Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday January 23 2017, @09:24PM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday January 24 2017, @10:43AM

    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Tuesday January 24 2017, @10:43AM (#458036) Journal

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @03:32PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @03:32PM (#458110)

    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.