What should US army do?

[OneShot!]

In mid 1980's US army made a shift from model 1911 .45 ACP to M9 Beretta 9mm as its side arm issue. When the army was looking for a new weapon with perhaps more capacity than 1911, two pistols were finally singled out; Beretta and Sig P226. However, Beretta beat Sig simply on cost issue. There are other stories of payoffs and what not, but I am not up on that so I wont discuss it here. Someone else may who knows more about why Beretta was chosen. May be it is a better weapon?

So, and dont hate me for this poll, I ask you what should the US amry do now looking in to the future with respect to its standard side arm?

Should it revert back to 1911, stay with M9 Beretta, chose Sig, or go with HK USP which is being used in the US army in special units?

 

[Owen]

I certainly admire your enthusiasm for polls, but this is a topic that has been hashed out here about 9 million times.

Personally I think tyhey should go back to using a pistol as a badge of office, and with that in mind, start issuing .32 ACP pocket pistols. Wouldn't want anyone to think that pistols are for fighting...

 

[OneShot!]

.32 ACP wont do much damage. The issue is not what pistol should be used in combat, but as a side arm when you main weapon is neturalized.

 

[Owen]

I know 32 ACP won't do much damamge. Neither will a swagger stick, and that's the point. Seems to me a full size pistol with 2 spare mags weighs as much as the magazine for a rifle. I'd rather the troops carry a spare mag or two than a pistol. For the average grunt, who fights as a part of a unit, not as an individual, the pistol (which they have received almost no training with) is essentially one more useless geegaw weighing them down.

Outside of the Cavalry, pistols were always a badge of office. I'm not convinced that should have ever changed. In the modern military, there are a few roles where the pistol is an essential bit of gear; Investigators, MP's, Intelligence (assuming there is some actual spying going on). For those positions any handgun that a police department would use is just fine. For just about any other postion, and certainly in the infantry its just about useless.

 

[marksman13]

Alright Owen, so what do you do with that extra mag when your primary weapon malfunctions? You gonna throw it at the Jihadists? Pistols have their place on the battlefield, espscially an urban battlefield. I don't really care which pistol it is, but if I had my choice between the ones listed I would go with a Sig P220. I like the 45 and if I ever have another M4 fail me, I want a dependable, accurate, and .45 caliber pistol on my side.

A military sidearm does not have an awful lot of use as a primary weapon. They are convenient for clearing houses, and they will save your bacon if you have a primary weapon malf. They should be standard issue to all troops, but that will never happen. As it stands at least the machine gunners, entry teams, and snipers/designated marksmen should have them. As should medics and PSDs. High ranking officers should be the last soldiers to have sidearms. The likelyhood of them ever drawing a weapon is slim to none. The bottom line is that fighting tools should go to fighting men. They should not adorn the hips of those who seldom go in harm's way.

I hate to offend those top notch officers out there who are doing their jobs, and do put themselves on the battlefield with their men. You guys know who you are and should not take offence to my comments. If the statement offends you, well, then you know who you are too.

 

[OneShot!]

I second Marksman13's opinion.

 

[Ala Dan]

"Bacon Saver"

Yes, for sure the .45 caliber SIG P220~!

 

[Baron357]

Well maybe it is b/c I live right next to Smith & Wesson but you forgot the M&P .45 which Smith even added a thumb safety to so as to please the military. I have already heard much talk about it being highly considered if and when the military starts trial testing.

But who knows I hear a lot of things.

 

[Owen]

What do you do?

You clear the malfunction asap, while being covered by the 30 to 40 guys around you.

The most likely stoppage for any military weapon is running out of ammo. The chance of having a malfunction that puts a weapon down for the count is miniscule.

Further, soldiers fight as a team, having a weapon go down is not catastrophic when the guy behind you is waiting for you to drop down to one knee to take the lead. People complain about the ineffectiveness of 5.56, and now you are going to insist that already overladen soldiers waste precious weight and room on a handgun? A tool that the vast majority of soldiers have had little or no training on? I suppose the DOD could dig into the already minimal amount of rifle marksmanship they get...

A handgun is for self-defense, not fighting.

In addition, LT, Captains, Major and Colonels are all officers, and are likely to be involved in shooting bad guys.

 

[Quiet]

I believe the Beretta M-9A1 is what's current being slated to be used as a replacement for the Beretta M-9.

The US Army also issues the M-11 (Sig-Sauer P-228).

The US Army does not issue H&K USP. US SOCOM issues H&K Mk 23 Mod 0, which the USP is based off of.

