Which would be the better handgun for the military?
- Thread starter Doug.38PR
- Start date
- Status
RNB65
Member
I suspect that folks at THR are far more concerned about this silly issue than the military. Which sidearm a soldier carries is the LEAST of the military's worries at this point. Neither a 9mm, .40, or .45 are going to stop an IED or suicide car bomber.
Last edited:
HorseSoldier
Member
I don't know that NATO commonality is a big deal when it comes to pistol ammunition, especially not now that the pistol caliber SMG is almost entirely gone from use. NATO did okay with the US using 45 ACP from the late 1940s until 1985, and the recently cancelled pistol program for the Army and/or USASOC was opting for .45 ACP.
Rifle and machinegun caliber commonality I can see as a somewhat bigger deal within NATO, but now that the Russian steam roller is defunct and we're not going to be fending off the 3rd Shock Army in Central Germany it's less of an issue than it was back in the day.
Wags
Member
Will never happen, but.....
I voted for the SA XD .45ACP. I'd like to see the .45ACP back again as the official U.S. military sidearm caliber. The price is right, very robust and I like the safety system it incorporates. But doubt it would be selected due to being stricker fired.
I voted for the SA XD .45ACP. I'd like to see the .45ACP back again as the official U.S. military sidearm caliber. The price is right, very robust and I like the safety system it incorporates. But doubt it would be selected due to being stricker fired.
Manedwolf
member
Car bomber, no. Explosive vest bomber, hopefully.
das028
Member
Why are Glocks in 45 acp or 9mm not mentioned in your poll?
I would say one of those two depending on what caliber our military is going to use.
I would say one of those two depending on what caliber our military is going to use.
Devonai
Member
I'm having trouble making up my mind between the M9 and something else.
I'm in a National Guard Infantry unit. I have not served in combat but 80% of the guys in my unit were over there from March '04 to March '05. Of those to whom I've spoken, the M9 is regarded favorably but I do not believe any of our guys ever used one in any of the combat actions in which they were involved. They did not have any problems during the times they drove out to the local berm for some stress relief. Therefore, the effectiveness of 9mm NATO ball was not a factor of direct experience for them.
I have heard that soldiers in other units have experienced problems with certain brands of magazines, mainly Checkmate IIRC. I have seen our magazines in the arms room and they all look like factory mags.
So while we like the M9, nobody likes the idea of 9mm FMJ. I think the simplest solution would be for the Army to start issuing 124-grain +P JHP, as many discussions here on THR have convinced me that it would be perfectly legal to do so. Barring that, .45 ACP ball is obviously the best choice.
If I was in charge, my critera would be:
- .45 ACP
- Manual safety
- Grip safety
- DAO with six pound trigger pull
- Minimum of 12 round magazines
After all that, I seem to have described the Para-Ord P14 LDA, so I guess that would be my choice. I see the SA XD .45 is winning in the poll but I am wary of transiting to a pistol without a manual safety. Otherwise I suspect it would be an excellent choice.
I'm in a National Guard Infantry unit. I have not served in combat but 80% of the guys in my unit were over there from March '04 to March '05. Of those to whom I've spoken, the M9 is regarded favorably but I do not believe any of our guys ever used one in any of the combat actions in which they were involved. They did not have any problems during the times they drove out to the local berm for some stress relief. Therefore, the effectiveness of 9mm NATO ball was not a factor of direct experience for them.
I have heard that soldiers in other units have experienced problems with certain brands of magazines, mainly Checkmate IIRC. I have seen our magazines in the arms room and they all look like factory mags.
So while we like the M9, nobody likes the idea of 9mm FMJ. I think the simplest solution would be for the Army to start issuing 124-grain +P JHP, as many discussions here on THR have convinced me that it would be perfectly legal to do so. Barring that, .45 ACP ball is obviously the best choice.
If I was in charge, my critera would be:
- .45 ACP
- Manual safety
- Grip safety
- DAO with six pound trigger pull
- Minimum of 12 round magazines
After all that, I seem to have described the Para-Ord P14 LDA, so I guess that would be my choice. I see the SA XD .45 is winning in the poll but I am wary of transiting to a pistol without a manual safety. Otherwise I suspect it would be an excellent choice.
Nathan Williams
member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2006
- Messages
- 190
Seems l read somewhere Glock could not get a military contract because doing so requires they sell production rights to other manufactuers to make licensed copies, and Glock was unwilling to do this. It makes sense look at Colt. F&N Herstal builds most of the Governments M-16 A2 rifles now all Colt builds is the M4.
HorseSoldier
Member
They'd be required to manufacture them here in the US. I don't think they'd lose manufacturing rights -- Beretta has not done so.
I think there's more to the Colt/FN situation.
I think there's more to the Colt/FN situation.
