Sidearms & Scatterguns Military switching side arms again?

#51
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jtwodogs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I love a 1911 design, I have had one in one form or another for ever.
That being said, I would be first in line for a Glock of any kind with and external safety. I think they would garner a larger following if they were available in that flavor </div></div>

Um . . . . . Glock doesn't have a large following???
confused.gif


I don't see Glocks being a .mil issued pistol. Frankly, it seems the longer they go and the more design "revisions" they make, the less reliable they seem to get (still better than any 1911 I've owned). BTW, I carry a Glock at work and off duty, and totally trust them and think they are great pistols - some of the best ever made. But I just don't see them being in the .mil's holsters.

The military is firmly stuck on external safeties. The glock wasn't made with an external safety, and the more parts you start adding to the original design, the less reliable it's going to be. What made the Glock work so well was the simplicity. Few parts to screw up, and those parts are well refined for what they do.

The 1911 is not a modern design, it has lots of moving parts, it's expensive to build and maintain, and they aren't reliable out of the box at a comparable price to more modern designs. There is a reason that not very many police agencies carry them - and it's not just because admin pogues are always looking for the lowest bid (I've been involved in buying police agency pistols - if you have not, don't add your two cents about something you don't know anything about . . . . please).

The M&P seems to be a good option, especially if they go away from the 9mm (which would be a huge deal since there is so much 9mm NATO ammo out there). There are some things I don't like about it, but it seems a solid design. It is what I'd likely pick if I were to buy a single pistol to carry and didn't have to worry about fixing a bunch of them or buying parts for it a bunch of people.

I was issued a Sig when I first became a cop, and I think they suck balls. I didn't start out thinking that. Hell, I read a lot of articles that told me how awesome they were. Sig went out of their way to prove me wrong. They broke an awful lot. The finish was made from compressed rust I think, and they broke a lot (yes I said that twice on purpose - because they broke alot). We still have a bunch of spare parts for our old sigs down in our arms room because it was so important to keep parts on had before we dumped those hunks of crap. I just hope the .mil doesn't end up with the Sig P220.

HK is a decent gun, but is expensive and mags are stupidly expensive - two reasons the military would end up with them.
wink.gif
. They were designed around the .40 also, so that's a point in their favor. I just never liked them much (basically because of the trigger - but moving from the M9 to a similar trigger would make sense training-wise). Do I think they'd be better than the M9? Yeah. I carried the M9 in the Marine Corps, it shot well enough, but there are lots of things that more modern designs do better for less money.

But all of this is pure speculation, and it is kinda funny to watch people argue why their pet pistol should be the next military pistol. Strange why people attach their ego to a pistol because they like it.

Hell, I've carried a G31 in .357 auto for almost 10 years. So since I've carried that and it's saved my ass and I shoot well with it, every other design sucks and anyone who argues with me is stupid. Oh, wait. I shoot the Smith Model 66 great, and it's never failed me in any way. So that's the best military pistol. No . . . wait . . . .
 
#52
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SPDSNYPR</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jtwodogs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I love a 1911 design, I have had one in one form or another for ever.
That being said, I would be first in line for a Glock of any kind with and external safety. I think they would garner a larger following if they were available in that flavor </div></div>

Um . . . . . Glock doesn't have a large following???
confused.gif


I don't see Glocks being a .mil issued pistol. Frankly, it seems the longer they go and the more design "revisions" they make, the less reliable they seem to get (still better than any 1911 I've owned). BTW, I carry a Glock at work and off duty, and totally trust them and think they are great pistols - some of the best ever made. But I just don't see them being in the .mil's holsters.

The military is firmly stuck on external safeties. The glock wasn't made with an external safety, and the more parts you start adding to the original design, the less reliable it's going to be. What made the Glock work so well was the simplicity. Few parts to screw up, and those parts are well refined for what they do.

The 1911 is not a modern design, it has lots of moving parts, it's expensive to build and maintain, and they aren't reliable out of the box at a comparable price to more modern designs. There is a reason that not very many police agencies carry them - and it's not just because admin pogues are always looking for the lowest bid (I've been involved in buying police agency pistols - if you have not, don't add your two cents about something you don't know anything about . . . . please).

The M&P seems to be a good option, especially if they go away from the 9mm (which would be a huge deal since there is so much 9mm NATO ammo out there). There are some things I don't like about it, but it seems a solid design. It is what I'd likely pick if I were to buy a single pistol to carry and didn't have to worry about fixing a bunch of them or buying parts for it a bunch of people.

I was issued a Sig when I first became a cop, and I think they suck balls. I didn't start out thinking that. Hell, I read a lot of articles that told me how awesome they were. Sig went out of their way to prove me wrong. They broke an awful lot. The finish was made from compressed rust I think, and they broke a lot (yes I said that twice on purpose - because they broke alot). We still have a bunch of spare parts for our old sigs down in our arms room because it was so important to keep parts on had before we dumped those hunks of crap. I just hope the .mil doesn't end up with the Sig P220.

HK is a decent gun, but is expensive and mags are stupidly expensive - two reasons the military would end up with them.
wink.gif
. They were designed around the .40 also, so that's a point in their favor. I just never liked them much (basically because of the trigger - but moving from the M9 to a similar trigger would make sense training-wise). Do I think they'd be better than the M9? Yeah. I carried the M9 in the Marine Corps, it shot well enough, but there are lots of things that more modern designs do better for less money.

But all of this is pure speculation, and it is kinda funny to watch people argue why their pet pistol should be the next military pistol. Strange why people attach their ego to a pistol because they like it.

Hell, I've carried a G31 in .357 auto for almost 10 years. So since I've carried that and it's saved my ass and I shoot well with it, every other design sucks and anyone who argues with me is stupid. Oh, wait. I shoot the Smith Model 66 great, and it's never failed me in any way. So that's the best military pistol. No . . . wait . . . . </div></div>

I said larger not large.
There is no stink on a glock have had one in just about every cal., that being said I was trying to bring across the fact that the gov. will most probably be stuck on the external safeties. And my sp 101 .357 has never failed me.
 
#53
Re: Military switching side arms again?

The M9 exists because of politics, as will it's replacement. The merits of the design or function matter far less than cost and alliances made.
My vote goes to the M&P45, not that it matters!
 
#55
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Captain Moroni</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
True, but the Glock LE rep I was talking to about a year ago said he couldn't comment about it and winked. He could have been one of those guys who like to start rumors or he could know about something in the works. I wasn't able to talk to him long enough to get a good feel for him. He was only in the shop for about 45 minutes and most of that was spent on the range with the Glock 18. </div></div>

No offense, but sales reps love to infer that the miltary is going to buy their product. It confers an endorsement of it's reliability.

The Army Times is about as believable as The Navy Times.
 
#56
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kbrady</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Whatever they decide on, I hope they stress practice and marksmanship more than they have previously. </div></div>

I highly doubt that they would stress practice and marksmanship. I say that because during training the pistol is only taken out to go to the pistol range to qual with. Even then there is no one there that actually teaches you to become a better shooter with the pistol. They just shoot the course of fire and they leave. After the range the guns are put away until they need it on deployment so they dont have to carry their M4 around on the FOBs. And even then whens its time to go on deployment the ones that qual with it most of them dont carry it and the ones that do are the machine gunners who never seen the damn pistol or let alone got any trigger time behind the gun before they got one.

IMHO I think that the whole marksmanship has taken a back seat but thats for another topic some other time.
 
#57
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jim D</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
No one makes a 1911 that is half a reliable as a 9mm Glock, for twice the price.</div></div>

That's because nobody would want a gun that was half as reliable as a Glock.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
What makes 1911's a great pistol (the trigger and accuracy potential when properly tuned) isn't a selling point for widespread military (re)adoption.</div></div>

Bullshit again. What makes the 1911 attractive is ERGONOMICS, not mechanical accuracy, which is sloppy compared to new guns. A lighter, shorter, smoother trigger is one feature alone that would drastically improve marksmanship among shooters that don't have the time or the ammo budget to improve their shooting.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
We're in an era where machining is cheap, and labor is expensive. When the M1911 was adopted, the inverse was true.</div></div>

I thought the 1911 was unreliable and didn't have the desirable features? Now it's just too expensive to field? Which is it?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The cost, capacity, manual of arms, and reliability are all strikes against the 1911. If they want a .45acp, the S&W M&P.45 or the HK45 are infinitely more suitable.</div></div>

Yeah, nothing like another double stack brick in their hands to kill any chance of a decent grip for every shooter, especially one in a bigger caliber so that we can assure the grip is too fat for even the big guys. GREAT idea.

Sometimes you're absolutely on point, but today you're way off the mark.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jim D</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

If you think even 1% of our men and women in uniform are capable of shooting well enough to shoot beyond the mechanical potential of even a beat up Glock, you are mistaken.

The issue of hitting the target is a training issue, not a hardware one. </div></div>

I shoot a LOT, and I can still shoot more accurately with a gun that fits my hand and doesn't have a 12 lb trigger. Is this a training issue or is it just easier to hit the target when the weapon isn't working against you? I'll let you decide.
 
#58
Re: Military switching side arms again?

I don't see a Glock being a military issue for big Army (not Spec Ops)for the simple fact they are made in Austria. I could see the military going for the S&W M&P because it's made in America and it seems to have the durability of a Glock to hold up in extreme environments. Add to that you can get them with a thumb safety and a magazine safety (IMHO not required for a combat handgun) so it reduces the chances of "Joe" having a negligent discharge (ND), of course in the end it won't matter, "Joe" will always find a way to have an ND. (I'm retired military so I have seen it too many times).
 
#59
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: FX44</div><div class="ubbcode-body">of course in the end it won't matter, "Joe" will always find a way to have an ND. (I'm retired military so I have seen it too many times). </div></div>

Yes, Yep, and Yup.

Keep in mind guys. We're not talking about DeltaRangerSEALs here. This pistol will go to PrivateNoClass Harry NumbNuts who can't work a radio, can fuck up a humvee, but can work his facebook better than the entire battalion.

And the Army Times likes to show the latest weaponry almost as much as Popular Mechanics and Pop Science.

I've only known the Army Times for making high quality toliet paper with print.
 
