U.S. Army wants a new gun

[Robenstein]

You cannot replace the metal on the alloy frames. In the sand box expecially under the beating of 9mm NATO loads, they just give out.

I will say that I would probably replace the M4 with something better before the 92 Beretta if I were running things at the DoD. The AR is even longer in the tooth.

 

[buck91]

First: Haven't heard a lot of praise for the beretta but clearly it must work well enough to have lasted this long. If they aren't switching to a different round why change now?

Second in response to the below: What you say definitely applies to the modern BJHP rounds used for SD and LE but remember that the military uses FMJ... Not sure how the 45 vs 40 v 9mm arguments look with ball ammo but I gotta think cal might make a bit more difference?


Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: Kuato
More gov't waste, they'll want to replace all the "old" pistols on a two year schedule at our expense.

Any issues with supply or performance of the old? No? Then stop. wasting. money.
Lots of people think the 9mm is not what the .45 ACP used to be in terms of stopping power. What's the FBI use now?

 

[Mystic]

If the Army wants new guns maybe they should look at some of the stuff the Israelis make. And for a good handgun the 1911 .45 is still really good for soldiers. Because they have to use full metal jacketed ammunition. For civilians the 9mm with good self defense ammunition is probably good enough.

The Israelis make some really interesting military rifles.

 

[OneEyeJack]

In the 60's I was issued an M1911 and it worked just fine. I carried one in Vietnam and it would be my choice, again.

 

[Mystic]

Some of the Marines and special forces units are already using the 1911 .45. Still one of the most combat tested, if not THE most combat tested, handgun anywhere. They could use the old 9mm handguns for guard duty at military bases in the USA.

And for a new rifle they could just check out some of the stuff the Israelis already make.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: KevGuy


I have a friend that does a lot of Ipsc and he says he goes through a gun a year, but what he does is gets a new barrel, spring and sometimes a trigger assembly. I assume you can do that with a beretta?


Your friend isn't shooting a 30 year old gun that's been shot by several other people in a desert environment....or has had 35,000 rounds (specified service life) put through it while being carried continuously.

The guns are worn out. Not the barrel, they get replaced, springs get replaced, sears and other parts get replaced...but the lugs on the frame, the grooves in the slide, and other major parts are simply worn beyond limits. At some point, buying a new gun is cheaper than replacing the frame and slide and all the parts associated with the gun.

The USMC has ordered new 1911s for its elite forces, recon guys and the like. It's a nice gun, and takes advantage of improvements over the years, including Cerakote and rail on the frame.

There is quite a bit of discussion on calibers with both pistol and carbine. M855 rounds penetrate barriers well, but they don't stop within the target. Combat experience is showing that it takes several hits from a 5.56 to stop a combatant. There are a lot of folks who would like to go back to a .30 caliber rifle. You give up magazine capacity, but the gain in round effectiveness means that you can stop more bad guys with your weapon load. Similar pistol caliber discussions are taking place.

The Hague convention requirement to use ball rounds has a huge impact on the selection of caliber. Even open tip match rounds in 7.62 sniper rifles were discussed as being in conflict with the Hague convention (it was later decided that they weren't).

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

My $.02

Predictions:

#1 Well with keeping NATO in mind and the fact that we have many women serving the 9mm will be the caliber of choice.

#2 The winner will be a variant of the M&P unless SIG can come up with a polymer. It won't be Glock unless they provide a safety.

 

[Mystic]

A soldier should be able to handle the 1911 .45. They should not determine what handgun is carried based on what the smallest soldier can handle. With the ammo that is allowed the .45 is more effective than the 9mm.

And from what the special forces guys were saying when interviewed on TV they are shooting one round accurately or at most three rounds and not just spraying and hoping with a rifle on full automatic. So a .30 caliber rifle does make a lot of sense. Machineguns can be used for a high rate of fire.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
A soldier should be able to handle the 1911 .45.


I'd think so, too. I actually feel that a .45 isn't all that dramatically different in recoil from a 9mm. A .40S&W is a different story, at least in my experience, but even an officer size 1911 in .45 didn't feel dramatically different to me than shooting my 9mm Shield.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
A soldier should be able to handle the 1911 .45. They should not determine what handgun is carried based on what the smallest soldier can handle. With the ammo that is allowed the .45 is more effective than the 9mm.

And from what the special forces guys were saying when interviewed on TV they are shooting one round accurately or at most three rounds and not just spraying and hoping with a rifle on full automatic. So a .30 caliber rifle does make a lot of sense. Machineguns can be used for a high rate of fire.


weight, grip size and ammo capacity play a role as well

 

[Mystic]

Yeah, I don't really feel much difference in shooting a .45 compared to a 9mm. But I don't like the feel of the .40, at least in a Glock. And I have shot .44 magnums.

But it depends on what ammunition you are using also. I came across some 9mm ammunition that was supposed to be the type used in Olympic shooting. I shot some of that in my S&W M&P (which can handle P+P ammunition) and that ammunition kicked! I could handle it okay but the recoil was noticeable. It seemed like more recoil than just typical .45 ammunition. I started to get used to it (it actually felt kind of good after a while) but I was concerned about wear on my gun.

I would not mind replacing my Glock .40 with a .45. I think about that from time to time. But quality 1911 .45s are expensive.

With the ammunition that has to be used in military handguns and rifles a .45 is just more effective than a 9mm. I think that is simply the truth.

For a civilian, a 9mm handgun like a Glock or S&W M&P loaded with good self-defense ammunition is probably good enough. Good self-defense ammunition (which the military cannot use in warfare) is probably about as effective as .45 rounds. I load field grade ammunition in my S&W M&P for just practice and good self-defense ammunition at home.

Of course any handgun really is not that important of a weapon for a soldier. But in a critical situation where an enemy soldier must be stopped at close range a 1911 .45 is likely going to get the job done.

That is why they went to the .45 anyway. In the Philippines lighter caliber handguns were unable to stop fierce enemy combatants.

 

[Mystic]

One of the most important considerations is proper grip size for a person's hand. The S&W M&P can be setup for different hand sizes and so can the 4th Generation Glocks.

Many women can handle the .45 very well. They are better off with a 1911 .45 than a tiny lightweight .38. Ever shoot one of those? I have shot a couple of them. Those tiny lightweight .38 Specials are good for one thing-concealment. If I had a concealed weapons permit I would rather carry my 9mm in a special holster. I have the holster but I don't carry concealed. With that holster the 9mm can be concealed easily under a shirt.

 

[cb_13]

.45 possibly. 1911? No way! Not every soldier is special forces who are trained to be extremely effective in combat. More than 8 rounds are gonna be necessary for some of them to hit a barn let alone a person with their handgun. Cheap, reliable and simple to field strip composite sidearms with double stack magazines seem to be an obvious choice for the majority. The special forces should be given whatever they want be it a 1911, S&W 500 or a stick with a nail in through it. They know what it takes to get their job done better than some government bureaucrats.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
Many women can handle the .45 very well. They are better off with a 1911 .45 than a tiny lightweight .38. Ever shoot one of those? I have shot a couple of them. Those tiny lightweight .38 Specials are good for one thing-concealment.


I think light .38 special revolvers are incredibly easy to shoot, and to shoot well. A friend (who owns this officer sized 1911 I was speaking out) handed me a Smith Bodyguard revolver with .38 special loaded and provoked me to try it, with the insinuation that it's murder on the hand. I thought it shot softer than his .45, and by far.

I guess it goes to show that "felt recoil" truly is subjective.

 

[Mystic]

Well, I don't know if the Army would want to have several different handguns. I still say a soldier should be able to handle A 1911 45. I can, and I am not the size of a pro football offensive tackle. With enough practice a person should be able to shoot well.

I don't know about the average soldier, but I shot with a guy who had been in the Green Berets. I also shot with his wife who had been in the Army. That guy (who was still in the Green Berets at the time) had a cheap 1911 .45 and with a magazine of ammunition put a one hole in the target. I would not want to get into a gunfight with him. I can shoot fairly well but not like that. I can't remember how well his wife shot, but nowhere near to how he could shoot. That guy had been wounded in Iraq by an enemy soldier firing an AK-47.

I think a soldier who could not hit a barn with 8 rounds of .45 ammunition would likely be in trouble.

 

[Mystic]

The problem I had with those tiny .38s was that my hand was too big for the grips. I could grip the gun with only a few fingers. But both of those handguns were designed for women's hands. Both handguns were owned by women.

By the way, one of those women who owned the tiny .38 shot a .44 magnum at the range. She had never fired one before. She hit six steel targets and knocked them down with six rounds from that .44 magnum. And I am talking .44 magnum rounds. Not .44 Special. Powerful .44 magnum rounds.

I surprised myself in how well I was able to shoot that cannon. I was able to put rounds center mass effectively. But I would not want a cannon like that for self defense. I would take a 9mm, .45, or .357 any day.

I suppose ammunition would make a difference in those little .38s also. It might be best to load them with light low recoil ammunition.

 

[Robenstein]

The 1911 will not be selected unless someone submits a double stack version. Now that the army has a taste for hi cap pistols, I think they will want to retain that. The 1911 was designed at a time when the rifles used along side it held 5 rounds. It is a good pistol in ergonomics, but is not terribly cheap to produce and between that and its low capacity...I think the 1911 in its standard forms has two major issues that is will not overcome.

Also I think polymer will win the day due to the simple fact they are much cheaper to make. And the Army is always looking for the one that can do the job at the lowest price. Again that is why Beretta got the last contract and not Sig Sauer.

As for the rifle, I think there could be an argument made for something in the 25 to 27 caliber range as being a good "all around" caliber.

 

[Mystic]

Well, a polymer gun can be built that will shoot .45 rounds. And probably be cheaper to build than the 1911. And maybe have higher capacity.

But remember, only certain types of rounds can be used by the military. Everything being equal, capacity is not everything. It might be better to stop the enemy soldier with one or two .45 rounds rather than 15 9mm rounds. And by the time a person can shoot 15 9mm rounds you might be dead. The enemy soldier probably has a weapon also. They already found out decades ago that light caliber handguns were not getting the job done (for the military).

And I saw a program on TV where the American soldiers said that they were shooting one round at a time from their rifles to stop enemy terrorists. The terrorists were spraying rounds inaccurately from AK-47s. Spray and miss versus accurate fire.

 

[Robenstein]

http://www.fnhusa.com/l/products/handguns/fnx-series/fnx-45/

Something like this would be awesome if they go to a poly framed 45acp. It holds 15 rounds, has replaceable slide rails(longer service life for the gun), and has replaceable backstraps.

 

[Mystic]

It would have to go through testing but I like a lot of that. I like the replaceable slide rails and replaceable backstraps. There is nothing that says new technology cannot make the 1911 .45 replaceable. Especially if a new gun can be made cheaper and carry more rounds. And it would probably be easier to take apart and clean.

I think for rifles we need to be willing to look at the new technology demonstrated by Israeli military rifles.