U.S. Army wants a new gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
The TAVOR is not really all that new. It is an amalgamation of several existing ideas with a few new tweaks. Bullpups have benefits, but they have drawbacks as well. Not sure how we would view them now in the military, but we were not fond of them last time we tested them. Of course that was in the 50's.

That being said, Id take an AUG A3 anyday if someone wanted to give me one.
 
Last edited:
The Sig Sauer P229 is the one I liked the best at a gun store.

After having various semi-automatic pistols in my hand, the P229 was by far the most comfortable.
 
A .45 composite with higher capacity magazines already has been made. The Glock 21 holds 13 and the M&P 45 holds 10. You're correct that a soldier who can't shoot accurately would not fair very well. My friend that I was actually describing was wounded in Irag.
 
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
The TAVOR is not really all that new. It is an amalgamation of several existing ideas with a few new tweaks. Bullpups have benefits, but they have drawbacks as well. Not sure how we would view them now in the military, but we were not fond of them last time we tested them. Of course that was in the 50's.

That being said, Id take an AUG A3 anyday if someone wanted to give me one.

The Tavor is an awkward handling, cheaply molded plastic piece of garbage with an awful trigger. The fit and finish make Kel-Tec look like Sig Sauer. It's got mold lines and sharp edges everywhere. A real insult to anyone who buys it.
 
Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
The TAVOR is not really all that new. It is an amalgamation of several existing ideas with a few new tweaks. Bullpups have benefits, but they have drawbacks as well. Not sure how we would view them now in the military, but we were not fond of them last time we tested them. Of course that was in the 50's.

That being said, Id take an AUG A3 anyday if someone wanted to give me one.

The Tavor is an awkward handling, cheaply molded plastic piece of garbage with an awful trigger. The fit and finish make Kel-Tec look like Sig Sauer. It's got mold lines and sharp edges everywhere. A real insult to anyone who buys it.
I think the price for the Tavor represents a fool being born every minute. I haven't seen anything that makes the Tavor worth more than an AR and Commercial AR are way over priced as to what the Government pays for the M16 /M4. There is not a whole lot of difference between the two [M/4] and many AR 15 are really built with lower quality metals and test procedures.
 
The reason the Government pays so little for a new M16/M4 is that they are buying in bulk big time. Also they are buying directly from the makers. You and I buy from a dealer, who bought it from a distributor, who bought it from the manufacturer. Middle men all taking profit.
 
My suggestion would be to move back to a .45 ACP cartridge in a poly pistol. Sure, you give up some capacity to the 9mm, but if you're shooting at a bad guy with a pistol, your rifle is probably toast and you're probably standing toe to toe and want him to go down. .45 ball still gets it done quicker than ball 9mm.






Originally Posted By: Astro14
There is quite a bit of discussion on calibers with both pistol and carbine. M855 rounds penetrate barriers well, but they don't stop within the target. Combat experience is showing that it takes several hits from a 5.56 to stop a combatant.


Not trying to hijack the thread, but what have you heard about the new M855A1?

M855A1
 
To play devil's advocate, I would imagine .45 ACP recoil would be worse with a poly over the old M1911. Call me politically incorrect, but recoil is a bigger issue now with a greater percentage of female soldiers, also. (I happen to be 5'10" / 150 lbs, so I'm kind of scrawny myself.)

As with most anything, I won't be offended if you prove me wrong on this. :p
 
I think that 9mm expanding rounds are effective, and you can carry more , less weight etc. But due to the Hague Convention , I don't think our military can use expanding rounds. So if its only hardball ammo, .45 is the way to go. Unless something has changed i don't think our military is allowed to use expanding ammo, I.E. hollow points. Now if you can only shoot hard ball at close quarters would you rather be shot with 9mm ball or .45 ball?
 
Originally Posted By: wildcatswo
To play devil's advocate, I would imagine .45 ACP recoil would be worse with a poly over the old M1911. Call me politically incorrect, but recoil is a bigger issue now with a greater percentage of female soldiers, also. (I happen to be 5'10" / 150 lbs, so I'm kind of scrawny myself.)

As with most anything, I won't be offended if you prove me wrong on this. :p



Yes weight is a factor with perceived recoil. However, if you engineered a poly framed 45acp with a low bore axis and design the ergonomics of the grip so you can get up high on it without getting slide bite, there will be less perceived recoil as the pistol will have less leverage on you to exploit in the extraction cycle.
 
My opinion is that they should stick with 9mm, and go with a poly-frame, hi-cap pistol with at least 17-round capacity. Let Special Ops guys pick their own equipment.

In reality, this is what will likely happen anyway...

That said, how about a discussion on what the likely candidates will be? We know Glock is out due to the lack of a thumb safety. What are the other candidates?

Personally I think Glock would be the best choice...but they're unlikely to add a manual safety...
 
IMO if Glock wanted the military contract and all it took to get one was adding the safety they would do it in a heart beat.

We will see what happens...I say M&P or one of the FN's.
 
To me Glock seems to be the obvious choice. Rugged, reliable, crazy simple and cheap to boot. Glock changed a trigger spring just to get the NYPD contract, surely they'd add a manual safety to get a military contract.
 
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
My suggestion would be to move back to a .45 ACP cartridge in a poly pistol. Sure, you give up some capacity to the 9mm, but if you're shooting at a bad guy with a pistol, your rifle is probably toast and you're probably standing toe to toe and want him to go down. .45 ball still gets it done quicker than ball 9mm.


Rifle?

What rifle?

19Ks (M1 Abrams armored crewman) do not qualify with a rifle. No point in having the fool thing that will just eat up space and is inferior to the 2 7.62s, the .50 cal, and the 120mm. We spent a couple of days familiarizing with the rifle, fired it once, and then the only time I ever touched a rifle was when we were in garrison. Cleaning crunchy weapons was common busy work.

Throw track? you're a pillbox. Throw track and run out main gun ammo? You're a bunker. If you have to bail out of your track, bad stuff is already afoot. You better have a good pistol.

9X19 is standard NATO. I vote for an HK MP5 Compact...at least for the loader and driver.
 
Originally Posted By: UG_Passat
This thing is going to get ugly, as the respective congressman/women the represents each manufacturer will get involved.

I wonder if Boehner will lobby hard for Hi-Point?
 
The FNX-45 might be a good compromise (and I think some of the military is using it now). Hard to argue with 15 rounds of .45ACP and these things seem to be very tough and durable.

FN FNX-45
 
Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
What are the chances they'll adopt the P226?


Slim to none. It lost out on cost alone last time to the Beretta. Polymer guns are cheaper to manufacture than metal framed guns. So if ONE polymer gun can pass the benchmarks that the P226 can, it is dead from the get go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
got a new upper for my Glock 34
Replies
6
Views
415
Rogueman2016s
S
Which pistols etc should I select to shoot at the range?
2 3
Replies
49
Views
4K
Revving2Redline
billt460
New Beretta 92X Performance
Replies
11
Views
4K
M56959
billt460
New CZ 612 Target / Trap
Replies
5
Views
4K
billt460
burbguy82
Smokeless Muzzleloading............at Mach 3 and beyond
Replies
16
Views
528
Mach3Muzzleloader
Back
Top