TexasCHLforum.com

This idea has been batted around before, but this Fox News article seems to give it new urgency:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/07/03/ ... p=features" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Everything thats wrong about the government..in one article. Instead of just going with an off the shelf proven Glock/M&P whatever, lets make up a committee to create some uber expensive request (potentially specifically tailored to a favored vendor). This is why we get $800 hammers.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Everything thats wrong about the government..in one article. Instead of just going with an off the shelf proven Glock/M&P whatever, lets make up a committee to create some uber expensive request (potentially specifically tailored to a favored vendor). This is why we get $800 hammers.

Exactly right . . . well . . . almost exactly right . . . it should be back to the 1911.

Chas.

I vote for FNX-45.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Everything thats wrong about the government..in one article. Instead of just going with an off the shelf proven Glock/M&P whatever, lets make up a committee to create some uber expensive request (potentially specifically tailored to a favored vendor). This is why we get $800 hammers.

Exactly right . . . well . . . almost exactly right . . . it should be back to the 1911.

Chas.

Bingo!

I have sort of a different take on this. The real problem isn't the pistol, it's the ammo. The Geneva Convention dictates that military ammo cannot be of the hollow point variety. Basically hideous wounds are more humane than quick death. (Mind you that same convention protocol did not outlaw napalm (whose effects on a human must be seen to be believed) and allowed signatory states to use all manner of hideous weapons in certain circumstances if attacked, all in the name of being humane.)

If we demanded another treaty that allowed for the realities of war we might not need to spend more money for more pistols. In any event the real war fighters in the military told the pinheads this would happen, and it did. My opinion anyway.

If they are wanting more power and capacity and don't want the 9mm or .40 S&W, I can only think of two possibilities. Something in .45ACP or FN 5.7. They have a lot of experience with the .45ACP and after Fort Hood, they have some experience with the other. So, either the current handguns themselves don't meet their criteria for ruggedness and or the FN 5.7 round isn't compatible with NATO regs.

What do I know, though? I'm a relative firearm newbie and am most certainly a ballistics uber-newbie or whatever is less than a newbie.

Given all the challenges our fighting men are facing, upgrading the M9 seems like small potatoes. That being said, I agree that this should not be a really tough nut to crack and they certainly should pick an American supplier. The problem is that you can't keep everyone happy no matter what you do. If you get a good, hard hitting round like .45, a big segment will complain about not having enough capacity. If you go with capacity like 9mm, another group will complain about stopping power. If they get .40, the argument will be that it is too hard for many to control. The only thing you can count on is no matter what pistol is chosen, a large group will form who will loudly complain about the choice.
1911 gets my vote.

Why not waste money on trying to select a new pistol? They have already thrown money away trying to pick a new M4. When they couldn't decide on a new weapon (after they spent billions) they decided maybe it just needed improvements. But they couldn't decide on that either. Then they said maybe we just need to change the caliber. You guessed it. They couldn't decide on that either. Then they said maybe all the armed forces needed to use the same camouflage pattern. And even though they have announced they have agreed several times on a new pattern they keep changing their minds and implemented nothing. All after spending billions on each project. On a positive note: I personally do not have an issue with the M4. They can leave it alone. They did agree on a design to lighten the M249 SAW which I was glad to hear. I do feel the ACU is the worst pattern that could have been worn by any military. I personally am not a big fan of the M9. I would still rather stay with it though than throw money away for nothing more than a goat rope. Just my two cents.

A new pistol will be picked not on merit but on the current system of political favors. Line the pockets of enough Congressmen and even Frigidaire could be making the next combat pistol

Not to dereail this thread off topic but as an illustration of the fleecing that we are getting.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/07/03/3-wor ... ium=social" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The building isn't even owned by the government. Too many life long politicians and bureaucrats running the ship aground.

Why don't they just go to double stack 1911. STI's patent ran out I believe.

I know the general wisdom is 'never say never,' but I'll go ahead and say that the US military will never go back to a single action only pistol.

A new pistol will be picked not on merit but on the current system of political favors.

I thought the Beretta "won" to enable the US to continue to have air bases in Italy, where... the Beretta company is :-)

... even Frigidaire could be making the next combat pistol

Not necessarily a bad thing:
# during WWII the Inglis (washing machine) company made hi powers.
# during WWII the Singer Sewing made 1911's
# the Glock 17 came from a company that made plastic curtain rod rings :-)