Wonder why the army did not release who is in the running?
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.
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!
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.
No Polymer guns. You can drive a jeep over a 1911, CZ, or Beretta and it will likely still work, a Polymer frame, good luck. And mind you, this is coming from a guy who carries a M&P or a Glock 36 daily.
If it was good enough for George Washington...
The one who offers the biggest kickback, the way it is always done silly.
Whatever the choice, it will be in 9MM. That Rules out the FN 5 seven.
Sir, I do believe that everyone is missing a very important point! Why does the US Armed Forces need a NEW pistol? Can anyone describe an event where a Soldier, Marine, Sailor, Airman has actually used a Pistol in Combat. With multiple combat deployments I know of ZERO. The M9, although I personally hate the thing, is just as capable, while being toted around on the hip, as any other sidearm.
Why do we allow the DOD to get away with this foolishness. This is not an issue of National Security or safety. The pistol is a weapon of last resort and serves to give the Officers, Senior NCO, pilots and Technicians a means to defend themselves. USSOCOM, the only guys that actually ma use the pistol, already have a different gun. This is just wasted money on a sham requirement. In 15 years of War, nobody has required the pistol. Just as soon as a “Pistol Bearer” is sent outside the wire, they grab an M4-M16A4. I could get interested IF they were talking about a Service Rifle.