View Full Version : Eight IS Enough
If those 8 are .45 ACP?
I say reduce all those 10 round minimum specs in various contracts to 8 rounds if they are 45 ACP rounds! It just leads to guns that are too big for too many IMO. 8 rounds leads to more guns that fit more people/missions better IMO. Guns like the HK45C. Or the S&W M&P45C. Or even the 1911 (7+1).
The HK45C/M&P45C is about the same size as the M11(SIG P228) or P229, which are considered compact guns by the military/feds. Better for some missions, like OSI/CID/NCIS, FAM, USSS, etc. Civy CCW now that I am retired. But they are big enough for duty use too.
The CBP issues a compact gun w 3.6 bbl for uniform/duty use (P2000). The USCG issues compact gun w 3.9 bbl (P229) for everybody. The HK45C/M&P45C could do those jobs too.
The military might be interested in the HK45 to replace the M9, but the M11 (SIG P228) is better replaced by the compact. Maybe both 9s are better replaced by the 45 compact. Put the longer threaded bbl and 10 round mags on the compact, they do the few big jobs (CT, HRT) better than the big guns do the more numerous small and medium jobs (MPs, investigators, armor/aircrews, etc). Or buy both, but more of the compacts.
Take step forward by just saying "no" to hicap hysteria!
If those 8 are .45 ACP?
I say reduce all those 10 round minimum specs in various contracts to 8 rounds if they are 45 ACP rounds! It just leads to guns that are too big for too many IMO. 8 rounds leads to more guns that fit more people/missions better IMO. Guns like the HK45C. Or the S&W M&P45C. Or even the 1911 (7+1).
The HK45C/M&P45C is about the same size as the M11(SIG P228) or P229, which are considered compact guns by the military/feds. Better for some missions, like OSI/CID/NCIS, FAM, USSS, etc. Civy CCW now that I am retired. But they are big enough for duty use too.
The CBP issues a compact gun w 3.6 bbl for uniform/duty use (P2000). The USCG issues compact gun w 3.9 bbl (P229) for everybody. The HK45C/M&P45C could do those jobs too.
The military might be interested in the HK45 to replace the M9, but the M11 (SIG P228) is better replaced by the compact. Maybe both 9s are better replaced by the 45 compact. Put the longer threaded bbl and 10 round mags on the compact, they do the few big jobs (CT, HRT) better than the big guns do the more numerous small and medium jobs (MPs, investigators, armor/aircrews, etc). Or buy both, but more of the compacts.
Take step forward by just saying "no" to hicap hysteria!
it's all about choice, dude - you choose yours, I choose mine.
don't harsh my mellow...
What's wrong with 10? My XD45c is roughly the same size as an HK45c...
Nothing "wrong" w 10. Or 15. Or 17.
Making the minimum 8 (or even 7) gives ya more good choices. Making it 10 eliminates too many good ones IMO.
I was a military cop/investigator for 20 yrs. Would rather have an HK45C, M&P45C w 8 shots than the bigger guns. The FNP45 is nice, but a compact would be nicer. The XD45C is nice, might be even nicer w a thinner 8 round mag...
Would rather have more choices w fewer rounds than fewer choices w more rounds...
Nothing "wrong" w 10. Or 15. Or 17.
Making the minimum 8 (or even 7) gives ya more good choices. Making it 10 eliminates too many good ones IMO.
I was a military cop/investigator for 20 yrs. Would rather have an HK45C, M&P45C w 8 shots than the bigger guns. The FNP45 is nice, but a compact would be nicer. The XD45C is nice, might be even nicer w a thinner 8 round mag...
Would rather have more choices w fewer rounds than fewer choices w more rounds...
you argue against yourself. restricting the number of rounds is fewer choices rather than more. simply by me choosing a higher capacity gun does nothing to limit your choice of firearms.
and who says a larger platform is a "bad" choice? I can think of more than several "fullsize" frames that make more sense than "compact" for more than several reasons. it depends on the circumstances.
again, it's a choice. why try to convince people yours is more correct if they are convinced otherwise?
you argue against yourself. restricting the number of rounds is fewer choices rather than more. simply by me choosing a higher capacity gun does nothing to limit your choice of firearms.
and who says a larger platform is a "bad" choice? I can think of more than several "fullsize" frames that make more sense than "compact" for more than several reasons. it depends on the circumstances.
again, it's a choice. why try to convince people yours is more correct if they are convinced otherwise?
