Sergei Mosin
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 1,918
The thumb safety Glock looks like a bit of a kludge, but the cross bolt safety is intriguing - perfect for a carbine.
New US armed forces/DoD XM9 contract; CNN.....
- Thread starter RustyShackelford
- Start date
- Status
vaalpens
Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,618
Reading through all the responses it seems to me that whichever sidearm is selected, it will not be used much, but if it is needed, then it should go bang and need to be reliable. It should maybe have the benefit of a better fit for a variety of different sized soldiers (male/female). Since it is not used very much, it should probably lighter than the current Beretta. Everybody thinks it should be 9mm, but it sounds like some feels it should be 40S&W or 45ACP.
It seems to me the best sidearm for the Army will be a SIG P250. I don't have one, but it seems it will cover most of the bases:
-Reliable (it is a SIG)
-Re-strike capability (it is a DAO)
-One trigger to get used to (not SA/DA, it is DAO)
-Fit different size soldiers (it is modular with different grips/frames to pick from)
-9mm vs 40S&W vs 45ACP (it is modular. You can change caliber)
-Should be lighter (it is a polymer gun)
The only drawback is that it does not have a safety.
Added benefit. When the Army decide it needs a striker fired gun, then the SIG P320 FCU can be used instead of the P250 FCU.
It seems to me the best sidearm for the Army will be a SIG P250. I don't have one, but it seems it will cover most of the bases:
-Reliable (it is a SIG)
-Re-strike capability (it is a DAO)
-One trigger to get used to (not SA/DA, it is DAO)
-Fit different size soldiers (it is modular with different grips/frames to pick from)
-9mm vs 40S&W vs 45ACP (it is modular. You can change caliber)
-Should be lighter (it is a polymer gun)
The only drawback is that it does not have a safety.
Added benefit. When the Army decide it needs a striker fired gun, then the SIG P320 FCU can be used instead of the P250 FCU.
I don't care if it is a 9mm.
I just think it should not be FMJ.
It is a travesty that U.S.A. is volunteering to confrom with that irrational Hague nonsense.
If we can get JHP, then 9mm would be fine, since it is easier for those support personnel and weaker person to shoot it.
moxie
Member
Gotta agree with that.
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
Post #103.....
The US never signed The Hague Accords.
The US military does comply with the Geneva Convention. The US armed forces also has SOFAs(status of forces agreements). These are legal agreements between the US & other nations re: military personnel & actions, to include lethal force incidents.
The SOFA with Iraq was the big problem & part of the reason Iraq wanted all US armed forces out of the country.
The US never signed The Hague Accords.
The US military does comply with the Geneva Convention. The US armed forces also has SOFAs(status of forces agreements). These are legal agreements between the US & other nations re: military personnel & actions, to include lethal force incidents.
The SOFA with Iraq was the big problem & part of the reason Iraq wanted all US armed forces out of the country.
moxie
Member
He didn't say we were signatories, only that we have conformed anyway.
crazysccrmd
Member
Geneva has nothing to with weapons and ammunition and I haven't heard of a SOFA that dictates ball ammunition only. The 9mm ball isn't that bad, especially given its limited use. A 40, 45, 10mm, etc requires more user strength and training to shoot decently and isn't the best solution to what has to be a one size fits all caliber.
Is that so??? Not only is one of my glocks pictured in this thread, I own several more. The P7M13, had no issues entering with their safety. So its not just about a visible safety is about something that actually works and cannot be bypassed by an errant strap/cord, etc. etc.
In addition,
Does that molded hole meet those requirements??
They can submit a gun and will likely do very well, I personally dont care whom is awarded a contract.
Last edited:
Lycidas Janwor
Member
Nothing will destroy a good family more rapidly than money and success. I've seen it happen to personal friends who have successful family businesses.
It's too bad.
Lycidas Janwor
Member
I'm just going to throw this out there and I don't want to piss off anyone, this is JMHO. No matter what happens I'm sure the DoD will screw it up. The DoD probably won't pick the best pistol (and ammo), it will probably end up being a political pork barrel decision, and they will over pay for an inferior gun.
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
Fuel on the fire.....
SIG's no Ivory Snow Baby either.
They were a part of a recent scandal with the TSA & FAMS(Federal Air Marshal Service).
To my knowledge, SIG Sauer wasn't directly involved but they had LE sales reps & distributors involved in some shady bidness.
Rusty
SIG's no Ivory Snow Baby either.
They were a part of a recent scandal with the TSA & FAMS(Federal Air Marshal Service).
To my knowledge, SIG Sauer wasn't directly involved but they had LE sales reps & distributors involved in some shady bidness.
Rusty
The Glock wasn't in production in time to enter the original tests.
In addition,
The lanyard hole is designed for a snap hook attachment in mind.
Can it me modified to work with the standard braided lanyard? Yes, it can and as I also stated grip plugs with improved metal lanyard loops are available.
I have these on both my G34 & G19.
They probably will.
Chiming in again for FNH, but if they submit a design, I hope they incorporate their lanyard somewhere other than than the replaceable backstrap
I'm not a fan of or have a use for a lanyard hole, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to attach the gun to a retention strap on a part of the firearm literally held in place by a plastic tab. I'm no John Browning, but I can't see much merit in trying to secure the gun via the one part that is supposed to be easily removed
I know it costs tax payer dollars, but I'm interested in seeing what the companies bring to the table. There have been a lot of technological advancements in handguns since the mid-80s.
I'm not a fan of or have a use for a lanyard hole, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to attach the gun to a retention strap on a part of the firearm literally held in place by a plastic tab. I'm no John Browning, but I can't see much merit in trying to secure the gun via the one part that is supposed to be easily removed
I know it costs tax payer dollars, but I'm interested in seeing what the companies bring to the table. There have been a lot of technological advancements in handguns since the mid-80s.
HorseSoldier
Member
Better question: What idiot in the Echelons Above Reality wrote a spec for a fighting pistol that had a requirement for a lanyard? Whoever that was should be forcibly retired or at least sent to Thule, Greenland or someplace far, far away from any decision making which will have any long term impact on what we field.
moxie
Member
Come on! Sergeant Preston of the Yukon had one. After he lost his gun once Tuco made a lanyard of his own and thereafter hung his gun off his neck, in his pocket or belt. How much more convincing is needed?
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
Military lanyards, SAS....
The armed forces have a long tradition of using them. In my second MP combat support company, we were mandated by our commanding officer to wear them with our M9 pistols when we worked "the road".
Andy McNab the author, gun/tactics advisor & ex SAS(Special Air Service) trooper wrote that the SAS kept has many weapons & kit attached to themselves as they could. He also said pistol lanyards came in handy for water borne ops and helicopter based missions(rappelling).
I don't like them. I looked into pistol leashes for SW Asia PMC type work but they seem to snag or be caught on the vehicle or aircraft seat.
The armed forces have a long tradition of using them. In my second MP combat support company, we were mandated by our commanding officer to wear them with our M9 pistols when we worked "the road".
Andy McNab the author, gun/tactics advisor & ex SAS(Special Air Service) trooper wrote that the SAS kept has many weapons & kit attached to themselves as they could. He also said pistol lanyards came in handy for water borne ops and helicopter based missions(rappelling).
I don't like them. I looked into pistol leashes for SW Asia PMC type work but they seem to snag or be caught on the vehicle or aircraft seat.
Comrade Mike
Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2013
- Messages
- 997
Why the hell would anyone want the need to change caliber in the middle of a war? The logistics of stocking two different calibers for your service handgun is a needless expense. All for what? So some officer can decide he wants to carry a .40 today? Full metal jacket of any flavor is a lousy man stopper. Why switch to a more material hungry lousy man stopper over another one? The difference between 9mm, .40 and, .45 are minimal and I doubt the difference would ever been seen on a battle field. Small, light and high capacity wins the day.
Plus the stock of 9mm possessed by our military are enormous. 9mm is not going anywhere, and the safe bet says, neither is the M9. More needless tail chasing to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
Plus the stock of 9mm possessed by our military are enormous. 9mm is not going anywhere, and the safe bet says, neither is the M9. More needless tail chasing to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
jhb
Member
Pretty sure that happened last time. Seem to remember the sig p226 matched and beat the m9 across the board except in cost.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,130
jhb said:
And that is the crux of everything military related. There will be a list of X requirements the military wants. Cost is Y. Y always beats out X.
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
The U.S. never signed the Hague Accords which were signed by a number of the colonialist and imperialist powers of the late 1890s and headed up by the Russian Tzar. The prohibition on soft lead expanding bullets (remember there were no useful jhp rounds in that time) covered both rifle and pistol ammo but only among the signatories. You could use all the soft lead "expanding" bullets you wanted against non-signatories, which was most of the world.
They were also signed a couple of years after jacketed spitzer shaped rifle rounds became the norm for military use. The prohibition was meaningless. It also never applied to U.S. special forces which can and do use jhp ammo where they feel it appropriate.
Fact is though...ball ammo is best on a battlefield and in combat. Especially from a handgun.
tipoc
They were also signed a couple of years after jacketed spitzer shaped rifle rounds became the norm for military use. The prohibition was meaningless. It also never applied to U.S. special forces which can and do use jhp ammo where they feel it appropriate.
Fact is though...ball ammo is best on a battlefield and in combat. Especially from a handgun.
tipoc
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
Posts 118 & 120.....
Posts #118 #120 are both true.
Posts #118 #120 are both true.
45_auto
Member
jhb said:
rustyshackelford said:
Unfortunately, posts #118 and #121 are both false.
You can read the GAO's 1986 report on "Allegations on Amy Selection of Beretta
9-mm. as DOD Standard Sidearm" for yourself here:
http://olive-drab.com/archive/NSIAD-86-122_9mm.pdf
Condensed "Results" table (page 28):
Service Life: Beretta wins, test was stopped at 7,000 rounds even though Beretta and HK were still going. Sig (SACO) crapped out at just over 6,800 rounds.
Reliability: Sig wins, 2,877 to 1,750. Next closest is S&W with 434. HK is sucking hind tit at 158. Although if you read page 37 you will see that this is not significant, since the goal was to provide a 98% chance of completing a 10 round mission. Beretta and Sig both have identical 99% chances of completing 7, 10, and 15 round missions and a 98% chance of completing a 30 round mission.
Mud: Sig wins, 98% to 97%
Dry: Beretta wins, 98% to 79% (Sig's 79% was by far the lowest of all 4 competitors. Next lowest was 96%.)
Overall: Beretta wins 98% to 86% (Again, Sig is the lowest by far. Next lowest is 97%.)
Salt water corrosion: Tie, 100% both.
Firing pin energy: Tie, 100% both.
Looks like to me that the only thing that Sig won was the mud test by 98% to 97%. Everything else either tied or Beretta beat Sig by a significant margin.
If you have any additional information, I would be interested in seeing it.
vaalpens
Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,618
I think you can evaluate the report a lot of ways, and even "Dry" test where SIG came in very low was deemed not that important since the report indicated that the test officials did not have confidence in the test results since it was so difficult to completely control the test environment.
The bottom line was that Beretta and SIG both passed the test. With the initial proposal Beretta's proposal was $9 million higher than SIG. A best and final offer was then requested for whatever reason and Beretta suddenly came in $3 million below the SIG offer that did not change. I think most people feel that the fix was in, especially with Beretta's 18% price drop.
The bottom line was that Beretta and SIG both passed the test. With the initial proposal Beretta's proposal was $9 million higher than SIG. A best and final offer was then requested for whatever reason and Beretta suddenly came in $3 million below the SIG offer that did not change. I think most people feel that the fix was in, especially with Beretta's 18% price drop.
45_auto
Member
vaalpens said:
Wasn't that long ago that "most people" thought that the earth was flat. The "Best and Final" price controversy is covered on pages 46-49 of the report.
My experience has been that any time someone is trying to defend a viewpoint with the "most people think" argument, you can pretty well bet that the facts do not agree with them.
- Status
