morcey2
Member
BFR in 45-70. 
Army wants a harder-hitting pistol
- Thread starter FitGunner
- Start date
- Status
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,130
The huge limiting factor of weapon performance, regardless of rifle or pistol, is the ammunition. Because of the Geneva and Hague conventions, we (the military) aren't allowed to use expanding hollow point rounds, only FMJ or the rough equivalent.
I doubt the M9 will get replaced. Every few years, some general "listens" to Joe and tries to replace or investigates something the soldier complains about. The food, the pistol, the rifle, the uniforms, shave policies etc. Rarely does it ever get past the "we are thinking about it" stage and maybe some testing. I have been part of some really cool testing for military weapons and gear, stuff that was *supposed* to revolutionize the warfighter. Thermals to replace night vision that were smaller and lighter, modular rifle systems, better medicine etc. Only a handful of the promised improvements have been implemented in my time. For example when I came in we still used green ACE bandages, now we have the nifty IFAK.
In our current theater of operations the handgun is more of a symbol than useful tool. In most Arab countries, tyrannical dictators use handguns to execute people or only the rich/important have them. I was able to get many things done overseas working with locals because I was issued an M9 that I wore on my hip.
IF the M9 gets replaced, I think a .45 would be a better fit. Unlikely we would go back to the 1911 though because of decreased capacity. So maybe something double stacked like the FNP or FNX 45.
I doubt the M9 will get replaced. Every few years, some general "listens" to Joe and tries to replace or investigates something the soldier complains about. The food, the pistol, the rifle, the uniforms, shave policies etc. Rarely does it ever get past the "we are thinking about it" stage and maybe some testing. I have been part of some really cool testing for military weapons and gear, stuff that was *supposed* to revolutionize the warfighter. Thermals to replace night vision that were smaller and lighter, modular rifle systems, better medicine etc. Only a handful of the promised improvements have been implemented in my time. For example when I came in we still used green ACE bandages, now we have the nifty IFAK.
In our current theater of operations the handgun is more of a symbol than useful tool. In most Arab countries, tyrannical dictators use handguns to execute people or only the rich/important have them. I was able to get many things done overseas working with locals because I was issued an M9 that I wore on my hip.
IF the M9 gets replaced, I think a .45 would be a better fit. Unlikely we would go back to the 1911 though because of decreased capacity. So maybe something double stacked like the FNP or FNX 45.
usp9
Member
This... at least anytime soon. I give it twenty more years. There is no compelling reason to replace it. Standardization in NATO and SEATO offshoots will keep the 9mm in use. Besides, it's a very reliable and accurate pistol, and that matters.
Lucky Derby
Member
Bren 10
rskent
Member
A new pistol? I think they should use my plan.
A personal drone for every solder while deployed. It just stays above, out of sight, wherever the solder is at all times.
The solder wears an eye piece. If he sees a threat he just puts the cross-hares on the bad guy and blinks. Kaflooey!
A personal drone for every solder while deployed. It just stays above, out of sight, wherever the solder is at all times.
The solder wears an eye piece. If he sees a threat he just puts the cross-hares on the bad guy and blinks. Kaflooey!
thump_rrr
Member
It took 48 posts for somebody to get it right.
HK45 production was moved from Germany to the USA to be eligible to bid on the military contract to replace the M9.
When the recession hit in 08 the plan to replace the M9 was put on hold.
I would never sell my HK45 which shoots much better than I do and has never had a single hickup in the thousands of rounds I've put through it.
JohnnyBravo
Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2007
- Messages
- 182
In the grand scheme of things the military wastes enough money every single day to replace every small arm we have every year.
JohnnyBravo
Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2007
- Messages
- 182
Don't I know it!
After the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo pretty much destroyed Clark Air Base, the recovery operation went as follows.
Restore power and water.
Clear the main roads.
Clear the golf course.
This is seriously what we did.
Unfortunately for the officer corp a Lahar came down shortly afterwards and reburied it.
JB
Uncle Joe is suggesting short double barreled shotguns with non-lethal rounds. Because you can just shoot them in the air and the bad guys will run. Everyone knows that. But our supreme leader is also considering just declaring all battlefields, gun free zones.
BobTheTomato
Member
Just a dumb question but if you need a handgun don't you really need a rifle? I mean I thought the purpose of the handgun was to fight your way to a rifle.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
I think this is the likeliest change, rather than caliber or platform. I think this article of the convention will be abandoned shortly. The world is heating up fo' realz geopolitically, and pretty much every last police force on the planet has been using hollow points for like 20-30 years, now. And even our specialist sniper guys haven't been relegated to FMJ. Provided cost or operation do not get in the way, I fully expect expanding 'defense' ammo to be widely deployed in fairly short order; there's just no good reason not to, when effectiveness is so increased, and Geneva/Hague seem to carry even less weight than they did originally.
TCB
gun_with_a_view
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2014
- Messages
- 471
FN7
CoalTrain49
Member
I hate to disagree with the Army brass but there is nothing wrong with an M9. There wasn't anything wrong with a 1911 when they replaced that one. If it was so bad why is it still in service in some units? I agree that the change needs to be the main and and not the sidearm.
Having been in the military absolutely nothing surprises me coming from the DOD. Absolutely nothing. I guess they have nothing better to do than sit around and find ways to spend the taxpayers money on unnecessary weapons. I thought they were cutting the defense budget.
Having been in the military absolutely nothing surprises me coming from the DOD. Absolutely nothing. I guess they have nothing better to do than sit around and find ways to spend the taxpayers money on unnecessary weapons. I thought they were cutting the defense budget.
Last edited:
Vern Humphrey
Member
There was no handgun in the world (regardless of caliber) that represented a significant enough improvement over the M1911 to justify its replacement, either -- but that didn't stop them.
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
Fraud, waste, abuse, Multi-Cam, ATACS, M9s....
I read over the article again.
The remarks by USMC & gun industry insider; Ernest Ernie Langdon were interesting. That most modern .40/10mm pistols were based on 9x19mm(9mm Luger) designs.
Also that guns wear out.
This is due to excessive amounts of powerful rounds like .40/10mm/.45acp etc.
The DoJ/FBI learned this lesson in the late 1980s/early 1990s with the era of 10mm pistols. S&W pumped out piles of .40S&W, 10mm & .45acp guns to make everyone happy.
This included the FBI & many SWAT/SRT units who switched from P35/Hi Power 9x19mm sidearms to P220s, 1006s & 1911a1s. Smith & Wesson even produced a decocker format 10mm pistol for the FBI contracts which worked a lot like the SIG Sauer P220.
When I was on active duty in the early 1990s, the DA(Dept of the Army) & DoD blew $28mil to discover the M16a2 5.56mm was fine & did not require any replacement or changes.
This new sidearm article shows the flaws & lack of judgement too. The M9 pistol(92F) was designed/T&Eed to have a open slide to prevent jams/stovepipe problems. It also cut the weight.
The sidearm has been in service since 1985 or so. Didn't anyone see these problems in nearly 30 years?
I also don't know why the US military would change the holsters either. Bianchi Intl spent several years R&Ding the M12/UM84. Is it perfect? No. But the holster works & it's modular. A SERPA or the new Safariland AS7 series might be good but the nylon M12 is fine. The only gripe is the metal clips which can rub into your side as you walk or run.
It's a bit off topic too, but the DoD's problems designing & fielding camo uniforms is stupid. The US Army recently said they will release a family of camo designs.
Now, in 2014, we have every service branch(US Navy, Army, USAF, USMC) using different patterns & colors.
Crye Precision's MultiCam is okay but I like the simple ATACS style. It blends well & wouldn't be as odd looking as the 2000s era US Army ACU camo style.
Rusty S
PS: Happy 4th! Stay safe & have fun.
I read over the article again.
The remarks by USMC & gun industry insider; Ernest Ernie Langdon were interesting. That most modern .40/10mm pistols were based on 9x19mm(9mm Luger) designs.
Also that guns wear out.
This is due to excessive amounts of powerful rounds like .40/10mm/.45acp etc.
The DoJ/FBI learned this lesson in the late 1980s/early 1990s with the era of 10mm pistols. S&W pumped out piles of .40S&W, 10mm & .45acp guns to make everyone happy.
This included the FBI & many SWAT/SRT units who switched from P35/Hi Power 9x19mm sidearms to P220s, 1006s & 1911a1s. Smith & Wesson even produced a decocker format 10mm pistol for the FBI contracts which worked a lot like the SIG Sauer P220.
When I was on active duty in the early 1990s, the DA(Dept of the Army) & DoD blew $28mil to discover the M16a2 5.56mm was fine & did not require any replacement or changes.
This new sidearm article shows the flaws & lack of judgement too. The M9 pistol(92F) was designed/T&Eed to have a open slide to prevent jams/stovepipe problems. It also cut the weight.
The sidearm has been in service since 1985 or so. Didn't anyone see these problems in nearly 30 years?
I also don't know why the US military would change the holsters either. Bianchi Intl spent several years R&Ding the M12/UM84. Is it perfect? No. But the holster works & it's modular. A SERPA or the new Safariland AS7 series might be good but the nylon M12 is fine. The only gripe is the metal clips which can rub into your side as you walk or run.
It's a bit off topic too, but the DoD's problems designing & fielding camo uniforms is stupid. The US Army recently said they will release a family of camo designs.
Now, in 2014, we have every service branch(US Navy, Army, USAF, USMC) using different patterns & colors.
