New Army Pistol
- Thread starter markfi
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Part of the problem COULD be that we've been locked into the FMJ, non-expanding rounds...and I doubt that will change. There are plenty of good candidates for a replacement: M&P, Glock, FN, etc.etc....
I'll be surprised if they actually make any significant change.....
I'll be surprised if they actually make any significant change.....
Doug M.
Member
The pistol is a secondary personal weapon, and should not be relied upon if a rifle is available and working. As a rule, in order to have adequate effect on an assailant, even with good ammo that passes the protocols, placement is vital and multiple rounds will be needed. I've seen a summary of a report that indicates that about 1/3 of all LE shootings require 10+ rounds with good ammo and good placement. The incremental difference between any of the typical service calibers according to all well done research is nominal at best.
The M9 is an ergonomic abomination and its adoption should have resulted in floggings (courts-martial would have been too genteel for the level of stupidity and dereliction displayed). It is hard to shoot well, and very few military personnel other than the Tier One/SOCOM types shoot enough to be proficient with any sidearm.
Investing in a decent platform, combined with more training for combat arms personnel, will do the most for the least cost. Given the institutional hoplophobia of the military, I don't envy anyone trying to un(screw) this.
The M9 is an ergonomic abomination and its adoption should have resulted in floggings (courts-martial would have been too genteel for the level of stupidity and dereliction displayed). It is hard to shoot well, and very few military personnel other than the Tier One/SOCOM types shoot enough to be proficient with any sidearm.
Investing in a decent platform, combined with more training for combat arms personnel, will do the most for the least cost. Given the institutional hoplophobia of the military, I don't envy anyone trying to un(screw) this.
N4KVE
Member
Back in the late 80's, I was really pis#$d that Beretta got the military contract. I felt the Sig 226 was a much better weapon. But right now my feelings are they should go back to the 1911. Since they're unhappy with the 9mm, what could be better than a 230 gr bullet? While I do own a 40c, I carry a compact 1911. I can't imagine anything scarier than a 230 gr Speer Gold Dot flying ashtray coming at me. GARY GARY
forrestinmathews
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,063
- Reaction score
- 725
Maybe they'll get a 10mm and all will be well again.
The 1911 fits a wider range of hands than any other pistol except possibly a model 39. The .45ACP is probably a better round than the 9mm Luger, but a lot depends on what the target is wearing. However, the Army isn't even smart enough to use modern ammo, or to avoid a fat monster like the 92, just when they are bringing more women into the military and even into combat zones. Don't expect much.
Bkreutz
US Veteran
The thing is that they're stuck with "ball" ammo. Any expanding type is prohibited by the Geneva Convention. Yes, I know that this is sometimes circumvented, but officially, not.
mafbloggerdanny
Member
I have heard so many 'rumors' about the army wanting to change this or that every..single...year... and it never happens. the brass at the top and the supply chain currently in place are so risk averse and resistant to change... i'm not holding my breath.
how many articles have you guys read about how the 5.56 is inadequate and the 9mm...how they're constantly testing for alternatives... i feel like i read articles about this at least once a year for the past 6 years and still no real changes...you guys notice the same?
how many articles have you guys read about how the 5.56 is inadequate and the 9mm...how they're constantly testing for alternatives... i feel like i read articles about this at least once a year for the past 6 years and still no real changes...you guys notice the same?
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,511
- Reaction score
- 32,351
Q
I never understood why the military went to the 9mm to begin with.
Quoting from the article: "Soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have complained that the 9mm round is not powerful enough to be effective in combat."
Also: "The 9mm doesn't score high with soldier feedback," said Easlick, explaining that the Army, and the other services, want a round that will have better terminal effects -- or cause more damage -- when it hits enemy combatants. "We have to do better than our current 9mm."
The irony for me here, is that the military already had better than the 9mm. It was the .45 acp, but yet they ditched the .45 in 1985. It seemed almost like change for just the sake of change. Someone got some fat government contracts, made their money, then retired on their profits.
I'd like to see a return to the .45, but realistically a good battlefield pistol might need to be an even larger caliber.
Whatever the end result, some companies stand to make a bunch of money again.
I never understood why the military went to the 9mm to begin with.
Quoting from the article: "Soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have complained that the 9mm round is not powerful enough to be effective in combat."
Also: "The 9mm doesn't score high with soldier feedback," said Easlick, explaining that the Army, and the other services, want a round that will have better terminal effects -- or cause more damage -- when it hits enemy combatants. "We have to do better than our current 9mm."
The irony for me here, is that the military already had better than the 9mm. It was the .45 acp, but yet they ditched the .45 in 1985. It seemed almost like change for just the sake of change. Someone got some fat government contracts, made their money, then retired on their profits.
