Top 5 Contenders for the Army’s New Sidearm

The H&K P7M13.

The H&K P7M13.

Looking back at the XM9 trials, the early 80’s slug-fest that crowned the Beretta M9 as the successor of the M1911A1, I was surprised to see so many guns I hardly know. Of the 8 entrants, only 4 remain relevant–and even that’s arguable.

  • The Walther P88
  • The Colt SSP
  • The FNH BDA
  • The Smith & Wesson 459M
  • The Beretta 92
  • The SIG SAUER P226
  • The H&K P7M13
  • The Steyr GB

But the companies are all still alive and kicking, mostly. It begs the question: Is that what the editor of GunsAmerica will be writing 30 years from now about the guns that are about to enter the new Modular Handgun System trial?
30 years from now, will someone else be chuckling at the losers?

There are three big questions that have yet to be answered.

The is a list of pre-defined criteria. For simplicity sake, these agencies want one gun. As these guns will have multiple uses and be carried openly and concealed, and by men and women, and by people with giant hands and tiny hands, and by people with serious skills and no skills… you see where I’m going. One gun to rule them all.

So modularity is key. One platform mean one curricula for armorers, and one curricula for soldiers. The new gun will have to have a new holster. It should have the ability to accept any number of rail-mounted accessories. It should also be suppressor ready (or easily made suppressor ready). There’s more, but let’s begin with this. Here are the looming unknowns:

  1. Caliber. The 9mm seems to be on the way out. I think this is a shame. It isn’t the 9mm’s fault that the Army uses ball ammo. Still, this isn’t the place for that debate. Modularity doesn’t imply multi-caliber, though that is a possibility. And each of the competing guns will have to meet or (preferably) exceed the performance of M882 115 grain 9mm ball fired from the M9–so we’re talking better 9mm, .40S&W, .357 SIG, and .45 ACP. Let the debates begin!
  2. Polymer. I could put together a much longer list of possible successors to the M9 if it didn’t have to be modular, and almost all of them would be polymer framed handguns. Will polymer pass the test? I don’t see why not. Will polymer overcome polymer prejudice? That I cannot answer.
  3. Safeties. Will the new handgun have to have an external safety? My bet is that it will. A lot of the guns in service now with special units (like the SIG P226, and some GLOCKs) don’t have external safeties. Yet this new gun will be on the hip of a lot of soldiers, many with little experience with a handgun. Will the Army trust its own soldiers?

So who are the likely entrants?

There will probably be some surprises, but I think the five companies listed below are sure to line up in the paddock at the beginning of the race.

  1. The P226.

    The P226.

    SIG SAUER. If I were SIG, and I’m not, I’d put the P226 up against anything the competition might want to enter. If caliber becomes a defining issue, as it was in the XM9 trials, the P226 has options. As is, I bet SIG will be putting in a version of the 320. There’s one huge benefit the 320 has over much of the competition—true modularity. The same gun is available in numerous calibers and configurations, and the serialized internals can be swapped between them, meaning SIG could deliver a limited number of “firearms” and a lot of frames and barrels, which would allow for adaptive carry strategies. And soldiers and armorers would only have to learn one system.

  2. The M9A1? Or the Px4? Both?

    The M9A1? Or the Px4? Both?

    Beretta. The M9 has gotten a raw deal. Much of the crap you hear said about the gun has more to do with the 115 grain 9mm ball ammo than the gun itself.  Whatever. Haters gonna hate. It replaced the 1911. No gun could live up to that mythology. Sorry 1911 fans, but I’m here to report the truth, and it must be said that almost all of the entrants in the XM9 trials smoked the pants off of the 1911. The M9 has a long service record, so we have all seen the laundry list of documented problems (bad magazines from a derelict subcontractor, chief among them). But Beretta has a lot of experience work with Uncle Sam, and they’ve been retooling other designs that address some of the M9’s criticisms. I’d look to a revamped version of the Px4, or a surprise entry.

  3. The GLOCK 41?

    The GLOCK 41?

    GLOCK. So many people out there want to see GLOCK compete. Pick a GLOCK. The differences are primarily barrel length and caliber. But GLOCK is dedicated to polymer frames, and they shy away from external safeties. Are these liabilities in the new trial? It remains to be seen. Would GLOCK put an external safety on if that was a deal breaker? I bet they would. Would they enter an aluminum alloy framed GLOCK with an external safety? I think that’s stretching credulity.

  4. The M&P, ported.

    The M&P, ported.

    Smith & Wesson has been all over the news lately after announcing a partnership with General Dynamics. The M&P will be their entrant. And the M&P is a tough gun with a good track record. Like the other three in this list, the M&P would be easy enough to adapt to specific length and caliber requirements. And the partnership will answer a question I will ask in the conclusion. Smith was the first out of the gate announcing their intentions to compete. That alone has gotten the M&P a lot of extra attention. S&W also has firm American roots–don’t dismiss that in a time of renewed patriotism. Will the M&P’s reputation with law enforcement, and the partnership with GD be enough to tip the scales?

  5. H&K USB Tactical.

    H&K USP Tactical.

    H&K. I could see the VP9 getting a lot of interest.—if there could be more modular versions in time for the trials. But H&K is a dark horse in this race. They’ve clearly got the talent to put together a new entrant, or modify one of their existing guns (like the USP). I’m not ruling them out.

  6. The FNX Tactical?

    The FNX Tactical?

    FN America. I realize I said this was a top 5 list, but there are actually six. FN America could bring in their FNS line or their FNX line. Both are combat ready and capable of being adapted to whatever specifications the selection committee might concoct. They’re fine guns in their own right.

In the end, I think much of this list is based on some simple presumptions and the style of the day. Is single action out? Could someone turn this whole competition on its head by submitting a single action? Could it be that some of these incredible 1911s on the market would stand a fighting chance?

I doubt it. And here’s why. No one knows how many of these will be ordered. Initial estimates are for 400,000 guns, with another 200,000 to follow shortly after. That’s a lot of guns. Each of the companies above has the ability to produce in quantity, and partner with others to help. While much of the selection committee’s decision will be based on performance, the other two points on the triangle will be ability to produce and individual unit cost. Which of these companies can produce 400,000 guns, guns that are capable, and do so on a budget?

Who does that leave out?

Could a relative unknown take everyone by surprise?

Could a relative unknown take everyone by surprise?

I read a solid write-up yesterday on the Detonics MTX at Bearingarms.com. Bob’s spot on with his assessment of the MTX, but the price and production makes Detonics a long shot. And there are others who look likely but likely won’t compete. I’d be surprised to see a serious competitor from Walther. I’m still hoping Springfield Armory might enter the XD line. Who else? We all assume Colt is out of the running. I still think anyone who thinks about all of the considerations would eliminate all 1911s.

Whichever guns get entered will have to average 2,000 rounds between stoppages. The guns will have to run an average of 10,000 rounds before a true failure. And the guns will need a service life of 35,000 rounds. They will need to put 90% of rounds within a 4″ circle at 50 meters, which breaks down to about 7MOA. And they’ll need to be able to handle hot loads (at least 20% over SAAMI specs for their caliber).

Obviously, I’ve missed a likely contender or two. Who are they? Who can meet all of these demands, and do it for a unit cost that will come close to $500–or less?

{ 119 comments… add one }
  • Billy the Kid May 7, 2016, 9:27 pm

    Ever one in the world use a Glock . The m-9 has a safety issue, in the night pulling the slide back they’re pulling the safety into safety at night and trying to fire it without realizing.

  • Billy the Kid May 7, 2016, 9:27 pm

    Ever one in the world use a Glock . The m-9 has a safety issue, in the night pulling the slide back they’re pulling the safety into safety at night and trying to fire it without realizing.

  • frank proszek March 12, 2016, 11:20 am

    I submit any .22LR pistol. How many times have troops been pinned down and ran out of ammo? Fact: there are 21 bullets in a pound of .45ACP, there are 38 bullets in a pound of 9mm luger, but there are 133 bullets in one pound of .22lr. Yeah, I know, “stopping power”..we all see films of troops shooting just to throw lead out, caliber doesn’t make a difference when one acquires a bloody hole in their body that they weren’t born with. More FYI…any surgeon will tell you that a .45 will blast right through your body while the lowly .22lr will tumble and bounce around the inside of a man. The surgeon has to actually follow the path of that .22 and repair damage throughout. One doctor said a victim was shot in his butt cheek and the bullet exited his neck. Just throwing this out for discussion, you probably wouldn’t like my plan to give the rear support troops $250 ruger 10/22’s instead of $2,000 M-16’s.

    • marshall August 2, 2016, 3:23 pm

      I hope this was a joke because i laughed. If this was not a joke you have obviously never seen combat of any kind. Firstly the standard issued weapon is an m4 not the old crusty m16 your daddy used back in Nam, and it doesnt cost $2000 more like $800. secondly rimfire ammunition is unreliable even match grade stuff has a tendency to not fire when struck. third: in Afghanistan troops are taking shots between 200 and 800 meters with the 5.56. the 22lr starts to seriously drop at like 75-100meters. 4th the bullet has to penetrate outer clothing and gear. believe it or not we arent fighting cavemen who wear nothing but loin cloths. No They wear magazines, pouches, suicide vests, qurans, grenades etc…plus sometimes you can line them hajis up just right and take 2 at once. try that with a 22. lastly when you are fighting dune coons all hopped up on meth at close range a bigger bullet makes a bigger hole which creates more blood loss which sends them to their 72 virgins faster. so 9mm is better suited than a 22lr, basically the only place that 22lr belongs in the military is on the shooting range.

      this post was intended to be humorous but also factual so if any of you readers are offended i suggest you go to the pharmaceutical section of your closest wally world and buy a bulk package of vagisil, motrin, and kotex and scrub your vagina until the disease of political correctness crawls out of your chuff box, and you can learn to take a joke.

      • Collin October 2, 2016, 8:45 pm

        I am actually crying of laughter, well said my friend. lol

      • Doug October 18, 2016, 12:11 am

        How about the 5.7? Center-fire but little more than a .22 Magnum for size/weight. Saw someone test the 5.7. The AP round from the 5-7 pistol penetrated 2a armor with 4 or 5 inches extra. Shot a non AP round from a longer barrel and it to penetrated 2a. So how about a long barrel pistol to get more out of the 5.7. Paired with a carbine of the same Cal. ?

  • Ed9339 January 31, 2016, 2:16 pm

    I carried the 1911 as a side arm as M60 gunner back before the Italian job. I have or have owned most of the lot and I am favoring the FN-FNX .45 Tactical. How can you go wrong with a 15 round double stack .45 barely wider then a 1911 and much thinner then a M9/92FS Beretta. Added bonus its suppressor and RMR ready. The only thing I have noticed is it has that same recoil pause as the Roller-Lock action. Which is a bit strange but it hits out to 100 yards on 16in steel plate so who can complain more people have been killed with the 45 ACP then the 9mm Parabellum even a pacifist conscientious objector like Sgt. York made it work.

  • Mick August 23, 2015, 7:36 pm

    I’d like to see CZ-75 (not a big fan of polymer framed pistols for military use) as an entrant great pistols, best quality/cost ratio of any brand out right now also has the highest ammo capacity.

    • frank proszek March 12, 2016, 11:30 am

      FINALLY, someone who sounds like he actually had to tote all that ammo. There are only 21 bullets in one pound of .45ACP while there are 133 bullets in one pound of .22lr. I shot boxes of ammo through an issued .45 (left over from WW2) and I can count on one hand the times I hit center. BUT, with my ruger target .22 pistol or my ruger 10/22 I can hit the thumbtack holding that target. What do ya think, half an infantry squad fitted with .22’s and the other half with the big stuff? Weight matters.

  • Mike May 12, 2015, 1:11 pm

    As much as I would like to see a Glock 17 or 22 at the Army’s primary sidearm like every law enforcement officer in the nation, I think Sig 226 in 9mm or 40cal will be winners. Especially with the modularity factor. Great point in the article!!!! I’m not going to get into a debate with 9mm vs. 40SW because I think both calibers are great rounds when using the proper type of ammunition. Another great point in the article is why the Army is not getting the full potential out of the 9mm ammunition?There is no way 45cal will be selected due to the additional weight, limited capacity and cost per round. I like the 5.7 round but I don’t see it being selected due to cost. I’m very interested to see which new firearm and Caliber they decide.

    • Mick August 23, 2015, 7:45 pm

      I would pick the CZ75-SP01 pistol, it is the finest pistol in the world based on the Browning High powered plus it has a high ammo capacity (19 rounds).

  • smitty February 1, 2015, 1:15 pm

    FNH 5.7 platform. Remember the 500 spec per unit is very easy for anyone at the 100,000 unit mark.

