Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Army wants a harder hitting handgun

I was a unit armorer back in the day (late '70s, early '80s) and the 20 1911A1s in our armsroom were worn-out beyond repair, in all reality.

35-40 years of "training" with them, and some usage, and they were all but historical relics. I only had FIVE of the twenty, that we could qualify with, the others weren't functional. I tried to get them fixed "No parts available" was the tired old refrain back then.

The only parts I could get from upper echelon depots were magazines and the brown plastic grips. That was IT.

As I was supposed to be issued one, "if the balloon went up", I bought myself a LWT Commander and learned to shoot it.

Maybe the Army could rebuild a passel of them, but those I had weren't going to be rebuilt, they were good for scrap only.

I did 24 years in the military. Shot both the M1911A1 and the M9. Here's my two cents... There's no sense in issuing new pistol of any caliber unless and until the military properly trains the troops to use them. Small arms training is minimal, short, and poor. The pistol is only a tool.

I'd like to meet the man who took seven 230grain hydroshocks and wouldn't go down..I want him ony zone dodge team!

Right on!

It may be only a drop per gallon, but the upper echelons of American politico-military psyche are severely tainted with distrust of handguns in the hands of individuals.

Can't have 'em in the barracks.

Can't cultivate familiarity with 'em (let alone interest or [gasp!] hobby-level enjoyment).

It'd make more sense, IMHO, to encourage every boot to become a dedicated and skillful pistolero.

Troops who need a handgun should be issued a machine pistol. A machine pistol would be easier to learn how to shoot with limited training they get. Just make sure the machine pistol has a burst control device.

Everytime an SF team goes through SFAUC, which is typically every other year, he'll shoot at least 2500 rds through his pistol. The quality of the training varies, as the instructors come and go. Some guys get to go to Bill Rodger's course in Elijay GA. That is a 3K rd course. So, SOME guys are getting decent handgun training.

I always recall Dad's comments on his guns in WWII. He had a Springfield, shot it Expert and liked it. After the AAC realized he was a skilled mechanic he was sent to England to keep B17's flying. At some point they requisitioned his 03 and gave him an M1 Carbine, which he hated. In his words, "I pulled rank (he was a Master Sergeant and line chief by then) went to the armorers and traded it for a Thompson" He liked the Tommy Gun He also had a 1911 at one point, and always liked them, as well.

One thing glaringly missing from the story was any real discussion of bullets vs. caliber. As long as our troops are mandated to use ball ammo instead of modern LEO JHP ammo, common sense dictates... The bigger the hole, the better. Another vote for .45 ACP here, regardless of platform.

While the 1911 in 45 ACP is a proven combination, unless it is going to be just a stop-gap measure, they'll come up with an entirely new weapon and round.... just my opinion!

Phil

Anything to spend stupid amounts of money, without gaining anything at all.

Not necessarily, as far as I know the 1911 has never been used against troops wearing body armor such as our own troops wear.

Phil

The body armor our troops are issued will stop any service caliber handgun round. Hell, they'll stop 7.62x39 and 5.56 (non- armor piercing rounds).

They want low recoil for women troops and/or non-experienced males, penetration of body armor (although maybe not the solid plate armor which even a rifle won't penetrate), high capacity magazines, etc. Lightweight ammo wouldn't hurt either.

I'll make a broad statement and say that for the USA, the 20th Century belonged to the .45 ACP - an auto pistol version of the "big, slow and heavy" .45 Colt. Perhaps in the 21st Century it might be time to look at the 5.7x28.

I don't know a whole lot about the round other than its metric designation but just throwing it out there to get out of the 9mm-40-45 box.

That was exactly my point, the 1911 hasn't been up against body armor, and unless up close, it's too sloppy for an accurate head shot or even accurate placement for a disabling shot in the arm or leg area!

And maybe the army figures in the future we might be going up against better equipped aggressors!

Phil

Glock; Are you listening?

.45 ACP with 9 or 10 round (slightly staggered) magazine capacity and grip circumference similar to the 1911 so that average hands could handle the weapon easier and have better control. Overall size of the weapon would be similar to the commander sized pistols.

Barrel length should be between 4 1/2 and 5 inches and threaded muzzles should be standard or at least options. Tennifer treatment should be standard. Maybe offer a semi-accurized package that would still be reliable under field conditions.

You could have options available-grip adaptors, night sights, IR lasers. Use your basic, proven, striker fired system. Caliber options might include--let your imagination work here. Yahoo!!!!

10 to 1 anything considered will be run through all NATO countries and will be a joint effort...

Phil

A glock 40 would be hard to beat, naturally the numbnuts will need a safety of some sort. I cannot see them adopting the Croatian XDS. Which is a wish and fancy pistol anyway.

The Army had a solisitation out a few years back for a new sidearm, I believe it was called the JSOC pistol. It was to be a .45 acp double stack, polymer type pistol. I remember reading about FN's version that was submitted, it was widely thought to be the front runner at the time. Army dropped the project due to budget issues, now we're back talking about it again.

The XD Springfield 45 would be the best to replace the Beretta

The 1911 is considerably easier to maintain than the M9. But one of the Tupperware guns would be easier.