Canadian Forces to replace Browning HP and Sig 225 with new "General Service Pistol"

Hope they are smart and get Glocks...

US and Canada should go combined and get something heavier. .40 or .45

If they just want to get rid of aging HPs, Paraordnance would be happy to build them 1911s in 9mm.

http://unblinkingeye.com/Guns/TLGR/TLGR4/tlgr4.html
I have always found this report interesting and I would love to see the xrays and photos but I have not been able to find them.
Not for the faint of heart this is back when cadavers and live animals were test subjects.

I am not a believer in “stopping power” mainly due to personal experience both in combat and hunting, “shot placement” is key. I also look at firearms from a standpoint of trainability, function-ability and reliability. That is why I am such a supporter of GLOCK pistols, as a former weapons/marksmanship instructor for the Army I cringe at the thought of having to teach Berretta’s, SIG’s, HK’s or 1911’s to service members. Especially trying to train service members in proper maintenance, proper function and quality marksmanship, and then to teach them to do it under stress. Yeah I would rather put an as accurate, no thrills, idiot proof, and low maintenance pistol in their hands (like a glock) and spend that time teaching them how to use it vs spending a half day on just how to keep it clean and functioning.

The primary problem I see not only in the Military but also in a few LE organizations is that the primary decision is being left up to a less then qualified person, who is normally advised by “so called experts” that are even less qualified and the decision is strongly altered by budget.

Example: A friend of mine is the firearms and defensive tactics instructor for a small local PD, his chief told him that the department was going to change its policy from allowing LEO’s to carry their personal firearms, to a department issued firearm. He instructed my friend to compile a list of current firearms manufactures and to write a procurement memo to be sent out. They conducted tests on several firearms in several calibers. Although come firearms performed these test better than others, the decision was solely left up to my friend and the chief, the data was not even considered. My friend recommended the Kimber TLE II 1911 pistol in 45 ACP, the chief approved it and that was that. 3 years later they have occurred several costs in repairs due to inadequate training, their training ammunition allotment has been cut to 50 rds a year and they are now changing policy to allow personal firearms again. So when I ask my friend why? He bounces around the question and gives me bullshit reasons, but ultimately it comes down to that was the firearm “he” wanted to carry and he allowed it to effect his judgment. They now fight the training issue, the issue on ammo, the issue of female LEO’s not able to qualify and it has become a total disaster.

Now the issues I take with the 40 S&W or 45ACP/GAP types are two pronged, one is a budget issue (9mm is simply cheaper and allows for higher round count in training) and the second is the “power factor” bullshit that is always played into the argument (if you shoot someone in the abdomen with a 9mm, 40, or 45 they are not going to drop, you have to hit vital area…period). The penetration or over penetration is all dependent of the type of bullet (i.e. JHP’s) some stop in the body and some do not, some penetrate glass and some do not, organizations should select based on the environment they operate in. However, where bullet size matters in valid when talking high velocity large caliber rounds. A .50 caliber bullet to the abdomen will drop a person, were a .223 (M855) round will not. But that is not a small difference on bullet size and velocity, that is a drastic difference and I doubt we can fit .50 cal in semi auto that is have ass reliable. The other aspect is that if the person is hit in a vital area, regardless of 9mm, or 45 ACP the person will more than likely drop/die as a result. So why waste time on arguing the size matters argument and look at it from a cost effective and usability aspect? Can “all” males/females shoot a 1911 in 45 ACP under stress? Nope, but they sure as shit can with 9mm.

But this should be a non-issue, due to the fact that Canuckistan is already stating the procurement will be for 9mm NATO.

Now on the other issue “weapon type” I think that it should be purely based off of the ability to train personnel on how to use it (maintenance, function, reliability and marksmanship). If we took a group of basic trainees and gave them 1 day to learn the weapon inside and out, become proficient in its operation and maintenance and meet a basic marksmanship qualification, do any of you truly believe that SIG, HK, 1911’s ect will outperform the Glock group? Say ten joes for each weapon, 1 day training, minimal ammo and just run the numbers… I would bet a paycheck that Glock would come out on top…

FYI: I was bored sorry for the long post and semi rant, not directed at anyone or saying anything against your favorite gun.

Great find Bill! It would be even better if the posts were on Iraqui/Afgani enemy combatants; but, you can't always have what you want.

Agree with Glock as the weapon of choice. I love mine, will likely upgrade to .40 ; and no you can't have my 9mm.

RF 1

Good points Pardus, although there are deeper issues surrounding what I pointed out to what you are pointing out. I think that identifying trainability as a key component of the procurement factor, will show better training standards vs simply saying make it work or do it better.

I am actually a fan of the M9 Berretta, I also have hundreds of thousands of rounds through them, intensive training and spent several years knowing the pistol inside and out. Just b/c I am good with it, doesn’t mean it is or that it will be good for everyone. So finding a pistol that is easier to train to a higher standard, that can be met by several or all soldiers vs just a few soldiers would give the best results. Would it not?

Even if we do not factor in the superior performance of Glock over the other pistols brought up in this thread, it’s clear to me that the trainability it the primary factor in the equation. After all the whole purpose is to give a tool to service members so that they can defend themselves if their primary weapon is not working or available. Now if we factor in the performance and reliability factors, Glock is still superior. So why are so many against it? Because every swinging dick has a personal preference, a brand, style or caliber that they prefer over others. However, the military cannot meet everyone’s personal opinion. What they can do is meet the requirements with the best product available, that has the highest level of trainability. If SIG or HP’s outperform Glock than go with SIG or the HP, but if we don’t do the testing, evaluation and stick to the data (i.e. don’t allow personal opinion to be a factor), it becomes pointless and they should just issue the cheapest thing they can buy…

The problem is not the weapon. The problem is the military's attitude towards pistol training (with a few notable exceptions). Here's an example. When I went through the police academy, I had two solid weeks on the pistol range following a crawl/walk/run/run like hell methodology. Outside of the MPs, and SOF, who gets that amount of basic (and I stress basic here) pistol training in the military? Answer-no one that I'm aware of.

Of course, comparatively few soldiers are issued pistols. Most of those are also issued an M4, and so the pistol is treated as a red-headed stepchild. Just because it's a secondary weapons system does not mean that it is acceptable to maintain a lesser skill level with it. Saying lesser is being kind; in most cases the skill levels I have seen range from virtually nil to downright scary. But that's not the soldier's fault. That's the commander's fault for failing to train his troops correctly.

For what it's worth, here's the short version of my opinion about pistols in the military. Pistols are carried either because the primary weapons system may fail at a cosmically inopportune time, or because the soldier's duty position precludes the use of a rifle. Either way, if there arises a need to use the pistol, then the soldier must be damn good with it or he'll be dead. Thus, there is no excuse for poor training lesson plans, sloppy courses of fire, or failure to train simply because it's "just" a pistol.

You've just provided an excellent example that illustrates the point that one size doesn't fit all. Progressive PDs allow the use of personal firearms for precisely that reason (amongst others). Nothing fits my hand like a Government Model 1911. That may not be true for others; for them, perhaps an M&P or HK fits best. If so, that's what they should carry. The other points you raise have nothing to do with the gun but rather the failure to manage training effectively, which is often the result of a chief whose head resides in his ass but is occasionally also the fault of a poorly trained and ill-informed firearms instructor.

Give me the group with 1911s and I bet I'd take that paycheck from you. But being the magnanimous fellow that I am, I'd pick up the bar tab afterwards....

You're presenting a poor argument here. The issue isn't the gun, it's the training. One day of training with a pistol is not realistic. I would wager you and I would agree on what a basic qualification should be and I would further wager that we'd agree one day on the range is insufficient time to develop someone's skill to meet that standard. The paradigm must be changed to allow for effective combat training with all weapons a soldier may use. The basic standard shouldn't drop because the guy qualifying with the M9 (POS) is a doctor who has to check the box. There will always be higher standards for MPs, SOF, etc., but we must raise the bar for everyone else-and that includes the infantry!

It's not that the Glock is necessarily a bad choice; it's a reliable pistol with a reasonable level of inherent mechanical accuracy. I just think that if the question is making someone combat effective with a pistol, the answer isn't giving them a particular gun. It's training them effectively.

Crap. I'm agreeing with Pardus.

That must mean...

“Shit talking first” if we can round up some clowns at a shootout, ill standby my bet… I’ll even tell you how I would win. “Timed events” on draw and shoots, disassembly/reassembly, loading, malfunctions immediate and remedial. Depending on what 1911 used and target scoring areas you might edge me out on accuracy, but I would have you on the rest to include reliability. And remember students must be a newbie to a pistol.

Good post if we are talking about writing a new FM for the Canuck Armed Forces, but this is about the procurement on a new “replacement” pistol and I am posting in regards to how that pistol should be chosen (and of course supporting my original comment about it should be a glock).

You have no argument from me that the US Army needs to rewrite their standards and training programs for pistol training. I can’t speak for the Navy, Marines, or Airforce, but I can say I have trained soldiers, sailors and airman and there is not much difference that I can see. I have absolutely no fucking clue what level Canadian soldiers are trained too, I do know that they have done well at AFSAM competitions and appear to be well trained. But I am sure they are picking and training teams like we do here in the US Army and that their teams do not represent their overall forces.

Again, I am not saying that training should not be improved. What I am saying is that when we know that soldiers will not always take training seriously; when we know that all military’s have budget restraints, that we should consider the “trainability” as part of the procurement process. If we know the budget won’t allow for two week long, 1500+rd training programs, than we should look at a pistol that not only performs well, but also allows us to train soldiers to be affective in the shortest amount of time. If we can add to it with better training, great! But we all know how that will go…

Hey, if we're going to shoot clowns, I don't care who wins. I hate clowns.

See, that's the other thing. If Canadian soldiers are familiar with shooting the Grand Puissance, then it makes sense to replace the aging inventory with either new GPs or something quite similar. That's why I suggested a 9mm 1911 from a Canadian company.

Plus, you know...1911s are manly guns carried by cool guys

There is a big enough difference between the Sig and HP and a 1911 to state that the same transfer would be as easy with a glock. Also Canuckistan could require Glock to build and manufacture the pistols in Canada. That would offer economical gains as well as control factors on the production. Para Ordinance is a good option as well as the many others brought up in this thread, but again bringing in the other factors I still think Glock is the better option and I also believe “honest” testing would prove such…

But yes "coolness" is always a factor.