  • Vince Warde January 13, 2015, 4:11 am

    Well, we will see if they actually carry though with the process this time. I would not be surprised if they once against postpone the whole thing. Last time we ended up with a bunch of new designs – and I would look for many of them to be resubmitted. Ruger could compete in if they want, like nearly everyone else they have a design the meets the basic requirements.

  • Dave January 11, 2015, 2:03 pm

    I don’t think the gun will ever exist with a polymer frame. So Glock is SOL, now FN, any 1911 maker and S&W I think have the best chances. The problem with anything bigger then 9mm is the size of the bullet would make it require a single stack like less then 10 rounds. You can’ make everyone happy and The Hague convention and Geneva Convention out law any form of non fmj bullets which are proven to be good to go through armor but not stop threats. The fmj by many is a target round for punching holes in paper. Solid lead bullets would at least have a better chance. Personally i think they should ditch any standard sidearm model and make a CALIBER STANDARD FOR EVERY UNIT. Then have said person be allowed to buy the handgun with there budget of 500 bucks or so. Every said person would have to become an Armour of that weapon. The time has come when people need more experience then pulling a trigger.

  • Bill Passmore January 6, 2015, 10:23 pm

    also leaves out the Springfield XD

  • Constantine December 22, 2014, 11:01 pm

    Another vote for CZ! I’d like to see something that can be carried cocked-and-locked, like the 75, or P-09 (convertible decocker-manual safety).

    If Austrian (Glock), German (HK), Belgian (FN), Italian (Beretta) and Swiss (SIG) companies can compete, why not CZ?

  • Dan December 18, 2014, 2:42 pm

    Wanted to add one more vote for the CZ P-01. NATO tested and approved for reliability, lightweight metal frame, hi capacity, and accurate as can be.

  • Don Patrick December 17, 2014, 11:14 am

    Having used both 9mm & 45 auto (& many other calibers), I have no doubt of which of the two is most effective. I suspect most others probably have that same understanding as well.

    As to The Hague, I understand it’s significance, but also know the real world. At the Firebase at Suey Trek in 1967, we lowered our artillery and fired beehives directly into Charles. Many of us at other times used white phosfous and beehive rounds in our grenade launchers, particularly during Tet 68. Many of the tank units used canister during those times, especially during engagements in the cities. Where do you think we obtained those rounds? I was also partial to a Browning shotgun captured from Charles. I used US Army issued shot shells.

    I agree that we have gone from a good one shot Army to a spraying Army. That being the case, a 22 would certainly offer the most rounds for a handgun.

  • Dave December 16, 2014, 11:58 pm

    I must say there are a lot of “interesting” comments and opinions here. To those who base their guesses on their personal experiences….you think too small my friends! Those who posit that political influences will sway the final call are, unfortunately, probably right. Lets just hope and pray that the side arm that wins is actually the best one for our service men and women rather than the best one for the current political climate. All of the weapons mentioned will do the job and the differences are really rather small. I can shoot anyone of them effectively, as can those on the sharp end, and the desk riders too, with training. Remember it’s a tool, kinda like a hammer. Any of us can use hammer to drive a nail and as long as the nail goes in does it matter who made the hammer? Ok, so maybe not a great comparison since who’s gonna make the hammer (gun) is the point of this debate right! We all have our favorites, I have more than one as I’m sure many do. Can we get past ball ammo? I sure hope so, it would make one debate a whole lot easier. Can we go with polymer? Someone said that the lower can be considered single life use-once it breaks or is damaged beyond functionality, just replace it. Focus refurbish efforts on the metal parts. I think that makes good sense.I also like the idea of going with American made. Well, all of em have manufacturing capacity in the USA, but where are the corporate profits going? I’d like those to be American too. On a personal note, I own, and or have shot all but the FN. They are all good guns. My Fave is the CZ75….too bad it’s Chech!

  • pembo8420 December 16, 2014, 5:39 am

    Glocks Rock! Those that don’t like them, don’t shoot them enough! They come in three different sized frames to fit different hand sizes and needs, in most all common pistol calibers. Plus like one guy said if the frames wear out throw em away and get another their cheap. Most parts are interchangeable with each other. Learn the the trigger pull and the sights! More range time and you’ll rock with Glock! Hell R. Lee Emery The Gunny can’t be wrong he loves his G37! I used to not like them because I thought composite on a gun was just wrong being a Sig220 and 1911! Then I got a G23 and put some rounds down range, and changed my mind. Now I own three Glocks a G21, G23, and G26. I’ve gotten so good I can nail a golf ball at 21′. Try em you’ll like em!

    • Dave January 11, 2015, 2:12 pm

      who ho 21 feet that’s 7 yards if you can’t hit a golf ball ay 7 yards you should not shoot a hand gun ever. 25 yards is needed to qualify in the service and I have met very few able to shoot qualification at that distance with a Glock. I was pistol and rifle coach in the Marines my last 6 months. Some units would allow other weapons but they ha to qualify expert only saw one out several each week do it with a Glock. 1 out six months.

  • Michael (Docrodney) December 15, 2014, 11:13 pm

    Well I have a Sig P226 elite and P220 elite FDE and a S&W M&P VTAC 40 and also have a FNX 45. All are wonderful guns to shoot. If thay are switching to 45 ammo my choice would be the FNX 45. Holds 15 and 1 of .45 ACP. Shoots amazing and is very accurate. Every time I take it shooting and one of my friends try it they are amazed how well it shoots.

  • Alan December 15, 2014, 7:10 pm

    How about that Keltec semi with the 30 round 22 magnum mags !!! Now that would be interesting. Personally I love my G17 with a 33 round mag. I believe in 9mm quantity over .45 quality…

  • Will Drider December 15, 2014, 3:44 pm

    Glock has had a pistol on the market with an external fire control l3ver for years- G18. It would not take much to change it from full auto to a safety. Gen 4 and several models fill the modularity issue. The only reason the M9 has a long history in the Military is because the Gov. was committed to it. Not just a mag issue: slides fractered and barrels were cracked right from the factory (my new issue M9s barrel was cracked across the lans and groves above the lug when I cleaned the packing grease off). Open top slide on a combat handgun: stupid. Geneva Convention mandates FMJ ammo. For handguns often refered to as Ball, but it does not have to be round nose: Mfg’s need to work on this for a sharper tip that will function correctly and deliver better balistics.

  • Bill December 15, 2014, 2:37 pm

    What about Ruger?

