US Army Wants to Replace Beretta

[Shift Zombie]

Nothing's changed since last time they ran the dog-n-pony show. The contract will go to the cheapest long term vendor that can meet the requirements. My guess is they'll bump the caliber to .40. Other than that, who knows.

 

[cop car]

LOL

I take it you are a FiveseveN hater? The army should be doing what they said they were going to do in the late 80s/early90s. A pdw weapon for everyone but the infantry/direct combat troops, sharing the caliber with a pistol. That is the whole reason why the P90 and the FiveseveN were both developed. In the modern combat world shooting people is only about 25% of your concern, the other 75% is making it so its reasonable to be carried 24/7 and is safe for idiots to be around when they aren't paying attention. Our next conflict with another 21st century army, body armor and body armor penetration will be the single most important thing on a weapon. 9mm sucks at penetrating. 40, even worse, and 45..yeah.. The 5.7 with penetrator rounds would make the wearing of soft body armor go back to ww2 standards where it's just a flack jacket. I could go on about this but I'll refrain.

 

[ryan3030]

I take it you are a FiveseveN hater? The army should be doing what they said they were going to do in the late 80s/early90s. A pdw weapon for everyone but the infantry/direct combat troops, sharing the caliber with a pistol. That is the whole reason why the P90 and the FiveseveN were both developed. In the modern combat world shooting people is only about 25% of your concern, the other 75% is making it so its reasonable to be carried 24/7 and is safe for idiots to be around when they aren't paying attention. Our next conflict with another 21st century army, body armor and body armor penetration will be the single most important thing on a weapon. 9mm sucks at penetrating. 40, even worse, and 45..yeah.. The 5.7 with penetrator rounds would make the wearing of soft body armor go back to ww2 standards where it's just a flack jacket. I could go on about this but I'll refrain.

It has nothing to do with hating or preference. There are a few reasons that would never happen, chief amongst them are the following.

1. Cost. That gun is astronomical, even in bulk we couldn't afford it.
2. Ammo commonality.

To address what you said the ability of a sidearm to penetrate body armor isn't even a consideration point, that's what rifles are for.

 

[cop car]

FN 5.7×28mm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FN Five-seven - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The whole thing was NATOs idea, and basically the only reason why it's not our primary pistol is because of zee Germans. While they cost about $1000 currently, when mass produced I would see their cost going down significantly. And trust me, we could afford it. P90s and FivesevenS for everyone!

 

[Force10]

FN 5.7×28mm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FN Five-seven - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The whole thing was NATOs idea, and basically the only reason why it's not our primary pistol is because of zee Germans. While they cost about $1000 currently, when mass produced I would see their cost going down significantly. And trust me, we could afford it. P90s and FivesevenS for everyone!

I'll take some!

 

[Robjps]

I take it you are a FiveseveN hater? The army should be doing what they said they were going to do in the late 80s/early90s. A pdw weapon for everyone but the infantry/direct combat troops, sharing the caliber with a pistol. That is the whole reason why the P90 and the FiveseveN were both developed. In the modern combat world shooting people is only about 25% of your concern, the other 75% is making it so its reasonable to be carried 24/7 and is safe for idiots to be around when they aren't paying attention. Our next conflict with another 21st century army, body armor and body armor penetration will be the single most important thing on a weapon. 9mm sucks at penetrating. 40, even worse, and 45..yeah.. The 5.7 with penetrator rounds would make the wearing of soft body armor go back to ww2 standards where it's just a flack jacket. I could go on about this but I'll refrain.

So many armies issue soft body armor we should clearly go with 5.7! American police are the only group i can presently think of that issues soft body armor in enough quantities to even consider soft armor penetration.

No offense i call tell you are in love with the 5.7 round but its a solution looking for a problem. It does one thing better then 9mm everything else it is worse at. The PS90 at least somewhat fills a role in very tight cqb but is it really even better then a tavor,PS200,MP5/7 etc....

