New Army Pistol

[Starwalker]

I was in the Pentagon when the 9mm and M9 were "selected." (I was working a different procurement program.)
The Army trials only had one handgun pass the tests: the 1911.
The Army did not choose the 9mm or the M9.
1. The 9mm was standardized as a political trade-off with NATO to get the 5.56 adopted as NATO standard rifle ammo.
2. The Beretta was bought to get the Italians to buy F-16s.

One thing I learned in the Pentagon is that many decisions are made WAY up the chain for political reasons that have nothing to do with what the service needs and requests.

If this is true, and I am not suggesting it isn't, our soldiers deserve better than this. This type of procurement costs lives.

 

[OKFC05]

If this is true, and I am not suggesting it isn't, our soldiers deserve better than this. This type of procurement costs lives.

Suggest you watch The Pentagon Wars , a 1998 HBO film, directed by Richard Benjamin, based on a book of the same name (The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard) by Colonel James G. Burton, USAF (retired). Starring Kelsey Grammer, Cary Elwes and Richard Schiff, the film is a dark comedy describing the development of the M2 Bradley fighting vehicle.

When I saw this movie after I retired from active duty, I suggested it be mandatory viewing for every action office working in Ft Fumble (The Pentagon).
Like most satires, it contains WAY too much that is unfortunately true to life in Washington, DC.

 

[jdyer225]

I think the M&P 40 would be great.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[S&W Fan]

I wouldn't be holding my breath over this, comes up every couple of years. So what's next coming down the interwebs? The training the military has given has always been woefully inadequate compared to what's available on the open market, leo for the most part as well. Yes the Tier 1 guys always get the best training and the most time for training but your basic grunt gets limited time especially with the M9. At my son's last M9 qualification (prior to his current deployment) the idiot next to him put one of his rounds on my son's target. He said the RO was speechless, as was my son.

That's why the first class I took at Gunsite in 1978 was all cops except for 2 and one of those was military. It's something that has continued to this day with most of the higher level schools.

 

[MrTrolleyguy]

This may be a stupid question.

The only caliber I have NOT heard is the .50 cal. I am sure that is a man stopper. Just as I am sure there are reasons why it would not work. Primarily items are the weight and recoil problems .

Has anyone seriously considered it?

 

[Biscut]

Typical gov't nonsense. We all know the handgun to a troop is a secondary tool. 9mm with today's modern bullet designs (think monolithic (copper)) driven down a 4-5" pipe can do every bit the damage 357Sig, 40, or 45ACP will do. Hospital data on kills throughout the US shows its 2or more hits that affect killing more than the caliber choice. 9mm-45 the percentage kills are all very close.

If your stuck with FMJ no expansion than basic common sense says 9mm is worst! 45ACP best.

Here is my take (not that it means anything) 9mm HP ammo Glock 17 vs M&P 9. Either can and will serve our troops reliably and the platform is cost effective. I have M&P and G's...I'd normally lean G a little bit but M&P is US company and US made so that should count for something!!

 

[Richard Simmons]

I was in the Pentagon when the 9mm and M9 were "selected." (I was working a different procurement program.)
The Army trials only had one handgun pass the tests: the 1911.
The Army did not choose the 9mm or the M9.
1. The 9mm was standardized as a political trade-off with NATO to get the 5.56 adopted as NATO standard rifle ammo.
2. The Beretta was bought to get the Italians to buy F-16s.

One thing I learned in the Pentagon is that many decisions are made WAY up the chain for political reasons that have nothing to do with what the service needs and requests.

Perhaps I'm not understanding your comments above? Wasn't the M9 adopted in 1990? The 5.56 was adopted by NATO in 1977.

 

[OKFC05]

Perhaps I'm not understanding your comments above? Wasn't the M9 adopted in 1990? The 5.56 was adopted by NATO in 1977.

No, you're not understanding what I wrote. I put it in two separate points because the deal was struck with NATO on the caliber long before the US pistol trials began. Long before the M9, it was already decided the next US pistol MUST be 9mm.

The US trials dragged on for years, and the firing trials were
done TWICE, because NO available 9mm passed the trial criteria. The US Army ran the 1911 .45 through the tests as a control measure, and when only the 1911 passed, asked congress for permission to simply buy more 1911s; Congress said no.

I observed the Congressional hearings where the Army was told to run the trials for a third time. You can read the Congressional Record, the 06 US Army project officer said, "Sir, we can rerun the tests until doomsday and it won't change the results. Just tell us what you want us to buy and we will do it."

