Or easily converted to G, like the PX4.
I wouldn't assume that the only changes on that weapon are external, gentlemen...
3/15/2016
They did mention that there were some improvements on small parts, but I wonder if this just means the guide rod and buffer a la the 92A1/96A1. If so, I think it's a bad idea. You lose the logistics of parts, slide, and frame interchangeability with legacy M9s. Anyway, I hope it's something different from that, like adamantium locking blocks. I agree it should be a G configuration, but it probably won't be because it's the military.
I like the vertec grip, dovetailed night sights, and rail. I wouldn't mind carrying this when I fly deployed, although the I can't imagine I'd be using a light on the rail.
This thread makes me happy!
Optimists study English; pessimists study Chinese; and realists learn to use a Kalashnikov.
If they release a G version it will be my perfect Beretta.
I don't understand the slide mounted safety. I presume the MHS requires a manual safety. But why on earth would they not use their frame mounted design??
Because they don't have a frame mounted version anymore?
It's not like they don't have the plans or know-how. They made the SAO model as recently as a few years ago I believe. Sig added a frame mounted safety to the p320 for this contract. Just strikes me as odd given that a slide mounted safety is one of the biggest gripes of the M9 I've heard. When I was in the Air Force we were not allowed to use it for anything but decocking the pistol. The safety was too difficult for too many to reach.