I'd like to see a return to the .45, but realistically a good battlefield pistol might need to be an even larger caliber.
Whatever the end result, some companies stand to make a bunch of money again.
I don't believe that the US is signatory to any treaty or convention banning HP ammo. Perhaps someone who is more familiar with the details can post here. I cited that only to disestablish the Army's historical credibility. Nowadays, some soldiers wear enough stuff that we need more penetration, not less. Whether that is true of our actual enemies at present, I do not know.
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,511
- Reaction score
- 32,351
It reminds me of back in the mid-seventies. Back then, it seemed like every month either Guns & Ammo or Shooting Times would have feature articles on stuff like "Which is Better, the 30-06 or the .270?", or "The 25-06: Is It Adequate for Big Game?", or "New Cartridge: Will the .17 Be Good Eough for Groundhogs?"...and so on and so forth.
That's why I stopped reading those mags (especially after Skeeter passed away). It seemed I was reading the same stuff every month. I was begining to feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day or something.
Fastbolt
Member
Remained in development longer, we were told, for the engineers to make some revisions to accommodate the then-released specific requirements of the proposed military pistol project of 2005.
Other gun companies also had some .45's under development (or just revision) for the same reason, and were similarly later released to the commercial market.
Last edited:
Fastbolt
Member
Hague Convention of 1899, which wasn't ratified by the US. (But which doesn't mean we ignore it and act to the contrary in a cavalier manner.)
For the military and their constraints that they have to use for whatever reason, I would recommend either the 38 Super or the 357 Sig using a truncated flat point jacket bullet. That might help penetrating body armor, mag pouches, and other equipment that the enemy may have on or about his/her person. I think they would want really good penetration. I feel that more velocity would be beneficial to them....
Fastbolt
Member
Oh yeah, FWIW ....
I can think back to how the military was reportedly considering adoption of an .45 ACP +P round for some SOC usage, and then there was the USAF considering testing the .40 S&W cartridge.
I sort of see any potential change in small arms/pistols, and their caliber & ammunition, as being a very slow, somewhere-over-the-rainbow change. Maybe.
The main battle rifle, its caliber and ammunition development, is a much more important Will-o'-the-wisp to be chasing after with ever decreasing military funding for small arms.
I can think back to how the military was reportedly considering adoption of an .45 ACP +P round for some SOC usage, and then there was the USAF considering testing the .40 S&W cartridge.
I sort of see any potential change in small arms/pistols, and their caliber & ammunition, as being a very slow, somewhere-over-the-rainbow change. Maybe.
The main battle rifle, its caliber and ammunition development, is a much more important Will-o'-the-wisp to be chasing after with ever decreasing military funding for small arms.
Bkreutz
US Veteran
I always get those two mixed up. Thanks. I'm still in the camp of "the worst rifle is better than the best pistol".
Last edited:
In my opinion if I were to deploy again I would like to see something in .45
That being said, personally I only own and shoot 9mm, but I have the option of carrying JHP for personal defense. In a combat sidearm that must follow Geneva Conventions, the 9mm FMJ is a joke. I don't think that a 1911 is the platform I would choose, I would like to see something polymer, and double stack. I was Military Police and qualified many, MANY times with a Beretta. We used them everyday, but the majority of units aren't even issued pistols except for weapons squad. With that in mind, many guys just honestly weren't that great of a shot with their sidearm, and I would like to see them have more than 7 or 8rds of .45 that a 1911 would allow.
Unfortunately the M&P is still just a baby in terms of years and years of availability and testing goes, so personally I would love to see a Glock 21 made the Army sidearm of choice. Will it happen? No. Why? Because as someone pointed out above...they have been "talking" about a replacement for the M9 since I was in diapers, but it never happens. The need is there, but they never seem to get the money they need to actually make a switch. Better order some new springs for the 20 year old M9's though..that'll keep em runnin'
That being said, personally I only own and shoot 9mm, but I have the option of carrying JHP for personal defense. In a combat sidearm that must follow Geneva Conventions, the 9mm FMJ is a joke. I don't think that a 1911 is the platform I would choose, I would like to see something polymer, and double stack. I was Military Police and qualified many, MANY times with a Beretta. We used them everyday, but the majority of units aren't even issued pistols except for weapons squad. With that in mind, many guys just honestly weren't that great of a shot with their sidearm, and I would like to see them have more than 7 or 8rds of .45 that a 1911 would allow.
