Air Force lays out specs for its next handgun - Baseline caliber of .45 - Page 2

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Air Force lays out specs for its next handgun - Baseline caliber of .45 (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 4/20/2007 11:51:14 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Well, we were the first to field the AR15/M16, why not the first to replace the M9 completely as well.

I'd like to see the HK45 but it will probably be some POS like a S&W.

IIRC, they were also the first to select the M9.

Posted: 4/20/2007 11:51:43 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I can see multiple caliber capability if you're talking about 9mm to .40, but .45?

That gets a double

The M3 grease gun had a .45 to 9mm conversion.

Is that true or was it a completely different model? If true, they still had to furnish a replacement barrel, bolt and magazine.

Same is true for the 1911--a new top end and a new mag.

The M3 9mm conversion used Sten mags.

Quoted:
I believe a decocker, not to sure.

The Glock can be retrofitted with and external safety, but not a deckocker. It's single action.

Posted: 4/20/2007 11:54:22 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'd like to see the military switch to the G21

No external safety=never happen.

ETA: Although that might not stop the AF from considering it. Our standard carry condition for the M9 is different than other services, we carry round in the chamber, decocked and safety off. No different than a striker fired design with a round in the chamber, except the heavy DA trigger pull on the M9.

USCG carries the same way.

I've heard different opinions as to how wise this method of carry is.

Posted: 4/20/2007 11:56:18 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I can see multiple caliber capability if you're talking about 9mm to .40, but .45?

That gets a double

The M3 grease gun had a .45 to 9mm conversion.

Is that true or was it a completely different model? If true, they still had to furnish a replacement barrel, bolt and magazine.

Same is true for the 1911--a new top end and a new mag.

It was a conversion. Used STEN mags.

Posted: 4/20/2007 12:03:35 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Why .45?

Probably for the same reason that USMC Force Recon, Delta, LAPD SWAT, FBI HRT, etc., go with the .45.

However, I see the 9 mm advantage--lotsa bullets for the same weight--as being actually relevent for a pilot. You have more shots for misc tasks like hunting, signaling, etc., while still saving some for defense. The down side is that it is probably foolish for pilots to carry JHPs, since capture is likely if you are shot down. And .45 looks real good when restricted to FMJs.

Posted: 4/20/2007 12:06:39 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I can see multiple caliber capability if you're talking about 9mm to .40, but .45?

That gets a double

The M3 grease gun had a .45 to 9mm conversion.

Is that true or was it a completely different model? If true, they still had to furnish a replacement barrel, bolt and magazine.

Same is true for the 1911--a new top end and a new mag.

I remember seeing something about that on the History Channel. One could unscrew the barrel and use MP-40 stick mags captured from Germans. Efficient idea.

Posted: 4/20/2007 12:14:15 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'd like to see the military switch to the G21

No external safety=never happen.

ETA: Although that might not stop the AF from considering it. Our standard carry condition for the M9 is different than other services, we carry round in the chamber, decocked and safety off. No different than a striker fired design with a round in the chamber, except the heavy DA trigger pull on the M9.

USCG carries the same way.

I've heard different opinions as to how wise this method of carry is.

All decent modern DA service autos have a transfer bar or firing pin safety. Its perfectly safe, and basically necessary on a weapon with a slide mounted safety.

Posted: 4/20/2007 12:19:41 PM EDT

[#8]

My money is on the contract going to FNH with the FNP .45. They already have a reputation for supplying the military with small arms on schedule and under budget.

Posted: 4/20/2007 12:33:26 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
When was the last time the Air Force shot someone with a handgun (aside from maybe a Combat Controller)?

When was the last time you (or anyone here) shot someone with a handgun?
Does that mean you'll never need one?

Posted: 4/20/2007 12:45:11 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'd like to see the military switch to the G21

No external safety=never happen.

ETA: Although that might not stop the AF from considering it. Our standard carry condition for the M9 is different than other services, we carry round in the chamber, decocked and safety off. No different than a striker fired design with a round in the chamber, except the heavy DA trigger pull on the M9.

USCG carries the same way.

I've heard different opinions as to how wise this method of carry is.

All decent modern DA service autos have a transfer bar or firing pin safety. Its perfectly safe, and basically necessary on a weapon with a slide mounted safety.

The argument against carrying it off safe actually has nothing to do with negligent or accidental discharges.

It has everything to do with what ifs. What if the weapon is brushed up against something and the safety is accidentally engaged? The proponents of carrying it with the safety engaged say the training required ensures the safety will be disengaged when you need it to be.

