US Army looking for new pistol?

[BrokenArrow]

Will be something like the Mk 23... the USP45 Tactical and USP45 Tactical compact are closer to what they have in mind.

The Army did a "market survey" in 04 where they gathered a bunch of guns in different calibers and had a bunch of troops shoot them and give input. The Army used that to develop the draft specs for the FHS (Future Handgun System).

Meanwhile SOCOM had decided it wanted a .45 ACP period. The Special Operations Forces Combat Pistol program draft specs included single action only (SA or SAO) pistols and 1911s had a fightning chance.

The two programs were combined in the Joint Combat Pistol program. The .45 ACP stayed, the SA option left. The JCP will be DA (DA/SA), DAO, or Striker Fired in two configurations, one w safety and one w/o safety. Striker fired guns will have to be DA or DAO, not SA (SAO).

Adjustable grip is desired, not required.

Modular system that can be changed from DAO to DA/SA at unit level is required IIRC. The USP and FNP can. That's tough for some striker fired guns (like Glock and XD), not others (SW99). So far.

Gun has to be a commercially available non developmental item too. So look for some new/modified guns to hit the market before this dog and pony show gets rolling.

 

[Deer Hunter]

I'd like to see the US go back to the .45 ACP, but for selfish reasons I want to see them use 10mm handguns. If they did that, the surplus ammo would pour into the states and I wouldn't have to pay so much from specific dealers.

 

[Mizzle187]

IMO it wont be the SW99 becuase since the realease of the S&W MP I have a feeling it isnt gonna be around to much longer. S&W already stopped importing the Walther P99 AS(SA/DA) obviously becuase it is tough competition to the new MP so I doubt the SW99 will be made much longer. So they that would leave the Walther P99 DAO 9mm or .40SW . I see them going with and in order-HK,Sig, or Walther. Beretta is also a player.

 

[DesertFox]

irony

I'd like to see the US go back to the .45 ACP, but for selfish reasons I want to see them use 10mm handguns. If they did that, the surplus ammo would pour into the states and I wouldn't have to pay so much from specific dealers.

THIS would be hilarious. For the Army to go with 10mm after the FBI ditched it in the early '90s after testing so vigorously for the "perfect caliber". Well, they found it back then and the Army might find it now!

It would be a dream come true to have 10m adopted as a NATO round, for me personally. Rifles should be 7.62 NATO while pistols and carbines should be 10mm!

 

[Deer Hunter]

From what I've read (on the internet, so it's got to be true), the only reason the FBI ditched the 10mm was because a female agent complained about the recoil of the weapon.

Is this a steaming pile of falsehood, or is there any truth to the statement?

We're dreaming if we are hoping for the army to completely switch back to the 7.62 NATO.

 

[SFvet]

OLE Meth head in West Texas decided he what to Shoot it out with the Deputy sheriff who came to arrest him and the BG was hit once in the side with a .40cal 180g Sxt. Even though it did not kill him it did take the fight out of him with one shot. BTW the BG can not longer use his lower half of his body. .40 cal works just fine with solid hits.

Yeah those SXT's are nothing to be messing with.

 

[SFvet]

Cause its the internet.

Anywho



By that thinking we should be carrying old bolt actions, or perhaps garands?
I mean, after all, 8 rounds is enough if you fire accuratly?

And something tell me that if it takes 10 rounds to put down someone youve got more issues than your caliber.
Just cause it works doenst mean its the best.



The SOCOM has 12 or 10 round magazine capacity and is still .45 ACP. I have no problem with the round. My point was there are better pistols out there- just becuase we used it for 80 years doesnt mean its the best. We used muskets for decades....

http://www.hkpro.com/socom.htm

Seems like that would make a fine pistol. However,it is a very large pistol.

You cant have it all, knock down power, capacity, size, weight....

*Edit*

For that matter, i believe that a .40 cal (or even better 10mm) USP would make an excellent sidearm.

As for the external hammer- Always just kinda bugged me, to see it sticking out there. Seems like it might break if dropped- not to say it would, just gives me that impression.