He's talking about the military and such setting minimum capacity at 10 rds for the RFPs or whatever that they send out for pistols...makes a valid point, IMO; if the best gun for the job has a capacity of 8, the requirement for a 10 rd capacity prevents that gun from consideration.
Yep.
8 was a good enough minimum for the SOF-CP and JCP BTW:
3.3.5 Magazine Capacity. The Combat Pistol shall have a standard magazine capacity of no less than 8 rounds (T), greater than 8 rounds (O) of .45 ACP ammunition. The Combat Pistol shall also have a high-capacity magazine of no less than 10 rounds that will not create a snag hazard when inserted in the magazine well (T).
3.3.1. Magazine Capacity. The JCP shall have a standard magazine capacity of no less than eight [8] rounds (T), greater than eight [8] rounds (O) of .45 ACP ammunition. The JCP shall also have a high-capacity magazine of no less than ten [10] rounds (T), fifteen [15] rounds (O), of .45 ACP ammunition.
That's why we got the BB (big butt) extended base plate mags for the HK45C and P220; to cover all the bases.
More specs should have minimums as reasonable.
you argue against yourself.
Ditto.
again, it's a choice. why try to convince people yours is more correct if they are convinced otherwise?
Isn't that what you are doing now? ;)
Some want to limit our choices to 10 and up. I want to expand our choices to 8 and up. :)
Failure2Stop
04-22-08, 17:18
The only thing I dislike about shooting 1911s is how frequently I have to reload and fill mags. It is pretty noticable after shooting M9s, G17s, and P226s.
While 8 rounds may be adequate for an investigator or officer, their primary concern is not fighting with the pistol, but rather keeping the pistol attached to their bodies without discomforting themselves too much. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.
With the concept of a carryable pistol being the desired end-state, then I will agree that non-combat duties do not need more than 8 rounds.
HOWEVER- I do not think you will be able to find anyone who has had to fight for their lives that wishes that their weapon held less ammo.
RogerinTPA
04-22-08, 17:36
The only thing I dislike about shooting 1911s is how frequently I have to reload and fill mags. It is pretty noticable after shooting M9s, G17s, and P226s.
While 8 rounds may be adequate for an investigator or officer, their primary concern is not fighting with the pistol, but rather keeping the pistol attached to their bodies without discomforting themselves too much. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.
With the concept of a carryable pistol being the desired end-state, then I will agree that non-combat duties do not need more than 8 rounds.
HOWEVER- I do not think you will be able to find anyone who has had to fight for their lives that wishes that their weapon held less ammo.
AMEN Bro!
Powder Burns
04-22-08, 17:47
You know, that ugly plastic FN thing carries 20 rounds and is small enough for a CCW.
For the consideration of certain law enforcement & government agencies, they have to decide on a pistol platform/cartridge that all of their agents or officers could shoot/handle well. A small framed woman for example, may be hard-pressed to put 8 .45 auto+P in the black, let alone quickly and efficiently. This is why you see so much of the 9mm stuff holstered. You generally don't see the .41 magnum revolvers at all these days. Personally I'd take the 8 .45 autos any day. I really would. But since not everyone in these respective fields of profession necessarily fit the bill as total gun-nuts that love recoil and the smell of hoppes 9, they have to go with something easier to shoot and more of it. A lot of the LEO personnel I see at my local shooting range can't shoot for ____, and the department heads know they don't have a bunch of annie oakleys running around, so having a higher mag capacity is a good thing, as with the .45 auto you may be able to get 8/8 hits on paper with practice; but being able to get 8/20 on the same target with no practice is just as good...or so it would seem.
IrishDevil
04-22-08, 20:34
Personally, I'll take all the capacity I can get. The M&P 45 and HK45 are approximately the size of the 1911. Where's the problem with 10 rounds if it fits? If I was going into a situation where I know there is going to be trouble, I want the +2. Don't get me wrong, I like the HK45c, I don't feel it would be the ideal combat pistol though. I do think it makes an ideal CCW though. YMMV, but I can run the full size guns faster than the more compact models, when it comes to the 45.
