Sig Sauer P320 wins US Army Modular Handgun System contract to replace the M9 pistol

[angelangel]

[QUOTE=matt000024;51697692]Can any currently of former military Facepunchers here explain what exactly handguns are used for in modern combat roles other than one's primary weapon failing? As someone with no military experience I'm curious.[/QUOTE]

Hasn't it always been for personal defence? Especially nowadays when on base in Afghanistan or where ever and the Afghans start shooting people.

[Bonde]

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;51696746]The M9 isn't "old" or "worn out," it was a shitty gun to begin with that should probably have never been chosen.[/QUOTE]

Then why is it widely regarded as a durable and reliable handgun?

[dude709]

[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;51698180]durable it is not, the m9 has been riddled with cracking slides and locking blocks.[/QUOTE]

Didn't they fix that in the 80's?

[dude709]

Well guess I'm not buying that 92s...

[Provost]

[QUOTE=matt000024;51697692]Can any currently of former military Facepunchers here explain what exactly handguns are used for in modern combat roles other than one's primary weapon failing? As someone with no military experience I'm curious.[/QUOTE]

Pistols tend to be issued in fairly limited numbers, to select individuals. First people to get them are, of course, the Company Commander, then the XO. Then it might either skip straight to the Platoon Leaders, or the Company NCOs (1st Sergeant, Master Sergeant etc.) will get first pick.

After that, they can be issued to NCOs at the platoon level (PSG, SL, TL), or they can be issued to M240 gunners and the like - the dudes who are carrying a weapon that's too heavy and unwieldy to clear rooms with.

If you have enough sidearms to issue them to both leadership and the weapons squad, chances are you're in an Infantry Company, which means you better detail the fuck out of that weapon before turn-in, shitbag.

[TheTalon]

[quote]The joke that we had in the military was that sometimes the most effective use of an M9 is to simply throw it at your adversary[/quote] -Former Army Officer

The M9 is great and all, but 9mm doesn't cut it for the military (Certainly not these last two wars where you're fighting guys hopped up on epinepherine, and in a lot of cases don't even care about dying), and the Beretta has been in service since 1985. It's time the military got a new hand gun

Also, the P320 is cheap as shit for a Sig, About half the price of a P226

[Unclejimmema]

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51697725]I don't know much about modern military stuff and even i know what clusterfuck the OICW program was.

"Yeah we want a weapon that serves as a grenade launcher and long/midrange rifle at the same time, consolidate 4 weapons into one gun that does everything 100% better than the 50 year old designs it replaces." was the mission statement. Yeah, you wanna replace the m16 with an overcomplicated futureshock shit the size of an engine block. and you want this unproven and unreasonable madness "100% better" in all ways upon delivery, including reliability, and serve 4 or 5 roles at once on one platform.

and it took them 20 fucking years and god knows how many tens of million dollars to realize maybe it wasn't going to happen[/QUOTE]

The at least OICW wasn't a complete failure. It did end with the more or less adoption of the XM25, just as the SPIW program lead to the adoption of the M203 decades earlier. The army just loves to set up programs to find a new rifle only to adopt a grenade launcher instead.

[9millmeeter]

oh so they finally were convinced that anything to do with beretta was a really fucking bad idea huh

if only it didn't come after tens of millions of dollars wasted and eyes lost from slides breaking. imagine that

[QUOTE=Bonde;51698132]Then why is it widely regarded as a durable and reliable handgun?[/QUOTE]

the beretta 92 and its equally shit variants have never been anything of the sort, contrary to what marketing and shit-for-brains film directors might have told you. they are one of the worst modern weapons and one of the worst handguns ever made

[CarnolfMeatla]

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51696219]That's an ugly handgun.[/QUOTE]

Ugly does the deed the best. Just ask Mrs. Warthog.

[Mr. Someguy]

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51697725]I don't know much about modern military stuff and even i know what clusterfuck the OICW program was.

"Yeah we want a weapon that serves as a grenade launcher and long/midrange rifle at the same time, consolidate 4 weapons into one gun that does everything 100% better than the 50 year old designs it replaces." was the mission statement. Yeah, you wanna replace the m16 with an overcomplicated futureshock shit the size of an engine block. and you want this unproven and unreasonable madness "100% better" in all ways upon delivery, including reliability, and serve 4 or 5 roles at once on one platform.

and it took them 20 fucking years and god knows how many tens of million dollars to realize maybe it wasn't going to happen[/QUOTE]

It's not new with the Army to be honest. When the M14 Rifle was introduced, it was meant to replace the:

Service Rifle (M1 Garand)
Carbine (M1/M2 Carbine)
Submachine Gun (M1 Thompson, M3 Grease Gun)
Automatic Rifle (M1918 BAR)
Sniper Rifle (M1903 Springfield, M1C Garand)

And of course it failed, because the M14 was heavy and kicked like hell. The only role it had fully replaced was the Service Rifle, although it was a successful Sniper Rifle as well it did not replace all of the older Sniper Rifles. Despite failing to do literally everything (because that's an unrealistic requirement), the M14 turned out to be a reliable design, and variants are still used today by Marksmen and Snipers.