Army Replacing 200k M9 9mm Handguns with . . . ?

A pistol is seen holstered as a U.S. Army soldier from Charlie Company 4th Platoon, 1st Brigade 3-21 Infantry prepares to go on patrol in the Panjwai district of Kandahar province

“The U.S. Army is moving forward to replace the Cold War-era M9 9mm pistol with a more powerful handgun that also meets the needs of the other services,” foxnews.com reports. “As the lead agent for small arms, the Army will hold an industry day July 29 to talk to gun makers about the joint, Modular Handgun System or MHS.” Fn! I mean, fun! This, after…what’s it been now? Five years? “The MHS will be an open-caliber competition that will evaluate larger rounds such as .357 Sig, .40 S&W and .45 ACP.” The rest of the article talks about shot placement, shot placement, and shot placement. And .40 wear and tear. So . . . my money’s on .45 making a comeback. Or a non-Beretta 9mm. By 2020. Depending entirely on the politics behind the scenes, of course. [ht/ JG]

comments

  1. avatar Nick D says:

    Come on 10mm, daddy needs cheap milsurp ammo for his Glock 20.

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      regardless of the final caliber choice, some cheap surplus M9s would be pretty nice. Though if the switch happens under a Dem admin, those would probably be destroyed rather than sold.

      1. avatar Nick D says:

        Because for reasons that continue to elude me, Democrats hate money. They must, it’s the only explanation for their decisions.

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          Correction–they hate money that doesn’t come directly to them. And they like money that comes directly to them better if they can squeeze it out of the productive members of society.

        2. avatar 101nomad says:

          Democrats love money, in their pocket, not yours.

        3. avatar FoRealz? says:

          They love money as long as the money they are spending is not from their own wallet.

          It takes a village!!!

        4. avatar jim says:

          Nick d they love there money just have no respect for ours

        5. avatar Lance says:

          No they love to blow our money on nothing like this competition and take ours to get there pay checks for blowing money. 😉

      2. avatar Joe R. says:

        +1
        +1

      3. avatar Sixpack70 says:

        They need to go to the CMP!

      4. avatar J- says:

        I used to get old beater S&W 5904’s in the $250 range surplus from BIA law enforcement. If I could get beater M9’s in the $300 price range, I’d pick up a few.

    2. avatar knightofbob says:

      Even if surplus ammo never hit the market, military adoption would increase public interest, meaning ammo manufacturers would up their production, ultimately driving prices down. Which would make me happy as well, my usual carry is a Glock 29.

      It’ll never happen, though. I will say, no matter the actual replacement, I too hope the surplus M9s hit the market.

    3. avatar Rusty Shackleford says:

      You beat me to it. Maybe Vltor’s new Bren Ten (complete with accessory rail) will finally make it to market by then. Or the SAR K2 10MM with its 17 round mag will finally be imported.

      1. avatar Julian says:

        Are you sure that this actually exists? I looked into it last year, it appeared to be an unfounded rumor.

    4. avatar Anonymous says:

      I know. 10mm would be nice. The energy of a 357mag with the mag capacity of the 40S&W. However, i’m not holding my breath on that one.

  2. avatar JB1000 says:

    Is there a gun manufacturer that has made significant contributions to the Democratic party in the last five years? I am thinking they might just win the contract.

    1. avatar Rick says:

      Whoever it is, you can bet the factory won’t be in a red state.

  3. avatar Vhyrus says:

    The only thing significantly more powerful than 9 which doesn’t ruin your capacity and weight is either 40 or 357 sig. I highly doubt they will do 357 sig so my money is on the 40.

    1. avatar knightofbob says:

      There’s a lot of push from the higher ranks to go back to .45. From everything I read about it (which is to say, rather little) the previous program to find a replacement for the M9 specified .45ACP.

      1. avatar WRH says:

        So if they go back to .45, does that mean cheaper ammo for us? Here’s to hoping.

      2. avatar ClayinUT says:

        Come on 45 GAP! If I know the government this will be their choice. Then five years from now they will need to replace them due to ammo concerns.

      3. avatar Dryw says:

        I’d be stunned if the HK45 wasn’t tossed back into the testing, as it was designed specifically for the ill-fated Joint Combat Pistol program before it was de-funded in ’06. Quite fond of mine, though will be interesting to see if LEM triggers are offered. Different training curve.

        Seems likely the M&P45 on that proving ground as well.

        1. avatar Rusty Shackleford says:

          The FNX Tactical .45acp is pretty nice with 15 round mags and a grip that is more comfortable than a standard Glock. Plus, the accuracy is good with Handgun Magazine getting a 1.38″ 5-shot grouping at 25 yards using Speer 185gr Gold Dot JHP.

      4. avatar CentralIL says:

        The problem is that returning to .45 ACP would be admitting they were wrong to go to 9mm in the first place. A different cartridge would let them keep their pride.

        1. avatar Anon in CT says:

          Most of “them” are safely retired (actually probably dead), so it’s safe to go back now.

          I gotta say, from a NATO/interoperability standpoint, the 9mm is still the way to go. Didn’t the Brits just buy a bunch of Glock 17s? I know Canada has been slowly replacing WW II era Hi-Powers with P226s.

        2. avatar Lance says:

          only Canadian SF got SA/DA pistol. Most still use HPs not problem with that the Hi Power istill a good pistol. Over all why GB got ride of there HPs is that they got worn out Canada still made Hi Powers after WW2 GB bought most of theres in the 40s and 50s. G-17s is a great pistol but the HP is too. Still our M-9s are not that old oldest made in 87-91 most made in the last 10 years. So no point in saying age is the factor for our pistols.

      5. avatar Bill Holloman says:

        I’d personally love to see the 45 ACP come back, but as long as women are prevalent in the miltary, it’s not happening. It’s the unspoken reason that the military and so many LE agencies moved to the 9mm in the 80’s.

        1. avatar Skeptical_Realist says:

          Thank you Mr. Holloman for stating the obvious that so many seem to be blind to.

          Yes, there are many women that have no problem holding and shooting a .45. Many more, however, do. In fact, many have a problem with the large grip on the M-9.

          If the Army is serious about .45, and is also serious about standardizing on a new pistol, one of the modular pistols, like the Sig P250/320, or a multi-caliber with same ergos, such as the glock or M&P, makes sense.

          What would make the most sense, however, is keeping the M-9, and dropping ball ammo for good expanding ammo. To hell with Hague: it didn’t make sense when it was adopted.

        2. avatar Lance says:

          If the army did go back to .45 It be either a M-45 based weapon or a H&K USPish weapon, or a Glock sense SOCOM uses those designs.

    2. avatar LC says:

      They’re not more lethal in any way.

      They only produce a little bit more kinetic energy than a 9mm, but no measurable effectiveness in lethality.

  4. avatar T M says:

    CZ 75 P09, please.

    A 115gr 9x19mm NATO isn’t enough to get the job done? Then keep shooting.

    1. avatar BillC says:

      9mm NATO is 124gr

      1. avatar Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

        Isn’t NATO +P as well?

        Still, SP-01 or 97B please!

        1. avatar Skeptical_Realist says:

          “Isn’t NATO +P as well?”

          Not quite. SAAMI lists max pressure for standard 9mm at 35,000 psi. +P is up to 38,500 psi. NATO falls in between, at 36,500 psi, although I’ve seen higher pressures quoted on forum boards with no real citations.

          However, SAAMI uses different methodology to measure pressure than is used for NATO standards, so the two aren’t really comparable raw numbers-wise.

          Short answer: it doens’t really matter.

  5. avatar Retired LEO says:

    Only took 30 years to figure out 9mm ball ammo is not that effective @ the distances they were using
    it. Perhaps I can find some 9 locally now.

  6. avatar sota says:

    How about we stop with the bull**** and let our military carry a DECENT 9mm round instead of ball ammo? You want to stop the bad guys? You put the biggest squishiest messiest hole in them you can. Pew pew’ing them with FMJ doesn’t cut it (pun intended.) Let them have proper Jacketed Hollow Points and the “problem” of lack of stopping power will go away, or at least be drastically diminished.

      1. avatar JT says:

        Ya? So? We didn’t sign it.

        1. avatar Tom says:

          Something that really jumped out at me while reading the Geneva Convention declaration about bullet construction, (and I’m talking about more than the Dum-Dums that wrote this gobbledygook). Pretty much EVERY “Full” metal jacket bullet I’ve ever seen, made by Any country, since the goofy thing was written, has had an “exposed” core. Its just been on the trailing end of the projectile instead of the front. And, by all means, let’s use non-expanding bullets that require they be shot Several times to put them out of the fight, instead of using a modern expanding bullet that puts them down with One shot. I can hear the shrill shrieks of outrage already about the “inhumanity” of it. And, how about our guy who has to direct a stream of shots at One aggressive shooter to stop them, instead of firing A shot before turning their attention on Other aggressive shooters that are trying to kill ALL our guys. I wonder where their precious “Humanity” is turned Then. Sorry. I’ll get the heck off the soapbox and stop ranting now. I realize I’m likely preaching to the choir. G’night.

    1. avatar Nick D says:

      There’s this thing, been around for a while now, called the “Geneva Convention”. It states pretty clearly that soldiers in battle cannot use any load other than ball FMJ, or else be charged for crimes against humanity.

      1. avatar Rokurota says:

        Hague Convention, not Geneva, of 1899, so you math people can calculate how out of date it is.

        1. avatar Bruce L. says:

          Bill of Right, 1791. Is that out of date as well?

        2. avatar Nighthawk says:

          It’s not out of date it just doesn’t seem rational stating it’s okay to be maimed and killed by large full metal jacket ammunition but not okay to be maimed and killed by hollowpoints.

      2. avatar NDS says:

        The Hague Convention prohibits expanding ammunition in warfare, and is largely a “gentleman’s agreement” that nobody HAS to follow. Oh and you can’t drop explosives out of balloons.

        Geneva Convention banned biological and chemical warfare and other “grave” offenses like executing and torturing prisoners. Again, the UN Security Council just writes nasty letters for these types of offenses.

        1. avatar HJ says:

          So, your plan is, what? Let countries like Belgium and Spain charge our troops with war crimes, then blow it off? It’s been against the law and customs of war for over a century to use expanding ammo. That isn’t changing anytime soon. 9mmP in ball just doesn’t seem to do it, so something else.

        2. avatar int19h says:

          The Hague Convention prohibits many other things that are routinely exercised in practice (as mentioned above, it bans explosives thrown from aerial vehicles, for example). The ban on “expanding ammunition” is the only one that is still followed in practice, and even that has been violated as originally worded. For example, it saus:

          “The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions. ”

          Arguably, any OTM bullet would fall under this definition, so Mk 262 is already a “war crime”.

          Then, of course, one could argue that the spirit of the article prohibits any ammunition that deals damage disproportionate to its caliber, so e.g. fragmenting bullets like 5.56 are also illegal.

