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

That Detonics abomination will win the same day NASA hires me to build the next space shuttle in my garage.

Not having shot the Detonics cannot comment on it.
I did read the article.
http://bearingarms.com/detonics-siddle-stx-interview/

The army lives for crap like this. Where they have done all these studies like
"We studied the U.S. Army�s anthropometric hand size measurements (i.e. Grip Ergonomics)"

This is just one of many studies they have submitted.

Would not suprise me if they did go for something like this

What is it that you find so negative about the Detonics pistol?

That's a cool looking pistol. Until recently I haven't about them in years.

I know the old Detonics Combat Master had couple of bug-a-boos.
I think they were clip sensitive, and maybe had a occasional galling problem with the stainless. They also had somewhat of a cult following in that when they came out they were some of the first compact 1911's.

This new gun is a completely different iteration then the old ones.

Just wondering if that size company could handle a govt. contract that large??

I know where I saw something like this before. The Wilson Kz 45 a double stack .45 with a polymer frame and 1911 top end. I have handled this gun before. I have fairly large hands and this particular gun was a hand full. Another thing I am remembering now (It has been a few years), I remember looking at the mag well walls with the mag out, and thinking those are thin. I guess they had to keep them on a diet to keep the overall size of the grip down. I do not think they went over that well either.

Nothing in particular.

I'm just tired of hearing people talk about a gun that doesn't stand a chance.

Well it looks like the M9/3 is out of the running,

How did you determine that it does not stand a chance?

It's a single action (not gonna happen), double stack .45 (not gonna happen) from a maker without the capacity to fulfill the contract (not gonna happen).

My understanding is it can also convert to striker fired. Not sure they can't partner up to handle the manufacturing. Just a hurdle to cross nothing more. I have no idea which pistol they choose.

I don't see anything wrong with the pistol per-se (I don't see it as being really "modular" but that word hasn't really been defined).

The problem isn't so much the pistol as it is Detonics; they are not a proven supplier. And the pistol is brand new; completely unproven.

So it's an unproven pistol from an unproven manufacturer. Is that really what you want our military to buy?

If I had to pick one and bet on it I would say the Smith & Wesson M & P.

Testing trials could prove the design and partnering up with a proven produce could prove to be viable. Just hurdles to cross and the pistol is very close to what is being asked for.

But...but... it looks like a 1911!

This should be it...

Wasn't that one of the complaints made against the Glock in the trials back in the '80s when Beretta eventually got the contract and the Glock went on to become the most widely used, widely copied, and one of the most time-tested designs in the modern history of firearms?

No way, just on way. The testing would have to prove the design to be FAR better than anything else before they would ever even entertain such an idea, and a newcommer is not going to prove to be more reliable than pistols that have been in LE and Military service for decades. Having a good design is the starting place, and at this point that's all they have. Design is almost never where a gun goes wrong, it's almost always in materials and manufacturing. Most of those problems never rear their heads until a major organization takes on your pistol. Glock has had 20 years of development. Sig has had anywhere from 10-30 (depending on which pistol they submit).

If the Detonics even makes it out of the first round of trials, I'll be the first man to start a thread here to admit I was wrong and you were right (wouldn't be the first time).

Pretty much, Glock was just never seriously considered because it was new technology, radically different design, and a completely unproven company. Plus in tests the Beretta and Sig were both more reliable. I'm not sure if that would be the case today, but I don't doubt it would be pretty close.

The Beretta got the contract because they bought enough Congress critters and openly lied on their contract bid (price and volume guarantees).

The Glock was ruled out because of your knock on the Detonics and because it was an Austrian design (couldn't give any credence to the Austrians in the early 1980s).

Sig or HK in a 357 Sig round would be interesting for military use?