  • Russell W. Thomas December 15, 2014, 1:45 pm

    Years ago, I hated Glocks, simply because I didn’t like that they were “plastic” so I carried a 1911 cocked and locked. I eventually bought 2 Glock .9mm and 2 Glock .40 cal., then one day I bought a Glock .45 Model 36. Having been and I still am a Firearms Instructor of many years, I should have known better, but the double stack Glocks simply didn’t fit my small hands and I wasn’t comfortable with any of them. Finally one day, I opted to shoot my Glock 36, it fit perfectly, and I enjoyed shooting it. I only practice and teach CQC shooting 21′ and in, as I am now a civilian and teach civilians for Carry Concealed Handgun permits. I think I would do well with a double stack model in Generation 4 with 3 size grip inserts. I don’t know why the Government will insist on an external safety. They never had any external safety on any of the issued revolvers! The simple answer is keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot! The Glock is a no nonsense, no whistles and bells, easy to field strip and clean, fires EVERY TIME, only requires simple and easy routine maintenance, several model could be employed depending on the individual and the purpose, and all the parts would be interchangeable, threaded barrel would support suppressors, rail on frame accommodates various accessories, so whats not to like? The price would definitely come in considerably under the $500 range, and the pistols are made here in the USA. I’m told 70% of our law enforcement officers carry Glocks, and that the FBI does too, and that they are transitioning to the .9mm. Glock’s felt recoil in my opinion, when properly fitted to the shooters hand is well absorbed, and I’m told the Gen 4 with new recoil spring(s) and guide even do a better job. Years ago, I was in Air Police School at Lackland AFB, when the Air Force was considering changing from the 1911 to another side arm. We all fired and qualified with three guns; the 1911 .45, S&W Mod. 15 .38 Special, and the S&W Mod. 39 .9mm. They eventually chose the Mod.15, not my choice, but overall it was easier for those that didn’t like semi-autos, they were too heavy, too hard to shoot, etc. It was a colossal mistake in my opinion. I think there should be some valid trial, fair and balanced, with close monitoring of the individuals that vote to give out the contracts, and decisions based on facts and opinions by those who will be charged with carrying sidearms.

  • thomas December 15, 2014, 1:42 pm

    The Detonics MTX is not a contender for too many reasons, despite what “newbie gun guy,” bob writes. The MTX was designed and invented by an Engineer in NC, for Detonics and the head guy at Detonics never paid the man. The Lawsuit is soon to be filed, which the ARMY will not want to deal with in any case. The Federal Judge in Tenn has already ruled in writing that the Detonics guy is full of hot air. Also, in the Tenn. case evidence was entered showing the Detonics guy has “No military service, has no real martial arts training, has no college degree, has no combat experience, was never in a gun fight, had his Top Secret Clearance revoked and that he presented no evidence of any kind to support any of his claims. Next the word is Detonics or “Double Nickel” has sold it’s majority stake to an Arkansas Indian Tribe. The MTX is an unproven firearm. Furthermore, the actual inventor and designer has a much more advanced modular weapon which has elimanated the problem issues found during the testing, which Detonics is not even aware of because of the rush to market. “Bob,” is a writer who has not been in the “gun business,” but a few short years and really is NOT ANY EXPERT of any type or kind. “Bob,” is a writer. “Bob,” has a big drink of the Detonics “Koolaide,” and gets freebies for hawking the product. Irresponsible? Dangerous? Careless? Self Serving?
    The Detonics MTX is a firearm, which was designed by someone who wasn’t paid, marketed by a guy with a “make believe background,” held out as the “next era 1911,” and spread about by a “Gun newbie,” who is a writer, not a technical person nor a person with any type firearms background ( soldier, marine, law enforcement, competitive shooter, hunter etc). Now “Bob” is starting to go to all the free schools in return for writing about them but THAT is where the danger lies. “Bob,” will write good stuff for a free ticket. “Bob,” is trying to gain a background and that is good but at present he is NOT any kind of expert by any stretch of the imagination.
    The Army and the powers that be have, know the whole story and have “already rejected,” the Detonics MTX and they already have the new version direct from the original designer and inventor in NC. I was in Ft Bragg with him and the Generals and I shot the new “modular weapon.” There is also a great deal of concern with the Colt, due to the financial situation at Colt. Something about defaulting on the Bonds is what was discussed.
    This web site writes truth no matter who gives them a hand out. Please keep it that way and don’t fall for the “Bob,” show based on free stuff and not FACTS.

    • Mark December 15, 2014, 3:29 pm

      Finally someone tells the truth about Bob and his Master-Handler at Detonics. Bob burnt his hand on the AK 47 barrel, even 6 year olds in Africa with no schooling don’t burn their hands on their AK 47’s………enough said……………

      • GI Joe December 15, 2014, 11:13 pm

        Of course ALL of this BS would fall by the wayside because any gun submitted MUST PASS THE TRIALS. Even “Smiling Bob the Enzyte guy” couldn’t bull his way theough field testing by the military.

  • Richard December 15, 2014, 1:38 pm

    I am a little confused becaused it was announced S&W was awarded the contract.

  • CamdenC December 15, 2014, 1:20 pm

    I really like the FNX line… I would think that an FNX-40 would “fit the bill”… (my next HG is gonna be an FNX-45)

  • Rocky December 15, 2014, 12:35 pm

    As a veteran of the Vietnam era, I was weaned on a M1911A1 in .45ACP. I LOVE this weapons platform. The damage that .45ACP ball ammo will do is far more than any lesser projectile, in a similar configuration, can dream of doing. In hollow point, it’s simply awesome ! A .40 cal. is merely a compromise between .45 and 9mm. As the Services have already discovered, the 9mm ball ammo isn’t capable of taking down a crazed raghead determined to realize his 72 virgins TODAY. Just as their grandfathers found that the Muslim Moro’s, in the Philippines weren’t dissuaded by their .38 Special ball ammo. The .357SIG is a round that I have no experience with, but in ball configuration, it still wouldn’t do what is being asked of it, knocking a belligerent out of commission. (The same goes for 10mm, which I understand isn’t in consideration.) Should we ever allow hollow point ammo, this whole subject matter would be mute, as a 9mm in hollow point creates a hole roughly the same size as a .45ACP ball round, but that’s neither here, nor there.
    Personally, I carry different weapons, for different purposes and different seasons.
    Ranging from a .380ACP in the hot summers that we experience in the deep south, all of the way up to a .45ACP, in the colder months, with a 9mm and .40 cal. in between. But that is in a civilian world. In combat, our Soldiers, Marines and Sailors need superior firepower. In Iraq, the Army dug up all of it’s old M1911A1 .45ACPs still in serviceable condition (as well as all of it’s old M14s in 7.62×54) The FBI HRT uses the .45ACP as do various other units, including a new purchase, by the Marine Corps, of a tan desert .45ACP.
    note; In WW@ the Germans rightly feared our Thompson submachine guns, in .45 ACP (as well as our M3A1 ‘Grease guns’, that followed) That projectile does an awesome job. Nazi soldiers scooped up any M1911’s that they could come across, reissuing them to their own forces. The Russians copied them, as well, into their own pistols. Just a bit of history of the round.