          The short story is, nobody cares. I actually suspect that as soon as one NATO country will disregard the Hague restrictions and go to HP or OTM ammunition on a large scale, most others will follow shortly. It just needs a precedent.

        3. avatar Jandrews says:

          No kidding. I love when people talk about “rules” during warfare. About as effective as gun free zones, right?

      3. avatar Dryw says:

        When discussing FMJ vs HP, Geneva vs. Hague Convention is a common misconception.

        I don’t believe the US was actually a signatory to the treaty; though it is honored in doctrine by US armed forces. Could be mistaken.

        Also believe the JAG has authorized HP/OTM for use strictly in “anti-terrorist actions”, and the Army authorized usage for civilian & military police in 2010.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          1. The US did NOT sign that particular addendum to the Hague Convention, so the US never agreed to “ban” expanding ammo in warfare.

          2. The ban on expanding ammo ONLY applies to conflicts between two or more SIGNERS; so, even if the US had signed the “ban,” it would not apply to a conflict between the US and, say al Qaeda because AQ never signed on to the convention.

        2. avatar Dryw says:

          @Ralph: Appreciate that clarification/confirmation sir.

        3. avatar Lance says:

          @Ralph

          Seems we agree on alot. Think most issue with he M-9 came from Iraq in 04-06 and it was due to poor matinince by mostly army units and the fact 9mm NATO being a 124gr FMJ. Most LE use 9mm M-92FS or Glock-17s prefer the 147gr JHP. Think most issues with the M-9would go away with new 147gr ammo and better training especially in the Army. Think overall Glock and HK maybe S@W will be the finalist because if the Army truly wants a new pistol a stiker fired pistol in .40 or .45 would only be logical Crappy SIGs re SA/DA and would not be a break threw for a new pistol.

          To every one remember ICC and your hype over a 6.8mm plastic rifle made the guesses of many. Many SCAR lovers annoyed every one for 2-3 years of this crap. Then the army went to a 5.56mm rifle and the fact it made no sense ICC died. I figure same here they have to goto a lager caliber stiker fired pistol or the idiocy of staying with SA/DA 9mm would probably kill this project.

          Your thoughts ralph?

        4. avatar Excedrine says:

          @Lance — SIG =/= crap.

        5. avatar tdiinva says:

          @Lance:

          I have it on the good authority of a certain NCO friend that caliber doesn’t matter. If using a 45 caliber/.230 grain round is no more effectivive than using a 9mm 124 grain round then merely increasing the 9mm round by 23 grains will also have no effect.

        6. avatar Tom says:

          Gotta’admit, I’ve told others that the improvements in the metallurgy of the cartridge cases and firearms, and the tweaking of the basic chemistry of, and the shapes and sizes of the individual granules, and the ignition enhancing or inhibiting coatings of the (do we call it powder or propellant ?) Have made most rounds that poke a simple hole clear through something (FMJs) pretty much similar. For my own thought, the U.S. should announce that it is going to use a bullet type that results in the LEAST amount of holes one has to put in an enemy combatant to Stop them in their tracks. Don’t y’all think That would be the more “Humane” result of having to shoot somebody ? Oh well . . .

        7. avatar Lance says:

          No its not about the bullet weight its the speed. both 147gr 9mm and .45 are almost subsonic it has less over penetration and more energy when they it a opponent. 134gr 9mm has been known to literally shoot threw a opponent rather than stick in it and kill it. I know cops and military with 124gr 9mm who couldn’t stop a opponent or stray dog with one. Portland Police have used 147gr 9mm and has a good track record with them.

      4. avatar Excedrine says:

        You’re actually talking about the Hague Conventions of 1899, which we are not signatories to. Nor are we signatories to the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which bars the use of high-explosive/incendiary warheads under 400 grams against infantry. Nor are we signatories or any of the addendums passed around the U.N. in the 70s or 80s which basically all say the same damn thing.

        That being said, yes we can use any projectile we damn-well want to. And in any weapons platform we want to.

        Even flame-throwers.

        “Then, why don’t we?” You ask? The simplest — and most important — reason is actually ammunition commonality. The idea behind NATO standardization is that, ideally anyway, everyone can use everyone else’s ammo in their weapons and magazines without having to make any significant changes to their weapons or accessories (particularly magazines, iron sights, and optics).

        The second most important reason is that we simply can’t be bothered to listen to anybody else bitching about us using different (READ: more effective) ammo simply because they made the idiotic and asinine mistake of signing some stupid goddamn rules that our enemies will not and cannot be made to follow.

        1. avatar achmed says:

          This guy’s got it.

      5. avatar The Stig says:

        FYI, JSOC has been using hollow points for over a decade in their sidearms. BTHPs are used by pretty much everyone in a sniper role, when they can get the ammo, and the Mk 262 is popular stuff as well. Expanding bullets are definitely in use, and not going away. Why act like they don’t work better. It’d give a new lease on life to 9mm and 5.56 if they were issued to everyone.

      6. avatar EDOGZ818 says:

        i think the limitations on ball ammo are restricted to fighting uniformed soldiers….not militants, but only the Nazi’s actually applied it….sparingly. If fighting a uniformed opponent, then FMJ, otherwise, JHP appears more rational.

        1. avatar Tom says:

          Nothing wrong with using expanding projectiles on an aggressive shooter. Hit ’em once to stop ’em with an effective JHP, or put several holes in ’em, over several seconds of time, to take the wind out of their efforts to do the same too to you And those you’re there to protect. They decide its OK to do it to You, and all bets are off the table. FMJ has its place, but projectile design to suit the situation I suppose. Blessings on you and yours.

    2. avatar Ryan says:

      Sometimes your targets are wearing armor or are carrying equipment and you need to punch through that to get to the flesh.

      Ball ammunition is better at this.

      1. avatar Jandrews says:

        Eh, alternate loadings every two rounds in your mags. Two HPs, two ball, two HP, etc.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          An HP round could have a hard penetrator shank, as well. it would simply protrude in the middle of the cavity.

    3. avatar larry says:

      Pistols poke holes, rifles tear shit up.

      A .40 or .45 is going to do NOTHING to change that fact. All it will do is lesson the round count in the gun and increase recoil. Like the originating source of this article stated, assailants often have to be shot multiple times with a pistol to stop them. They even sited a case where a perp was shot 8 times with .45 Hydroshocks before they were stopped.

      http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

      Penetration is KING. According to the FBI a hollow points don’t really expand (enough) unless they are going faster than 2000 FPS…aks see “rifles tear shit up”. Also according to that FBI report to make a handgun hollow point bullet expand enough (because of lack of speed), manufactures often weaken the round in various ways, which leads to it possibly breaking up (on bone, thick clothing etc) and not achieving enough penetration to get the job done.

      I will take FMJ over HP any day……unless I am shooting gallon milk jugs full of water and I want to impress someone.

      1. avatar RandallOfLegend says:

        You should let law enforcement know they have been using the wrong ammo for the last 40 years.

        1. avatar larry says:

          They can read the FBI report if they want. HP rounds have taken on a life of their own. They are sexy, and make for great marketing.

          That report is from 1989, maybe things are better now??? New stronger materials, or better process for making a hand gun HP round open up properly under 2000 FPS with out breaking apart before achieving proper penetration???

          The real point is that hand gun rounds are limited because of speed no matter the round type. Going from a 9mm to a slower but slightly (less than a 1/10th of an inch in diameter) 45 does not really mean anything.

    4. avatar Joe R. says:

      Gunny once said. . . (on a bright sunny day . . . on a makeshift gun range, on a hill West of Al Asad) “It’s all about shot placement” 🙂 as he drew his M-9 (from his OD Bianchi issue-holster) and emptied the magazine into the head of a green-dog target about 25 meters away.

      We did the ewok chant.

    5. avatar LC says:

      We can always innovate.

      Design a “open tip match” 9mm. Or a 9mm designed to consistently disrupt tissue in a similar manner as the M855A1 (consider that yes, that is a rifle round with higher velocity, although it wouldn’t be a impossible or expensive feat).

      Or…*gasps* a spoon tip round.

  7. avatar Lolinski says:

    More powerful? They do know that pistolas are bad except for the magnums?

    Also 9×19 is about as effective as .45 acp if you look at it from an energy level.

    If they want to get rid of the 9×19 they should go for 7.62×25. Easy to shoot and has impressive velocities especially when modernized.

    1. avatar Publius says:

      Yes, please! I’d love some cheap surplus 7.62×25 that isn’t made in the Crapistani Republic.

    2. avatar int19h says:

      At that point, they might just as well go to 5.7x28mm with hollow points. Same shit, more rounds in the magazine.

      1. avatar Michael says:

        7.62×25 Yes Yes Yes

      2. avatar Lolinski says:

        Not really the same. 700 (ca 530 ft/lbs) vs 500 (ca 370 ft/lbs) joules of energy is a big difference.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          Since it’s not a rifle round, joules do not necessarily meaningfully translate to terminal ballistics. What’s important is how much it expands/fragments, and how deeply it penetrates. The latter parameter in particular only needs to be “far enough” to ensure consistent vitals hits.

          As I recall, at least some of 5.7×28 rounds are sufficiently fast to fragment in the body. That would be more damaging than a 7.62 round that stays in one piece, even if it’s HP.

        2. avatar lolinski says:

          The tests I saw show that 5.7 has little penetration (10-13 inches in ballistic gel) and little deformation. Even if it jaws and goes sideways an expanded 9×19 or 7.62×25 will still cover a bigger area. IMO the best bet would be a steel tipped hollow point in 7.62×25 (don’t have to follow Hague convention if you never signed it + not fighting someone who has).

        3. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

          Regarding the 5.7 comments, I’ve got a question (not being familiar with the round).

          My understanding is that while it doesn’t have deep penetration or deformation, isn’t it supposed to tumble – like 180 degrees – when it hits. All by design to maximize damage to the target and minimize collateral damage?

          I’m honestly curious. I keep thinking about the civilian version of a P90 as a home defense option.

        4. avatar Lolinski says:

          That’s what I meant by yawing, but even if it yaws an expanded 9mm or 7.62mm has bigger surface area.

          A P90 isn’t a bad option though. It is a bit expensive and you might not get it back after a DGU. A pistol AR/AK with the arm brace isn’t a bad idea either.

        5. avatar Retired LEO says:

          I went to an armorer class
          for the 5.7×28 pistol @ the end we were allowed to purchase the 1 we worked on @ cost. MSRP is $1200
          I paid let us just say pretty good profit margin. If they had a class on the p90 quite sure would be similar purchase & profit.

  8. avatar Pudd says:

    Who the hell cares what it is?! I want one!

  9. avatar NV Open Carry says:

    I agree with Sita. That bit of the Geneva Convention or whatever is out-dated and JHP is not an exploding bullet as are banned.

    War is about killing, drop the charade that a blunt-nosed bullet and more holes is more civilized.

