Best characteristics for combat handgun?

[mljdeckard]

(Mods, if this is redundant and you want to shut it down, it won't break my heart. I just don't think it's ever been approached from this point of view.)

We all know what opinions are like. We love to bicker over whether or not the Beretta was ever a good choice, if it's the appropriate choice now, what could be better, of if anything is changing in the DOD anytime soon anyway.

Richard Marcinko issued his guys on SEAL team six stainless S&W 66s, because they hold up the best in a marine environment. 1911s have probably saved more soldiers' lives than any other combat handgun. Glocks are very simple, in an environment where the average soldier needs simplicity. Some people think that a combat auto must have an exposed hammer, some think this is only another thing that can get in the way or malfunction. Some think polymer frames are worthless, some think they are lighter and more effective to carry. Some think 115 gr 9mm fmj is fine for everything, some of us think that as long as we are pretending to follow the Hague Accords, and using fmj ammo, we should use a .45 for the best performance. Some insist on a domestic design, but we abandoned that idea in 1985.

Sights are modifiable for spec. I think that hand-sizing inserts are probably a passing fad. I think that while those of us who are experienced, SA only is fine, for soldiers who will probably get a hasty familiarization in basic training, SA only is a bad idea. I don't care if the hammer is exposed, but again, I don't think DA/SA is ideal for soldiers. I like a manual safety, but again, simpler is better.

I THINK, that the ideal combat handgun is a .45 ACP, with a full-size frame, which is as uncomplicated as possible. I think that for the absolute best choice, it would probably be a H&K USP. For simplicity and cost-effectiveness, probably Glock 21. Perhaps there is some merit to the idea of using the .45 XD, for better safeties and hand-fit. I'm sure someone will suggest the Ruger 345. (Some people think the XD is worthy because it's American, not realizing it's actually a Croatian import.)

Without slinging mudballs about what we hate, what characteristics do we think the new issue pistol should have, and has this pistol been built yet?

 

[Black Majik]

The "best" characteristic of a combat gun is that the gun is reliable.

Everything else is nice (good sights, hi-capacity, good trigger pull, accurate) but if a gun doesn't work, it's useless.

 

[USMC - Retired]

Number one feature in my book would be....

Reliability! The dang thing has to go bang every single time I pull the trigger for as long as I have ammo to feed it!

 

[El Tejon]

1. Having it with you.

2. Having it work.

 

[mljdeckard]

This is good, exactly what I mean, If reliability is critical, (and I agree it is,) does this mean that the best handgun should have a beefy extractor and be made to loose spec?

 

[givo08]

Obviously reliability is a no brainer in life/death situations, but I would think accuracy (for the user, not necessarily mechanical accuracy) and ease of handling are also extremely critical.

 

[Ben Shepherd]

Your platform is one of if not THE best for your stated purpose. But there are three main criteria that are more important:

1. Dead nuts reliable. Durability is part of reliability.

2. Sufficiently powerful caliber. To me personally this means 9mm is the minimum.

3. The operator MUST have enough experience/training that using the weapon is on the *instinctive* level. The operator must be able to use/manipulate thier chosen weapon with almost no concious thought.

Exact platform choice comes in a distant 4th in my book.

 

[redneckrepairs]

IMHO

1. reliable

2. Shoots where it looks , this means you dont have to shift from a proper grip to shoot it . ( sizable backstraps may well be an innovation for agency purchaces )

3. power , it has enough to drop them in a couple of well placed shots , ie 38 special or 9mm and above

4: sights , big clean clear sights .

5. weight , light enough to fit with all the other crap .

 

[10-Ring]

IMO, I like reliability, durability and accuracy - in that order

 

[Dienekes]

Reliable. Boringly reliable. Controllable power. Sights you can see. Decent trigger.
Detail stripping with no tools required. (Not vital, but I like that feature.)

Opinions vary but to me that comes up looking like the 1911, maybe a BHP, K frame S&W. If something else floats your boat, gets the job done, and you like it, go for it. Don't take advice from someone who doesn't have as much to lose as you do.

Most important, mindset and training. The gun is only a tool and probably the least important variable.

 

[Cosmoline]

It's an interesting question, and it doesn't get asked in quite this way very often. Looking at it from the ground up, the first question is what is the combat handgun's primary purpose? I would suggest that the primary purpose is close range defense. It also has a secondary purpose as a disciplinary firearm for ensuring order, particularly when carried by officers. A third purpose would be for very limited application offensive work, such as clearing tunnels, bunkers and other very confined spaces when no more suitable carbine or subgun is available. But it is not primarily an offensive firearm, and its purpose is not to lay down suppressive fire.

With that in mind, here are some factors to consider:

--It must be reliable
--It must be simple, and easy to field strip with basic tools.
--It must be resistant to jams and be able to work in a wide array of conditions
--It must chamber a cartridge of suitable stopping power
--It must be portable

Within these confines, I would think any number of modern revolvers or semis would be fine. Heck, a single action army would be suitable.