Unfortunately the M&P is still just a baby in terms of years and years of availability and testing goes, so personally I would love to see a Glock 21 made the Army sidearm of choice. Will it happen? No. Why? Because as someone pointed out above...they have been "talking" about a replacement for the M9 since I was in diapers, but it never happens. The need is there, but they never seem to get the money they need to actually make a switch. Better order some new springs for the 20 year old M9's though..that'll keep em runnin'
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 7,994
- Reaction score
- 7,043
Thoughts, in no particular order.
This quote from the linked article is very interesting in light of the FBI's 9mm ammo trials which resulted in a contract award in late 2013 for a new 9mm round for the FBI:
"The FBI and several major police departments recently decided to return to using the 9mm round after finding that .40 caliber ammunition was causing excessive wear on its service pistols."
In case anyone came in late, the new ammo chosen by the FBI is the newest generation 147 grain bonded hollow point. It is not the old Q4364, but the new Q4392, which they say performs very well indeed.
The people in the military have a problem, and that is reconciling the supposedly treaty-required use of full metal jacket ammo with stopping power. It has been established long ago that FMJ ammo, even the up-loaded 9mm NATO round, is not very good at stopping power. On the other hand, with proliferation of chest-mounted magazine pouches and other accessories, which may or may not be worn by enemies, the 9mm is the only one of the conventional rounds which will penetrate those barriers deep enough to reach vital organs.
A secondary problem is that the Army does not train most recruits in the use of the pistol, and other than special forces, not too much emphasis is put on the pistol for those that receive training. For that matter, a friend who recently went into the Army indicated that even rifle training is lackluster compared to most private shooting schools such as Gunsite or similar schools.
Thus, the idea that under-trained recruits are going to handle a heavier caliber pistol better than they handle the M9 is not a promising prospect, and even if they do, the age-old question of capacity versus stopping power is now complicated by the need to penetrate not only fatigues, or other clothing, but also chest mounted magazine pouches and similar barriers on enemies.
It seems to me, therefore, that the make and model of pistol is the least of the concerns, as the pistol is just a launching platform. Until the military gets serious about adopting a cartridge that will perform all of the tasks expected of a modern military round, there can be no determination of what pistol to use.
If they go about this correctly, the ammo trials should come first, then the pistol can be specified that will handle the chosen ammo.
Given how the process went in the 80s when the M9 was adopted, it would not surprise me if this program takes the better part of a decade.
And even then, I am willing to bet the choices made are not stellar. After all, although the folks involved in the M9 program have mostly retired by now, the current crop will represent "everything we have come to expect from years of government service."
This quote from the linked article is very interesting in light of the FBI's 9mm ammo trials which resulted in a contract award in late 2013 for a new 9mm round for the FBI:
"The FBI and several major police departments recently decided to return to using the 9mm round after finding that .40 caliber ammunition was causing excessive wear on its service pistols."
In case anyone came in late, the new ammo chosen by the FBI is the newest generation 147 grain bonded hollow point. It is not the old Q4364, but the new Q4392, which they say performs very well indeed.
The people in the military have a problem, and that is reconciling the supposedly treaty-required use of full metal jacket ammo with stopping power. It has been established long ago that FMJ ammo, even the up-loaded 9mm NATO round, is not very good at stopping power. On the other hand, with proliferation of chest-mounted magazine pouches and other accessories, which may or may not be worn by enemies, the 9mm is the only one of the conventional rounds which will penetrate those barriers deep enough to reach vital organs.
A secondary problem is that the Army does not train most recruits in the use of the pistol, and other than special forces, not too much emphasis is put on the pistol for those that receive training. For that matter, a friend who recently went into the Army indicated that even rifle training is lackluster compared to most private shooting schools such as Gunsite or similar schools.
Thus, the idea that under-trained recruits are going to handle a heavier caliber pistol better than they handle the M9 is not a promising prospect, and even if they do, the age-old question of capacity versus stopping power is now complicated by the need to penetrate not only fatigues, or other clothing, but also chest mounted magazine pouches and similar barriers on enemies.
It seems to me, therefore, that the make and model of pistol is the least of the concerns, as the pistol is just a launching platform. Until the military gets serious about adopting a cartridge that will perform all of the tasks expected of a modern military round, there can be no determination of what pistol to use.
If they go about this correctly, the ammo trials should come first, then the pistol can be specified that will handle the chosen ammo.
Given how the process went in the 80s when the M9 was adopted, it would not surprise me if this program takes the better part of a decade.
And even then, I am willing to bet the choices made are not stellar. After all, although the folks involved in the M9 program have mostly retired by now, the current crop will represent "everything we have come to expect from years of government service."
Last edited:
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.
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.
Similar threads