    • GI Joe December 15, 2014, 11:06 pm

      Your statement “The Germans feared our .45 caliber submachine guns” was a popular thing to say back in the day, but the machine gun TRULY feared by ALL combatants was the German MG34 and MG42’s due to their high rate of fire. Obviously no one wants to get shot and a 450 RPM greasegun or 600 RPM Thompson pales against a 900 RPM MG34 or a 1200 RPM MG42. The size of the hole made matters less than the odds of getting shot in the first place.

  • TPSnodgrass December 15, 2014, 12:32 pm

    It’s time in this day and age, to equip our military personnel with JHP ammo. Screw what the Hague/Geneva/International law says, it’s time we protected our own people with what works, period. Modern ammunition is an excellent fight stopper with commercially available JHP ammo in most calibers. No suspect or jihadi is going to say, “Oh, you ONLY shot me with an X caliber round, the fight is still on…”, make them JHP and take the fight back to the evil doers in spades.
    Leave the political rhetoric to the political pimps the sheeple elect.

    • GI Joe December 15, 2014, 10:58 pm

      Of course then our enemys will use JHP bullets on (our* troops also. There is a reason we agreed to hardball ammo and it isn’t due to not wanting to hurt the enemy.

  • Robert p December 15, 2014, 11:06 am

    Military small arms just like major weapons systems comes not from performance but from which contractor who pays the most to the right congressmen and senators. Everett Dirkson proved that from M16 days. GD is well versed on greasing those skids. So the S&W team would be the likely choice and all the gun nuts will continue to clamor about what is better than that. Thus it is wasting time on what is best. As an example, the proposed federal budget for 2015 increases from $100,000 to $800,000 the amount of political election contributions for any one candidate.

    If performance alone was the issue, the .45 acp is the only round that reliably can stop an attacker immediately since it is the only round that can smash any bone like the spine and skull. And it is the only round that can reliably smash thru a windshield. And, since it is subsonic, it is the only round that a silencer will truly perform with. As far as the brand of the pistol is concerned, I think interoperability with pistol caliber rifles is important. The Glock 17 for example has 30 plus round mags that work with Keltec 2000. Unfortunately, there is no Keltec 2000 that accepts .45 acp. So I would pick for open carry either the Glock or the Sig. I have both these brands and also have owned several S&W and Rugers. Both the Glock and Sig are superb. The S&W’s were not balanced well enough for me to shoot accurately beyond 25 feet and the Ruger did not work at all until I returned the new gun to the factory for retooling.

    I would pick the soon to be released sig p320 .45 acp. It will come in full size, carry, and subcompact size. I have had four sigs and they were all perfect from day 1.

    If the 9mm was the round picked, then I would prefer the Glock 226 / 17 so the same magazines would work in that Keltec 2000. If a pistol caliber rifle compatible pistol is not important, I would go with the sig p320.

    • Blue_Centurion November 6, 2015, 12:08 pm

      We could argue ad nauseam about the .45 vs. 9mm vs. the world but that has already been done. Shot placement is more important than the slow speed .mil .45 ACP. The budget issues combined with ammo cost between the two and smaller stature military personnel, NATO compatibility, et.al. will fail to bring back the 45ACP for anyone other than SOC. Open tip or hollow point ammo in 9mm would probably be a best solution for everyone.

  • Shane Connor December 15, 2014, 11:04 am

    Just keep in mind that politics can trump all, same as Berretta got chosen over other superior entries during Reagan era so USA could get cruise missiles deployed in Italy.

  • Dave Hicks December 15, 2014, 10:23 am

    The pistol that fits the bill = 1911 government Model COLT .45.. I’ll keep my COLT.45 proven for over 100 years. Ask anyone who had to use a pistol for life or death, it has to be a .45

  • Kyle December 15, 2014, 10:16 am

    Im surprised you didnt think of the isreali springfield 2011 type handgun. Its basically a double stack 9mm 1911 and it looks like it runs on berretta 92 magazines. I though about picking one up when they were on gunbroker a couple years ago

  • JIMBO December 15, 2014, 10:13 am

    When is there supposed to be a decision? – or when are they going to start trials?

  • Bruce in RI. December 15, 2014, 10:05 am

    You will NOT see a .45 auto or a .40 to replace the M9. NATO is hard with the 9mm and the US has no choice but to use the 9mm. So do not be surprised if the government stays not only with the 9mm but with the M9 too. The US military does not have the funds to replace the M9 and the M9 is pretty well debugged now. All of this is typical US military what if’s and nothing more. Got to keep the R&D funded or loose the funding each year.

  • Denny December 15, 2014, 9:53 am

    I carried a 1911 Colt then and I would carry it now.My vote for the best battle gun is the Colt 1911.

  • Mike inMaine December 15, 2014, 6:30 am

    As much as many may not like it the winner is already here, provided the Army can get pas the caliber issue. The Beretta folk’s have the M9 in a .40 caliber already, in the 96 Series. It’s fully capable of being used with and without safety’s, in either the ‘D’ or the ‘F’ series and the .40 caliber issue is one of just plain ‘pissy’ hysteric’s. Add to that the fact that any Unit Armorer that’s done work on a 92 is fully capable of working on a 96 and the training issue is done. Same for the spare part’s and holster’s issue’s. They are already done. As far as the suppressor issue goes, that’s simple. Make, as a part of the Contract, a requirement for the 96 Series barrel’s to be threaded to accept a standard suppressor and gain this one’s a done deal. The real issue is one of ammo and the h/p vs. fmj issue that’s got all the Service JAG’s going nut’s. Get the ammo issue resolved and the 96 is there, and waiting, to be unleashed…………….

