Posted on 07/03/2014 7:51:01 AM PDT by US Navy Vet
The U.S. Army is moving forward to replace the Cold War-era M9 9mm pistol with a more powerful handgun that also meets the needs of the other services.
As the lead agent for small arms, the Army will hold an industry day July 29 to talk to gun makers about the joint, Modular Handgun System or MHS.
The MHS would replace the Army's inventory of more than 200,000 outdated M9 pistols and several thousand M11 9mm pistols with one that has greater accuracy, lethality, reliability and durability, according to Daryl Easlick, a project officer with the Army's Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Georgia.
"It's a total system replacement -- new gun, new ammo, new holster, everything," Easlick said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The ACP was developed to pop muzzies in the Philippines in 1911 AD.
Norinco .45’s were banned by Slick Willie in 1994. A year later I bought three of them for $250.00. They aren’t cheap anymore.
But what a good simple chunk of gun it is. I replaced some parts with U.S. & even hokied one up to resemble a WWI 1911. Shoot nothing but G.I. hardball. All that I need.
What about the H&K USP for a modern pistol in .45 ACP?
Weight is actually an advantage in recoil management, but you have to balance that against the disadvantage of toting a heavy piece. I taught a neighbor lady to shoot who tried all the lightweight purse guns in the display and settled on a full-size Browning Hi-Power because she could shoot the nipples off a gnat at 10 yards with it. She said to heck with it, she’d carry it.
“The .45 tends to be a heavy gun. Can you get the weight down and not sacrifice accuracy/stability?”
The Army says they want more power and especially if they end up fighting “lawfull combatants” and have to use hardball, .45 does seem like the right answer. But, one of the complaints I have heard about the Beretta is that it is too heavy. A pistol, any pistol, tends to be carried a lot more than it is ever fired. I’ve seen the “Glock torture tests” and I’m wondering if a Glock 21 might be the answer. I know, no safety. Seems like police departments have made their peace with that. Some are even saying that DA/SA, mechanical safeties, etc. just require extra training.
Wheelguns still have advantages. How ‘bout a Colt or S&W 1917 .45 ACP with full moon clips? Old fashioned but still effective.
Please go look at the website
http://www.theprepared.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90
it will make a believer out of you. I just re-looked at the website, he hasn't cleaned or maintained his Glock 21 in 15,000 rounds. It has pictures of all of the weird things he has done to his pistol.
“Wheelguns still have advantages. How ‘bout a Colt or S&W 1917 .45 ACP with full moon clips? Old fashioned but still effective.”
That is an idea that has worked well and it has a lot going for it but...
1. Even with moonclips reload is slower and requires more training. Look at any action pistol sport, the revolver scores are lower.
2. Moonclips are weird bulky things on your belt.
3. Revolvers seem simple but they are surprisingly precise instruments. I’m don’t know if they will “torture test” as well as a glock
Consider this for higher accuracy of your pistol. You’ll like it.
http://sigsauer.com/StoreProductList/adaptive-carbine-platform-116.aspx
The reason ‘typical GI can’t shoot the 45...accurately’ is because they were never trained to shoot it accurately. When went into 1/32 Armor, the platoon sergeant gave me a 10 minute block of instruction on how to shoot it accurately and I fired expert with it ever since. He said that the accruacy problem was strictly due to lack of training on how to shoot it.
And the same thing went for the .50 Ma Deuce. Most folks pointed and sprayed. the Squadron commander insisted folks actually use the sites and we got much better accuracy.
Pretty sure that would require a class 3 tax stamp as it would be considered a short rifle.
The law enforcement version, yes. The others are readily available to the public without any restrictions.
Correct you are, sir! My late Dad carried a S&W 1917 before they took them away from his cavalry unit. Liked it so much he bought a surplus one after the war. He said they preferred half-moon (3 rd) clips because they were easier to pack and so that's what I learned with. Sweet revolver.
I'd be happier if they defined the mission first and then decided on the specifications. A pistol/revolver that has to meet sentry duty requirements, MP/officer carry requirements, and special forces entry weapon requirements simultaneously is going to have to make some serious compromises.
Never tried one. I have tried an XD and like the grip safety. (Makes me more comfortable than the Glock.) It would be a fine pistol if you couldn't get a 1911.
“3. Revolvers seem simple but they are surprisingly precise instruments. I’m don’t know if they will “torture test” as well as a glock”
Don’t I know it! I’m trying to replace the hand in a 1917. Didn’t know until I popped the sideplate that it’s as intricate as a Swiss watch in there. Maybe not actually, but me & my fumblefingers think so.
Still like the certainty of that rotating cylinder.
In the military, concealment is not an issue. Weight is more of an issue and that is better solved with holster and suspension designed into the uniform IMHO. This would have kept the 1911 around longer.
They dealt with the weight of the weapon rather than the perceived weight as handled by modern suspension and holster systems which can be engineered without the conceal carry issues needed in the civilian world.
I found this book invaluable for working on Smiths.
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/314178/the-s-and-w-revolver-a-shop-manual-book-by-jerry-kuhnhausen
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.