    1. avatar Rokurota says:

      A non-exploding bullet that deployed three miniature rotary saw blades upon entry would be okay by the Hague Convention.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        See my comment above. The Hague Convention “ban” only applies to conflict between two or more of the signers, and the US never agreed to the “ban” anyway.

        So why are we stuck with it? Respect for international norms and adherence to NATO ammo standards, I guess.

        1. avatar Rokurota says:

          Fine. A bullet that shreds your insides with sawblades, then explodes.

      2. avatar Broken 3ight says:

        For some reason I pictured the cartoon bullets from “Who Framed Rodger Rabbit” when visualizing this.

  10. avatar Kris says:

    It’s finally time for the .9mm

    1. avatar Menger40 says:

      .9mm? Imagine the capacity!

      1. avatar Tom says:

        Proper use of vocabulary can indeed prevent miscommunication. Same as saying “45 cal” would literally mean a bullet nearly 4 feet across. Yikes!

  11. avatar James K. says:

    The theory of the Army going to a larger-caliber round in my mind makes the same amount of sense as the .300BLK rifle round. Hear me out.

    Per the Geneva convention, the US Armed Forces can’t use standard JHP type ammunition. Since those rounds are out, the easiest way to create a larger wound cavity is to use a bullet that’s, well, BIGGER. Thus the .300BLK can have in some cases a significant advantage over 5.56, even though supersonic ammo is 20% (+/-) slower. So basically unless you need the flatter shot (aka extra range) that you get from a quicker round it’s a good tradeoff. Seems to me that going to a .45 from 9mm would have a similar result… if we only look at ball ammo.

    Just my 2 cents.

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      It’s not a straight comparison. 5.56 works because it yaws and fragments at intermediate ranges, which creates what is essentially a giant wound path. The reason 5.56 has problems is because at close range it exits before fragmenting and at long ranges it lacks the energy to fragment properly. 300 BLK fixes the short range problem by using a larger slower bullet which not only makes a bigger hole but will fragment at closer ranges. The trade off is you no longer have the range you did before. You can only cheat physics in one direction.

      As far as pistol calibers go, everything is crap, especially when JHP is off the table. The only thing you can do with a pistol is punch a bigger hole, but the tradeoff is reduced capacity and heavier ammo. 45 is a much bigger bullet moving much slower. 40 is a slightly bigger bullet moving considerably faster.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      Per the Geneva convention, the US Armed Forces can’t use standard JHP type ammunition.

      First of all, it’s the Hague Convention, not the Geneva Convention. Second of all, the US never agreed to it.

    3. avatar Excedrine says:

      I’m going to tell you the exact same thing that I told Nick D up there.

      You’re actually talking about the Hague Conventions of 1899, which we are not signatories to. Nor are we signatories to the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which bars the use of high-explosive/incendiary warheads under 400 grams against infantry. Nor are we signatories or any of the addendums passed around the U.N. in the 70s or 80s which basically all say the same damn thing.

      That being said, yes we can use any projectile we damn-well want to. And in any weapons platform we want to.

      Even flame-throwers.

      “Then, why don’t we?” You ask? The simplest — and most important — reason is actually ammunition commonality. The idea behind NATO standardization is that, ideally anyway, everyone can use everyone else’s ammo in their weapons and magazines without having to make any significant changes to their weapons or accessories (particularly magazines, iron sights, and optics).

      The second most important reason is that we simply can’t be bothered to listen to anybody else bitching about us using different (READ: more effective) ammo simply because they made the idiotic and asinine mistake of signing some stupid goddamn rules that our enemies will not and cannot be made to follow.

    4. avatar LC says:

      The 300 blackout is still a 300 meter cartridge, give or take. Similar to 5.56 and anything else in the same ballpark (yeah i know it can hit targets further. im not talking about that).

      In other words, spending the money to completely reconfigure the yankee infantry squad with 300 blackout or some other similar cartridge of similar performance will not change the fact that there will be no measurable leap in lethality.

      The M855A1 also addresses the inherent lethality problems of the M855. Any other 5.56 outside the realm of the “green tip” doesn’t even remotely have lethality problems, such as the myriad of self defense market ammunition out there.

      We frequently use open tip match ammunition. Ever hear of mk 318 and 262? There are others in the same ballpark that are measurably far superior for killing shitheads than the M855 that sullied 5.56’s reputation as a caliber.

  12. avatar Rokurota says:

    If “modular” is the key, then SIG must have the inside track.

    .40S&W, 10mm and .357 SIG won’t fly as our soldiers, sailors and airmen are getting less skilled: http://online.wsj.com/articles/recruits-ineligibility-tests-the-military-1403909945 . Maybe .22LR?

    The U.S. switched to 9x19mm to play nice with our NATO allies. Is that not a thing any more?

    1. avatar Nick D says:

      Well, our current “president” does have a habit of antagonizing our allies, so maybe NATO won’t be a thing for much longer. They’ll just be countries that used to like us before we elected a braying jackass as high ruler, twice.

    2. avatar Lance says:

      Hope not SIG is crap. I think S&W MP and the XD and Glock are the key face it they want a striker fire pistol not a old SA DA system the M-9 is already.

      1. avatar J E says:

        @Lance — striker fired and DA/SA are all pretty old — the operation method of each type of pistol is largely irrelevant to how effective it is in combat. If I was a grunt headed out I would be happier with a Sig, M&P, Berretta, et al. in .45 due to the FMJ preferences of the military.

        That being said I do prefer a pistol where the ergonomics can be adjusted for the user ( as someone with smaller hands ) which many current generation pistols address. They are all extremely reliable — now it needs to fit well.

        An early striker fired pistol:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Model_1910

        1. I’m in agreement here. I’ve never understood how/why they adopted a gun like the M9 that feels like a 2×4 grip for anyone with a less than average hand size. It’s time they went with a modern design that has small-medium-large user replaceable back-straps and a SINGLE mode trigger. This means something along the lines of an XDM or a S&W M&P.

        2. avatar Skeptical_Realist says:

          #Larry Robertson

          Regarding the “2×4” grip comment, please remember that the competition for the M-9 occured in the early ’80s (M-9 was adopted in 1985). It’s only real competitor was the brand new Sig P226. Glock was the only striker gun being produced in large quantities, and was also brand-spanking new (and also has a 2×4 grip depending on who you ask).

          All the modern ergo, adjustable grip pistols simply weren’t around then, and DoD needs a REALLY good reason to change a working system. IMHO, they still don’t have one, which is why the last 5 times talk of replacing the M-9 fell by the wayside.

      2. avatar Excedrine says:

        SIG =/= crap.

      3. avatar Mark N. says:

        American service weapons have to be made in the US, leaving the Croatian XD out of the running.

        1. avatar Lance says:

          Don’t know why your defending other large pistols Beretta is large but not huge the Glock21 and all SIGs are large and bulky too only way to get a decent small rip is to go single stack mag that means .45 would be the only caliber to overcome low capacity due to firepower.

        2. avatar AndrewinDC says:

          If the XDM were chosen, HS Produkt would set up a factory in the US and the problem would go away.

    3. avatar Mark N. says:

      Our military forces are less skilled because DHS is buying up all the ammo and the armed forces don’t have enough to practice with. How many service persons have stated that their small arms training consisted of no more than a few hundred rounds?

      1. I’m guessing the cook for one…

        But really just because you are in the Service doesn’t mean your primary job will be shooting.
        War and the way it’s fought has changed.

    4. avatar The Stig says:

      Our NATO allies haven’t been carrying their weight for a while. Why bother with them at all?

      1. avatar int19h says:

        NATO was not created for the purposes of busting up third world hell-holes.

        For what it is actually created, NATO allies do meaningfully contribute. Of course, how meaningfully, will only ever be found out if the event for which it was created actually happens. Which is hopefully never.

        1. avatar Big E says:

          Hopefully….but Vlad is getting pretty froggy about getting the old band back together.

        2. avatar int19h says:

          Vlad is actually seemingly wanting to play the whole thing down and pretend that nothing happened. One of the hottest topics in the “patriotic” circles on the Russian Internet these days is whether and why the Russian government “betrayed” the insurgents in Donetsk and Lugansk by refusing to intervene, or at least pressure the Ukrainians, and making it more complicated for them to cross the border back and force. It will be quite ironic indeed if a few years down the line it’ll cost him his power, ousted as a “traitor”, and with a true crazy like Strelkov/Girkin to replace him.

        3. avatar The Stig says:

          You’re joking, right? Apart from some newish NATO members, few are maintaining the requisite spending levels for membership. Almost all are slashing their military budgets in a way that would terrify even the liberals in this country. They are worthless.

  13. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Am I the only one thinking @ cheap surplus M9’s??

    1. avatar sota says:

      Yea… problem is they all have safeties. I prefer my 92G variants. 🙂

      Still, if I could get a couple M9’s for cheap I would. Because Gun Collection!

      Actually, the more beat up it looks but still functions perfectly the better. Hell if it has a killer (snarc) story attached to it that would be awesome!

      1. avatar Jay Williams says:

        Because Gun Collection!

        +1

    2. avatar tim.m says:

      i doubt they will ever see the civilian market……… the media would have a field day with the idea of the us military selling “high capacity pistols “

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        Yeah, or “Military grade semi-automatics.”

        They’d spin it some way for sure. Still…one can dream.

    3. avatar Tim U says:

      Sorry, with this administration it’s much more likely they’ll be shipped direct to Mexican cartels.

  14. avatar ST says:

    Let’s clear the air right now.

    Prior service Air Force here. The M9 does not need to be replaced. What needs to be replaced is the military maintenance process which turns a perfectly good Beretta into a pile of worthless trash once it’s on the members hip. Notice that the issues servicemembers have with the M9 old timers heard back in the day with the 1911.

    Second, the military handgun training is so bad it’s nonexistent. No shit people have issues shooting and carrying the M9. I’d rather doubt any of us would do well if we bought a gun, strapped it on our hips, and had only 100 rounds total of shooting experience with zero in depth education on cleaning and maintenance. Yet that’s exactly what happens when non frontline troops are sent downrange. Worse, they’re held accountable if there’s a problem. That’s like handing the keys to a Corvette to a teenager with zero driving time and throwing them in jail when they wreck the car.

    Instead of blowing money down a chute, how about the DoD actually gets serious about training. As it is now a farmer with a state issued CCW permit and training is more fit for pistol combat then the typical .mil member.

    1. avatar sota says:

      Shush you. You’re making too much sense. Someone obviously needs to get some pork in their state. How dare you attempt to stop putting Hard Working Americans back to work with JOBS! We need to spend YOUR money to give those people JOBS! Look at this baby!

    2. avatar Vhyrus says:

      The thing is, pistols just don’t matter that much in combat. If you are actually using your pistol for more than one magazine in a military gun fight, something has gone seriously wrong with your primary action plan.

      1. avatar Nick D says:

        That’s the thing about plans in battle: the only thing they ever do right is to go seriously wrong.

    3. avatar Ralph says:

      You nailed it, ST.

