I’m not that picky when it comes to handguns. If it goes bang when I pull the trigger I’ll find a way to get the bullet to the target. Move closer works. Moving the target closer to me is also effective. Lots of practice helps. But then I don’t have just one gun and I don’t get shot at on a regular (or irregular) basis. As the NRA guy above reports, Uncle Sam’s kitted out his troops with 450k Beretta 92FS pistols for more pressing self-defense/offensive duty. There’s been some kvetching about the Italian handgun (not by Beretta, obvs.). So let’s say you could re-equip the entire U.S. military with a standard issue sidearm. Everybody. Same gun. Which handgun in what caliber would you choose?
1911 in .45 ACP
+1. Recent semi-official re-adoptions of both the 1911 and M14 to actually enable one to kill bad guys properly should be all anyone needs to know on the matter.
I hate to break it to you, but if we ever got a .45 back into service, it’d probably be riddled with Absolute Bull Shit plastic parts. I’m a traditionalist, so take my words with a grain of salt. And yes bringing back the M14 is a great idea. I don’t care whether it’s full and semi or semi only, just bring it back with all its 7.62x51mm glory.
The m14 is now back in service , they got ALL M14’s out of storage and update and now in service in the Middle East,,, Also the Marines are now running tests on the 1911 in 45 ACP … FULL CIRCLE… 556 NATO is and will never be a good BATTLE AMMO!!
I do not know where you got your information about the M-14 being back in service. As an Air Force Pararsescue/ARRS instructor who retired in 2008, our spec-0ps units were still using the M-16 but in 6.8mm SPC.
+1. In steel. If we are going to be the only nation that follows the Geneva Convention on small arms ammo. make the FMJ round nose bullet a large-diameter, heavy piece of metal.
no. leave 1911s in the hands of the civilian owners.
Fact: there is no measurable difference between 9mm and 45.
Fact: M14s are aging. The SCAR H is far ahead in terms of overall attributes.
Fact: 1911s are a pain in the ass maintenance wise.
Using ball ammo? Yes, yes there is. Which is why the Marines and every specops group are screaming for them.
Based on what and compared to what? As a rarely used tool you want to put very large holes in things for less than the GDP of a small nation, they work perfectly well.
Not all special operations troops are screaming for them. As stated previously, Delta is using .40 Glocks. Why? Because they can, and because they work. The marines appear to be screaming for 1911’s mainly for the sake of image and nostalgia, as there are many weapons available in .45 ACP that are lighter, more user friendly, less maintanance intensive, and with a higher magazine capacity.
Little known fact: some elements of the US military are not limitted to ball ammo. The Federal HST ammunition in the white box advertised for sale at Cheaper Than Dirt is US Military contract over run.
“Using ball ammo? Yes, yes there is. Which is why the Marines and every specops group are screaming for them.”
Especially with ball ammo, no there is not. .10-.20 and 200 joules is negligible. shot placement, shot placement.
Btw, every spec ops unit is not screaming for them. One unit, Marine Force Recon, uses the highly modified M45. Delta used 1911 customs before the introduction of other modern guns because they were simply the best option at the time.
“Based on what and compared to what?”
Compared to every other modern handgun that does not need hand fitted parts and the extractor tuned. Enough said.
“As a rarely used tool you want to put very large holes in things for less than the GDP of a small nation, they work perfectly well.”
sure. they are also expensive and maintenance intensive as i have said before. Hardly ideal for big army.
45 destroys 9. 40 is great compromise because the gun frame size is the same as a 9 and you only lose a round or two (Glock22 with 17 rnds vs Glock17 with 19rnds). Nine is good for the ladies (and sub 1lb guns).
The round I would go with is the .38 super. Better ballistics than ANY other handgun round out there. It was the first handgun round to go thru an engine block. It shoots smoother and flatter than any other round. Less recoil than the .45.
Standard round is 130 gr. +p fmj. Does not seperate like a 230 grn .45 will. It will punch into the bad guy, with out going thru said target.
When all is said and done that’s the one. But true to form the military will not even consider this round. With that in mind, then a return to the venerable .45 is the next best answer. Problem with the .45 is that not every one can shoot that cartridge well. That problem doesn’t exist with the .38 super +p.
I believe 357SIG beats the 38 Super in Ballistics.
Yup. 10mm Auto beats any standard round you can stuff in a service sized pistol.
.38 Super is a pointless round as 9mm P+/+P+ either matches or surpasses the round.
There are dozens of pistols in 9mm, .45 and .40 that could replace the Beretta. Why bother? The rifle is way more important.
+1000 we need a major rethink on our rifles.
But, when the pistol comes up, the m1911 .45 ACP has to be the most proven sidearm in history.
eh one of many. the browning high power, the webley, and any colt or S&W revolver are also battle tested.
Bren Tens please.
This is a great idea.
Great idea, except that the FBI tried it and their agents couldn’t handle it. I would guess that FBI agents train with their pistols more than military, who probably train more with their rifles. Just a guess.
Striker fired polymer pistol, Glock, xdm or PPQ etc Something that has been proven to go bang every time and that is stupid simple to field strip…
M&P-striker fired polymer. Minimal maintenance required. Works the first time, every time. They did a 62K round torture test on it, still worked for *possibly* several thousand rounds when the slide cracked (they didnt realize the slide cracked till they took it apart for cleaning). This gun is also accurate, easy to shoot, and they could even change the back straps to give each soldier a slightly better fit. I think it would do a fine job living up to the ‘military’ part of its name.
Until it doesn’t fire harder primed ammo (CCI primers) and jams up on lower powered ammo.
Never had that problem. Shot all types of cheap crap through mine. Do you clean your guns? Did you do a trigger job on it and lighten it up?
There was a well documented torture test where ~62K rounds were fired through an M&P 9mm. I think there were 2 FTF throughout the whole test(blamed on dud rounds too, as the primer had a nice deep indention).
i recall reading the same thing. http://pistol-training.com/archives/6837
That puts its MRBF at approximately 22,000 rounds, which is nothing short of extraordinary!
Id bet my life on my M&P functioning when I need it to, regardless of the ammo. IMHO it is the best polymer gun out there at this point. I bought a Glock 19 not too long ago, but Im getting rid of it, because it just doesnt perform as well as the M&P.
Browning Hi-Power… It’s everything a 1911 is and you get 15 rounds of 9mm
13, but who’s counting.
15 if you spring for the 15 rounders… I have a bunch.
THE Browning Hi-Power is a great Police grade pistol in 45 ACP… problem the 9mm Luger will not knock down a man, (yes you can kill someone with a 22 LR) the 45 ACP or bigger is needed to stop an attack say by someone on drugs or drunk, and even than you better think double tap and one to the head ,, the real world is the body can take a lot of hits and still kill you , even if they later bleed to death…
I agree…hope the army at least looks at the Hi-Power Mk.III. In a lot of ways, I’d say the HP is superior to the 1911 (I own both a HP Mk.II and a Colt Series 80 1911), especially in the sheer simplicity of the design. Back when the 92fs was adopted, FN did not even enter the Hi Power Mk.II, instead submitting the Browning BDA, which proved to be way inferior to the Hi Power. It would also give us the same service pistol as our closest allies…the British, Canadians, and Australians, among others. While some of these countries have started using Sigs and other pistols for their SF units, there is no sign they will be mothballing their standard issue Hi Powers anytime soon.
smith & Wesson m&p in a .40 s&w or. 45acp both great rounds m&p is a no frills very ergo “pointer” has all the current reqs like ability to have a manual safety etc and I believe in American made not only out of the pride side of it all but out of a self preservation sense in house supply in house demand not to mention jobs jobs jobs economically it makes sense and if I couldn’t have the M&P I would go glock 22 or 21 so again either the 40 or the 45 while glocks are not perfect there are as we know ultra reliable usually no maintenance and pretty much as simple to takedown as it gets.
smith & Wesson m&p in a .40 s&w or. 45acp both great rounds m&p is a no frills very ergo “pointer” has all the current reqs like ability to have a manual safety etc and I believe in American made not only out of the pride side of it all but out of a self preservation sense in house supply in house demand not to mention jobs jobs jobs economically it makes sense and if I couldn’t have the M&P I would go glock 22 or 21 again either the 40 or the 45 while glocks are not perfect there are as we know ultra reliable usually no maintenance and pretty much as simple to takedown as it gets.
Five-seveN with 30rd mags.
I was in my favorite shop the other day and someone had tried to drive a “pin” out of the slide on a Five-seveN that wasn’t actually a pin at all. Needless to say they smashed the plastic slide into pieces. That being said, the replacement slide costs only $3.00 from FN. They may be $1000 or more to get into one, but they are cheap to replace any of the polymer parts.
From an armorer’s perspective, I’d go with a Glock. 9 or 45, either way.
The main reason I’d like to see the military go back to .45? Full metal jacket “ball” type ammo remains the only ammo issued.
Pick any reliable, durable pistol design that will save money on the armorer’s side of things. The fact remains that the pistol is the military weapon of last resort, and when it is needed, the soldier carrying it needs it to be effective at stopping the threat.
Smith and Wesson M&P or Glock. Both are proven. I prefer the Glock for long term proof of reliability, but I tip my hat towards the American Made M&P for our Armed Forces. 1911 is too heavy by today’s standards, but I never felt underpowered with one. (But I am also satisfied with a good revolver 🙂
Caliber: I am not a fan of 9mm ball round that our Military is forced to use. If I cold choose any handgun caliber, I would choose 357SIG. It has great penetration and wound channels are devastating even with ball round ammo. The shape of the 357SIG also lends itself toward reliable feeding. My second choice would be .40 . The .45 is a proven round, but many cannot handle the grip size and their is increased weight and magazine capacity to be considered.
Note: The rifle is first choice of combat over pistol and if you have to go to your side arm, things may be taking a turn for the worse. (After handgun comes knife and then hand to hand ). Even SWAT prefers room entry with a rifle. In combat the sidearm is rarely used, but after sitting on your hip in a dirty environment for months, you want it to go bang if you have to draw.
I have a Beretta 96A1 which is the .40 version of the 92A1 (civilian version of M9A1)……..
1700 rounds so far and not a single issue. Flawless.
The take down and cleaning is simple.
There’s a very simple reason the military ordered another half million in 2009. If it isn’t broke, you don’t need to fix it.
My carry pistol is a Beretta PX4 Compact .40. It has 800 rounds so far with not one single failure. The rotational barrel twists the recoil right away from my hand, enhancing target reacquisition.
I admit I am highly biased, but I believe it is with good reason. I love me some Beretta……:-)
Trivia: Beretta started industrial manufacturing in 1526. They are not just the oldest gun manufacturer in the world, but the oldest still existing industrial manufacturer of any product. Almost 500 years of quality and perserverance is almost unheard of anymore in our dotcom, flash in the pan, get the profits and get out, corporate world.
Maybe a decade from now they might improve on the 92A1. I don’t see how it can be improved really, but I’m sure they will think of something.
My Beretta 92a1 and Storm compact .40 are my two most favorite pistols. What about the Storm .45 Special Duty as a replacement I heard the pistol performed well in trials but the program was scrapped.
The pistol that should’ve won the bid to begin with – Sig p226 in 9mm (for ammo commonality with our allies). 229/228 for pilots and vehicle crews.
As a former soldier and 1911 fanboy I’m saying M&P .45 or Glock 21. Either is caveman simple, much larger capacity than 1911, polymer so no worries about being rough and tumble. The average GI is not issued a pistol, they’re issued to support troops, officers, and tankers who don’t need the tricked out assault rifles but still need something just in case. MPs get more pistol time than anyone, and both the M&P and Glock are popular cop guns already. And for those “special” people who are going to have their armorers customize their pistols anyways, both are extremely customizable. M&P get special consideration from me over Glock because it’s ‘Murican. .45ACP because FMJ still makes bigger holes than 9mm FMJ
Also a veteran and 1911 advocate; never issued any other sidearm. Have to agree with the M&P in .45acp as a better choice today because of the simpler manual of arms.
An M1911 .45 Cal for the pistol.
Now the battle rifle is another matter.
The M6 series of rifles needs to go.
Go w/ 7.62×39 and wrap a Bullpup around it.
6.8spc or 7mm-08 beats 5.56X45 or 7.62X39 in a rifle platform.
This is true so lets go with 7mm.
Desert Eagle in 357 Magnum. Expensive, but awesome.
If going Desert Eagle, why not go full-bore and use the .50 AE. Surely all the people advocating .45 ACP due to increased size over 9mm could be behind it. What’s not to love about 1200 to 1600 ftlbs of energy?
Whatever handgun is chosen will have to be equipped with a manual safety. The military is all about catering to the lowest common denominator, and striker fired pistols will be seen by leadership as too “dangerous” for the average troop. Unless, of course, a DAO is chosen.
In that case—SIG P228 in DAO. It’s small enough for women and smaller-handed troops to handle effectively. The 9mm is going to remain the cartridge of choice for mainline troops—let the Spec Ops guys carry what they want(though the SEALs do issue P226s..).
There is a place for 1911s, HK USPs, whatever—in the hands of spec ops, who are more likely to actually USE their handguns in combat. Some troop who is only going to qualify on it once a year—if that? Nice, safe, easy to use DAO autopistol.
The 228 is already in service as the M11.
Yes, I know. USAF OSI carry it. All the more reason to issue it forcewide. Except, of course, in DAO.
The 228 is already in service as the M11. Though it is very selectively issued for some reason, cost I suspect.
USCG crarries 228s… DAK not DAO although it’s not much of a difference.
Well, for cost and reliabilty I would go with a Glock 23. But since we have these rediculous ball ammo requirements….gotta go with a .45 So I would say Sig P220 Combat. Expensive but accurate and reliable…and just damn great!
big 1911 fan but I agree weight and to capacity still have to go m&p and I really am a fan of bullpup but I don’t see that happening to different in mechanics of operation
I’m RAPIDLY becoming a Glock fanboy (you know, the same gun owner I’ve often ridiculed) but I’d have to say M&P in 357 Sig. A simple durable gun with the ergonomics and ballistic characteristics to suit all operators.
I would have to go with M&P just because the military doesn’t trust the troops without a manual safety and with the M&P you can get one unlike a Glock.
glock makes manual safety models for other military and police forces around the world so your argument is invalid.
Sorry I didn’t know but thank you for correcting me.
if the military would actually teach its soldiers, then glocks wouldnt be a issue.
many other militaries around the world are issuing them. go figure.
Oh, you think they just gave us firearms one day and said “go play”? You’re funny.
Despite my own personal distaste of them….I would have to say Glock in .40 or .45, for sheer ruggedness, durability, reliability, and simplicity, especially in overly harsh conditions. For the most part Glock’s are idiot proof and thus a good choice when having to train a large number of people on the same platform.
Glocks are Idiot proof? Hardly. haven’t you heard of the LEO’s that shot themselves in the foot? Lack of manual safety is the issue with Glocks, and although someone said they make models with safeties, its probably not gonna get picked over the M&P, Beretta92, or 1911.
Despite my own distaste for them, I would have to say the Glock, either in .40 or .45. Glocks are reliable, durable and easy to find parts for. They have been shown to operate in the harshest of conditions without a problem. And most importantly, they are simplistic, which is a admirable quality for a platform which will be used to train a large number of people.
M&P with slide mounted safety
The sig-sauer p220 in .45acp. You get the sig trigger and reliability, with the usefulness of the .45acp
The military likely won’t take a striker fired weapon. They want a gun with a safety and frankly, a hard trigger. I agree with that sentiment, since military guns are way more likely to get dropped, kicked, grabbed at, and the like.
I like 45 but it’s ancient, I think we can do better ballistically in 2012. That said, my favorite is still in the FN FNP 45.
Have you ever shot the FNX-9?
Don’t start throwing things at me, but what about the Ruger SR9? Striker fired, has a manual safety, steel slide for accuracy and strength, American made, has a swappable backstrap, and has a 17+1 capacity in the thinnest double stack mag in production.
I think the Ruger SR9 (or SR40) is a good idea for the majority of troops though I’d like to see it with a bit longer barrel. There are plenty of fine choices of ‘American made’ pistols. When it comes to Spec Ops I think they should get what they want.
I actually agree with that.
Ruger makes awesome pistols. Theyre also inexpensive and rugged!
Has anyone done a Glock, XD, M&P-esque torture test on the SR series?
Glock 19 or Glock 23. The 23 is what is carried by Delta, and the 19 is issued to the majority of Army Special Forces ODA’s. Both are simple, combat proven, have NSN’s, and already in the supply chain. Another good option is the .40 Sig 229. Also already tested and issued to the USCG.
For the modern generation of military recruit, the M9 is the ideal platform.
Well wash my mouth out with soap. Did I just say the M9 is BETTER than the storied Glock & 1911? For the purposes of the DoD, yes. Here is why.
Based on my observations as an USAF vet, the typical military recruit today has no actual firearm knowledge. This is drastically different from the days of WWI and WWII.Thanks to liberalization of our urban areas,even basic gun safety concepts are a foreign language to maybe 75% of our newest members.
Unfortunately, the reality of life in the military is that for the most part pistol training in the support units is ignored. Ive seen USAF airmen deploy to a combat zone without *qualifying* because in the crunch time before departure, something had to give and the Sexual Assault briefing took priority over handgun training. To put it differently, there are a LOT of people in the military walking around with a Beretta who have maybe 100 rounds downrange total for lifetime gun experience.Some people haven’t even properly qualified yet and are at the AOR.
Hence the convoluted ROE about Condition 3 and unloaded carry on post at the deployed bases.
Issuing people like this any model of Glock or 1911 without the commensurate training investment would be a disaster.Since the odds of the officer corps putting money into serious handgun training is right up there with the Sun exploding, we’re better off keeping the heavy, DA/SA manual safety 9mm with the really long and hard trigger pull. The problem can be summed up by stating even with all those ‘safety’ features, military folks still manage to ND the frickin’ thing on a regular basis.
“Issuing people like this any model of Glock or 1911 without the commensurate training investment would be a disaster.”
Agreed. I have even stronger feelings about the average civilian owner of Glocks being under- or non-trained and practiced with that pistol. I think Glocks are probably a fine choice for a well-qualified person yet many people aren’t qualified to use it.
i will actually agree strongly. The Beretta is a idiot proof pistol for the next generation of soldiers largely devoid of any firearms experience.
The M9 is actually not that bad. I prefer a Glock, though they are accurate and easy to use, not to mention largely reliable with a decent trigger.
1. H&K P30 or P30L 9mm, or H&K45 or HK45C .45
2. S&W M&P 9mm or .45
If in 9mm: Glock 17
Runner-up: S&W M&P9
Honorable mention: Springfield XDm 9, as long as they make them in US, instead of Croatia. Besides, it’d satisfy DoD’s inexplicable fetish with grip safeties.
If in .45ACP: FNH FNP-45 Tactical. PERIOD.
It’s got everything DoD is looking for: traditional SA/DA, .45ACP, suppressor ready (threaded barrel and suppressor sights), even mini-red dot ready, with highest stock .45ACP ammo magazine capacity on the market at 13~15rds.
Sig-Sauer’s quality control, as of late, sucks (maybe it’s just the non-German ones from NH). And, if it takes corporatist govt tax-thieved ‘money’ to improve, then they’re not worthy of American taxpayers’ FRN’s.
As for the Deutsche co. with the most fanboys, as the recent MP7 whinofest has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, HK just sucks beyond belief, proving themselves to be non-M&P American customer haters (if they didn’t, they’d actually have a proper customer service and developed an aftermarket path) and just another in a long line of corporatist govt teat-suckers.
Besides, I find it telling that Germany’s GSG9 still use Glock, instead of HK, whom if they asked, they’d literally design them anything they need. Not to mention, many in Czech SOF chose Glock over their own CZ.
If FNH can bring P90 to civilian market in semi, in the form of PS90, WTF is HK’s excuse?
But really, whatever they, the DoD and CONgressional monkeys, do, they should do their best to pick an American manufacturer.
Suppose if it’s anything like the stipulations in the Beretta contract, they’ll require setting up shop in US and will be manufactured here.
But still, it would be nicER, if it were S&W or Springfield Armory, vs. FNH or Glock, as much as I personally would prefer the latter two.
CZ75B in .40 Cal
The Guy in the video is American Rifleman magazine editor, Mark Keefe. He is not speeking “from the NRA”.
45 ACP. Prefer 1911 platform. H&K 45c, Glock 21, Springfield XD 45 are prefered poly platform 45s. For rifle platform: 6.5 grendel using 14.5″ – 20″ barrels.
Since this for soldiers wouldn’t we assume the enemy will be wearing armor of some sort? If so, the FN FiveSeven which is designed to be armor piercing. If assume enemy unarmored then M&P in 9mm. If they’re going to pistols over their rifle, something’s likely gone awry and the enemy is close quarters, no? So more ammo the better I figure. That won’t be a civilian DGu situation after all.
i like your thought process, but I don’t think this Five Seven round has the “Stopping” power out of a hand gun
unless you engineer spoon tipped cartridges for them 😀
M&P 45 with the manual safety, night sights, and the 14 round mag all in FDE.
HK45 , HK usp 45 or maybe a double stack 1911. I agree though we need a new rifle more than a pistol. The HK416 is not a bad gun but I think its time to get a more effective round than the 556.
I would choose the beretta 92fs. I’ve lived through the M1911 days and the transition to the M9 and I was much impressed with the improvement in scores at the range.
I’ve also seen the effectiveness of the M9 in combat and it stops people quite well.
I like the safety and decocker.
I see no reason to replace something that works quite well. It would be a tremendous waste of money. People complain about military budgets being out of control. This is one expense that can easily be avoided.
1911… for when you absolutely NEED a full-size, heavy, difficult to take down gun that only holds 8 rounds.
Sig P226. They should have won the bid back in the 80’s to begin with. Too bad they’re so expensive, but I’m sure they could work out a deal with Sig.
An updated 1911a1 with rubber grips and a better set sights, and bigger trigger pad , and in 45 +power A.C.P. you got the best ever……. and made by different venders to see who does the best production pistol (not just Colt)….Mine own is the Springfield 1911a1 G.I. with these updates!
Some flavor of 1911 that fires DA/SA in .45.
I see no reason to waste taxpayer money on replacing something that works.
In my opinion, defense spending is way too out of hand as it is.
A much better choice would be to abandon the Hague Convention restriction on expanding ammo and issue a high-quality 9mm hollow point to our troops.
If it’s good enough for Homeland Security can buy countless millions of it to use on American citizens, it’s good enough to use on enemy combatants.
I’ll jump on the S&W M&P bandwagon. American made and owned, and available with a manual safety. Lighter and thinner than the Beretta with more rounds on board. Chambered in 9mm for greater round count and space/weight savings.
Ruger SR9 would be a runner up. Durable as heck and, again, American made and owned.
Bring back the hand cannon.
Caliber: .45 ACP–Since we’re stuck with FMJ, we might as well make the biggest hole available with standard rounds.
Action: Single–It gives the best results for accuracy. Don’t whine about safety; train the soldiers.
Magazine: Double-stack–And lots of them.
What am I calling for here? A Springfield XD or a Para-Ordnance P14-45 come to mind.
Oh, and if we have to punch holes in body armor with a handgun, 7.62 x 25 Tokarev will do a lot of that kind of work. Surely some gun maker could adapt a 9mm piece for this well-established round.
I agree with you both on the Para-Ordnance p14-45 and on the 7.62×25(my dream handgun is a cz75 sp01 in 7.62×25)
The Karl Lipard 1911. It can hit a human-size target at 10,000 yards in the dark, penetrates six feet of reinforced concrete without causing collateral damage, weighs nothing, never misses, has no recoil and never runs out of ammo.
How about Elmer Fudd’s shotgun? It kills no one, but it’ll leave a black stain on the bad guy’s face for easy identification.
How about the Colt 1911 in .45ACP?
It’s light weight, inexpensive, well proven, simple to maintain, high capacity amazing magazines, parts are available everywhere.
This is my first post (of many, I hope), so please be kind. I’ve shot a variety of pistols and calipers over 25+ years and have come to believe that the two factors most important to suviving a gunfight is shot placement and mitigating the need to reload. While I personally love the 1911 platform and all things .45, the simPly lack the capacity for my comfort level. My suggestion for M&P use would be the Springfiled XDm chambered in 9mm. Though there would be a bit of a learning curve due to the bore height, there is no denying the utter reliability and the benefit of the 19+1 capacity. The higher capacity logically allow for a greater opportunity for successful shot placement an the high capacity would reduce the need to reload mid-fight, which might be the difference between living and dying. As to the safety, I have a XD in .45 designed for a M&P bid with a great 1911 thumb safety. I’m sure it could be easily adapted to a 9mm XDm, thereby complying with NATO recs.
By the above tokens, I would also suggest the FNH FiveseveN, which is incredibly easy to shoot, shoots straight and has a high round capacity which would allow for faster and potentially more successful shot placement. The only downside is the lack of commonality in rounds on foreign soil, which is really another plus for 9mm.
I just have to wonder about the efficiency of the 5.7mm round. Sure, it’ll be after punching a hole in a vest, but what will itself be doing once it’s through? Call me Irish, but if you aim to flatten a body, it takes a pint o’the plain, rather than a thimbleful.
The problem the military faces is that they part out a working project to too many hands, ultimately breaking their new toy with quality control issues. That’s the problem with the M-9. I’ve fired Beretta outside of my time in the military and they were no where near as failure prone. My armorer always said there was no way to fix the M-9 without getting non-issue parts. So whatever, if ever, the military chooses to replace the 92FS with has to be able to use parts with sloppy tolerances (more AK less AR). Maybe they could have better sidearms if they issued them to everyone, then they’d realize that they need to crack down on QC (and maybe they’d realize the pistol course is sub-par), but I doubt it.
I would look at high powered rounds because you are stuck with ball ammunition e.g. 357 sig, 10mm, 5.7 or go with a 45 because of the wound channel. Since it’s for a combat environment, you probably would prefer steel construction and capacity is a good thing so I would probably look for a double stack 1911 in 10mm, if anyone even makes that. If not, people make double stack 1911’s and others make 10mm slides so it’s possible. If I were in charge, that’s what I would put out for RFP while also requiring it be Cerakoted with a Picatanny rail on bottom.
I would not go with the S&W M&P .45 they are trouble prone; Hartford P.D. is getting rid of theirs and buying Glock G22 in .40SW… if it were up to me I’d arm our forces with the Glock G21 SF, jmho…
Simple. the same pistol that should have been adopted for service a long time ago: The Glock 17.
Improve it with a stainless guide rod, tool steel extractor, more ergonomic grip, and night sights.
I don’t doubt a lot of criticism for saying this but I’d say who the beretta won out over. The Sig P226/8/9. Any of the 3 work as far as I’m concerned, and now that they are assembled in exiter, NH, I’d say that parts other such items shouldn’t be hard to get ahold of. It’s a semi-American gun, and it is reliable as a glock or HK. It still has that 1911/92FS style with a hammer system, but stepped up a notch. And with it now being a Semi-American brand, I could see a deal worked out for the military on pricing.
I don’t doubt a lot of criticism for saying this but I’d say who the beretta won out over. The Sig P226/8/9. Any of the 3 work as far as I’m concerned, and now that they are assembled in exiter, NH, I’d say that parts other such items shouldn’t be hard to get ahold of. It’s a semi-American gun, and it is reliable as a glock or HK. It still has that 1911/92FS style with a hammer system, but stepped up a notch.
I don’t doubt a lot of criticism for saying this but I’d say who the beretta won out over. The Sig P226/8/9.
Old combat saying, “Remember your weapon was made by the lowest bidder”. Beretta lost to the P226 in trials. Beretta won in overall cost.
Smith & Wesson M&P. I’d stick with 9mm NATO.
1. H&K P30 (9x19mm)
2. Jericho 941/Baby Eagle/UZI Pistol (9x19mm)
I have never fired one, but the Sig P250 looks interesting. Being modular (slide/barrel; fire control; and grip), I would expect it to simplify the armorer’s job. It appears to already be offered in the vast majority of calibers discussed up to this point (9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .357 Sig).
Realistically M&P 9 with safety a military side arm for average personnel needs a manual safety and 9mm is the nato so I’m sure that’s what they would go with. Not only that you now have a self sustained country using American company/made firearms. That’s a huge +
All our allied use 9mm, so we should use a 9.
Personally I think the gen4 Glock 17 should be the standard.
