Do the Canadian Forces need a new pistol

X

x westie

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Location
East Central Alberta
Do the Canadian Forces, especially the Army need a newer pistol??, with the Canadian Army committed to Afganistan,and road blocks,vehicle search's and sucide bomber 's been the "norm," is it time for the troops to be issued with a more modern weapon than the Inglis 9mm, i know that the Sig-Sauer P225 is in the CF inventory ,approx 1050 P225 pistols were acquired in 1991, the bulk of these have been issued to Military Police, aircrew and the Navy for boarding parties. With several good pistols available, such as the Ruger P series,Smith & Wesson Military and Police or the Glock,or more Sig Sauer pistols could be bought, is it time to upgrade our Handgun inventory,possibly with a more potent calibre, such as .40 S&W, looking forward to your input.
 
I see a dead horse coming out to get flogged...

Anyhow, my thoughts on this are basically thus. The Brownings in service should be put in storage, the 5000+ currently in war-stock should be hauled out and put in service. The folks that have newer toys should enjoy them, and when we have extra money to introduce a new pistol to our inventory, let's try it. In the meantime, let's use what we have, and live with it. They're not bad pistols, the problems usually lie with the magazines.

NavyShooter
 
.40S&W would be no good, not a NATO calibre. As of right now, according to a few books, the JTF has pretty much all of the 9mm Sig line available to them, and yes I have to agree 100% in regrads to the Ingles Hi-Power. It is infact time to upgrade the side arm for our soldiers. The MP's are now issued the Sig 228, they have had them for a few years now. It was pretty sad when I read the aritlce in SOF a couple of years back titled, "Canadian Snipers Take Out The Taliban". It showed a picture of the unit's equpiment, all the nice opitcs and range finders, the wonderful C3A1 topped with the lengendary Unertl 10X, the Mac Bros. TAC-50 sniper rifle, and the Ingles Hi-Power. The poor old Hi-Power just did not fit in. Now if it was a new one with a once over by Novak, that would be a differant story, but since the Sig seems to be the way that DND is going for replacement sidearms, a 226 9mm with the rail would be the way to go in my opinion.
 
Frankly I've never had a problem with the HP on the range, but as a service pistol, I don't know. I'm not a fan of carrying it with an empty chamber, and the dinky little safety isn't confidence inspiring if you are wearing gloves.

I just figure if one of our guys in the sandbox needs it, he needs it in a hurry.
 
on this dead horse there is also the bullet problem. the army still has vast amounts of 9mm made for the SMG/bullet hose. the inglis can handle firing it no problem, but the sig issued to the MPs has issues with the round. i'm not an ammo guy so i don't know the particulars, but until all the old 9mm ammo is gone the HP is going to be around.
 
Around 2, maybe 3, years ago I had a short email conversation with the desk officer responsible for the aquisition of a new sidearm for the CF. He told me that the current pistols being considered were smaller in calibre than 9mm, for the following reasons. (I don't recall the calibres he mentioned, but I'll try dig up the old emails). He claimed that the tests showed that body armour was still defeated, the number of rounds in the mag were higher (than the current BHP), and the grip was narrower to accomodate smaller hands.

No doubt there are ample opinions on whether this is the right route to take. Heck, it was a couple years ago so the focus may have even changed by now. This is the latest news I've heard.
 
Mp's are issued the P225 not the P228. 225 is single stack, 228 double stack. P226's and the 239's are issue to "those other guys" we can't talk about. I know we tried to get Sig's for the Gunfighter program, but due to money issues it was a no go. The BHP's are just no conducive to todays battlefields. Safety is too small, single action may be potentially unsafe in untrained hands. This would prevent the gun being carried in "cocked and locked" condition. As it is now, racking your slide is a level of escalation. Too late when you have to draw and chamber a round IMHO. I have myself moved to the Sig platform. The double action first shot is managable, but better to do this than have to chamber then fire.
+1 on the war stock of 9mm SMG ammo. I have yet to try it in my Sig, although it will feed most ammo.
YMMV,
Hoddie.
 
Last edited:
I have tried the IVI ball ammunition in my Sig Saur P226. The IVI has a power factor of approx 155-160 pf. This is very stout ammuniton and in my Sig P226 it caused a lot of heavy muzzle flip and felt recoil. I think that consistant use of this ammuniton would beat he hell out of the aluminimum frame.
 
It is embarrassing and idiotic to put people in harms way and not offer them top of the line equipment . There is nothing more final than what could happen in a military zone , they should have equipment of there choice , not what would just barely get by .
 
I used one of the P225's in a match last spring with service ball.

I didn't notice any more flip than I would expect from shooting an aluminum framed pistol.

The match was a timed affair, with no limit on ammunition so we on the team did feel slowed down by the 8 round mags. It didn't help that we were trying to "bomb up" mags on the course (we brought the minimum # specified in the match instructions.......we know better for next time)
 
I just tried some 9mm IVI in my Xd40 with the 9mm conversion barrel and 22lb spring... worked just fine, seems like hot ammo to me, I usually use a 15lb spring with factory winchester.

I really love the Hi-power and would carry one if I was on duty again but I wouldn't object to a newer design either but no glocks please ;) Sig or XD maybe.
 
listen I just retired from the military this month , and I have been on a few tours . The browning high power is a great sidearm , and is combat proven . And as far as the 9 mm goes it is for close combat , thats about it . In all my years of service I have never seen a officer or s/nco pull a pistol , other than on the range . C7 , C8 ,C9 are what most people use as main battle weapons . Just remember this JOHN MOSSES BROWNING IS A GOD B] thanks Joe
 
USA dumping 9mm in favour of the .45ACP!

Steve David said:
.40S&W would be no good, not a NATO calibre.
Click to expand...

Yeah, seems the USA is so worried keeping the 9mm Nato round they are looking for a new sidearm... in .45ACP. Wonder why? Maybe they found under real combat situations in Iraq that the 9mm and the Beretta [read aluminum frame pistol, boys] just weren't up to the task... :p
 
As was brought up the last dozen or so times this topic came up, the project to procure a personal defence weapon is being looked at again later this year. It was put on hold last year due to funding priorities being elsewhere. Also, the direction they were heading before it was put on hold, was not ANYWHERE near the direction the previous posts have suggested. That being said, they will have to open up their blinders a bit.
Personally, I like the Browning, and with the huge amounts of ammo we get to train with annually for our pistols (that's sarcasm), I don't think getting troops used to 2 different trigger pulls is conducive to good marksmanship. Also, if you have little girly-hands (not slagging females in the CF- I'm in this boat too), you may not be able to properly maintain the grip on the pistol and reach the trigger with the correct portion of your finger.
Lastly, if you think Canada would change to a caliber that no other military is using (ignoring the NATO standard argument all together) you're leiving in a dream world.
 
Pistols don't win wars - but they can ensure you get back from yours! Many pistols are reliable - despite my preference of the 1911 platform. This cannot be said for the fight stopping ability of many pistol cartridges loaded with nonexpanding bullets. Hi velocity rounds in a handgun make training an uninterested individual much more difficult, therefore my vote would be for the .45. If the US goes back to the .45 ACP we should sensibly follow - after all, US adopted small arms have a way of becoming NATO standard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom