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 "It's been around for a really, really long time, and it's just old and outdated."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: 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.