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: 34
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: 9,429
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: 1,072
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: 2,470
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: 3,576
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: 529
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.
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: 709
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.

And for the post right below..yup, $ talks..particularly with military procurement...
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”

Last edited by USNRet93; December 10, 2018 at 07:35 AM.
USNRet93 is offline  
Old December 9, 2018, 11:57 AM   #8
tallball
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2014
Posts: 2,333
It probably depends on who's getting kickbacks from whom.

Last edited by tallball; December 9, 2018 at 01:33 PM.
tallball is offline  
Old December 11, 2018, 08:54 PM   #9
1911_Hardball
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2009
Location: SD
Posts: 111
Which is better; chocolate or vanilla?
__________________
Gunpoint, 132 and Bush. Cover's code 3.
1911_Hardball is offline  
Old December 11, 2018, 09:56 PM   #10
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,235
Quote:
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 might be a bit behind on this, but the last test I heard about, GLock didn't enter, specifically because of the requirement for a thumb safety, and they refused to do so.

I have also heard a rumor that GLock does, or did produce one of their pistols with a thumb safety for some small nation's contract. However, I don't have any other details or any shred of proof.

If any of you do, please share.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 12, 2018, 02:26 PM   #11
T. O'Heir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 10,793
Handguns in the military are primarily status symbols. Secondary self-defense tools at most.
In any case, weapon procurement is a political thing that has little or nothing to do with what the military thinks.
__________________
Spelling and grammar count!
T. O'Heir is offline  
Old December 12, 2018, 02:50 PM   #12
Fishbed77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 4,524
I find it a bit humorous that folks are still debating the MHS outcome.

It's never an issue of "what's best." Nor should it be.

The bid that met the contract requirements for the lowest cost won.
Fishbed77 is offline  
Old December 13, 2018, 08:43 AM   #13
lee n. field
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2002
Location: The same state as Mordor.
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by bp22 View Post
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.
"What handgun should the US military use?" is a fine morass to get into.

Quote:
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.
There's going to be much more to it than that. Logistics, parts support. Soldier tech training at various levels. "Technical package" for the gun(s). Licensing, patents and intellectual property (because other people are probably going to make it too). And, "is it made in Representative X's district?" kinds of considerations..

Quote:
combat accurate
a euphemism
__________________
"As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. "

Last edited by lee n. field; December 13, 2018 at 09:07 PM.
lee n. field is offline  
Old December 13, 2018, 05:47 PM   #14
TBM900
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2015
Posts: 350
There was no reason to switch from the Beretta, in fact it was a massive waste of taxPAYer funds as the entire training, logistic system was in place already. There wasn't any practical gain made by switching, especially with a platform that sees such little use.

PS
As far as glocks 'going bang every time', I've had more than one fail, just as multiple agencies have.
TBM900 is offline  
Old December 13, 2018, 07:02 PM   #15
grinner
Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2018
Posts: 49
The United States puts in “requests for proposal” for all kinds of instruments every year, ranging from MREs to spacecrafts that will go to the Mars. The military decided the old sidearms were too old, and wanted new ones. They also explicitly wanted a modular firearm in the RFP — “a non-caliber specific weapon with modular features to allow for the adaption of different fire control devices, pistol grips, and alternate magazine options.” (Quoted from the Wikipedia page on the process).

One can debate if the military needed a new firearm, or if they really required a modular firearm, but it looks to me that the SIG 320 was the only real modular sidearm that was submitted to the proposal.
grinner is offline  
Old December 13, 2018, 09:36 PM   #16
TBM900
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2015
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by grinner View Post
The United States puts in “requests for proposal” for all kinds of instruments every year, ranging from MREs to spacecrafts that will go to the Mars. The military decided the old sidearms were too old, and wanted new ones. They also explicitly wanted a modular firearm in the RFP — “a non-caliber specific weapon with modular features to allow for the adaption of different fire control devices, pistol grips, and alternate magazine options.” (Quoted from the Wikipedia page on the process).

One can debate if the military needed a new firearm, or if they really required a modular firearm, but it looks to me that the SIG 320 was the only real modular sidearm that was submitted to the proposal.
No debate at all, it was/is a waste of money.
TBM900 is offline  
Old December 13, 2018, 10:36 PM   #17
JDBerg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2015
Location: PRC
Posts: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by bp22:
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(s) or (the) M&P2.0 (in) the military handgun (armories?)
It would make so much sense for the Army’s ACO to negotiate IDIQ subcontracts with Glock, S&W, and also Sig for their combat and police sidearm requirements. Set the contracts up with the individual gun manufacturers and then let the individual military commands decide which guns they want to use. It would make so much common sense which is why the military in general (no pun intended), and the Army Acquisition Command in particular, would never do it.

