safety, FDE(tan-brown) or OD.
A striker fired design or DA only might be picked. Of the features, Id say M&P and SIG's new 320 line could work great.
Glock could get a MHS contract but the shady past of the owner/CEO & the design issues(factory production) might be a problem.
In fairness, Glock reportedly has approx 65% of the domestic US law enforcement so it's not unrealistic for them to get the huge DoD contract.
BTW, I own a Glock 21 .45acp gen 04 so don't think I'm a Glock basher.
FN America could be picked too. It's striker fired(DA only) but has full & compact sizes. I like the FNS's ambi controls(Im left handed). The FNS models could score high, but the lack of sales-support in the US market may keep it from selection.

I have a feeling if the military went back to the 45 Auto they would do so in a 1911 platform.

I do think they Beretta is on it's way out so we will see what comes next.

The obvious answer IMO is a Sig P220. It's an extremely durable design and accurate to a ridiculous degree. It's hard to get both of those things with a 1911 design IMO. Mr. Browning went on to invent a better system IMO. The 1911 has certainly been developed to a tremendous degree but the ones we took to battle in the early years weren't always the same level of quality we see on the modern gun ranges. Sig however makes a rock solid gun that doesn't need to be modified to be effective. My only problem with them would be capacity. And because of that a SA design might be a good choice (yes I know it isn't really a SA design). But Sig builds guns in the US which is a big plus.

If it were to happen my guess would be the Glock G21.

I would guess a Glock 21 or S&W M&P

I doubt 1911. Who are we going to pay to shoot a thousand rounds through each to break it in before it can be relied upon?

I'd think the M&P or Gen 4 Glock 21 would be the leading contenders, based on your criteria, that has eliminated most of the other competition.

--It will probably get a manual safety anyway whether it needs one or not, so let's not worry about that for now.

Click to expand...

I think this is a valid issue though. When the Beretta was chosen back in the 1980's, nearly all semi-auto's at the time had a safety of some kind, and the most common placement on Traditional Double Action semi-auto's was on the slide, just like the M9 ended up with.

We now have an entire generation plus of shooters that have grown up in a world of semi-auto pistols without a manual safety on them. The SIG decocker only which was no doubt and odd concept when it competed with the Beretta became common in the mid-80's, and Glock's became common place in the 1990's. Even among senior decision makers in the military, most have very little experience (outside of their use in the service) with a handgun with a safety. It would not surprise me at all if the next handgun chosen by the US military had no manual safety.

Cee Zee said:

The obvious answer IMO is a Sig P220. It's an extremely durable design and accurate to a ridiculous degree. It's hard to get both of those things with a 1911 design IMO. Mr. Browning went on to invent a better system IMO. The 1911 has certainly been developed to a tremendous degree but the ones we took to battle in the early years weren't always the same level of quality we see on the modern gun ranges. Sig however makes a rock solid gun that doesn't need to be modified to be effective. My only problem with them would be capacity. And because of that a SA design might be a good choice (yes I know it isn't really a SA design). But Sig builds guns in the US which is a big plus.

Click to expand...

I know you won't be persuaded from your belief, but the P220 is substantially less durable than a number of other pistols. No gun with an aluminum alloy frame is going to be as durable as other high-quality pistols with polymer or steel frames. Indeed, the stamped-slide P220 was widely-known to have significant durability issues. That problem has been improved with the milled slide (even if the overall quality of the gun has declined over the last decade, thanks to the garbage, lowest-bidder internals Sig sources under Cohen), but there is ultimately no escaping the physical properties of an aluminum frame -- especially in an environment where pistols receive such poor maintenance as in our armed forces. There's no special magic Sig possesses to make 7075-T6 alloy far stronger than anyone else's. It's the same stuff no matter which company is using it. When pistols are shot until their recoil springs actually break, the ones with aluminum frames will suffer the worst.

And, no, your article about hitting the pistol with baseball bats, shooting it, etc. doesn't disprove this at all. These sorts of silly torture tests are eye-popping, but they are tests that any quality pistol would pass. The test that actually matters is how many tens of thousands of concentrated impacts in the exact same spot a frame can take from a slide during recoil. If, in an era of sequestration, and in a time with so many more pressing military needs (adequate body armor, anyone?), we're actually going to take the idiotic step of wasting money on selecting a new pistol just a couple of years after buying a half-million M9s, then picking another aluminum-framed pistol would be completely absurd.

Just based on the OP's description, it sounds like he is describing either an M&P45, or possibly a Ruger SR45. Either, I think, would be more than capable as a combat sidearm.

My own .45 sidearm is my 1911, but I'm just little ole' me, and I don't have the same logistics to worry about that the .mil does. Let's all get real here. The 1911 had its day as the primary sidearm of our military, and it's done. Of course JSOC guys will carry them, along with other specialized pistols as suit the needs of their missions. But as the primary firearm of the US Military... My guess is that the next handgun will fit exactly the description the OP provides.

RustyShackelford said:

In my view, the remarks of this post are flawed.
The MHS(modular handgun system) or XM9 trials may be for a .45acp(230gr FMJ milspec round) but in 2015/2016 I highly doubt it will fly.
A standard service pistol meant for service members of all age ranges, skill levels, sizes, genders, etc won't really work with a .45acp.

A .40 or 10mm sidearm will be a better fit. I always liked the .40Super, it's like a .357sig but with 10mm like ballistics.
The Action Arms/IMI .41AE(Action Express) of the early 1990s was potent too. That could work well for the MHS.

As for designs, I think the DoD/DARPA will look for a polymer frame, hammer fired(DA/SA/SAO), night sights, frame mounted ambi safety, FDE(tan-brown) or OD.
A striker fired design or DA only might be picked. Of the features, Id say M&P and SIG's new 320 line could work great.
Glock could get a MHS contract but the shady past of the owner/CEO & the design issues(factory production) might be a problem.
In fairness, Glock reportedly has approx 65% of the domestic US law enforcement so it's not unrealistic for them to get the huge DoD contract.
BTW, I own a Glock 21 .45acp gen 04 so don't think I'm a Glock basher.
FN America could be picked too. It's striker fired(DA only) but has full & compact sizes. I like the FNS's ambi controls(Im left handed). The FNS models could score high, but the lack of sales-support in the US market may keep it from selection.

Click to expand...

I agree with pretty much all of this.

I don't see the military going back to .45acp. .40 or 10mm, maybe.
If you're carrying a 40oz 1911 with 3 7 round mags, you're still probably lighter than carrying a 29oz G21 with 3 13 round mags. .45 ammo is flat out heavy when you start carrying it in a high capacity firearm like a Glock.

I would love to see FNH get to take a swing at this. If the army wants a hammer fired gun and DOES decide to go with .45, the FNX-45 would be a great choice. DA/SA as well as being able to be carried cocked and locked should a particular branch warrant that. It already comes in a tan color (since it appears that is the part of the world we're going to continue to spend a lot of time).
If a striker fired gun is wanted, the FNS line is a very comfortable and modular gun that also comes in two sizes.

The more i look at it, the more I see something like the SIG 320 being a good fit. Cost effective and a company with a known quantity when it comes to military pistol trials. The whole gun is a Lego. Swapping out the firing assembly to make a gun shorter, longer, more compact, or even an entirely different caliber is pretty dang easy. I will say, the return spring looks a little fragile, but that could be beefed up pretty easily.

I will say that S&W seems to have done everything right with the M&P line. I'm not a fan of the trigger as far as how it breaks, but I do find it more comfortable than any Glock, and I have owned 3 of those.

Glock 41. Glock 21.

But I'll echo that, .40 would be a better choice. maybe a Gen4 G22 then.

How about a little love for the FNX-Tactical.
-15+1 capacity
-ambidextrous controls
-threaded barrel
-slide is cut for a red dot sight

Thanks!

Thanks to posts; 15/16.
I agree with those remarks too.
The last time I was at the gun range, I looked down at a 13rd Glock 21 .45acp magazine with about 10rds. It looked huge, .
The big, slow .45acp can work great but to lug around 5/7/10 fully loaded mags would be a #*+% in the field or deployed.
Now, as many forum members know, no handgun round is ideal for combat or lethal force but that's not always how it works.

I agree that the Glock 22 or a 23 gen 04 with "upgrades"(mandated changes) could work very well. The FBI, USMS and ATF all switch to Glock .40S&W models with + results.
A senior ATF supervisor I met in St Augustine told me frankly, the guys in the ATF office had no real problems with SIG P229Rs but many were happy with new Glock 23 & a few 27 series .40 pistols.

I think the FNX-45 has obvious advantages. Fully ambidextrous controls, including safety, mag release, slide release. Small grip. Made by the same company that supplies M4's. Domestic manufacturing facilities, made entirely in NC, I think? Maybe a striker-fire version would meet the OP's criteria.

I don't see a change back to 45ACP. But if they did, Glock 21 would be a perfect choice. Proven design, easy to maintain, simple as dirt. Whats not to like?

Something currently manufactured in this country! There are plenty of good designs to choose from.

The way the government procurement system is structured these days, we would get the most feature-laden, biggest piece of crap available from whichever manufacturer can buy off the correct number of crucial Congresscritters.

Sorry, but that is reality.

guyfromohio said:

I doubt 1911. Who are we going to pay to shoot a thousand rounds through each to break it in before it can be relied upon?

Click to expand...

Hmm, I never had to put 1000 rounds thru a 1911 to break it in. Me things another old wives tale has reared its ugly head.

The only real reason for not going back to a 1911 is that most recruits have little or no previous firearms experience these days. It's easier to teach them how to just pull a trigger rather than remember to take off the safety. That, and being green it does take more time to master the 1911 than a piece of wonder plastic.

Then again, I'd sure rather hit someone in the face with a 1911 (personal experience shows it works quite well) than a piece of plastic.

Our military would be idiots not to pick the HK45. Probably wouldn't get picked.

Detonics MTX. The 21st century 1911.