That is why the M9 is a Beretta.

 

[forrestinmathews]

Well with the advent of the short frame 10mm I'd really like to see that and the standard frame adopted. The round offers lethality increases over the 9mm with capacity increases over the .45. Why not spec an upscale 22rd magazine for the 10mm? The pistols don't need to be conceab or in combat and the increased capacity would certainly be appreciated by the ground troops who used the gun alot for compound clearing.


Crank out ten billion rounds and either teach people to shoot or get them out of the military. This isn't the scouts and I doubt anyone would really want to explain their other than honorable discharge was because they couldn't make the cut putting rounds on target. Combat loads recoil. We didn't have this concern when the US rifle cal 30M1 was in service. Did we?

 

[Edmo]

I vote for the FNX 45... It is a fully ambi design with a decocker which allows for the M-9 double action to single action transition. Or you can use the decocker as a safety to carry it cocked-and-locked just like a 1911.

Remember, you don't need a 1911 to launch 45 ACP rounds. There are modern designs out there today which are much cheaper to make and are likely more reliable with the limited maintenance troops in the field might give their secondary weapon. The FNX also carries 15 rounds and does it without an excessive thickness of the grip.

OBTW, don't expect a change anytime soon.

Edmo

 

[Richard Simmons]

No, you're not understanding what I wrote. I put it in two separate points because the deal was struck with NATO on the caliber long before the US pistol trials began. Long before the M9, it was already decided the next US pistol MUST be 9mm.

The US trials dragged on for years, and the firing trials were
done TWICE, because NO available 9mm passed the trial criteria. The US Army ran the 1911 .45 through the tests as a control measure, and when only the 1911 passed, asked congress for permission to simply buy more 1911s; Congress said no.

I observed the Congressional hearings where the Army was told to run the trials for a third time. You can read the Congressional Record, the 06 US Army project officer said, "Sir, we can rerun the tests until doomsday and it won't change the results. Just tell us what you want us to buy and we will do it."

That is why the M9 is a Beretta.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[murphydog]

With the logistic, procurement and training issues noted above, plus the reality of declining defense budgets, and a contract to provide the DOD with "up to" 100,000 M9s signed in September 2012...don't hold your breath about either a new pistol or 9 mm ammo. It may be an interesting issue for us handgun guys but the military has much bigger fish to fry.

 

[cmj8591]

Why would we use anything other than this? In over 100 years, we have not been able to come up with a fighting handgun that's better and anything we have tried or adopted is compared to the 1911. So why not just use the 1911? (Other than politics, which is the real factor in selecting military equipment.) I have to say that if I knew I was going to get into a gunfight and was limited to just a handgun, the 1911 in 45acp is what I would use.

 

[shawn mccarver]

Long before the M9, it was already decided the next US pistol MUST be 9mm.

It should not be overlooked that a very significant reason for S&W's development of the Model 39 and Colt's development of the Lightweight Commander was due to a desired change to 9mm. Those test requirements were issued in 1949, and the specifications required a pistol in 9mm, and it had to weigh no more than 25 ounces and be no more than 7 inches in length. S&W entered the Model 39, Colt entered its Commander, developed for the trials (it was introduced to the public in 1951 in .45 ACP, 38 Super and 9mm), and FN entered a variant of the High Power, Inglis, a variant of its licensed copy of the High Power. The project never went forward, perhaps because of a wind down of war time spending, and perhaps because of the huge numbers of 1911s still in service.

Of course, the 1911 passing the M9 trials did not really surprise anyone. An arguably tougher competition by the Marines recently resulted in a contract award to Colt for new 1911s. Despite the seeming inability of people to get past the frightening appearance of a pistol in Condition One, the 1911 is still, for an open carry pistol, a very capable combat pistol.

One wonders if the military should develop some new ammo to go along with .45 ACP ball and tracer, such as a round that will reliably penetrate body armor, chest mounted magazine pouches and the like.

In addition, don't forget that the current crop of really modern .45s were developed for a pistol trial announced a few years ago that did not go anywhere. The plan was to replace all M9s with a .45 ACP and S&W had its M&P in .45, SIG had its 220 Combat, FN developed its FNX in .45, Beretta developed its PX4 in .45, Glock had a special G21 with a real Picatinny rail, and ambidextrous mag catch button, HK came up with its HK .45 and HK .45 Compact, the latter of which is in use by the SEALS now it performed so well. All of the pistols had the then-new requirement of a "flat dark earth" finish that we are all now so familiar with, etc.

