Does anyone think the Ruger p series would have made a good choice for the Army?

[zahc]

On condition 3 carry (empty chamber, correct?):

I thought glocks were the safest for chambered carry b/c of thier DAO design. So why would they force cond. 3 carry Glocks and XDs and similar type pistols seem a good choice for thier ease of use.

I would NOT want to carry cond3 on a battlefield no matter how trained I was. If I have an M4 I'm not going to reaching for my sidearm unless the SRHTF, and so I can't assume I'd be able to ready my pistol like at the range, with both appendages free and uninjured (uh, wait up there, republican guardian, I have to chamber a round---ok!)

 

[Riphalman]

To me, the P series pistols LOOK like service pistols. My P97 has never malfunctioned. I said....NEVER MALFUNCTIONED! I believe it would make a near perfect choice for the military. I've fed this pistol quite a variety of factory ammo as well as my favorite handloads. Not even a burp.

 

[Tony Z]

I'd be perfectly happy with my P95 or P90, Just as reliable as my beretta 92 FS.

Tony

 

[Handy]

Zahc,

There are plenty of pistols that have all the internal and drop safeties that a Glock has (M9 and M11 are two), plus a trigger that resists accidental actuation.

The fact that the Glock is a "kinda" DAO would not wash with the US military. They would look at the very light trigger pull and mandate the same carry as the 1911.

 

[zahc]

Ok, I'm just ignorant I just don't know how all these things work. All i've shot pistol wise are DA/SA full sizers. I thought Glock was 'all' DAO and would pull like my USP does on DA. But I guess it is 'kinda' dao-partially cocked? Or actually is cocked and works much like my 10/22 without a safety *thinks how else the pull could be light*

 

[megatronrules]

They should have kept the 1911. If your down to a pistol in combat, the general opinion is you're screwed. You might as well throw the biggest slug you can at that point. They could have bought new 1911's just as easy and cheaper I would think.
I love the Beretta 92 so this isnt a slam on it. JMO is all.

 

[Handy]

Zahc,

The Glock, and several other similar systems (like the USP LEM) use two springs in the trigger system to lower the pull. In the case of the Glock, on spring helps you pull the trigger. In others, one spring is precompressed, the other isn't.

The result is the same-a trigger pull that is less than the total mainspring pressure.

 

[faustulus]

The Rugers, are just as reliable, cheaper and American made

the end of that sentence should read "by a firearms company with a shakier commentment to Second Amendment rights than Smith and Wesson."
I have shot several Rugers and while I think they make fine revovlers I don't really care for their autos. That being said I wouldn't buy a hat from them. Bill Ruger did not support the Second Amendment and neither does his company. He supported the "assault" weapons ban and the high capacity ban. His company has even said that if the brady bill sunsets they will not resume making hicap mags. I cannot understand why S&W feels the fury of gun owners but no Ruger

 

[zahc]

I didn't kow that. Does this man speak the truth? If so, where shall I cast my dollar votes from now on? Who is on our side?

 

[BevrFevr]

zahc

Yes, he is correct.

-bevr

 

[BevrFevr]

Oh and on casting dollar votes? I'm not sure anyone has our back anymore.

I suggest buying Com block, At least you know ahead of time that they were our enemies. It's hard to be sold out when you know that going in.

-bevr

 

[aerod1]

I really wish the military and police would go to the Ruger "P" series. Reliable, accurate durable and American made.
Jim Hall

 

[Rob96]

If while I was in, I had the choice between the Beretta and the P-90. I would have chose the P-90. I just shoot it better.

 

[hksw]

"Another thing I didn't like about earlier Rugers Is that you have to stick your finger down into the breech for take down."

That and the swivel link lock-up are the reasons why I never got a centerfire Ruger semi.

 

[Blueduck]

'Course it might also come down to:

Do you think it would make any significant difference in any major millitary confrontation if the the U.S. Service pistol were a HK Mk-23 or Raven 25 auto?...

If were honest with ourselves I think we all know what the the answer is

 

[Handy]

Do you think it would make any significant difference in any major millitary confrontation if the the U.S. Service pistol were a HK Mk-23 or Raven 25 auto?...

After a few years of use? Yes, I think we all know the answer.


I'm not sure where all the armchair commandos get the notion that a handgun is still a badge of rank in the military. It is an emergency weapon, and has to be up to use in emergency conditions. Talk to downed Vietnam pilots and ask if they would care for a Raven. Or the Marine guarding my barracks in the Middle East.

 

[Blueduck]

C'mon Handy

I love handguns as much as anybody and consider them the most important weapon a civillian can own but I asked about a significant difference in major conflict. Not one single war in the last 150 years has been won or lost due to handguns (though a big one was started with one). When you compare all the equipment an army needs for a quick decisive victory a good handgun would rank 115 notches lower than good boot laces. Anybody really think we would have lost WWII if not for the 1911? (maybe we had problems in Vietnam and Korea because they were worn out by then??) Anybody really think Desert Storm was won with the M-9? or Somalia would have been casulty free if our medics and MP's had only been packing G-21's instead of those darn M-9's?

As far as the other stuff, Only Vietnam pilot I knew was issued a high tech (sic) 38 revolver. The barracks issue you stated is my point exactly. If a Marine guarding your barracks in the Middle East just has a handgun then you got SERIOUS commander and risk assesment issues, what you don't have is a "handgun choice" issue.

