Finally - a new pistol for the military

FergusonTO35 · Jan 23, 2017

Most people who carry a gun on the job, be it police or military, are not incredibly good shooters on the range and much less so in actual combat. In a combat situation, the average cop or military person will have a better chance of survival with a gun that has more ammo, less recoil, and is comfortable to shoot.

As much as I love shooting I readily admit that my own accuracy is never going to be incredibly good, therefore I carry soft shooting guns that give me the best possible chance of putting slugs where they need to go.

tookalisten · Jan 23, 2017

My last 2 semi autos were Sigs; I honestly don't see me buying another brand now.
I love my Ruger SA and Redhawk revolvers; but no go on their semis.

blume357 · Jan 24, 2017

I'm the same way... my plan was for my next two handguns to be Sigs then my wife decided we are going on two tours to the National Parks out west over the next year and that may have an impact on my plans....

It is kind of difficult to justify one Sig when you could buy three P series Rugers for the same amount of money.
But it seems I did. One new Sig P226 and 5 mags: $1050, Two used (like new) Ruger KP95dc's and mags: $700

22/45 Fan · Jan 24, 2017

Now that the selection has been made, will Congress approve the money needed to make the change? Choosing them is one thing. Paying for them is quite another.

tacticalreload · Jan 24, 2017

22/45 Fan said:
Now that the selection has been made, will Congress approve the money needed to make the change? Choosing them is one thing. Paying for them is quite another.

The only thing worse than wasting all this taxpayer money going through the process of picking a new gun would be to spend all that money and then ending up not buying them anyway.

22/45 Fan · Jan 24, 2017

tacticalreload said:
22/45 Fan said:

Now that the selection has been made, will Congress approve the money needed to make the change? Choosing them is one thing. Paying for them is quite another.

Click to expand...

The only thing worse than wasting all this taxpayer money going through the process of picking a new gun would be to spend all that money and then ending up not buying them anyway.

That's been done several time in the past few years already. The military sends out a request for a new pistol to meet their published specifications. Manufacturers either modify an existing model or design something brand new to meet the published requirements. There are tests, revisions, more tests, etc. Huge amounts of time, money and more time and money are spent. And then nothing.

tacticalreload · Jan 24, 2017

Yes, I know. That's why I brought it up. When the military goes window shopping, it's not cheap for the American public.

revhigh · Jan 25, 2017

tookalisten said:
My last 2 semi autos were Sigs; I honestly don't see me buying another brand now.
I love my Ruger SA and Redhawk revolvers; but no go on their semis.

I know what you mean ... once you experience the vast difference in quality, machining, and particularly .... demonstrable accuracy .... between CZ and Sig ... and Ruger .... its very difficult to buy Ruger anymore. If you just want to get your gun 'count' up ... you can always buy KelTecs, HiPoints, and Taurus too. You can buy USED Sigs, which is what I do ... for $500-600 ... no reason to buy new ... it's the same gun. I bought my 225 (P6) for $299 like new and my 226 for $399 from CDNN like new when the W German police were upgrading 5-6 years ago. Both like new with case, mags, manuals and all paperwork.

I'd rather have one top line gun than three inferior guns. Even if I had one Sig and three Rugers .... I'd shoot the Sig all the time, so what's the sense of owning guns you don't want to shoot ?

REV

tacticalreload · Jan 25, 2017

revhigh said:
tookalisten said:

My last 2 semi autos were Sigs; I honestly don't see me buying another brand now.
I love my Ruger SA and Redhawk revolvers; but no go on their semis.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean ... once you experience the vast difference in quality, machining, and particularly .... demonstrable accuracy .... between CZ and Sig ... and Ruger .... its very difficult to buy Ruger anymore. If you just want to get your gun 'count' up ... you can always buy KelTecs, HiPoints, and Taurus too. You can buy USED Sigs, which is what I do ... for $500-600 ... no reason to buy new ... it's the same gun. I bought my 225 (P6) for $299 like new and my 226 for $399 from CDNN like new when the W German police were upgrading 5-6 years ago. Both like new with case, mags, manuals and all paperwork.

I'd rather have one top line gun than three inferior guns. Even if I had one Sig and three Rugers .... I'd shoot the Sig all the time, so what's the sense of owning guns you don't want to shoot ?

REV

Depends... honestly, I like the RAP much more than the P320. I love the classic P-series SIGs, and have a number of them. However, I just couldn't connect with the P320 (figuratively, I mean, since it shot very accurately). There is something about the RAP that appeals to me so I have no problem choosing that particular Ruger over that particular SIG.

