[sabre2]

If you had the job of creating the specs and layout for a new military pistol, what would they be? (Make it a 9mm.) I'll start.
Frame. Plastic . Weight is a real issue. Frame rails and takedown system like Glock. Proven durability.
Barrel. Six inch. Lets get the most velocity and shootability out of the 9mm. Concealment not an issue.
Trigger dao of the Kahr type. Simplest I have seen. The most space effecient from the breech face to the back of the slide and back strap. This will allow for a hi-power like grip. Fat, but with a short trigger reach.
Finish. Tennifer.
Mag release. Xd type.
No trigger safety. Less Noise.
Xd type loaded chamber indicator and cocking indicator. These work silently in the dark.
Mags xd type. Great finish that does not collect dirt. All metal for space efficiency in grip.
Safety. Grip safety or none. Unholster and go to work.
Anyway, it would be a Glock 17l with a kahr trigger and a hi-power sized grip, and some xd features.

 

[strider72]

Hmmm...how about this...
A HiPower Grip...it is perfect no?
Para Ordance's LDA Trigger and Manual Safety
Glock's Tennifer Finish
Either Glock's or Kahr's Polygonal rifling
I agree that a polymer frame would be the way to go...

 

[Guest]

1st consideration would be caliber......why use a minimal caliber? 10mm. would be a better choice IMO. Or maybe at least .40S&W! If we're going to do it right, why used an outdated cartridge? :
Bob

 

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello. Since the parameters of the poster's original thread involves using what is now our current military pistol round and nato standard, let's go with the new pistol design in that caliber.

There are no problems if anyone wants to start a new thread in which a new or different caliber might be considered.

Best.

 

[Guest]

The Ruger P95 fits the bill for what I would want.

 

[jimhigginbotham]

For the sake of the exercise let's accept the caliber (However, I remind us all that there are two pistol calibers in the US inventory and that NATO is just about dead - since they have assymilated most of the Warsaw pact).

#1 - it should be reliable in the extreme and under extreme conditions - it must not have an "open" slide!

#2 - it should not be DA which is fragile and too complex to be repaired by the grunt in the field. And too difficult to train soldiers on. It must definitely not be either LDA (which is way too fragile) or "Safe Action" which is far from soldier proof unless you install a manual safety.

#3 - it should be all steel!!!!!! A G.I. can break an anvil.

#4 - The Soldier in the field should be able to detail strip the gun with no extra tools - if any necessary tools are contained in the gun then that is fine.

#6 - it should have a manual safety that does *not* decock the gun. It should be operable with either hand.

#7 - it should have a heavy duty ignition system - I know of no striker fired handguns that will reliably set off grungy old European ammo reliably but they might exist.

#8 - it should fit 95% of the soldiers hands (nothing will do for them all).

#9 - the trigger pull must not weigh over 6 lbs.

#10 - It should be flexible enough to be converted in the field to .45 ACP - the other standard US pistol caliber or to another as yet to be determined service pistol caliber - 9mm is fine for those who carry a pistol as a badge of rank or those who do not expect to fight with the pistol much - In short the 9mm is fine for a large per centage of military use but no pistol should be adopted that will not easly adapt to BOTH calibers. Magazines will probably have to be different but I am not sure that even this could not be overcome.

#11 - it should have a push button magazine release on the left side (right handers are used to it but it works better than anything for left handers). Hopefully it might be sized to allow dropping the mag without shifting your grip.

#12 - it should be adaptable to a suppressor (perhaps with a barrel change)

#13 - it should probably have a short accessory rail.

I am in a hurry there is probably more and these are not in any order other than just off the top of my head,

Onward,
Jim

 

[strider72]

Glock 19 with manual safety (like the Comminoli or such).
Have a G38 upper available for conversion to .45 GAP or .40S&W. There...can anyone really argue with that.
Got the 9mm...
Most people could grip the gun...
Trigger less than 6 pounds...5.5 to be exact.
Got a manual safety...
Reliability
Lightweight...
Compact...
No open slide...
And it could be available in either .40S&W or .45GAP...
By the way the G38 is the G19 size .45GAP.

 

[jimhigginbotham]

I could probably live with a Glock for general military issue if it had a manual safety (which I beleive they have already done for at least one organization) *and* they could somehow increase the ignition wihtout messing up the trigger - put a pencil in the Glock and pull the trigger to see how far it goes (make sure it's unloaded first )...then do that with a Browning or a 1911.

We had all sorts of grief with the M9 shooting some fairly fresh high quality Nato ammo (packed in battle packs), It did not work much better in the Glock but I did not shoot much of in my 17 (we fired about 30K in M9s before we gave up).

I am not sure how long a polymer frame will hold up (not talking about how many rounds - plenty of Glocks have digested 100K - talking about chronological age). I also do not know how it would stand up to extreme heat or cold - somebody else might.

The ballistics of the .45 GAP are adequate, but it is not in the military system nor is there a stockpile anywhere. I could see it happening or I could live with 10mm or even .40 S&W if we are talking about adopting a new cartridge...but for the moment, we have 2 pistol calibers; 9X19 and .45 ACP - the 5.7x28 is probably not far off as I have seen some U.S. military cases in the caliber but the disatisfaction of the fighting forces with 5.56 X 45 (and the trend to load it with heavier bullets) is probably going to limit the adoption of that cartridge.

But then, we are probably just spitting in the wind...the first rule of government is; "It doesn't have to make sense." So I guess we can all just dream - my dream pistol would be a trim, 8 shot big bore single action auto. Oddly enough, that is what most of the guys I know who fight with a pistol use - but there are certainly exceptions who stand out who use other things.

Very best regards.
Jim

 

[sabre2]

jim,
Good observation about Nato becoming a non factor in the equation. That might make it possible to think about moving away from the nine.

 

[jimhigginbotham]

Sabre;
I suppose I am a bit jaded and cynical anyway. Adopting the 9 becausue many of the Nato nations used it was more of an "excuse" than a reason... Nato will do what we want...they did not want the 5.56 but we forced them to adopt it (I am not saying that this was necessarilly all bad ).

OTOH, it is not a bad idea to be able to use battlefield pickups. I have not gotten my hands on one yet but I am told the SCAR(heavy) which is chambered in 7.62 Nato can be easily converted in the field to shoot the 7.62X39 *and* use AK mags!!!! Now that is a good idea!

Onward,
Jim

 

[sabre2]

We had all sorts of grief with the M9 shooting some fairly fresh high quality Nato ammo (packed in battle packs), It did not work much better in the Glock but I did not shoot much of in my 17 (we fired about 30K in M9s before we gave up).

Jim,
Was this refering to a hard primer? Not sure that the ammo problem could be fixed with the gun since the m9 has a hammer and probably produces a fairly good strike on the primer, although probably not as hard as a hi-power.
I checked out the scar (heavy) that you refered to . Looked interesting. Didn't know they were thinking of using 7.62x51.

 

[jimhigginbotham]

Sabre;
This was Norma NATO military ammo...I do suspect it has relatively hard primers they are certainly Berdan.

As an aside I once had some Egyptian junk that I would hardly recommend. 9 out of every 10 rounds was a hangfire. But it was instructive as neither the Glock 17, Beretta M9 or CZ 75 would set off even 1 out of 10 ... the Browning and 1911s set off every round, they were just kind of like shooting a flintlock;; "click.....boom" - great for detecting a flinch

Frustrating but revealing.

Onward,
Jim

 

[Guest]

A HiP as the basic gun, BUT:
without mag safety
with 1911 triggerassembly
with normal barrel (no long range accuracy needed IMO)
DA instead of SA only
heavier slidespring to reduce wear
accessoiriesrail fitted
rubbergrips
night-sights, clearly visible, non adjustable, there's no time for that anyway
everything must be easy accessible without changing grip (enlarged?)
large mag capacity
dark finish
larger tolerances to enhance reliability
the Glock's triggersafety

 

[Guest]

I am in a hurry there is probably more and these are not in any order other than just off the top of my head,

All in all this sounds an awful lot like a slightly modified form of something we used for years, but that we replaced back around 1985...

Points 6, 12, and 13 can all be handled easily enough.

I like Point #10. It's easily enough done and while it complicates the logistics a bit, it wouldn't be nearly as much headache as maintaining a seperate plaform for each cartridge. Plus, train someone with one, and you've gone a long way toward training him with both.


D.

 

[Guest]

Having now run a few 9mm ranges in OUR military, I'll say this. While I do not like the M9 by any means, the most significant problem we have is training. It doesn't stop at pistols, the use of which is woefully under instructed. I've seen personnel expend over 1000 rounds and STILL not qualify with the M16/M4 - WITH OPTICS! The 9mm range nearly made me sob the first time I had to run it. Though when I reached my breaking point I was actually allowed to give a short block of instruction to the two 2LTs that had wasted nearly half the allotted ammunition for the day. With just a bit of basic pistol marksmanship training, they both qualified sharpshooter.

In short, before we go replacing weapons that while perhaps not the "best" in the world, it might make sense to drill some instruction into the fighting force. All the talk about what GIs can and can not tear apart is mildly irrelevant - most of the pistols are issued to people that will never use them anyway.

Anthony

 

[poohgyrr]

In my world, we get honest training & fix problems like bad mag springs or whatnot in a timely manner.

Then, I want good ammo, something like Win 127gr +Ps. Then I'd probably be happy with about 4" to 5" of barrel. Longer barrels are slower to draw & "feel" less handy; shorter barrels are handier and should line the sights up faster.

Then I'd likely be happy with a Hi Power or Glock (2nd gen grip).

 

[Chris Stephens]

Hi there all,

In my honest opinion, if one were to design from the ground up a new 9 mm pistol for our military, than my ideal sidearm would:

-Have a modular construction comprised of trigger group,
frame group and barrel slide group.

-Closed barrel/breech locking system along the lines of a Sig.

-Full slide to frame fit rails along the lines of a CZ.

-A trigger selector group that could be changed from SA only, to DA only to SA/DA mode similiar to the Browning BDM. Additionally, the safety mode could be field changable.

-A polymer/handle or grip that could be changed for hand size and ergonomically changed to fit the issued personnel.

-At least one manual safety.

-Ambidexterous controls.

-Fully adjustable trigger.

Also, but not mentioned, interchangeble slide/barrel groups with accessories such as a suppressor, ect.

Chris