      So why switch? Money, that’s why. Some manufacturer in bed with some General and his Congressional buddies will end up making a fortune.

    4. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      There you go, making sense again.

      Stop that. You’ll become an outcast if you keep that up around politicians and federal employees.

    5. avatar Lance says:

      You nailed it. face it ICC started because some idiot Army general wanted the SOCOM SCAR L adopted after he saw one. wasted millions on ICC. Same here some general liked the Glock too much now he ordered a industry day. Face it all issues with the M-9 is crappy Army training Not the gun. Same went for the M-4 carbine when ICC started all the tacti-cooler said how it sucked now that ICC died everyone says its a awesome weapon. Same for the m-9 better training and a 147gr round would end the complaints about the M-9.

    6. avatar S. Cautela says:

      A lot of “.mil members” (To use “.mil members derisively tell me this guy has probably never served his country, or is a cop who resents his fellow officers that have served thier country.) personally own and shoot a M-9/Beretta 92 FS, not because they are in love with the platform, but because it is their duty weapon and they don’t get enough trigger time at their branch of service’s expense. A low round count number by annual qualification is not a benchmark of proficiency in and of itself. Also a lot of unit Commanders solution to a service member who cannot shoot a rifle is to put a pistol in thier hands even though it is not thier issue weapon and see if they do any better which hurts average pistol qualification numbers for their branch of service… Blame them for skewed statistics.

    7. avatar LC says:

      Youre making too much sense air force.

      Far too much sense for the caliber fanboys and good idea fairy stricken bureaucrats to even comprehend.

      I agree that the M9 doesn’t need replaced. At all.

      “special” units that already do use suppressors and require compatible barrels will acquire them separately, like they always do.

      It makes no fvcking sense to adopt a handgun with a threaded barrel that will mostly likely never see a suppressor ever in its lifespan. Ever. This is another case of regular army wanting what SF types want. First it was the slanted ACU pockets. Then the velcro. Then the MICH helmets. then the combat pants. Now the fucking threaded barrels.

      useless waste of public dollars.

      And fvck 40, 45, and 357 SIG and the horse they rode in on. They are not solutions.

  15. avatar Retired LEO says:

    The original thinking was to wound as many as possible to drain enemy resources. The 9 was picked for 2 reasons; NATO standard & the qualification score increased with females. My daughter shot master @ 4’10” 95lbs w/9mm. With .45acp she was all over the place.

    1. avatar The Stig says:

      Wow, never heard the old wound as many as possible argument put to 9mm. It seems our military can’t get anything right when it comes to caliber procurement. I guess they should have chosen 22LR instead. The wounding capabilities are second to none, but I suppose there still exists an offhand chance you might accidentally kill the enemy, so they probably should have considered air guns too.

      Is that why they give me bird shot for my M1014?

      1. avatar int19h says:

        >> Wow, never heard the old wound as many as possible argument put to 9mm. It seems our military can’t get anything right when it comes to caliber procurement

        That argument was never used to justify the adoption of any new round. It was introduced for 5.56 as a post factum rationalization, and pretty late at that (at the time when M855 was adopted, and the original extreme wounding effects of an understabilized 55gr bullet from a 1:14 twist barrel were an obscure piece of history).

        1. avatar The Stig says:

          Obviously you missed the dripping sarcasm.

  16. avatar Mike Crognale says:

    Springfield XDm in 45ACP. 13 rounds of man stopper in one mag.

    1. avatar larry says:

      Love my Glock 21…..but the man stopping or knock down power of a 45 is a nothing but a myth.

      http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

      a 9mm or a 45 have the same impact as being hit by a baseball being thrown fast. Something like 70% of all people will fall to the ground when hit by any round, .22 and up…IF…they know they are hit by a gun. Its a psychological thing.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Not made in the US. Not gonna happen.

      1. I’m sure glock would move manufacturing to the US to get a contract from the largest military in the world. FN did the same thing…

        1. avatar Alaskan Patriot says:

          Glock already has a manufacturing plant in the United States.

    3. avatar LC says:

      Yeah if you think the Berettas have high round count problems, you just have big army adopt the XD(m).

      There is so much wrong with that family of handguns, its not even funny. Plus adopting another caliber? sheesh…that makes no sense whatsoever.

  17. avatar dh34 says:

    My money’s on another 9mm. .40 would provide commonality with many of the Fed agencies, but my bet is they stay with the NATO round for now. The Army and USAF have the biggest stake in maintaining commonality with NATO. USMC has been playing around with .45 for a few years, but the M9 is still standard. The Navy will follow the Marines lead.

    1. avatar dh34 says:

      I’ll also add two things.

      One is that having carried both the M9 and the M11, I’ll take the M11 any day.

      The other is that I’ve never fired the 5.7, but plenty of 9mm, .40 and .45. Whatever is chosen is going to have to be comfortable for females to shoot.

      1. avatar Lance says:

        Carried a M-9n shot Glocks and SiGs I take a M-9 hands down over the tiny and bulky SIG.

        1. avatar dh34 says:

          Bulky is not how I would describe an M11 (P228/229 series). Bulky is how iI describe an M9.

          Having had the experience of running a weps qual program, my small handed shooters (mostly female) had a lot of problems with the M9. I don’t know anyone that preferred M9s to M11s. That’s my experience…everyone has an opinion and a fav…

        2. avatar Lance says:

          You might just love your SIG but I have shot both hated the SIG as a tiny gun with a BIG grip and a sucky style slide to deal with know several LE and Military who like the M-9.

        3. avatar dh34 says:

          I prefer the SIG. Some prefer the Beretta. The first service weapon I carried was a .38 wheel gun.

          In the end, ain’t nuthin but a thing. Some like a A2/3 with a 20″ barrel over an M4 with 14.5″… My choice…M14 for a long gun and M11 for color of eyeball range.

        4. avatar Lance says:

          We can agree with the M-14 Id say thanks for being civil and I wish many more are like you. We disagree with handguns but being civil is key…. Thanks.

  18. avatar Pashtun6 says:

    Whatever the system is it’s goin to need to be modular and suitable for a wide range of servicembers. I’m wondering if it will be an SIG P320.

    1. avatar Lance says:

      Hope not SIG is crap. It will not make sense if they stay 9mm the only logical reason to a new gun is for a new caliber. HK or Glock be the logical winners.

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        SIG =/= crap.

      2. avatar Alaskan Patriot says:

        Lance —

        You clearly have some beef with Sig’s products. It seems that every comment you’ve posted on this thread is used as an opportunity to bash Sig.

        Everyone has their preferences, sure. But your blind, blustering, clearly hateful ramblings don’t do anything except advertise to the world that you have some personal issue with a certain manufacturer’s products, and as such makes it easy for us to discount your arguments as meaningless.

  19. avatar Tex300BLK says:

    Since they are required to use FMJ, the flat(ish) point truncated cone FMJ in the 40 makes it a decent performer from a tissue disruption standpoint. I doubt they will though, given some concerns about service life. I bet they go 45ACP…. ’cause Murica baby!

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      We are not required to use FMJ as we are not signatories to the Hague Convention of 1899, which is what banned the use of expanding bullets. Additionally, it only applies to conflicts between signers of the Convention, so it wouldn’t apply to fights between the U.S and Al-Qaeda, for example.

      1. avatar Tex300BLK says:

        How cute, you read everyone elses’ responses in the first and second posts on the thread so you were polite enough to come down here and educate me… what would we do without all your other wonderful contributions to the discussion today!

        It doesnt really matter because tell me, what kind of non 50BMG (those guys get to play with cool shit like RAUFUS and API) ammo do our troops shoot today? XM193 – ball, XM855 – ball, XM80 – ball, whatevertheyshootin9mm – yep thats ball too. Wow we must be really stupid.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          Mk 262? Mk 318?

          Yes, they’re “ball” nomenclature, but the construction of the OTM bullet is basically hollow point, and the effects are quite similar, as well.

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          How cute, you condescend to me having absolutely no rhyme or reason to even though my replies above were more precise, concise, and were in fact committed to type at about the exact same time as everyone else’s only a couple minutes apart. You can go ahead and put your attitude back precisely where it came from now, which is where the Sun don’t shine. Thanks in advance.

          And yes, we are stupid for using FMJ and not bonded bullets for duty rounds.

        3. avatar HurpDurp says:

          Excedrine stop being so offended that someone called you out for being a keyboard commando.

        4. avatar Excedrine says:

          Except that I’m not actually being a keyboard commando at all — period. Now, stop defending demonstrably stupid comments.

    2. avatar Rokurota says:

      And you can put a truncated cone bullet on any round.

      1. avatar Tex300BLK says:

        True… but I have yet to run across a factory 45ACP loading with a truncated cone FMJ, and the only 9mm I have seen with one is 147gr Speer Lawman (which is a darn fine round I might add).

        Any 40S&W you pull off a shelf has a TC bullet.

  20. avatar Bernard says:

    Great read. I’m glad the FN 5.7 is finally going to become mainstream.

    1. avatar Panzercat says:

      You’re probably joking, but body armor defeating micro mags might warrant something other than a derisive snort. Hell, .22 TCM is 9mm frame/mag compatible to a degree. I mean you either make the round bigger of give it more speed, and I’m not sure what the Army is after.

  21. avatar Pascal says:

    I am surprised nobody has commented on this from the article

    Larger calibers, such as .40 S&W, have significantly more recoil than the 9mm making them much harder for the average shooter to shoot accurately, he said.

    “I don’t think anybody would argue that shot placement is the most important for terminal ballistics,” Langdon said. “Even though you say a .45 is better than a 9mm, it’s still a pistol caliber. Chances are if it is a determined adversary, they are going to have to be shot multiple times regardless of the caliber.”

    Many law-enforcement shooting incidents have shown this to be reality, he said.

    “I talked to a Chicago cop that shot a guy eight times with a .45 to kill him and that was a 230 grain Hydra-Shok,” Langdon said. “And that guy now carries a 9mm …he realized that handgun bullets suck. “You have to shoot people a lot with a handgun.”

    1. avatar larry says:

      Denial.

    2. avatar LC says:

      Thats the only part of the article that mattered to me 😛 or at least didn’t make me want to punch a hole in my wall.

      It is not mentioned because it shreds the bullshi t of the caliber-centric dipshits who somehow believe brining back the 1911 and 45 ACP will solve all of the current problems with the M9 (supposed problems; funny thing, Ive probably fired the M9 and M11 handguns more than most service members and haven’t had problems with them. Why is that?).

      This blog is also full of caliber fans (especially 45 ACP lovers) that somehow believe spending money on gear is a substitute for reforming big army’s archaic pistol qualification course and training. That is why stupid ideas such as SERPA and G-code holsters get adopted. Anybody who actually trains knows shit equipment like that is sold to the “i shoot once a year” civilian crowd of safe queen-owning wannabes and not serious warfighters.

