Army replacing M9s. Don't hit hard enough.

[skiflydive]

Interesting

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/07/03/army-wants-harder-hitting-pistol/?intcmp=features

[warbird1]

Interesting indeed. The reason they went to the 9mm in the first place was to have uniformity in ammunition with our NATO partners. Is that now out the window?
The problem as I see it is not the caliber but the round ball ammo. Unfortunately that's a Geneva Convention thing.

[RRP]

Five-seveN here we come

[Bawanna]

Wouldn't surprise me one bit. Extremely expensive, ammo hard to get and expensive, rather delicate platform that has zero chance of surviving soldier abuse, but it holds lots of bullets. On government contract at say 4 times normal cost so say 3000 a piece and order 100,000 to start with. Should be perfect.

Or break out the warehouse full of 1911's they have been hoarding to keep from us evil civilians and call it a day.

[JohnR]

We'll see which politically connected company gives the best kickback, and that's their next pistol. They'll probably require it to be a gay owned company with at least 5% cross-dresser employees, with an annual program of Islamic sensitivity training.

[cohoskip]

We'll see which politically connected company gives the best kickback, and that's their next pistol. They'll probably require it to be a gay owned company with at least 5% cross-dresser employees, with an annual program of Islamic sensitivity training.

That's funny, but unfortunately it could be true... :w00t:

[ltxi]

No issues with the current 9mm platform that didn't exist before it was adopted in the first place. But then who listens to the end user?

[Bawanna]

Precisely Itxisan. The people that picked it as usual don't ever use or need it. Reminds me a lot of law enforcement.

We have 2 or 3 sand box vets here and they all usually just left the M9 in their quarters and just stuck with the M4. Now days not a lot of need for a handgun anyhow. Who needs a pistol when you got a drone ya know.

If they'd let me play I'd want a pistol though too. A real pistol, not an M9.

[ripley16]

The army just bought a train load of M9s to restock. I don't see any change coming at all. Sounds like a future R&D interest perhaps but not a overt seeking of a replacement for a weapon of little use or importance. So far the army has acquired more than 600,000 Berettas, so I think we'll be seeing them used for a long time.

There has been a movement away from calibers larger than 9mm because they have some undesirable recoil characteristics for general use, I predict the next sidearm , in twenty years or so, will still be a 9mm.

The .45 is relegated to SOF. The 5.7 and 4.6 are also only used by SO units, and will never see other general use amoung any but specialized troops not needing offensive weapons.

[ltxi]

The army just bought a train load of M9s to restock. I don't see any change coming at all. Sounds like a future R&D interest perhaps but not a overt seeking of a replacement for a weapon of little use or importance. So far the army has acquired more than 600,000 Berettas, so I think we'll be seeing them used for a long time.

There has been a movement away from calibers larger than 9mm because they have some undesirable recoil characteristics for general use, I predict the next sidearm , in twenty years or so, will still be a 9mm.

The .45 is relegated to SOF. The 5.7 and 4.6 are also only used by SO units, and will never see other general use amoung any but specialized troops not needing offensive weapons.

I agree that's happened, but it amazes me. .40's and .357 Sig I can understand, but .45acp? Aside from sub calibers and 9mm in std pressure form perhaps, I can't think of an easier shooting pistol cartridge.

[ripley16]

I agree that's happened, but it amazes me. .40's and .357 Sig I can understand, but .45acp? Aside from sub calibers and 9mm in std pressure form perhaps, I can't think of an easier shooting pistol cartridge.

But a .45 is still not as soft or easy to shoot as a 9mm. That fact weighs heavily in the increased role females will be incorporated into combat. That and the NATO standardization make change less likely, IMHO.

[ltxi]

I said "aside from". Irrespective of that, the .45acp is an easy shooting cartridge for anyone properly trained in it's use/to shoot it. Male, female, goats, whatever.... It doesn't have the sharp pressure rise curve of the other two possible replacements mentioned.

[muggsy]

The Army is just like a woman. It's never satisfied with what it has and doesn't really know what it wants. (Excuse me fellas, I need to find a place to hide.) :)

[smo79]

The other problem will be if the army goes back to using .45 then your possibly talking using a double stack mag to carry more rounds. Then the will argue the the grip is to large with the increased capacity. I have to agree that the problem is ball ammo in 9 mm but we have to follow the Geneva treaty. Could always go to 10 mm!!!

[Barth]

I've read of some special forces guys complaining about FMJ 9mm.
Wanting 40 S&W or 45 ACP.
But like others have said,
it seems like in the military the handgun is a secondary, nearly last chance weapon.
I thought at one time many troops weren't even issued a handgun?
Personally - FMJ blows and I'd want a 45.

[muggsy]

A head shot or heart shot is just as deadly using ball. You don't necessarily want to kill the enemy in war. Wounding the enemy takes more of them out of the fight tending to the wounded. A handgun is a secondary weapon.

[Bob T]

it seems like in the military the handgun is a secondary, nearly last chance weapon.
I thought at one time many troops weren't even issued a handgun?

Correct. When I was in, (75-79), handguns were not part of basic training at all.
After basic and advanced training, I was in the 82nd, and the only military I saw with handguns were officers and MPs. Maybe the tank guys had 'em, can't remember.

[ripley16]

Correct. When I was in, (75-79), handguns were not part of basic training at all.
After basic and advanced training, I was in the 82nd, and the only military I saw with handguns were officers and MPs. Maybe the tank guys had 'em, can't remember.

Chaplains could also have a pistol. Just in case the "amen" wasn't loud enough. :angel:

[Longitude Zero]

The final tipping point that got the Beretta M9 foisted upon our troops was the Italians demand to adopt them in order to located IRBM in Italy. Sadly the USA succumbed to the blackmail.

[340pd]

Wasn't the Sig 226 in 9mm rejected because the military higher ups deemed it too expensive?

I work at a range where Air Marshal's train and I asked they why they used the 357 Sig round for potential use in an aircraft full of people. None of them had a plausible answer other than it was the same round used by many in the Secret Service. Regardless, those boys and girls can shoot accurately. Their groups are one fourth those of the cops that come in for qualification.

[HSparrow]

It is not the round being used it is where its placed, and the reliability of the weapon. I have uses the 45 APC, the 9MM and the 40 S&W when I served. All good rounds, in todays world I prefer the 40 S&W and like many things it is preference. What the military should have is reliability in less than poor conditions once that is accomplished then determine the round. Otherwise they will be getting the cart before the horse again.

[berettabone]

They should be using the 96...............................one of my favorites:p

[warbird1]

Only things I see wrong with what they are using is the ball ammo (can't be helped) and the grip size which may be too large for the female soldiers hands. One other potential problem I guess is the open slide in sandy environments.

[Bawanna]

The open slide is actually a good thing. Easy to blow crud out. Also makes it easy to load one round at a time if the need arises.

The grip is on the large side and folks with small hands may have issues. I get along ok with it. It's not my favorite but it's not bad either.

I've always thought the gun was too large for a 9mm. Would make a perfect 45.

[O'Dell]

I've always thought the gun was too large for a 9mm. Would make a perfect 45.

That's what I've thought about nearly all the 9mm's including the Browning HP I carried in the Navy. That is, until I bought my first Kahr some years ago. Of course, now the other major companies are catching up, but Kahr pretty well started it for large producers.

BTW, most of my 45's are smaller and lighter than the M9.

[TeaDub]

You don't necessarily want to kill the enemy in war. Wounding the enemy takes more of them out of the fight tending to the wounded. A handgun is a secondary weapon.

At rifle distances, yes. If I'm shooting at pistol ranges, I'd rather him be DRT (dead right there). ;)

If the Army actually goes through with a change, I'd be happy to go back old school. The 1911 I used in the 80s worked quite well.

[queevil]

I think they should look into the Smith and Wesson M&P 45. 10+1, not real wide in the grip, choice of back strap, agreeable ergonomics, can be had with a thumb safety if desired. It shouldn't be terribly expensive to purchase or maintain.