 

[cop car]

The 5.7 round is a great performing round. And the P90 is the most innovative small arm of the past 50 years. If not more. And yes, I am in love of the idea of P90s for support troops, because I've been there, done that, and the P90 would much better fill the role. As for you scoffing at the idea of the US fighting an actual army that fields body armor, is completely ignoring the fact that the Russians, the North Koreans, the Chinese and just about every single other organized army plans on fielding their armies in major conflicts with soft body armor. Contrary to popular belief the US Army and NATO both are excellent in anticipating and fielding gear. Much better than any other major military in history or present. It just sucks that they are taking so long to implement this needed change.

 

[Robjps]

The 5.7 round is a great performing round.

Compared to what? Doing what? It preforms questionable at defeating soft body armor as a pistol. In rifle form it is **** compared to 5.56 or 5.45.

And the P90 is the most innovative small arm of the past 50 years. If not more.

It is nifty with out a doubt. But really you think its a bigger deal the guided surface to air missiles?

And yes, I am in love of the idea of P90s for support troops, because I've been there, done that, and the P90 would much better fill the role.

I really don't see how the P90 has any advantages over a bare bones M4 or tavor. Size weight ? not really...

As for you scoffing at the idea of the US fighting an actual army that fields body armor, is completely ignoring the fact that the Russians, the North Koreans, the Chinese and just about every single other organized army plans on fielding their armies in major conflicts with soft body armor.

Russia and China have hard body armor granted not like the US but they haven't needed to buy it like we have. If need it they will buy it. But your dreams of mowing through soft body armor is pretty non existent since Russia for examples issues either hard body armor or nothing. This isn't the 80's when Russia's flak jackets were made of cotton.

Contrary to popular belief the US Army and NATO both are excellent in anticipating and fielding gear. Much better than any other major military in history or present. It just sucks that they are taking so long to implement this needed change.

Considering we spend as much as the next 20 countries combined id expect us to have the best gear. 5.7 belongs in the same niche bucket as 6.8, 450socom, m855, etc.... There is a reason no one wants it because it doesn't do anything better then what we already have.

I love me some 6.8. I think man wouldn't it be great to use a 6.8 when 5.56 doesn't cut it. Then i realize ohh yea that is what we have 7.62 for....

Here is your situation

You love you some 5.7. You think man wouldn't it be great to use 5.7 when 9mm doesn't cut it. Then you should realize that is what 5.56 is for...

 

[cop car]

Too much to quote. Ha. I'll try to address everything though. The P90 is significantly shorter than the M4, as well as having 50 round capacity, as opposed to 30, and it is a lot more streamlined. Mag wont get caught on stuff etc. it is 100% ambidextrous, no more hot brass in the faces of left handed shooters. If you have ever watched a 5 foot 3 female try to use an M4.. It's pretty sad, P90 carries it's weight differently. Making it much easier for shorter and people not as strong to be able to shoot easier.

While it does have considerable less energy than the 5.56, it still produces a large wounding channel, because of the fps, much the same way the 5.56 does.

And I do love me some 5.7, because it's an amazing round that has even more potential, but what I would have loved even more is that when I was having to lug around an M4 with a 30 round banana hanging out of it, how much nicer having a 50 round P90 would have been. People just won't understand until they have had the experiences. Bottom line is, will it do the same things 5.56 do? Not all, and it has shorter range, less knock down. Will it do everything 9mm does? No. It's a lighter round with less knock down again. But where it does shine is more capacity, which is what really matters in the end.

 

[Robjps]

Too much to quote. Ha. I'll try to address everything though. The P90 is significantly shorter than the M4, as well as having 50 round capacity, as opposed to 30, and it is a lot more streamlined. Mag wont get caught on stuff etc. it is 100% ambidextrous, no more hot brass in the faces of left handed shooters. If you have ever watched a 5 foot 3 female try to use an M4.. It's pretty sad, P90 carries it's weight differently. Making it much easier for shorter and people not as strong to be able to shoot easier.

While it does have considerable less energy than the 5.56, it still produces a large wounding channel, because of the fps, much the same way the 5.56 does.

And I do love me some 5.7, because it's an amazing round that has even more potential, but what I would have loved even more is that when I was having to lug around an M4 with a 30 round banana hanging out of it, how much nicer having a 50 round P90 would have been. People just won't understand until they have had the experiences. Bottom line is, will it do the same things 5.56 do? Not all, and it has shorter range, less knock down. Will it do everything 9mm does? No. It's a lighter round with less knock down again. But where it does shine is more capacity, which is what really matters in the end.