      1. avatar Lance says:

        Same here no issue with both most come from Army knuckle heads who never too care of there weapons if we went with tacti cool Glocks or even the horrible plastic SIG we have the same issue with low maintenance causing them to fail…. Than another pistol competition. No?

        1. avatar Excedrine says:

          SIG =/= horrible.

    3. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

      Do you really want to make this a pissing match about the 9 vs the 45? The 45 hits harder. Deal with it.

      1. avatar LC says:

        lets make this a pissing match.

        prove that 45 hits harder. prove that it is more lethal than 9mm. http://www.scribd.com/doc/70670163/Wound-Ballistics-101

        1. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

          You seem to be forgetting that the 9mm has to fire a FMJ just like the .45. Neither one will expand and if that is the case the 45 makes a bigger hole. If you need to see a video (after I googled for like 45 seconds) take a look here. Minute eight looks like the area to start from. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7JxF4TYJps
          If you are arguing that the military should use the 9 because it holds more rounds fine, but if you are arguing due to the powder capacity and foot pounds and dimensions of the bullet than look here.
          http://www.ballistics101.com/

        2. avatar LC says:

          The video does nothing to undue what my point was: that the 9mm and 45 have roughly similar lethality.

          Your video actually proves my point, and the unscientific, “a little bigger hole” means nothing in the big picture of putting rounds on target. The “bigger hole” is the width of two fingernails.

          I dont need to look at that website because it supports my point that 9mm and 45 have similar lethality.

          I argue for 9mm’s continued use by our military because
          1.) it is less expensive
          2.) produces lighter recoil
          3.) has larger magazine capacities
          4.) is already in the inventory and production
          5.) has commonality with many NATO and non-NATO allies around the world
          6.) is just as effective as 45 ACP despite 45s limitations.

          Logically, adopting 45 makes no sense whatsoever. Its nostalgia, fanboyism, and stupidity.

      2. avatar larry says:

        No it does not.

        http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

        There has not been ONE documented case where a 40 or 45 was used to stop someone, that a 9mm used in the same case would have failed.

        Pistols poke holes, rifles tear shit up. Point being pistols can only do so much and the difference between calibers of specific size range 9mm – 45 means NOTHING or basically they are all the same.

      3. avatar Jason Lynch says:

        Not everyone was madly in love with the .45… the US Army’s own medics had this to say when reviewing combat experience with it.

        “It can be readily appreciated that the .45 caliber bullet is of little value as a wound-producing agent except in the softer tissues and at near ranges. The bullet often fails either to penetrate or to fracture bone and practically never shatters bone in the manner common to the rifle bullet or fragment. The Japanese and German sidearms with muzzle velocities of approximately 1,100 f.p.s. were much more effective as antipersonnel weapons than the .45 caliber weapon. ”
        http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/chapter2.htm

  22. avatar mdc says:

    First off the Cop shooting a guy 8 times with a .45 230 jhp. Is there additional on that incident we need to know. Also the
    40 with recoil and beating up pistol, total bunk.
    Just go with Glocks.

    1. avatar larry says:

      Actually I have read that in many places. Basically the theory is that whatever the first model of gun is from a manufacture is how the other models are usually built upon.

      So for instance the Glock 17 in 9mm was the first Glock. Most of Glock issues where from their .40 models. Overtime they have worked them out, but there were lots of wear and tear issues because their .40 models were adopted from the 9mm guns.

      For the M&P series the first model was a .40, to capture the law enforcement market. Their 9mm models have had the most issues….because they were adopted from the .40 model. Mostly accuracy issues because the lose fitting of the 9mm barrel etc.

      1. avatar Lance says:

        As for some who think Glock is the only 10mm pistol out there no. The S@W 1006 pistol did well but poor sales end the production run. The Colt Delta Elite is a great pistol and it takes 10mm well.

        @ wear and tear this is very true .40 isn’t a economical caliber. Washington County, OR Sheriffs used .40s for over 10 years but in 2010 had to replace them with 9mm pistols because the .40 wear out so quickly. .45 still in use though so that supports .45 over .40.

    2. avatar LC says:

      it is not total bunk.

      Compare the 40 caliber variations to any 9mm variant out there with major models of handguns. Find out which ones are still kicking after 50k rounds. Very seldom are they 40s.

      Why do you suppose that is?

      Because 40 pushes the mechanical limits of the case, that is why. 9mm and 45 dont, which is why they dont wear out handguns as fast. Slide cycle speed and energy are big disadvantages of 40, 45 GAP, 357 SIG and any other necked down cartridge.

  23. avatar ZWhite says:

    “Modular Handgun System”, eh? Sounds like every polymer pistol with a changeable and/or swappable grip/backstrap is what they’re looking for. While I think it would be wiser to stick with 9×19 and train our troops better the fact that they’re “looking for a more powerful handgun” strikes me as them looking for something in either .40S&W or .45ACP. I seriously doubt they’ll go the .357SIG route. Taking that into account, here are my predictions:

    If they go 9×19: P320 or VP9
    If they go .40S&W: M&P40 or FNX-40
    If they go .45ACP: M&P45 or 1911

    1. avatar Lance says:

      I think your jumping to conclusions remember your hype abut FN and ICC well it didn’t happen. Hope that crappy SIG will lose its crap. A 1911 will be nice but a G21SF or a XD in .45 would be more logical since the tacti cooler morons will push for plastic.

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        SIG =/= crap.

        1. avatar Random Internet User says:

          Lance and Excedrine:

          YOUR PURSE FIGHT IS BECOMING TIRESOME.

        2. avatar Lance says:

          Sorry we know you love your SIG but it doesn’t matter to you its inferior to most other guns out there.

        3. avatar Jay Williams says:

          Your sticktoitiveness is impressive. Cracks me up.

      2. avatar Zach says:

        Lance,

        First of all, Sig Sauer != crap. I know you seem to think that, but they make tools that function and function well.

        Secondly I don’t see them going to a G21 (any variant) or an XD45. The G21 is going to be too large for people with smaller hands. The XD or XDm is not manufactured in the US (a military stipulation and the whole reason why Beretta started making the 92 in the states).

        I know you hate Sigs, but I think the newly released P320 is going to look rather attractive for what they are looking for (modularity in overall size, grip size AND caliber) not to mention a simpler manual of arms (striker). If they don’t go with the P320 I could see them going M&P 9 before Glock 17/19 (oh how the military loves those manual safeties…).

        Either way I think it’s wise to stick with 9mm for multiple reasons. I just wish they would move to a decent hollowpoint load and update their pistol handling training. That and it would be kinda cool to be able to score a cheap mil-surp M9.

        1. avatar Lance says:

          No the P-320 is too small and doesn’t have mag capacity like a G-21 or USP would. I don’t like SiGs but its not better than other none 1911 .45 autos. HK has any plastic .45 pistol locked up it won the last two M-9 replacement competitions. Face it we been here before if we stay with 9mm then the M-9 will stay its only logical especially in the era of sequestration. I like Glocks think the G17 is my 2nd pic for a 9mm sidearm.

  24. avatar JSIII says:

    I predict a few shoot offs/evaluations but the program being cancelled.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      The military has been doing a lot of testing and proposed programs for both new rifles and pistols, but thus far this has been more smoke and mirrors than anything else. I would be very surprised that anything really happens.

  25. avatar S.CROCK says:

    What type of ammo does the military use? Grain, brand, and hollow point or not?

    Will this make 9mm prices go up if they stop using it? It doesn’t seem like it should because its not like you see mil surp 9mm.

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      As we are not signatories to any international laws banning the use of any particular weapons or munitions, we can rightly use whatever we feel like. Literally the only reason we don’t is because of ammo commonality concerns (and thus, logistics).

      1. avatar Nick D says:

        Also, hollow points are more expensive than FMJ’s.

        1. avatar S.CROCK says:

          If we are willing to pay the extra cost for hollow points for LEOs then our military should also be able to use them. Paying for some decent 9mm hollow points would be a whole lot cheaper than transitioning to a whole new gun (.45?).

  26. avatar tdiinva says:

    I am give you a dispassionate analysis why it’s going to be something in 45.

    (1) Ball Ammo. Other than 10 mm nothing comes close in an automatic. I don’t see 10mm getting a fair deal because of the FBI’s bad experience.

    (2) Forget about LEO use and stopping power. The military doesn’t recognize stoppjng power as an MOE. They use lethality as an MOE, that is an untreated wound will incapacitate someone in X minutes with some specified. probably or untreated would kill someone in y minutes with some specified probability. Again, 45 ball is king of lethality in its general class

    (3) It is probably going to be a 1911. Not out of nostalgia but because the Marines already have a contract. It will be much easier to procure off that contract. Remember, that’s how the M-16 happened. The Air Force haf a contract and Army needed an assault rifle. I will entertain the idea that they might buy a metal framed SIG. Sorry Glock fanboys, if they go with plastic they will go with the XD/m because of the grip safety. The Army will never buy a pistol without some form of a safety.

    The U S Army and Marine Corps want a combat pistol with sufficient lethality that only a large bore ball round can deliver. In all other armies the pistol remains a residual symbol authority carried by officers who are not expected to get their hands dirty. A police pistol is just fine for them. US officers are expected to kill along side their soldiers.

    1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      And I’ll give you one reason why it won’t be .45 ACP or a 1911:

      NATO. The fiction called “NATO” is why we’re using 9×19 in the first place.

      The other NATO nations look at sidearms as jewelry for their officers. They don’t actually expect to use a sidearm for anything, but you can’t argue that in European military tradition, a sidearm is what makes sure you know you’re dealing with an officer.

      The hard truth is that we should simply withdraw from NATO. The other member nations can’t keep up with our military, if for nothing else than the lack of compatible C3I systems. Never mind individual small arms, we’re talking that in large scale battles, they need to keep out of the way, lest they get curb-stomped by the US military’s air power and “smart” armaments.

      If we’d withdraw from NATO, then we’d start making progress in individual small arms choices. But as long as we’re wed to the ammunition standards for NATO (9×19, 7.62×51, 5.56×45), we’re not going to adopt anything new for grunts. Ain’t gonna happen outside special forces or limited production for small groups like the USMC.

      1. avatar Retired LEO says:

        NATO has done nothing for the US. Same as the UN done nothing but nice Christmas cards. We need to think what will stop our enemies, not the world. Isolationism would sting for a bit but jobs, food & americans working would result

        1. avatar Lance says:

          No as a memeber of NATO you must have common claiber as for all pistols rifles machineguns and even gernades. NATO is the reason why we went to 9mm over the .45cal 1911 in the 80s anyway. Obama kisses up to NATO all the time doubt we rebuff them by going to dilberitly goto a true amercian caliber like .40 or .45.

        2. avatar Random Internet User says:

          Lance: that is simply nonsense.

          NATO standards are ignored all the time. That’s where the 5.56mm came from, in fact: the US simply adopted it, and a couple of decades later NATO decided it would be acceptable as a standard.

