The quest for a perfect service pistol.

[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.

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.