My Wife is 5' 4" and can run a M4 not really sure how its a problem you realize a stock M4 only weights 6lbs granted you start adding **** it gets up to 8. I understand how bullpups works which is why the tavor pretty much makes the P90 pointless in my opinion everything it does the p90 can do and more. I do like the bottom ejection its nifty but if you are taking brass to the face of a M4 you are doing it wrong. Ambi controls are becoming common on newer designed lowers not to mention the tavor/arx100 etc.. have already fixed ambi problems.

Wait first it was penetration was what mattered now its capacity? At least that is an area the P90 excels at but i don't think its improving something that needed improved.

Nifty gun nifty round. I see them both as an evolution more then a finished product. The problem i see is the round is trying to do what .30 carbine and 5.56 did before it the .30 carbine was the start and the 5.56 actually did the job. I love the magazine idea and bottom ejection idea.

Your chart pretty much breaks it down look at 5.7x28mm and compare it to 5.56mm both out of 10inch barrels. 5.7 may work well for house clearing like pistol rounds but its hardly close to ideal outside of that. 5.7 suffers from the same problem as 5.56 but on a bigger scale.

 

[Toughestsoldiers]

I love the p90 especially over the mp5 but it really doenst accomplish anything when you consider the cost of them. What i would give to have each of them in my personal collection but it accomplishes nothing that my 9mm and my m4 cant do as well or better.

 

[in625shooter]

My Wife is 5' 4" and can run a M4 not really sure how its a problem you realize a stock M4 only weights 6lbs granted you start adding **** it gets up to 8. I understand how bullpups works which is why the tavor pretty much makes the P90 pointless in my opinion everything it does the p90 can do and more. I do like the bottom ejection its nifty but if you are taking brass to the face of a M4 you are doing it wrong. Ambi controls are becoming common on newer designed lowers not to mention the tavor/arx100 etc.. have already fixed ambi problems.

Wait first it was penetration was what mattered now its capacity? At least that is an area the P90 excels at but i don't think its improving something that needed improved.

Nifty gun nifty round. I see them both as an evolution more then a finished product. The problem i see is the round is trying to do what .30 carbine and 5.56 did before it the .30 carbine was the start and the 5.56 actually did the job. I love the magazine idea and bottom ejection idea.

Your chart pretty much breaks it down look at 5.7x28mm and compare it to 5.56mm both out of 10inch barrels. 5.7 may work well for house clearing like pistol rounds but its hardly close to ideal outside of that. 5.7 suffers from the same problem as 5.56 but on a bigger scale.

Getting of topic but I will add the 30 Carbine is a great round just like the 5.7 could be within their limits. As mentioned with the 5.7 and using at shorter range the downfall/bad stories on the 30 Carbine was by troops who tried to engage enemy forces at the longer ranges along side their M1 Garrand equipped comrades.
When you look at it the 30 Carbine has decent power for what it was made for being a PDW not an medium range battle rifle. Such as the 5.56 is not made for extended range. The tactics for most standard Military now if they teach marksmanship at the 300-500 meter range depending on your branch these days.

I love the p90 especially over the mp5 but it really doenst accomplish anything when you consider the cost of them. What i would give to have each of them in my personal collection but it accomplishes nothing that my 9mm and my m4 cant do as well or better.

The concept of the P90 was as a PDW and the Bullpup was designed for portability as they are easier to get in and out of vehicles having a shorter overall length without sacrificing barrel length. Using one for over 10 years I can say on MP5's while an OK platform are extremely overrated and have lost a lot popularity they once had.

 

[Robjps]

Getting of topic but I will add the 30 Carbine is a great round just like the 5.7 could be within their limits. As mentioned with the 5.7 and using at shorter range the downfall/bad stories on the 30 Carbine was by troops who tried to engage enemy forces at the longer ranges along side their M1 Garrand equipped comrades.
When you look at it the 30 Carbine has decent power for what it was made for being a PDW not an medium range battle rifle. Such as the 5.56 is not made for extended range. The tactics for most standard Military now if they teach marksmanship at the 300-500 meter range depending on your branch these days.

