Army Chooses Sig Sauer P320 As Next Service Pistol

"I'm not going to choose a caliber based on what a woman or pajama boy can handle, or what ammo is already available. As far as I'm concerned, those are non-issues." Bd #40

Exactly!
And that sir or m'am is why you are not a Pentagon procurement final decision maker. Those that are are required by necessity if not regulation to do PRECISELY that. Whatever choice is made, it has to be suitable for not 80% of our troops, or 92.1% of our troops. It has to be suitable for 100% of our troops. You don't care. Splendid. Luckily; those making the decision will.
 
sear said:
"I'm not going to choose a caliber based on what a woman or pajama boy can handle, or what ammo is already available. As far as I'm concerned, those are non-issues." Bd #40

Exactly!
And that sir or m'am is why you are not a Pentagon procurement final decision maker. Those that are are required by necessity if not regulation to do PRECISELY that. Whatever choice is made, it has to be suitable for not 80% of our troops, or 92.1% of our troops. It has to be suitable for 100% of our troops. You don't care. Splendid. Luckily; those making the decision will.
Click to expand...

That's right, I'm not some PC pencil pusher who is going to provide an inferior weapon to the majority of our soldiers for the sake of PC diversity.
 
I'm w/ S #42

I carried the M1911-A1 for years, and never had a problem w/ it loading.
- Not at initial training.
- Not in the field. &
- not at re-qual.

One note though.
We used ball ammo., which I believe is a requirement of the Geneva Protocols, which used to and probably still prohibit hollow-points.

I never fired hollow points out of the M1911-A1

BUT !!

On auto-loaders with short ramps, a hollow-point can snag on the ramp, and jam the action. The lethality increase of hollow-points is beyond dispute. But for RELIABILITY I'd stick with "ball ammo" or copper-jacketed noses (boat-tail optional).
 
sear said:
I'm w/ S #42

I carried the M1911-A1 for years, and never had a problem w/ it loading.
- Not at initial training.
- Not in the field. &
- not at re-qual.

One note though.
We used ball ammo., which I believe is a requirement of the Geneva Protocols, which used to and probably still prohibit hollow-points.

I never fired hollow points out of the M1911-A1

BUT !!

On auto-loaders with short ramps, a hollow-point can snag on the ramp, and jam the action. The lethality increase of hollow-points is beyond dispute. But for RELIABILITY I'd stick with "ball ammo" or copper-jacketed noses (boat-tail optional).
Click to expand...

One of the best pieces ever made. Carried them myself and now have two personally. I like them.
 
" for the sake of PC diversity. " Bd #43

Right.
FYI "PC" in the above quoted usage stands for "Politically Correct", which is a euphemism for INCORRECT.

The factual reality is, political considerations play virtually no role in it.

I understand. Bd previously posted:

"It's a simple choice, ... one of capacity vs. stopping power." Bd #33

That's fine!

BUT !!

That's YOUR criterion, for the decision making criteria you would use, if you were buying a gun for YOU.

That's not what's going on here. This purchase selection decision must be tailored to being suitable for every single troop that will need to become proficient with it.
 
Bigdog said:
Sear, I disagree.

I'm not going to choose a caliber based on what a woman or pajama boy can handle, or what ammo is already available. As far as I'm concerned, those are non-issues.
Click to expand...

When the west was being settled, it was common for someone to carry ammunition that fit both their rifle and handgun; because that way they didn't have to worry about trying to use the wrong ammo, in a tight situation.

I think the military should do the same.

But that's just my opinion.
 
PS

"now have two personally. I like them." S #46

Is Colt out of business now?

They used to have something called the:
Colt MK IV Series 80 Officer's ACP
which was a little shorter than the M1911-A1. The Colt Officer's had a 3.5" barrel.
I think the mag. was one round fewer as well.

BUT !!

The full framed M1911-A1 mag. was operable in the smaller Officer's model, but just protruded below the base of the handle a little.

I haven't checked out the off-brand look-alikes.

But there's a lot I liked about the M1911-A1.
I absolutely LOVED the single-action! Absolutely nothing else will do!

I also liked:

- the short trigger pull
- the substantial exposed hammer & thumb spur, both for cocking and de-cocking
- and a charming lack of bells & whistles.

It's a nice simple, and as you observe, reliable firearm.
 
sear said:
" for the sake of PC diversity. " Bd #43

Right.
FYI "PC" in the above quoted usage stands for "Politically Correct", which is a euphemism for INCORRECT.