In general, however, you get what you pay for. SIGs are way more money and therefore have a high level of fit and finish. Rugers are significantly less and are known more for being rugged and reliable than being smooth and polished. Speaking from experience, I certainly would take a Ruger over a Taurus or Keltec without even thinking twice... while they might be similarly priced, they don't even belong in the same conversation, IMO.

DGW1949 · Jan 25, 2017

Getting back to the subject at hand:
IMNSHO...the search for "which military pistol" should have as much to do with the ammo it will be expected to use as it does with any other aspect. What I'm getting at here is that some don't seem to realize that 9MM-NATO ammo is a different animal than SAAMI-spec 9MM-Luger ammo. In fact, the NATO version is right on par with commercially available 9MM+P in terms of how much pressure, slide thrust, and recoil any certain pistol is being asked to absorb time after time for months 'n years, and for thousands of rounds...which is a task seldom required by a civilian using a similar gun.

As I recall, a lot of Beretta slides were cracking during the early period of their being put into service. I forget what the "fix" was, but the point is that apparently, whatever longevity-testing might have been done prior to it's acceptance was not adequate for the ammo being supplied.
Same with the FN (AKA Browning) High Powers. Anyone with more than a passing familiarity with the platform can tell ya quick that a long term diet of nothing but NATO (read that as +P) ammo will sooner or later result in either a cracked slide, peened locking lugs, or possibly having the caming-foot on the barrel shear off...hence the rather large number of armorer-replaced slides 'n barrels which can be found amongst the recent influx of Israeli mil-surp FN-Hi Powers.
And we're talking about two different, full sized, all-steel service pistols here...not two of whatever the latest/greatest, lighter-cheaper-better, low-cost entries into the "carry comfort" CCH civilian market may be...so then there's that.

Will the Sig hold up to long term use of NATO ammo?...time will tell.

DGW

tacticalreload · Jan 25, 2017

DGW1949 said:
Getting back to the subject at hand:
IMNSHO...the search for "which military pistol" should have as much to do with the ammo it will be expected to use as it does with any other aspect. What I'm getting at here is that some don't seem to realize that 9MM-NATO ammo is a different animal than SAAMI-spec 9MM-Luger ammo. In fact, the NATO version is right on par with commercially available 9MM+P in terms of how much pressure, slide thrust, and recoil any certain pistol is being asked to absorb time after time for months 'n years, and for thousands of rounds...which is a task seldom required by a civilian using a similar gun.

As I recall, a lot of Beretta slides were cracking during the early period of their being put into service. I forget what the "fix" was, but the point is that apparently, whatever longevity-testing might have been done prior to it's acceptance was not adequate for the ammo being supplied.
Same with the FN (AKA Browning) High Powers. Anyone with more than a passing familiarity with the platform can tell ya quick that a long term diet of nothing but NATO (read that as +P) ammo will sooner or later result in either a cracked slide, peened locking lugs, or possibly having the caming-foot on the barrel shear off...hence the rather large number of armorer-replaced slides 'n barrels which can be found amongst the recent influx of Israeli mil-surp FN-Hi Powers.
And we're talking about two different, full sized, all-steel service pistols here...not two of whatever the latest/greatest, lighter-cheaper-better, low-cost entries into the "carry comfort" CCH civilian market may be...so then there's that.

Will the Sig hold up to long term use of NATO ammo?...time will tell.

DGW

I dare say that you're opening up a can of worms by talking about slides cracking. I mentioned that somewhere else and got into extended debates about it. I've read seemingly legit reports on both sides... stating that it was infrequent and caused by abuse as well as others stating it was more common and caused by defects in production and/or design. There were changes that were made to the locking block and the hammer pin was enlarged to retain the back of the slide if it separated so the broken piece wouldn't launch itself into the shooter's grill. (It's kind of like instead of making the automobile less accident-prone, you just made better seat belts.)

