Army wants a harder hitting pistol


Perhaps this is the gun that the Army needs. It could be loaded with body armor piercing and hollow point! I would love to shoot it once!

Link Removed
Thinkin' about a couple for pocket carry...NOT!
 

The military has far more important things to worry about, there is no good reason to spend millions of dollars in a pistol-swap. As some M9s age we just need to dust off the thousands and thousands of unused M9s sitting in armories around the country (& world). In every armory I've worked in while on active duty, we only issued M9s from one safe to keep inventory easier. Doing this meant that most pistols sat in NIB condition, doing nothing but looking lonely. There is no service-life problem with the M9s, just an issue problem. Get all those beat-to-sh!t M9s out of service and replace them with "new" old pistols from the armories and they'll run like tops. Additionally, switching to JHP wouldn't solve much and in fact isn't ideal in combat... I want penetration on the battle field, as much as I can get, especially from a handgun. The people who need JHP have JHP anyway, we used them in our issued vault-pistols and the MPs carried them in their service pistols. The operators that desire more from a handgun get what they want, very few M9s are in the hands of the people who actually use their handguns often on the battle field.

Switching handguns isn't necessary, especially in an age where we are trying to reduce budgets. Much like the great "M16-platform replacement" debates... the weapons we have may not be ideal nor the best of the best but, for most people they are good enough. I don't prefer the DI-M16 family of rifles but, they usually work just fine and considering that we have millions of them in armories around the globe they're not likely to switch anytime soon. At least, not on a large scale anyway... same goes for the M16-family service life debate, I've personally counted thousands of near-new M16-A2s, A4s and M4s sitting idle in vaults. Take the rifles with tens of thousands of rounds through them and swap 'em out, problem solved.
 
The military has far more important things to worry about, there is no good reason to spend millions of dollars in a pistol-swap. As some M9s age we just need to dust off the thousands and thousands of unused M9s sitting in armories around the country (& world). In every armory I've worked in while on active duty, we only issued M9s from one safe to keep inventory easier. Doing this meant that most pistols sat in NIB condition, doing nothing but looking lonely. There is no service-life problem with the M9s, just an issue problem. Get all those beat-to-sh!t M9s out of service and replace them with "new" old pistols from the armories and they'll run like tops. Additionally, switching to JHP wouldn't solve much and in fact isn't ideal in combat... I want penetration on the battle field, as much as I can get, especially from a handgun. The people who need JHP have JHP anyway, we used them in our issued vault-pistols and the MPs carried them in their service pistols. The operators that desire more from a handgun get what they want, very few M9s are in the hands of the people who actually use their handguns often on the battle field.

Switching handguns isn't necessary, especially in an age where we are trying to reduce budgets. Much like the great "M16-platform replacement" debates... the weapons we have may not be ideal nor the best of the best but, for most people they are good enough. I don't prefer the DI-M16 family of rifles but, they usually work just fine and considering that we have millions of them in armories around the globe they're not likely to switch anytime soon. At least, not on a large scale anyway... same goes for the M16-family service life debate, I've personally counted thousands of near-new M16-A2s, A4s and M4s sitting idle in vaults. Take the rifles with tens of thousands of rounds through them and swap 'em out, problem solved.

I would agree with you except for the simple fact that since when has anyone in our 'wonderful and caring" government or military ever done anything that would make sense! They pi$$ed away money to go to the 9mm mainly so the army would be the same as NATO. Now they say it was a mistake. I remember when they went to the 9mm I thought it was a mistake and I believe many others thought the same! Now whatever the Army does this time will be wrong again!

In the end it will cost us pee-ons money!
 
I would agree with you except for the simple fact that since when has anyone in our 'wonderful and caring" government or military ever done anything that would make sense! They pi$$ed away money to go to the 9mm mainly so the army would be the same as NATO. Now they say it was a mistake. I remember when they went to the 9mm I thought it was a mistake and I believe many others thought the same! Now whatever the Army does this time will be wrong again!

In the end it will cost us pee-ons money!

America accepted the 9x19 as standard issue more or less b/c we shoved (at the time) 7.62x51 done NATO's throat, it was meeting them in the middle. Then, we went to the other extreme a few years later with the 5.56x45 and the "free world" followed us there just to find out that it may not have been the best course of action. "7.62x51 is too much and 5.56x45 is too little..." seems to be appropriate to the debate structures. Much the same is the pistol debate, ".45acp is too much and 9x19 is too little...", we all seem to want the best of both worlds but aren't willing to compromise for very long, y'know?
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,259
Members
74,964
Latest member
sigsag1
Back
Top