I use the 8rnd mags so 8+1 and those mags fit nice! I dont know about the 10rnd ones... they'd probably sitck out a bit much.

 

[saspic]

From what I've read (on the internet, so it's got to be true), the only reason the FBI ditched the 10mm was because a female agent complained about the recoil of the weapon.

Is this a steaming pile of falsehood, or is there any truth to the statement?

http://bren-ten.com/id7.html has the full story. Basically, after rigorous tests to finally solve the caliber debate once and for all, a 10mm round came up on top. But the testers felt the recoil/muzzle blast was excessive for law enforcement purposes, so they handloaded a 180 grain load, reducing the velocity to the lowest speed that still passed all their tests. This was about 950 fps.
The ammo makers all started making reduced power loads, then S&W realized you could shrink down the case from 10x25 to 10x22 and squeeze it in a 9mm sized gun. Then the .40 S&W just took over.:banghead:

I think a single stack 10mm handgun would be great for the military. It could hold 9 or 10 rounds of ammo with more energy at 100 yards than .45 ACP has at the barrel. Better still would be regular training with real guns and real ammo for the rank and file.

 

[BrokenArrow]

Coming and going

NIJ Standard-0112.03, Autoloading Pistols for Police Officers

This revision of the standard deletes the 10mm and adds the 357 SIG caliber.

Not that it really means anything...

As far as FBI testing, the 10mm penetrated better, the 45 scored better overall, the downloaded 10 (180/985) was close enough. Off the record Hall/Patrick and their bosses realized it would be easier to sell the idea of a new gun/caliber than new gun/old caliber to the people (congress) who pay for it.

Then in 97 they decided a 165/40 at 985 was as good too. Reports say what you want them to say.

 

[ConserVet]

Why would it be Glock and the .45GAP?? The military already has 1911's in limited use and the .45ACP is a proven battle-ready cartridge. The.45GAP is not as popular as the .45ACP and while it has similar ballistics, it could require a tremendous amount of money and time to get equipment together to provide the required amount of ammo that the military would need.

There a number of pistols available that are chambered for .45ACP. The military would certainly do performance testing of a number of pistols and the chances are that they will generate a set of specifications for a new sidearm. Whether or not a Glock or any other brand will win is up to how it performs, what the price will be, and given how the military is now asking for input from the troops on weapons improvement, the decision to go with a certain brand/model will have more to do with what works rather than a brand.

The Spec-Ops community, with the luxury of choosing their own weapons, has been gravitating back to .45ACP for years. No coincidence there. The .45 has been a proven manstopper for a century, and is even better now with modern pistols, ammo, etc.

I suppose the .45GAP should be evaluated, just for s#*ts and giggles, but since the .45ACP never really left the inventory why reinvent the wheel?

 

[Grunt]

Spec Ops does have a bit more latitude in their weapons selection but it's not as exotic as you'd think, at least not in my experience. I work as a CATM troop for AFSOC these days and while I won't say exactly what is in the armoury for OPSEC reasons, for operational use the selection isn't as wild as hollyweird would have you believe.

 

[ConserVet]

Spec Ops does have a bit more latitude in their weapons selection but it's not as exotic as you'd think, at least not in my experience. I work as a CATM troop for AFSOC these days and while I won't say exactly what is in the armoury for OPSEC reasons, for operational use the selection isn't as wild as hollyweird would have you believe.

I wouldn't call the .45ACP exotic, just practical.

Maybe its not as popular as I thought. I certainly wouldn't want a pissant 9mm as my sidearm, especially if I was deploying to some Middle East dirthole to pick up Mohammed Al-Bomber and his boys for questioning.

 

[ziadel]

However, with the current levels of training and the current quality of firearms knowledge of the average military shooter, I'm going to stand by my guns and say no, no Glocks or 1911s for general issue.

my grandfather was drafted and then sent to the pacific during WWII after three weeks of basic training.

somehow he did'nt shoot himself in the ass.
oh, and he was from new york city, I dont think he had even seen a gun before the army.

