USAF Request Bids on new Handguns
- Thread starter Mike Faires
- Start date
- Status
HorseSoldier
Member
From the RFI --
Sounds to me like another attempt to get an HK pistol onto the books.
The option for 40S&W is interesting, and another hint or suggestion that DoD is thinking about making a relatively major switch in that direction.
Sounds to me like another attempt to get an HK pistol onto the books.
The option for 40S&W is interesting, and another hint or suggestion that DoD is thinking about making a relatively major switch in that direction.
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
What's their big gripe against single action pistols?? SA has some significant advantages over the others.
HorseSoldier
Member
Takes time and money to train guys to be competent and safe with a single action pistol. DAs are more forgiving in the hands of semi-competent shooters (for which, read: new lieutenants, just to name one famous group of potential problem children), and one can be assured that any military pistol will find itself in the hands of someone you would not want to trust with an unloaded weapon from time to time.
ugaarguy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 13,828
Well since it's out in public, here's the deal folks. I sent the PM to 'Card. It's no secret that I'm in the USAF, and currently serving in Iraq. My thanks go out to 'Card for the explanation. Unfortunately when you're in a combat zone being shot at sometimes the sarcasm rubs you the wrong way and you just react. 'Card I'm sorry I took it the wrong way. Everyone else, let the Ch-Air Force comments roll in whilst I fly this desk when I'm not out fixing comm. 
1911 is one of my favorite guns . It works and has worked for years. The orginal 1911 and the 70 series worked right out of the box for me and most others I know that used them and they just fit the hand so well. I have had some Kimbers that were a little tough during break in maybe because of tighter parts, I really do not know but it seems the newer models have some break in time before becomming fully reliable. My opinion does not mean there is not a better choice out there and if If you want a newer model I would say the Sig P220 would be good. It is double action and has the decocker and still has the 45 round for knockdown power. I would not be against any of the guns listed in the other threads.
DRZinn
Member
atek3 nailed it, and was roundly ignored:
You can't use a double-stack .45, because it's TOO BIG. I have pretty average-sized hands, and the M9 is about the biggest I can handle well. The 1911 works for me as well, because it's slimmer. A double-stack .45 is a Bad Idea.
You can't use a double-stack .45, because it's TOO BIG. I have pretty average-sized hands, and the M9 is about the biggest I can handle well. The 1911 works for me as well, because it's slimmer. A double-stack .45 is a Bad Idea.
The 1911 is still good enough for Marine Expeditionary Units. That is a pretty darn impressive group of warriors that finds the "old, outdated" piece of metal designed by JMB plenty good enough in Iraq, Afganistan, or in any other theatre to which an MEU is deployed.
Until we start using lazers or something, the 1911 is going to be revered for it's combat reliability, ease in maintanence, accuracy, and ergonomics that no tupperware can provide.
Until we start using lazers or something, the 1911 is going to be revered for it's combat reliability, ease in maintanence, accuracy, and ergonomics that no tupperware can provide.
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
Doublestack .45ACP HKs and XDs aren't terribly big. They're certainly no bigger than the M9. So it can be done, if that's what you want to do.
ugaarguy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 13,828
KurtC, thanks for getting us the link. Looking at the requirements, and desired extras, of 40 S&W or 45 ACP, Minimum 10/8 round capacity on full size/compact, manual safety, changeable trigger group, and manual safety amng them I think the HK 45 (designed for the now cancelled full Army trials) has a strong lead in the development end. I'll second that with some of the designs like the XD45 and the slim double stack 1911s that a twin column isn't out of the question. The ammo capacity requirement doesn't necessitate a double stack either. The fact that 40 S&W is also an option provides even more leeway in gun thickness. Beretta's PX4 and new 90-two seem to also fit the requirements in a 40 S&W, and perhaps the Browning Pro 40/FN FNP 40 as well. The RFI leaves a good amount of flexibility open within it's parameters as I read it. Like the shift to the M-16, could the USAF once again lead the way in a new firearm for all US Military branches (exempting the USCG and their new DHS SIGS)? I think this will be interesting to follow and see what happens.
Lone_Gunman
Member
I think the Air Force ought to quit wasting tax payer money and just whatever handgun they already have in inventory.
How often does someone in the Air Force need to fire a pistol in a warzone anyway?
How often does someone in the Air Force need to fire a pistol in a warzone anyway?
Whirlwind06
Member
Well that is the point. Those Marines are well trained. A general issue sidearm needs to be fairly idiot proof. Don't get me wrong I love 1911's. Just don't see em being reissued.
Probably more often then Army or Marine troops.
ugaarguy :
No offense taken, I've made plenty of comments or two about army guys in my camp. Sometimes people need to be informed of the realities some personel in the AF face, SOME people. Obviously you're not one of them.
Lone gunman:
as shaggy cat and Whirlwind06 said, plenty of airforce personnel need reliable handguns. Add search and rescue aircrews and special operation aircrews (usually the same) to the list. Throw in aircrews in questionable parts of the world too. A lot of the time a sidearm is all AF personel have. I can list more than one time my crew members and I had no confidence in our M-9. Can anyone tell me they would choose a 9mm if all they could use was standard ball ammo? Shot placement doesn't fly when you're dealing with skinny, sinewy terrorists. Ask the guys in Moghadishu. If you don't hit a vital they'll pop right back up.
No offense taken, I've made plenty of comments or two about army guys in my camp. Sometimes people need to be informed of the realities some personel in the AF face, SOME people. Obviously you're not one of them.
Lone gunman:
as shaggy cat and Whirlwind06 said, plenty of airforce personnel need reliable handguns. Add search and rescue aircrews and special operation aircrews (usually the same) to the list. Throw in aircrews in questionable parts of the world too. A lot of the time a sidearm is all AF personel have. I can list more than one time my crew members and I had no confidence in our M-9. Can anyone tell me they would choose a 9mm if all they could use was standard ball ammo? Shot placement doesn't fly when you're dealing with skinny, sinewy terrorists. Ask the guys in Moghadishu. If you don't hit a vital they'll pop right back up.
berettaman
Member
I pray that some company other than Beretta gets this contract.But then again,(oh heck,lets just start the lies now) Itally might need some missle's or a goverment insider might get a heads up on the price per pistol bid! :banghead: 
DRZinn
Member
Well, I've never handled either one, so I won't argue. But if it's no bigger than an M9, it must be a pretty drawn-out stack. How many rounds do they fit in there?
Well, it's been a long time since I was in the USAF--but the part I was in had a lot of S&W .38 Specials--M15s and even some old Victory Models. Truth is that those are still sufficient for the "casual users" which is what most people were. For those actually going in harm's way and willing to acquire proficiency, something on the order of a Mil-Spec 1911 (decent trigger, decent sights) is just fine.
Pilots could carry either the K frame or a 1911 according to preference. Some would exercise the option, most wouldn't.
When I was in I suggested that a stainless N frame in .45 ACP and 4" barrel be adopted--essentially a M22 in stainless. Guess no one was listening.
General LeMay nonwithstanding, the USAF is not all that interested in anything smaller than 20mm, and preferably nuclear.
Pilots could carry either the K frame or a 1911 according to preference. Some would exercise the option, most wouldn't.
When I was in I suggested that a stainless N frame in .45 ACP and 4" barrel be adopted--essentially a M22 in stainless. Guess no one was listening.
General LeMay nonwithstanding, the USAF is not all that interested in anything smaller than 20mm, and preferably nuclear.
The role of USAF personnel has changed in the past 5 years. Under the old model, USAF personnel were primarily expected to fight the war from airbases with acres of tarmack and security personnel protecting the perimeter. All they had to worry about was being a big fat target for people with heavy ordinance they couldn't even shoot back at. The exceptions were the PJs, flight crews, FACs, Combat Weather and USAF Spec Ops. Now things are much more fluid and USAF personnel are operating in environments other than the large airbase. They're in smaller more forward positions because there is no "front" any more to stay behind. They're "loaned" to US Army units because of skills needed by those units. The days of the airconditioned office are over for many.
Manedwolf
member
As to the XD, they're good, but aren't they made in Croatia?
What happens if that area goes through more coups and renaming to republics of somebodynewistan or whatever? What happens to your parts supply for an entire branch of services' sidearm?
I would say to ONLY buy a sidearm from a country that's been stable for far longer.
What happens if that area goes through more coups and renaming to republics of somebodynewistan or whatever? What happens to your parts supply for an entire branch of services' sidearm?
I would say to ONLY buy a sidearm from a country that's been stable for far longer.
Manedwolf
member
Uh. Too big? You ever handle a Para Warthog or Taurus PT-145?
Josh Aston
Member
I don't see why the AF would care if the pistol had a safety. SOP for the AF has always been round in the chamber, hammer down, safety off. Me personally, the M9 works just fine. Other than the grip size (which fits me) I don't see a need to replace it. But if they must, then I want the S&W MP. Of course I'll be out by the time anything actually changes.
Rob96
Member
Not to mention that they are running convoys in Iraq, out patrol towns on foot hunting insurgents. You just don't get to hear that much about it. It all is related to the doctrine of a smaller but more flexible force. Todays Security Forces guys and gals are doing more and different things than when I was an SP.
Now as to the claiber, weapon platform thing. I just don't see the need to switch caliber. Too many out there that have said the 9mm works. Face it, fmj is fmj. The wound channel may look different in gel, but in tissue you cant tell the difference. Tissue is elastic, gel isn't. i believe they would be well served by looking for a new platform.
- Status
Similar threads