All proposed handgun replacement programs were rejected by Congress and all the branches in the US Military were told to settle on the same handgun as a replacement. Following current developement patterns, chances are there will not be a replacement for the Beretta M-9 for the next 10-15 years.

The H&K HK-45 & HK-45C were developed from the RFP given in the Joint Combat Pistol program. Even though the program was canceled, H&K decided to continue with developement and release the end result to the open market.

 

[marksman13]

owen, you need to do some research on how this war is being fought. I don't think I ever had the luxury of having more than 20 people around me when shooting was going on. When soldiers are clearing a house it is often in a team of no more than four men. That was what we spent the majority of our time doing. I would bet that most of the troops that are actually fighting over there now are doing the same thing.

Tell me, owen, how do you clear a malfunction involving the M4's selector switch breaking off in your hand? And as far as having other soldiers there to watch your back, I have another thought for you. Put yourself in a dark house, with your light on a bad guy holding an AK, and have your weapon go down. Do you really want your life in the hands of the soldier three steps behind you? The guy directly behind you is looking at the other corner of the room if he is following proper procedure, so it will be the third man in who actually has a chance to knock down the bad guy in front of you. It happens fast, and he just might get the guy, but you won't be anything more than dead weight for the rest of the operation without a weapon of some type.

Your argument might have been more effective in WWII, but not on today's battlefield. If your weapon goes down, and they do go down, you better have something else to work with. You owe it to yourself and your team. The fact is that catastrophic failures in primary weapons isn't all that miniscule. With older weapons, and weapons with high round counts in service, stuff happens. Weapons break, period. How miniscule would even one weapon failure seem if it was you or your son?

As far as officers doing any fighting, while I am sure there are some who pull their weight on the battlefield, most of the majors and colonels I saw were in an office, planning and figuring out logistics. The fact is most higher ranking officers, which are the officers I was refering to in my post, have absolutely no need for a sidearm other than convenience for carrying around a FOB.

 

[Lonestar49]

2 choices

...

I didn't vote, because it would be either keep the Beretta or switch to Sig in my book.

The 1911, as great as it is, steeped in history, still takes some "special-time and technique" IMHO, to field strip, for inspection, jams within, cleaning-clearing an internal problem, as well as, putting it back together quickly, as opposed to either a Beretta or Sig, that, both are SOOO simple and easy and fast to take down, inspect, clean, and put back together.

My thinking is also, Sig's are Tight (nothing wrong with that) and Beretta's, least my Px4 40, is lose (slide-contact) but is not wrong, nor effecting guns accuracy, but is more forgiving of dirt, dust, grim, etc., as well as Beretta's mags are the best, for the same reason over Sigs Tight-mags, as well.

If it were up to me, I'd switch the Army to the new Beretta Px4 45cal, with 14 round mags, or more, and leave the ammo in the 230gr FMJ to appease NATO's concern for the "fair enemy"..


IMHO,


LS

 

[Boats]

The M9A1 should be fielded going forward for as long as we are going to keep using 9mm ball ammo.

The 1911A1, of which I am a huge fan, has its place, and that place is in the hands of troops who carry alot and shoot alot, so the weapon can be used cocked, locked, and loaded, not carried around in Condition 0 to prevent idiots from ND'ing themselves.

For better of worse, a safety and/or decocker plus a "double action" trigger pull, is likely to remain a military requirement for general issue sidearms.

The day-to-day problem of the M9 is not Beretta, or the design of the pistol, it is the procurement and use of crap aftermarket mags, and 9mm ball that are the main limitations on the service sidearm.

Crap contract mags and ball ammo's so-so terminal performance are going to also plague any 9mm successor to the M9. Stick a H&K USP with non-OEM low bidder mags and ammo that icepicks its target and troops will begin finding fault with that platform too. SIGARMS should consider themselves fortunate to mainly have supplied P228s to flight crews and P226s to SEALS. If the P226 had become the main sidearm, it'd no doubt have a mixed bag reputation by now as well. Checkmate mags go a long way towards getting a pistol a "jammomatic" title.

If we go back to the .45ACP ball as the sidearm round, the S&W M&P45, with the thumb safety, should be awarded the contract if it survives T&E. The only knock to be had on that pistol is that it is striker fired. My wife's M&P9 is a particularly fine specimen of polymer fighting gun.

The next sidearm should be forever provided with OEM magazines, but for various shortsighted reasons, that will never happen.

 

[Dobe]

Go back to what worked before. It's a great platform.

