It's up to you to arm the Canadian Forces...which sidearm do you supply them with?

mr00jimbo

mr00jimbo

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Location
GVRD
Say the G of C decides to retire the old Hi Powers and give the Canadian troops brand new sidearms. And it's your decision to actually fill their holsters. What do you pick?

I assume they're going to want
  • Something reliable
  • Good parts availability
  • Something that can be made in Canada or by other companies if the demand cannot be met by the supplier
  • Something easy to train troops on and transition from
  • Something rugged because, after this, when's the next time the troops will get new guns

You may discard any of the items on the aforementioned list, but I think those are important. Also consider the weather conditions of the places they will be using these guns.

If it were up to me, I would equip them with the CZ75B, or namely, the SP-01 variant.
Why?
-Accurate, reliable, and durable
-Cocked and locked, easy transition from the BHP pistols
-Use of a rail, and night sights would be a bonus
-Easily had after sales service and parts availability
-Lots of CZ75 variants, I can see a Canadian company making them if need be, though not sure if the SP-01 design is under some new patent.
-Already used by NATO allies, which could be a bonus for parts availability overseas
-All-steel construction, long service life

The second-place contender I could see would be the Glock 17, which may beat the CZ for reliability in sandy or completely filthy conditions and require less maintenance to operate.
Ditto with the p226, ultra reliable and quite durable, but more maintenance demanding than the Glock and I don't see Sig being too keen on a Canadian company building P226 clones if need be.

What say you?
 
I'd be happy if they gave the Rangers ANY sidearm. Obvious choice is the Colt .45 1911 government.

... they also need a service rifle upgrade. Modern AK-47 platform.
 
I would go with the G19, cost is about $265 military price with 5 mags. Use the money saved to buy ammo and spend more time training to use them. I always say that I can shoot pistol despite my army training. The 226 is a great pistol but costs twice as much per gun. A major factor when you are buying 10,000 guns. I would also sell off the BHP's and 225's in batches of about 2,000 a year which would keep their price up and help pay for the replacement. You could likely recover 1/3rd of the cost that way.
 
notsorichguy said:
Something polymer....... Double stack, 15+ rnds.....

M&P 9 if I was choosing.....
Click to expand...

x2.

Glock in second place (if for no other reason the the S&W is closer to "home-grown", and yes I know most of the Glocks are made in the US, but Honda is still called an import car).

I would figure the military's priorities, in order

1) reliability
2) weight
3) serviceability
4) cost
5) accuracy

But as the military went with Sig I seem to have put more emphasis on weight and price than they did.
 
glock 17 and, cheap, reliable, easy to use, use to train, no safety. ready to rock and roll. Everything else cant match a combat glock 17
 
M&P 9 is not there with quality or durability, I had a slide release brake on it, and for those reasons I would need to see the factory upgrade the quality of the material before I would choose a M&P
 
DUDE, NATO ROUNDS. IT HAS TO BE 9 MM. Our militaries are not allowed to carry other rounds then 9 mm for logistical reasons. Only JTF2 can carry what they want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom