What should US army do?

[STAGE 2]

As was previously stated, the 1911 was retired NOT because it was deficient in any respect, but because of a political decision.

The design is robust, far more so than SIG or Beretta, and the grip eliminates problems with having a variety of hand sizes. The round it fires is proven, and far and away better than 9mm ball.

The need for a high capacity pistol is a moot point. There is no situation that any soldier that carries a pistol will face where 3 mags and a 1911 won't cure, but 3 mags and a beretta will. People who feel otherwise should simply carry an extra mag.

 

[usp_fan]

I voted choose SIG because the 220 is able to fit more hands than the full sized USP. However, the USP isn't the gun h&K would have submitted. If the HK45 would have been a choice, that's the gun that should be used.

--usp_fan

 

[nemoaz]

NEWS FLASH! No military in the world is returning to single action autos or pistols or bolt action rifles... no matter what you goblin-hunters think

They did not do it because the M1911A1 was considered inadequate, too hard for recruits to learn, or somehow "obsolete."

I disagree. It was considered inadequate since WWII when they tried to replace every 1911 with M1 or M2 carbines.

 

[HiroProX]

Of the presented choices, I'd say the 9mm HK USP.

Thing that keeps being forgotten is the size of the grip on a double-stack .45

If I could pick any pistol I thought was "better", it'd be a M&P in .40 as a compromise between the capacity of of most service 9mm handguns in the world, with a bigger bullet.

 

[Autolycus]

Define special units?

Personally I feel the army should go to an HK USP. The gun has a lot of different variants for different users. Decent capacity and many good options. It is lightweight being polymer, the capacity is better than a 1911, and it is an excellent design. All in all I would rather see HK 45's on their hip but your poll has only USP.

 

[Autolycus]

Wanted to add that I think the army should switch to .40 S&W for their sidearms. As well as I would look into using Powrball ammo or some sort of more effective ammo.

 

[Wayne G.]

I would vote for something in 45. Something with no manual safety that has double strike capability. Utter reliability would be the consideration. In that case, I'd give the SIG 220 the nod.

 

[OneShot!]

Although, more people are voting for Reverting back to 1911, it is highly improbable; and I doubt single action with be the choice again for any army- let alone the US.

I think HK's USP which being used in Iraq should be the choice.

 

[Walkalong]

1911. Easy to learn. Easy to operate. Easy to shoot well. Easy to field strip. Pure genious as well, by the way.

 

[crebralfix]

Does the organization still have the knowledge of the 1911 in the form of technical staff?

Most likely, those folks are long retired. Given the state of the 1911 today, I suspect that much specialized knowledge and skill will be needed to keep the guns running.

They should just switch to SIG, Glock, SA XD, or equivalent.

The true genius of the Glock is its design for maintenance. It's absurdly easy to work on and the parts are low priced. 1911's require a lot more skill. Given that the SIG Armorer's course is only two days long (I want to take it), SIGs can't be that much more difficult. As for the XD, that's unknown to me (anyone have any experience working on them? Good, bad, fugly?).

Also, we should consider buying only American products--which may take them to the S&W M&P. Their 10 shot M&P 45 with manual safety and adjustable grip may fulfill their requirements.

 

[STAGE 2]

I disagree. It was considered inadequate since WWII when they tried to replace every 1911 with M1 or M2 carbines.

The carbine was never intended as a complete replacement for the 1911. It was designed to either replace, but often times compliment the 1911 for people who were not directly in combat, but were likely to see action.

 

[RNB65]

The Army should be worrying about IED's and not wasting a second thinking about sidearms.

 

[cookekdjr]

Glock 17.

 

[Dobe]

NEWS FLASH! No military in the world is returning to single action autos or pistols or bolt action rifles... no matter what you goblin-hunters think

I'm not sure just why you would equate a SA auto handgun to a bolt action rifle. SA autos are no more antiquated than the M-16 / M4, or the FAL, AK, etc. (which are all single action weapons).

If condition 1 is scary, then think of all of the forementioned, which are carried on the battlefield in condition 1. An SA auto handgun is no more likely to discharge, nor is it any less modern simply because it is a handgun.

For polictical reasons and an niave way of thinking (politicians), I must agree with you. The world will never return to SA autos, but not because they equate to bolt action rifles which gives a cognotation of antiquity.

 

[DawgFvr]

Grunt...you are so right. I retired from the Army after 20 years. During my entire career, as an infantryman, I only went to a range twice with the .45 ACP and once with the new 9mm...for familiarization training only. Our smallest carry weapon was the M16A2 and we were taught that a side arm was just an extension of your fist. To be honest, nobody had any respect for a side arm. Aside from Guard Duty, ceremony and parade duty, if one had to resort to a side arm, well you were just moments away from a body bag anyhoo. I vote for the .45 ACP. They were loose as hell when I fired them...but I remember the alum Beretta frames cracking after so many thousand rounds. In the military...you want a rifle. Leave the plinkers to the Civillians.

 

[quickcanary]

The Army should be worrying about IED's and not wasting a second thinking about sidearms.

They are worried about it, trust me. I learned tonight that the government is spending another 6.3 billion to keep the IEDs at bay. Problem is, they can be made very inexpensively out of low-tech materials and it will be a long time (and much more money will be spent) before they aren't a concern.