#60
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jim D</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
No one makes a 1911 that is half a reliable as a 9mm Glock, for twice the price.</div></div>

That's because nobody would want a gun that was half as reliable as a Glock.</div></div>

The market is buying PLENTY of cut-rate 1911's by the bushel, right now, that fit this description.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
What makes 1911's a great pistol (the trigger and accuracy potential when properly tuned) isn't a selling point for widespread military (re)adoption.</div></div>

Bullshit again. What makes the 1911 attractive is ERGONOMICS, not mechanical accuracy, which is sloppy compared to new guns. A lighter, shorter, smoother trigger is one feature alone that would drastically improve marksmanship among shooters that don't have the time or the ammo budget to improve their shooting.</div></div>

Ergonomics is meaningless, get used to lining your sights up and pressing the trigger cleanly. If ergonomics meant anything, no-one would be able to shoot a gun well which didn't have "good ergonomics" (whatever that is).

A shorter lighter trigger with reduced capacity and increased recoil is hardly moving in the right direction.

Do you really think that triggers would all be perfect on military issue 1911's? I doubt it. You would have a range from 5-8#, easily. An M&P, Glock, or HK would be far more consistent (gun to gun) than attempting to field that many 1911's.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
We're in an era where machining is cheap, and labor is expensive. When the M1911 was adopted, the inverse was true.</div></div>

I thought the 1911 was unreliable and didn't have the desirable features? Now it's just too expensive to field? Which is it?</div></div>
In order for it to be reliable, it's going to cost a lot of time and money. They certainly CAN be reliable...but it's not practical to put the effort into that when you can buy an off the shelf modern design that requires no work to run, and needs zero parts fitting.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The cost, capacity, manual of arms, and reliability are all strikes against the 1911. If they want a .45acp, the S&W M&P.45 or the HK45 are infinitely more suitable.</div></div>

Yeah, nothing like another double stack brick in their hands to kill any chance of a decent grip for every shooter, especially one in a bigger caliber so that we can assure the grip is too fat for even the big guys. GREAT idea.</div></div>
Have you shot an M&P45 or HK45? Have you shot them with the smaller grip inserts on them?

If the M9 is acceptable (grip wise) to the military, then there is no reason the grip size on any of the options mentioned above would be a problem.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Sometimes you're absolutely on point, but today you're way off the mark.</div></div>
Shucks... sorry to disappoint you.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jim D</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

If you think even 1% of our men and women in uniform are capable of shooting well enough to shoot beyond the mechanical potential of even a beat up Glock, you are mistaken.

The issue of hitting the target is a training issue, not a hardware one. </div></div>

I shoot a LOT, and I can still shoot more accurately with a gun that fits my hand and doesn't have a 12 lb trigger. Is this a training issue or is it just easier to hit the target when the weapon isn't working against you? I'll let you decide. </div></div>

Um, All of the guns I mentioned ship with a 5-7# trigger.

I too shoot a lot, and can shoot a Glock just as accurately as most $3k 1911's.

Just because you have a passion for 1911's (or shoot them well) doesn't make them more suitable for widespread use.
 
#61
Re: Military switching side arms again?

The only "cut rate" 1911s I've ever seen come from Taurus. Other than that, there are guns coming from all over the place of decent quality. In fact, I'd bet the standard Rock Island is nicer than most of the sidearms our troops carried for over 70 years.

If you think ergonomics isn't important, I'm sorry to inform you that you're sadly mistaken. If a company built an automobile in which the seats tortured the driver, the steering wheel was out of reach without bending forward, and one's knees were rammed up against the dashboard to reach the pedals, nobody would buy it, and for good reason. And there'd be absolutely no way, even for the best driver, to get the best performance out of that vehicle, regardless of its other capabilities. Firearms--handguns especially--are no different. The manufacturers are realizing this and fitting their grips to the human hand instead of the other way around. Glock, the company you cite, has made basically no progress in this area. Their grip still feels like a 2x4, and if you don't think that translates to reduced performance on the target, just look at the holsters of most LEOs. 10 years ago, Glock was the only game in town. That's definitely not the case anymore.

Now you've entered two more concerns, capacity and recoil. Within reasonable limits, recoil is irrelevant anyway since it happens after the bullet has left the muzzle, but even if it did matter, that is a discussion related to caliber choice and not the weapons system itself. I don't think capacity should be the utmost consideration, either, nor do I think that we should field a fat gun that doesn't fit smaller soldiers just to get a few more rounds. Personally, the number of double stack guns that I own is severely overshadowed by the single stacks, and for a reason. I know I'm not alone in wanting a narrower grip. This is not a training issue; the human hand is only so large.

The part fit issue has a modern remedy too that doesn't involve giving up the basic features that make the 1911 work well for so many people. There's absolutely no reason why a modern gun with the grip shape, trigger, etc. of the 1911 couldn't be designed for CNC production and basically zero gunsmith fitted parts. It probably wouldn't be practical to do so for the civilian market, but if the military was going to buy a half-million pistols, it could be done easily. The first thing that'd probably have to go is the barrel link/lockup lug setup for something that locks up on the barrel hood, and eliminating the barrel bushing could probably save some fitting as well. Either way, if the complaint is that the design was made for paper and pencil engineering and needs to be updated to fit modern reality (CNC, etc.) I see no problem with that. The S&W M&P was obviously designed on the computer and it's been highly successful. I'm not a purist or a fanboy and I'd have no problem seeing a modern redesign of the gun, but I would want it to keep the key features: single action, single stack, ergonomic controls, etc.

Trigger weight was not the point and you know it. The problem with the striker fired guns is that the trigger is long and gritty. Even if it were 3 pounds, it's harder to shoot fast. Yes, it can be done. Bob Vogel made GM in Open with a stock G17. That doesn't mean that almost all shooters don't find it far easier to shoot a gun accurately when the trigger only requires 1/8" of movement and is relatively light.

