HECKLER & KOCH AWARDED THE LARGEST PISTOL CONTRACT IN LAW ENFORCEMENT HISTORY

Andyman_1970 · Feb 14, 2005

Mmmmmmmmmmmm the H&K USP, that is a sweet pistol.

SkaredShtles · Feb 14, 2005

H&K makes some nice rifles too......... :drool:

-S.S.-

Damn True · Feb 14, 2005

The MP5 is a very very nice piece of gear.

mack · Feb 15, 2005

Wait, so if i am a cop can i get one of these in my trunk?

thad be so cool.

springfield1911 · Feb 16, 2005

Bah, if it ain't steel-on-steel ain't worth it.

Although I do plaude H&Kfor giving the option to use .45 cal in the USP, very sensible choice for a CQB pistol rather than use cheaper, easier to use 9mm or .40S&W.

mack · Feb 16, 2005

springfield1911 said:
Bah, if it ain't steel-on-steel ain't worth it.

Although I do plaude H&Kfor giving the option to use .45 cal in the USP, very sensible choice for a CQB pistol rather than use cheaper, easier to use 9mm or .40S&W.

BWah?

Sorry, i dont speak handgun...

My handgun was my great grandmothers, its a 22 six shot and its REALLY old, but still works.

I found it in my grandpa's garage, haha, it is probably worth some mula id imagine.

bmxr · Feb 17, 2005

springfield1911 said:
Bah, if it ain't steel-on-steel ain't worth it.

Although I do plaude H&Kfor giving the option to use .45 cal in the USP, very sensible choice for a CQB pistol rather than use cheaper, easier to use 9mm or .40S&W.

Easier to use? Please explain...

IMHO, 9mm is a terrible choice for a combat gun. 40S&W is my favorite compromise: massive kinetic energy combine with a compact round that allows for higher mag capacity than a .45.

springfield1911 · Feb 17, 2005

One of the reasons that the 9mm is used is the relatively less training required to shoot a 9mm, with the less recoil and all. WHen the military and pilice departments around the country switched to the 9mm cartridge, most of them saw a dramatic jump of 25-yard score.

The 9mm is a compromise for the average soldier, ie those who don't spend a lot of time on the range. It sure is easy to shoot...

ohio · Feb 17, 2005

springfield1911 said:
One of the reasons that the 9mm is used is the relatively less training required to shoot a 9mm, with the less recoil and all.

Yeah but metric (mm) is un-American, and I'll be damned if my police are going to run around shooting off some gay-Frenchie-Euro pistols.

genpowell71 · Feb 18, 2005

ohio said:
Yeah but metric (mm) is un-American, and I'll be damned if my police are going to run around shooting off some gay-Frenchie-Euro pistols.

Euro trash pistol? Yeah, its German, but its a great weapon and will not jam. But like it was said earlier, you cant beat a .45. I took a 1911 style pistol to Iraq and it was absolutley a wonderful weapon. No jams, and the dude I shot with the .45 stayed down. A buddy shot a guy with a beretta 92F and he got up and kept running.

bmxr · Feb 18, 2005

springfield1911 said:
One of the reasons that the 9mm is used is the relatively less training required to shoot a 9mm, with the less recoil and all. WHen the military and pilice departments around the country switched to the 9mm cartridge, most of them saw a dramatic jump of 25-yard score.

The 9mm is a compromise for the average soldier, ie those who don't spend a lot of time on the range. It sure is easy to shoot...

That's what I thought you were 'gonna say. Hogwash.

9mm has relatively little kinetic energy ("knockdown power") unless you are pushing the bullet with +P loads, in which case it has a lot of recoil, just like a standard-load .45. Then +P 9mm is extremely prone to over-penetration. And a standard .45 is downright mild compared to a +P .40. Anyway, I disagree that .45ACP is harder to shoot, and I also believe it's significantly less effective. Police departments left the 9mm because they found that confrontations consisting of more and more shots fired. The .40 S&W and .45ACP have proven to be far superior in this sense.

valve bouncer · Feb 18, 2005

genpowell71 said:
No jams, and the dude I shot with the .45 stayed down. A buddy shot a guy with a beretta 92F and he got up and kept running.

Do tell General, I can't remember you talking about this before.
Actually no BS, I'd like to hear what went down but would understand if you were reluctant. Apologies if you've told it before.

mack · Feb 18, 2005

While were talking about guns...

How come the m-16 round is so teenie weenie? A friend of mine brought one to school (the round, not the gun) and I looked at it and it was tiny. I know the Calibre, but shouldnt there be a bigger charge behind it?

MikeD · Feb 18, 2005

mack said:
While were talking about guns...

How come the m-16 round is so teenie weenie? A friend of mine brought one to school (the round, not the gun) and I looked at it and it was tiny. I know the Calibre, but shouldnt there be a bigger charge behind it?

It's specifically designed to be as small as it is so that you can carry more rounds. Until you've humped a combat load of ammo, that probably won't mean much to you.

Anyhow, it's the cavitation that kills, not the need to punch a single larger hole in someone.

genpowell71 · Feb 19, 2005

MikeD said:
It's specifically designed to be as small as it is so that you can carry more rounds. Until you've humped a combat load of ammo, that probably won't mean much to you.

Anyhow, it's the cavitation that kills, not the need to punch a single larger hole in someone.

We actually humped a double combat load during the war. I dont like the 5.56 bullet, its weak and just doesnt pack the punch like the 7.62 AK bullet.

For Valve Bouncer:

Searching a cement factory where bombs where being made, an insurgent popped out from around a corner and brought his weapon up. My buddy drew his 9mm beretta and shot him twice with standard ball ammo that we use. From the spray, he was wounded in the middle right shoulder and (I'm guessing here) the upper part of the left hip. He got up and ran down the street. We followed the blood trail but it lead us no where.

MikeD · Feb 19, 2005

genpowell71 said:
I dont like the 5.56 bullet, its weak and just doesnt pack the punch like the 7.62 AK bullet.

Even though the AK is so short of a round (speaking of small casings)?

Did the accuracy/flat trajectory of 5.56 ever matter to you? No one I know ever fired at a long enough range to care about it.

NATO 7.62 is pretty confidence-inspinging...

mack · Feb 19, 2005

Is it true that Iraqis cant shoot for ****?

I saw a picture in a newspaper of a bunch of insurgents shooting ak's off their hips, what is up with that?

Also, i remember seeing an article in some magazine about how the army wanted a new round to use instead of the 5.56.

genpowell71 · Feb 19, 2005

MikeD said:
Even though the AK is so short of a round (speaking of small casings)?

Did the accuracy/flat trajectory of 5.56 ever matter to you? No one I know ever fired at a long enough range to care about it.

NATO 7.62 is pretty confidence-inspinging...

I agree whole heartedly. But seeing as how the only 2 weapons in the inventory that are used realistically in a line infantry platoon are the M240b and the M14 squad marksmanship weapon, I doubt that I'll be carrying either one anytime soon as a line squad leader.

Did the trajectory ever matter? No. Like you said I was never that far to worry about it. I've been saying that the army needs to rethink the 5.56 since 1995 when I had the pleasure of watching a bullet riccochet off a tree and into (luckily) someone's body armor. The AK round doesnt riccochet that badly. It still riccochet's, but not as dramatically. I like the round that Barrett is coming out with, the 6.8 SPC. The ballistics are good and the penetration is excellent.

Sandwich · Feb 20, 2005

did somebody say penetration?

i've always wanted an hk p9s in .45

jon cross · Feb 20, 2005

I was waiting for someone to mention the M14- how much more would 1000 rds af 7.62 really weigh compared to NATO .223/5.56? Is this really the only reason that the M14 was replaced by the M16? I've been curious lately after hearing a couple Marines talking about how they were issued both rifles during Vietnam and HATED their M16's. What would be wrong with a M14 with a selector switch besides the added weight?

Sandwich · Feb 20, 2005

i think the m16 was plagued with a lot of problems in the a1/nam format...things like jamming, contamination, etc. caused some number of deaths over there. That's probably why the m14 was preferred.

Plus the plastic/metal stock and furniture of the m16 was probably easier/cheaper to produce and maintain.

Difference between 5.56 and 7.62? i dunno...probably not immense, but i would wager still significant, as the cartridge is larger, space will be at a premium.

Also, I think after WWII they tried to scale back the damage weapons did...as in a smaller round might be able to incapacitate an enemy without tearing a hole through them.

Correct me if i'm wrong, most of this is what i've read or heard, i'm no expert.

genpowell71 · Feb 20, 2005

jon cross said:
I was waiting for someone to mention the M14- how much more would 1000 rds af 7.62 really weigh compared to NATO .223/5.56? Is this really the only reason that the M14 was replaced by the M16? I've been curious lately after hearing a couple Marines talking about how they were issued both rifles during Vietnam and HATED their M16's. What would be wrong with a M14 with a selector switch besides the added weight?

And I was waiting for someone to ask this question...

The M14 was issued with a selector and it was a great weapon if you fired it on semi auto. If you went full auto, the barrel would rise so much that the rounds would land in the next province. That was the whole reason why the military went to the M16 because on full auto it could be controlled and aimed better then the M14. However it was advertised as a self-cleaning rifle that required no up keep. Quickly the grunts realized how bad the rifle was and butt-loads of cleaning kits were ordered.

The weight of 100 rds of 7.62 is almost 7.5 lbs. 100 rds of 5.56 is about half of that.

MikeD · Feb 20, 2005

Sandwich said:
Also, I think after WWII they tried to scale back the damage weapons did...as in a smaller round might be able to incapacitate an enemy without tearing a hole through them.

It's not that they wanted less destructive weapons...they were trying to find ways to carry more ammo for the same weight, while maintaining accuracy and lethality within the ranges that they expected for future engagements.

The smaller bullet is supposed to tumble and fragment within a body, causing more cavitation (the part of the wound that really disrupts/shocks/kills the body) than a single larger hole.

There is also the train of thought that a wound, vice a kill, occupies even more enemy personnel to care for him, but I don't think that was a primary consideration. On the level I've been trained, we're taught to (try to) kill with every shot. If some strategic thinker once made the case for wounding vice killing, I wasn't told, and was taught that the 5.56mm was made to be lethal. Then again, the Marines also teach people that magnetic north is offset from true north due to a giant lump of iron in the Hudson Bay, and that .50 rounds are 'illegal' to use against personnel...but not their clothing or packs. :rolleyes:

Note that body armor penetration wasn't much of a consideration when the decision was made.

MD

genpowell71 · Feb 22, 2005

MikeD said:
Note that body armor penetration wasn't much of a consideration when the decision was made.

MD

http://remtek.com/arms/fn/p90/data/concept.htm

Also note that with the creation of the P90 from FN Herstal and the advent of the 5.8mm round, body armor is now an option. The 5.8 round will penetrate the PAGST kevlar and the Interceptor body armor that we currently wear. Why do you ask? The plates we use in the Interceptor are a threat level 3. The 5.7 will punch thru that pretty easily.

HarryCallahan · Feb 24, 2005

Interesting discussion about the M-16 versus M-14. Did any of you folks read "Black Hawk Down"? There was some discussion of the relative merits of these two weapons. Reading MikeD's and genpowell71's posts reminded me of this.

As I recall, some of the soldiers interviewed faulted the 5.56 "green tip" penetrator rounds being issued for M-16s as just going right through some people without knocking down or incapacitating them, while the 7.62 M-14 rounds reliably put the target down.

