US Army looking to replace sidearms ...

Register to hide this ad
How about a 2011 in .38 Super Comp? Actually the 2011 isn't a bad idea, the main issue with the 1911 when they phased it out was mag capacity, the double stack 2011 would eliminate that issue. .38 SC probably wouldn't be a good military round.
 
How about a 2011 in .38 Super Comp?
Click to expand...

I would think that a 38 Super in a double stack would have the same problems that went with the 10mm Auto in that the grip would be rather large for small hands. (Think female).
I believe that this was another reason, in addition to mag capacity and recoil, that brought about the demise of the .45.
 
HOPEFULLY they'll spec that ALL aspects of the new pistol and its systems be made in The USA!
However - An AK-47 can be turned into a swell pistol :)
 
"Cold War Era"? While I understand the term and perhaps the reason the article refers to it in that fashion, I believe that there are some men and women of our armed forces that would assert using the M9 in recent "hot combat" situations in a few different places.

Our state highway patrol went from the .357 magnum, in revolvers, to the hi-cap 9mm's, to the .40 cal. and are now carrying .357 Sig caliber handguns. Seems like a big circle, although different platforms, to me.
 
In Feb. 2013 the NRA's "American Rifleman" reported that the DOD had ordered over 300,000 9mm Beretta M-9 A1's.

The improvements were night sights, an accessory rail on the dust cover, checkered front strap and a beveled magazine well.



With the funding cut backs and down sizing, I wouldn't bet on any changes on the issued duty sidearm.
 
I guess we've come full circle. I read the article and it sounds like it could've been written 100 years ago. Substitute "Taliban" with "Moro" and we're right back to the solution for the .38 Long Colt that couldn't stop the bad guys during the Phillipine-American War. That, as we should all know, led to the development of the .45 ACP and the M1911. So the Army dropped the M1911A1 because it was too hard to learn to shoot accurately and because the .45 ACP wasn't a NATO-standard round, and look where it's led us. I'll bet a dollar that we end up with another pistol chambered in .45 ACP.
 
Since the beginning of WWII, the Army has been looking to replace its pistols.

The thinking back then was that since GIs usually couldn't hit anything with the .45, the .30 carbine would be the answer as an alternative to the pistol. It didn't happen.

After WWII work began on getting another pistol and probably in 9mm. The Smith Model 44 was developed but went nowhere nor did the Model 39, the Model 44's stepchild.

When the Beretta was finally adopted, pistol scores went up from everything I've read and including a couple Marine instructors I spoke with who were teaching the M9.

As I said over on TheBerettaForum, if and when the M9 is history, soldiers will lament its passing and curse the new pistol/ammo system that is adopted if at all.

And the Army in 2012, I believe, contracted with Beretta on a contingency plan for hundreds of thousands more M9s/M9A1s.

Ernie Langdon's comments need to be taken to heart. No pistol round is going to do the job like a rifle.

I think the military just has to accept the fact that pistol ammunition, whatever its persuasion, is often inadequate.
As Langdon said, placement is everything and I think for the
average soldier who gets/uses a pistol, the 9mm will continue
to be the easiest for good placement.
 
I wonder why they are doing it now?

The complaints and criticism of the 9mm is nothing new. I've been hearing these same arguments ever sense 1985 when the 9mm replaced the .45's in the US armed forces....
 
The more things change, The more things stay the same. My Eldest served in Iraq (A Blackhawk crew chief in the First Armor) and a great great Uncle served in the Philippians. Any enemy that has drugged himself not to feel pain will not go down until knocked down, most of out enemies in the Asian part of the world have had a Will to fight until incapacitated, that is not going to change. IMHO we need bigger hammers! I think we need to create a new system of side arm, with the platform designed to handle the round and start with the desired terminal performance. Ivan
 
UncleEd said:
Since the beginning of WWII, the Army has been looking to

When the Beretta was finally adopted, pistol scores went up from everything I've read and including a couple Marine instructors I spoke with who were teaching the M9.
Click to expand...

I remember when we got brand new M9s to replace our unknown vintage 1911s.

I have big hands so I loved everything about it but the caliber. The sights were a huge improvement. The course of fire was different & IIRC quite a bit easier than when we qual'd in the Seabees. And 15 + 1 on tap! :eek:

I liked the platform enough that when I bought my first handgun it was a DA/SA, but in .45ACP.
 
Okay, I'm sure we can all recall stories where "this guy I met once knew a guy who heard the story about a guy who shot a bad guy 27 times between the eyes with a .45 acp and the guy just kept coming." On the other hand, we can all probably recount stories where a 6'9", 350-pound wild-eyed maniac was stopped with one round from a .22 short. Look, guys...we're talking probability and averages here.

When push comes to shove, the .45 acp is still a formiddable cartridge.

No matter what different "experts" say, in my opinion, the .45 acp still has more stopping power the the 9mm. Call me old fashioned, but I don't even own a 9mm. However, I do have a few .45's that often accompany me on my forays, and I feel totally comfortable packing them.

Personally, when we start talking about recoil, I'm really not that bothered when it comes to shooting 230-grain fmj's...and I'm a whimp!!...I'm just a little over 6' and weigh a buck sixty-five, and that's after a full meal...so I don't hold much when people say that a .45's recoil is too much.

Sure, maybe a small-framed woman might find it a little objectionable, but for the most part, the .45 is still a good, all-around pistol, excelling for what it was designed for.

When Uncle Sam decided to be politically correct and go with the 9mm, I know a lot of my close friends who were still serving in the USMC, hung on to their 1911's.

Anyway, just my two cents.
 
Been shooting all manner of handguns since 1980. Have owned and used and enjoyed everything from .22 LR to .44 Magnum with a lot of .45 ACP thrown in as well as the obligatory 9mm and .40 S&W. Any grown man can easily handle a 1911 in .45 ACP. It simply isn't that big a deal. However, the facts of life are that the 9mm is about all that is needed in the field whether it's police or military. And for the U.S. DOD, there is the added plus that 9mm is easier to handle for Barbie. And of course the contracts with Beretta must be maintained to keep NATO ally Italy happy. If it really ever does boil down to actually issuing a pistol in a caliber that is appropriate for field use, just give them all Glock G-17's with NATO spec. 9mm ball. If they really think that a heavier bullet is needed, then go to the G-22 stuffed w/ 165 FNFMJ's. Only problem is that then there will be the inevitable complaints from those who think the .40 S&W is to snappy in the recoil department or to small in the diameter or weight department. Hum... sounds like the .40 S&W is just exactly what they need! Make everyone unhappy... especially the folks who find themselves on the receiving end!
 
Some military procurement brass hat or politician smells tax money they can throw around and possibly get some promotion or kick back from it. The latest from your friends in the military industrial complex. Yessir, we only want the best and the latest for our boys and girls in uniform. We can get the latest and greatest pistol, chambered in the greatest caliber since the invention of the rock. It will be loaded with the latest super secret technological marvel of a projectile, so overwhelming, it will stop the opponent, the spread of communism, and radical Islam with a single shot. Yessir, step right up and open your hearts and your wallets for our children in uniform, it's the least we can do.
Now, with the sarcasm aside, what differnce is this going to make? Will it make our country more secure? Will it let our allies sleep better at night? Will our enemies tremble in fear?
Plain and simple. More gov't bull for spend your tax dollars on.
(of course, I'd have Colt .45s.)
 
Last edited:
http://smith-wessonforum.com/smith-wesson-m-p-pistols/383918-new-army-pistol.html

And ...
"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."
 
deadin said:
I would think that a 38 Super in a double stack would have the same problems that went with the 10mm Auto in that the grip would be rather large for small hands. (Think female).
I believe that this was another reason, in addition to mag capacity and recoil, that brought about the demise of the .45.
Click to expand...

yeah .. that female in the military thing has contributed to a lot of turmoil in the area of handguns.
Much of the information going into the decision was false at the time the M9 was adopted and this same load of carp perpetuates today.
Women are not as fragile as we seem to think, and they are capable of adaptation too. This, "too big and powerful for women" thing needs to stop at all levels of shooting.

I won't say that retiring the 1911 was entirely idiotic.
its mag capacity and its need for a large degree of hand fitting at manufacture have, unfortunately, antiquated this work of art in terms of military use.

What was entirely idiotic was the adoption of the M9 / 92F with too much emphasis on erroneous considerations for women.
What will remain entirely idiotic are the continuing erroneous considerations STILL playing a role in the procurement of future generation arms.

Yes she can hold on to it, and yes she can handle the recoil.
 
MOONDAWG said:
In Feb. 2013 the NRA's "American Rifleman" reported that the DOD had ordered over 300,000 9mm Beretta M-9 A1's.

The improvements were night sights, an accessory rail on the dust cover, checkered front strap and a beveled magazine well.



With the funding cut backs and down sizing, I wouldn't bet on any changes on the issued duty sidearm.
Click to expand...

This means it's a perfect time to switch to something else .

They will order, buy them and then make them obsolete and buy something else:D:rolleyes:

What happened to the Marines getting Colt 1911's.

The whole 9mm thing was beean counters and how many rounds per weigh could be carried and shots fired and missed.

Just get Sig 40 SW and be done with it!:D
 
"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"


Sorry about yours, my Beretta fits me very well, and shoots like a champ.
 
Biggest problem with the Army sidearms-lack of training. I carried a an M1911 twice during my 4 years 1967-1971 and I never went to the range ONCE and taught myself to disassemble and clean it using my copy of W.H.B. Smith's "Small Arms of the World." I don't recall any NCOs or officers and who were shooting enthusiasts, more recent veterans-including some board members-have said they were derided for being gun enthusiasts. IMHO many of these testing and procurement programs just an excuse to lock in appropriations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top