Crye Precision's MultiCam is okay but I like the simple ATACS style. It blends well & wouldn't be as odd looking as the 2000s era US Army ACU camo style.
Rusty S
PS: Happy 4th! Stay safe & have fun.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Look, Ernie Langdon's sure been around a long, long time, and he deserves a lot of recognition from the practical shooting community. But much of what he said in that article sure sounded like someone out of touch with the current state of practical shooting, and someone floundering around for something relevant to say. (And not quite finding what he was looking for...)
The idea the the military really has a longevity problem with the handguns they sometimes issue to a few troops is rather laughable. At the rates that 95% of the sidearms issued to American soldiers and Marines are actually used, a $500 Glock, M&P (or Sig or H&K ... because we all know the military's going to always pick outdated and expensive, given the chance) will still be perfectly functional in 2050....maybe 2099! And putting another on in the hands of the serviceman who actually wore one out costs them probably less than what they'll spend to keep him in drinking water for a tour.
And pretending that there's something new to be discovered about the 9/40/45/.357/10mm/etc. debate just makes the military look like they've been hiding under a rock for the last 50 years. ... or are too arrogant to accept the development and endless testing of concepts done by the civilian/leo shooting community for so many decades.
)The idea the the military really has a longevity problem with the handguns they sometimes issue to a few troops is rather laughable. At the rates that 95% of the sidearms issued to American soldiers and Marines are actually used, a $500 Glock, M&P (or Sig or H&K ... because we all know the military's going to always pick outdated and expensive, given the chance) will still be perfectly functional in 2050....maybe 2099! And putting another on in the hands of the serviceman who actually wore one out costs them probably less than what they'll spend to keep him in drinking water for a tour.
And pretending that there's something new to be discovered about the 9/40/45/.357/10mm/etc. debate just makes the military look like they've been hiding under a rock for the last 50 years. ... or are too arrogant to accept the development and endless testing of concepts done by the civilian/leo shooting community for so many decades.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,130
Not necessarily. Issuance of sidearms is limited, first by budget: how much the unit has to spend. Then it is limited by job or position. Command staff such as the commander and/or top NCO will typically get sidearms first, and sometimes only them. After that medics or soldiers assigned to crew served weapons (M240 and rarely 249) usually get issued sidearms. Officers at the platoon level might get sidearms if finances allow. On my last deployment we had 50 pistols and 70 soldiers, so most people had sidearms. When I transferred units a few years ago there are 2 sidearms.
Weapons are a sensitive item in the military. Leaving one around is punished rather severely anyway.
Vern Humphrey
Member
You're kidding, of course.
In Viet Nam, all of our M1911A1s were rebuilds. They had been ridden hard in WWII and Korea and put away wet.
Between tours in Viet Nam, I commanded a training company at Fort Polk, and saw many an M1911A1 leave keyholes in the target -- the barrels wore out fairly quickly with as many rounds as we put through them.
The modern Army puts MORE rounds downrange than we did.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Gonna have to see some stats on that, Vern. When are who shooting handguns in the military enough to wear them out? Of the military folks I know personally, a large majority seem to recall having hardly ever shot a handgun, even to qualify. Certainly not in any sort of rigorous training, and never our of need. Of course some do, but aside from the idea that the military does indeed keep guns for a long darned time (hence your Vietnam era 1911s were undoubtedly WWI/II/Korea examples worked over and reissued), who is out there in the services burning out handguns?
Or are you saying that the military makes a certain number of troops qualify with sidearms, and even though that's hardly enough rounds to gain familiarity, all the wear and tear goes into those few poor specimens in the training locker? That I'd certainly believe. (And is why I said 95%, not "all.") Heck, I've heard of recruits being issued M-16s during boot camp that were from their grand-daddy's day.
Or are you saying that the military makes a certain number of troops qualify with sidearms, and even though that's hardly enough rounds to gain familiarity, all the wear and tear goes into those few poor specimens in the training locker? That I'd certainly believe. (And is why I said 95%, not "all.") Heck, I've heard of recruits being issued M-16s during boot camp that were from their grand-daddy's day.
Vern Humphrey
Member
The answer to your question is the same as the one that tripped up SLA Marshall (who claimed American troops didn't fire in combat): If they aren't shooting, why are they buying and issuing all that ammo?
If they aren't wearing out the old pistols, why are they buying quantities of NEW pistols?
If they aren't wearing out the old pistols, why are they buying quantities of NEW pistols?
Arkady
Member
Onmilo, please enlighten me on this one. Because the highlighted parts don't make sense, and the second one likely violates the laws of physics.
You do realize that Level IV armor is specified to stop M2 Ball, right? That is a 166 grain, hardened steel core 30.06 projectile impacting in excess of 2800 feet per second.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Vern, I don't think that does anything to answer my question. If you don't know, that's fine. I'll accept your opinion, but I don't agree based on my own current information.
- Status