Our troops with no experience were trained on this platform from WWI to Vietnam. For some reason, I believe the youth of today can still be trained on it.

 

[DomMega]

I think a 9mm in a military arena is pretty pointless. For one to actually go and pull their sidearm, I would say they need some real stopping power and fast. You can plug someone with a nine numerous times and they'll still be coming at you. Adrenaline is a crazy thing in combat. Beretta's are good weapons but I don't believe that they are superior to a Sig Sauer by any means. I use 9mm's as weapons for the range because of the cheap ammunition, you can shoot all day for a pretty inexpensive price. But when I'm at home I either have a .40 or a .45 by my bedside because thats when I'm trusting my life to my firearm.

If it were up to me I would outfit the military with Sig P220 Combat. American Handgunner just did an entire article dedicated to the torture testing of these guns along with the Lasermax sights installed. Both worked flawlessly after being dropped from a crane, buried in mud, hit with baseball bats, and run over by super heavy construction equipment. Yes, they're a little more expensive but we're talking about our soldiers here. They deserve to have the best equipment possible in the field and furthermore, their self-preservation is of extreme importance simply because of how much it costs to train them, feed them, etc. while in the battlefield. Spend an extra hundred bucks or more and get them the best there is.

To hell and back reliability? After reading the articles and viewing the pictures I would say absolutely!

 

[jeff-10]

USP in 40 S&W.

 

[Langenator]

Go to a CZ-97, modified with two upgrades

1-ambi safety (already available on the CZ-75)
2-decocker (also available on the CZ-75)

I might also be persuaded to consider a polymer frame, as well.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Let's remember that the Army decided on the cartridge, 9X19, before chosing the gun. They did that for political reasons, a sop to NATO, which accused us of always riding roughshod over them. They did not do it because the M1911A1 was considered inadequate, too hard for recruits to learn, or somehow "obsolete."

 

[10-Ring]

The military isn't looking for the best, it's looking for something that will function to a certain standard at the lowest price possible...whether it's Beretta USA, SIG arms or HK -- or even Taurus or Ruger it's really about how big a loss they're willing to take.

 

[wooderson]

referring back to earlier posts - are all combat troops in the US military currently issued pistols to carry as part of their standard load?

If it were my choice, given my preferences, it would be something a striker-fired SA/DAO like the M&P in 9mm, with an external safety as on some of the M&P45s. (or an XD or even a Glock, despite my issues with their ergonomics - or an entirely new design, whatever)

 

[hostilecrab]

go back to .45 ACP

I think the US Army should go with the Glock 21.

 

[browningguy]

None of the above. I'd be in favor of a Hi-cap .45 ACP, the best of both worlds.

 

[marksman13]

wooderson, the answer to your question is a resounding NO! But, many more should be, and they should be issued something more powerful than what they are carrying now.

hostilecrab, the US military will never adopt a Glock. It lacks an external safety. I'm not a Glock fan by any means, but if it came down to a Glock 21 and the currently issued Berretta, I would take the Block I guess. If we were talking about a Glock 17 vs a Berretta, I would take the Berretta.

And I totally forgot about the CZ 97. That is the pistol I would prefer over any other to carry in a combat zone.

 

[full metal]

I voted sig,I never liked the berreta's but I love the 1911 as much as I hate to admit it we need to look forward and not backward's. So may I recomend the springfield xd-45 tactical 5 inch barrel. 45 ACP, 14 round's,
polymer reciver,rail system,DAO,need I say more.

 

[Grunt]

While I own several 1911s, being a military firearms instructor, it's the last weapon I would want to arm them with. The idea that everybody in the military is firearms savy is a myth. I would guess that about 80-90 percent of the shooters in my base populace classes aren't really in the military for the shooting portion. Problem is that now you combine personnel that aren't really into maintaining their own profeciency with a handgun, bad habits of leaving fingers on triggers when they shouldn't be with a short, light trigger of a 1911 or a Glock, and bad things are going to happen. There's were reasons that the 1911 was carried with an empty chamber and in a way, the M9 is better for these shooters (I use the term lightly). Personally, I'd like to see the USP with a LEM trigger come into service. The LEM is light enough to make accurate fire not any real problem but at the same time has a long enough takeup to avoid students form firing a round without intending to. It's not a heavy pull but it is long enough that you know you are pulling the trigger before it goes bang. Like I said, a .45 would be great and if EVERY shooter in the military was "into" guns, that would be a great choice but the reality is that the 1911 just isn't a good choice for the typical military shooter.