What handgun should replace the Army's M9?

[TruthTellers]

You are Army General Joe Schmo and are tasked with finding a new handgun to replace the aging Beretta M9's. The requirements are:

1. It must be able to attach lights/lasers and sound suppressors. (Basically it must have a bottom rail and a threaded barrel.)
2. It must last a minimum of 35,000 rounds before frame replacement is needed.
3. It must be ergonomic enough for women to use effectively. (Bye-Bye .45 ACP)

Of note, there is no set caliber that must be chosen, but the bullet must be able to penetrate 14 inches of ballistic gel at a range of 50 meters and expanding hollow point ammunition is allowed.

What handgun do you choose, in what caliber(s), and why?

 

[entropy]

M45A1 as fielded by MARSOC. Women and officers can be taught to fire the .45 ACP 1911. I know because I have done so.

While the US is not a signatory to the Hague Accords, for some odd reason we have abided by it since it's inception. While I'd love to see that changed, I doubt it would be. so 230 FMJ Ball it is.

 

[LeonCarr]

This is gonna be good...lemme get a front row seat, a chili dog, and a Shiner Bock.

The handgun that should replace the M9 is the Glock that Gaston Glock will not build despite customers clamoring for one for years.

A full size, single stack, 10+1 .45 ACP.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[Zaydok Allen]

The VP9 or VP40 with threaded barrels get my vote. The modularity of the grip makes them a suitable gun for many folks of different sizes.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

New M9s

 

[Malamute]

In reality, its likely to be a 9mm glock. With better ammo now acceptable, there isnt much point of a 45 over a 9, with all the attendant downsides of a 45 in gun size, ammo weight, grip size, and training.

 

[Praxidike]

An American manufacted pistol from S&W.

 

[jrmiddleton425]

Three of the five branches already have some variant of the SIG P226/228/229 in inventory. It's no stretch to imagine that the Air Force will buy the same.

The Marines will probably keep plugging along with the 1911 pistols they already have. From what I have read over the years in American Rifleman, the Marine Corps believes that John Moses Browning was quite literally sent by God, to give them the 1911.

But, in this scenario, since I'm a General, we go to the Czech Republic, and purchase a knockdown factory, equipment, and licensing rights for 99 years, to build the CZ-75B.

 

[Praxidike]

In reality, its likely to be a 9mm glock. With better ammo now acceptable, there isnt much point of a 45 over a 9, with all the attendant downsides of a 45 in gun size, ammo weight, grip size, and training.

I don't see the standard issue military pistol lacking an external safety.

 

[rskent]

1. It must be able to attach lights/lasers and sound suppressors. (Basically it must have a bottom rail and a threaded barrel.)

Why in the world would we need a threaded barrel on a standard service pistol? More cost, little purpose.

2. It must last a minimum of 35,000 rounds before frame replacement is needed.

OK, If properly cared for. A big “if”

3. It must be ergonomic enough for women to use effectively. (Bye-Bye .45 ACP)

Really, I can't even believe I read this.

I guess I'm gonna go with the M9.

 

[bannockburn]

SIG P229 Combat.

 

[TwinReverb]

I would wish I could eliminate the requirement of #3. I'd be voting Glock 21 in that case.

If not, then Glock 37 (.45 GAP). But I'm sure they wouldn't like that, ammo would be expensive, and it's not NATO approved yet, that I am aware.

So if we go back to using 9mm, which I don't have a problem with at all, Glock 17. Or Glock 19 (which the Marines are approved to use).

 

[C0untZer0]

What are tankers using now? 5.56 carbines of some sort?

 

[JTQ]

Praxidike wrote,
I don't see the standard issue military pistol lacking an external safety.

Thirty years ago you'd be correct. I suspect that was one reason the Beretta was chosen over the SIG.

Today, there isn't a decision maker in DoD that hasn't lived their entire shooting life in the era of no safety on handguns. It may be an issue, but I don't think it would too high of a hurdle to jump to get a Glock, or M&P, etc., or any other pistol without an active safety.

 

[Dean1818]

M&P series fits the bill

Keeps an American made company going strong

 

[Fiv3r]

It's tough to say, which politics and back scratching and whatnot, but my guess is that it will be a modular polymer 9mm striker with a manual safety. I don't think round count would be an issue for a quality pistol from a top tier maker.

I think the SIG p320 with an added safety would be attractive to the Brass goven the track record wit the company.

I also think FNH has an inside track with their fns line. Pretty much have all the features with the added bonus of knowing how to land US Govt contracts. It also doesn't hurt that the civilian price is sub $500. They could make thme very attractively priced with a parts and service contract.

I don't think Beretta should be counted out either. I think the M9 is fine for the roll most soldiers requier. That said, their new (admittedly hideous) poly 9 with a 4" barrel might be given a hard look too.

 

[Seven High]

The Beretta Vertec model is a worthy replacement for the M9.

 

[Straight Shooters]

Here's what Rugers CEO Michael O. Fifer said about this subject in their 2nd Quarter earnings call:

"Quick take on the pros and cons is that there's enormous cause to participate and an extremely low likelihood for any one company of winning it. And there's been a lot of talk now that maybe they don't need to change caliber that maybe 9 millimeter is okay. And if that really becomes the driving force, and from a budget perspective, it probably will, especially as the military considers use of hollow point ammo instead of strictly ball ammo, that makes the 9 millimeter phenomenally more effective as the stopping weapon.

I think it's highly likely that Berreta (57:45) would get to keep it. They'd find a way to do a little cost reduction, a little bit of product improvement. And from a logistics perspective, which drives a huge portion of their budget, they're going to be nuts to change. They'd be much better off, pretty much with what they've got.

And so, that adds to the risk factor of putting the huge investment of time, people and money into competing for something that there's really very low likelihood of winning even if you have a much better product. And so those are kind of the pros and cons right there. If you win it, obviously you're in the capital receipt for the next 25 years, but I have a feeling competing for it's going to be a little bit like being hit against a brick wall, and you'll feel real good when you stop."

 

[moxie]

I wouldn't change a thing. No money for it.

Has there been a single instance in any of the services where the M9 failed to do the job and the job would have been done by a different type pistol?

The best example I know of effective use of the M9 is when SrA Andy Brown took out a bad guy armed with a MAK-90 at 70 yards. Fired four shots. Missed twice. Hit him once in the shoulder and once between the eyes. End of story. This happened at Fairchild AFB in 1994. The perp had killed six and wounded 22. SrA Brown did his shooting from a kneeling postion. I can't think of a pistol that might have done better. I personally don't like the M9 at all, but wouldn't support any move to replace it in today's environment.

See:

http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=8767

 

[kBob]

I'm holding out for the 400kW pulse Pistol.

Politics determines what is selected.

Troops will use what they are issued.

Internet folks will complain, praise, and argue.

Someone will likely start an argument about whether I should have used the current NYT standard above and dropped the coma before the word "and".

-kBob

 

[Zerodefect]

I'd rather leave the M9 at home than carry it anywhere. Big, heavy gun, open slide. I'm just not a fan of the M9 at all. The small hand requirement is silly, since I've never seen anyone with small hands that liked the M9.

Glock 19, and Glock 41, would be the pistols I'd choose to procure.

 

[Combat Engineer]

First of all, it will be a 'Made In America' combat handgun. Time to put Americans to work.

S&W M&Ps already come with the mandatory thumb safety option. And there is one proven combat design that has stood the test of time and has a perceived aura of battlefield supremacy. Nobody ever complained of having an underpowered 1911. Morale counts.

Smith & Wesson or Springfield Armory?

 

[BSA1]

I would phase in the new version of the Beretta M9A3 that the Army already has rejected.

http://kitup.military.com/2015/03/army-snubs-beretta-m9a3-proposal.html

 

[psyopspec]

@ OP

You are Army General Joe Schmo and are tasked with finding a new handgun to replace the aging Beretta M9's.

As a good steward of taxpayer dollars, I keep my mouth shut and wait for lazer blasters to come out. No need to shell out millions on a tertiary weapon until the next generation of technology leaps forward.

@Combat Engineer

First of all, it will be a 'Made In America' combat handgun. Time to put Americans to work.

Every issued 92 is made in the US.

 

[Combat Engineer]

Then why does mine say "Made in Italy" ?