 

[ChillyMk2]

ziadel:
I was in Iraq with soldiers who supposedly had training and experience who still 'accidentally' pull the charging handle back on a SAW, 'accidentally' put the ammo belt on the feeding tray, 'accidentally' close the said tray, 'accidentally' put the weapon from safe to fire, and finally 'accidentally' pull the trigger, killed the ???? out of a wall inside the TOC.

Training is not the problem these days, it's general discipline and just some plain common sense

Finding idiot proof weapons is definitely a requirement, thus all the hi-speed low-drag guns won't be considered by the Army in the near future.

 

[Grunt]

my grandfather was drafted and then sent to the pacific during WWII after three weeks of basic training.

somehow he did'nt shoot himself in the ass.
oh, and he was from new york city, I dont think he had even seen a gun before the army.

Fine, I'm calling you out of your ivory tower from where you preach on this. If this is what you think we ought to go with, sign your name on the line and tell your recruiter that you are requesting firearms marksmanship instructor. Get out there on the firing lines and out from behind the computer screen and deal with the boots in basic training or some of the medical folks that seldom ever touch a firearm and deal with muzzles pointing around in every direction except where they're supposed to. Deal with fingers on triggers when they're not supposed to be. Hell, deal with fingers on triggers when they're not supposed to be with a live round in the chamber and having them point that weapon right at you! It never ceases to amaze me how those that aren't out here doing the job see themselves as fit to tell those of us that ARE doing the job how to do it.

 

[IndianaDean]

[QUOTE[/I]certainly wouldn't want a pissant 9mm as my sidearm, especially if I was deploying to some Middle East dirthole to pick up Mohammed Al-Bomber and his boys for questioning.[/QUOTE]


Do you want to stand down range as I fire 9mm hollowpoints? I'll bet I could knock one of them down with a 9 faster than some can with a 45. Then again, I train. Shot placement, shot placement.
Statements like this are ridiculous.

 

[ziadel]

Fine, I'm calling you out of your ivory tower from where you preach on this. If this is what you think we ought to go with, sign your name on the line and tell your recruiter that you are requesting firearms marksmanship instructor. Get out there on the firing lines and out from behind the computer screen and deal with the boots in basic training or some of the medical folks that seldom ever touch a firearm and deal with muzzles pointing around in every direction except where they're supposed to. Deal with fingers on triggers when they're not supposed to be. Hell, deal with fingers on triggers when they're not supposed to be with a live round in the chamber and having them point that weapon right at you! It never ceases to amaze me how those that aren't out here doing the job see themselves as fit to tell those of us that ARE doing the job how to do it.

um, I don't recally telling you how to do your job, I just remember reading something to the effect of, 'we don't train soldiers enough for them to be safe with a single action pistol' then I pointed out that my grandfather only had three weeks of training, and amazingly managed not to shoot himself.

I must have hit pretty close to the mark tho to get you all worked up like this.

It never ceases to amaze me how those that aren't out here doing the job see themselves as fit to tell those of us that ARE doing the job how to do it.

it never ceases to amaze me how the people who 'are out there' think the people who 'are'nt out there' don't deserve an opinion on anything.

hey, buddy, it's my tax dollars at work, I'll scream bloody murder from my 'ivory tower' if it pleases me until paying income tax is made optional anyways.

 

[medmo]

The M9 perfectly fits the bill as a general issue sidearm. Yes, there are spec. op. ready guys who should have different based on their MOS and training. I always remember the great wisdom in the words of my skipper stating "Those damn grunts.... If they can't eat it or fornicate with it they'll break it."
Guess what? The ol'e M9 fits the bill. I spent a lot of time around these guns and found no one who could break it and no one who would admit publically in the fornicate arena. It's a good gun doing a good job.

 

[ConserVet]

Do you want to stand down range as I fire 9mm hollowpoints? I'll bet I could knock one of them down with a 9 faster than some can with a 45. Then again, I train. Shot placement, shot placement.
Statements like this are ridiculous.