          The “NATO made us adopt the 9mm” fairytale was gunshop commando bullshit back in the ’80s. We adopted 9mm because our 1911s were worn-out junk and the 1911 had a history of killing and wounding more US troops in negligent discharges during peacetime than in killing and wounding enemies in combat.

        3. avatar Lance says:

          Maybe for SOCOM but not for the BIG ARMY. face it we still use 5.56mmm NATO 7.62mmm NATO and 12.7mm NATO. We are not abandoning NATO for a pistol competition The pres alone wouldn’t go for it.

      2. avatar tdiinva says:

        DG:

        The Army does not want a 9mm. That is the reason for dumping the Beretta. They want the 45 round more than they want a particular pistol. They can hold an open competition and then say “well there are a lot of good pistols out there but Colt will cut us the best deal and have faster delivery dates” which are true statements.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Colt can’t keep up with domestic demand for 1911s; how will they manage to produce 200k pistols on their antiquated equipment? And if they try, what will QC be like?

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          The Marines have already awarded a contract for a military production line. That, my friend, is a big deal.

        3. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

          The USA didn’t want the 5.56×45, either.

          They had already decided to use the 7.62×51 in the M-14.

          They got something else once the policy-makers in DC had their way. Thanks to the dissolution of the Army’s Armory system (eg, Springfield, et al – the real Springfield Armory, the guys who built the Garands, etc), the Army (and everyone else) will get their arms from outside suppliers. Outside suppliers are now very much in control of the bid-rigging on DOD contracts, and most of the suppliers to the USA’s small arms programs are from Europe.

          Europeans (ie, NATO members other than the US and Canada) are very much in favor of the 9mm, as are their gun companies.

          So the USA will get the 9×19, whether they like it or not, whether we taxpayers like it or not. Personally, I’m pissed off that at the amount of money, both civilian market and DOD contract, that is going to European small arms producers. We used to have some of the very best gun companies in the world here in the US, making lots of civilian and military arms. Now, it’s almost a certainty that future DOD contracts will be won by FNH, H&K, et al.

        4. avatar Lance says:

          OR they like, with ICC, realized they made a mistake and they buy new M-9A1s instead in 4-5 years like ICC. Like going to a 6.8mm round it only makes sense if they goto a new pistol a new caliber will be in order otherwise. Like with ICC it be a waste in time and effort.

        5. avatar LC says:

          Fvcking caliber fan boy

          you are wrong as being your usual self.

          It does not matter that the army does not want the 9mm (and that is even not true). It is a NATO common round and is measurably similar in performance to any other major pistol caliber out there, with similar energy levels and lethality. Go to a EMT, trauma nurse, or surgeon sometime: ask them if there is a difference between 9mm and 45. Exactly.

          Adopting a cartridge with far less capacity (little over half on average) with more weight and no commonality with anybody else (who else uses 45 besides the US? exactly), makes as much sense as tits on a boar hog.

          Colt’s M45 is a niche specific pistol. They cannot match the production speed of Glock or any other manufacturer churning out polymer handguns simply because M45s are a work of art. That and the M45 costs significantly more money. About as much as two or three Glocks or M&Ps.

          Are you a colt salesman? because you are fvcking full of shit.

          In line with what DG is saying, i would actually prefer the contract go to the M&P 9. It is already a proven handgun system and is superior to Glock in many ways. Also made in ‘murica.

        6. avatar tdiinva says:

          Well LC. I am not FOS and I am not writing as a boy. I suspect I have a lot more acquisition experience than anybody on this board and I have had access to the JMEM — do you know what that is? 45 ACP ball is significantly more lethal than a 9mm. It’s in the book and if you have access you can look it up yourself.
          The Army doesn’t necessarily want a 1911 but if they are going to 45 ACP it will be cheapest and get through the system the fastest because of existing contract. The article lists a number of reasons that they want a new pistol and the ineffectiveness of 9mm ball is right up there. You see, unlike you, they know what JMEM says.

        7. avatar LC says:

          I dont care about your supposed access to JMEM. You are not reciting any facts on here whatsoever.

          45 ACP is NOT significantly more lethal than 9mm. Like I said before, ask a ER nurse or trauma surgeon what the differences are. or this http://www.scribd.com/doc/70670163/Wound-Ballistics-101

          Do you know what the differences are between the two? 100-150 ft/lbs of energy and the width of two finger nails. Thats it. In other words, fvck all.

          How in the ever loving fvck will 45 be “cheapest”? have you compared the prices of the two recently? not just the overall cost, but the fact that more materials equals more cost?

          Not to mention the cost of reconfiguring big army and big armed forces to use 45 rather than 9mm?

          The cheapest option besides doing nothing (which should be the utmost priority) is to adopt another 9mm.

          prove that the 45 ACP can be the fastest because of a existing contract. I can guarantee, betting a months of income, that smith and wesson, glock, FN, Beretta, or SIG can produce far more handguns than Colt can with their 1911. You fvcking act like MEUSOC is acquiring 100k M45s.

          The army can chime in about “ineffectiveness of 9mm ball” all they want, but that doesn’t make it true. Why do you suppose special operations units outside the US use 9mm still? why dont they use wunder waffe calibers when they certainly have the budget and logistics for doing so? Probably because anybody with any credibility knows that pistol calibers are shit compared to long guns.

          Besides, equipped a 10 round 45 handgun is a step backwards anyways. What causes more tissue disruption and blood loss? 7-10 rounds of 45 or 15-17 rounds of 9mm? keep in mind the aforementioned differences i noted above.

          You are a liar and a viper.

        8. avatar Lance says:

          I think both 9x19mm and .45 AUTO are lethal and deadly rounds its all about how and wear to shoot a attacker 9mm will kill you if you shot in the head liver heart just as much as a .45. I like the M-45 I like seeing MARSOC and even the Delta Force use 1911s. But I hope the M-9s stays logic dose not warrant a change now this is more DoD politics and some idiot General wanting his personal firearm made mandatory for all.

        9. avatar publius2 says:

          tdi your arguments are persuasive, and I was interested enough to look up a couple articles on the Marine contract to Colt, back in 2012,
          http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/07/20/colt-awarded-contract-from-u-s-marine-corps/

          and review on the 1911 update, dtd Feb 2014
          http://www.gunsandammo.com/reviews/semper-fi-colt-m45a1-cqbp-marine-pistol-review/

          The civilian version is available as the “Rail Gun”:
          http://www.colt.com/Catalog/Pistols/RailGun%C2%AE.aspx

          Heres a review from a civilian who has had one for awhile:
          http://looserounds.com/2012/07/30/colt-rail-gun-4000-round-test/

        10. avatar tdiinva says:

          Your absolutely right in civilian environment where most shootings are conveniently located close to a trauma center with specialists ready to start treatment in minutes. That is not the military environment and has no relevance what so ever to what medical treatment is available in combat.

          You should know the drill. First you get treated by a medic whose sole job is to stabilize the patient until he can moved to an intermediate treatment facility. That can take minutes or it can take hours. The intermediate treatment facility may or may not have a doctor. It might only be staffed by PA. It can take quite a while for a wounded soldier to be treated in a facility equal to an urban ER trauma center. That is the medical environment that the military evaluates the effects of bullets, bombs and nukes. So yes, under combat conditions the bigger hole and more extensive tissue damage translates into higher lethality. Few of our opponents on the battlefield have anywhere near the level of medical treatment that is available at a US forward aid station. If a wounded enemy combatant is lucky he gets captured and treated by us.

          So instead of name calling based on your emotions I suggest that you do a little research on how military develops its measures of effectiveness for human lethality.

        11. avatar LC says:

          you just dont get it, do you?

          “So yes, under combat conditions the bigger hole and more extensive tissue damage translates into higher lethality.”

          Except the two finger nails worth of difference between the 45 and 9mm does not translate into more extensive tissue damage and higher lethality. The difference between pistol cartridges and rifles IS a measurable difference.

          You somehow believe that civilian or stateside experience doesn’t apply, which would make you wrong as wrong could be.

          Now quit being a dumbass and go run until i tell you to stop. Maybe a little PT will stimulate those neurons in your brain.

        12. avatar tdiinva says:

          Now we get a little less emotional when presented with some facts.

          “You somehow believe that civilian or stateside experience doesn’t apply, which would make you wrong as wrong could be.”

          Civilian and stateside conditions apply to LEOs. They apply to citizen DGUs. That is why I carry a 9mm They are not applicable in combat which is by civilians standards often a mass casualty event with inadequate medical resources.

          “Now quit being a dumbass and go run until i tell you to stop. Maybe a little PT will stimulate those neurons in your brain.”

          It’s 0724 and I am about to do that. I am 64. When you are my age, if you make that far you probably will be 50lbs overweight and unable to walk a mile without having a heart attack.

          Happy 4th and thank you for your service.

        13. avatar tdiinva says:

          LC:

          It is 0900 and I am now back from PT. It did jog a few neurons.

          Modern survival rates for different pistol rounds do not measure the relative [in]effectiveness of different calibers. The survival rate measures the absolute effectiveness of the medical system. Lethality is mortality as a function of time to the start of treatment. Get much further away than 30 minutes from the medical system and you will see a difference among the calibers.. Get too far away and again it won’t much of a make a difference either..

          Again, happy 4th and thank for your service.

        14. avatar LC says:

          fair enough.

          Dont thank me, thank my wife.

          She has to put up with my mean ass every day and did during deployment 😛

      3. avatar tdiinva says:

        Just emphasize the difference between The US Army and other armies when comes to officers role in combat here is the famous Platoon Leader “Follow me ” statue at the Infantry school at Fort Benning.

        http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/29/97/ba/2997ba1287b814dc5e1d6c4d2b390678.jpg

        1. avatar LC says:

          The difference is not that great.

          Britain has some fantastic light infantry officers. So do the French.

          I have pride in the US, but that is a bunch of historical revisionist bullshit.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          Yes they do but I am not talking about the Parachute Regiment. I am talking about regular line infantry units. Only the US Army and Marine Corps expect a platoon leaders and company commander to fight with their men.

        3. avatar LC says:

          No, they dont fvcktard.

          This is the 21st century. combat leaders that sit behind the lines have no place in 21st century, highly mobile warfare. Any army with any credibility knows this and trains combat leaders.

          Even historically, this is not true.

        4. avatar Jason Lynch says:

          Absolute standard for every British Army officer is learning to lead a platoon attack. (Note ‘lead’, not ‘command’ – you don’t send your troops in, you’re up there with the assault group). You’ll need other skills as well, and the infantry will further specialise at Warminster on PCBC and the like; but if you can’t lead men into action then an Army commission is not for you.

          That’s not “every infantry officer” but every officer in the Army (okay, stand fast the medics and the chaplains), it’s a fundamental part of the Sandhust training.

