Posted on 06/08/2016 9:17:22 AM PDT by MtnClimber
For nearly two years now, the U.S. Army has been trying to replace its Beretta M9 service weapon -- and believe it or not, the Army is finally starting to make some progress. Slow progress, to be sure, but progress nonetheless.
Last week, the military hardware specialists at IHS Jane's reported that out of the 20 industry teams previously believed to be interested in selling the Army a new Modular Handgun System (MHS), only a dozen actually submitted bids in response to the Army's official Request for Proposals.
From these, the Army expects to "downselect" just three finalists in August. It will then spend a further nine months evaluating how well the finalists actually produce weapons matching the designs they have submitted. At that point, nearly three years after the process began, the Army thinks it will be ready to pick a winner.
And the winner is ... Who will that winner be? That's hard to say, because even at this late date, we still don't know precisely who is competing. Janes believes that the 12 competitors who submitted bids include:
(Excerpt) Read more at fool.com ...
Wonder why the army did not release who is in the running?
Just a guess, but they might be afraid of insider training or undue political pressure. They try not to publish too much information about the process until the selection is made.
Why am I thinking this has more to do with who donates to what politician than who makes the best gun?
It was interesting to see CZ in the running.
Would the US military really choose a design that came out of the Soviet communist arena?
Although I don’t use one myself, I can’t think of a better alternative than the Glock 19. Boy, those suckers are reliable even when slogged through mud and water.
Unfortunately the new gun will be picked for the same reason as the Beretta... political pull.
I’d like to make a comment here. I own quite a bit of pistols. I have multiple 1911s, multiple Berettas, multiple Glocks, Brownings, Sigs, Rugers, and many others.
My only comment is that what will the reputation and withstanding of the eventual winner 100 years from now?
I certainly have some that old (and from WWII) and they still shoot well. Still viable. Frankly, I have no idea of what some kind of polymer sidearm will do and how it will withstand. My gut tells me not. Not in the sense of the beating and time-tested endurance steel has.
We shall see, I guess, but I won’t live long enough to find out. :0)
I’d be in favor of the Glock 19. It’s small enough that if the 19 isn’t enough firepower, carry an extra for backup.
Pick a round. Design a gun around it.
I have four Glocks (17, 19, 21, 26). They are all basically the same. Known reliability is good, performance good, everything good. But still less than 50 years old and yet unproven with the test of time.
My personal inclination would be a semi built around a 357 cartridge. Small enough to stack more rounds and power enough to rival a 45 - greater than a 9.....
My personal tastes tells me no way to a 40....
Should never has changed from the Colt .45 ACP.
With more titanium and less steel. Proven the test of time.
Who? Or WHAT?
Bad grammar strikes again!
There are Glocks out there that done over a 100,000 round that is with standing the test well. Their frames well not rust away like a steel one well.
Pistols like any machinery has a left expectancy. If one doesn’t use it that is a very long time, If one uses them they well wear out.
It should be something small and without any recoil to accommodate those frail transgender hands that will be operating it. I nominate the Wham-O Deluxe Water Pistol.
The P320.
I’ve gotten into this fray before...and I’m not a Glock hater...but I don’t think its best for the Army. An Army pistol will in its service life be issued so a couple dozen different soldiers, who may or may not take care of it while in the field. If the wearer is a vehicle crewman, it will get banged and beat to hell every time they climb in and out of the hatch, and generally be abused. Just look at any photo of a current service pistol, and notice that all the bluing is gone, etc.
But besides that, it really does need to be idiot proof. A Drill SGT at the range has to be able to glance at a Private’s weapon, and see whether or not that huge red ‘off safe’ dot is visible. Too many trainees are holding a weapon in their hands for the first time.
Lastly, with all the gear, and climbing around, and low crawling...triggers can get pulled by accident.
Nothing against the Glock - just don’t think it suits the Army.
Smith & Wesson makes one. So does Coonan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.