USAF Request Bids on new Handguns
- Thread starter Mike Faires
- Start date
- Status
kentucky_smith
Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2005
- Messages
- 1,686
GLOCK is and forever will be out of the equation until Gaston releases the patents.
das028
Member
Quote:
ugaarguy wrote:
Everyone, go read the forum rules. Debate the pistol options on their merit and back up your statements. Don't call owners or fans of a particular make or model names. Lastly stop using the names of dieties/religious figures as an exclamation, explicative, whatever part of speech you want to call it, or any other casual and/or innapropriate use of those names since it's offensive to many on the forum. Let's get this thread back on the high road before it gets locked.
Correct!
__________________
OK, if you are refering to me using the words "yahoo" and "christ", my bad. Didnt mean to offend. I'll go back and edit my post. Again, didnt mean to hurt your feelings.
ugaarguy wrote:
Everyone, go read the forum rules. Debate the pistol options on their merit and back up your statements. Don't call owners or fans of a particular make or model names. Lastly stop using the names of dieties/religious figures as an exclamation, explicative, whatever part of speech you want to call it, or any other casual and/or innapropriate use of those names since it's offensive to many on the forum. Let's get this thread back on the high road before it gets locked.
Correct!
__________________
OK, if you are refering to me using the words "yahoo" and "christ", my bad. Didnt mean to offend. I'll go back and edit my post. Again, didnt mean to hurt your feelings.
Joe Demko
Member
I don't think this is going to mark the return of the 1911. To take advantage of the design's virtues it has to be carried cocked and locked. The military mandated chamber-empty/hammer down carry because of problems with negligent discharge. The move to the DA Beretta was motivated, in part, by the idea of being able to carry more safely with a cartridge in the chamber...though from what I have heard the Beretta is often carried chamber-empty too. In any case, the 1911 design would be perceived as a step backwards. Sounds more like they are unhappy with the 9mm cartridge than they are with the Beretta, anyway.
I'd like to see them go with something of a modern design that can be fitted to the shooter's hand with interchangeable backstraps and the like.
Oh, and BTW, there's no reason to get emotionally incontinent over something as inconsequential as this thread. Try to be the people your mothers wanted you to be.
I'd like to see them go with something of a modern design that can be fitted to the shooter's hand with interchangeable backstraps and the like.
Oh, and BTW, there's no reason to get emotionally incontinent over something as inconsequential as this thread. Try to be the people your mothers wanted you to be.
kmrcstintn
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2006
- Messages
- 1,236
why must we argue...
1) they could resurrect a 1911 variant with high capacity, a wide body grip, and a proprietary double action trigger...don't forget about ParaOrdinance in Canada
2) they could go with a neomodern polymer framed handgun from a number of highly qualified manufacturers...H&K, Glock, S&W, Ruger, CZ, Beretta, SIG Sauer, etc.
3) the part of the standing agreement for U.S. Government contracts is that an entire assembly plant (for guns, magazines, and parts) will have to be setup in a prescribed timeframe on domestic U.S. soil
4) we'll see what happens when it happens and more likely than not there will be a whole lotta people who will bitch, moan, and complain about the choice that is made...nothing ever changes...:banghead:
1) they could resurrect a 1911 variant with high capacity, a wide body grip, and a proprietary double action trigger...don't forget about ParaOrdinance in Canada
2) they could go with a neomodern polymer framed handgun from a number of highly qualified manufacturers...H&K, Glock, S&W, Ruger, CZ, Beretta, SIG Sauer, etc.
3) the part of the standing agreement for U.S. Government contracts is that an entire assembly plant (for guns, magazines, and parts) will have to be setup in a prescribed timeframe on domestic U.S. soil
4) we'll see what happens when it happens and more likely than not there will be a whole lotta people who will bitch, moan, and complain about the choice that is made...nothing ever changes...:banghead:
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
The only real downside of the original 1911 is the limited magazine capacity. A modernized 1911 would be an excellent choice as a military sidearm.
Military 1911's are famously reliable. 1911s tightened and tuned for match shooting tend to not be, and 1911s shrunk down and lightened for CCW can be hit or miss. But the basic military 1911 is about as reliable as an AK47, for all the same reasons.
"Technology moves on" eh? Tell that to the modern, high-tech Berretta M9, which can't seem to do what the "obsolete" 1911 managed to do for decades.
Glocks and Sigs and XDs and all the rest make for some pretty good police sidearms. But a police sidearm isn't used the same as a military sidearm, and what works well for the police doesn't necessarily work well for the military.