    2. avatar Jon R. says:

      A Springfield XD service gun ain’t ever gonna happen either. They’ll require a manual safety not a grip safety, which the XD doesn’t have. They’ll also require a domestic production capability, they’ll never import XD’s from Croatia and doubt Springfield would tool up to produce them. SIG will likely have a dog in the fight, but I’d be willing to bet money it won’t be a P226 or other metal framed SIG. It’s a great gun, but its old tech that they would have adopted 30 years ago when looking for a replacement for the 1911.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        I through in the XD/m just to rag on the Glockstets, However, I picked up an XD service 45 and to my surprise it has a safety so that objection is not true. I agree that the lack of domestic prodyction is an issue bur Beretta won without a factory here.

        1. avatar Jon R. says:

          Your XD has a manual external safety switch? I know they have grip safeties, but that doesn’t really qualify, that’s about as much of a safety as the paddle in the center of Glocks “safe action trigger.” Not knock’in XD’s, they just don’t meet the requirements.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          It’s a regular cheap plastic thumb safety. I was surprised when it showed up at my FFL from Cheaper than Dirt when was shopping there in the pre-Newtown days. Paid $450 or it.

      2. avatar LC says:

        The P226 already competed against the Beretta too and lost. It would be superfluous.

        The XD is actually not that great of a handgun. Grip safeties, originally conceived for cavalry soldiers during the guilded age (a la 1911), are a needless anachronism. So are external safeties too in my opinion. Internal extractors are also needless anachronisms that make absolutely no sense in the 21st century and they harm reliability and ease of serviceability.

  27. avatar Jeff says:

    Not mentioned in this is that the Army commissioned a cartridge study in support of the MHS procurement. Notice they said cartridge not caliber. The study is to be released to the prospective bidders. The procurement at fbo.gov mentioned interest in calibers from 9mm to .45 cal. Don’t hold your breath on the .357 sig, it’s not considered a standard caliber by the military. 9mm is the NATO round so don’t expect this to necessarily change. Commonality with your allies armaments is good logistics and has part in the evaluation process. I emphasized the word cartridge because there were hints in the report that the Army was interested in higher barrel pressure. Possibly +P or +P+ in 9mm. The Army puts a lot of faith in having a lot of rounds in the magazine, don’t expect them to accept anything less than a 15 round standard mag. This will pretty much disadvantage the larger calibers

    Key word in the procurement is modularity. The Army wants rails, threaded barrels, parts interchangability, the ability to change calibers, and the ability to adapt the grip from 5th percentile female to 95% male. The procurement also mentioned availability of a compact version (probably for military law enforcement and special forces). There is a separate announcement for ammunition from the vendors, 100,000 rounds of FMJ and 5,000 rounds of hollow point (once again for the military police.

    Majo contenders in my mind are the VP9, PX4, P320 and the M&P. Noticably absent are Glock and Colt. Colt doesn’t seem to have contender and Glock doesn’t have a manual safety. I believe most of the recent new firearms from FN, HK, Beretta, and Sig Sauer are squarley aimed at this procurement, as the Government requirement is non-developmental , commercial-off-the-shelf.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      9mm NATO is a +P round.

      1. avatar Random Internet User says:

        No it is not.

        9mm NATO has slightly higher chamber pressures than “9mm Luger” as loaded in the US, but that is simply because the US manufacturers have underloaded 9mm for decades to prevent issues with GI bring-back souvenirs that were the majority of 9mm pistols in the US until the 1980s.

        “9mm Luger” to SAAMI specs: 36,000 psi chamber pressure
        9mm NATO : 36,500 psi
        9mm +P: 38,000 psi

  28. avatar dwb says:

    … but only because the wussified FBI cannot handle the 10mm

  29. avatar KCK says:

    talking about the 9mm ball.
    Is there any advantage to the flat head for energy transfer like what Rem sells in 124g or like the .40 opposed to the pointy 9mm bullet.
    Has STB410 ever commented on that.

  30. avatar Jon R. says:

    I’m thinking they’ll go .45 ACP, or stick with 9mm. Sound suppressors seem likely to be a consideration with the new handgun along with “knock down power” which the .45 ACP would make the most sense. The high pressure .40 S&W and .357 SIG recoil with likely be judged unacceptable for smaller soldiers, along with their reputation for wearing out guns quicker than a 9mm or .45. I’m pulling for a striker fired .45 ACP S&W M&P or FN FNS with a threaded barrel.

  31. avatar Jim says:

    I’d love to see .45 super or .45+P

    A variation on the HK .45 would be awesome.

    1. avatar LC says:

      The HK45 is probably the most thoroughly tested 45 ACP in recent history too. A very fine handgun.

  32. avatar mike says:

    Modular….perfect timing for Sig to do their P320 sales pitch.

    1. avatar Lance says:

      Hope not I fear the day when GI having nothing but crappy SIGs for sidearm. Glock or HK the only real alternative to a M-9.

      1. avatar Retired LEO says:

        FN would be the major player already in the U.S. manufacturer large portion of the military contracts for m-4s. The fnp-fx has a simple quick system to change grip. Also consider the move to the militarisation of DHS officers.

      2. avatar Excedrine says:

        SIG =/= crap.

      3. avatar tdiinva says:

        I say again the Army requires a combat pistol not a LEO pistol to show the troops who officer is.

        1. avatar seans says:

          And yet the the Army Rangers use Glocks, SF issues Glocks, and Cag uses a Glock 40. I feel they probably don’t consider they pistols only suitable for LEO use.

  33. avatar Lance says:

    Don’t be jumping to conclusions guys remember ICC had a industry day 2008 and all you thought the M-4 was history. Well the M-4 is here to stay. I see a lot of problems with going to a .40 or .45 NATO compatibility will be a issue women solders who will hate higher recoil will be a issue. Fact too is that Beretta is still making M-9s for the military now and new holsters are still being sold to the Army. Think Matt Cox who wrote this article is a bitt too into hype than fact. For some who think there stay with 9mm and go with another brand Id say it doomed the competition then like ICC stayed with 5.56mm. No cost or advantage then with doing that it has to be a larger caliber to make sense with going to a new handgun. I think we still will see M-9s serve for a few years to come at least.

    1. avatar murray says:

      M4 would be ok in a better cartridge with a heavier bullet, Grendel?

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        Or 6.8MM SPC, 6MM PPC, go to an AR-10 platform in .260 Remington, or just basically any intermediate cartridge that isn’t basically a pissed-off .22?

  34. avatar tfunk says:

    Not saying this change needs to happen, but if it does, based on my experience I hope they choose FN FNX-45 and FNX-45 Tactical.

  35. avatar knightofbob says:

    I wouldn’t immediately dismiss .357 Sig, since it is in use with federal agencies (Air Marshals and Secret Service). That latter would give it a lot of sway with politicians who lack firearm experience. (Think: “Why should our soldiers have a less powerful gun than is used to protect the president?” or, alternately, “If it’s good enough to protect the president, than it’s good enough for the military!”)

    1. avatar Aaron says:

      Soldiers have far more powerful weapons at their disposal than air Marshall’s or secret service.

      Pistols are the lowest rung of the weapons employed by the Army, and their impact on a battlefield is minimal.

      not buying your premise.

  36. avatar Steve Truffer says:

    Gen4 Glock 20, with slide cutout for porting? Use a ported barrel, bam, more controllable 10 mm. Cladestine suppressed jobs are a barrel swap away, same as now.

  37. avatar greg says:

    How about better training instead of buying another gun. In fmj there is zero difference in performance. Or just use hollowpoints? I mean we are talking about shooting people and killing them.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Wrong. There is little difference in the performance of JHP. There is a lot difference in ball ammo. Look at the JMEM if you have a clearance.

      1. avatar Lance says:

        You think FMJ and KHP are the same?? That’s not true ballistics test show better damage and more power knocking on a opponent with JHP FMJ is for poking a hole in your opponent JHP will rip him apart. What we need for both 9mm and 5.56mm.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          Lance:

          I me clarify it for you. There is little difference in the lethality of 9mm, 40cal or 45 ACP in JHP. 45 ACP is still better by 9mm is pretty good. There is a lot of difference when it’s ball. Bill hole with lots of energy transfer for a 45; a small hole and zip on by for a 9mm

          Does that make it clear to you?

        2. avatar Lance says:

          No I agree with you then. But a JHP be ALOT better than a FMJ for pistols anyway.

        3. avatar tdiinva says:

          Expanding rounds are a lot better for rifles as well. Ever see what “puny” bonded 243 does to a whitetale?

        4. avatar larry says:

          Penetration through a vital organ is King.

          http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

          All handgun wounds will combine the components of penetration, permanent cavity, and temporary cavity to a greater or lesser degree. Fragmentation, on the other hand, does not reliably occur in handgun wounds due to the relatively low velocities of handgun bullets. Fragmentation occurs reliably in high velocity projectile wounds (impact velocity in excess of 2000 feet per second) inflicted by soft or hollow point bullets.10 In such a case, the permanent cavity is stretched so far, and so fast, that tearing and rupturing can occur in tissues surrounding the wound channel which were weakened by fragmentation damage.11, 12 It can significantly increase damage13 in rifle bullet wounds.

          Since the highest handgun velocities generally do not exceed 1400-1500 feet per second (fps) at the muzzle, reliable fragmentation could only be achieved by constructing a bullet so frangible as to eliminate any reasonable penetration. Unfortunately, such a bullet will break up too fast to penetrate to vital organs. The best example is the Glaser Safety Slug, a projectile designed to break up on impact and generate a large but shallow temporary cavity. Fackler, when asked to estimate the survival time of someone shot in the front mid-abdomen with a Glaser slug, responded, “About three days, and the cause of death would be peritonitis.”14

          In cases where some fragmentation has occurred in handgun wounds, the bullet fragments are generally found within one centimeter of the permanent cavity. “The velocity of pistol bullets, even of the new high-velocity loadings, is insufficient to cause the shedding of lead fragments seen with rifle bullets.”15 It is obvious that any additional wounding effect caused by such fragmentation in a handgun wound is inconsequential.

          Of the remaining factors, temporary cavity is frequently, and grossly, overrated as a wounding factor when analyzing wounds.16 Nevertheless, historically it has been used in some cases as the primary means of assessing the wounding effectiveness of bullets.

          The often referred to “knock-down power” implies the ability of a bullet to move its target. This is nothing more than momentum of the bullet. It is the transfer of momentum that will cause a target to move in response to the blow received. “Isaac Newton proved this to be the case mathematically in the 17th Century, and Benjamin Robins verified it experimentally through the invention and use of the ballistic pendulum to determine muzzle velocity by measurement of the pendulum motion.”29

          Goddard amply proves the fallacy of “knock-down power” by calculating the heights (and resultant velocities) from which a one pound weight and a ten pound weight must be dropped to equal the momentum of 9mm and .45ACP projectiles at muzzle velocities, respectively. The results are revealing. In order to equal the impact of a 9mm bullet at its muzzle velocity, a one pound weight must be dropped from a height of 5.96 feet, achieving a velocity of 19.6 fps. To equal the impact of a .45ACP bullet, the one pound weight needs a velocity of 27.1 fps and must be dropped from a height of 11.4 feet. A ten pound weight equals the impact of a 9mm bullet when dropped from a height of 0.72 inches (velocity attained is 1.96 fps), and equals the impact of a .45 when dropped from 1.37 inches (achieving a velocity of 2.71 fps).30

          A bullet simply cannot knock a man down. If it had the energy to do so, then equal energy would be applied against the shooter and he too would be knocked down. This is simple physics, and has been known for hundreds of years.31 The amount of energy deposited in the body by a bullet is approximately equivalent to being hit with a baseball.32 Tissue damage is the only physical link to incapacitation within the desired time frame, i.e., instantaneously.

