Army Plans to Start Replacing M9 Pistol in 2018
After today, it's all historical.
Ok I'm holding my breath until this happens.Gasp ... choke, choke ... OK that's not going to work.
Waste of taxpayer money, IMHO
I think it needs to happen, but I don't expect it to. Primarily for 2 reason; 1 Military procurement has always been dragged kicking and screaming to new weapons. Usually some World War makes them finally move. 2. Cost, though it is probably much less than the 46 million people cost to give them food stamps.
I agree with the last paragraph, but the "experts" need to remember we are not talking tactical ammo we are talking ball ammo, ammo that drills a one sized hole as it passes through the target. The ammo does not expand. For this reason the larger the projectile the larger the wound channel which results in a more effective round. If we were talking tactical ammo then I would agree with them. Of course I do agree that shot placement is always important, but the smaller the round the more importance shot placement is.One of the major goals of the MHS effort is to adopt a pistol chambered for a more potent round than the current 9mm, weapons officials said. The U.S. military replaced the .45 caliber 1911 pistol with the M9 in 1985 and began using the 9mm NATO round at that time.
Soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have complained that the 9mm round is not powerful enough to be effective in combat, Army officials maintain.
But experts from the law-enforcement and competitive shooting worlds have argued that tactical pistol ammunition -- no matter the caliber -- depends on proper shot placement to be effective at stopping a determined adversary.
"Nothing ever gets so bad that government "help" can't make it worse." Pat Garrett, March 22, 2014
"HATE IS GOOD, WHEN ITS DIRECTED AT EVIL." PROBASCO, April 20, 2012
I tried to push the envelope, but found that it was stationery.
Have you heard about the new corduroy pillows? They're making head lines!
NRA Endowment Member
What we need to do is fight the way our current enemy fights and to hell with that full metal round nose crap. They don't fight by treaty, why should we? Start arming our troops with real hurt them ammo.
And with the M16/M4 how about going back to a 1:12 or 1:14 twist? We are not shooting through jungle cover in the current theater of operation. The first M16 delivered devastating wounds because the round was so unstable in flight. The twist rate was tightened to provide a more stable flight through jungle undergrowth. Anyone find a jungle in the sandbox yet?
black talons would be nice.
PRAISE KEK
FATHER OF CHAOS
BRINGER OF DAY
IN THY WEBBED HANDS WE PLACE OUR FAITH
SHADILAY, SHADILAY!
If we're sticking to ball ammo, then we need .45. I have a FN FNP 45 and cannot recommend it strongly enough. Holds 15+1, is completely ambidextrous, and has an external safety.
+1 one for the FN. It would make a heck of a military pistol. It even comes suppressor-ready right out of the box. And screw the Hague Convention and Geneva Convention. It always frustrated me how we have to handicap ourselves in battle playing by the rules when our enemy clearly does not. That's why private contractors were so prevalent in OIF.Originally Posted by Charliebravo
The pen is mightier than the sword, but only when you're shoving it through your enemy's throat.
USMC Active Duty, 2004-2008
Gunsnet Member since January 2003
The grip size on a double stack .45 will be a deciding factor.
Guys with little hands and women will have more say on the army's next pistol than just about anybody else, they killed the 10mm for the FBI. I imagine the gun will have to have an external hammer and safety, they might let the all metal construction go away since polymer guns have proven themselves.
My prediction for .45's will be either a 1911 or Sig P220
But what will probably happen, is they will spend a ton of time looking at pistols, the guys in charge will get a shit ton of kickbacks from the big companies, and then we will end up with an updated beretta in either 9mm or .40.
Last edited by Hatedbysheeple; 06-21-2015 at 08:35 AM.
Initial Success or Total Failure
Past times....I had absolutely no problems with a 1911A1........but, I wasn't asked what I thought. A 9 still hasn't got the knockdown of a 45! That will start another argument...................
Dan
You're right. But also UNLIKE cops, the Pistol is NOT the primary armament of the Soldier. Good shot placement with a 9mm is key. If a Terrorist is wearing armor, your bigger ball ammo won't do anything anyway.
Frankly I'm surprised they haven't moved to the FN Five-seven. 20 rounds, about zero recoil, so no problem with small people and women. Very fast, zips through Class III soft body armor. Ammo is light, could carry a lot of rounds for very little weight and the round uses little materials to make it.
Army: Your new handgun will be a Sig Sauer
https://www.armytimes.com/articles/a...be-a-sig-sauer
Steve
After today, it's all historical.
I must be missing something, what chambering / caliber is this new miracle hand gun from Sig going to be?
Is this for real? It seems like we've been hearing about the army replacing the m9 for a decade
The problem with getting rid of the M9 was/ is it's utter simplicity of design. Simple to take down, and you can disassemble a couple dozen of them, put all the good parts in a box, and then just rebuild pistols pulling parts out at random. There is no fitting, no close tolerance, just put parts together to make a very accurate, very reliable pistol. Hard to replace that kind of reliability.
While not mentioned in the article, this is in reference to the Sig P320. The issue is the pistol's overall design.
Steve
After today, it's all historical.
So they are still going to use 9 mm NATO. My reaction is why bother to swap weapons then. The Sig will not be hitting any harder than the Beretta M9.
if they replace the pistol will the old ones make it to the surplus market?
Gunsnet member since 2002
Salt Water Cowboy - Dolphin 38
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks