Do the Canadian Forces need a new pistol

RobSmith said:
Why not dig up the drawings from the Inglis pistol from the National Archives, ship them to Diameco/Colt Canada and ask them to have their engineers take a look at it and come up with a "modern" version of it ? I don't see the point of going half-assed by buying foreign equipment when we can come up with something home-grown that suits our needs ....
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
If something works 100% of the time I don't see how something newer can be better, just because its newer. In good examples the P-35 and the 1911 come as close to 100% reliability as is statistically possible. The argument over the fight stopping superiority of the 9mm vs .45 was settled decades ago in favor of the .45. A bigger caliber always had the advantage, and anything that can be done to enhance the small caliber can be implemented in the large.

The forces need to have reliable pistols. The logistical issues of adding yet another cartridge to our inventory may sway the choice to the 9mm, but I think personal arms should be allowed if the individual can qualify with them. It was the case in WW-1, at least unofficially.

There is no advantage to adopting a plastic gun over a 1911 or a P-35. There is no advantage of DA over SA in a pistol. We should stick with what works, but renew our inventory.
 
I think they should all go back to the Colt .45 ACP, So we could get cheaper milsurp ammo; and they would get an effective sidearm.
 
A caliber change to something other than the NATO standard is so unlikely to occur that it's hardly worth discussing (see en.wikipedia.ca/pipedream for further details.)

So, basically, look at the 9mm NATO round, and consider a more effective/reliable pistol.

That said, with the various procurement priorites that the CF faces, I'm sure that while a replacement pistol is in there somewhere, there are things that the guys would rather see the money spent on.

NS
 
nickorette said:
Sorry glock fans, the Canadian military isn't going to adopt the glock. No military ever has. I think if the glock was the best, most relibale and accurate hadgun to use, somewhere, some army or special force would be using them.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the Dutch are using Glock 17 right now in Afghanistan (well, when I was there in 06-07), and I'm not talsking SOF, regular troops.

However, I am not a fan of it
All we need is to get the 5000 out of the war reserve, put the MK3 safety and decent sights on it. Also, take the stupid mag safety off !. FOr the guys complaining about the mags, I bought 3x 10 rds that I used, so that fixed the problem for me. A lot of guys were complaining that we should't have to pay for mags, but when your live might depend on it (it didn't), it is worth it
 
I've been told that if you complain about the mags/pistol before you leave they'd be glad to go and get you a brand new HP with brand new mags - from one of the guys who'd be glad to get it for you. As far as the CF goes, I'm just a civvie and I'd much rather see the money spent on something more....destructive!

ETA: like Canadian close air support, and the aircraft to do it. (tack some AC-130's onto the existing C-130 order)
 
Last edited:
As a soldier myself, I want to be able to implicitly trust my equipment, even if I'm not very likely to use it. I mean, if I'm down to using my pistol, I've got bigger problems.

But when I was issued my pistol, I got one new mag and one old one. The old one I promptly swapped for an new one with some camp rat who would never even know what the wire looked like. However, once a week I'd download ALL my mags, C8 and pistol alike (one at a time, obviously, don't need to be caught with all my ammo in my hat and 10 empty mags in front of me now do I?) and stretch the springs. Last thing I would need is my mags not feeding when I need them, right?

The Browning is a good, solid design but it's outdated compared to many more modern pistols. Even CZ's, which are based on the Browning design, would be a step up. I for one would think that any proven DA/SA handgun with a de-cocking lever would be the best option. 1) It allows us to SAFELY have a round up the spout; 2) It gives us one more "use of force" option before lighting up the bad guy; and 3) we can light up the guy right off the bat if we don't have time to take the extra step of manually cocking the hammer.
 
The .45 is battle proven and reliable 100 year veteran. The round itself was to replace a .38 cal that proved to be a poor stopper on Moro Tribesmen (who were doped up) charging US forces in the Philipines. The .38 revolver proved too light and unable to put them down and out fast enough to prevent them killing with a sword or spear. (always carry a knife in a gunfight they do tend to be usefull in close quarters) The US re-issued single action Colt .45's to remedy that problem. History tends to repeat itself, and many troops in Iraq went back to .45's for house clearing cause the 9's don't do a good job.

Simply put, the 9mm will kill you, but not fast enough to stop you doing harm. It is also over penetrative, and can cause casualties behind the target which is not good in hostage rescue situations. The only reason 9mm was considered usefull, was the fact that lots of captured German 9mm ammo was available during and after WW2.... hence the Sten and Browning P35 issue If you need more than six pistol shots to resolve a close in situation I would call in an artillery or air strike on your position cause you are probably f**ked anyway.
 
I would rather have something like the Glock than the BHP. I want something the can safely be carried with a round in the spout.

I dont trust 1911s or brownings for that. The safety can be rubbed off through the many bumps and jiggles that occur throughout the day.

If the budget were bigger I would love a sig.

But a glock would do just fine.

9mm, .45, whatever. I dont care. I'll take what I can get. I would think the forces would be sticking with 9mm though because the last thing they need is a new caliber to be short of.
 
BabySeal said:
I would rather have something like the Glock than the BHP. I want something the can safely be carried with a round in the spout.

I dont trust 1911s or brownings for that. The safety can be rubbed off through the many bumps and jiggles that occur throughout the day.

If the budget were bigger I would love a sig.

But a glock would do just fine.

9mm, .45, whatever. I dont care. I'll take what I can get. I would think the forces would be sticking with 9mm though because the last thing they need is a new caliber to be short of.
Click to expand...

So you don't want a pistol with a round in the tube with a (manual) safety on it, but you are OK to carry a pistol (round up the spout) with no (real) safety on it?? Do you, or have you ever carried a pistol other than on the range??? What pistol has the highest rate of ND's (granted, usually LEO)?? I'm pretty sure that it's Glock...

Check your headspace...



blake
 
it isn't going to happen- it'll get as far as review board, who will examine the issue, examine a gun taken from stores if need be,deem it "ADEQUATE FOR PRESENT PURPOSEs", and then the issue will die- the only reason we got the m16 series was that all of our allies had them (some long before ) and we couldn't share ammo- not a good thing for an alliance- however, the dummies replaced 2 guns( the fn and the smg) with 1 - i still feel underequipped with anything less than a 308 ands a 45- and a smg for cqb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom