| Submit your comments on this article |
| Government |
| Army Rejects M9A3 Proposal, Opts for New Pistol |
| 2015-01-19 |
| Posted by:DarthVader |
| #16 The Army had different weapons for helicopter air crews - ejecting is a no-no so we had revolvers. In the Cav that meant Ruger Redhawks in the early 80's. With the Stetsons and tanker boots, and the big revolver in a holster, the locals near Feucht Army Airfield thought we were all cowboys. I doubt crew carry ejecting pistols on helicopters these days either - spent casing in the turbine intake can ruin your day in a helicopter. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2015-01-19 22:36 |
| #15 I think the problem is that 9mm is NATO standard, like 7.62. NATO only bought of on 5.56(M-16 round) because that's what the USA was using. Back in the day for pistols the USAF carried .38, the Army .45. I think that for the USAF the .38 was a better choice for a pilots survival weapon as is was lighter. Both switched to 9mm in the late 80's, to meet NATO standards. Regardless of the weapon the ammunition needs to cross match between Allies just for logistical reasons. I would suggest everybody goes to .40 cal - but don't see it happening. |
| Posted by: Harry Angomoth4592 2015-01-19 21:56 |
| #14 I love the .40 OS. I also rather like the .357 Sig. Either of those I would be very happy with. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2015-01-19 16:30 |
| #13 Would be nice gorb, but we are talking about several hundred thousand rounds to distribute across several thousand supply points over hundreds of miles. And with multiple types, you can have a hundred of your favorite flavor or several thousand of vanilla. History has show the side with several thousand cones of vanilla to throw at you generally wins. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2015-01-19 16:28 |
| #12 Again gorb, multiple handguns and calibers make for a logistical nightmare. There are several happy mediums between a cannon and a bb-gun. I dunno. Couldn't they just have something like the ice-cream truck come by every now and then and everyone just pick whatever ammo they wanted? :-) |
| Posted by: gorb 2015-01-19 16:11 |
| #11 the Glock .40 S&W line would be ideal, if there weren't political barriers, and a lot of old guard types. Damned well proven guns in the field, durable, few parts, easily maintained. And the round is effective, as proven in use by law enforcement, federal service side arm, for decades. Some Ops who use it already - you can carry a lot of rounds (unlike the .45) and still pack a punch (unlike a 9mm). I've carried a 23 since they first came out. I trust my life to it. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2015-01-19 15:19 |
| #10 Again gorb, multiple handguns and calibers make for a logistical nightmare. There are several happy mediums between a cannon and a bb-gun. However soldiers are still allowed to bring a personal sidearm if they supply their own ammunition. ;) |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2015-01-19 14:28 |
| #9 It is also hard for the female soldiers to control. I'll take the hand cannon. Have another option for the women if need be. |
| Posted by: gorb 2015-01-19 13:56 |
| #8 The issue AFAIC is not the gun but the ammo. I've seen the religious wars over .45 vs 9mm vs 10mm(aka .40) vs .357mag vs 44mag ever since I got interested in guns 10 years ago. When you're talking about your own civilian handgun you can get as weird as you want over the details. For the entire freakin' army decide how much punch you have to have for how much weight you can carry AND DON'T LET PC GENDER ISSUES GET IN THE WAY. Then put out an RFP for the best gun to fire that round. Never shot it myself but the .357 Sig always seemed interesting to me but it didn't go over all that well for some reason. Okay what am I missing? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2015-01-19 13:09 |
| #7 Think replacement parts and ammo size x infinity over multiple services. However, if you want competition, just specify the round. Leave the 'option' open for those who wish to 'pay their own way'. If it breaks, that's their problem. Otherwise, one standard |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2015-01-19 12:43 |
| #6 Because that would be a logistical nightmare BP. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2015-01-19 12:05 |
| #5 Why can't each Division commander just decide what gun they want for their troops? |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2015-01-19 11:46 |
| #4 *sigh* Don't get too excited. Remember how the M9 got adopted? It will be just another procurement boondoggle that will be decided by whichever congress critter has the most pull. I suspect it will wind up being another metric mouse gun, with more expensive bells and whistles. |
| Posted by: Nguard 2015-01-19 11:43 |
| #3 There are a lot of good modern versions of the 1911. The drawbacks are it is still a heavy pistol and amount of ammo you can carry is limited as the ammo is big and heavy. It is also hard for the female soldiers to control. Granted you only need one or two rounds to drop a target vs the 7-8 you would need for a 9mm.... I am wanting to see a midrange pistol for the military in competition. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2015-01-19 11:00 |
| #2 I'm not a gunsmith, but how hard would it be to update the good old 1911? Maybe make it out of modern materials where feasible, add the capability to include laser sights, etc. Leave the capability to stop a horse with one shot. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2015-01-19 10:47 |
| #1 YES! That M9 was quite the piece of poo. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2015-01-19 10:30 |