Joint Combat Pistol Program: what would you have picked?

[Cards81fan]

All "XD's" are Croatian made HS models.

Well, yes and no. They are all made by HS in Croatia, true enough. But the HS-branded pistol was the HS2000, which AFAIK only sold as a 9mm. I believe all other calibers (40, 45, 45 GAP, 357) wee only sold under the XD moniker.

So I am wanting to clarify if the pistol listed here as an HS 45 is an XD in .45, or some other animal bearing that model designation.

 

[Snowbandit]

The simple fact is there is nothing sufficiently better than the Beretta to justify the cost of a switch.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

The simple fact is there is nothing sufficiently better than the Beretta to justify the cost of a switch.

I agree with the second part. There is plenty out there that is distinctly better, but not enough for a switch. I'll keep my M9 if I can keep my retirement and SRB.

 

[Maple_City_Woodsman]

I also agree that switching would be a huge wast of money, for no real benefit.

Just for the sake of argument though, I would pick the Px4 Storm first, and the Sig 220 a close second. Glock and honorable mention at third.

In my experience, the HK45 and Ruger P345 just have too high of a bore axis. The recoil is greater on those two pistols than just about any other .45. It is noticeable. They both seem to be very reliable pistols though... It just bugs me that the Ruger P345 doesn't have any metal slide rails - the steel slide rides on two short polymer tabs. Some of the M9's in service have been rebuilt 3 or 4 times now. For that reason I just can't see the Ruger having the kind of service life that a military issue side arm would need, though the older P90 would probably have done well.

 

[REAPER4206969]

There is plenty out there that is distinctly better,

Name them.

 

[Zerodefect]

As long as we're playing fantasy gun choice....I choose a Glock 21, Gen 4, Long Slide 6"+, with a M&P type trigger shoe, and Warren Sevigny Comp sights.

Or I'd settle for an M&P.

 

[jmstevens2]

While no one has said it, and it will likely start a war, it is not the pistol that need replaced as it is the caliber that needs replaced. There are an awful lot of complaints of the 9mm not doing the job over there.

 

[Don357]

With the average soldier falling into the 17-24 year old age group and 80+% of them coming from an anti-firearm demographic, I would have to vote against ANY firearm with a "safe action trigger system" such as the S&W M&P, Taurus 24-7, and especially the Glock. Even though they may have manual safeties added, which may or may not reduce negligent or accidental discharges, there is still the over abundance of teeny-tiny trigger parts to foul, and/or break.

 

[REAPER4206969]

There are an awful lot of complaints of the 9mm not doing the job over there.

There are an awful lot of guys that have never even seen a handgun and pretty much just got handed one over there.

That's a far bigger problem than caliber.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

Name them.

Take a picture of 100 pistols, throw 10 darts at it and there you have 9 of them.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

80+% of them coming from an anti-firearm demographic

Where did you get this from?

 

[RC20]

SIg SP2022 would be my other choice.

It was picked by Army Tank Command whoever they are!

No idea if it would pass the test but throw it into the ring.

They aren't going to change, not worth it and budget cuts (Admirals and Generals need their bennies first so why woluld you risk it?)

 

[sarduy]

i would go with a g21sf, simple, reliable and lighter

beretta weight about 41oz loaded and glock about 38.5oz


my personal favorite is a G17OD

 

[Don357]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don357
80+% of them coming from an anti-firearm demographic

Where did you get this from?

Many if not most of of the soldiers in today's military are the children of the anti-war, anti-gun 'baby-boomers' that protested so hard against the military participation in Viet Nam and everywhere else, and have been "protected" from and educated against the 'evil gun'. And while they have a deep sense of patriotism, they lack any familiarization with any kind of firearm. On their first day of basic training, many recruits have never held a B-B gun or even a cap pistol. I've seen it in person and I have seen them become OUTSTANDING soldiers. I have the utmost respect for the military instructors and the soldiers they train. However, I still say, the simpler, the better.

 

[Mr.Blue]

The M9 is a fine pistol, but the military understands the need for a stronger caliber. That is why they asked for hi-cap .45acps for the trials. Let the Europeans keep their 9mm, and give our troops the more powerful .45acp.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

Many if not most of of the soldiers in today's military are the children of the anti-war, anti-gun 'baby-boomers' that protested so hard against the military participation in Viet Nam and everywhere else, and have been "protected" from and educated against the 'evil gun'. And while they have a deep sense of patriotism, they lack any familiarization with any kind of firearm. On their first day of basic training, many recruits have never held a B-B gun or even a cap pistol. I've seen it in person and I have seen them become OUTSTANDING soldiers. I have the utmost respect for the military instructors and the soldiers they train. However, I still say, the simpler, the better.

I don't want to get too far off topic here.

Not knowing your background or relevant experience training anyone, I won't speak to that. I'll only speak to my experience. I am a Marine combat vet and PMI/CMT with close to a decade of experience training Marines in combat marksmanship and training recruits in basic marksmanship. A great majority of them have at least some experience with firearms, many from hunting. A large number of our military comes from states such as Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania, all very gun friendly states. Many of them also have parents or other relatives who served and are far from the hippy spawn you make them out to be. Besides that, I've never met a Marine going into combat that I would be worried about them getting confused over a weapon's safety.

Another important factor to remember is that the majority of Marines/Soldiers issued pistols are senior NCOs and officers or are in a specialized combat role. I would say they all have more than enough training to handle a Glock or any other pistol without a manual safety.

Maybe Marines don't represent the majority, but the troops actually using their weapons are the only ones that really count in my book. Also, you said it yourself, it's very easy to train our military using the methods we have developed.

 

[jmstevens2]

Look at SOCOM. How many Rangers and SEALS are carrying the M-9? None that I have ever seen. I think they know how to handle a firearm.
I never fired a pistol before basic, but became VERY proficient with the 1911. The Army and Marines have been training troops far longer than ANY of us have been alive. They know what they are doing.

 

[jmstevens2]

Maybe Marines don't represent the majority, but the troops actually using their weapons are the only ones that really count in my book. Also, you said it yourself, it's very easy to train our military using the methods we have developed.

Maybe he is Air Force.

 

[Super Sneaky Steve]

If they are forced to use ball ammo then give em .45's.

 

[jmstevens2]

And by our interpretation of the Geneva Convention, we are.