SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
After 30 years in use, the US Army's official handgun, the Beretta M9 pistol, is being retired and AP reports that firearms manufacturers are competing for a rare chance to sell the US. Army a new handgun that would replace the current Cold War-era model. Critics say the M9 is too bulky for small-handed shooters, troops who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan complain it's not as hard-hitting as they would like, and it can't easily accommodate the accessories now common in the civilian firearms market, such as swappable gun-sights or gun-mounted lights. "It's a little one size-fits-most" says Rodney Briggs.. "It's been around for a really, really long time, and it's just old and outdated."
The US Army has a lengthy list of requirements. Among them, it wants a handgun with an adjustable grip that can easily fit large or small hands. That way, shooters don't have to adjust their grip mid-fight to operate hard-to-reach buttons or levers. The gun should accommodate sights that make it easier to shoot in low light. It should have a rail on which soldiers can easily attach additional equipment, like infrared pointers. The military also wants a gun that can be equipped with a suppressor, which muffles the sound of gunshots. Beretta intends to enter a new pistol called the APX into the competition. The new gun is a major engineering departure from the M9. It has a polymer frame like more recent handguns and can meet the Army's other requirements.
Beretta has publicly complained that the government never formally requested efforts to improve its M9, which the company said is a standard procedure for upgrading platforms. "If you look at the history... for a variety of weapons, you'll find all along we'll have used spiral development, product improvement. Where was the requirement they notify prime contractor with an opportunity to fix the problem?" says Howard Yellen, a military adviser for Beretta.
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Saturday October 24 2015, @07:52AM
We want our killing tools to be totally lethal to our enemies, but not so much to our "boys" (some of whom are women). This is inherently unfair. Do you not remember, when the challenge of honor was given, the party put upon was given the choice of weapons? Ah, for the age of chivalry, when warriors were persons of valour, and not some poor hired sods and sad sacks that could not get a real job in the private sector. Oh, did I say that out loud? Sorry, valiant warriors and veteran clients of the most corrupt bureaucracy in America! And:
Is everyone aware of who gets the sidearms? I mean, really, your average infantry-person is not holding a pistola sideways all "gangsta style". Only officers get issued pistols, since they are supposed to be doing more important things that firing at the enemy, that is, until the enemy is really up close due to a failure of command responsibility. I really think the only official use of a side-arm is for an officer to shoot them selves in the head as a consequence of incompetence. Either that, or call down an artillery or air-strike on their own position.
But the whole idea of having to have more efficient weapons, on the personal level, smacks of cowardice. "I want a weapon that will knock down my opponent, to such a degree I do not have worry about him/her retaliating." Crap, cowards? Can you imagine any member of ISIS owning up to something like this? "Oh, I want to go on Jihad, but only if I am guaranteed that I will always have superior fire-power, with air backup. Allah Ahkbar!" Yeah, at least those guys are honest about the odds. Americans? After the Revolutionary War? Not so much. Christ, taking on the Brits when they were pressed by Napoleon? Politics. Wars against the Southern States. who had leadership every bit as good as what they have today? So easy, even a Union Army could do it. And what really bought about the whole pistola question: the Spanish-American War. Good one to look up. Lots of insurgency and imperialism, kind of the blueprint for Vietnam. . . hint . . . . hint. The Muslims of the Southern Island of the Philippines, the Moros, refused to be felled by a single shot from the then standard Army .38. So the shift was made to the Colt M1911. (check the dates, it checks out). One of my historical bon mots is that one of the other cartridges in contention against the Colt .45 ACP was the 9mm Parabellum, later the standard round for the German Mauser pistol, an Iconic Nazi weapon (for officers), and we missed it by > this much!
Ultimately, lethality of weapons count for much less that the righteousness of the cause for war, and utimately, resort to war is an admission of the lack of a just cause. War is only, ever, justified defensively; and that is the case far less than any nations claims that it is. So I would suggest, to any nation that aspires to be ethical, that you may want to look into weapons that are actually less, or non-lethal, and depend on the moral standing of your policies rather than the preponderance of your military force, because without morality, force is just criminal. Fuch Dick "Dick" Cheney. (Really, I hope his stolen heart lasts long enough to see him in the Hague.)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by deadstick on Saturday October 24 2015, @03:41PM
Do you not remember, when the challenge of honor was given, the party put upon was given the choice of weapons?
Yes. That was an exercise in status assertion by spoiled rich men hoping to get laid, and it had nothing whatever to do with war.
Ah, for the age of chivalry, when warriors were persons of valour, and not some poor hired sods and sad sacks that could not get a real job in the private sector.
Chivalry was domination by men on horseback -- literally -- in command of masses of sods and sad sacks who had been ordered away from their farm labor to do the fighting.
Ultimately, lethality of weapons count for much less that the righteousness of the cause for war, and utimately, resort to war is an admission of the lack of a just cause.
Lethality determines who imposes their will. Period.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 24 2015, @05:01PM
War is not a game, moron.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Sunday October 25 2015, @01:32AM
War is not a game, moron.
Too stupid to play, are we? Or too cowardly? People who do not think war is a game are the ones who constantly break the rules, because they are so afraid of losing, and so the ruin the game for everyone. Especially for those that are not even playing, the non-combatants.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Tuesday October 27 2015, @06:19AM
Flamebait mod? Hypothesis confirmed! Cowards. Real warriors would protect the innocent, and even the non-innocent, non-combatants, even at the cost of their own lives, and indeed even, and this the telling point, even at the defeat of their cause. No cause is defended by attacks on non-combatants, ever! Cowards like the Air Forces, who think they can bomb people into submission? Do you think lethality has anything to do with the ability to coerce people? Yeah, right, I would really want to surrender to cowards who kill children from a safe distance, because, you know, you can trust those guys. F**king Cowards. Not warriors, not soldiers, not even mildly competent mercenaries; they are dogs of war, dogs with not conscience, no professional standards, no loyalty, and Machiavelli was right: you do not want these people in your country. So, does the USA need a new pistol? Maybe. But the US military has much greater issues to deal with. Shell shock---battle fatigue--PTSD--moral damage. Why are the suicide rates among US veterans so high? Just f**king asking.
But hey, I lived through a Roman invasion! Talk about War! Those Romans knew what they were doing. Especially in the assimilation afterwards.