The factual reality is, political considerations play virtually no role in it.

I understand. Bd previously posted:

"It's a simple choice, ... one of capacity vs. stopping power." Bd #33

That's fine!

BUT !!

That's YOUR criterion, for the decision making criteria you would use, if you were buying a gun for YOU.

That's not what's going on here. This purchase selection decision must be tailored to being suitable for every single troop that will need to become proficient with it.
Click to expand...

You make no sense.

And it's not the weapon I would choose for myself. My personal needs differ from that of an infantry soldier. You make too many assumptions.
 
"When the west was being settled, it was common for someone to carry ammunition that fit both their rifle and handgun; because that way they didn't have to worry about trying to use the wrong ammo, in a tight situation.
I think the military should do the same.
But that's just my opinion." U9 #48

I suspect that refers to solid lead balls (literally spherical metal balls).
It's a good idea with muzzle loaders where a smaller powder charge could be used for the handgun, and a larger charge for the long gun.

But we use cartridges now.
That means the powder charge is pre-measured, and already inside the cart.

So trying to apply the same principle today would result either in too weak a long gun cart, or too powerful a handgun cart., or both.

There are long guns that use handgun carts. I've seen carbines that chamber the 9mm cart.
That's fine.
Such carbine might be fine for varmint hunting, and the handgun that chambers the same cart. might be used for self-defense / law enforcement, etc.

But for combat?
I suspect the laws of physics simply makes that impractical.
 
"You make no sense." Bd #53

Well Bd. If it makes no sense to you, that's comforting reassurance it's unusually rational reasoning.

"And it's not the weapon I would choose for myself." Bd

Right!

It's the CRITERION you would use to choose a weapon for yourself.

"My personal differ from that of an infantry soldier. You make too many assumptions." Bd

Perhaps.
But I've made none here. I simply quoted YOU. I shall do so yet once again.

"It's a simple choice, ... one of capacity vs. stopping power." Bd #33

Whine at me all you like. YOU are the one that claimed it is a simple choice, and then stated the two criteria: "capacity vs. stopping power." Bd #33

If you wish to withdraw or revise, feel free. But please don't post lies about me making an assumption. I responded to your quoted words. No sear assumption to be found.
 
sear said:
"You make no sense." Bd #53

Well Bd. If it makes no sense to you, that's comforting reassurance it's unusually rational reasoning.

"And it's not the weapon I would choose for myself." Bd

Right!

It's the CRITERION you would use to choose a weapon for yourself.

"My personal differ from that of an infantry soldier. You make too many assumptions." Bd

Perhaps.
But I've made none here. I simply quoted YOU. I shall do so yet once again.

"It's a simple choice, ... one of capacity vs. stopping power." Bd #33

Whine at me all you like. YOU are the one that claimed it is a simple choice, and then stated the two criteria: "capacity vs. stopping power." Bd #33

If you wish to withdraw or revise, feel free. But please don't post lies about me making an assumption. I responded to your quoted words. No sear assumption to be found.
Click to expand...

And you still make no sense.
 
#56

Understood.
Thanks.
It's apparently a thought pattern unfamiliar to you, and perhaps undecipherable by you. It's called "LOGIC".

I understand. It's a discipline taught in college that those without such training and experience find mysterious, incomprehensible. Again, I merely responded to the words YOU POSTED.
 
sear said:
PS

"now have two personally. I like them." S #46

Is Colt out of business now?

They used to have something called the:
Colt MK IV Series 80 Officer's ACP
which was a little shorter than the M1911-A1. The Colt Officer's had a 3.5" barrel.
I think the mag. was one round fewer as well.

BUT !!

The full framed M1911-A1 mag. was operable in the smaller Officer's model, but just protruded below the base of the handle a little.

I haven't checked out the off-brand look-alikes.

But there's a lot I liked about the M1911-A1.
I absolutely LOVED the single-action! Absolutely nothing else will do!

I also liked:

- the short trigger pull
- the substantial exposed hammer & thumb spur, both for cocking and de-cocking
- and a charming lack of bells & whistles.

It's a nice simple, and as you observe, reliable firearm.
Click to expand...

No. Not at all.
 
Rune said:
I think he is trying to suggest that more of less is more.
Click to expand...

It does seem that everyone on the thread favors the .45 ... except for Sear who thinks men should use what Sear considers to be a lady's gun.

:dunno:


Chelsea_Manning_with_wig.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top