Nothing can improve the effectiveness of a weapons system as much as ergonomics. Making the gun fit the shooter shortens the learning curve and gets them on target quicker.

A single action gun can be shot faster and easier than any other type. That's why all of our rifles are still single action. Fielding a rifle with a double action trigger pull would be considered preposterous. The only reason we're stuck with double action pistols is that a cocked hammer looks menacing. If the hammer were inside the gun like it is with a rifle, nobody would be arguing for removal of the most important feature that helps the shooter get the shots in the center of the target--a light, short trigger pull.

I am not talking about fielding sloppy, WW II esque 1911s with tiny sights, spur hammers, etc. In fact, I'm not even married to the idea that it look like a 1911. But where the M9 lacks is in the most important area for shooters, and that makes no sense for a weapon that is primarily a backup (or a backup to their backup).

The military doesn't have the budget to turn every soldier into a gunfighter with a pistol, and it never will. An effective solution will require finding them a piece of equipment that is easiest to learn on.

I'd be really surprised if you can shoot the same splits with a Glock that you can with a $3,000 1911. If that's true, good for you, but I find that highly unlikely.

I have passion for 1911s because I've tried everything else and nothing even comes close for me. I think that's a shame, too, because I think a lot of the grips you have about the 1911 are worth some weight. Where I don't agree is that the modern striker fired, double stack pistol is the solution. It's not, because we had a pistol that was easier to shoot 100 years ago.
 
#62
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<span style="font-weight: bold">"Glock, the company you cite, has made basically no progress in this area"</span>


Glock has made inprovements to their grip with each generation.

Gen2 - improved front/rear grip stippling

Gen3 - finger grooves and thumbrest

Gen4 - backstrap options
 
#63
Re: Military switching side arms again?

I had an issue 1911A1 back in my earlier days.

Personally I found the grip too small, but I like a 1911 with a Hogue wraparound.

When you start talking ergos, and mil issue, you have to understand it will never fit everyone. They will go with a middle of the road size that will be serviceable for most people.

The mil doesn't give a shit about split times, or optimizing each weapon to it's individual user.
 
#64
Re: Military switching side arms again?

No love for the M9 here either. But when the M9 replaced the 1911A1, the shooting score improved so much the Marines decided to make the scoring/qualification levels more difficult. Folks simply shot the M9 a lot better.
 
#65
Re: Military switching side arms again?

As expected, this thread has become comical!

Politics aside, the only choice is the M&P 9. NATO will not be changing from 9mm. The MP is a great pistol. It has an external safety available. Its made in the USA.

It is the choice.

Sorry 1911 guys, but what you wish reality to be, and what it ACTUALLY is are two different things all together. I'm a glock guy, yet I still say the Smith MP is *the* choice.
 
#66
Re: Military switching side arms again?

Many of you don't seem to realize the purpose of the sidearm in the military.

You also seem to think that everyone in the mil is a shooter or gun person.

Some of these discussions make me laugh my ass off.

I carried a M9. I shot multiple award expert with it. I had an intense dislike of that pistol. However I was smart enough to realize that it was better than a K-Bar.

I own a 1911 currently. I owned it back when I was issued an M9. If they would have let me take it on deployment, I would have. I hated the fact the DAP boys had Springfields to go with their shiny MP5's.

Regarding field stripping, I don't know what the rules were back in the day. With my personal 1911 field stripping takes about 30 seconds with my two hands. We aren't talking about detail stripping. I have detail stripped my 1911 and it's no more difficult that detail stripping an M16 (which is also not authorized at field level maintenance). Stripping an M9 past field stages is not for the average GI either. Lots of stuff to loose in the dirt.

The M9 needed to be replaced over a decade ago. I will bet it will take another decade for them to decide on a replacement.

I don't have a favorite pistol that I am rooting for. You can bet that anything out there is going to have to go through ten (or more) different changes before it ends up in GI Joe's hands.

I can tell you that if I was heading out with a rifle and ruck tomorrow, I would not have a problem if you handed me a M1911 to ride in my holster. Then again, I am a gun guy and an avid shooter.
 
#67
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: turbo54</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As expected, this thread has become comical!

Politics aside, the only choice is the M&P 9. NATO will not be changing from 9mm. The MP is a great pistol. It has an external safety available. Its made in the USA.

It is the choice.

Sorry 1911 guys, but what you wish reality to be, and what it ACTUALLY is are two different things all together. I'm a glock guy, yet I still say the Smith MP is *the* choice. </div></div>

What he said.
 
#68
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SPDSNYPR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The 1911 is not a modern design, it has lots of moving parts, it's expensive to build and maintain, and they aren't reliable out of the box at a comparable price . . . . </div></div>
If you look at the military M1911 and M1911A1, they worked perfectly, with 230gr FMC ammo.
And they were loose.

I never had an Army M1911(A1) malfunction, and other than cleaning they took no maintenance. (My company had 157 .45 pistols, and they were not babied, and were shot twice a year and went out in the field many times a year, so I think I have a good sample.)

When the civilian market started messing with them, tightening up the slides, using HP and WC ammo, they started messing up. (As per your other point about messing with a good design.)

However, I never expect to see a single action pistol in the US military general inventory.
 