A little history , after the Spanish/ American war the USA took control of the of the Philippines, We had a war with the local tribes , any how at the time the Army was armed with the 38 cal. handgun, a lot of our troops were getting killed because the 38 cal. was easy to handle and get lots of hits… But it would not stop attacking rebel tribesman , so the Dept. of the Army got out of storage all the 45 colt pistols.. as it had the best stopping power…. now we are seeing the start of maybe WW3, this is no joking matter…….so we have lots troops that can not handle a real pistol ,,, sorry they are in the wrong job at the wrong time in history, they need to get out.. and to save life (we never learn from history) We need stopping power hand guns 45 +p+ACP or better, and a better rifle .. like AR’s in at least 308/7.62×51, DPMS is a good sample… WAR is coming . and it’s going to be on our shores too… LOTS OF BLOW BACK coming soon to our land… Rome fell because they said it could never happen here.. ROMA is history, and America better WAKE UP FAST!!!
There is an AR in 308. It’s called the AR-10 and it lost to nostalgia because we won the Big One with the M-1 so we rechambered it in 7.62 x 51, switched to the box magazine like the original M-1 design, made it select fire and called it the M-14.
(I am sure you know all of that)
Handgun? As a fan boy I should say 1911 but the SIG P220 is the way to go. It’s the modern equivalent.
I am of the opinion that any of the major pistol calibers would be effective if we used effective ammunition, no Full Metal Jacket “ball” rounds. The rag heads aren’t signators of any Geneva conventions so we don’t have to abide by that nonsense with them. There has been much improvement in ammunition technology, we should make use of it.
I also like the Sig 250 because of its modularity and ability to fit the gun to the shooter.
I never understood why it was against the Geneva Convention to shoot someone with a Hollow Point 9mm, but it is okay to shoot them with a .50 cal
Maybe if we started referring to them as Open Tip Match instead of Golden Sabres of Black Talons it would be OK.
Best features of both the 1911 (top end) and the Hi-Power (basis for grip), 12+1 in .45 ACP, and a modular frame which allows it to be swapped out from a full-size service pistol to officer’s model in a very soft-shooting gun.
I’ve owned and shot 1911s, Glocks, XDs, and M&Ps and think all would work, but when given the option, I’d take the MTX.
Any Military handgun is going to have three constraints. 1) Manual Safety. 2) must fit the 95th percentile user, 3) must be in 9mm NATO.
Yes If I were choosing I’d give everyone who wanted one a 1911. However, given the three constraints I outlined the best choice would be either a Smith M&P 9 with manual safety or a CZ-75/85.
Giant double stack guns like the M9 are simply too big for a lot of users, so anything bigger is a non-starter. The Sig M11 is a decent alternative but is saddled with an ancient DA/SA trigger system.
Soldiers should have personal choice to have their private firearms as well. keep 9mm and 45 acp in stores and anybody bringing a different caliber is responsible for their own logistics. Riflemen shoudn’t be kept from having their personal sidearms they know how to shoot.
As some others have already posted, the FNH FNP-45 (now FNX-45) would make a great battle sidearm. With 15 rounds of .45 ACP in the magazine and a design that is fully ambidextrous, it would be an ideal replacement for the M9.
It doesn’t hurt that it is made by FN, which has ties to a certain firearm making genius with the initials JMB. 😉
Ill now be the bad guy and explain why some of the compelling options you guys listed won’t work with the current regs in the DoD.
FNX-Capable of being cocked and locked. Airman Snuffy is destined to put a bullet somewhere bad with that capability.
M&P 9. A decent choice with an external safety. Due to Airman Snuffy factor-remember the end user’s going to have max 100 rounds of official practice and potentially 0! – it would need a 10+ lb connector. Trigger pull is now worse than the Beretta.
Glock: DQ’ed for lack of a manual safety. You do NOT issue safety-less weapons to people with less than 100 rounds behind the trigger.
1911:DQ’ed. You don’t issue weapons with 4lb trigger pulls to people with 100 rounds or less of practice.
Sig P226:Probably the best choice if we’re die hard set on changing things,but now we have to ask exactly what we’re accomplishing with the switch. And the Sig doesn’t have a manual safety. Not a big deal if we’re picking a CCW gun for a Gunsite grad or an FBI HRT member, but a line issue sidearm in the military will spend more time being used as a hammer than at the practice range.
Thus, as much as this conclusion is completely underwhelming, the M9 really is the ideal choice for the U.S. Military right now. When the Pentagon gets serious about pistol training for its uniformed members as a whole, perhaps then we can get serious about the options too.
The Glock actually comes with a Manual Safety and is sold in Europe. Design is already available and Glocks are available with a manual Safety. They are used by Law Enforcement over seas.
I’ll keep my M9…thanks.
Glock 20.Part pistol,part rifle.Real 10mm loads only.Reach out and touch someone.
The CZ P-01 which is chambered in 9mm.
.45 ACP, either M1911 or Sig 220. C’mon guys, for a soldier, a handgun is a poor substitute for a rifle. They’re not cops. Nor do American soldiers go into battle alone. 8 rounds is plenty.
Pistol ammo interoperability is meaningless, so the whole 9mm ‘NATO compatibility’ idea was a poor idea to begin with. Give each battalion a case of .45 ACP and they’re stocked up for a long war. You just don’t expend all that much pistol ammo in modern combat – not while you have a rifle available.
I was also amused to see a revival of that old ‘goes through an engine block’ nonsense in this thread. Nothing short of a .50 Browning is going to do that, and maybe not even then. Not a steel one, anyway… and not with a pistol bullet.
If you want to tinker with the battle rifle cartridge, fine. 6.8 or 7mm/.280 or something, okay – there’s probably an argument there.
Ruger SR45. It
haswill have a great grip. It will have an idiotic, small thumb safety that no one will want to use, unless a unit wants every soldier to shoot themselves in the foot – or it can hopefully just be plain ignored. They can use the “proven” 230-grain ball. And then invent a new round to alternate with the 230-grain ball. Let’s say a 115 grain with a thin FMJ and a steel penetrator that will fragment the round and enhance penetration all at the same time.
+1 for the Smith M&P. Significant weight savings over the M9, simpler manual of arms
for new shooters to learn and only one trigger pull to master, manual safety available, easily fitted to more shooters’ hands, made right
here in America, proven rugged design, available in 9mm (commonality with allies) and .45 (more stopping power)… As long as they train the troops against NDs with the lighter trigger and don’t do anything stupid like low-ball the bid on out-of-spec magazines (read somewhere it was the combo of bad aftermarket mags and the military-specified finish they put on the mags that collected sand and made M9s choke in the desert), this would be a great choice for our troops.
The forty ended the ol’ 9-45 debate (generally speaking) because with a Glock22 you can have 17rounds of 135-200grain big bore vs 19rounds of 110-150grain in the Glock17…….the same size gun. If forced to use FMJ then the choice is clear. Many soldiers will not have hands large enough to use a high cap 45 (single stack…..you must be joking, at 7 to 8 rounds I would just as well use a 357 revolver with 38/38+p/357 low/standard/high velocity rounds).
Well, then maybe they should go back to revolvers. Full-moon clips of 7 rounds of .357 mag.
Well Cobb, I have a s&w627pro 8 shot with 4″ barrel that is cut for Full-moons and it is a sweet HD/ trail gun…..but, for soldiers who fight in groups, a single stack 45 would (probably) be better in that realm because of the ability to change mags a bit faster and easier. You would not have to worry about jamming, lack of training, and maintenance like in the civilian world where revolvers are an advantage to newer shooters because of military protocol that drums out these issues.
Still, The answer really is the double stack, is it not. The only people who would be jipped a bit are the big pawed dudes who can handle the 45 double stack (but 40 would be damn near universal).
I say go with the gold Desert Eagle in .50AE and let each soldier mount the optics of their choice.
That whould be a good pimp gun to intimidate certain riff raff….but, odviously, a much lighter gun with more bullets would be the ticket. A double stack 45 would be about the limits of size if one were to ‘go large’ (or Glock20…10mm).
For the polymer pistol HK45 & HK45ct, for the metal frames EAA Witness 10mm Match & EAA Witness 10mm Compact. Set them all up for quick detach suppressed fire if possible.
The Navy Seals adopted the HK45c, what else can you say? I personally love all of these. I own both HK45’s and they have become my favorite but if HK made a 10mm pistol I would sell most of my other sidearms. Would also love to see Ciener make .22 cal conversion kits like they do for Beretta 92/96 series and the 1911 series.
Really in love with Springfield’s 1911s in .45acp; comes in many flavors/sizes to fit differing roles (also like the XDs if we’re going with poly). And given the fact that the Kriss Vector could potentially be adopted over the horizon (hopeful fanboy), commonality of ammo would keep costs down, and add a measure of convenience. Just my $0.02!
Many good points have been made here. heres my take on it.
Should we stick with the 9mm cal? Answer: NO, Reason: stopping power.
But it doesnt conform to natos specs, so what! Last time I checked the usa
still manufactured its own ammo. So if were going to change the caliber, which
way do we go. Personally I think there are only 2 choices. Either bigger or
faster. Well the .45 is definitely bigger and it gets the job done. The other
choice I see is the .357sig which is your basic 9mm dia bullet on steroids.
Its stopping power is as good if not better than the .45 cal. I would choose
the .357sig in a sig p226 if i could have my personal prefrence.
Of course there are many pistols out there that would work as well. I know
this for a fact because my gunsafe is packed with them. You can pro and con
them to death all day long. Any well made pistol will work as long as
the people using them are trained to do so. If not than it dosent matter what
you give them.
I am not a fanboy of one single brand but I think for stricker it could be HK VP9, for metal frame Sig P226/220 or Beretta Brigadier 92FS. If they like flawless polymer frame hummer PX4 Storm is also very good and cheaper. I own all of them and all great.