And it comes in a compact model, too:
Posted on 05/16/2007 10:41:57 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
S&W still hasn’t repudiated their deal with the devil? No?
Then no contract for you!
Cool, and no slide pinch point!
That, and the Springfield XD in the same size carries *16* rounds.
10 rounds in a polymer gun that size is ridiculous.
The grip length from the base of the trigger guard to the end looks short still (guessing based on fingers in photo). Being large handed, comfort is an issue.
I would prefer they go with the XD (made in Croatia, so very unlikely), but it is high time our military went hi-cap, polymer and with a larger round.
And it comes in a compact model, too:
At the time of the last contract, the Glocks and Berettas weren’t made in the US either.
With the prospect of a US military contract, they’ll open a factory and make them here in the US.
Ridiculous as in “under-kill [pardon the pun] or “overkill”?
hmmm... I thought they did repudiate it?
15+1, so 16 overall. It comes ‘standard’ w/ a 10 round mag so they can ship the same kit to all states. My Ruger P95 was the same way, but $80 later I have 4 15’s...
.45 ping
S&W is one of the good guys again. The old deal is gone.
pause
The problem with the weapons listed in the article above is that each of the mentioned sidearms uses **different** munitions than does the soldiers’ primary rifle.
Arguments about stopping power and number of rounds available to be carried and fired pale in comparison with forcing soldiers in the field to track and pack different handgun/rifle munitions.
Combat is a bad time to run out of ammo for your prefered weapon (e.g. no pistol ammo inside a house search, or no rifle ammo in a shootout in the desert).
That problem is mitigated when primary and sidearm weapons both share the same ammo.
Such combinations *already* exist in many desired calibers, by the way (e.g. there are 9mm rifles/carbines and 9mm pistols...ditto for .45 and .223 and .22lr rounds).
Put the soldier first. Solve his incompatible munition problem if we are going to be changing out firearms in the field.
No, they haven’t. They’ve ignored it, but they have yet to publically repudiate it.
If a Democrat comes to power in 08, they can and probably will go back to honoring it - or be forced to.
The XD is 16+1.
The switch back to the hard-hitting .45 would improve kill rates. It would, however, eliminate the ability of compatants to scarf up 9mm Parabellum ammo in the field from non-traditional supply points (i.e. the bad guys).
We’re about the only military that would be using .45 and if I’m out of ammo and the supplies stop coming, I’d prefer being able to scarf ammo from the enemy dead or their stores and continuing the fight with a lighter hitting 9mm than having to beat a still firing enemy over the head with the butt of my EMPTY .45.
As I recall, that reasoning was why we went to the Beretta 9mm NATO round in the first place.
They still haven’t publicly repudiated it. Mostly they’re just ignoring it and pretending it never happened, which is total BS.
***
The US has never had a time since the Civil War when the sidearm used the same ammo as the rifle or carbine. And typically, there is no need for it to have commonality as the pistol is a last ditch weapon. Issue is only one extra magazine’s worth, if that. Infantry officers normally don’t even carry a reload.
Would you really want any available pistol cartridge to be what you would also shoot at the enemy at 100+ yards? Especially from a carbine?
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.