Since M-16s are what most of the troops have, it made me wonder if there was a better round for the M-16 as a quick fix, or if it would be advisable to load clips with a mix of penetrator rounds and some other type of slug?

llkoolkeg · Feb 24, 2005

1. .45 vs.9mm? No contest- .45 I like big, slow rounds at short distances.

2. .40? I find it to be a useless round. All it is is a downloaded 10mm. The argument that the 10mm overpenetrated is only valid if you use crappy ball ammo. I don't worry about my Black Talons overpenetrating, and the 15+1 capacity of my Glock Model 20 should keep me in most close gunfights if I don't adrenalize myself off the 10 ring.

3. Even though I have one, I don't care for the 5.56 round except for range work. I'd take a 30-06 or even a .308 over it any day if I was going in harm's way.

4. The advancements in ammo these days far outweigh the need for engineering a new round every time some dopey group comes out with a new(politically based) study. If a round is ballistically viable, chances are there is a round out there made by somebody(or handloaded) that will optimize it for whatever in particular is needed. e.g. I personally think the 9mm is too small a round because you have to overpressurize the chamber to get significant energy out of it. Some of the new slug technology being developed right now is so impressive, though, that you can get good knockdown power out of it by limiting fragmentation, controlling expansion and making more efficient use of the energy it does possess. Of course, none of this is of particular use to our soldiers and many law-enforcement groups who have limits placed on the allowable deadliness of their slugs.

genpowell71 · Feb 24, 2005

Yes, 9mm standard ball is crap. Let me shoot you with a ballistic hollowpoint and see how far you get. As for the .45, NO ONE will EVER convince me that there is a better round than that. My Kimber is a wicked evil weapon and I love it. As for the eternal question about the 5.56, let me say this...

ITS A CRAPPY BULLET WITH NO PUNCH!!!!

Make a rifle for a cut down .270 or even listen to Barrett and try out the 6.8mm SPC. I figure that its gotta do better than the 5.56. Of course anything is better than a 5.56

MikeD · Feb 24, 2005

Got any experience with the soviet 5.45 (ak74) round? How's it compare?

MD

bibs · Feb 24, 2005

I mis my H&K usp 45, such a god shooting gun....a bit big, but nice

bibs · Feb 24, 2005

I have owned many guns all 1911 frames bite my hand, and I know how t hold one ....I just have goofy mitts!

but those guns are good stuff, I miss my glock 21 also, hi-caps and 2 plus 2 it help 17 rounds

bibs · Feb 24, 2005

N8 said:
I'd love to add a Sig .45 to my collection as well as an AR-10 (an AR-15 modified to fire .308)...

yea, the ar-10 would be fun I also had a ar-15...did yo uever see the converted AR that shot .50 cal pistol rounds? it was cool!

PonySoldier · Feb 25, 2005

N8 said:
I have a stainless Series 80 Colt .45 acp.... excellent weapon...

...Kimber Pro Carry II Matte Black .45 ACP also an excellent sidearm....

PonySoldier · Feb 25, 2005

N8 said:
Clark's Guns is a local shop here... you all know about the Clark Pin Master .45 right?

They do some sweet work on .45's although I like Gunsite's (Cooper) work a little better.

Why no I am not, however I will become familiar with it

llkoolkeg · Feb 25, 2005

Well, at least we can all agree on the merits of the .45ACP. Mine is a massaged Ruger KP90 Stainless with Hogue combat wrap-arounds. Here is the one I wish I had, though-

HECKLER & KOCH AWARDED THE LARGEST PISTOL CONTRACT IN LAW ENFORCEMENT HISTORY

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Turbo Monkey

Michael Bolton

Monkey Pimp

Turbo Monkey

Chimp

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

Chimp

The Fresno Kid

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

Master Dildoist

Turbo Monkey

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

Turbo Monkey

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Pig my fish!

Monkey

Pig my fish!

Turbo Monkey

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

Ranger LL

Turbo Monkey

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Turbo Monkey

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Turbo Monkey

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Monkey

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Ranger LL