But I don't want to get off topic. I think any reliable firearm that combines a large caliber with high capacity, and can endure harsh environmental conditions, should be way up on the priority list. Government spending is way out of control in many areas and it kills me that they want to be so frugal and go with the lowest bidder when it comes to something that could preserve the life of one of our troops. It will be a sad day when the standard issue firearm is a Kel Tec or Hi-Point.

 

[jaholder1971]

A modest suggestion from a Candy-assed civilian:

We (USA) never signed the Hague agreement which banned expanding ammo. Besides, it only applies to organized armies of which we're not fighting.

Why not keep the M9 and feed it NATO pressure 124 grain JHP's? We're already using expanding ammo in 5.56 NATO with the Mk. 262 (yes, it's a match bullet but it does expand on impact) so why not go all out?

 

[lee n. field]

A Webley, of course. Think about it.

As for the XD, that's unknown to me (anyone have any experience working on them? Good, bad, fugly?).

Bit of a sore point there, vis-a-vis the XD. Springfield doesn't sell parts.

 

[Mad Magyar]

Vern hit it right about the politics of it all. Ballistic considerations never entered into the selection. The 9mm respective to the .45 are simply irrelevant to the diplomatic realities (NATO) in the real world.
Keep in mind that Italy's Beretta plant produced the 53,000 pistols the 1st year followed by 66,000 Italian made parts, but assembled in the U.S. the 2nd year.
Yes, economics ruled back then as it does now...Plus, the military-industrial complex always takes the lead in war: it's profitable..
Anyway: I vote: keep it the same because of the increased mag capacity....As many of you know if you had some service time: wars are not won by the sidearm...

 

[pablo45]

True this has been done a time a two but i don' think i ever heard someone throwing hk into the mix. I votd for Sig because it seems to me to be the better of the bunch. I would of voed for Glock if you had it up there.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

I didnt vote...but I do believe they need more powerful round in whatever platform.
They are fighting an urban guerilla war...sometimes that means room to room, CQB...a sidearm does have a place there.

 

[possum]

i personally think that the army should keep the 9mm but in a frame size that is capabale of fitting more people, because there are many different sized people in the military that need to use the same weapon so being able to change grip frames and such would be a plus, i think that we should also go to a dao type trigger, put a manual safety on there if you must but i think that would be best, i would prefer that myself. i didn't vote in the poll, becaue there are many great canadates not just the ones listed, but the ones listed are great ie the sig and the h&k

 

[OneShot!]

Side arm plays major role in the battle field if the right gun is selected. For example, Nazis in Germany used Mauser Broomhandle fully auto pistols which equal of having an SMG.

But I think Beretta is fine. Only if it was in .45 due to it size, not that I prefer .45 over 9mm, it would make a great gun.

 

[Glockorama]

I highly agree with Marksman13. In combat, weapons fail and cannot always be brought back up quickly (if at all). In an intense fight you need firepower ASAP! I think all troops should be issued sidearms if they may face danger. If they need to carry a primary-- they need to carry a backup/second option.

Owen, with all due respect, have you been in the military and/or seen combat? Clearing a malfunction in training is one thing, doing it while bad people are firing steel abjects at you is a whole other story. (One of the reasons many cops carry BUGs)

I had my firing pin snap on my m-16 once, wasn't in combat then, but had I been, I would have been S.O.L.

Of the choices offered, I would take the HK for high cap and .45. Second would be the Sig 220. Third 1991 (yes, I love the 1911, but the others are a more modern design).

 

[Quoheleth]

Quote:
As for the XD, that's unknown to me (anyone have any experience working on them? Good, bad, fugly?).

Bit of a sore point there, vis-a-vis the XD. Springfield doesn't sell parts.

XDs are made in Croatia, aren't they? As far as I know, any commercial XD problems, and the gun has to go back to Springfield Armory; I don't know if they can take care of it stateside or if it has to go across the pond. (I would hope they have the parts & skills to repair it here).

fWIW, as I understand it, the Marines' SOCOM have gone with a Kimber 1911 as their sidearm. Last time I checked, it was a single-stack.

The beauty of a grunt having a pistol is that - if NOTHING else - it provides a measure of security. All it takes is setting the rifle down for a moment - picking up a plate of food, going to the latrine, buttoning a shirt - and a soldier is unable to return fire if the SHTF. A quick grab for the pistol and he's at least in the ballgame. Might not be the best of weapons, but at least it's SOMETHING. Too, Iraq is frequently up close & personal. When tunnel rats went into the caves in Vietnam, they did so with a pistol in hand - not a carbine - because it was easier to maneuver. I imagine at times a pistol (or short carbine) will be easier to handle in house-to-house fighting than a full rifle.

All this said and done, I'm a civilian, a pastor, and cannot serve in the armed forces because of birth defects My personal opinion is that we live in the greatest nation in the world, have the greatest economy in the world (or at least one of the greatest economies), and the best army in the world with the best troops. Why we cannot arm them with up-to-date weapons that aren't just adequate but excellent is beyond me.

On March 6, 1836, 185 men and boys died at the Alamo with single-shot rifles. I bet every one of the Texans died wishing he had "just one more shot" in his rifle.

Enough rambling...

Q