He's talking about the military and such setting minimum capacity at 10 rds for the RFPs or whatever that they send out for pistols...makes a valid point, IMO; if the best gun for the job has a capacity of 8, the requirement for a 10 rd capacity prevents that gun from consideration.
yes, I see that. but I was responding primarily to the statement: "Better for some missions, like OSI/CID/NCIS, FAM, USSS, etc. Civy CCW now that I am retired."
otherwise, what reason would we have to discuss this in this forum?
I'm still not convinced.
yes, I see that. but I was responding primarily to the statement: "Better for some missions, like OSI/CID/NCIS, FAM, USSS, etc. Civy CCW now that I am retired."
otherwise, what reason would we have to discuss this in this forum?
I'm still not convinced.
Fair enough...that's why I brought up my carry gun which is roughly the same size as those mentioned yet holds the 10 rounds of .45ACP (even though I know XDs don't garner a whole lot of praise in these parts)
variablebinary
04-22-08, 21:54
A compact will never be a frontline sidearm.
We arent going to go back to a very low capacity sidearm from the 92FS. Never happen
10 rounds of .45 are a happy middle for the loss of firepower...
Eight rounds of .45 is too much of a concession that the big brains at the DOD were wrong for leaving the 1911.
M&P45 is surprisingly just fine for my hands and I carry a G32 (23 and 19 size.)
It's nice that it's 10 rounds if for nothing else than ease of counting :)
Like stated earlier, if 10 fits, why worry about anything else.
It seems that by setting the standard at 10, they gave S&W and H&K a goal they could accomplish easily enough and still make great pistols. If they let them get away with 8, why bother not just keeping the 1911?
Why 10?
As MikeO points out, the threshold for SOCOM was 8rd, with an objective of 10. I can tell you from personal experience that the allowance for an 8rd gun was made in part because a certain guy from a certain gun company was quite persistent in insisting that his company's only .45 to be eligible for testing. :cool:
Remember, at the early stages of the SOCOM pistol project there was only one gun out there that met most of the committee's desires. Everything else was a compromise of some kind. There was no XD45, FNP45, M&P45, etc.
The HK45 proved that you could get a higher capacity .45 without compromising reliability (which has always been the gremlin of double-stack .45's) and without compromising ergonomics. The SOCOM cum JCP cum FHS cum USAF Future Handgun cum whatever comes next forced the industry to build new guns to meet new requirements.
The M&P45, with small backstrap, has a trigger reach circumference almost the same as a single stack 1911 with standard grips. But it has 25% higher capacity.
I haven't measured the HK45 with the smallest grip configuration, but I'd guess it's very similar.
So the question isn't "why not 8?" The question is, "why settle for 8?"
A compact will never be a frontline sidearm.
We arent going to go back to a very low capacity sidearm from the 92FS. Never happen
10 rounds of .45 are a happy middle for the loss of firepower...
Eight rounds of .45 is too much of a concession that the big brains at the DOD were wrong for leaving the 1911.
yeah. if the discussion is NOT for CCW, why is this even brought into discussion?
unless someone's sportin' "wood" for their favorite platform (cough... 1911... cough...)
;)
variablebinary
04-23-08, 04:23
Why 10?
As MikeO points out, the threshold for SOCOM was 8rd, with an objective of 10. I can tell you from personal experience that the allowance for an 8rd gun was made in part because a certain guy from a certain gun company was quite persistent in insisting that his company's only .45 to be eligible for testing. :cool:
Yeah but did see SIG's solution for the 10 round requirement...Talk about half ass'ing it...
http://www.sigsauer.com/images/catalog/product/220JCPTB_left_10rd.jpg
Yeah but did see SIG's solution for the 10 round requirement...Talk about half ass'ing it...
How is that "half ass'ing it?" They made an extended mag, much like the extended mags available for 1911s. The difference is that, in my experience, the 10rd P220 magazine is pretty much bulletproof in terms of reliability. The standard mag met the threshold for standard mags, and the extended mag met the threshold for extended mags.
The design of the P220 simply wasn't amenable to becoming a double stack. A prototype exists (I've never seen it in person) and was a 9-rd gun. Everyone who ever handled it said the grip was ridiculously wide, and certainly not worth adding another round or even two to the capacity.
From the beginning, the plan for the P220 Combat was for it to be the best feeling and best shooting gun possible, so that when it didn't compare favorably on specs (weight, capacity, etc.) at least it would get very high marks from the SOF live-fire testers.
The ironic thing is that the general specs for the upgrades made to the Combat were written years earlier. Between input from Ernest Langdon (who was competing with a P220ST at the time) and the early information we were getting from USMC regarding replacement of their 1911's with a more modern .45, everything was set. But SIG never acted on it. If the P220 Combat had existed, tested & ready to ship, on the day that SOCOM began their search for a new pistol it would have been a serious contender to the HK45 as it existed at that time. More importantly, instead of working feverishly to delay the procurement, SIG could have joined with H&K to move things along. Then instead of half a dozen viable and semi-viable options (HK45, P220, M&P45, XD45, FNP45, etc.), it would have been just the two of them in head to head competition.
Gadzooks! Some of youse guys act like I was setting the _max_ at 8!? 8 is enough for the minimum, you can have as many as you want!
This popped up when I was shooting w some feds/troops/coasties. The ones issued compact P228s, P299s and P2000s (as std issue for both open and concealed carry BTW) liked both the HK45 and HK45C. They would have liked it (or another 45) as an option, and most preferred the compact, even w "just" 8 rounds, for both open and concealed carry (even though it does have 10 round mags too). What they disliked about the HK45, XD45, FNP45 was the length of the grip. Liked the M&P45, were looking fwd to the shorter 8 shot model there too. G21/30SF were short enough, still too thick. The XD45C was OK too.
When they replace the M9, they will also need to replace the M11. An 8 round minimum (same as CP/JCP) would be a better place to start than 10 in my/our opinion. If DHS (ICE/CBP/USCG) ever considers a 45 option, they already have an 8 round minimum for their 9/40/357 pistols.
Failure2Stop
04-23-08, 13:38
Gadzooks! Some of youse guys act like I was setting the _max_ at 8!?
Maybe you should have said, "Is 8 Enough?", or "8 may be sufficient for non-combat use", or "8 round minimum considerations for the M11 replacement"". Instead it comes off (unintentionally possibly) that you are preaching your perspective as the only relevant experience.
When they replace the M9, they will also need to replace the M11.
Why? The requirement list, as far as I know, is only to replace the M9 and/or M1911, depending on which iteration you are talking about.
Maybe you should have said, "Is 8 Enough?", or "8 may be sufficient for non-combat use", or "8 round minimum considerations for the M11 replacement"". Instead it comes off (unintentionally possibly) that you are preaching your perspective as the only relevant experience.
I said "reduce those 10 round _minimum_ specs".
Obviously readin' n writin' failures to communicate here. ;)
Why? The requirement list, as far as I know, is only to replace the M9 and/or M1911, depending on which iteration you are talking about.
To keep from issuing a full size .45 to some, a compact 9x19 to some others.
One gun can't do it all. We went full size M9/9 in 85, decided we needed a compact M11/9 in 92, and then a crew served MK23/45 in 94. Just trying to cut to the chase and save tax money through volume pricing to fund my hoped for concurrent receipt. ;).
The JCP/CP/FHS/AFFH is still bouncing around. Congress would like another joint project. The USMC liked the look of the AFFH as long as it was a .45. The AFH/AFFH asked for full and compact guns:
From the AFH/AFFH RFI:
Magazine Capacity Must have magazine of no less than 10 round capacity for full size version that will minimize snag hazard when inserted in the magazine well. Compact version must have magazine of no less than 8 round capacity
Failure2Stop
04-24-08, 00:25
Roger, hadn't seen the req for the AFH/AFFH.
I agree that there are at least two sizes needed in a mil issue pistol. "One size fits all" has never been true.
FWIW- the USMC tends to "me too" to Army procurement for many reasons, and there are few that have used the Mk23 in operational duties that don't like it. More info on the topic can be found at Tactical Forums from Frogman (a respected operator), if anyone is interested.
Once again there is a caveat- in any organization that allows ammunition not limited by the laws if war accord (non military), it is very difficult to argue the supremacy of the .45 ACP, what with the excellently performing HPs on the market. This may be outside the context of your discussion, but has not been addressed, though it may not be necessary either. I do not mean to muddy the water, but rather avoid the potential caliber vs construction vs capacity argument.
How is that "half ass'ing it?" They made an extended mag, much like the extended mags available for 1911s. The difference is that, in my experience, the 10rd P220 magazine is pretty much bulletproof in terms of reliability. The standard mag met the threshold for standard mags, and the extended mag met the threshold for extended mags.
Because Sig is evil and their pistols cause cancer dude. Didn't you get the memo? :cool:
sigmundsauer
04-24-08, 09:51
Yeah but did see SIG's solution for the 10 round requirement...Talk about half ass'ing it...
http://www.sigsauer.com/images/catalog/product/220JCPTB_left_10rd.jpg
I like the P220 Combat, but I agree.
The P220 Combat is eerily similar to Colt's SOCOM submission of yesteryear. Colt 'half-assed' modified an existing system [and it looked like an abortion] to compete against HK who developed a completely new pistol. In the end both ended up looking like pistols built by committee, and the P220 Combat bears resemblance to that Colt SOCOM, in my opinion. HK clearly showed its seriousness in building the HK45 to dominate the RFP specs and didn't have to abandon a currently proven platform to do it. If the P220 isn't capable of accomodating some of those upgrades, that's a great reason to charter new territory.
The functional concepts of the P220 are sound. If SIG were absolutely serious about producing a contract-winning gun they would build a gun that dominates the RFP requirements from the ground up. Yep, it's expensive. And that's what it takes to be state-of-the-art.
Tim
Why? The requirement list, as far as I know, is only to replace the M9 and/or M1911, depending on which iteration you are talking about.
I can confirm, the plan for quite a while has been to have both a full and compact gun. Of course, "the plan" has also changed so many times over the past three years it's anyone's guess what finally happens.
Because Sig is evil and their pistols cause cancer dude. Didn't you get the memo? :cool:
Who do you think wrote the memo? :p
HK clearly showed its seriousness in building the HK45 to dominate the RFP specs and didn't have to abandon a currently proven platform to do it.
That's not quite right. The proto-HK45 was actually developed before the SOCOM RFP, and heavily influenced the RFP. In fact, many have joked that the only thing missing from the original spec was "must have the words Heckler and Koch engraved on the slide." The earliest draft indicated a desire for Lasergrips; H&K lobbied to get that removed damn quick.
If SIG were absolutely serious about producing a contract-winning gun they would build a gun that dominates the RFP requirements from the ground up. Yep, it's expensive. And that's what it takes to be state-of-the-art.
Except SOCOM, JCP, FHS, and AFFH have all been run as COTS buys. They're specifically not supposed to be developmental projects or new unfielded products.
SIG is working on a .45 version of the P250. Early prototypes didn't perform well, but that information is 4+ months out of date at this point. The program's priority within the company ebbed and grew at various times which led to some of the delays.
It would take a very long time to explain the complicated (and sometimes illogical, imho) decision-making process that goes into these things at a typical gun company. But it's a mistake to assume that a company can just take a spec, make a check-list, and design a new gun from scratch. It's important to keep in mind that: The spec still has not been finalized, so devoting resources to design, rapid prototype, test, correct, re-test, tweak, build, test production, and be ready to go with an "in-spec" gun is a huge risk.
Every draft of the RFP that has come out has given very little time to deliver first samples. Again, this is because it's supposed to be a COTS product.
That's why you haven't seen much in the way of brand new designs. Everyone has tweaked an existing platform (even HK) to greater or lesser degrees. The HK might be the most tweaked, but it's also had the most development time by a matter of a couple years. If HK wins the contract -- and most people would still consider it the lead dog -- they owe Larry Vickers a debt of thanks they'll never pay. Larry was the one who essentially identified the need, spec'd out a solution, and worked with the manufacturer to address it.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, you've got the M&P45 which was probably the least tweaked gun. The 45 went from a memo written by Ernest Langdon that basically said "holy crap we need to make a .45 with the following specs" to guns on shelves in what, six months? Even Smith was surprised (amazed?) at how compatible the system was with the .45 cartridge. There are plenty of people who now say "It was always our plan to make a .45" but believe me, things happened one or two years faster because of Ernest.
And surprise surprise, most people familiar with what's going on would tell you that if they keep it a .45 the HK45/HK45C and M&P45-series are the top contenders and no one else is even really close.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.