Running a steady diet of NATO spec ammo through the P320 won't ruin the gun since the same frame, fire control unit, slide, etc. is made to handle the .40 and .357sig... the later of which runs at pressures higher than most handgun calibers out there. However, I would hope that they will keep up with the maintenance (springs, lubrication, etc.). Based on how the military seems to have treated their M9 pistols over the past few decades, I wouldn't hold my breath. The fact is that even if they chose Glock 17's or something similar, over time you'll start to hear about how the guns are P.O.S. due to the fact they aren't exactly babied.

sliclee · Jan 29, 2017

All of you on this post should go out of your way to find out what really happened with the COMPANY called beretta, the dirtbag president at the time that somehow forced the beretta to be bought knowing full well the gun was no good, couldn't even get to first hurdle without breaking, beretta told USA we are not changing the gun,quote,"it will reduce our profit".
Not only did they say that before production began, but after it made all but the last 250K, were asked again to change, they,
Beretta, gave the same answer about profit. How did slime ball fix the problem, got NATO to reduce the velocity of the
cartridge so the gun didn't break so soon.
The military semi swore never to do business with beretta after that yet, the left is doing its damndess to get beretta contract
to make a buck over the dead bodies of our and the rest of the worlds military with the same rotten company.

tacticalreload · Jan 30, 2017

sliclee said:
All of you on this post should go out of your way to find out what really happened with the COMPANY called beretta, the dirtbag president at the time that somehow forced the beretta to be bought knowing full well the gun was no good, couldn't even get to first hurdle without breaking, beretta told USA we are not changing the gun,quote,"it will reduce our profit".
Not only did they say that before production began, but after it made all but the last 250K, were asked again to change, they,
Beretta, gave the same answer about profit. How did slime ball fix the problem, got NATO to reduce the velocity of the
cartridge so the gun didn't break so soon.
The military semi swore never to do business with beretta after that yet, the left is doing its damndess to get beretta contract
to make a buck over the dead bodies of our and the rest of the worlds military with the same rotten company.

Do you have a citation of a legit source for what you are saying so the rest of us can educate ourselves? How did a foreign company "force" the United States government to select the Beretta? And what is the meaning of "the left" trying to get a Beretta contract to "make a buck"? And how is Beretta causing "dead bodies" of the soldiers?

DGW1949 · Jan 30, 2017

tacticalreload said:
sliclee said:

All of you on this post should go out of your way to find out what really happened with the COMPANY called beretta, the dirtbag president at the time that somehow forced the beretta to be bought knowing full well the gun was no good, couldn't even get to first hurdle without breaking, beretta told USA we are not changing the gun,quote,"it will reduce our profit".
Not only did they say that before production began, but after it made all but the last 250K, were asked again to change, they,
Beretta, gave the same answer about profit. How did slime ball fix the problem, got NATO to reduce the velocity of the
cartridge so the gun didn't break so soon.
The military semi swore never to do business with beretta after that yet, the left is doing its damndess to get beretta contract
to make a buck over the dead bodies of our and the rest of the worlds military with the same rotten company.

Click to expand...

Do you have a citation of a legit source for what you are saying so the rest of us can educate ourselves? How did a foreign company "force" the United States government to select the Beretta? And what is the meaning of "the left" trying to get a Beretta contract to "make a buck"? And how is Beretta causing "dead bodies" of the soldiers?

I hear ya on all of that TR, plus...I'd also be interested in knowing the details on how/when it came about that a Beretta employee "got NATO" to reduce the ballistic perimeters of the 9MM-NATO cartridge...AND in knowing the "before and after" difference in specs, the date the change actually went into effect, and/or whether any/all of that resulted in any changes of the US-issued 9MM-NATO ammo.
Reason is;
I shoot a fair amount of US-made 124/9MM-NATO, and as 9MM ammo goes it's some purty-hot stuff. Given that, if there's a chance of stumbling upon any that is hotter yet, I'd sure like to know the headstamp-date of the change so I'll know to avoid the "before" version. :shock: .

DGW

sliclee · Feb 19, 2017

Shame on you all; haven't learned how to read yet, still at 6th grade level I see.
Maybe in another year yo'll get to 7th grade.
I'll come back here in another 6 or so months to see what you;ve learned Lee

Fox Mike · Feb 20, 2017

tacticalreload said:
If the M9 is properly maintained, there is no legit reason to spend a bajillion dollars to get a new handgun for the military (who never uses them in combat anyway). Waste of money. Our money.

When the M-9 came out and replaced the 6 shot S&Ws the aviators and crew members were issued, we felt someone had finally used their brain. Now we had a weapon that could be carried the held more than six shells and was the same basic caliber as what it replaced. I have found no one, that complained about the 9mm, that would be willing to 'take a shot' from one. If properly taken care of it was head and shoulders over what it replaced.

