if you had to suggest a GI handgun for the US military that had to be made or atleast owned by an american company(e.g. Springfield Armory XD series) which one would it be? name your top three

1.  HK
2.  HK
3.  HK


Read the quals its a gimme contract.  HK tactical or Expert.

ETA:  The XD is CROATIAN.

Quoted: if you had to suggest a GI handgun for the US military that had to be made or atleast owned by an american company(e.g. Springfield Armory XD series) which one would it be? name your top three

hehe....the XD isn't made here.

Howabout...

Sig 220
Beretta M9
S&W M&P

Great pistols, all of them and all made here.

Quoted: Quoted: if you had to suggest a GI handgun for the US military that had to be made or atleast owned by an american company(e.g. Springfield Armory XD series) which one would it be? name your top three hehe....the XD isn't made here. Howabout... Sig 220 Insufficient capacity Beretta M9 Not a 45acp, and it is what is desired replaced. S&W M&P Not in 45 as of yet Great pistols, all of them and all made here.

Will not be Glock or striker fired either.  Double stack 45 with threaded barrel, rail, manual safety, DA/SA that is not DAO.  With requested shot counter-diagnostic options (hookable to computer) as well as round-count feature.

the runners up for the contract I think will be
-The new H&K pistol or something similar to the USP .45
-The SIG-Sauer P250 DC in .45 or the p220 or the sig pro pistol but I don’t think it will be either of those last two
-The Beretta PX4 in .45 or the 9X series in .45 but I don’t think 9X series will be in
-the Smith & Wesson M&P Pistol in .45
- probably something from colt and ruger but I have know idea

this is basically what I think will be in comparison for the new GI pistol but I could have it all wrong. This is just what I think will be competinghoose

Thunder Five.  

Quoted: if you had to suggest a GI handgun for the US military that had to be made or atleast owned by an american company(e.g. Springfield Armory XD series) which one would it be? name your top three

There are only two US designed and manufactered .45 semi-auto pistols: The Ruger whatever-series, and the Colt 1911-types. ETA: OK, and the S&W semi .45-series. The M&P .45 is a ways off...

The winner of the JSP contract (if it comes to it) will be a foreign design, made in the US. Probably HK, mebbe Sig.

why are the cz97b, eaa witness, baby eagle--all in .45acp and w/ safeties--not in the running?  did those companies not submit their designs or did they not meet certain criteria?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: if you had to suggest a GI handgun for the US military that had to be made or atleast owned by an american company(e.g. Springfield Armory XD series) which one would it be? name your top three hehe....the XD isn't made here. Howabout... Sig 220 Insufficient capacity Beretta M9 Not a 45acp, and it is what is desired replaced. S&W M&P Not in 45 as of yet Great pistols, all of them and all made here. Will not be Glock or striker fired either.  Double stack 45 with threaded barrel, rail, manual safety, DA/SA that is not DAO.  With requested shot counter-diagnostic options (hookable to computer) as well as round-count feature.

Allright, let's go this direction....


Sig 226 in .45 (ha!)
Beretta M9 in .45 (Beretta does make the 92 series in .45)
S&W M&P in .45

Or, anything but HK.

Ruger will win.

It's the chevy 350 of the handgun world. Nothing fancy or anything to brag about but it always gets the job done...

I hate to say it, but there aren't any U.S. branded military type pistols I think are that good. The Kahrs are the only centerfire pistols made in the U.S. that I like and they aren't what you would want for a military sidearm.

Quoted: why are the cz97b, eaa witness, baby eagle--all in .45acp and w/ safeties--not in the running?  did those companies not submit their designs or did they not meet certain criteria?

grips are too big.  They look compat, but feel wrong (to me)

Quoted: 1.  HK 2.  HK 3.  HK Read the quals its a gimme contract.  HK tactical or Expert.

You forgot one....

4. HK

Quoted: Quoted: why are the cz97b, eaa witness, baby eagle--all in .45acp and w/ safeties--not in the running?  did those companies not submit their designs or did they not meet certain criteria? grips are too big.  They look compat, but feel wrong (to me)

no worse than the grip on the m9.  i fondled a witness in 10mm and the grip seemed quite small for a pistol in that cartridge.  i am pretty sure that they use the same size grip frame for the .45acp version too.  