#69
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MontanaMarine</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Personally I found the grip too small, but I like a 1911 with a Hogue wraparound. </div></div>

Sure was a whole lot easier to make the skinny gun wider than it is/was to make the fat gun skinnier, isn't it?
 
#70
Re: Military switching side arms again?

I seriously doubt this is going to happen, changing pistols that is, anytime soon. The DOD just does not have the funds to get this one done in the near future. JMHO.
 
#72
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MontanaMarine</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Personally I found the grip too small, but I like a 1911 with a Hogue wraparound. </div></div>

Sure was a whole lot easier to make the skinny gun wider than it is/was to make the fat gun skinnier, isn't it? </div></div>

I've never really had issue with too large of grip. I put the Hogue grip sleeve on my Gen2 Glock 17/22/21, and they feel real good to me.

I shot a Desert Eagle one time though, and the grip on that seemed a little bit too much.
 
#73
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The only "cut rate" 1911s I've ever seen come from Taurus. Other than that, there are guns coming from all over the place of decent quality. In fact, I'd bet the standard Rock Island is nicer than most of the sidearms our troops carried for over 70 years.

If you think ergonomics isn't important, I'm sorry to inform you that you're sadly mistaken. If a company built an automobile in which the seats tortured the driver, the steering wheel was out of reach without bending forward, and one's knees were rammed up against the dashboard to reach the pedals, nobody would buy it, and for good reason. And there'd be absolutely no way, even for the best driver, to get the best performance out of that vehicle, regardless of its other capabilities. Firearms--handguns especially--are no different. The manufacturers are realizing this and fitting their grips to the human hand instead of the other way around. Glock, the company you cite, has made basically no progress in this area. Their grip still feels like a 2x4, and if you don't think that translates to reduced performance on the target, just look at the holsters of most LEOs. 10 years ago, Glock was the only game in town. That's definitely not the case anymore.</div></div>

Glock currently owns about 70% of the market when it comes to duty pistols. I work for a distributor which sells Glock, S&W, Sig, and Springfield...directly. Glock sales eclipse the rest so bad, it's not even close.

IF you think "feel" and grip angle and all of this stuff that people like to make a big deal about, matters...we can compare targets and scores on drills any time you'd like. It's not an issue for me, or most shooters who know how to apply the fundamentals (which is the real issue).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now you've entered two more concerns, capacity and recoil. Within reasonable limits, <span style="font-weight: bold">recoil is irrelevant anyway since it happens after the bullet has left the muzzle,</span></div></div>
There isn't a single pistol caliber bullet that give you a reliably "one shot stop" unless you hit the CNS (in which case all of them will). So recoil, and your ability to place additional hits on your target most certainly matter, in the real world.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> but even if it did matter, that is a discussion related to caliber choice and not the weapons system itself. </div></div>
Certain guns shoot softer than others within the same caliber. An HK45 for example shoots softer than an XD45, or many 1911's for that matter. Material flex, spring rates, unlocking mechanisms, etc. all play a roll in felt recoil and how rapidly you can shoot the gun.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I don't think capacity should be the utmost consideration, either, nor do I think that we should field a fat gun that doesn't fit smaller soldiers just to get a few more rounds. Personally, the number of double stack guns that I own is severely overshadowed by the single stacks, and for a reason.</div></div>
Single stack service pistols have been the minority choice for decades. What single stack pistol has been introduced in the past 20 years and is doing well? I can't think of a single full-size design, only compacts and sub-compacts where they're built for concealment.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I know I'm not alone in wanting a narrower grip. This is not a training issue; the human hand is only so large.

The part fit issue has a modern remedy too that doesn't involve giving up the basic features that make the 1911 work well for so many people. There's absolutely no reason why a modern gun with the grip shape, trigger, etc. of the 1911 couldn't be designed for CNC production and basically zero gunsmith fitted parts. It probably wouldn't be practical to do so for the civilian market, but if the military was going to buy a half-million pistols, it could be done easily. The first thing that'd probably have to go is the barrel link/lockup lug setup for something that locks up on the barrel hood, and eliminating the barrel bushing could probably save some fitting as well. Either way, if the complaint is that the design was made for paper and pencil engineering and needs to be updated to fit modern reality (CNC, etc.) I see no problem with that.</div></div>
HK looked at doing just that - CNC'ing a 1911 that would be 100% drop in parts machined to the tolerances necessary to guarantee total reliability. Once they realized this was a pipe-dream, the set to work on the HK45 (which has been a huge sucess).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The S&W M&P was obviously designed on the computer and it's been highly successful. I'm not a purist or a fanboy and I'd have no problem seeing a modern redesign of the gun, but I would want it to keep the key features: single action, single stack, ergonomic controls, etc.

Trigger weight was not the point and you know it. The problem with the striker fired guns is that the trigger is long and gritty. Even if it were 3 pounds, it's harder to shoot fast. Yes, it can be done. Bob Vogel made GM in Open with a stock G17. That doesn't mean that almost all shooters don't find it far easier to shoot a gun accurately when the trigger only requires 1/8" of movement and is relatively light.