I have no opinion either way.

Posted: 4/20/2007 12:46:46 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
When was the last time the Air Force shot someone with a handgun (aside from maybe a Combat Controller)?

When was the last time you (or anyone here) shot someone with a handgun?
Does that mean you'll never need one?

Touche'

And it's perfectly safe to carry an M9 with the hammer down, safety off, round in the pipe. Just like a Glock, it can't go off unless the trigger is pulled (and unlike a Glock, it's a big, long, double-action pull to do it).

Posted: 4/20/2007 12:50:54 PM EDT

[#12]

I hope it goes to an American firm. Enough with outsourcing or our small arms industry to the Euros

Posted: 4/20/2007 12:52:54 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
i13.tinypic.com/35d9s2o.gif

Apparently not life size.

Posted: 4/20/2007 12:54:36 PM EDT

[#14]

Because if we have learned anything in the past week, its the inefectiveness of the 9mm round.

Posted: 4/20/2007 12:55:29 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
An aluminum framed 1911 with a lightened slide weighs 25 ounces and holds 8+1 rounds.

They want it to last 25,000 rounds too.

Posted: 4/20/2007 12:57:37 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
When was the last time the Air Force shot someone with a handgun (aside from maybe a Combat Controller)?

Or SP's on the perimeter or Pararescue or TAC-P or pilots being shot down........

Posted: 4/20/2007 12:59:17 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'd like to see the military switch to the G21

No external safety=never happen.

FACTORY Glock 17S:

glockfaq.com/rare.htm#g17s

Posted: 4/20/2007 1:03:53 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Because if we have learned anything in the past week, its the inefectiveness of the 9mm round.

We didn't learn anything about 9 mm effectiveness in the last week. We already knew it could kill. The Soviet 7.62x25 also has a great rep for killing the defenseless.

And, in any case, I doubt Air Force crews will be using JHPs.

Posted: 4/20/2007 1:04:07 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

The argument against carrying it off safe actually has nothing to do with negligent or accidental discharges.

It has everything to do with what ifs. What if the weapon is brushed up against something and the safety is accidentally engaged? The proponents of carrying it with the safety engaged say the training required ensures the safety will be disengaged when you need it to be.

I have no opinion either way.

I do have an opinion-- I was shooting IPSC with a 92FS. I loaded and made ready, dropped the hammer and took the safety off, then holstered. When the buzzer went off I drew and attempted to fire, @#$@#$%!! safety was on, must have bumped it during the draw.

I sure am glad it didn't happen in "real life".

I am deciding if I should:

1) always engage the safety
2) get a decock-only model
3) get a different holster.

I was using a Fobus paddle holster and was sometimes having a heck of a time getting it out of the holster. So I'm ordering a SERPA holster to try. Now I see how people end up with boxes full of holsters they don't use...

Posted: 4/20/2007 1:07:50 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
............In addition, the memo set out specifications for an accompanying silencer. The device must be able to reduce discharge noise to 140 decibels at least, weigh no more than 10 ounces and have a service life of 3,000 to 10,000 rounds.
...........................................

10 ozs and a silencer. Deep cover.

Posted: 4/20/2007 1:08:56 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
I do have an opinion-- I was shooting IPSC with a 92FS. I loaded and made ready, dropped the hammer and took the safety off, then holstered. When the buzzer went off I drew and attempted to fire, @#$@#$%!! safety was on, must have bumped it during the draw.

I sure am glad it didn't happen in "real life".

I am deciding if I should:

1) always engage the safety
2) get a decock-only model
3) get a different holster.

I was using a Fobus paddle holster and was sometimes having a heck of a time getting it out of the holster. So I'm ordering a SERPA holster to try. Now I see how people end up with boxes full of holsters they don't use...

Yep. The weapon's safety should be disengaged during presentation. If you don't like doing that with the particular weapon's safety, get a different weapon with a safety you like.

Posted: 4/20/2007 1:11:11 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'd like to see the military switch to the G21

No external safety=never happen.

FACTORY Glock 17S:
glockfaq.com/images/pics/g17s_left.jpg

glockfaq.com/rare.htm#g17s

Military brass considers its average recruit to stupid to handle Glocks. This thought is not without merit. Unless policy shifts all service pistols will have manual safetys.

Posted: 4/20/2007 1:11:22 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
i13.tinypic.com/35d9s2o.gif

That scale on that graphic still doesn't look correct, no matter how many times people post it. The difference between 9mm and .40 is way too small.

I just decided to make my own in Photoshop, using the rulers, and measuring correctly:

original:

Posted: 4/20/2007 1:13:19 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Why .45?

And .45 looks real good when restricted to FMJs.

Posted: 4/20/2007 1:14:31 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'd like to see the military switch to the G21

No external safety=never happen.

FACTORY Glock 17S:
glockfaq.com/images/pics/g17s_left.jpg

glockfaq.com/rare.htm#g17s

Military brass considers its average recruit to stupid to handle Glocks. This thought is not without merit. Unless policy shifts all service pistols will have manual safetys.

If Glock did it for the Tasmanian Police Force, they'll sure as hell do it for a big ol' U.S. military contract.

Posted: 4/20/2007 1:17:21 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'd like to see the military switch to the G21

No external safety=never happen.

FACTORY Glock 17S:
glockfaq.com/images/pics/g17s_left.jpg

glockfaq.com/rare.htm#g17s

Military brass considers its average recruit to stupid to handle Glocks. This thought is not without merit. Unless policy shifts all service pistols will have manual safetys.

If Glock did it for the Tasmanian Police Force, they'll sure as hell do it for a big ol' U.S. military contract.

The M9 replacement contract Congress recently killed had a no "striker fired" as well as a "No DAO" requirment. No Glocks or XDs right off the bat.

As I said another gimme contract for HK.

Posted: 4/20/2007 1:29:30 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Because if we have learned anything in the past week, its the inefectiveness of the 9mm round.

We didn't learn anything about 9 mm effectiveness in the last week. We already knew it could kill. The Soviet 7.62x25 also has a great rep for killing the defenseless.

And, in any case, I doubt Air Force crews will be using JHPs.

Sorry to say, but you'd be wrong on that one. Crews do indeed carry JHP for their M9s today. It is for defensive use only, hence the skirting the edge of the Geneva convention. They probably would like to issue .45s and ball ammo to crews instead to get rid of the idocy that goes on in countries like Japan and England when you land there with "OMG!!!!" man killing baby seeking missiles in your firearm. I personally don't mind the M9, but wouldn't complain about a replacement that holds one round less, but of .45, and has customizable backstraps. For those of you who want to shit talk the AF, come on over, if you haven't done a year here next to me packing an M9 on your side then STFU.

Posted: 4/20/2007 1:55:45 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Why would the Air Force need suppressors in enough quantity that they need an RFP to find them?

So you can hear the jet engines while you're shooting.

Posted: 4/20/2007 2:05:14 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Because if we have learned anything in the past week, its the inefectiveness of the 9mm round.

We didn't learn anything about 9 mm effectiveness in the last week. We already knew it could kill. The Soviet 7.62x25 also has a great rep for killing the defenseless.

And, in any case, I doubt Air Force crews will be using JHPs.

Sorry to say, but you'd be wrong on that one. Crews do indeed carry JHP for their M9s today. It is for defensive use only, hence the skirting the edge of the Geneva convention. They probably would like to issue .45s and ball ammo to crews instead to get rid of the idocy that goes on in countries like Japan and England when you land there with "OMG!!!!" man killing baby seeking missiles in your firearm. I personally don't mind the M9, but wouldn't complain about a replacement that holds one round less, but of .45, and has customizable backstraps. For those of you who want to shit talk the AF, come on over, if you haven't done a year here next to me packing an M9 on your side then STFU.

I'm surprised. I wouldn't expect they would be all that concerned with the Geneva convention (actually the Hauge, and we never signed), but with the fact that low life scum could use that as an excuse in show trials: capture US pilot, try him under Geneva or the Hague, sentence him to prison, etc.

Edited to add: That said, if JHPs are viable, it might make a 9 more attractive for aircrews than a .45, just for the added ammo you can carry. It is one of the few cases I can think of where I'd prefer a 9 over a .45. The only place I can see high cap pistol mags as compelling is for mounted use, if we ever bring back the calvery.

Posted: 4/20/2007 2:18:20 PM EDT

[#30]

If the JSP program told us one thing, it is that the M9 will be the replaced about the same time as the M16 family...In other words, not any time soon.

Posted: 4/20/2007 2:20:45 PM EDT

[#31]

Partial dupe and old news. The AF has already started replacing it's 9mms with 45s. Look at the FY07 Unfunded Priority List. It's #8. They are starting with the Guardian Angel equipment and I'm assuming the request to switch came out of that majcom.

Posted: 4/20/2007 2:34:24 PM EDT

[#32]

I hope this is the winner:

CJ

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Air Force lays out specs for its next handgun - Baseline caliber of .45 (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us