The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: General Handgun Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 7, 2018, 04:50 PM   #1
bp22
Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2018
Posts: 26
military handgun choice discussion

I thought I would start this discussion and see how other shooters view my thoughts, would it not make a lot of sense to put glock or m&p 2.0 the military handgun, my basis for this is low cost firearms that go bang all the time and if one needs repair it's relatively easy to fix. they are both combat accurate. just a thought , lets hear your thoughts.
bp22 is offline  
Old December 7, 2018, 05:30 PM   #2
jmr40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 9,259
The Sig is a fine gun. But I also think the Glock or M&P would do exactly the same thing. I'll end up with one of the Sigs eventually, I did rent one and tried it out.

Other than being different I don't see that it offers anything over the M&P. The military specified a thumb safety. M&P does offer that option and both of mine have it. The Glock does not normally, but I understand the version tested by the military did. I'm waiting for a civilian version of the Sig with the safety just like the military version. I've seen one, but it was priced pretty steep compared to the standard 320.
__________________
"If you're still doing things the same way you were doing them 10 years ago, you're doing it wrong"

Winston Churchill
jmr40 is offline  
Old December 7, 2018, 06:05 PM   #3
Rangerrich99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2014
Location: Kinda near Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,017
Based on the parameters of the question, if I had to choose between a Glock17/19 and the S&W M&P9 2.0, I'd choose the S&W every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

The S&W is just all around a better gun than the Glock, with better ergonomics, a better trigger, equal capacity, better than or equal accuracy and reliability, for significantly less money. Also, I like the fact that at no time during the take-down process do I have to pull the trigger on the S&W. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

If I could change one thing about the S&W, it'd be the length/width of the thumb safety; it should be about a quarter-inch shorter and about an 1/8th of an inch narrower, IMO. Lower profile, I guess. Which is nit-pickery really, but after having put nearly 7,000 rds through my two M&Ps, that's just how I feel.

Last edited by Rangerrich99; December 7, 2018 at 06:21 PM.
Rangerrich99 is offline  
Old December 7, 2018, 06:19 PM   #4
TruthTellers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2016
Posts: 2,188
Yeah it makes sense, those pistols also have longer track records than the Sig does. The Army brass liked the Sig because they thought switching frame sizes, barrels, etc. was modular when really all the military needed was a pistol with a rail that you could swap a threaded barrel onto in two frame sizes: full size for combat and compact for guards, officers, and women.

I think the Sig P320 will work fine, but I think a caliber change is necessary. The military wants longer range, better barrier penetration and 9mm doesn't do it. That 7.5FK BRNO cartridge fits the bill and why every pistol manufacturer is not coming up with a polymer pistol in that chambering befuddles me.
__________________
Any good revolver > Any good semi auto
TruthTellers is offline  
Old December 7, 2018, 08:23 PM   #5
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 3,407
It might "make sense" but that's not how US govt procurement works.
If the total procurement cost is $$$$$$$, then picking a gun that's
"low cost firearms that go bang all the time and if one needs repair it's relatively easy to fix. they are both combat accurate" is only part of the acquisition calculus.

And if the acquisition is $Billions, then it gets incredibly political.
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابياً
TXAZ is offline  
Old December 7, 2018, 08:56 PM   #6
Rachen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2006
Location: Weekend cowboy
Posts: 504
Glocks have been in use by several elite US military units for some time. The US Marines MARSOC issue the Glock as their duty sidearm. Since 2015. Designation 'M-007'. Pretty wise choice, as you can't go wrong with having 17-20 rounds of 9mm on your calf ready at a second's notice during the heat of a firefight.

Quote:
It might "make sense" but that's not how US govt procurement works.
If the total procurement cost is $$$$$$$, then picking a gun that's
"low cost firearms that go bang all the time and if one needs repair it's relatively easy to fix. they are both combat accurate" is only part of the acquisition calculus.
Historically, governments have had a tendency of being behind the times. Always. For some reason, decision-makers who are removed from the front lines and give orders exclusively from climate-controlled rooms and big wooden desks always have the tendency to go the route of "I am right...You don't know anything.......I know what is best".

In 1863, the US Department of Ordnance had two handguns to choose as their official sidearm: The Colt 1860 revolver or the Remington Model 1858. The Ordnance Dept. went with the Colt, even though front line officers and soldiers, frontier scouts, law enforcement officials, prison guards, private security contractors, and many others all attested to the Remington being far more rugged and reliable than the Colt. And the Remington was cheaper than the Colt, by the difference of 9 cents per gun, which during that time was a hell of a big deal. Yet, the Army went with the Colt. Simply because Samuel Colt himself has a private audience with the President and the Patent Dept. And as a stroke of marketing genius, Colt was known to present senators and Ordnance Dept. guys with cased sets of engraved revolvers. Colt won the approval simply because they were better advertisers and the government liked a lot of bling and sparkles.

Remington Arms Co. on the other hand? They were only concerned about making products that work. The Model 1858 New Army (actually, to be historically accurate, it is the Model 1863) was the Glock of it's day. It ain't pretty, but it is built to get the job done. Many privately funded units in the Union Army, like the Chicago Board of Trade Independent Battery Light Artillery, issued Remingtons to their troops, because they tend to be more closer to the grit and grime of the action and they know what kind of tools work best for the job they are doing.
__________________
http://blueskycountry.tumblr.com
BORDERLANDS: THE GRAPHIC NOVEL
Climb onto the saddle and ride with me through the last remaining Wild West frontier in the world. Where a man is judged solely by his actions, and every action carries grave consequences.
Rachen is offline  
Old December 8, 2018, 09:25 AM   #7
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXAZ View Post
It might "make sense" but that's not how US govt procurement works.
If the total procurement cost is $$$$$$$, then picking a gun that's
"low cost firearms that go bang all the time and if one needs repair it's relatively easy to fix. they are both combat accurate" is only part of the acquisition calculus.

And if the acquisition is $Billions, then it gets incredibly political.
As it did with the Glock vs Sig 'decision'..low ball offer from Sig before the testing complete=sale. Too bad the Sigs needed modifications as soon as they were delivered to the military.
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer
USNRet93 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 11:57 AM   #8
tallball
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2014
Posts: 2,256
It probably depends on who's getting kickbacks from whom.

Last edited by tallball; Yesterday at 01:33 PM.
tallball is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.05324 seconds with 9 queries