Nothing can improve the effectiveness of a weapons system as much as ergonomics. Making the gun fit the shooter shortens the learning curve and gets them on target quicker.</div></div>

I would disagree, and it's unrealistic to think you can offer 1 gun that will fit petite female, dudes with big 'ol bear paws, and guys with short stubby sausage fingers. They need to suck it up and apply the fundamentals. Giving them a sub-optimal weapon because they like the feel of it is backwards. Feel is subjective. What I thought felt good is not what I think feels good now. Through understanding the fundamentals and how to best apply them, I thing designs "feel good" when I can apply the fundamentals with them. I have no problem shooting 1911's, Glocks, M&P's, HK's, or Beretta's almost equally well.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A single action gun can be shot faster and easier than any other type.</div></div>
So recoil didn't matter earlier, but now action type does?

I've shot an LEM HK P30 faster than a 1911 in .45acp. So action/trigger type is only one small aspects of a much bigger issue.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's why all of our rifles are still single action. Fielding a rifle with a double action trigger pull would be considered preposterous. The only reason we're stuck with double action pistols is that a cocked hammer looks menacing. If the hammer were inside the gun like it is with a rifle, nobody would be arguing for removal of the most important feature that helps the shooter get the shots in the center of the target--a light, short trigger pull.

I am not talking about fielding sloppy, WW II esque 1911s with tiny sights, spur hammers, etc. In fact, I'm not even married to the idea that it look like a 1911. But where the M9 lacks is in the most important area for shooters, and that makes no sense for a weapon that is primarily a backup (or a backup to their backup).

The military doesn't have the budget to turn every soldier into a gunfighter with a pistol, and it never will. An effective solution will require finding them a piece of equipment that is easiest to learn on.</div></div>

Until we do put more of a priority on training our shooters how to hit, then we will continue to have major problems (typically blamed on caliber- when it's actual a problem with hitting the intended target).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd be really surprised if you can shoot the same splits with a Glock that you can with a $3,000 1911. If that's true, good for you, but I find that highly unlikely.</div></div>

I have the signed target from LAV where I shot one of my best scores he's ever seen (open enrollment students only) on a 600 point pistol aggregate, using a Glock 19 with standard trigger. When I shot the same test, also with LAV, using a Les Baer SuperTac with an absolute phenomenal trigger (best I've felt in any 1911 - including some full house customs from some notable smiths) I shot a much lower score. In both instances I came in 2nd in the class. In the first example with a Glock, I lost to LAV who was using a Glock 17 with a red dot sight. When I lost using the 1911, I lost to an HRT guy shooting a Springfield Pro. My target was substantially better with the Glock.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have passion for 1911s because I've tried everything else and nothing even comes close for me. I think that's a shame, too, because I think a lot of the grips you have about the 1911 are worth some weight. Where I don't agree is that the modern striker fired, double stack pistol is the solution. It's not, because we had a pistol that was easier to shoot 100 years ago. </div></div>
 
#74
Re: Military switching side arms again?

Much of what you say is from personal experience, which is good, but it's also personal opinion. We all have opinions which have no bearing on what the military is actually going to do. Oh well. I will take one thing you said and repost it, mainly because I mentioned it earlier and it is very important:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Until we do put more of a priority on training our shooters how to hit, then we will continue to have major problems (typically blamed on caliber- when it's actual a problem with hitting the intended target).</div></div>

Whether they give them a 1911, a Glock, or a rubber band with rocks, they need to do more than qualify and then pack them away for a rainy day. With the unlimited amount of tools and technology we have at our disposal, the overall proficiency with a sidearm should be much higher.
 
#76
Re: Military switching side arms again?

Reliability is far more important consideration than the ergonomic differences between the common handgun platforms out there today. It is a last ditch defensive weapon and must go bang every time.

I like 1911s, can shoot them well, enjoy the trigger, etc but the reliability of most 1911s has been easily eclipsed by the more modern designs. Only a few special units will get weapons with a lot of individual attention...the average service member gets an off the shelf production weapon with minimal attention. That means the design itself must be one that is tolerant of manufacturing tolerances and various levels of maintenance and care, that alone rules out 1911s.

Ergos are nice but reliability is mandatory. That said, it would be very hard for the military to beat the HKP30 if they stick with the 9mm, as it is full of both. Glocks may not have the best ergos but on the average they will beat any production 1911 out there in reliability.
 
#77
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kbrady</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Much of what you say is from personal experience, which is good, but it's also personal opinion. We all have opinions which have no bearing on what the military is actually going to do. Oh well. I will take one thing you said and repost it, mainly because I mentioned it earlier and it is very important:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Until we do put more of a priority on training our shooters how to hit, then we will continue to have major problems (typically blamed on caliber- when it's actual a problem with hitting the intended target).</div></div>

Whether they give them a 1911, a Glock, or a rubber band with rocks, they need to do more than qualify and then pack them away for a rainy day. With the unlimited amount of tools and technology we have at our disposal, the overall proficiency with a sidearm should be much higher.</div></div>

Quoted for truth.

Todays military spends far too much time in EEOC training, computer training, and other non-combat related BS training topics to spend worrying about weapon proficiency.

If they did actually devote more time to training it would probably be better spent on being a better rifleman than on the handgun anyway.
 
#78
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Reliability is far more important consideration than the ergonomic differences between the common handgun platforms out there today. It is a last ditch defensive weapon and must go bang every time.

I like 1911s, can shoot them well, enjoy the trigger, etc but the reliability of most 1911s has been easily eclipsed by the more modern designs. Only a few special units will get weapons with a lot of individual attention...the average service member gets an off the shelf production weapon with minimal attention. That means the design itself must be one that is tolerant of manufacturing tolerances and various levels of maintenance and care, that alone rules out 1911s.

Ergos are nice but reliability is mandatory. That said, it would be very hard for the military to beat the HKP30 if they stick with the 9mm, as it is full of both. Glocks may not have the best ergos but on the average they will beat any production 1911 out there in reliability.

</div></div>

All the reliability in the world is worthless if the soldier cannot hit the target reliably and repeatedly. One or the other is not enough. Whatever is selected must offer both.
 
#79
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EddieNFL</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you think even 1% of our men and women in uniform are capable of shooting well enough to shoot beyond the mechanical potential of even a beat up Glock, you are mistaken.</div></div>

Then we should give them clubs...or at least all steel handgun. </div></div>

Actually, the short barreled rifle (M4 and company) are the reason we (arguably) should not issue handguns.

The M-1 Carbine was adopted because so many truck drivers were not making hits with the 1911. They could not have done so with any handgun. They were much better off <span style="font-weight: bold">making hits</span> with the little M1 carbine.

Its simply much easier and more useful (to the Military) to get soldiers weapons that they won't put down.

BMT
 
#80
Re: Military switching side arms again?

The main problem with the current weapons not performing in not all the weapons fault.The problem is LACK of training!!!No matter what they issue if the troops are not trained it's a moot point. The least amount of training is firearms training what a crock of shit.The military has made lots of bad choices over the years and weapons are at the top of the list right after lack of training. A trained soldier can use any weapon to fight if PROPERLY trained.A untrained soldier is useless with the best of hardware.To prove my point give a person with 0 training a $4000 rifle and match ammo. And give Lowlight a factory rifle with walmart bulk ammo. Who will score higher???
 
#81
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Reliability is far more important consideration than the ergonomic differences between the common handgun platforms out there today. It is a last ditch defensive weapon and must go bang every time.

I like 1911s, can shoot them well, enjoy the trigger, etc but the reliability of most 1911s has been easily eclipsed by the more modern designs. Only a few special units will get weapons with a lot of individual attention...the average service member gets an off the shelf production weapon with minimal attention. That means the design itself must be one that is tolerant of manufacturing tolerances and various levels of maintenance and care, that alone rules out 1911s.

Ergos are nice but reliability is mandatory. That said, it would be very hard for the military to beat the HKP30 if they stick with the 9mm, as it is full of both. Glocks may not have the best ergos but on the average they will beat any production 1911 out there in reliability.

</div></div>

All the reliability in the world is worthless if the soldier cannot hit the target reliably and repeatedly. One or the other is not enough. Whatever is selected must offer both.</div></div>

I agree with that, but I also believe that most of the common designs out there, such as the M&P, Glock, the XD, and the various HKs, all have ergos that are good enough for a soldier to perform. If the soldier is missing the target it wont be because of the ergos from any of these weapons.

That being said, again something like the HK P30 would be an example of extreme reliability and great ergos that are likely to fit a wide variation in hand size.

Like most things military, there is only so much consideration given to the variation between soldiers. In any one soldiers career there will be a hundreds of situations that are not optimized for them individually. The acquisition guys could probably do better with a new designed from the ground up sidearm in a single stack like you suggest, but we both know it is unlikely.
 
#83
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ubet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is their any chance they would go with something like the sigp220? Accurate, reliable, good ergos, and they can come with an external safety. </div></div>

God I hope not. I have SERIOUS problems with non-Americans making stuff for our military. I like Sigs. I like the 220. But why the f%&* would we/do we issue weapons made in another country? Lunacy.
 
#84
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jtwodogs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I love a 1911 design, I have had one in one form or another for ever.
That being said, I would be first in line for a Glock of any kind with and external safety. I think they would garner a larger following if they were available in that flavor </div></div>

Other than the military having their "reasoning" for a redundant safety, Hell no for me.

Keep you booger picker off the bang switch works just fine.

Whatever the selection ends up being it should have a double stack hi cap magazine.
 
#85
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kbrady</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Whatever they decide on, I hope they stress practice and marksmanship more than they have previously. </div></div>

That's no joke.
 
#86
Re: Military switching side arms again?

Hopefully it is the M&P

However, they'd have to make the trigger 1 piece. This 2 piece safety thing sucks balls, and I can see it as a huge problem in combat. Imagine the fun you'd have trying to pull the trigger when the lower trigger safety-half thingy, decides to consume a shit ton of dirt. Good luck getting it to go bang.

I'm praying hard it wont be glock.
 
#87
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Alderleet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hopefully it is the M&P

However, they'd have to make the trigger 1 piece. This 2 piece safety thing sucks balls, and I can see it as a huge problem in combat. Imagine the fun you'd have trying to pull the trigger when the lower trigger safety-half thingy, decides to consume a shit ton of dirt. Good luck getting it to go bang.

I'm praying hard it wont be glock.</div></div>

Same thing could be said for the Glock trigger, and that's been used plenty in the GWOT with no such problems.
 
#88
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: turbo54</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ubet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is their any chance they would go with something like the sigp220? Accurate, reliable, good ergos, and they can come with an external safety. </div></div>

God I hope not. I have SERIOUS problems with non-Americans making stuff for our military. I like Sigs. I like the 220. But why the f%&* would we/do we issue weapons made in another country? Lunacy.</div></div>

Sigs are made over here, too...in NH.

They're just not up to the same quality as the Euro built Sigs are (which is why Sig can't win a new federal contract for the life of them, and have to resort to 30 different versions of the same gun for commercial sales).
 
#89
Re: Military switching side arms again?

Let's face it, we have been talking about this for years. Even when we had unlimited funds for GWOT, we still couldn't get a new pistol. I see no way that we can afford that transition in the midst of tons of budget cuts. Our unit used to send people TDY to Griffin group, mirror image and other civilian training avenues, etc to train our guys. Guidance came down last fiscal year that we will stop sending people TDY. There are massive cuts across the board in the DoD and it's being felt at every level. Replacing the hundreds of thousands of M9 and retraining each individual Soldiers will be a massive undertaking. I rather use that effort to train the users on marksmanship (the current state of pistol training is pathetic) than getting a fancy "insert weapon system here".
 
#90
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BX1129</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let's face it, we have been talking about this for years. Even when we had unlimited funds for GWOT, we still couldn't get a new pistol. I see no way that we can afford that transition in the midst of tons of budget cuts. Our unit used to send people TDY to Griffin group, mirror image and other civilian training avenues, etc to train our guys. Guidance came down last fiscal year that we will stop sending people TDY. There are massive cuts across the board in the DoD and it's being felt at every level. Replacing the hundreds of thousands of M9 and retraining each individual Soldiers will be a massive undertaking. I rather use that effort to train the users on marksmanship (the current state of pistol training is pathetic) than getting a fancy "insert weapon system here". </div></div>

If I had to use the 9, I would try to scrounge up some hollow points.
 
#91
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jtwodogs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If I had to use the 9, I would try to scrounge up some hollow points.</div></div> That's fine if you're in the States or working a job where you're allowed to carry HP ammunition, but do that as deployed military/contracting and you'll find yourself in some trouble if the wrong person finds out. I've seen contractors fired for it and I've seen military receive NJP for that exact offense.
 
#92
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Redmanss</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jtwodogs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If I had to use the 9, I would try to scrounge up some hollow points.</div></div> That's fine if you're in the States or working a job where you're allowed to carry HP ammunition, but do that as deployed military/contracting and you'll find yourself in some trouble if the wrong person finds out. I've seen contractors fired for it and I've seen military receive NJP for that exact offense. </div></div>

And some when faced with that damn russian hollow point chose to look the other way.
 
#94
Re: Military switching side arms again?

I love my 1911, but for a mass production military pistol the HK45 is a lot more practical. The M-1 carbine comment does make me wonder why we don't adopt an HK M7 type PDW to be carried by personnel that can't/won't carry an M4.
 
#95
Re: Military switching side arms again?

Never shot the M&P, but I do have the Scad 3 inched barrel .357 mag. M&P, the fit and finish on these are excellent. I believe the military could do worse then these. They seemed to have a rising following IDPA.
 
#96
Re: Military switching side arms again?

I'll go ahead and say it, although I only made it through page two. No one else has suggested it... How about an XDm? Every bit as reliable as any other firearm in the market, and their .40 holds 16+1..... Pretty nice..... The field stripping is so easy a 4 year old could be taught....
 
#97
Re: Military switching side arms again?

i here you all on the change, but i love the 1911 but i have to disagree with going back to the m, this is why, the military has been use to 15 rnd cap for how many years the 1911 is 7 8 in tube hi cap. mags 9 in the tube, they need to go to .45 acp i agree but 12+ cap. mags, i vote the H&K i hate to vote a non-American company, but (bretta) inst actually American ran ether = made in Italy maybe maybe Springfield and get their act together i think the XD's have a hi cap mag. .45!!!
 
#98
Re: Military switching side arms again?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cowboy1978</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i here you all on the change, but i love the 1911 but i have to disagree with going back to the m, this is why, the military has been use to 15 rnd cap for how many years the 1911 is 7 8 in tube hi cap. mags 9 in the tube, they need to go to .45 acp i agree but 12+ cap. mags, i vote the H&K i hate to vote a non-American company, but (bretta) inst actually American ran ether = made in Italy maybe maybe Springfield and get their act together i think the XD's have a hi cap mag. .45!!! </div></div>
XD's made in Croaita, imported under the Springfield name.
 
#100
Re: Military switching side arms again?

I like my XDm 9, I also like the FNP it doesn't even have to be the tactical which was submitted by FN when the military was doing it's testing. Haven't had much expirience with M&P, some units do carry Glocks though. The problem with all the striker fired weapons is the lack of a safety, I think there would be a lot more negligent discharges. You have to realize that every walk of life joins the military even the ones that hate firearms and know nothing about them. Then they get one in their hands and they are careless with it, I have seen things that would embarass me to say I had any part in a group that would treat firearms the way they do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Gibbz arms upper
Replies
2
Views
171
Austin3580
A
F
Rifle Scopes *UPDATED MODEL *PRIMARY ARMS GLX 2.5-10
Replies
3
Views
543
NHR
N
KiloGolf
300PRC/ 338 Edge switch barrel build. Possible Charlie Tarac problem??
Replies
6
Views
198
Taylorbok
Taylorbok
HeavyAssault
Safety first....
Replies
22
Views
933
BAMAboy18
BAMAboy18
QPM
Vortex not zeroing after warranty service?
Replies
9
Views
445
hlee
H
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts