I've been told that those soldiers who have access to pistols in Afghanistan and are issued C7s mostly opt to leave the pistol behind as it will never get used and it's an extra few pounds of kit for nothing. That reasoning may be why this has never been a big issue before.[/QUOTE said:
Anyone who leaves the wire must have a sidearm if it was issued to them. It is not an personal chioce/option to leave it behind. Its true that it hardly gets used, but when crawing around in tight spaces a pistol comes in handy.
I only had to draw my BHP on someone once. The floor plate popped off the bottom of the mag at that instant and all my rounds spilled out the bottom. Define the word embarrasing and that moment would have summed it up nicely.
IMHO YES, We do need a new pistol. The Browning lacks a good enough safety mech. A friend of a friend had one go off in his chest holster after hitting a bump in the back of the LAV. From that point on we were told not to put a round in the spout until necessary due to the reliability issues.
I will stay in my own lane here, I do not speak for anyone else but from what I see in my daily job we won't be getting any new calibers any time soon. As others have mentioned the logistics of switching are a nightmare. The 9mm is a balance between power and capacity, Thats why the Army chose it. It may lack the power of a .45 ACP but you can fit more rounds in a mag so it is a compromise. I like larger calibers personally but a good 9mm is hard to beat. Like we all know, shot placement is more important than the size of the bullet.
If I got issued a new pistol I would be happy so long as it had a few key features.
-Ruggedness/reliability
-a de-cocking lever,
-easy to maintain in the field
-a better holster/carry system
-tridium night sights
If it had all of the above I really could care less who made it and of what caliber it came in.