Posted on 03/13/2016 11:52:52 AM PDT by MtnClimber
When it comes to handguns, the U.S. Army wants the weapon of its choice, not whatever pistol the Pentagon's Byzantine procurement process draws.
The Pentagon is currently mulling over a host of proposals to replace the M9 9mm sidearms soldiers have carried since 1985 - when those guns replaced the venerable Colt 1911s that had been fixtures for decades. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley opened fire on the process at the Future of War Conference, saying he has asked Congress to grant service chiefs the authority to make the call.
"We are not exactly redesigning how to go to the moon, right?" Milley said at the conference according to Military.com. "This is a pistol. ... And arguably, it is the least lethal and important weapon system in the Department of Defense inventory."
Milley did not say what his preference is, but soldiers are understanably picky about their firearms. And even though the handgun is often a last resort in combat, feelings run strong about them. And skepticism about a procurement process that must ultimately go through Congress is equally deep.
"Anything that Congress comes up with might not be the best choice,” Erik Shaw, an Iraq War Army veteran and firearms expert, told FoxNews.com.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
If it was me I would want a high-capacity 45 ACP.
They went from .45 to 9mm what’s next a pellet gun?
Yup, can’t go wrong with a Glock.
Glock 21 and Glock 30 would be great choices.
I cast my vote for the Colt SAA.
I agree, the larger caliber is preferable.
Nerf. .with child warning labels.
Under Obozo we don’t want to hurt anyone.
Oh, and ‘environmentally’ friendly, too.
I read somewhere that they were considering going to hollow points. The G17, G19, SIG 320, H&K VP9, FNS or many other existing COT 9mm handguns would be fine if they did that.
I believe Sen Zell Miller (D, GA) - last of the good dems, said that if the radical dems had their way, it would be "spit wads".
Large calibers require large hands.
Unintended consequences of valuing gender politics over warfighting requirements.
I agree that 9mm would be OK with expanding bullets. The self defense ammo, including 9mm has greatly improved in recent years. With FMJ I would go with .45 ACP.
Top loading, polymer frame, straight slide trigger, high-visibility color, compact size.
What’s not to like?
Geneva Convention against HP but it IS ALLOWED against terrorism ........I’m still in possession of the letter that allowed me such ammunition before I retired.
I agree but then you run into the whole 5 ft. tall girls can’t shoot well with a .45. I work on Army stuff and there are some 5 ft. tall women soldiers running around.
What difference does it make?
They could issue anything from a .500 S&W down to an airsoft. The idiotic ROE’s that they have been saddled with for decades (and especially the last eight years) makes the choice of guns almost a moot point.
It is not a Geneva Convention issue. It is the Hague Convention that forbids expanding bullets and we are not a signatory to the Hague Convention.
You left out organic, biodegradeable and “fair trade”.
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.