Rei40c · Feb 20, 2017

Fox Mike said:
tacticalreload said:

If the M9 is properly maintained, there is no legit reason to spend a bajillion dollars to get a new handgun for the military (who never uses them in combat anyway). Waste of money. Our money.

Click to expand...

When the M-9 came out and replaced the 6 shot S&Ws the aviators and crew members were issued, we felt someone had finally used their brain. Now we had a weapon that could be carried the held more than six shells and was the same basic caliber as what it replaced. I have found no one, that complained about the 9mm, that would be willing to 'take a shot' from one. If properly taken care of it was head and shoulders over what it replaced.

I wonder why as we are now in the golden age of AR style short barrel rifles, the military could not equip our aircrews with a small AR survival type rifle. If it's too bulky perhaps something that could be assembled in seconds once on the ground in the event of an ejection or crash landing ect.

I've just always doubted the true usefulness of a pistol to an airman down behind the lines.

ddown · Mar 15, 2017

All this Beretta Crap is the Biggest pile of bull-crap ever sown as Senior NCO Retired Army. I can tell you none of this ever happened. Somebody is got a gut full of hate for Beretta that's all. :evil: After five combat tours carrying the M9 as my sidearm is went bang when i needed it. We never had any failures. BTW my one week old P320 is back to SIG sporadic failure to fire bang, bang, click never on a Beretta, my SR9 or any other pistol purchased new or used.

WAYNO · Mar 15, 2017

Rei40c said:
I wonder why as we are now in the golden age of AR style short barrel rifles, the military could not equip our aircrews with a small AR survival type rifle. If it's too bulky perhaps something that could be assembled in seconds once on the ground in the event of an ejection or crash landing ect.

I've just always doubted the true usefulness of a pistol to an airman down behind the lines.

Yes, they could and should have a small rifle. And many did. In my Vietnam/Cold War era, the crew chiefs in Army aviation carried a revolver, and they could also carry an M-16, depending on the mission. A rifle always works better than a hand gun. But in the chaos of a crash, and the likelihood that the crew will be injured, they just don't always have the luxury of picking thru the aircraft to find their rifle. Remember too, the Crew Chief would be in charge of a door gun, and would have his hands very full. When the handgun is fastened to their flight gear, even if the crew member is thrown clear of the aircraft, the handgun will be with him. A handgun on your person is always better than the rifle that you can't get to. It was emphasized to us that our revolvers were not an offensive or defensive weapon, but a survival weapon. Survival meaning last ditch effort.

Our pilots also were issued a revolver, but occasionally we'd see them with their own personal handgun. And in the Air Cav, living on the ground in the mud, it was common to see the pilots with an M-16 slung on their shoulder. Where they carried these rifles during a flight, I don't remember, but it must've been behind the front seats. Assuming they survived a crash, escape and evasion could be a necessity, and again, searching for a rifle after a crash could use up time they didn't have. The revolver on their flight vest was better than nothing.

41 Magnum · Mar 20, 2017

I've owned the Beretta 9mm, & a .40S&W. No longer own either ! I now have my P226,
& my Springer 1911 Compact, Both of which inspire more confidence in my shooting abilities.
My 226 will shoot as well as any revolver I've ever owned, & much like my 1911, it is extremely
comfortable in my hand, & even without lasers or other attachments, they hit exactly on
point because of far superior design and materials. Actually at 12 Yds. my 1911
will keep 8 rounds of 230 Gr. Hollow point inside a 6" paper saucer, just by clearing
the holster & firing as fast as I am able to pull the trigger, straight out from the hip. (w/no sighting)
Just as it was designed to do, just like an extension of your shooting hand, it points perfectly !!

The 226 goes along in the Jeep console, & it or the Springfield 1911 along with 2 mag's. are in my
waistband everywhere I go.

In my opinion, Sig has always out-classed anything "made in USA" or elsewhere, except perhaps
the many variations of the 1911's.

I also own an older "Starvel Chrome" finished Starfire in .40 S&W, that I always thought was
well worth keeping!! (Very well built, & beautifully functioning & shooting semi, but very much
under appreciated. )

Finally - a new pistol for the military

Help Support Ruger Forum:

Hunter

Blackhawk

Hawkeye

Hunter

Bearcat

Hunter

Bearcat

Hawkeye

Bearcat

Hunter

Bearcat

Single-Sixer

Bearcat

Hunter

Single-Sixer

Hawkeye

Blackhawk

Bearcat

Hawkeye

Single-Sixer

Similar threads