1. Lorcin
2. Raven
3. Hi Point

Why do people mention the Tactical......the treaded barrel is POINTLESS FOR INFANTRY COMBAT.....

Quoted: Why do people mention the Tactical......the treaded barrel is POINTLESS FOR INFANTRY COMBAT.....

Agreed, but the military wants all pistols to be compatible with suppressors. It simplifies logistics.


Why would it have to be a US pistol? I hate to break it to you, but there are no decent US made .45s that aren't 1911s. Pick a good design and tell the winner to make it here.

Quoted: I hate to break it to you, but there are no decent US made .45s that aren't 1911s. Pick a good design and tell the winner to make it here.

I'm sure you won't agree, but I think the Ruger .45's are exceptional pistols....especially for the military. Bullet-proof, reliable and simple. I have no doubt whatsoever that Ruger could field an exceptional military sidearm.

Quoted: Quoted: I hate to break it to you, but there are no decent US made .45s that aren't 1911s. Pick a good design and tell the winner to make it here. I'm sure you won't agree, but I think the Ruger .45's are exceptional pistols....especially for the military. Bullet-proof, reliable and simple. I have no doubt whatsoever that Ruger could field an exceptional military sidearm.

indeed they could.  but they don't make a double stack .45acp and that is a shame.

The two that I would be looking at is the new HK45 or the M&P when it's offered in 45ACP.

Quoted: Quoted: I hate to break it to you, but there are no decent US made .45s that aren't 1911s. Pick a good design and tell the winner to make it here. I'm sure you won't agree, but I think the Ruger .45's are exceptional pistols....especially for the military. Bullet-proof, reliable and simple. I have no doubt whatsoever that Ruger could field an exceptional military sidearm.

I agree that they are tough and reliable, but I don't think they're exceptional. The trigger, safety, and overall ergonomics leave much to be desired, IMO.

Quoted: The two that I would be looking at is the new HK45 or the M&P when it's offered in 45ACP.

Agreed.  

None.

Currently, HK has the best offering, and I highly doubt anyone will be able to produce something nicer.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I hate to break it to you, but there are no decent US made .45s that aren't 1911s. Pick a good design and tell the winner to make it here. I'm sure you won't agree, but I think the Ruger .45's are exceptional pistols....especially for the military. Bullet-proof, reliable and simple. I have no doubt whatsoever that Ruger could field an exceptional military sidearm. I agree that they are tough and reliable, but I don't think they're exceptional. The trigger, safety, and overall ergonomics leave much to be desired, IMO.

I always hear about the trigger from 1911 guys which I'm guessing you are.

Lets face it these pistols will never be used for daily competitions. Instead they will be used for last ditch self defense and similar situations by on average non gun type people. Most mil folks I know are not serious gun nuts.

A dependable ruger will go alot farther than a match grade pistol.

It's the KISS principle. Basic safety and basic trigger with nothing fancy. And it works EACH AND EVERY TIME YOU PULL THE TRIGGER.

Prolly HK .45

Why not just get the FN P90?

Glock - Striker fired, no external safety, no SA/DA, it's out.
XD - Striker fired (I think), no SA/DA it's out.
1911 - No capacity, no DA variant, it's out.
SW M&P - DA/Striker/what ever fired, no external safety, no SA/DA, it's out.
Mk 23 - Coincidentally, the size limit is the same as the Mk 23, it's out.
SIG 220 - No capacity, it might be out.

HK45 - Built specifically for the JCP.

Now, awhile back I heard a rumor that SIG had a new polymer 45 going through R&D. My guess would be an SP2022 SIG Pro chambered in 45ACP. Throw in a threaded barrel, and you have everything the JCP needs.

If not, the 220 has undergone alot of development in the past couple of years. If the HK falls through, I think the 220R and all of it's variants would be a very wise choice.

Quoted: Quoted: 1.  HK 2.  HK 3.  HK Read the quals its a gimme contract.  HK tactical or Expert. You forgot one.... two 4. HK

5. HK

Hk had this one in the bag from the get go.

Nothing thats out there right now.

Rock River Arms LAR-15's

I spent years training people how to shoot while in the military.  It's M16 based platform that everyone in the military already knows.  You can throw a holographic site on it and it will reach out and touch the bad guys.  The military wouldn't have to buy any additional cleaning items and it would add very few items to the parts inventory.   The final best reason of all is the officers will have to carry it.

I havnt been folling the requirements to much  and was wondering why the striker fired guns are not acceptable??  the us gov sure did think it was ok to get all those glocks over there for the iraqi army.  just curious as to why not use the glock 21?  i damn sure would use it if given the choice, ive also talked to several friends who have been deployed in afghan and in iraq and all wished they could have had a glock 21.  they said it would have been a perfect handgun for use there.

Quoted: I havnt been folling the requirements to much  and was wondering why the striker fired guns are not acceptable??  the us gov sure did think it was ok to get all those glocks over there for the iraqi army.  just curious as to why not use the glock 21?  i damn sure would use it if given the choice, ive also talked to several friends who have been deployed in afghan and in iraq and all wished they could have had a glock 21.  they said it would have been a perfect handgun for use there.

+1 for the G21. I think it would make a fine military sidearm.  But the fact is the military has its own agenda and the HK fits it like a glove and is worlds better than the M9.  I have both the USP and G21 and it would be a hard choice.  It is also sad that the best handguns are from across the pond .  Colt had it for so long and has kinda sat on there hands for the last 20-30 years.  Kinda reminds me of what has happend in the US auto industry.

Quoted: I havnt been folling the requirements to much  and was wondering why the striker fired guns are not acceptable??  the us gov sure did think it was ok to get all those glocks over there for the iraqi army.  just curious as to why not use the glock 21?  i damn sure would use it if given the choice, ive also talked to several friends who have been deployed in afghan and in iraq and all wished they could have had a glock 21.  they said it would have been a perfect handgun for use there.

Too large for the womenz. And no second strike, which for some reason the government thinks is important.

If you want ideal and something that meets the DA criteria:

Sig 220
HK 45
Ruger .45

I think the Sig is superior to the HK simply in terms of durability and service life, I have heard good things about the Ruger, but it looks like a brick and I have no experience with it to put it above HK, other than that I feel it is also probably capable of provideing greater service life than HK.  

Otherwise in 9mm my idea of best is:
Sig 226
Glock 19


Least ideal [does not meet any criteria, not a good idea IMO] but weapon I would like to see:

Kimber 1911 in .45

I say the Kimber last just because I think manual safeties require extra training and remedial training for safe and effective combat use that the US military does not have time and funds to provide.  Something simple that goes bang when the trigger is pulled is a big plus for the "stupid" military of today.   (I'm in it so that's no slam that isn't warranted.  

http://home.comcast.net/~stablemcmanus/500_Closeup.JPG


For when you need more power than a .308!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 1.  HK 2.  HK 3.  HK Read the quals its a gimme contract.  HK tactical or Expert. You forgot one.... two 4. HK 5. HK Hk had this one in the bag from the get go.

Just like they have the m-4 replacment in the bag.

Maybe Lorcin could produce a 45ACP to compete.

Quoted: if you had to suggest a GI handgun for the US military that had to be made or atleast owned by an american company(e.g. Springfield Armory XD series) which one would it be? name your top three

1. H&K USP - 9mm
2. Beretta 92FS
3. FN 5.7

No need for a 4, nothing else offers any advantage over the above....

I'm sorry, but I'm not a fan of US-made pistols, save the M1911 (for personal use, NOT for combat. Sorry, the .45 is a great pistol, but there are better things to fight the godless communist hordes with (don't laugh. Arab terrorists are in a land far-far away right now. The damn commies are 4hrs or so north by road))...

If the Army let me pick the next sidearm, it would be the 9mm USP (with single-action capable safety)....

P.S. I am sincerely hoping the .45ACP does NOT make a comeback. It's just as poor a move as going back to the damn .308 - old wives tales & anti-change old farts winning out over common sense.

If the 9mm sucked so bad, it wouldn't be the universal world-wide military sidearm caliber - 9x19 and 9x18 make up 99% of the world's current military pistol cartridges....

.45 is a good range cartridge, but I'd rather shoot 9mm elsewhere....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 1.  HK 2.  HK 3.  HK Read the quals its a gimme contract.  HK tactical or Expert. You forgot one.... two 4. HK 5. HK Hk had this one in the bag from the get go. Just like they have the m-4 replacment in the bag.

The M-4 replacment is in a whole different ball game.  The big problem there is the military does not know what it wants.  I think in the handgun department they have a good idea what they are looking for.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted:
if you had to suggest a GI handgun for the US military that had to be made or atleast owned by an american company(e.g. Springfield Armory XD series) which one would it be? name your top three
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




1. H&K USP - 9mm
2. Beretta 92FS
3. FN 5.7

No need for a 4, nothing else offers any advantage over the above....

I'm sorry, but I'm not a fan of US-made pistols, save the M1911 (for personal use, NOT for combat. Sorry, the .45 is a great pistol, but there are better things to fight the godless communist hordes with (don't laugh. Arab terrorists are in a land far-far away right now. The damn commies are 4hrs or so north by road))...

If the Army let me pick the next sidearm, it would be the 9mm USP (with single-action capable safety)....

P.S. I am sincerely hoping the .45ACP does NOT make a comeback. It's just as poor a move as going back to the damn .308 - old wives tales & anti-change old farts winning out over common sense.

If the 9mm sucked so bad, it wouldn't be the universal world-wide military sidearm caliber - 9x19 and 9x18 make up 99% of the world's current military pistol cartridges....

.45 is a good range cartridge, but I'd rather shoot 9mm elsewhere....

As for them staying with the 9mm.  Just because the rest of the world uses it does NOT mean it is the best handgun caliber.  The part of your post where you say .45 is a good range cartridge does not make any sense. Also, Please tell me why 9mm or the FN 5.7 should be the new military sidearm.  If the 9mm is not doing the job, why switch to the FN 5.7? Help me follow your thinking on this one.

Quoted: As for them staying with the 9mm.  Just because the rest of the world uses it does NOT mean it is the best handgun caliber.  The part of your post where you say .45 is a good range cartridge does not make any sense. Also, Please tell me why 9mm or the FN 5.7 should be the new military sidearm.  If the 9mm is not doing the job, why switch to the FN 5.7? Help me follow your thinking on this one.

9mm is doing the job just as well as .45 would...

ROW using the 9mm is just an indication that of all the countries who have had a chance to pick from all the myriad of pistol cartridges out there, they all - on both sides of the old iron curtain, and throughout the non-aligned world - settled on a 9mm platform, be it 9mm Mak or 9mm Para...

If 9mm really did suck so bad, SOMEONE would have changed A LONG TIME AGO. I, personally, view the back-to-.45 folks as being in the same absurd position that the back-to-.308 folks are in...

.45ACP is a good range cartridge - it's fun to shoot, and accurate... So is .50BMG, 30-06. 12GA, and a whole load of other calibers that I would NOT want to chamber my standard-issue individual weapons in (The M-2 is NOT an individual weapon, it is CREW SERVED, and the M-82 is NOT standard issue)....

In a combat situation, more rounds in the mag makes for more kills - and a .45 outside the kill box will be just as (less) lethal as a 9mm or a non-AP 5.7 in the same spot, but you only have 12rds of .45 vs 15-17 of 9mm, or 20 of 5.7....

We aren't talking JHPs here - a .45 hole isn't going to be any worse than a 9mm hole... 5.7, if it fragments, would possibly be the only exception.... IMHO if we are going to adopt a non-9mm platform, we should be testing ammo & picking an advanced, well-researched cartridge, not running back to the turn-of-the-century .45ACP... It would be like saying 'let's ditch 5.56 and go back to 30-06'.... Just as dumb... I would be VERY interested to see a SCHV pistol round with M16-style terminal ballistics developed (or at least explored)...

All in all, my personal preference is 9mm, and the USP... I just don't believe the .45 hype - ergo while I like my 1911, it's not what I'd want to carry for a military sidearm....


-------------------------

As for the Glock fans, the Army will NEVER adopt a Glock

1) it has no manual safety

2) It lacks a hammer

3) The mechanical safety is on the TRIGGER, defeating the purpose of a mechanical safety (which is to prevent NDs by disabling the trigger).... From an Army perspective, new weapons must have a safety that prevents firing if the trigger is pulled with the safety engaged. Glock has no such mechanisim.... (Yes, the M2HB has no safety. The M2HB has not been significantly changed since WWII.)...

Basically, the Army considers the Glock an unsafe weapon for an environment where 'stuff happens' and that safety switch that it lacks can save lives (and save the writing of Article 15s for NDs that don't hurt anyone). Period. Same for all similar designs...

Personally, in addition to the above, the fact that you have a single action pistol (it IS single action only) with a reputation for a crappy trigger pull on the level of a double action weapon makes it personally undesirable...

To clear up some confusion here...

Nobody is T&Eing anything right now that will lead to a contract for a new service pistol for everybody.

The Army did market surveys/field tests of available handguns. They used that to develop the draft specs for the FHS (Future Handgun System) in late 04. No caliber specified. No RFP (request for proposals).

Meanwhile SOCOM was looking for a new special operations forces combat pistol (SOF CP) and specified 45 ACP. There were draft specs, but no RFP.

The two programs were combined into the JCP (Joint Combat Pistol) program. A pre solicitation notice went out w draft specs and industry comments came in. No final RFP.

On 10 Mar 06 the JCP went back to just CP when the Army pulled out and max quantity of the CP contract was reduced from 645,000 to 50,000. Specs may change too. Still no final RFP.

Document Type: Modification to a Previous Notice
Solicitation Number: H92222-05-R-0017
Posted Date: Mar 10, 2006
Original Response Date: Nov 29, 2005
Current Response Date: Jun 07, 2006

It's now "CP", not "JCP".

The max quantity is now 50,000, not 645,000.

The CP will be delivered in accordance with specification entitled "Performance Specification Combat Pistol (PS/4081/C05/1415) to be provided with issuance of the solicitation."

If that changes back to the original draft specs for the SOF CP, then single action pistols/1911s will be back in the running, since that allowed SAO (single action only) pistols like 1911s to compete. DA/SA, DAO, and SFA (striker fired action) were all OK in the draft JCP specs...

Still a .45 ACP and still a "commercially available non-developmental item (NDI)".

Look for the Army's FHS to come back in one form or another. Someday. It will look something like the Beretta 90 Two, FNP, USP/P2000, etc.

A while yet before this shakes out and there is a new service pistol to replace the M9 as GI.

Despie all the 9 minimeter grumbling, the US military is still buying 9s at a rate that far exceeds any 45 purchases.

We have a new 5 year option on about 90,000 M9s if we need them.

When the Army's new AWG (Assymetrical Warfare Group) needed pistols, they bought new G19s. So much for the Army never adopting a Glock?

The USMC bought several thousand M9A1s last year; M9s w a frame rail for a light.

Contracts do not necessarily go to lowest bidder anymore; govt can choose the "best value" option. Contracts are not limited to US makers and/or those w US production facilities, though it helps (Buy America Act). The M9s were not produced and assembled in the US until the 3rd year of the original 5 year M9 contract. HK got the TSA contract, SIG and HK got the DHS contract.

Beretta, SIG, HK, FN, and Glock have or will soon have US production facilities anyway.

Glock has no chance? Ya never know... The FBI rated the Glock near the bottom of the barrel in the late 80s. In the late 90s they started issuing them. Glocks are considered DAO byt he FBI, DEA, USMS, BATF, and the guys who wrote the draft specs for the FHS, SOF CP, and JCP. And the Army did buy Glocks for the AWG guys... ;)

Quoted: Quoted: if you had to suggest a GI handgun for the US military that had to be made or atleast owned by an american company(e.g. Springfield Armory XD series) which one would it be? name your top three 1. H&K USP - 9mm 2. Beretta 92FS 3. FN 5.7 No need for a 4, nothing else offers any advantage over the above.... I'm sorry, but I'm not a fan of US-made pistols, save the M1911 (for personal use, NOT for combat. Sorry, the .45 is a great pistol, but there are better things to fight the godless communist hordes with (don't laugh. Arab terrorists are in a land far-far away right now. The damn commies are 4hrs or so north by road))... If the Army let me pick the next sidearm, it would be the 9mm USP (with single-action capable safety).... P.S. I am sincerely hoping the .45ACP does NOT make a comeback. It's just as poor a move as going back to the damn .308 - old wives tales & anti-change old farts winning out over common sense. If the 9mm sucked so bad, it wouldn't be the universal world-wide military sidearm caliber - 9x19 and 9x18 make up 99% of the world's current military pistol cartridges.... .45 is a good range cartridge, but I'd rather shoot 9mm elsewhere....

