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

[Steve H]

A couple of years ago Colt and the USMC signed a contract for 1911 rail guns in 45

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[jeepnik]

M-4 is a good weapon. Obviously many times better the M16 I was issued. Still as I mentioned earlier, my eldest is here because he did "find" a handgun.

Do GI's "need" an issued handgun. Probably, but since some Chairborne Ranger decided they didn't they aren't. Good thing is they are usually easy to find when out and about.

The real reason more handguns aren't issued has nothing to do with utility or the desire of those who would actually use them. The real reason is money. The folks that make decisions about what is issued to the troops don't look at utility or need. They look at it in a cost/benefit manner. One or a dozen dead GI's is much cheaper than issuing more handguns.

Now don't get all upset. Just remember, the military, and the government in general buys from the lowest bidder. It's all about money.

 

[19-3Ben]

I like the S&W Plastic M&P series of guns for civilian use, but I doubt they are rugged enough to get a milspec.

What, in your mind, makes them any less rugged than Glocks, HKs, any any other comparable polymer framed gun that has been issued to soldiers around the world?

 

[agtman]

Transition when your rifle stops running and you're in a fight at 25 yards or less.

This.

Your pistol is intended to be a secondary weapon to which you transition if your primary - your M-4 - goes down during a close-quarters fight. That's why you need one on you - because in a war zone, with all its 2-way firing ranges, sh*t happens.

Jack Leuba rewrote the USMC CQB doctrine. He taught transitions to me in his classes; they were included because he had used them in Iraq.

He also told me that marines going to fight WANT handguns. I find it difficult to argue with men who are going to fight and want an additional weapon.

Agree. If the shooters want pistols, they should get them.

For the mil desk-jockeys not in harms way, then it's a different story.

 

[herrwalther]

I can attest to poor gun care/service in the US armed forces.
While a lower enlisted MP in about 3 different places, I saw soldiers who let rust, corrosion, wear, improper oiling, etc nearly ruin M9s, M16s, M60s, etc.

That is a failure of the NCO. And of the training. I can't think of a single 11B who would willingly let rust settle on a weapon. Then again we are also taught weapon maintenance takes priority of sleeping, eating, and sometimes voiding bowels. A standard that should be applied to any MOS where individual weapons are important.

 

[mgmorden]

I highly doubt they'll be going back to .45. If anything it'll probably be a 10mm round (either .40S&W adopted under the moniker 10mm NATO or another similar new 10mm round).

If they did go .45 the M&P is a good choice. Honestly some may not think so but I think the Ruger SR45 would be pretty good too.

I'll say pretty much for certain it WON'T be the 1911. They're good - and the rule the target/competition circuit, but as a working duty pistol it's past its prime (you can't just look at the gun itself - you have to look at manufacture,maintenance, training, etc).

It'll be polymer. I think it'll probably be striker fired but depending on how open minded they are it could also be DA/SA. It will probably have a thumb safety, though any existing design can easily incorporate that addition of a thumb safety if needed (ie, Glock - M&P and SR series already have the option for one).