A professional's prediction re: Army pistol

[Erich]

I don't feel alone!

 

[cavsix]

Will it meet the 'belt fed' requirement?

 

[MOONDAWG]

They'll find proof of Sasquatch & ET's long before the M-9's & M-9A1's are replaced.

 

[WR Moore]

Based upon the way the article in the Washington Times was phrased, it looks like the Army is going to shop the commercial marketplace. I expect this is intended to get Congress Critters alerted to the fact that the Army has a need.

This primes the budget pump. It also gets individual CCs who may have prospective suppliers excited. They're excited because they may gain jobs in their electoral districts. Even better, the prospective suppliers will desire to curry favor with their local CC.

I can see that after 25 odd years, the M9s might be a bit moth eaten. However, the 'need more thump' argument can be addressed with ammo selection.

 

[Rick_A]

I can see that after 25 odd years, the M9s might be a bit moth eaten. However, the 'need more thump' argument can be addressed with shot placement.

FIFY

With all the money dumped into wonder weapons of the future to replace the M16/M4 I have little faith in this.

This is the third or fourth such announcement in the past several years.

 

[zzzippper]

Colonel Jeff Cooper would probably disagree.

I'm not a fan of that pompous ***. Curious, I don't remember writing that, I'll have to go bad and re-read. I must have meant that since they have tried both the 9mm and 45 that it would be a mistake. I know I'm going to get pounced on for such heresy.

OH! Now I know why I don't remember it, it is in the quote from my source.

 

[venomballistics]

I'm not a fan of that pompous ***. Curious, I don't remember writing that, I'll have to go bad and re-read. I must have meant that since they have tried both the 9mm and 45 that it would be a mistake. I know I'm going to get pounced on for such heresy.

OH! Now I know why I don't remember it, it is in the quote from my source.

It's not exactly you getting pounced, flamed, and otherwise crucified.
Rather it is a portion of what your inside guy has to say.
Eye on the ball.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

I don't feel alone!

LAWYER HUG!!!!!

 

[Erich]

Aww,thanks. Hey, where's my wallet!?

 

[blujax01]

Soooo, how much do you think Bud's will be asking for surplus M-9's and where do I get in line?

 

[goldenlight]

I am betting polymer hi cap suppressable with a manual safety and a rail. My money is on the FNP .45.

It won't be 45ACP. The reason the Army went to the Beretta 92 was so the US Army could start using NATO spec ammunition.

*IF* they adopt a new sidearm, it WILL be in 9mm.

 

[therevjay]

Soooo, how much do you think Bud's will be asking for surplus M-9's and where do I get in line?

Sorry, they will cut them up and melt them down. Or maybe give them to potential future enemies.

 

[Fishslayer]

I'm not buying the "pick your caliber" idea. Anything new will be 9mm NATO or nothing. Logistics for providing 2 calibers etc....

 

[ChuckS1]

I'm pretty sure it'll be .40 S&W. Somebody has to shoot all that ammo the Feds have been buying.

 

[Stephanie B]

I predict yet another false start. This is, what, the third time now they've talked about doing this?

I predict the Beretta M9 in 9mm will "win."

Since the Army is in a contract to buy up to 100,000 M9s through 2017, probably a safe bet. Spare parts, having to train armorers to work on them, and so on and so forth. Changing pistols for the Army isn't like changing guns for the Podunk PD.

You can find no shortage of articles about how the Army is going to dump the M-4, for example, but there is no sign of that happening.

Money is tightening up for the military, like it has after every other hot war ended.

My prediction is that the only discussions about changing from the M9 will remain on the Internet.

 

[Maximumbob54]

Aww,thanks. Hey, where's my wallet!?

You know you just got charged a full hour for that, right?