Manedwolf
member
I'd actually wonder at perhaps several magazines with rounds for different purposes. Regular mags would be the JHP, yes, but maybe also have a mag of something like GECO BAT lightweight +P or steelcore AP for vehicle window/door penetration..perhaps a mag with a differently textured bottom plate to differentiate, and a different color as well?
The Swiss color-coded the cardboard chargers for their K-31, brown for FMJ, purple for AP, etc. I always thought that was a good idea.
I keep thinking that the Kel-Tec Sub 2000 or a re-worked Sub 9 in the Beretta magazine version would be a fine addition for troops who usually just carry the M9, such as people stuffed into vehicles and cockpits. Keep it folded and stowed in the vehicle or helicopter cabin, or in the ejection seat's survival pack. Use it in case of ambush. Much better accuracy than a pistol, but use the same mags you had. Perfect for fighter pilots and tight-confines helicopters like the Cobras.
If I were a pilot and was shot down, I would definitely want a folded carbine like that, rather than just a pistol or an outdated and anemic "survival rifle"!
mljdeckard
Member
It looks like I will be going back, and I wish to Zeus I could just take my Kimber and not have anyone look twice, but I know this isn't realistic.
As an armorer in Germany, we switched out our 1911s for Berettas in 1992, and I had ALL kinds of problems with them. Soldiers taking off the handgrips and messing with the slide bars and springs, lousy mags, failure to fires, etc. I remembered thinking at the time, "No way in hell these things are going to last as long as the 1911s did."
The BEST is probably the H&K .45. BUT, the vast majority of the soldiers carrying this pistol will never use it. I think you will continue to see elite forces get small contracts for H&Ks, and high-end 1911s, but not for the general contract. They won't pick a SA auto for the general contract, because let's face it, the AVERAGE soldier needs the least complicated weapon thay can get. Having a pistol with a hammer AND a safety is going to mess too many E-3s up.
As long as we are with NATO and pretending to follow the Hague Accords, we will be using 115 gr, 9mm, FMJ. Which means we should issue the BEST 9mm, that is the least complicated, most reliable, and universally accepted. The G-17. (I voted for the G-22 because the 17 wasn't listed.) The XD may well be as good of a choice, but I would like more time to see it.
As an armorer in Germany, we switched out our 1911s for Berettas in 1992, and I had ALL kinds of problems with them. Soldiers taking off the handgrips and messing with the slide bars and springs, lousy mags, failure to fires, etc. I remembered thinking at the time, "No way in hell these things are going to last as long as the 1911s did."
The BEST is probably the H&K .45. BUT, the vast majority of the soldiers carrying this pistol will never use it. I think you will continue to see elite forces get small contracts for H&Ks, and high-end 1911s, but not for the general contract. They won't pick a SA auto for the general contract, because let's face it, the AVERAGE soldier needs the least complicated weapon thay can get. Having a pistol with a hammer AND a safety is going to mess too many E-3s up.
As long as we are with NATO and pretending to follow the Hague Accords, we will be using 115 gr, 9mm, FMJ. Which means we should issue the BEST 9mm, that is the least complicated, most reliable, and universally accepted. The G-17. (I voted for the G-22 because the 17 wasn't listed.) The XD may well be as good of a choice, but I would like more time to see it.
mljdeckard
Member
And maned wolf, I like that kel-tec survival rifle idea a LOT.
Manedwolf
member
Glad to help! Are you allowed to take personal things like that? You can get a Beretta version Sub 2000 for $200 and change, put the front picatinny rail kit and stock extender on it, it folds down to 16" and weighs...well..nearly nothing.
Mine vanishes into a regular backpack on hikes. I know to make it "official" equipment takes all sorts of time and channels and money, but if people are allowed to bring their own stuff...if you've got to have the M9 anyway and mags for it are everywhere, I figure it wouldn't hurt if more people could bring along a folding, weighs-nothing carbine that can use them? The only drawback is that it doesn't like aluminum-cased ammo. The Sub 9, the earlier all-metal version, might not have that issue. The Su-16, their folding .223 carbine, uses regular M-16 mags and seems like for all intents and purposes to just be a sleeker, folding AR.
I'd like to see the Sub 2000 or the SU-16 become part of the standard survival kit in aircraft or standard equipment stowed in the tighter vehicles, though, yeah. Just for a better alternative for people who have no room to stow a full-sized M-16. Since the SU uses M-16 mags, I'd figure that'd be simplified logistics for sure?
BevrFevr
Member
for shootin or carryin?
If It was for a shootin It would have to be a S&W 1911. I can't think of anything from the list that I can shoot better.
If It was just for a totin the thing around because It was required, it would be a glock with a trigger job or an xd. Because these are the light weight low to no maintenance champs.
You gotta feel for these modern troops and the loads they gotta hump. Saw some at the airport lately. Poor bastards turned sideways and they looked like a freaking freight train with the engine in the middle. I wouldn't ask em to carry an extra gum wrapper.
-bevr
If It was for a shootin It would have to be a S&W 1911. I can't think of anything from the list that I can shoot better.
If It was just for a totin the thing around because It was required, it would be a glock with a trigger job or an xd. Because these are the light weight low to no maintenance champs.
You gotta feel for these modern troops and the loads they gotta hump. Saw some at the airport lately. Poor bastards turned sideways and they looked like a freaking freight train with the engine in the middle. I wouldn't ask em to carry an extra gum wrapper.
-bevr
varoadking
Member
Last edited:
rection47
Member
Not sure if HK still makes the MK23 but i think thatd be the best military handgun.
I see a good following for the XD on the poll figures followed by two evenly matched play's between the Sig Sauer and the 1911.
My main problem with the XD (and the Glock) is that they don't have a hammer
A handgun, in my view, needs to have a hammer. How are you going to de cock it without ejecting the magazine, ejecting the round and pulling the trigger? Also, I like to be able to cock the gun if I want with my thumb.
About the 1911. A few people here have made much about the fact that the gun is just over 100 years old. So what? It worked well up into the 1980s before they changed to Berretta 9mm for political reasons (which they shouldn't have done in my opinion). The 1911 is one of the top semi autos if not THE top semi auto to this day. In a nutshell, the 1911 worked for 100 years. As the old saying goes: If it isn't broken...don't fix it.
My main problem with the XD (and the Glock) is that they don't have a hammer
A handgun, in my view, needs to have a hammer. How are you going to de cock it without ejecting the magazine, ejecting the round and pulling the trigger? Also, I like to be able to cock the gun if I want with my thumb.About the 1911. A few people here have made much about the fact that the gun is just over 100 years old. So what? It worked well up into the 1980s before they changed to Berretta 9mm for political reasons (which they shouldn't have done in my opinion). The 1911 is one of the top semi autos if not THE top semi auto to this day. In a nutshell, the 1911 worked for 100 years. As the old saying goes: If it isn't broken...don't fix it.
9mm?
The real dilemma may be the caliber. Will the Military really change from 9mm? My guess is “No” if the U.N. and NATO have anything to say about it. True special forces will carry .45 and most likely in 1911 or the USP. As a whole I don’t think most of the options given will ever make it, which is too bad. I think it is safe to say most hand gunner’s would never bet their lives on standard 9mm NATO ammo, that’s why we carry JHP or other expanding bullets. I think most will agree that a larger caliber bullet .40 S&W or .45ACP for a non-expanding bullet would be far superior. As for the make of the next U.S. sidearm, I think it would be cool if it were American Made, as long as that doesn’t compromise reliability. I also like the idea of arming more of our soldiers with sidearm’s so a good price would be nice. For me, maybe the M&P in .40!
The real dilemma may be the caliber. Will the Military really change from 9mm? My guess is “No” if the U.N. and NATO have anything to say about it. True special forces will carry .45 and most likely in 1911 or the USP. As a whole I don’t think most of the options given will ever make it, which is too bad. I think it is safe to say most hand gunner’s would never bet their lives on standard 9mm NATO ammo, that’s why we carry JHP or other expanding bullets. I think most will agree that a larger caliber bullet .40 S&W or .45ACP for a non-expanding bullet would be far superior. As for the make of the next U.S. sidearm, I think it would be cool if it were American Made, as long as that doesn’t compromise reliability. I also like the idea of arming more of our soldiers with sidearm’s so a good price would be nice. For me, maybe the M&P in .40!
I do not favor one brand over another but I do favor the 45 ACP as a Military weapon, it has a proven track record as a performance tested weapon, as to the Weapon itself no matter who makes it, it must be 100% reliable under any and all conditions, I would talk to the Military about Mag. Capacity, as they are the decision makers, hopefully they in turn will at least listen to the troops as to what they would like to have.
The 9mm is a fine weapon but the fact remains it has too much penetration to be a good Military weapon, the 45 ACP has a much better record of performance.
As a side note I would not have any objections to a 10mm Auto for the military with this exception I personally do not like the Clock Pistols, I'm not saying they are bad I simply said I don't like them, I would rather see an American made weapon in the hands of OUR TROOPS.
There are several advantages to a 10mm over the 45ACP, such as a smaller sized ammo with more performance, better range of Ballistics, nearly as good a knockdown power, and I do not think the recoil is any more severe that a 45 ACP.
The 9mm is a fine weapon but the fact remains it has too much penetration to be a good Military weapon, the 45 ACP has a much better record of performance.
As a side note I would not have any objections to a 10mm Auto for the military with this exception I personally do not like the Clock Pistols, I'm not saying they are bad I simply said I don't like them, I would rather see an American made weapon in the hands of OUR TROOPS.
There are several advantages to a 10mm over the 45ACP, such as a smaller sized ammo with more performance, better range of Ballistics, nearly as good a knockdown power, and I do not think the recoil is any more severe that a 45 ACP.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll