SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the next-time-it-will-be-a-light-sabre dept.
The U.S. Army will likely replace its standard-issue sidearm with a Sig Sauer P320 pistol (with undisclosed modifications):
After a long and much-criticized search, the US Army has chosen Sig Sauer to produce its next generation of handgun, eventually replacing the current standard issue sidearm, the Beretta M9 pistol. "Following a thorough operational test, fielding of the modular handgun is expected to begin in 2017," the Army said in a statement announcing the decision Thursday.
The M9's three decades of service since 1985 has occasionally made it the subject of derision among members of the armed forces. "The joke that we had in the military was that sometimes the most effective use of an M9 is to simply throw it at your adversary," Sen. Joni Ernst, a former officer in the Iowa Army National Guard, said last week during the confirmation hearings for Ret. Marine Gen. James Mattis to be secretary of defense. [...] "The Army's effort to buy a new handgun has already taken 10 years and produced nothing but a more than 350-page requirements document micromanaging extremely small unimportant details," Senate Armed Services committee chairman John McCain wrote in a 2015 report on the program's problems.
The Army awarded Sig Sauer Inc. with a $580,217,000 contract. Also at Washington Post, Popular Mechanics, and RT.
More about the Modular Handgun System.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @03:08AM
Some people are hung up on the idea of dropping a man with a single shot. Mostly, that is fantasy.
All other things being equal, a bigger bullet leaves a bigger hole, true enough. But it is also true that a large caliber gun is a bit harder to control and get off a second shot quickly and accurately, esp. if you have smaller hands. (A smaller caliber pistol grip will fit a wider range of hands, too.) A smaller caliber lets you keep shooting at the target due to less recoil, and people are usually trained to keep them pumping the target full of lead. A smaller caliber lets you carry more rounds in the magazine (incorrectly called the "clip"), so it's not as big a disadvantage as you might think. Plus you can buy "hot loads" (+P) if you really feel the need.
It's all about compromises. 9mm comes with some, a .45 with others. Given quality ammo for either, I wouldn't feel unsafe. You just have to get off multiple shots with the 9mm (double tap, no difficult). If you are a big guy and you aren't concerned about your wife needing to use your gun, a .45 works decently, although a .40 is a more modern choice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @03:26AM
Sounds to me like you may not have much experience with pistols.
The Colt 1911 recoil is easier to manage than a Glock 17. It's "softer", spread out over more time in a heavier pistol. I own and shoot both. It's easier to get a second shot on target with the .45 pistol than with the 17. Using +P ammunition to improve the stopping power of 9mm only makes the recoil worse. Using +P approaches the recoil of a Glock 22 in .40S&W, which I also own and shoot. Good .40 ammunition edges out the +P in ballistic performance, so why bother with the 9? The G22 holds 15+1 rounds, so negligible deficit there too.
The 1911 is also easier for some women to use than the G17 because the single-stack grip is smaller.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @04:11AM
My experience with handguns goes back decades.
As you stated, a .45's recoil takes some time to expend itself; it's not that it's harsh. I can get off more shots with a 9mm Glock than a 1911 .45 for this reason. If I had larger hands, I could probably bring the 1911's barrel down quicker for that second shot, but I don't. I also dispute your claim that a woman with small hands can more easily hold a 1911 -- the frame is large in other dimensions besides the grip width. A compact pistol like the stubby Glock 9mm with single stack magazine would be even better for smaller hands. A single stack of 9mm is almost always going to be smaller than a single .45 stack magazine.
As for +P ammo, I am not a big fan, but I mentioned them because they are an option for those that want more power from a smaller caliber. Take it to the extreme and you get a .357 Magnum. No thanks. Ouch. But talk about stopping power...
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @08:03AM
If I had larger hands, I could probably bring the 1911's barrel down quicker for that second shot, but I don't.
And this is why the Army cannot go back to the 1911 .45 ACP, The President's hands are too small to take the recoil.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @03:13PM
The joke is lame. Certainly not "Informative." Please do your job, mods, and at least change the categorization.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:55PM
Just as a third opinion, the joke did make me laugh, so at least not lame for all audiences.
Although, "informative" does seem like a bad choice for a mod. (Pretty much everyone knows about T's physical, mental and emotional short-comings already).
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 24 2017, @03:26AM
You're right - we make tradeoffs all the time. I can't afford the vehicles I'd like to drive, so I make tradeoffs based on cost, expected maintenance, performance, reliability, etc.
With handguns, you make tradeoffs as well. You're right - the 1911 is a handful of weapon. I was pretty uncomfortable with that weapon, until I got used to it, and adjusted my hands to fit the weapon. But, recoil? The recoil isn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be. Seriously - the first time I fired the thing, I was amazed at how LITTLE recoil there was. I was expecting it to hammer the shit out of me, because people had hyped up the recoil so much.
But, getting back to the Army's specs, and the development of the .45. A big, heavy, slow moving bullet does indeed drop people to the ground, very quickly, if not instantly. Smaller rounds are often non-fatal, unless they hit a vital organ. Depending on your mission, the less fatal rounds may prove to be desirable. Home defense, for example, doesn't require that bodies be strewn around the property. Most often, the mere presence of a weapon of any size is enough to deter a home intruder.
The most common, and probably the best advice offered to new shooters, is to experiment with a few different weapons. Whatever you can hit with, is what you should be shooting. A petite woman who simply cannot wrap her hands around a Model 1911 probably shouldn't be trying to shoot the damned thing. A small man who has difficulty holding that 1911 should probably use a different weapon. If you can't hit the target, the weapon is useless to you.
But, the battlefield is quite a different story from personal and/or home defense scenarios.
The Sig under consideration seems to take into account that some people simply can't hold a huge framed gun properly. They take into account that maybe a .45 isn't the best fit for rounds all the time. But, the grunts on the front lines will almost invariably opt for that stopping power, if they have any choice in the matter.
You CAN trade away to much power, after all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @03:49AM
As the parent AC poster, I agree with your civilian gun usage assessments, esp. use the gun you are most comfortable with that fits your hands and personal quirks best.
I never said I was a +P fan in general, just that it was an option for some to get more from the 9mm. (And hey, a .357 Magnum is not a large bullet, but it has so much gunpowder behind it that it is DEADLY. And painful to shoot, I might add.)
As for your remarks about what the troops need for protection in the field, the majority of them carry a rifle. A pistol is and always has been a last ditch, point blank weapon for them. Not hating on caliber choices; it just gets excessive publicity in my personal opinion for all but special forces and other elite troops.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @08:05AM
But, the grunts on the front lines will almost invariably
You are aware, oh font of military wisdom, that only officers and some other "special" personnel are issued side arms?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 24 2017, @10:38AM
You may not be aware that many military personnel carry a sidearm at some time in their career, if they are deemed trustworthy and competent to do so. The Navy generally deems a third class petty officer to stand "Petty of the Watch", in port. The uniform includes a sidearm. He is the first line of defense for whatever might happen. The sidearm is kept unloaded, but ready for action, on his hip, with two magazines on his duty belt. His FIRST job is to sound the alarm, and get more people on scene if something happens, but his second job is to engage any assailants. An honor guard may be ordered to carry either a rifle, or a sidearm - I have carried both. A sentry at certain duty stations is more likely to be armed with a sidearm than a rifle. I won't even try to speak for any of the other services, but our destroyer had about 20 M1911's in the small arms locker, and they were often in sight, and in use, in the performce of duties. Those 20 don't include a smaller arsenal stowed in officer's country.
Call away the security alert team, and you were sure to see a dozen of them. Those weapons were most certainly NOT just ceremonial pieces.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday January 24 2017, @10:43AM
Don't know anything about guns, but reading this thread I get the impression that half the problem here is that the army is trying to impose a "one-size fits all" solution on their soldiers, who are a diverse bunch - especially with more and more women joining the military.
I can see the advantages - cost, efficiency, being able to exchange parts and ammunition between weapons etc, but couldn't they have 2 or 3 standard weapons with different qualities, make every recruit train with each one during boot camp, and then at graduation time each soldier is assigned the weapon that they perform best with in their weapons proficiency exam[1]? No reason those 2 or 3 weapons couldn't be variations on a single model, or at least all use the same ammunition to make supply easier. A little variety / redundancy in the military supply chain might make that supply chain a little more robust as well.
[1] Of course this would mean taking the exam more than once, or at least measuring and comparing the soldier's performance with the various weapons throughout training. Not a deal-breaker.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @03:32PM
Heh heh, that's not how the military works.
They pick one thing for their troops and everybody is trained in it. Replaceability of parts and people is key in the regular forces. Special forces are, well, less easily replaceable, and are given some leeway as an organization in how they organize themselves. They get to pick their own firearm standard as a result that can differ from regular forces.
The 9mm is a compromise caliber in that everyone can handle it and the guns that shoot it. Plus it's the same caliber NATO uses and mass manufacture makes it CHEAP ammo. Everyone uses it.