So there is a lot of talk about the new Service Pistol contract and the web is all abuzz with opinions about what is going to be picked and what not. I thought I'd take an objective look at what the Army actually said it wanted... and with an open mind... offer an answer. What I came up with was off beat to say the least.
Let's go back to the criteria. They said they wanted: simple, user friendly, modern, and more powerful.
So here is something I have been kicking around... what if they went with something like... this...
Yep. That's a Smith and Wesson M&P R8. 8 shots of .357 magnum out of a 5 inch barrel. It even has a rail so you can mall cop it up if you want. Now I know you're thinking I've lost my damned mind but think about it... what's more simple than a revolver? Ever had a wheel gun fail on ya? I know I haven't. Think this fella will have a problem with dirt and sand gumming up the works? I sure don't. And I certainly don't think anyone is going to argue that you can't put a hurt on someone with a .357 magnum.
That said... if I was designing it from the ground up.. it would be a .41 magnum or a 45 long colt instead. And it would get grips like the taurus tracker series.. which are by far the best grips on the planet when it comes to felt recoil reduction. Either of those are going to ruin your day. Even if armor will stop the shot you're not going to be in any condition to do much fighting afterwards.
I submit that this weapon meets all of the criteria and then some... and in a purely objective sense... it is the best answer to the Service Pistol question. Its easy to use. Its ultimately reliable. It is a hammer. The only advantage the autos have is speed of reloading. Which I will argue isn't particularly important... since military context a pistol is only there to keep you alive until you can find a rifle.
Do I think this is what they'll choose? No. I don't think anyone will even consider a revolver for a second.
But that doesn't mean they shouldn't.