The quest for a perfect service pistol.

[Curare]

I recall the days I stared at those pages of American Hanguner years ago. I wasn't captivated by an inexpensive pistol worked over by a smith. I was consumed by the form of a great destructive invention, made nearly perfect by another man, channeling almost a century of lessons into an anthem in steel. The modifications were startling in their scarcity and clarifying in their execution. That pistol was nearly perfect for the few, yet seemingly flawed for the masses.

Years later, I saw pictures of a new pistol associated with the same man. I felt different, however. You can see the greatness coming through, yet it is smudged by the many short fat hands of committees. Requirements that accomodated everything but the fundamental role of a pistol. There are parts where there need not be parts. There are lines which serve no purpose. A modular fire control group creates bulk that elevates the vector of recoil forces above the hand. It may be one of the best iterations of the modern service pistol, but it could have been so much more. Lacking is a singular vision.

Imagine if one man was given an unlimited budget and one sole purpose: take a blank sheet of paper and design a service pistol and caliber that will be relevant for the next one hundred years. Thats what I would like to see. I would like to see the same technology and resources that we apply to aircraft and precision munitions turned toward small arms design.

[Failure2Stop]

I agree with your concept. . . but. . .

Imagine a world where every person in need of a pistol/rifle/carbine/SMG was given the training equivalent of what pilots receive to employ their weapons. Imagine that individuals were trained to apply the fundamentals to mastery and advance those fundamentals until platform was essentially irrelevant.

One that is the training standard, the weapon is irrelevant.

Software>hardware.

[Curare]

All the training in the world won't put a .45 through body armour.

[ToddG]

Not to speak for F2S, but I don't think he was implying that hardware was unimportant.

The firearms industry, the handgun industry in particular, is controlled by the same ordinary economic forces that dictate any other business. If there was an economic incentive to spend a billion dollars to design and develop a $5,000 pistol that would really give us some kind of meaningful advantage, it would happen.

Of course, first you'd need to find a bunch of experts who could all agree on what needs to be improved over current offerings ...

[Curare]

Well the requirements are pretty straight forward.

We will need the ability to defeat body armour. Our future enemies may be protected with more than a few mm of cloth. The round would need to perform well against soldiers with and without body armour as well. The pistol will need to have as few controls as possible. No fitted parts, yet capable of good accuracy based on the inherent design--think P7 series. As few parts as possible. One grip that will fit 90% of soldiers hands well. One fire control mode with a paucity of "toaster parts". Low bore axis. Excellent performance in adverse conditions. A finish nearly impervious to the elements. 15-20 round capacity. Think of a 5.7 type pistol with better ammo performance, P7M8 ergos, redesigned by Glock.

[Jay Cunningham]

A pistol is not important in the military scheme of things.

It might be the most important thing in the world to a doorkicker who just raised his carbine to engage a booger-eater 5 yards away and got a click instead of a bang - but that's the difference between micro and macro.

And training does allow the end-user to unconsciously transition into a failure drill when the first two do not penetrate the armor.

[Curare]

Should we not advance pistol design and ammunition capability while the defensive capabilities of our enemy are improving? A pistol is important when you need it, just like every other piece of military hardware.

http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/GIFSANDJPGS/WEBGIFS/KASAL11.JPG

[ToddG]

We will need the ability to defeat body armour.

Penetrating armor while still providing adequate terminal effect on soft tissue at a power level the can be handled by 90% of all military personnel in a one-handed weapon ... that's asking quite a bit.


The pistol will need to have as few controls as possible. No fitted parts, yet capable of good accuracy based on the inherent design--think P7 series. As few parts as possible. One grip that will fit 90% of soldiers hands well. One fire control mode with a paucity of "toaster parts". Low bore axis.

These are exactly the kinds of "requirements" which are the bane of designers. Why as few parts as possible? A rock only has one part; I doubt many of us consider it a replacement for a handgun. A few extra parts could mean better accuracy, better reliability, better durability, better ergonomics. Low bore axis? How about focusing on the ability to control the gun under rapid fire, regardless of how that is achieved instead ... That's the difference between specifying what you want to do as opposed to what you think works best.


Think of a 5.7 type pistol with better ammo performance, P7M8 ergos, redesigned by Glock.

So your idea of the ideal pistol is a combination of a terminal imposibility, the ergonomics of a low-capacity extremely complicated and expensive gun, and the design expertise of a company that hasn't significantly changed its pistol in about 25 years. ;)

[LOKNLOD]

That's the difference between specifying what you want to do as opposed to what you think works best.


Excellent point Todd, that can be all the difference between a good design and bad rehash. Nothing is worse than trying to solve a problem when it's been defined by the "suggested" solution. One might say that train of thought is one of the reasons weapons design hasn't advanced as much as it "could".

[warpigM-4]

training does allow the end-user to unconsciously transition into a failure drill when the first two do not penetrate the armor.
so true two in the chest ,one in the head if they don't drop fast enough, it was drilled on us in training

[Alaskapopo]

All the training in the world won't put a .45 through body armour.
Yea but it will help you put one between the eyes when they are wearing body armor.
Pat

[SGTMAJ]

2 to the body 1 to the head is the Marine Corps answer to the hearts and minds campaign

[Curare]

Hackathorn does not support failure drills as heartily as some in this thread do. Training is critical, as is keeping an open mind about enhancing pistol capability for current and future threats.

[Alaskapopo]

Hackathorn does not support failure drills as heartily as some in this thread do. Training is critical, as is keeping an open mind about enhancing pistol capability for current and future threats.

Does it matter if Hackathorn supports failure drills or not. Frankly I don't care. I agree that keeping an open mind is a good thing. But its also not good to jump on every bandwagon that comes out.
Pat

[ToddG]

Gents, we're not going to get into a debate about what Ken Hackathorn does or does not teach/believe unless someone who is qualified to explain Ken's teaching comes in and explains it in adequate detail. If folks would like to discuss this matter in more detail, please start a new thread in the Training and Tactics section. Enough M4C members have trained with Ken recently that it should be simple to find out what he's teaching presently.

[Mac679]

All the training in the world won't put a .45 through body armour.

And 99% of the booger eaters aren't wearing body armor... in the military arena, the pistol is a secondary weapon...if the opportunity presents itself, pick up a damn AK or a fallen comrade's weapon

[ThirdWatcher]

I think it would take another John Moses Browning to design a weapon that would be relevant a hundred years from now.

[Armati]

...a service pistol and caliber that will be relevant for the next one hundred years. Thats what I would like to see.

I think Browning did the last 100 year and my have 100 more in him. Glock and Glock spinoffs will most likely take the next 100 years.



I would like to see the same technology and resources that we apply to aircraft and precision munitions turned toward small arms design

Stoner did this almost 50 years ago and his designs are still state of the art. Places like DARPA and Natick are working on 'the next big thing' but there will not be a significant leap in firearms technology unless there is a significant leap in the physical sciences underpinning the technology.

At any rate, the pistol is just another tool in the tool box. For military purposes is only a secondary weapon. The pistol lacks the range, penetration and terminal effect to be anything other than a secondary weapon. Pistoleros may wish it to be something else, but it is not.

At around Mach 4 air starts to get pretty solid. The weapons after next will most likely be a sort of railgun moving tungsten bullets to around 4000fps. Current firearms technology is nearly at it's limits if we are to continue to try to use hot expanding gasses to send bullets down range. Bottom line, at this point it is not possible to make the 'next big thing' in firearms. The best you can do is fiddle at the margins with the things that have already been developed.

[Alaskapopo]

I want a handgun that has the stopping power of a 12 gauge slug, is as easy to shoot as a 22 lr target pistol, holds at least 50 rounds and is as concealable as a J frame smith.
Pat:rolleyes:

[Armati]

I want a handgun that has the stopping power of a 12 gauge slug, is as easy to shoot as a 22 lr target pistol, holds at least 50 rounds and is as concealable as a J frame smith.
Pat:rolleyes:


*snort*

Exactly.

The technology does not exist.

[Failure2Stop]

I did not intend to imply that hardware is not important. I absolutely want the most reliable equipment possible. I would definately prefer the weapon that was designed from the ground up to be the all singing all dancing uber-gun, as long as it actually worked.

My comment was not terribly conducive to your intent, and for that I apologise.

A 9mm round performs pretty much the same whether launched from a custom Hi-Power or second-hand High-Point.

What I see to be the greatest issues now are ergonomics and durability. As was said before, we are at the fringe of technology. Until mega-sonic explosive-laden bullets become feasable, we will still be using more of the same.

Still, correcting a training short-coming with a material solution ususally doesn't do much to solve the problem.

[Armati]

Actually, at 4000fps kinetic energy makes chemical energy irrelevant. :D

But yes, I think the best we could do at this point is make is to improve on durability, reliability and ergonomics.

And, for my two cents, I would just like to see more training ammo and range time. Nothing says 'stopping power' like a shot in the face!

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

Maybe a wondernine with armor piercing bullets?

[jmart]

Penetrating armor while still providing adequate terminal effect on soft tissue at a power level the can be handled by 90% of all military personnel in a one-handed weapon ... that's asking quite a bit.

And while you're at it, comply with various treaties, whether or nor we're signatories.

And dealing with the one major limitation -- the user. Aircraft designers all say they can design an aircrfat that turns tighter, pulls more G's, is more effective, but they have to limit their designs to account for the weak link -- the pilot.



That's the difference between specifying what you want to do as opposed to what you think works best.

Great point. But I agree, there's not enough momentu out there to force a fresh look at state of the art technologies. The cost is too high and the perceived benefit doesn't justify the investment. Planners will put more investment into anti-IED technology, armored vehicles, sensing/intell technology, you name it, before they put big bucks against small arms, especially sidearms.