The only way to find out for sure that any of these newcomers would work well in a combat role is to issue them to combat troops and see what happens. But why take a chance on something new that may or may not work, when we already have something that we know works so well?
Building a effective, quality combat firearm doesn't require whiz-bang technology. A handgun is a simple beast, and added complexity doesn't improve it any. Incremental improvements, such as polymers (which do basically the same thing as steel and aluminum) and newer calibers such as .40 S&W (which does basically the same thing as .45ACP) are the most radical changes we've seen in an entire century. Incorporate these improvements into a modernized 1911 and you'll have the best of both worlds: proven design and modern improvements.
I don't honestly expect any service branch to re-adopt a 1911 variant. This is mainly because America is consumed by this premise that "new" equals "better". It ain't so, especially in regards to 1911s, but the mindset is a hard one to overcome. "Tacticool" is the way it'll be.
Military 1911's are famously reliable. 1911s tightened and tuned for match shooting tend to not be, and 1911s shrunk down and lightened for CCW can be hit or miss. But the basic military 1911 is about as reliable as an AK47, for all the same reasons.
"Technology moves on" eh? Tell that to the modern, high-tech Berretta M9, which can't seem to do what the "obsolete" 1911 managed to do for decades.
Glocks and Sigs and XDs and all the rest make for some pretty good police sidearms. But a police sidearm isn't used the same as a military sidearm, and what works well for the police doesn't necessarily work well for the military.
The only way to find out for sure that any of these newcomers would work well in a combat role is to issue them to combat troops and see what happens. But why take a chance on something new that may or may not work, when we already have something that we know works so well?
Building a effective, quality combat firearm doesn't require whiz-bang technology. A handgun is a simple beast, and added complexity doesn't improve it any. Incremental improvements, such as polymers (which do basically the same thing as steel and aluminum) and newer calibers such as .40 S&W (which does basically the same thing as .45ACP) are the most radical changes we've seen in an entire century. Incorporate these improvements into a modernized 1911 and you'll have the best of both worlds: proven design and modern improvements.
I don't honestly expect any service branch to re-adopt a 1911 variant. This is mainly because America is consumed by this premise that "new" equals "better". It ain't so, especially in regards to 1911s, but the mindset is a hard one to overcome. "Tacticool" is the way it'll be.
sm
member
I never served in the Military, never been a LEO. I did have Mentors that were, and I know folks in these Professions and Similar.
Personally, here is the way I view this. Bureaucrats have always been and always be a misunderstood bunch. Decisons based on emotions, promised deals, paybacks for assistance ...does not always equate to getting the best tool for the job.
Sometimes after all the posturing, and testing, the reason something is chosen, is simply because of lowest bidder. I always find this funny, as many attach something being the "best" based on the reasoning "XYZ" uses it. Oh while some purchases are in fact well thought out, tested , reviewed and chosen based on "the best tool for the task" many are simply reduced to "we can get these for less monies".
Marketing - we cannot forget Marketing in TV, Movies, and Magazines.
Silly little tribes - Tamara
Be honest, how many bought a Beretta 92 based on the movie Lethal Weapon , and not because the Military chose that platform to replace the 1911?
The Browning Highpower in 9mm is a proven Combat Pistol , still in use today.
Who knows how many folks have fallen to 9mm ammo? Including the enemies of the US and our Allies falling to 9mm fired by other platforms, such as the Luger.
Gov't Model of 1911 is another proven Combat Pistol. As designed by John Moses Browning, it works, always has, always will. It is a tool unto itself, if needing to be taken all the way down for deep cleaning. Still do an Internet Search of Larry Vickers, he did a sand test, he acually poured fine North Carolina sand into various platforms. 1911s worked, many other platforms did not.
1911s have worked, and continue to work in freezing temps, blistering heat, rain, mud, snow, and you name it.
I am speaking of a 1911 style pistol made to specifications as designed, with the correct metallury and configurations as intended and designed by JMB.
Even the folks that wanted this 1911 pistol "enhanced" for other uses understood this. I know one person that shot competition for the Military, his 1911s were accurized and messed with just a little - and he would NOT carry those guns in combat, he knows the difference in a Combat gun, and a Range gun.
Bulls-Eye shooters enhanced guns, as did other disciplines, and these folks, Even Jim Clark Sr. knew the difference in a Combat pistol and the Bulls-Eye guns he was building.
Yes I am in the camp, give me a bone stock Gov't Model of 1911 with USGI 7 rd mags, and I fine.
Yes, I am in the camp , give me a bone stock BHP in 9mm and I am good to go.
Bureaucrats do not always have the best interest of the user of a tool at heart. Sorry, cold hard fact.
Now I have buddy of mine that builds race guns using the 1911 platform, his guns run, be they 45ACP, 9x23 or .38Super. His home gun, carry gun is the bone stock Gov't model of 1911, using USGI/ Colt 7 rds mags, with sealed baseplats. He never served in Military or was in LEO either.
Two other gunsmiths, now passed, did serve in Military and /or LEO and they too built Bulls-Eye and Race Guns . Again they used Bone Stock Gov't Models of 1911 with USGI/ Colt 7 rd mags. They also carried the Lightweight Commander too, with the same mags.
Yes I am in a Tribe as well, just mine happens to be a OLD tribe I suppose.
Just my personal experiences and observations, the 1911 and BHP , between these two platforms will fit 100% of the hands that will be using them.
Personally, here is the way I view this. Bureaucrats have always been and always be a misunderstood bunch. Decisons based on emotions, promised deals, paybacks for assistance ...does not always equate to getting the best tool for the job.
Sometimes after all the posturing, and testing, the reason something is chosen, is simply because of lowest bidder. I always find this funny, as many attach something being the "best" based on the reasoning "XYZ" uses it. Oh while some purchases are in fact well thought out, tested , reviewed and chosen based on "the best tool for the task" many are simply reduced to "we can get these for less monies".
Marketing - we cannot forget Marketing in TV, Movies, and Magazines.
Silly little tribes - Tamara
Be honest, how many bought a Beretta 92 based on the movie Lethal Weapon , and not because the Military chose that platform to replace the 1911?
The Browning Highpower in 9mm is a proven Combat Pistol , still in use today.
Who knows how many folks have fallen to 9mm ammo? Including the enemies of the US and our Allies falling to 9mm fired by other platforms, such as the Luger.
Gov't Model of 1911 is another proven Combat Pistol. As designed by John Moses Browning, it works, always has, always will. It is a tool unto itself, if needing to be taken all the way down for deep cleaning. Still do an Internet Search of Larry Vickers, he did a sand test, he acually poured fine North Carolina sand into various platforms. 1911s worked, many other platforms did not.
1911s have worked, and continue to work in freezing temps, blistering heat, rain, mud, snow, and you name it.
I am speaking of a 1911 style pistol made to specifications as designed, with the correct metallury and configurations as intended and designed by JMB.
Even the folks that wanted this 1911 pistol "enhanced" for other uses understood this. I know one person that shot competition for the Military, his 1911s were accurized and messed with just a little - and he would NOT carry those guns in combat, he knows the difference in a Combat gun, and a Range gun.
Bulls-Eye shooters enhanced guns, as did other disciplines, and these folks, Even Jim Clark Sr. knew the difference in a Combat pistol and the Bulls-Eye guns he was building.
Yes I am in the camp, give me a bone stock Gov't Model of 1911 with USGI 7 rd mags, and I fine.
Yes, I am in the camp , give me a bone stock BHP in 9mm and I am good to go.
Bureaucrats do not always have the best interest of the user of a tool at heart. Sorry, cold hard fact.
Now I have buddy of mine that builds race guns using the 1911 platform, his guns run, be they 45ACP, 9x23 or .38Super. His home gun, carry gun is the bone stock Gov't model of 1911, using USGI/ Colt 7 rds mags, with sealed baseplats. He never served in Military or was in LEO either.
Two other gunsmiths, now passed, did serve in Military and /or LEO and they too built Bulls-Eye and Race Guns . Again they used Bone Stock Gov't Models of 1911 with USGI/ Colt 7 rd mags. They also carried the Lightweight Commander too, with the same mags.
Yes I am in a Tribe as well, just mine happens to be a OLD tribe I suppose.
Just my personal experiences and observations, the 1911 and BHP , between these two platforms will fit 100% of the hands that will be using them.
das028
Member
Fellas, govement issued 1911's were combat proven years and years ago. The fact is there is some many other options out there. If you look at Manedwolf's original post, he pretty much nailed it.
I just get the feeling that some people just really dont like change.
Example:
Look at the Japenese, and the small arms during that war. They thought it was efficient enough. But it wasnt! While it still functioned well and did the job, it was outdated!. And they sure paid for it
I just get the feeling that some people just really dont like change.
Example:
Look at the Japenese, and the small arms during that war. They thought it was efficient enough. But it wasnt! While it still functioned well and did the job, it was outdated!. And they sure paid for it
We won't know until some organisation decides to spend the money on an across the board torture test. Let's hope the USAF does spend that money considering that, once parted from their multimillion dollar weapons systems and stranded on the ground, have nothing but a handgun to carry on the fight with.
atek3
Member
Forget about doublestack 45 ACP's. A sidearm needs to be usable by people of all handsizes, Glock 21's are big, not to mention heavy. I'd suggest the XD40 or the M&P...
atek3
atek3
Well, since this is the Air Force we're talking about, I think the Glock might be a great choice. It fits well under desks, requires little or no maintenance, and makes a servicable paperweight. They'll clearly need to do something about the grip, though. All those rough surfaces and hard edges might give somebody a blister, for goodness sake.
Well I guess a glock paperweight wouldn't matter for some paper pushers, but how about security forces, fly-away teams (ravens), para-rescue, aviators fixed and rotarary wing, combat controlers, tac-p, just to name a few.
If you're gong for simple and easy to use, I'd vote for Springfield XD (has a grip and trigger safety). I think almost anything would be better than the M-9. Almost everyone I have talked to, at home and in the desert, does not care for the M-9. The only positive I've heard is the safety features. Oh how about the government contractors also known as Blackwater? Do they carry the trusty old 1911? Nope. They carry sigs. 9mm's but they're still sigs. There are definately better options than the M-9, hopefully the AF doensn't blow it again.
Well I guess a glock paperweight wouldn't matter for some paper pushers, but how about security forces, fly-away teams (ravens), para-rescue, aviators fixed and rotarary wing, combat controlers, tac-p, just to name a few.
If you're gong for simple and easy to use, I'd vote for Springfield XD (has a grip and trigger safety). I think almost anything would be better than the M-9. Almost everyone I have talked to, at home and in the desert, does not care for the M-9. The only positive I've heard is the safety features. Oh how about the government contractors also known as Blackwater? Do they carry the trusty old 1911? Nope. They carry sigs. 9mm's but they're still sigs. There are definately better options than the M-9, hopefully the AF doensn't blow it again.
Devonai
Member
It was Die Hard, actually.
The specs, from what I read, are pretty similiar to the last joint handgun request except the possibility of the 40. No SA actions, no "open" slides, lighter than the Beretta, manual safety, changable grips, and other "stuff".
How many times are "they" going to test pistols?
100,000 guns over a 5 year period.
I'm a 1911 devotee also, but even if they allowed SA actions, I can't think of a 1911 manufacturer that could produce 20,000 "out of the box" reliable guns per year that were light weight and held no less than 10 rounds. I'm not sure anyone could even produce 20,000 reliable 1911's in any configuration per year to be honest.
How many times are "they" going to test pistols?
100,000 guns over a 5 year period.
I'm a 1911 devotee also, but even if they allowed SA actions, I can't think of a 1911 manufacturer that could produce 20,000 "out of the box" reliable guns per year that were light weight and held no less than 10 rounds. I'm not sure anyone could even produce 20,000 reliable 1911's in any configuration per year to be honest.
It seems to me that the Springfield XD-45 would be great, but my understanding is the US military sidearms must have a manual safety. So why not get rid of the trigger safety and add a manual safety along with the grip safety. It has plenty of knockdown 14 rds of .45, and is the easiest for the average person to get their hand around. For me Glocks and USP grips are too big and I can't reach the buttons/levers. The M&P would be good but the recoil of the .40 may be a bit much for some. The XD is fairly inexpensive and seems to be as reliable as any other reputable brand. I guess it will be interesting to see what happens. I can't wait to see the posts after the decision is made.
Jerry Morris
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2003
- Messages
- 239
A handgun is not going to determine the outcome of the total military operation. It never did and never will. A handgun is an individual weapon, not a unit weapon. It is not offensive, but defensive. Crew served weapons win wars, individual weapons merely save individual lives.
Better tactics and strategy for the Japanese would have changed the course of the war, with the very weapons they began it with. And some of their weaponry was very advanced. The individual rifleman did not lose the war, the leadership did. They were mired in turpid gains and failed to advance the technology and its application.
IMO, the Japanese defeated themselves, by allowing too many fronts to open, too soon. Just as the Germans did. A proper sense of priorities and limitations is what was and is needed. Consolidation of gains, before widening wars is always a better way. A bull in a China Shop only creates bedlam. Bedlam is only useful in certain scenarios. Never fall prey to the sense you are actually invincible, but strive to create this impression within your enemies. Always enhance your line of supply, from the home front to the front lines and beyond. This is what wins wars. The individual warrior is only an example to feed the machine. Protect them and they will serve as moral boosters.
Jerry
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
I'd prefer to see the military pick whatever handgun will best protect our servicemen, regardless of what country it's made in.
If the best design happens to be American, great! If not, well, that's what we get for not being able to design a superior weapon.
Why put our troops at additional risk just to satisfy some petty preference for American made weapons?
If the best design happens to be American, great! If not, well, that's what we get for not being able to design a superior weapon.
Why put our troops at additional risk just to satisfy some petty preference for American made weapons?
High Planes Drifter
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,204
quote:
Glocks and Sigs and XDs and all the rest make for some pretty good police sidearms. But a police sidearm isn't used the same as a military sidearm, and what works well for the police doesn't necessarily work well for the military.
-------------------------------------------
I'll agree to an extent. However, remember that Law enforcement officers use pistols more often than military. It would stand to reason that Law enforcement would know what a good, solid, reliable pistol is. Example - Remember the Homeland Security trials? One of the most, if not the most, extensive trials ever conducted, and the largest pistol contract ever awarded in the United States.
Glocks and Sigs and XDs and all the rest make for some pretty good police sidearms. But a police sidearm isn't used the same as a military sidearm, and what works well for the police doesn't necessarily work well for the military.
-------------------------------------------
I'll agree to an extent. However, remember that Law enforcement officers use pistols more often than military. It would stand to reason that Law enforcement would know what a good, solid, reliable pistol is. Example - Remember the Homeland Security trials? One of the most, if not the most, extensive trials ever conducted, and the largest pistol contract ever awarded in the United States.
tikka_fan
Member
Pistols look cool in your leather shoulder rig. They have little use in real combat except as a last ditch option. Really last ditch.
The Delta Force reload is kind of cool though. But that take a lot of training. The Air Force would be lucky to shoot qualification targets 2 times a year.
That being said, I'd like to see something made here is the USA. S&W, SIGARMS, Kimber, something...
The Delta Force reload is kind of cool though. But that take a lot of training. The Air Force would be lucky to shoot qualification targets 2 times a year.
That being said, I'd like to see something made here is the USA. S&W, SIGARMS, Kimber, something...
Single action is out, as well as some other suggestions.
http://www.fbo.gov/spg/USAF/AFMC/WRALC/RFI%2DHANDGUN/listing.html
http://www.fbo.gov/spg/USAF/AFMC/WRALC/RFI%2DHANDGUN/listing.html
ugaarguy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 13,828
Folks, my first post here was an attempt to keep the thread on track. Too many times I've seen threads turn into silly arguements, no meaningful disussion occurs, even though the topic had great potebtial, the degenerates, and the mods have to lock it. The forum rules are clear that we are to debate things on merit and not on emotion. The rules are also clear that we are to be respuctful of one another's religious, racial, and ethnic backgrounds. I was just trying to help the thread focus on meaningful discussion. Many thanks to those of you who have made some interesting and insightful posts.
'Card
Member
I received a PM in response to my comment earlier in this thread.
[quote='Card]Well, since this is the Air Force we're talking about, I think the Glock might be a great choice. It fits well under desks, requires little or no maintenance, and makes a servicable paperweight. They'll clearly need to do something about the grip, though. All those rough surfaces and hard edges might give somebody a blister, for goodness sake.[/quote]
I appreciate the fact that the person who sent me the PM brought up the issue privately, but since it appears my comment offended publically, I think it'd be best if I also apologize publically.
I'm a veteran of the US Army infantry, and a former member of the 82nd Airborne Division. Rivalry, teasing and good-natured ribbing are a long-standing tradition between branches of the service, and it was in that spirit that I made the comment about the Air Force. I do not feel, and did not intend to imply that those who serve in the Air Force are asked to sacrifice, risk, or work any more or any less than those who serve in other capacities.
It was intended as a joke, but it wasn't taken that way - and for that I apologize.
[quote='Card]Well, since this is the Air Force we're talking about, I think the Glock might be a great choice. It fits well under desks, requires little or no maintenance, and makes a servicable paperweight. They'll clearly need to do something about the grip, though. All those rough surfaces and hard edges might give somebody a blister, for goodness sake.[/quote]
I appreciate the fact that the person who sent me the PM brought up the issue privately, but since it appears my comment offended publically, I think it'd be best if I also apologize publically.
I'm a veteran of the US Army infantry, and a former member of the 82nd Airborne Division. Rivalry, teasing and good-natured ribbing are a long-standing tradition between branches of the service, and it was in that spirit that I made the comment about the Air Force. I do not feel, and did not intend to imply that those who serve in the Air Force are asked to sacrifice, risk, or work any more or any less than those who serve in other capacities.
It was intended as a joke, but it wasn't taken that way - and for that I apologize.
- Status
Similar threads