  • Joe McHugh December 15, 2014, 5:35 am

    Where is the Taurus 24/7 OSS DS? Taurus designed this .45 apc for the U.S. Army back in 2007 when our Defense Department was first making noises about replacing the Beretta M9. The 24/7 OSS DS has every feature that was on the U.S. Army’s wish list in 2007 except the easily provided barrel threads for a noise suppressor. Then the Defense Department pulled the rug out from under the whole deal by canceling the request for a new .45 apc side arm.
    By the way, the Taurus is configured in such a way, that it is more pleasant to shoot than my aluminum framed Smith& Wesson M39 9 mm pistol.

  • David D. December 15, 2014, 5:21 am

    Wouldn’t it be nice if American troops were equipped with guns from an American manufacturer made in America? I’m pulling for M&P

    • bill December 15, 2014, 11:22 am

      You are aware are you not, that Berretta manufactures it’s 92 series for our troops in the US? I don’t like the 92 either and firmly believe that just about any 1911 is a better gun. That doesn’t mean that I think we should go with a 1911 though. The M&P would be a good choice provided Smith move manufacturing to a non commie state. I also like the Sig and FN either one but the M&P is cheeper and shoots well.

    • A J Ricer December 15, 2014, 12:00 pm

      David D’s comment is right on! (“Wouldn’t it be nice if American troops were equipped with guns from an American manufacturer made in America?”) Whoever can qualify under this criteria, I would be pulling for…!

    • Blue_Centurion November 6, 2015, 11:56 am

      Even at the expense of reliability and function?

      • Doc2Go January 25, 2016, 1:46 pm

        What reliability and function? This is the same old canard used by “_______ fanboys” and other elitist snobs to impugn Ruger’s pistols. The Ruger American Pistol Pro in .45 ACP for SOC and the RAP9 for general issue might be ideal.

        If it were my decision (and clearly it isn’t), I would want an American design, from an American owned company, built by Americans. American pistols are so excellent, that selecting a foreign owned company (even if domestically manufactured) just doesn’t make sense.

        -Doc

        65,000 rounds through two P series pistols over thirty years, without a single failure of any kind…ever…in the history of all time.

        • Doc2Go January 25, 2016, 1:58 pm

          What reliability and function? This is the same old canard used by “_______ fanboys” and other elitist snobs to impugn Ruger’s pistols. The Ruger American Pistol Pro in .45 ACP for SOC and the RAP9 for general issue might be ideal.

          If it were my decision (and clearly it isn’t), I would want an American design, from an American owned company, built by Americans. American pistols are so excellent, that selecting a foreign owned company (even if domestically manufactured) just doesn’t make sense.

          -Doc

          65,000 rounds through two P series pistols over thirty years, without a single failure of any kind…ever…in the history of all time.

  • Matt Van Camp December 15, 2014, 5:00 am

    I’d sure like to see the military return to the .45 ACP caliber. That’s what we had when I first joined the military, and I believe that the proof is in the pudding. We switched to the 9mm by the time I got out, and my experience with the Beretta M9 was that its a great gun, it’ll spray a mob of rounds out, post-haste! That’s about it… I’ve no use for a gun with no stopping power; I felt that a .22 loaded with 30 or so founds would be as effective, simply aim it at their face and keep pulling the trigger, or make it fully-automatic!
    I know that the Marine’s Recon units, and the Navy SEALS have gone back to the 1911, or at least a .45acp caliber sidearm. I’m not certain regarding the other Special Forces, but I do know that the Navy has decided that the 9mm lacks so-called, “stopping power”!
    I’ve big hands, and a 45 caliber staggered-round magazine grip, feels good in my grasp. Adding capacity that way would be fine with me, but I understand the problems with that… & I suppose that I can understand that 7-8 rounds may not be enough for every situation., but I think the days of “spraying” bullets is probably here to stay…

    • Jim Miller December 15, 2014, 8:39 am

      When I came back from Vietnam I was assigned to duty as security NCO for Nike Missile Battery in New Jersey. Had to carry 1911 45acp. Went to NJ State Police Pistol Range to qualify with 45. We had 8″ by 11″ targets at 25 yards. I was all over the paper and probably missed hitting the sheet more times them I want to say after firing about 50 rounds. I proclaimed my pistol was piece of crap. The State Trooper Range Officer came over loaded my pistol and put all seven rounds in a 3″ to 4″ circle firing as fast as he could. I have small hands so I will take a seven round 45acp over any multi mag 9mm or 40 mainly because of stopping power.
      Say video of police Officer firing 9’s 40’s and 45’s at driver side front windshield the 45 was only bullet that penetrated the windshield with consistency.

      • Jim Miller December 15, 2014, 9:31 am

        When I came back from Vietnam I was assigned to duty as security NCO for Nike Missile Battery in New Jersey. Had to carry 1911 45acp. Went to NJ State Police Pistol Range to qualify with 45. We had 8″ by 11″ targets at 25 yards. I was all over the paper and probably missed hitting the sheet more times them I want to say after firing about 50 rounds. I proclaimed my pistol was piece of crap. The State Trooper Range Officer came over loaded my pistol and put all seven rounds in a 3″ to 4″ circle firing as fast as he could. I have small hands so I will take a seven round 45acp over any multi mag 9mm or 40 mainly because of stopping power.
        Saw a video of police Officers firing 9’s 40’s and 45’s at driver side front windshield the 45 was only bullet that penetrated the windshield with consistency. http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-buick-o-truth-1-windshields-insideout/

      • Jim Miller December 15, 2014, 9:43 am

        The web site I saw video on was called the Box of Truth: “The Buick O’ Truth #1 – Windshields Inside/Out”

        • Jason G. December 15, 2014, 10:50 am

          Couldn’t find the video, but the article says nothing about 9mm not penetrating glass. It does say the 9mm deflected more than the 40 or the 45, but they all deflected significantly and the differences were small.

          • Jim Miller December 15, 2014, 3:27 pm

            Your right the people doing the video thought the 45 was best round but were not trilled about any of them. The special ops people can handle anything but the desk clerks and supply personnel in a combat zone needs something simple and reliable. I concede I am not an expert on any firearm but I do know that the fact that politics will come into play as it did with the introduction of M-16 in Vietnam is very sad situation for our troops anywhere.

        • CMS December 15, 2014, 12:53 pm

          NATO already went in search of a round that would be superior to the 9mm. It had to be able to penetrate body armor and have greater range and terminal performance. The result was a round that was very light and compact and the pistol could, depending on magazine carry 21 or 31 rounds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_5.7%C3%9728mm It has also been demonstrated that it will penetrate bullet proof glass along with one other calibre, not 45acp. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_teY8vwwXvA

          • Tee Knight December 16, 2014, 12:21 am

            FN 57 will go through Kevlar at 40 yards. Hand gun has 30 rd Mag….

  • Todd December 15, 2014, 3:23 am

    Keep in mind the military/government loves to refurbish their firearms. Metal is easy to repaint plastic no. It is easier to damage plastic making it permanent. I have had my fair share of refurbishing Berettas, Sigs and Mossbergs. The military has facilities dedicated to this. I just don’t see a polymer getting in. We can take a any of the above 3 and make it look new again and ship them out to the units. That can’t be done with a polymer.

    • Jim December 15, 2014, 11:50 am

      As far as I am concerned, the polymer lower on any pistol is a throw away piece. Just replace it.

  • Frank December 14, 2014, 3:59 pm

    Where’s is Ruger ?? I’d put my P345 up against any of the above..!! My bets on the M&P.

    • Tee Knight December 16, 2014, 12:15 am

      I thought this was about the weapons that the Military was going to test?? Ruger, weren’t even good enough to test?? Lets your 345 out, sorry

  • Knucklehead December 11, 2014, 3:06 pm

    I own the HK VP9 and the FNX. HK is a great (probably the best) 9mm. FNX in .45 is a battle beast and at 15rounds is the same carry weight of a 1911. For military carry.. FN hands down.

    • CamdenC December 15, 2014, 1:28 pm

      Agree! and the FNX is ambidextrous… “I’d give my right arm to be ambidextrous”.

  • USMC0369 December 11, 2014, 9:10 am

    I personally would love to see the SIG adopted, I think it’s a fine service pistol, I don’t think the Glock is going to have any consideration due to lack of a manual safety in addition to the trigger one, is beretta grilling anything? I always wondered if the px storm series was any good

    • bill December 15, 2014, 11:13 am

      Glock has produced models with safeties before.

  • James December 11, 2014, 8:11 am

    I like FNS model is offered with a
    safety and 15 rounds of 45. They already work, have high capacity mags, and the company can build as many as want.

  • Cody December 11, 2014, 6:18 am

    I would like to see the FN FiveseveN compete.

  • Joe December 11, 2014, 4:03 am

    What about the XDm.

    • Chris December 13, 2014, 5:26 pm

      I agree Joe. I have several Springfield models in both 9mm and .45. Very solid gun out of box using many types of ammo. I believe this to be a good contender as it is very versatile, easy to break down, has an external safety and a decent price point

    • Tee Knight December 16, 2014, 12:27 am

      Wasn’t good enough to test…..

  • Gator December 11, 2014, 2:25 am

    P226 tacops. That’s what I use. 20 round mags.

  • James Butterfield December 11, 2014, 1:59 am

    I had the pleasure of being issued the h&k mk-23 mod-o… I would like the fn-fnx in. 45. That would be my first choice, followed by the sig-226. Both very fine weapons. The best on the list.

  • James Butterfield December 11, 2014, 1:58 am

    I had the pleasure of being issued the h&k mk-23 mod-o… I would like the fn-fnx in. 45. That would be my first choice, followed by the sig-226. Both very fine weapons. The best on the list.

    • CamdenC December 15, 2014, 1:25 pm

      I agree… and if they are going .45, the FNX-45 would be an excellent choice. I would think they would go .40, as DHS I think has gone .40…

    • Ismellbs November 6, 2015, 11:47 am

      Why the FNX? The HK45 is already in the system for issue and is also made in the USA.

  • Jim December 10, 2014, 8:16 pm

    Most of the negative comments about the 9mm I see are due to the 115 gr fmj. I understand about the Hague requirements about non-expanding ammo, but how about a FLAT nosed, 124 gr. +/- FMJ similar to what is produced by Berry Bullets. BTW I have no connection w/Berry. All of our heavy handgun hardcast bullets have a flat nose for more shock out of a non-expanding bullet, why not a fmj with basically a semi-wadcutter configuration with a little larger diameter flat point?

    • Scottie January 11, 2015, 12:39 pm

      Because flatnose bullet have a tendency to have feed problems

  • Stewart December 10, 2014, 6:26 pm

    Won’t be the P226, as the Army is going to go .45. I would love to see the P220 however. Love Sigs and they are built like tanks. My money though is on the M&P.

    • Bryan December 15, 2014, 10:33 am

      If they were entering a Sig .45, it would be the P227 over the P220. The P220 is a great gun but the P227 fixed the long-standing capacity issue.

    • Tee Knight December 16, 2014, 12:25 am

      MP is nothing more then a glorified glock.. 1/2 plastic and worthless Money is on the Sig or the FN then the HK

    • Bill October 17, 2015, 2:21 am

      My $$ is on the FN. I’d rather they have the Sig too, the gov is cheap. You wanna be a soldier? Be prepared toput up with a lot of crap!

    • Ismellbs November 6, 2015, 11:45 am

      Big Army will do no such thing. Where on earth did you hear that? Ammo cost alone will drive the 45ACP out of the equation with the exception of SOC. I know S&W would love to get their hands on the contract, they’ll plea to congress about they’re made in the USA….etc. The fact is they have probably shown more issues with the M&P line than Beretta ever did.

  • justin December 10, 2014, 6:01 pm

    I am curious as to why the author thinks the 1911 would not be in the ring or a contender? Considering the Marine Corp just went throught this process and named their new successor and new sidearm the colt 1911.

    • hodor December 11, 2014, 2:22 am

      Because 1911s are for the gays

      • bill December 15, 2014, 11:06 am

        You Sir, are a back swallower and well versed in the fine arts of Block massageny.

      • 1911 guru December 17, 2014, 7:31 am

        I take offense to your narrow minded BS statement.

      • RJB September 4, 2017, 9:48 am

        1911’s are for men, they were made for war and are still used by many of our Special Forces, there’s a reason for that sparky. They are one of the finest shooting pistols ever made. Just making that comment that 1911’s are for gays shows what a mindless idiot you are. What are you shooting, a 129.00 hi point or do you even own a gun at all.

    • gator December 11, 2014, 2:27 am

      Low cap in battle will get you killed!

  • Sean December 10, 2014, 5:09 pm

    Since the US military is stuck using ball ammo due to international laws, why not consider the much more powerful 10mm? Not the watered down FBI load, full-power.

    • Deuce December 10, 2014, 6:22 pm

      For the same reasons the FBI no longer uses a full powered 10mm Auto.

    • Marc December 10, 2014, 6:38 pm

      They won’t use the 10mm because it’s hard for some people to handle and it wears on the gun faster than other calibers, got to remember this is carried by males and females

  • deron castle December 10, 2014, 5:08 pm

    the Geneva Convention prohibits the use of anything except ball ammo.that’s why the 9 millimeter will always be in an inferior weapon for military use.

    • Mike December 10, 2014, 6:22 pm

      It’s The Hague, not Geneva.

      • Sean Barrentine December 10, 2014, 9:31 pm

        Strictly speaking, our current enemies aren’t signatories of the Hague Convention, and in accordance with the same, are not protected under it. In other words, we’re not bound by the Hague Convention against non-signatory combatants. Mind, if we suddenly find ourselves in conflict with such, then we’d have to adjust, so having ball ammo is a wise maneuver regardless.

    • nathan December 15, 2014, 6:45 am

      when it comes to FMJ ball ammo if you actually do ballistic gel tests, or just look them up, all reasonable calibers do, within reason, approximately the same amount of cavitation and penetration. 40 and 357 are simply harder to shoot and harder on the gun than a 9 or 45, thats science and physics plain and simple.. So between a 9 and a 45 the 9 will win out in the military’s mind as you can carry 2-3 times the ammo per magazine, and everyone else uses 9 so its easier to find and re-arm with which makes it more economical. Stop the ballistic nonsense debate people, seriously.

      • Jerry H. December 15, 2014, 12:46 pm

        Au contraire mon ami. The #6 weapon on the list, the FNX 45 Tactical comes with 15 round double stack mags with one in the pipe for total of 16 rounds. Pretty close to what most 9mm carry. Also has ambidexterous safety, mag release, and slide catch. The Army should use whatever best fits their needs a not worry about what everyone else is using. If that was such a big consideration, we should be issuing Ak 47s.

    • bill December 15, 2014, 10:59 am

      The US did not sign that particular article of the HAGUE convention. Regardless of who our enemies are at this moment. The US armed forces would not have to use ball ammo.

      • Scottie January 11, 2015, 12:36 pm

        The US is bound by the Ball ammunition rule. Why do you think we use it. Who in their right mind would effectively hunt people with ball ammunition. As far as the 9mm it was designed to be used as a back up weapon by countries that basically have little use for a back up weapon. remember these same people carried 380 and 32. We were the only ones who considered a pistol of use in combat. Browning tried to get the military to adopt the 9 and the 38 super but after the bad problem that were had in the Philippines the military wanted a semi auto with the punch of a 45 LC. So Browning came up with the 45 acp. Now only on pistol has been in continuous use by a military for over 100 yrs.That is how old the 1911 is. WHat it has become in the civilian market has no bearing on what it is really capable of in combat. The design was to have decent accuracy with a hard hitting round even if dropped in the mud. The civilian market wanted pin point accuracy. Your beloved glocks besides stealing browning tilt barrel also went back to a little looser improves reliability. So you want modular then take one of these modernized 1911s (the ones with rails) go back to original 1911 fit specs. And you will have it. Don’t believe me. convince some one reputable to make one and run it against any other platform and see who wins. Oh before you say it in the test where the baretta won they used old military stock 1911s

        • Dcsouthgw October 28, 2015, 2:00 pm

          The new modular handgun request allows for expanding bullets so with that 9mm is back on the table. 9mm jhp’s are the perfect size/weight for killing people. If it has to be ball ammo, I’d say 40 sw because the only good ammo is the ammo you have on you when you need to fire. 2 or 3 more rounds per mag is invaluable. Always go with the minimum caliber needed that will Max the number of rounds you can take.

  • Wags December 10, 2014, 4:41 pm

    I’d like to see CZ P-07/09 as an entrant. Great pistols, best quality/cost ratio of any brand out right now.

    • Elijah December 10, 2014, 6:41 pm

      I had a double charged case blow out with my p07 duty. My arm was scorched and the gun basically exploded in a dozen directions. I was able to put the damn thing back together and keep shooting. In my book..that is a quality gun.

      • Tee Knight December 16, 2014, 12:06 am

        BullS&%t When GUNS BLOW APART, THEY BRAKE! You put it back together and it still fired??
        YEAH RIGHT!!! I’d like to see that weapon, I’ve been a GUNSMITH for over 20 years and have never, but never
        seen a weapon that still fires when that happen…… Gotta call BS on this one pal…

    • GunNut37086 December 16, 2014, 9:24 am

      I agree that either would make an excellent choice, especially the P-09 for it’s capacity.

      Any of the above would make a fine choice as well, but the FN would be my pick for its ambi controls and CZ-like ergonomics.

  • Bill December 10, 2014, 4:38 pm

    I vote for the Sig Sauer P227.

    • Dave Higginbotham December 11, 2014, 9:58 am

      Rock on!

    • john December 15, 2014, 1:33 pm

      I agree totally, but I don’t believe the Army is going back to a 45 ACP. The P227 is an awesome pistol!

    • Tee Knight December 16, 2014, 12:08 am

      226 is the one being tested here, Sorry

  • bowen December 10, 2014, 4:11 pm

    I’ve gotta say that sig would be the best bet. Again, being cost effective with polymer and the fact that they are modular… Why not? We all know sig makes a superb, high quality and well respected firearm. Hey, “to hell and back” that’s why.

  • law-abiding-citizen December 10, 2014, 3:58 pm

    “Will the Army trust its own soldiers?”
    BWA HAHAHAHA! Hell NO, they wont!!! Of course it’ll have to have an external safety.

    • Jim December 15, 2014, 11:42 am

      And no more than a 10 round magazine. hahahhehe

    • doublenine December 15, 2014, 12:32 pm

      Any of these pistols in 9MM LARGO, or .38 SUPER or 7.62×25 MAUSER equals easy shooting and large capacity, stopping power…vintage all the way….

    • Benjamin W Michel Sr December 16, 2014, 3:51 pm

      I like the FNX They are made in the USA. I have the FNX in a forty that is one good shooter!

    • Skyler October 30, 2015, 12:29 pm

      the army will most likely go with the sig p320 it has all the modularity the army wants and needs with all the calibers they want and some they dont

      • Charles March 18, 2016, 12:08 am

        I heard sig will soon have a p 320 with a hammer for the purpose of military trials. Rumors? Who knows. But I do love the sig 220, 226 and the new 320.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend