Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Next military pistol, who do you see are the top contenders?

In order of whom you think has the best chance

Which model I guess depends on how the whole caliber things
Here's how I see it:

Top contenders:
Sig (P320)
S&W (M&P)
Glock (17 or 21)
Beretta (PX4)
FNH (FNX)
CZ (P-09)
H&K (VP9 / HK45)

Wild Cards (meaning not likely, but have a chance):
Ruger (SR Series)
Springfield Armory / HS Produkt (XD series)
Taurus (24/7 series)

Not likely, will be eliminated early on:
Detonics (MTX)


I think the big wild cards in the whole thing are:
1 - Caliber, which will they decide to go with?
2 - Modular? How modular, and what meets the requirement for "modular"?

Something union made.

But seriously I don't know.

The Ruger, Taurus and XD are dead in the water and the FN and CZ are right behind them.

I'd bet money on the 320 and M&P.

Yep.



Clark

Just some notes on that list.

I have the Sig 320 (or that series) as the top contender because as best I can tell it meets all of the requirements, and is by far the most �modular� of all the pistols out there.
My top contenders list all have a good track record for being major military suppliers (although one could argue either way regarding S&W).

Ruger is a wild card because they have never bagged any really big contracts, just a bunch of small contracts. But they�re a HUGE manufacturing concern with a LOT at their fingertips. If their gun fared well in competition, I don�t think anyone would question Ruger�s ability to fulfill their obligations.
Springfield / HS Produkt � They don�t have much track record fulfilling/supporting large orders/customers; but they do have an excellent pistol. And perhaps they can convince the US that they could setup at Springfield and build the guns�who knows.

The Detonics is under the unlikely for a number of reasons. While it�s a very interesting pistol (I�d LOVE to test drive one), I don�t see anything �modular� about it. But then again, it�s no less �modular� than some of the traditional double action pistols in the running like the FN, CZ, or Beretta. But I see two major strikes against it. 1 � The grip is what it is, doesn�t seem to be much in the way of adjustment. I guess you could change the backstrap but it�s a very small section of backstrap and the only thing you�d be able to do is increase the grip circumference; meaning, their grip frame solution is pretty weak. 2 � And to me this is what really kills the Detonics. Detonics is a VERY small company with little to no track record. I am not aware of any agency, military or LE, that has bought/adopted a Detonics product, so I just see a ZERO chance our military procurement would put that much on such a small, untested company; it would be bordering on criminal negligence. It�s too bad, Detonics has a very interesting pistol.

Yeah, I really see those two as being the real battle, and I'd have to say I'm leaning toward the Sig 320. If this program goes through, unless something fails miserably for Sig, my bet is the 320 would be our next service pistol. I see it as theirs to lose.

If they are to stay competitive S&W better start lining up Board of Directors slots for the soon to retire Pentagon brass and golf junkets for Congressmen to places where child prostitution is legal, plus make some really big campaign contributions...



Of course, I may be just a tad cynical about the military procurement process.

Which ever company has the best lobbyists and the most politicians bought off.

My money is on Beratta.
NATO and 9mm

The issue with the 320's modularity is that it's so modular. You've got three frames to keep track of with every pistol instead of just a pocket full of backstraps. It's a lot to keep track of.

S&W teamed with General Dynamics

And the 320 has absolutely NO safety. The Glock and M&P trigger safeties are a joke, but at least they can claim to have one.

The 320 controls were in the way of how I grip a pistol and I wouldn't start changing everything just to have one. It wasn't that good.

The M&P besides the trigger safety(?) can be had with an ambi. thumb safety.

from Sig's website; " A frame-mounted thumb safety version will be available for law enforcement needs."

Jerry

Don't sleep on Glock. They developed a pistol with an external safety for future military bids (per a former Glock salesperson).

More M9A1's. They're already on order

I should be a Glock, or the FNH, but it won't be. The S&W would be my 3rd place choice. Nothing against the S&W, they just don't fit me.

My bet is that they go with the Berertta in 9mm.

When the US Military is involved, the powers that be will make it a classic cluster fugg.

I understand that Glock has a safety. That to get a certain few contracts they have produced and delivered guns with a thumb safety, down to fire like it should be. They do not want to fool with it as an option so have kept quiet about it. May also be a liability thing, "If your gun is so safe why did you make some with an additional safety." $$$$ for a liable lawsuit.

I dont see DoD buying pistols without safeties.

They bought the M-11, it has no safety.

Glock 21sf and be done with it. If the f'ers can't be trusted with a Glock,they shouldn't have anything, or need more training. The Brits went with the G17.