As a follow-on, I'd be curious to see how a poll of this subject pans out. I don't have the first clue about organizing such a poll, so I will have to defer to those who do.
I'm NOT talking about a poll asking "which is the best new handgun of the CF", or some such bumpf. That has already been done countless times. Nah - what I want to see is a poll that asks people to honestly answer whether or not they have ever carried (and used) an issued handgun (Hi-Power or otherwise) on military or Law Enforcement operations in the "real world". And THEN (and only then) I want to hear their views on a preference for the "best" handgun.
I am seriously dubious about the "signal to noise ratio" in threads such as these. Much of it strikes me as being purely opinion or range-based heresay. I can pick a bit of "wheat from the chaff" knowing certain user-names and their operational backgrounds, but those tend to be overwhelmed by numerous posts that I strongly suspect are "opinion-based" rather than "real world". When it comes to those who put lots of rounds down-range, IPSC still doesn't equate to service pistol use. Environment, abuse, situational use, etc. Not even close.
Sorry to the IPSC shooters. I sincerely respect you guys. You shoot a lot, and you are highly skilled in engaging targets within a certain, defined environment. Which is why I regard you much like Olympic athletes. You are very good at what you do.
But let's be honest here. You shoot weekend competitions. What you do has nothing to do with the employment of handguns in combat operations. Sorry, but it really doesn't. You don't shoot people on an unexpected basis. Do you really need an explanation as to how packing a pistol for 6 months never knowing when you will have to draw and engage real people compares to a weekend competition? A competition where you instinctively draw and engage upon a "beep", nobody dies, and you are rewarded for hits on a paper target? C'mon....
So the question remains. Just how many people posting opinions in this thread have actual operational military experience employing pistols? And is the BHP all that bad? I'm not saying that it is the ideal, but has it really reached the point of unacceptability? Say... in competition with buying new pistols in lieu of giving every rifleman an EOtech holosight for his C-8 carbine? Because that is where we are. Limited funds dicate that we buy Holo-sights for our rifles before we equip the very few requiring a service pistol with a new version. Who would you rather see so equiped?
For my money, I carried both on my last combat tour. And for my money, I put much more faith in my ability to drop opponents with my C8 Carbine than I ever did with my Hi-Power. The latter wasn't ideal, but it would have/could have done the job if my primary weapon failed. The thing is? The primary never failed me - and I'm not aware of any that did. Same-same, when somebody had to leave their primary service weapon behind in order to avoid "offending" the tea-circle? Nobody had a problem carrying the cocked and locked BHP in more "social circumstances".
Hey - we grunts would all love a state-of-the-art service pistol. BUT - given it's currently limited application in the real world, is the current Hi-Power any less usefull and relevant than it was in WW II? Is the incremental improvement offered by more modern pistols such as the Sig P-226 really worth the cost of an handgun inventory change at the expense of a delay in the basic soldier's primary weapons enhancement? I don't think so....
Once again, I'd love to see a poll of those lobbying for a new CF handgun, versus those who have actually served in harm's way DEPENDING on said handgun. At the end of the day, my personal experience has been that the handgun is operationally irrelevant. Oh, it is a very nice "reassurance". But how often does it actually get used? And is that extremely limited use more important than giving every infantry soldier a close-quarter holographic battle-sight on their CQB carbine?
I don't think so.....