Is this why my buddy told me that when he was coming home from Iraq that some units were getting reissued the M14? That is 1 designated marksman per unit.  The 5.56 just doesn't have the reach of the 7.62. The 9mm was chosen for capacity more than anything. I don't think you could find a soldier today who would chose a 15 round 9mm over a 12-13 round .45. I think they would even rather have a 7 round .45 over the 9.

Quoted: ... Is this why my buddy told me that when he was coming home from Iraq that some units were getting reissued the M14? That is 1 designated marksman per unit.  The 5.56 just doesn't have the reach of the 7.62. The 9mm was chosen for capacity more than anything. I don't think you could find a soldier today who would chose a 15 round 9mm over a 12-13 round .45. I think they would even rather have a 7 round .45 over the 9.

Your buddy heard or saw regarding some other unit?  How precious.

Yes, a lot of M14s are in use - most even have fancy new stocks - but tgat fact alone says nothing about what is ideal, just what was readily available.

Some do prefer the 45, and it may be back in a big way. Someday.

For now, most are still opting for 9s over 45s...

The Army's new Assymetrical Warfare Group (AWG) chose a 15 shot 9 minimeter (Glock 19) over any 45s now available.

Even the USMC bought more 9s (M9A1s) than 45s the last few yrs too.  ;)

Quoted: I always hear about the trigger from 1911 guys which I'm guessing you are.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: if you had to suggest a GI handgun for the US military that had to be made or atleast owned by an american company(e.g. Springfield Armory XD series) which one would it be? name your top three 1. H&K USP - 9mm 2. Beretta 92FS 3. FN 5.7 No need for a 4, nothing else offers any advantage over the above.... I'm sorry, but I'm not a fan of US-made pistols, save the M1911 (for personal use, NOT for combat. Sorry, the .45 is a great pistol, but there are better things to fight the godless communist hordes with (don't laugh. Arab terrorists are in a land far-far away right now. The damn commies are 4hrs or so north by road))... If the Army let me pick the next sidearm, it would be the 9mm USP (with single-action capable safety).... P.S. I am sincerely hoping the .45ACP does NOT make a comeback. It's just as poor a move as going back to the damn .308 - old wives tales & anti-change old farts winning out over common sense. If the 9mm sucked so bad, it wouldn't be the universal world-wide military sidearm caliber - 9x19 and 9x18 make up 99% of the world's current military pistol cartridges.... .45 is a good range cartridge, but I'd rather shoot 9mm elsewhere.... Is this why my buddy told me that when he was coming home from Iraq that some units were getting reissued the M14? That is 1 designated marksman per unit.  The 5.56 just doesn't have the reach of the 7.62. The 9mm was chosen for capacity more than anything. I don't think you could find a soldier today who would chose a 15 round 9mm over a 12-13 round .45. I think they would even rather have a 7 round .45 over the 9.

Well key is they're only issuing one...

Its a specialized weapon for a specific purpose.

Same might be said for a .45

Though I don't have a dog in this fight.  I like them both, and would be happy with either cartridge.

I understand more rounds=better for war.   But todays .45 holds lots of rounds in the mag.  Look at the Glock and XD in .45.  They hold 13 in the mag.  The Glock 17 only holds 17 in a mag.  Why go down in stopping power for 3 more in a mag?  Hell you can put a +2 on a Glock 17 and with one in the pipe have as many rounds as a FN 5.7.  I can see a time when 15rds of 9mm is better than 7/8rnds of .45 but when we are only speeking of 2 or 3 rounds why not have more stoping power?

I can't beleive there are still folks defending the 9mm.  NOTHING compares to the 45, but even int eh secodn place argument, 357 sig DESTROYS the 9.

GLOCK 7

Quoted: www.thunder5.com/T5.jpg

US made pistol for the military?  Ruger or Smith & Wesson are about the only choices, IIRC, what other major manufacturer in the USA could make a good combat pistol?