This start-stop routine has been going on for years. Thankfully, consumers get the benefit as the companies put the excellent designs on the market when the government pulls the rug out from under the vendors.

Again, as I said before, this project, if it even really gets geared up, has a number of hurdles and in Pentagon/Congress fashion will take the better part of a decade, there will be hints and allegations of unfair treatment of the losers, conspiracy theories, endless protests, and follow-up litigation, just like before.

Don't hold your breath.

Doesn't it seem strange that American LE, which does not generally need penetration, is coming back to the 9mm in very significant numbers now that ammo technology has caught up, and the military is back to wanting a weapon with "more lethality," whatever that is? We are used to stopping power as we don't necessarily want a death, just a stop. The military uses terms such as lethality that mean, to us not versed in "military-speak" that a death occurs sometime after the shot is made. I am sure they also want an instant stop, or as close to it as possible, so I for one do not understand the terminology. That is trivial, but it has occurred to me that the folks running the show on these issues are not really up-to-speed on the issues involved.

This is not meant towards OKFC05, a regular poster here, and a knowledgeable one, at that. However, I would almost bet that even OKFC05 would agree that there are some in the decision making chain that simply do not understand all of the issues.

They really need to develop the ammo first. Then submit an RFP for a gun that will work with the desired ammo. And they might need some experts outside the Pentagon to help them with current issues in pistols/ammo as the military seems always to be running "behind the times" as a result of the long selection process, which seems never to end, during which time new and perhaps better products become available. That is not the fault of any one person, but an indictment of the slow and virtually non-reactive system of procurement. The Pentagon is not known for being able to "spin on a dime," so to speak.

9mm ball is not a good choice for stopping power, and we don't need a big set of trials to prove that again. What we need is more effective stopping power together with ability to penetrate, and I have to admit that I am not aware of any BALL ammo that is very good at BOTH.

 

[Doug M.]

The number of military personnel with enough rank to have any impact (which is likely 07+, and may actually require Assistant Secretary rank) with regard to this issue who also know enough to not be dangerous and counterproductive is probably under 10, and under 5 is more likely. With few exceptions, the military has developed such an institutional hoplophobia that anyone who even tries to become an SME is viewed with suspicion if not outright fear.

Dealing with the military's views on firearms, especially pistols, from an LE and prosecution background is just crazy making. Having discussions of the topic while on duty (LE) has resulted in being looked at like a chicken watching card tricks. Likewise, explaining (as a prosecutor) the Washington law standards for military LE carrying when assigned to an unusual location, and for use of force in a specific issue where the MPs should have shot the offenders got me really weird responses from JAG and MP officers. They truly did not know what they did not know. (Seriously: my wife, a traditionally educated Liberal Arts Ph.D. college professor, had a better idea of the threat management/use of force issues relevant to the incident than field grade officers.) Lt. Col. Bolgiano's excellent video if anything understates the problem.

Throw in the reality that for the vast majority of military personnel a pistol is not only a secondary weapon, but nearly irrelevant, and this becomes a project that is a poor use of time and money.

 

[Louchia]

What ever the new side arm is, I would like to see a US made gun. If it not a gun already in production, S&W can design and make it I'm sure.
Something like the Glock 18 automatic would be nice.

 

[Watchdog]

What ever the new side arm is, I would like to see a US made gun. If it not a gun already in production, S&W can design and make it I'm sure.
Something like the Glock 18 automatic would be nice.

I'd like to see an American made weapon, too. And sure, Smith and Wesson could design one, but there are other quality firearms manufacturers in the USA.

Regarding "something like the Glock 18 automatic", it'd be sort of pointless to make a gun like one that's already available. Wouldn't be much design work going on at all if we were just going to more or less copy something else.

 

[Watchdog]

I bet that guy Barrett could come up with something we could use!

 

[M3Stuart]

It seems like these conversations always devolve into a .45ACP vs. 9mm caliber war. There doesn't seem to be any real 'development' going on. Just rehashing of the relative benefits of existing calibers and designs.

Just sayin...

 

[Louchia]

I'd like to see an American made weapon, too. And sure, Smith and Wesson could design one, but there are other quality firearms manufacturers in the USA.

Regarding "something like the Glock 18 automatic", it'd be sort of pointless to make a gun like one that's already available. Wouldn't be much design work going on at all if we were just going to more or less copy something else.

But it would be nice to see our Government support the American people and buy American. S&W , Springfield, Rugar ,etc. all make good quality fire arms. What the h are we thinking buying foreign made guns.