Posted on Mar 4, 2015
LTC Operations Officer (Opso)
7.44K
60
32
1
1
0
Berettaapx2
Beretta reveals its new striker-fired pistol. Will it be the Army's new pistol?


http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/03/04/beretta-reveals-new-striker-fired-pistol/

Invite others to respond
Posted in these groups: Freedom handgun1 Handguns and Pistols
Avatar feed
See Results
Responses: 15
SFC Mark Merino
3
3
0
1
Still a fan of Robocop's shooter.
(3)
Comment
(0)
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad
9 y
001 star trek phaser1
I prefer Captain Kirk's pistol . . .
(1)
Reply
(0)
LTC Jason Mackay
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Jim Z.
3
3
0
The weapon itself looks nice and it is the right caliber for stopping power i.e. better then the 9mm. I still prefer a .45 but like I said who knows what will be the next side arm for the US Military.
(3)
Comment
(0)
Cpl James Waycasie
Cpl James Waycasie
>1 y
I love the .45 especially my Colt Combat Commander 1911 A1 Series 80. I have the same pistol in a 9mm on the 45 frame. It is rare due to the fact Colt only made it a few years. For ranges up to 30 yards, I love the .45 but for carry, I prefer and use the Taurus Millienium 40 cal. I also like the Glocks and M&P in both 9 mm and .40 caliber. I have shot them at paper plates with good groupings up to 75 yards. I always try to own weapons that is standard Nato issue, hence I own a 9mm and a Rutger .223 Rancher which the manual states will also shoot the 5.56. As far as what the Military will use, I suggest no lower caliber than the .40 caliber. Let's face it, most pistols used in combat will be used at very close ranges so a .45 still would be perfect for the job. The berretta looks like a fine weapon and in .40 caliber I am sure it would perform well. But like SGT Jim Zajc says who knows? With this PC government they may want to issue .22 long rifle autos so the bullet won't do as much damage, lol
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
2
2
0
Not without an external safety it won't.
(2)
Comment
(0)
PO2 Robert Cuminale
PO2 Robert Cuminale
>1 y
I don't understand the need for a safety.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
>1 y
PO2 Robert Cuminale For those who use and train with guns on a regular basis, there is no "need" for an external safety. For those who don't use them regularly, an external safety, is a precaution "worth the extra step."

Keep in mind that Pistols, as a class are treated as Defensive weapons (Secondary) in the US military. They are NOT primary nor Offensive weapons for most specialties beyond LEO types. Those who end up using them, in general, receive far too little training, in comparison to rifle users.

It's not that we couldn't field weapons without external safeties. It's that weapons without external safeties would be a liability for the "majority of the force."
(1)
Reply
(0)
PO2 Robert Cuminale
PO2 Robert Cuminale
>1 y
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - You may remember a discussion a while back on allowing recruiting personnel to carry a sidearm? Do you remember at least one Commissioned Officer said that he wouldn't issue a sidearm to any of his people because too many of them were on Paxil. I'm not sure a safety would do them any good.
I take training and safety seriously. The wife and I go to the range at least every two months whether we're here or in Emerald Isle. Flatwood outfitters is a good range the next time you're near Jacksonville.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
>1 y
PO2 Robert Cuminale I know. I'm speaking of the "force en masse" though, specifically in regards to this, not my personal opinion regarding the issue. What's good for the "micro" doesn't make sense for the "macro."
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close