Rather confused at what you saying i know full well the history and reasoning behind the M1 Carbine. Compare the size/weight/caliber of the M1 Carbine to the M16/M4 and you will see it is just straight upgrade. Even compare the M1 Carbine to a Mini-14 the caliber difference alone makes a huge difference.

 

[cop car]

To be clear I'm not advocating the P90 being the primary weapon of the military, M4 should keep that role. But for tankers, cooks, fuelers, fobbits, mechanics and all other support forces that will never shoot anyone beyond 100 yards, the P90 is perfect. And yes. capacity and penetration are both equally important, inside 300m the penetration capability of the 5.7 (especially with AP rounds) is basically the same as the 5.56. In 80% of the cases the people who are in the army aren't gun people and never want to shoot them, they are just a part of the job. I really feel like the people arguing against the 5.7 and P90 have not done any research above "I heard this" or "it looks like this" if you read the wiki articles on the 5.7, the P90 and the FiveseveN, it addresses every single issue that has been brought up in this thread. 9mm has its place, but trying to go through body armor is not it. For roughly the same size pistol the capacity on the M9 is 15, and the FiveseveN is 20. That's a lot. And if you take into account who gets issued pistols and how they are used in the military it makes even more sense. 21st century warfare needs a new pistol/pdw round. I like 9mm. But it's a 100 year old round at this point. We know a lot more about projectiles, how they behave, penetration, and warfare in general. Based on all the research NATO has come up with this.

 

[in625shooter]

Rather confused at what you saying i know full well the history and reasoning behind the M1 Carbine. Compare the size/weight/caliber of the M1 Carbine to the M16/M4 and you will see it is just straight upgrade. Even compare the M1 Carbine to a Mini-14 the caliber difference alone makes a huge difference.

What I'm saying is like the M1 Carbine the P90 is a great PDW and would be great at shorter ranges, room clearing (especially in the 5.7mm being able to better defeat armor) but neither one was intended for a medium range cartridge where the 5.56 was designed for not only medium range but the firepower aspect since troops could carry more of 5.56 ammo the 7.62 and the advent of the Vietnam conflict changed tactics with more emphasis on saturation type fire and of course the terrain limited range in most cases.

Never compared the 30 M1 Carbine to the Mini or the M4. 2 totally different rounds and ideas

 

[Robjps]

What I'm saying is like the M1 Carbine the P90 is a great PDW and would be great at shorter ranges, room clearing (especially in the 5.7mm being able to better defeat armor) but neither one was intended for a medium range cartridge where the 5.56 was designed for not only medium range but the firepower aspect since troops could carry more of 5.56 ammo the 7.62 and the advent of the Vietnam conflict changed tactics with more emphasis on saturation type fire and of course the terrain limited range in most cases.

Never compared the 30 M1 Carbine to the Mini or the M4. 2 totally different rounds and ideas

So how is the M1 Carbine a great PDW and the M4 is not when it is better in every way. Size, weight, caliber, capacity, etc....

 

[in625shooter]

So how is the M1 Carbine a great PDW and the M4 is not when it is better in every way. Size, weight, caliber, capacity, etc....

Never said it was a great PDW, and never said the M4 was not. as a PDWthat was the original idea of the 30 carbine. Was to replace the 1911 as a PDW for troops like drivers and rear area troops that could come into harms way and were better served by a smaller rifle. But like all ideas do the 30 Carbine worked out a little differently.
The M4 is a great platform and 5.56 is an OK chambering. What I stated was there are similarities between the 30 carbine and 5.7 both have a niche to fill and work better within closer ranges. When folks try and compare both of these to medium range thats when they fall short (just like troops blasted the 30 carbine when they had failures when they engaged enemy troops at longer distances like they had on the battlefield in WW2 and Korea. The 30 carbine is no competition for 200 yards of more against a 3006 M1 Garrand) Just like the 5.56 does not compete with a 7.62 at any range but especially at anything over 300-500 yards. There is a reason the Military does not teach marksmanship with M16/M4 platform rifles anymore over 300-500 yards. The 5.56 caliber just doesn't perform at that range as the 7.62 does. But for saturartion and room/hous clearing and 300ish meters the 5.56 does fine.

Now back on topic.

 

[Robjps]

Never said it was a great PDW, and never said the M4 was not. as a PDWthat was the original idea of the 30 carbine. Was to replace the 1911 as a PDW for troops like drivers and rear area troops that could come into harms way and were better served by a smaller rifle. But like all ideas do the 30 Carbine worked out a little differently.
The M4 is a great platform and 5.56 is an OK chambering. What I stated was there are similarities between the 30 carbine and 5.7 both have a niche to fill and work better within closer ranges. When folks try and compare both of these to medium range thats when they fall short (just like troops blasted the 30 carbine when they had failures when they engaged enemy troops at longer distances like they had on the battlefield in WW2 and Korea. The 30 carbine is no competition for 200 yards of more against a 3006 M1 Garrand) Just like the 5.56 does not compete with a 7.62 at any range but especially at anything over 300-500 yards. There is a reason the Military does not teach marksmanship with M16/M4 platform rifles anymore over 300-500 yards. The 5.56 caliber just doesn't perform at that range as the 7.62 does. But for saturartion and room/hous clearing and 300ish meters the 5.56 does fine.

Now back on topic.

You didn't ?

What I'm saying is like the M1 Carbine the P90 is a great PDW

My question is why would you chamber a gun in an inferior round when guns of similar size are chambered in 5.56. Its like giving them a M4 chambered in 9mm instead of 5.56 when its the same size gun. Micro Tavor has been around since 2001 how is 5.7 better then 223 out of same form factor.

Im all for smaller lighter better and innovation but the P90 and 5.7 is none of that. It has some great idea's the bottom ejection the different take on magazine's and that's cool but it doesn't offer you anything you cant already get performance wise.

 

[in625shooter]

You didn't ?



My question is why would you chamber a gun in an inferior round when guns of similar size are chambered in 5.56. Its like giving them a M4 chambered in 9mm instead of 5.56 when its the same size gun. Micro Tavor has been around since 2001 how is 5.7 better then 223 out of same form factor.

Im all for smaller lighter better and innovation but the P90 and 5.7 is none of that. It has some great idea's the bottom ejection the different take on magazine's and that's cool but it doesn't offer you anything you cant already get performance wise.

As far as an inferior caliber why the push for the 9mm SMG (MP 5's Colt 9mm SMG etc) several years ago. Because of over penetration issues for house/room clearing. With the advent of TAP and other rounds (as well as research) it was discovered several rounds that were deemed inferior actually penetrated as much if not more drywall etc. And statistically the 30 Carbine has a better power factor than 5.56, If that is the only thing one uses. So does the 45 acp but that doesn't make the 30 carbine better overall than the 5.56 or the 45 better overall than the 9mm)

This got sidetracked a long time ago. There is a big difference between a carbine and a handgun for general issue. The Carbine (or idea for a new Carbine) is a different thread. No matter what the Military picks (which 99.9% is going to be another 9mm) someone will think they have a better idea of what it should have been either caliber or firearm.

 

[Robjps]

As far as an inferior caliber why the push for the 9mm SMG (MP 5's Colt 9mm SMG etc) several years ago. Because of over penetration issues for house/room clearing. With the advent of TAP and other rounds (as well as research) it was discovered several rounds that were deemed inferior actually penetrated as much if not more drywall etc. And statistically the 30 Carbine has a better power factor than 5.56, If that is the only thing one uses. So does the 45 acp but that doesn't make the 30 carbine better overall than the 5.56 or the 45 better overall than the 9mm)

This got sidetracked a long time ago. There is a big difference between a carbine and a handgun for general issue. The Carbine (or idea for a new Carbine) is a different thread. No matter what the Military picks (which 99.9% is going to be another 9mm) someone will think they have a better idea of what it should have been either caliber or firearm.

If you think 30carbine or 45acp are a more effective round then 5.56 against the human body i think we are done. Someone on INGO was saying 45acp was better then 7.62x51 was that you also?