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This discussion has been archived.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, Interesting) by Codesmith on Tuesday January 24 2017, @02:54PM

    by Codesmith (5811) on Tuesday January 24 2017, @02:54PM (#458100)

    OK, I will step through this and try to cover all of the points:

    Citations need to be published by a reputable source, cover the material at hand, be written clearly and understandably, and include all majority and significant minority views . A neutral POV is highly recommended.

    This is why bloggers may be knowledgeble in their field, but I would not suggest using them as references. Quite often a blogger is posting with a specific viewpoint they wish to reinforce, and quite often miss or specifically ignore information that they disaggree with.

    Your second listed link is so patently political as to be offensive. Obvious posturing that has nothing to do with the dicussion at hand.

    The third link I will agree as a fair and well written source. It has been well researched and is well displayed. However, while it supports points about the quality of the Colt 1911, it does not really follow the primary direction of this discussion.

    I would suggest a short list of prerequisites for a new service pistol:

    • Ammunition commonality. In NATO, that's 9mm, 5.56mm and 7.62mm. I've never seen a 5.56 handgun, and would think there would be barrel length issues to get complete propellent burn. .45 ACP is not used by any other force, and is therefore discounted. As well, all ammunition must be FMJ to adhere to treaty.
    • Weight. Personnel will be carrying is equipment 24/7. Polymer structures should be investigated.
    • Capabilities. Double action seems to be a desired operation currently. I don't really understand it, as I never carried a round chambered, and cycling the action was enough to load and cock.
    • Accuracy. If you are engaging at less than 5m, I can understand a pistol, although I would prefer a SMG. There are many shooters with the ability to hit at far more distant ranges but I don't believe that is germain to combat shooting.

    You may note that I did not include 'knockdown' at any point. Performance of any given round in any given circumstance is almost impossible to predict. The ability to get rounds downrange is really the only metric that applies.

    I must admit, I don't understand the fascination with giving almost every service member a pistol. In an infantry battalion, the only individuals I ever saw with pistols were the BN CO, and some of the HQ staff. All mid-level and junior officers carried rifles, and drivers, gunner, signallers, etc carried SMGs. In my experience, I've never seen an issue longarm fail to the point that the issue cannot be rectified by the operator. I'm sure this does happen, and the Company CQ carries extra, and the nearest Service BN has weapons techs that can rebuild on a 24 hour turnaround.

    --
    Pro utilitate hominum.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @06:23PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @06:23PM (#458192)

    TLDR; I'll paraphrase what I imagined you just wrote: "Write a thesis so I don't have to contend your points using my own research / time. Anything less is irrelevant, and I will only be satisfied once you are so burdened in writing a well supported ten page dissertation with footnotes and 8x10 color photographs, that I'll forget this post was ever made when you finally get back to me next Thursday, and I won't have to argue against your points anyway."

    • (Score: 1) by Codesmith on Tuesday January 24 2017, @09:46PM

      by Codesmith (5811) on Tuesday January 24 2017, @09:46PM (#458282)

      Actually, I'd prefer a 5 line précis with a good link or two.

      And I do watch comments to see if anyone replies.

      --
      Pro utilitate hominum.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2017, @08:27AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2017, @08:27AM (#458422)

      You do realise parent went to some lengths to formulate a coherent and reasonably well-reasoned post himself, while asking for it from others? Oh no, right, you wrote "TLDR". Means functionally illiterate, right?

  • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Tuesday January 24 2017, @10:54PM

    by Spook brat (775) on Tuesday January 24 2017, @10:54PM (#458308) Journal

    I've never seen a 5.56 handgun, and would think there would be barrel length issues to get complete propellent burn.

    There are lots of options [cheaperthandirt.com] on that front, rest assured. Several of them are even novel designs intended to be a pistol configuration (rather than simply a short-barreled AR15 with stock removed)!

    You probably have a point regarding the barrel length, so I doubt any military force will adopt any of the models I linked to. I just wanted to point out that they exist :)

    --
    Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2017, @06:19PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2017, @06:19PM (#458567)

    "You may note that I did not include 'knockdown' at any point. Performance of any given round in any given circumstance is almost impossible to predict. The ability to get rounds downrange is really the only metric that applies."

    Wrong. Marshall, Sanow and others have done a lot of work on the topic. It is a matter of statistics rather than certainty, but it's a sucker's bet that any given shot by a .22lr would be a more effective stopper than the same shot from a .45ACP.

    Getting rounds downrange as a matter of suppressive fire is a different question, in which simple round count is more important than the terminal ballistic characteristics of the round itself. However, given that a handgun is usually a weapon of desperation, it's not merely a noisemaker but should be effective as well. In this context, plausible stopping power should be considered.

    The best measure of stopping power in a handgun is rapid, accurate delivery of rounds on target. This requires a number of features, not least of which is grip compatibility, in the interests of which a modular platform is a good start. However, good penetration characteristics make an accurate shot more likely to be effective. This motivates a higher momentum bullet (i.e. heavier and slower, at a given level of energy) with tough construction, high sectional density and good ballistic attributes. Armour piercing rounds tend to use very high energy (light, higher velocity) techniques to penetrate a thin frontal layer of armour, and then do at least some damage beyond the armour. This is because high velocity impacts shed energy very quickly indeed, whereas low velocity impacts are slow to lose energy - this has to do with the nature of friction, acceleration and so on. The physics gets messy, but it's also empirically demonstrable. This is why light frangible rounds tend to make shallow, ugly wounds while solid rounds with hard surfaces tend to keep travelling.