Best Military Sidearm

[Pistolenschutze]

OK, put all your prejudices aside. Which pistol would you choose as the best overall military sidearm ever issued and why?

My own choice would be the Colt 1911 due mostly to its greater ability to take down a target effectively, though not its ease of use. The others listed, however, do have their advantages as well. My second choice would be the P-08 Luger. Feel free to suggest other weapons than those listed here.

[Shooter973]

This is a No-Brainer for anyone in the USA......

[blackhawkkid308]

hands down the1911 it has the knockdown power and if you worry about round count you can get a double stack to hold a bunch
bhk308

[MRMIKE08075]

if you deployed them in a "clean room", always had the correct ammo, and were allowed to disassemble, clean, and oil them every 50 rounds than of course the LUGER...

why make do with 7-8 parts when you can build a gun with 70-80 parts...

"how to field strip and perform maintanance of the LUGER toggle bolt during front line combat deployment"...

yeah, right...

the CZ52, TT33, and STAR MODEL A & B should be on the list...

best regards, mike.

[KyBlaster]

Whats wrong "P"? Couldn't figure out how to slide Glock in there?

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by KyBlaster

Whats wrong "P"? Couldn't figure out how to slide Glock in there?

Alas, Ky, I tried, but I figured I couldn't slide it past you and JohnK3. Not to worry though, sooner or later the military will adopt the G22 as their issue sidearm.

[shuttle]

no question, 1911.
for it's long term sevice, dependibility, rugged construction, etc. as stated above, it may be different if all testing was done in controled environment. but as the question reads." best military ". meaning drag it through the mud reliability capable of firing under any conditions.
shuttle

[JohnK3]

Originally Posted by Pistolenschutze

Alas, Ky, I tried, but I figured I couldn't slide it past you and JohnK3. Not to worry though, sooner or later the military will adopt the G22 as their issue sidearm.

Not until the GLOCK gets an external safety.

JMB's first designs had only the grip safety. The US Army rejected the pistol, as it did not have an external safety. Therefore, he added the external safety, as well as some other modifications until he had the 1911.

When the GLOCK was first offered up for DoD trials, it was rejected as it had no external safety. In typical GLOCKhead fashion, they ignored the request and lost the contract. Until the G22 gets an external safety, it will be automatically disqualified from all U.S. military contracts.

The H&K USP will most likely be chosen as the .45 for the military. It has a track record with the military and meets all the requirements. Unless I miss my guess, that RFP was written with the USP in mind in the first place.

[Pistolenschutze]

Hey, we got one vote for the P-38! It's nice to see not EVERYONE makes offerings only to the gods of the 1911.

Originally Posted by JohnK3

Not until the GLOCK gets an external safety.

There is no doubt about that, John. The military definitely (and correctly, I think) wants an external safety on any handgun it intends to issue to ham fisted troops. On the other hand, if Glock really wanted the contract badly enough it would not be difficult to design an external safety into the G22.

Originally Posted by JohnK3

The H&K USP will most likely be chosen as the .45 for the military. It has a track record with the military and meets all the requirements. Unless I miss my guess, that RFP was written with the USP in mind in the first place.

I think you are correct there, John, at least I hope you are. The H&K would be an ideal choice IMHO, an even better one than the Glock if the truth be known. For a military sidearm, a double/single action pistol is definitely the way to go based on safety and practical use. I'll always defend the Glocks for civilian carry or police use, but not as a military sidearm unless some major design modifications are made. H&K builds good, highly reliable pistols and they would be an excellent choice. My own view is that, first, any pistol we adopt should be in .45 ACP caliber, not that pissant 9mm. The 9mm is not a bad round provided one can use something other than ball ammo, but that is not possible with a military weapon. Secondly, I think we need a double/single action pistol that is not so large and bulky that it cannot be easily used by the vast majority of troops. With the Beretta 92, that is most certainly not the case, but H&K's USP would qualify.

[Smoky14]

I carried a grease gun as my side arm- a little bulky but it did the trick.

[Peanut Man]

A side note on the 1911 I just remembered. In 1971 I carried a .45 for a long weekend - the only time one was issued to me. This was for a trip from FLW to Ft. Riley and back to pick up and escort a prisoner. The interesting part (beside that great feeling of power walking around the Kansas City airport with a loaded .45 strapped to my side) was that the rounds I loaded into the magazine showed significant wear on the brass casings due to repeatedly being loaded and unloaded for guard duty, etc. I guess that doesn't speak well for the armorer for the Special Training Company at FLW.... No telling what would have happened if those rounds were fired... If I had a brain back then I would have asked for some fresh ammo...

Peanut Man

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by Smoky14

I carried a grease gun as my side arm- a little bulky but it did the trick.

Yup, that will definitely do the trick, Smoky! Now, if only we were allowed to carry something like that for CCW . . .

Originally Posted by Peanut Man

No telling what would have happened if those rounds were fired... If I had a brain back then I would have asked for some fresh ammo...

I knew quite a few in VN who never checked the ammo in the sidearm they carried, and in that climate not doing so was a BAD idea. I changed out the ammo in my .45 at least once every two weeks while I was there. You point up a very important issue, Peanut. Changing out carry ammo is, I think, is as vital as keeping the weapon clean. Ammo is cheap and easily replacable, lives are not.

[wolfgang2000]

Have you all forgotten the Glock came to be because of the military? Last time I checked it's the issue pistol of several european countries, and NATO.

I know that that dosen't mean the US will accept it, Then 10 year ago nobody thought the FBI would accept it either.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by wolfgang2000

Have you all forgotten the Glock came to be because of the military? Last time I checked it's the issue pistol of several european countries, and NATO.

I know that that dosen't mean the US will accept it, Then 10 year ago nobody thought the FBI would accept it either.

True, Wolf. If Glock wants to compete for the contract though, as JohnK3 pointed out, they'll need to incorporate an external safety. One is needed when the weapon is to be handled by soldiers. One of the greatest features of the Glock, and one that lends itself well to military use, is its simplicity. Parts are extremely easy to replace even in the field. I'd like to see them build a more substantial trigger into the Glock, one made of metal instead of polymer.

[wolfgang2000]

Pistol,
I agree the the Glock won't be accepted by our military because of the lack of a manual safety. But is this a case of need or a case of "it never been done that way before"? 80% of the PD in this country either issue Glocks or allow Glocks to be carried. They are very safe as issued. As a rule LEO handle their sidearms a lot more than a soldier. (combat aside) The last time I checked (about 6 years ago) the military SOP was to carry the sidearm with the chamber empty. This went for MPs also. (I hope this is combat aside.) I think our soldiers are smart enought to be taught to keep their finger off the trigger.

[Peanut Man]

Two years ago, an SRO (Staff Resource Officer, a local LEO ) at a local school system shot himself in the calf while sitting in his cruiser, removing his Glock before entering the elementary school. He recovered nicely, but I'm sure he takes a ribbing from his fellow officers...

[JohnK3]

Wolf, also look at what the FBI has gone back to for special teams: The 1911.

Peanut Man, there's also the video that's running around the Internet of a DEA agent who mouths off "As far as I know, I'm the only person in this room professional enough to handle this Glock 40" then proceeds to stick the gun in his pants and shoot himself in the leg. It was that famous "Safe Action" feature. If he'd had an external safety, he might have avoided some pain. Then again, not even a 1911 can protect a loudmouth braggart idiot from hurting himself.

[wolfgang2000]

People have been shooting themself since there have been firearms. I've seen people accidentally shoot themselfs, or something else with revolvers, semi autos, including the 1911, and everything else that goes bang. The reason for almost all these AD's is HUMAN ERROR. In every case but one the AD occured because there was a loaded firearm, and the person pulled the trigger. Every firearm I have ever seen is designed to go band when you press the trigger. SOP, (in most Depts.), for carrying the double/single action pistol is round in the chamber, hammer decocked, safety OFF. Actually the "safety" is not used as a safety but as a decocker. If you have to have a long heavy trigger pull have a New York trigger in your Glock. It will give you a 12 lb long trigger pull. Personally I see no reason to dumb down a prefectly good handgun design.

With proper training I'm confident that our military personal are smart enought to learn to keep their finger off the trigger if you don't want the gun to go off. Even officers.

[troutwest66]

Originally Posted by Pistolenschutze

My own choice would be the Colt 1911 due mostly to its greater ability to take down a target effectively, though not its ease of use

I would choose the 1911 .45 for all reasons and I think it really is easy to use. Hit the thumb safety and pull the trigger. Pretty easy in my book. I wish the military would go back to it.

[JohnK3]

Originally Posted by wolfgang2000

People have been shooting themself since there have been firearms. I've seen people accidentally shoot themselfs, or something else with revolvers, semi autos, including the 1911, and everything else that goes bang.

My point exactly. Note the comment that "not even a 1911 can protect a loudmouth braggart idiot from hurting himself."

Originally Posted by wolfgang2000

Personally I see no reason to dumb down a prefectly good handgun design.

That's why I own a 1911, Wolf! [grin] (That's called "leading with your chin." Might want to watch that, you fed me a wonderful straight line! Especially when you misspell "perfectly." ;-)

Originally Posted by wolfgang2000

With proper training I'm confident that our military personal are smart enought to learn to keep their finger off the trigger if you don't want the gun to go off. Even officers.

I dunno about officers, Wolf. [grin]

[wolfgang2000]

John I don't take any of this personally. I understand that you 1911 guys are technologically challenged. As far as my spelling goes, did you know that the franklin word master can and will give "I'm sorry can't help" responce.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by JohnK3

I dunno about officers, Wolf. [grin]

ROFLAMO! Too true, John, too true! And besides, even if the officers were given special training, after the first "take 10" they would all have to be retrained.

[wolfgang2000]

[IMG]

AGlock with a saftey. Just for Officers and the 1911 crowd.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by wolfgang2000

[IMG]

AGlock with a saftey. Just for Officers and the 1911 crowd.

Alas, all too true, Wolf. Both are intellectually challenged, more to be pitied than scorned.

[SouthernMoss]

Originally Posted by wolfgang2000

[IMG]

AGlock with a saftey. Just for Officers and the 1911 crowd.

The image didn't take, wolfgang.