The military wants Commercial Off-The Shelf (“COTS”) standardization at the highest common denominator, with everything it buys, particularly with weapons systems. The gun manufacturer, in this case Sig, will give their guns practically at cost or at a loss, while making a bundle from all of the support requirements that are rolled up into the prime contract. This includes accessories, lights, holsters, cans, ammo, spare parts, training support including instructors, manuals and training aids for the soldiers carrying & using the guns, and for the armorers fixing & maintaining the guns. It’s called logistics lifecycle support and it’s what every military subcontractor desperately wants to get when they support the military with whatever the military buys.
__________________
Words to Live By: Before You Pray - Believe; Before You Speak - Listen; Before You Spend - Earn; Before You Write - Think; Before You Quit - Try; Before You Die - Live

Last edited by JDBerg; December 14, 2018 at 09:45 AM.
JDBerg is offline  
Old December 15, 2018, 02:22 PM   #18
agtman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,081
Colt M45A1 for the win.
agtman is offline  
Old December 16, 2018, 01:33 PM   #19
Rachen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2006
Location: Weekend cowboy
Posts: 529
Quote:
Handguns in the military are primarily status symbols. Secondary self-defense tools at most.
In any case, weapon procurement is a political thing that has little or nothing to do with what the military thinks
The recent years have seen a drastic change in the type of battlefield being faced by the modern soldier. In a traditional open field fight with equally matched combatants with infantry long arms, pistols are symbols of authority for officers.

Today's battlefield is highly unconventional. You have a lot of combatants utilizing 5th generation tactics. No uniforms, ambushes, blending in amongst civilians. To flush them out involves a lot of close-quarters fighting in urban settings. Today's soldier, especially in the war on terrorism, is more of a policeman and SWAT operative rather than a traditional grunt. I would choose a Glock or a Sig over a M-16 any day if I am doing house clearing operations in Kandahar or Baghdad. That plus a FN-PS90 or another SBR for longer range or AP purposes.

The future of the front line soldier will cross paths with that of a law enforcement officer. Today's soldiers already have to learn to operate far more hi-tech electronics, biometric equipment, scanners etc... than their ancestors.
__________________
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.
Rachen is offline  
Old December 16, 2018, 06:04 PM   #20
agtman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,081
Dude, go .45 hardball ... or just go home.
agtman is offline  
Old December 17, 2018, 11:11 AM   #21
Fishbed77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 4,524
Quote:
Colt M45A1 for the win.
I know you're being facetious, but this is the classic example of project procurement requirements that are completely detached from reality.

Almost as soon as these pistols were adopted, they were essentially withdrawn from service. Just another waste of taxpayer money from a system with painfully little effective oversight.
Fishbed77 is offline  
Old December 19, 2018, 07:12 PM   #22
rodfac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 2,892
Quote:
Handguns in the military are primarily status symbols. Secondary self-defense tools at most
Not where I was....two man bunkers, slit trenches, 4-holer latrines, shower points, cockpits, jeep rides...and in one instance, up a tree! At enlisted and field grade officer levels, in the jungles where I served, a handgun was life insurance, and arguably, more effective than any carbine in the above listed environs. YMMV, but grant me this opportunity to differ. Rod
__________________
Cherish our flag, honor it, defend what it stands for in word and deed, or get the hell out. Our Freedoms are not free, they've been paid for many times over by heros in uniform. Far better men than I, died that we could be FREE.

USAF FAC, 5th Spl Forces, An Loc, lll Corps, RVN, 69-70, Vietnam Vet '69-'73
rodfac is offline  
Old December 24, 2018, 03:04 PM   #23
Seven High
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 11, 2004
Posts: 599
If handguns are primarily status and secondary self def3nse tools, why did the DoD purchase over 600,000 M9s and continue to purchase M17s? Their view of pistols must be different than the average person.
Seven High is offline  
Old December 25, 2018, 07:05 AM   #24
ROCK6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2004
Location: Georgia/Afghanistan
Posts: 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seven High
If handguns are primarily status and secondary self def3nse tools, why did the DoD purchase over 600,000 M9s and continue to purchase M17s? Their view of pistols must be different than the average person.
They have become more than just status symbols, but they are still a pretty small aspect of the military. The "battlefield" dynamics have changed over the years, and the front-lines are much more blurred. Additionally, there are more dynamic roles where handguns become a more appropriate arm...not necessarily the most effective, but more fitting for the roles.

Several occupations don't require a rifle all the time, but I still agree with the premise that service members should always be armed, even if for just the warrior ethos state of mind. My only doubts involve training and trigger time...something most service members don't get enough of and even less so with handguns. Over my career, I would easily spend more time and train with more ammo over a month on my own than I would in a two-three year period with my issued M9.

While the new Sigs are nice, I'm far more impressed with the issued handguns of the Belgian's; the FN Five-Seven. Most of the other coalition forces I work with have issued Glocks (the Germans and Mongolian forces have HKs)...and the Danish are still packing their P210s!

ROCK6
ROCK6 is offline  
Old December 25, 2018, 10:21 AM   #25
Bob Wright
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 2012
Location: Memphis, Tennessee
Posts: 2,802
A comment made during the selection of the M911 .45 went something like:

"I'll remind you gentlemen, the arm of the Cavalry is the carbine, not a pistol."


Far as I'm concerned, the Army should have stayed with the old Colt/Browning M1911A1 .45 ACP.

Or maybe the M1909.


Bob Wright
__________________
Time spent at the reloading bench is an investment in contentment.
Bob Wright 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 05:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 0.09822 seconds with 9 queries