quote:

Originally posted by HCM:

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
Perhaps a 365? After all, the point is concealed carry.

There are a few problems with that.

First the P365 and the P365 XL are not “in the system.” They were not part of the MHS testing or contract. Buying 365/365XL would require the Air Force to basically re do the MHS program, a meaning a lengthy and expensive testing process and writing a new contract. As far as “the system “is concerned the P320 FCU is an M18 no matter what grip and slide you put on them.

Second, while the P365 and the P365 XL are great little guns, but they are they are little guns. Meaning they are more difficult to shoot when time is a factor and then the real world time is always a factor. This is why you don’t see police officers walking around with P365s as primary duty guns.

That. A 365XL would be a great little pistol for someone in plainclothes but if the Chief of Staff of the Air Force decided today that it needed to happen, I'd get my pension before USAF got the guns.

My personal opinion and with limited knowledge and no knowledge of what the Air Force needs the smaller P320 for is one would be better off dressing for the gun than the gun scaling down for dress.

What is the real reason for carrying the gun in the first place? If you need to use it then you want the most effective weapon you can carry.

“Dressing for the gun” is often better in theory than in practice.

One of the things I like about living where I do is that my normal clothing does a good job of concealing an intermediate size pistol, and even if someone noticed it, it wouldn’t matter. On the other hand this summer I had to spend several weeks in and out of a facility that prohibited firearms or other weapons. The prohibition had no force of law, but had I been discovered to be carrying it would have resulted in a very undesirable situation. Even the untucked polo shirt I wore every day was warmer than I preferred, but it was just enough to conceal my P365. Effectively—and comfortably—carrying anything larger concealed under the circumstances would have been impossible. I’ll congratulate anyone who can always dress to reliably conceal larger guns, but based on long experience that’s not something many of us can always do.

And as for the effectiveness of different guns, where do we draw the line?

Men have managed to conceal even somewhat compact rifles or shotguns under things like long coats, but most of us wouldn’t attempt that on a routine basis despite the fact that they are much more accurate and effective than any handgun. Part of the solution to the problem of needing a small handgun is to chose one that’s as effective as it can be given its limitations. The reason I would no longer even consider carrying my S&W 340PD is because I can shoot my P365 nearly as well at close distances as any of my P320s, and of course the P365 provides me with much greater firepower.

If faced with going into a situation in which I knew or strongly anticipated needing a firearm, I’d either take an (unconcealed) rifle, or not go, but sometimes the best we can do if there’s a remote possibility of needing a gun is to have one that meets all our requirements as well as reasonably possible, including concealability if required.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

There is a "sweet spot" of ergonomics for concealed carry pistols that takes into account concealability as well as duty effectiveness. The Sig M11 hit that sweet spot years ago with its balance of size, capacity, balance, and sight radius, and it became the standard for federal investigative agencies. With respect to the P365, I have my doubts about its service life using service ammunition. Where OSI is concerned, as well as special warfare units, those units have protective service and ground combat missions in addition their investigative role. When we go to war they are some of the first to deploy. I would suggest that if I were going to invade Iraq today, I would want as much capability as I can get from my pistol and my rifle. Also, there are some pretty smart people at the FLETC marksmanship training center who spend a lot of time pondering these requirements. Sig is attempting to meet stated mission requirements of the military and from what I can see they are pretty responsive.

I wouldn’t call the P228/M18 “tiny”.
It may be compact in name but compact it ain’t.

For those who haven’t been in a military or paramilitary bureaucracy here is your reality check,

With rare exceptions you have to work within the system to buy things. You don’t just run to Cabelas and whip out a credit card.

Glocks are great guns, I carried one as a duty by choice for many years, but stock Glocks were not tested or selected via the MHS program. That means they are not “in the system” for conventional forces.

Same with P365/P365XL. Hell I’m wearing an XL as I type this but guess what - not tested - not in the system.

The fact that SOCOM or USASOC have Glocks has zero relevance to Big Army /Big AF. They are completely different worlds as far as bureaucracy.

The M18 is a modular handgun and it’s tested, approved and in the system. You can buy conversions and make them smaller much faster and much cheaper than what it would cost to do the testing and contracting to obtain whatever else you think they “should” use.

It’s not that your recommended guns are good or bad, it’s that they are irrelevant for all practical purposes.

Mitigating all the bureaucratic bullshit I just referenced is why the DOD wanted modular handguns.

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:
There is a "sweet spot" of ergonomics for concealed carry pistols that takes into account concealability as well as duty effectiveness. The Sig M11 hit that sweet spot years ago with its balance of size, capacity, balance, and sight radius, and it became the standard for federal investigative agencies. With respect to the P365, I have my doubts about its service life using service ammunition. Where OSI is concerned, as well as special warfare units, those units have protective service and ground combat missions in addition their investigative role. When we go to war they are some of the first to deploy. I would suggest that if I were going to invade Iraq today, I would want as much capability as I can get from my pistol and my rifle. Also, there are some pretty smart people at the FLETC marksmanship training center who spend a lot of time pondering these requirements. Sig is attempting to meet stated mission requirements of the military and from what I can see they are pretty responsive.

This ^^^ is spot on.

IME there is a 20% performance penalty for slimline vs service sized pistols when compared in time and scored drills.

You can match the accuracy with the 48/365XL etc but be 20% slower, or you can be just as fast with the slim gun but be about 20% less accurate. There is no free lunch.

quote:

Originally posted by sakata8242:
I wouldn’t call the P228/M18 “tiny”.
It may be compact in name but compact it ain’t.

The M18 is a service pistol and a 228/M11 is a compact service pistol.

No one is claiming they are tiny. They still need to be effective. Put actual “tiny” guns on the clock with scored targets and you will find they suck. The no free lunch thing again.