US Army Future Handgun System

[jdberger]

These two statements confuse me.

But I really like how someone in the Pentagon is determined to cram HK down our throats.

Maybe they are finally tired of cramming FN down our throats?

I thought that the military always went for the best contracts for the best weapons. Are you implying that HK and FN are making crappy stuff? Please, enlighten me.

As far as the M9 goes, totally reliable. Goes BANG every time you pull the trigger, carries 15 rounds, fires a readily available NATO cartridge. Sure I liked the 1911 better, but I'd rather have a gun that I can find ammo for than one I can't. 9mm is much more popular than .45 acp.

 

[Plumber576]

but I'd rather have a gun that I can find ammo for than one I can't. 9mm is much more popular than .45 acp.

When it comes to our soliders, I dont think that popularity should really matter. .45 is a great round shot placement aside. I think they should start issuing .45's to the troops again.


Oh, and that does look just like a USP tactical.

 

[No_Brakes23]

Are you implying that HK and FN are making crappy stuff?

I can see how my comment seemed that was, but that was not my intent at all. I never had a problem with any of the FN stuff I used.

But the previous comment about "cramming H&K down our throats", seemed odd, seeing as how, 1. USmil already has some H&K stuff, and 2. who cares about using H&K, since FN and Beretta already make a lot of our stuff. It isn't like we are gonna get all of our stuff from Colt, S&W, SA, Ruger, etc...

So no, absolutely no complaints about H&K or FN from me. And really no complaints about the M9, either. But carrying one for guarding a ship is not the same as carrying one in the sandbox.

 

[jdberger]

When it comes to our soliders, I dont think that popularity should really matter.

I think that you are misunderstanding my use of the word "popular."

I don't mean it in the sense of, "Gee, that is a really cool bullet." I mean it in the sense that all of our allies are carrying the round and a soldier will be more likely to find extras should he run out.

In other words, it is a logistics not a high-school thing.

 

[45auto]

"We" actually do most of the fighting with most of the troops than any army I'm aware of. It's the Allies that really have to "key" off of us IMHO.

That's not a "slap" to our "Allies" , just common sense if we believe a certain weapon system or caliber is better for us.

 

[scout26]

Also, isn't .40 a bad calibre to choose? I understood that it has poor armor penetration capabilities.

If you're using your sidearm to try to stop armor, you've already lost the battle.

 

[Joejojoba111]

Like the flak jackets the Iraqi's were issued, stuff that's probably level IIa at best, but popular throughout 2nd world countries. Not to Forget the IIIa increasingly cheap and popular everywhere, individuals working for drug cartels, pet divisions of dictators, that sort of thing (besides NATO obviously).

 

[Commissar Gribb]

since when has it become a good thing to shy away from a standard caliber round that our allies have agreed on? I know that there are some the question the effectiveness of the round but I think it also comes back to the whole reason why the Nato standard was created- whether it be in uniforms, magazines, ammunition, etc.

The idea being that if 20 americans and 20 brits or aussies or germans or whatever are held up in an outpost defending and the convoy carrying the american ammo goes up that the americans can still use the allies' ammo or vice versa. 40 guns with half the ammo always beats 20 guys with all the ammo.