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

There is no shame in someone getting the answer before you.
All the army needs to do is follow the Corps example.

From what I remember, Slick Willie had all the Military 1911's cut up for scrap metal while he was in office, as he did not want them sold as Military Surplus, like M1 Garrands, were.

Crack vs. multiple hits = oh scheist!

I understand that part. Unfortunately tha tmeans folks issued a 22 pistol would suck easily as well as a 9 or 45

I was at Beretta armorers school between the two military tests for the 9mm contract competition. Beretta won the first, S&W cried foul and Beretta won the re-test.
The 9mm was accepted to be more NATO compliant, carry more rounds per pound and to allow for success to the non-shooters in the military.
I guess they have changed their mind.

Same government thinking that created the 10mm after the Miami bank robbery debacle. No plain clothes FBI's wanted to carry it, it was too heavy and hard to conceal. Hence, the birth of the 40S&W.

Now, where did the phrase FUBAR come from? Never mind.

He didn't get the 3 trees in the armory at Camp Foster in Okinawa.

If you couldn't get parts, how do you konw they were not repairable? I'm not saying you are wrong, but asking for repair parts indicates the thought they were serviceable. Not getting parts is different than a piece that can't be repaired.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Because, it was the Army that said so, and it was the Carter era, and that was that.

Absolutely. The Army is too full of its own institutional stupid to acknowledge that the familiarization they teach isn't gunfighting doctrine and that they need to look outside their organization to the one's who've gotten it right.

The surest way to increase handgun lethality against insurgents would to issue 9mm ammo with expanding bullets. Terrorists are not party to the Geneva Convention.

Personally, I think the .357 Sig round would be the optimum caliber for Military use. Better Penatration and bigger round capacity, or the ability to carry more rounds in the handgun platform. But those in charge of securing Military Contracts are not known for IQ or common sense. So we can pretty much rule out them going to a handgun in .357 Sig.

Here's what I posted on the other thread on the same subject :

The Military will buy the cheapest POS with the lowest bid, just like they did with the M9. They won't buy Sigs because they are too expensive. They won't buy 1911's because they are too expensive.

It will come down to either the S&W M&P or the Glock, IMO.

It would be nice if they went with a an American MFG, for a change.
Personally, I'd prefer the Ruger SR9 or SR45 over any M&P or better yet, a Ruger 1911, in .45 acp, of course.

They had the best and schitt-canned it!!

DUMBAZZES!!

Dumb [bleep] in the USARMY and politics is why we got stuck with a friggin 'turtle gun' for a Service Rifle!!

The Army hadn't bought any M1911A1 pistols since WW2. The ones I used to shoot were worn out junk. They had to be replaced after forty years on use.

I understand this was invented to use against modern body armor. I've seen one of these in civilian mode used and boy is it loud. In police and military mode it's available in in full auto. It must be a real blaster.

http://www.fnhusa.com/l/products/handguns/five-seven/

I wonder how they'll convince NATO to join? Germany is still really butthurt that we rejected their 5.7mm

Yep Speer Gold Dots or Federal HST's would fix the problem...

As to one posters statement about using hollow points...

Link


Phil

They just sent some out to rural PDs and Sheriff's Dept's awhile back, last year, along with M16A1s, and vehicles. Slick Willie didn't have them scrapped.

From what I understand we didn't sign the part that restricts the bullets. They just stupidly chose to follow it.

My vote is for an AR pistol. Same ammo. Same magazines. Seriously, why not?
Give them a single point sling so they can hang it under their arm or off their LBE.