Frankly if I was in charge of 70 milllion bucks right now to buy handguns for the armed forces I would not load up on Glocks, HK's or Rugers. I'd tell'em to take it back and spend it on trying to figure why our helicopters keep falling out of the sky as that would save more lives in the long run.

I haven't sat on an armchair (or commando for that matter) in years, my bottom prefering a Tactical Recliner with carbon fiber foot stool release it's just history and common sense.

 

[444]

I think this is getting a little carried away.
Does the military NEED handguns ? Yes.
Have handguns saved the life of American Military personel ? Yes
Have handguns been used by American Military personel in an offensive role ? Yes (many examples but tunnel rats come to mind).
Have US Military Personel won this country's highest military honor, the Congressional Medal of Honor while using a handgun ? Yes
Does our military need to be equiped with the finest, most reliable handgun possible ? Yes

Does any of this mean that wars are won or lost solely through the use of a handgun ? No
Is this even a logical question ? No

In modern warfare, it would be very hard to say that the war was won or lost strictly by the use of one single piece of equipment. Success on the battlefield is a product of many things from intelligence, weapons, morale, food, water, training.......................

 

[faustulus]

Have US Military Personel won this country's highest military honor, the Congressional Medal of Honor while using a handgun ? Yes

It is just "The Medal of Honor"

 

[Gerald McDonald]

My brother inlaw was an Ontos driver in Vietnam for the Marine corp. He was issued a 1911 and no long arm. He traded cigs to a South Viet officer for a grease gun. He said the grease gun would fire about 3 rounds and jam and the 1911 became his steady companion. Traded the grease gun for a Thompson which he said always shot but was heavy and not too much more accurate than his 1911. Finally traded for an M2 carbine and a bunch of hi cap (jungle mags were what he calls them) mags. He said when you were a tanker most of the time you didnt get a long arm. So yeah I would imagine a pistol can be important to your well being.
Gerald

 

[Handy]

Blueduck,

As others have pointed out so well, it's not the war, its the individual. If you don't give a crap about the individual, we can get rid of rescue teams and ejection seats too. War is not won by preserving an individual life here and there, but we think its kind of nice anyway.

The barracks guards had rifles, but because they came in close contact with people coming through the fence, the handgun offered a more immediate response.

 

[Blueduck]

I see where you folks are coming from now on an individual basis, but we only have a certain amount of money for the millitary. Wanna spend it on something maybe not so close to our hearts that brings LOTS OF INDIVIDUALS home safe? or spend it on ordering 2 million new pistols that *might* be of some slight advantage to A FEW INDIVIDUALS in unusual circumstances?

People worrying so much about millitary pistols which honestly both save and take a microscopic percentage of lives in warefare seems off kilter to me. Several truly great men used 1911's to bring home the Medal of Honor, great, but those men did it because they were great men, not because they carried a 1911 versus a P-38 or a M-9 versus a Ruger. If Audie Murphy didn't give up at the unfairness of being outnumbered 20 to 1, I doubt he'd sweat the difference between a Beretta and a Ruger.

When the Beretta's have reached the end of there service life a new contract will be granted to the cheapest bidder that meets the requirments set forth. Thats just the way it works in the real world, and likely then as now the difference between the top 2 or three condidates will mainly be trivial.

 

[Handy]

That really misses the point.

The US issues pistols for the same reason it issues body armor and emergency radios. We actually care about each soldier and try to increase individual survivability.

As this is a pistol forum, it's unsurprising that discussion arises about the selection process and criteria that the US uses for service pistols, especially since the XM9 trials were so extensive.

If you think its a stupid topic, you would have a better audience for that opinion on a non-handgun forum. There, the suggestion that all pistols in military use are worthless and the money would be better spent on MREs may find a following.

There is also a "shooting at 100 yards" topic over on the General Handgun board. You could go tell them that they would be better off with a rifle, but that would also completely miss the point.

 

[Blueduck]

Now Handy, I never said it was "a stupid topic". If I thought it was stupid I likely would not have logged in to look at it.

The discussion turned as it normally does to choosing a new sidearm. I expressed my opinion of why I thought changing the standard issue sidearm of all the armed forces might not be the best priority at the moment... seems on topic to me.

Now I get called an armchair commando (which I take in good spirit) and then offered an invitation to join an MRE forum I may have offended you somehow with my thoughts (if so it was unintended) or maybe you just need less caffeine in your diet or starch in your shorts.

Regardless it's clear this is not getting us anywhere, please e-mail off line or pick a local playground to meet at for further discourse on the topic

 

[Handy]

From what I can tell, no one in this thread suggested SWITCHING to the Ruger. No one seemed to be "worried" either.

Your suggestion that a Raven is sufficient for a US service pistol put your comments well outside that of a gun discussion, and my MRE comment was along the same lines. Everyone was talking about service pistols, you want to talk about how to spend a military budget. That's fine, but has nothing to do with the topic since the topic was not "should the military replace the M9 with Rugers soon". That was your idea.

There was nothing personal about this, but the Raven comment was really akin to calling the topic at hand, and all subsequent discussion, stupid and pointless. If that was not your intent, that is unfortunate.