Your points, in order:

1) Getting caught slinging hollow points during a military operation, or anything else other than FMJ, will get your ass sent to Leavenworth pretty quickly. And no, I don't feel like being your fantasy shooting-gallery backstop.

2) Never, ever in any of my postings have I implied that weapons training wasn't important or that a big giant gun solves all tactical problems. To suggest such a thing is asinine. I merely stated my opinion on the issue, which I thought was the point of a forum in which case opinions were presented. To suggest someones opinion on personal preference of the caliber of a military sidearm is, to quote you, ridiculous.

I was on active duty in Europe when the skippy new M9s were being fielded. None of us "gun nuts", and I use that as a term of endearment, were happy about turning in Old Slabsides for the high-speed new 9mm. The fact that Cold War politics were involved in the Beretta's selection added more fuel to our heartburn.

My point was that if I were active duty right now, and I had some say-so in the matter, I would want the stronger round to help the heathen towelhead bombers hasten their appointment to meet Allah. The .45 ACP was adopted almost a century ago in response to a problem with the .38 service round in use at the time. The problem? Smacked-up religious zealots wouldn't go down the first two or three times you shot them with a 38. Hmmm, I wonder if they were on to something....

 

[DRZinn]

The M9 design is good. It's easy to clean, easy to field-strip, easy to shoot...

The problem is the cartridge. Why not just make a version of the M9 in .45 with a single-stack (or narrower double-stack) magazine?

 

[Grunt]

The M9 design is good. It's easy to clean, easy to field-strip, easy to shoot...

The problem is the cartridge. Why not just make a version of the M9 in .45 with a single-stack (or narrower double-stack) magazine?

Uh, I'm not sure I would call the design all that good. My AD counterparts in the armory have at least 2 and I think possibly 3 slides that are either completely broken in half or cracked they were sending of to DRMO. IIRC, it was 2 broken and 1 cracked that I seen. Another common problem we have with the M9 is broken locking blocks. Right now we are scheduled to change them out every 5K rounds but even then, we see them happen on the range probably at least every other month we fire them. How many more are going when the active duty folks are firing I'm not sure but if we're having problems with these same pistols, odds are they are having a few break with their classes as well.

 

[DRZinn]

My AD counterparts in the armory have at least 2 and I think possibly 3 slides that are either completely broken in half or cracked they were sending of to DRMO. IIRC, it was 2 broken and 1 cracked that I seen. Another common problem we have with the M9 is broken locking blocks.

Good design, bad manufacture.

 

[IndianaDean]

[QUOTE
2) Never, ever in any of my postings have I implied that weapons training wasn't important or that a big giant gun solves all tactical problems. /QUOTE]

You were the one that had to throw in the derogatory 'pissant 9' statement.

I find that offensive. If you don't like the 9 fine, that's your perogative. Don't make your statement about it by using insulting terms.

 

[Thain]

What galls me in all these discussions about the adoption of the M9 is how everyone will casually state "9mm was adopted to comply with NATO." as if that alone proves the round is worthless...

Call me a whiny peice of Euo-trash if you want, but come on guys! NATO isn't exactly an organization without some military credibility, nor did NATO come to there conclussions without input from all of its members. Including the United States.

Furthermore, Georg Luger is typically ranked right up there with John Browning when it comes to skill as a firearms designer. Now, I know the .45 ACP camp loves to point out that a whole century has passed since the .45 was introduced... Well, Luger was showing off his 9mm bullet to the Brits in 1902. The Germans were just as happy with there 9mm's as we were with our .45's in both World Wars.

The 9mm combines a flat trajectory with moderate recoil, and fair stopping power. It really doesn't matter if you prefer one to the other, unless you suddenly get commisioned as Quartermaster General of the US Army... But give some credit to the people who designed and selected the 9mm, they weren't stupid, they weren't whimps, and they did their homework.

'Moses' was John Brownings middle-name, not his MOS.

 

[IndianaDean]

Well spoken, Thain.