          The human target can be reliably incapacitated only by disrupting or destroying the brain or upper spinal cord. Absent that, incapacitation is subject to a host of variables, the most important of which are beyond the control of the shooter. Incapacitation becomes an eventual event, not necessarily an immediate one. If the psychological factors which can contribute to incapacitation are present, even a minor wound can be immediately incapacitating. If they are not present, incapacitation can be significantly delayed even with major, unsurvivable wounds.

        5. avatar Jay Williams says:

          Interesting post, larry.

  38. avatar mdc says:

    Couldn’t be 10mm. Outside of a Glock there isn’t a pistol in that caliber that could take the wear. Also most 10mm on market is FBI Lite, essentialy .40 cal. Although a 10mm shooter, just not going to happen. Even a true Norma Spec from 80’s being a 200 gr Truncated at 1200 fps and then a 170 gr at 1300. Boutique makers make true loads like Underwood Ammo, PBR Ammo.

    1. avatar Steve Truffer says:

      Glock it is then!

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      Nope, there is a Kimber

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Dan Wesson (which is owned by CZ-USA) has one too.

  39. avatar John in Ohio says:

    Or, get out of other nations’ business and shrink the standing army; just a thought. Save a ton of money stolen from the People in the process.

    If not, .45ACP all the way.

  40. avatar former water walker says:

    +1 awb…and think of all the tiny women & sub-standard men in the Army. Beau Bergdahl anyone? They will stick with 9.

  41. Does this mean we’ll be able to get M9’s from the CMP?

    1. avatar Rokurota says:

      I’m sorry, the what?

      1. avatar usriflecaliber.30m1 says:

        Civilian Marksmanship Program.

        And no. The CMP is allowed by congress to sell .30 caliber rifles. No pistols would be sold.

        1. avatar Rokurota says:

          Did I forget the /sarc? CMP will soon be dead since BO thinks guns are better off rusting in a Korean warehouse.

      2. avatar GuyFromV says:

        Cash Money Posse

  42. avatar seans says:

    Considering that the army already has 40cal in the system, if they go any other caliber they will stick with that.

  43. avatar Kevin L says:

    They should use the FN Five Seven with those AP JHP rounds.

    1. avatar Gordon Wagner says:

      Finally, a voice of reason.

  44. avatar Chris says:

    Seems like a waste of money to me. As long as we are members of NATO we are not changing caliber unless NATO changes and with shrinking European defense budgets that’s not happening.

    Secondly the M9 is a fine pistol and just as good as anything else out their, the problem is lack of maintenance and the fact that they are just worn out.

    No different than stories you hear about .45’s in the 70’s and 80’s, the pistols were just shot out.

    The DOD should just order a new batch of M9’s and invest in some good training.

    1. avatar Lance says:

      You nailed it on the head. Seems some dumb General saw a SOCOM unit with a 1911 or a G21 and said he vowed to make all men carry one. SO like ICC was started by some dumb SCAR lover. Same goes with this MHS, a 147gr round and better maintenance training would solve all problems with this pistol issue. Just like a new M-855A1 issue and better training post Battle of Wannut proved the M-4 didn’t need replacing either.

    2. avatar seans says:

      Saying the M9 is as fine of as a pistol as any out there is a stretch. It is a good pistol, but plenty of better options out.

  45. avatar AznMike says:

    Huh, maybe I can get a beat up M9A1 for cheap and get it customized from Wilson Combat.

  46. avatar Gregory says:

    For anyone that thinks there will be surplus M9 pistols for sale, think again. President Hillary Clinton (yes the idiots will elect her) will have the M9’s destroyed. As for S&W M&P pistols, it would be a big mistake. Magazines would be falling out all over the battle field. I was foolish enough to buy two M&P’s. I got wise and sold them to purchase different pistols. I will not mention the brand because I am not interested in a pissing match.

    1. avatar Lance says:

      I take it your a HK or XDM fan??

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      Hillary has already lost the nomination to “fill in the blank.”

      1. avatar Rick says:

        Gregory, are you saying magazine lanyard loops would be making a comeback?

        And yep. I believe the Annointed One is going to be Princess Spreading Bull.

    3. avatar Excedrine says:

      You do realize that the faulty magazine release was only a problem in the earliest production lots and has been fixed since then, right? So, no, there wouldn’t be M&P mags strewn everywhere, either.

      Of course, magazines are considered consumables anyway and our G.I.’s aren’t even taught to retain them so there will probably be plenty of them left in the space regardless.

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        Link is broken. ):

        1. avatar LC says:

          works fine for me : |

  47. avatar Ken kaniff says:

    @ZWhite: If they can’t even maintain their M9s I highly doubt they’ll be able to take care of the 1911s. It would be a disaster. 40 would be a big mistake too.

  48. avatar Jay says:

    Whatever they choose will be the wrong choice and after Army career for the acquisition guys. Never trust O5s and higher.

  49. avatar 101nomad says:

    I would want a rifle first.

  50. avatar Chaotic Good says:

    My money is on the PX4 in 45ACP. It did well in the JCP trials and it offers the army the opportunity to stick with a company they’ve worked with since the 80’s.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Read the gripes. The Army does not like the slide mounted safety. If Beretta would modify the safety position then they might be in the running and I would buy one if they sold it commercially. I love Berettas but with a safety that goes the wrong way I have no confidence in my ability to not safe the gun out of instinct in an emergency.

      1. avatar Chaotic Good says:

        They may not like the slide-mounted safety but they’ve been using the M9 and it’s slide mounted safety since the 80’s.

        That being said, I’d be very happy if they moved their safeties to the frame where they belong. This is the issue that convinced me to trade in my PX4 for a XDM in 2012.

    2. avatar Lance says:

      I agree both Maryland and Tennessee will bring pressure with this Beretta has a lot of experience with military contracts Glock does not in the USA. If we get a plastic .45 I hope it be the PX5

  51. avatar geoffb says:

    P320, modular, 4 calibers, 3 frame/barrel sizes, different grip sizes, all user interchangeable. I’d heard somewhere (here?) that this modularity was done because Germans can only have 2? handguns, but it makes sense for this military competition too.

    1. avatar Lance says:

      Hope not SIG is bulky not reliable The Glock can switch calibers and is modular. The M-9 can be switched to .40 just change slide and barrel. XD too. SIG sucks.

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        SIG =/= sucks. They’re plenty reliable, too, regardless. Far and away more reliable than the M9, in fact.

        1. avatar Lance says:

          No testing shoed the SIG to have more recoil less accurate and cannot shoot in mud/water the Beretta can. SIG is smaller but its size only increases recoil.

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          I hope you’re not talking about the original 1980’s competition, and even in the event that you’re not, SIG has certainly come a a long way from what you’re claiming that their product quality was allegedly like. I would take literally any SIG in any caliber and configuration over any M92 variant any day of the week regardless of the situation — and I would be more than right in doing so.

          Now, the PX4 storm in the other hand…

        3. avatar Lance says:

          In both 80s and now the SIG lost because it wasn’t ass accurate and durable as the M-9 SIG also refused to move to the US. Most SiGs are small CCW pistols and are too small for large handed men. As a Armed Officer who worked for DHS Id take a M-9 over any crappy SIG.

  52. avatar Skyler says:

    I fail to see any advantage to replacing the M9. Another 9mm is just a waste of money. Changing calibers is of limited benefit. I predict that this will be another search that goes nowhere.

    The only thing that would cause a change would be a return to .45ACP in a modern pistol. I just don’t think it will happen, but that’s the only one I think is possible.

    1. avatar Lance says:

      Your right if no new caliber then there is not point into a new pistol. Same went for ICC when we stayed with 5.56mm NATO.

    2. avatar int19h says:

      Pretty much. The only potential advantage with replacing M9 is that a modern polymer framed handgun would be a fair bit lighter, but that’s about it.

  53. avatar Martin B says:

    The initial reason for choosing the .45 calibre, was to ensure effectively killing enemy horses in the cavalry. This, combined with the ineffective .38 Colt round against Moro warriors, convinced the military that .45 was the way to go.

    Tests after WWII proved that .45 wouldn’t penetrate a standard Army helmet, when a 9mm could do so. Standardization with Nato and the lack of replacements for WWII era .45ACP pistols, led to the 9mm choice. Beretta won out over Sig, by whatever means were used.

    The main reason for 9mm was that typical grunts could hit more effectively with that round, and carry more bullets. The M9 design may have assisted here. But it seems the usual lack of replacement/maintenace has plagued the M9 as well, and it will be more cost effective to go with a new choice than to reup the M9. The desert environment in recent fields of operations has also not helped with weapon longevity.

    From reports I have seen , it looks like the H & K VP9 would be an excellent choice. It has modular fitting for various hand sizes, has a great trigger, and could possibly be safer in operation than a Glock (field stripping/maintenance).

    I second the call for 147 grain FMJ and enhanced maintenance training.

  54. avatar Mark N. says:

    Someone explain to me these “maintenance” issues. Most modern handguns can go thousands of rounds with no more than an occasional cleaning that requires nothing but field stripping, or the replacement of recoil springs. Further, from what we’ve seen here and elsewhere, soldiers can’t shoot these things worth a damn because there is no budget for training. Third, their primary weapon is the M4 or similar. Consequently, shouldn’t it be that these firearms are hardly getting shot, and certainly not shot out?

  55. avatar Retired LEO says:

    Between my Sig 2022 & the M9 that the slide warped firing +p ammo give me the sig. Never s FTF FTE. The tank command already issued 5k to tank commanders & French national police dumped Glock for them. The .40 can be converted to .357 sig in less than a minute.

  56. avatar LC says:

    what a waste

    The M9 is a fine handgun. When properly maintained (like anything else), it is utterly reliable. 9mm is also a consistent and reliable handgun cartridge.

    Adopting the M45, 45 ACP or any other nonsense will do nothing to enhance the lethality of individual soldiers and infantry squads. The deficiency is training, not gear.

    You fvcking caliber fanboys fail to realize that the primary weapon is 5.56, and if a servicemember is resorting to using a handgun, they are facing bad times ahead (or fvcked up). The Army somehow has delusions that every sidearm needs a threaded barrel to attach a suppressor, when most soldiers are not even in a position to use a suppressor anyways. That is special operations type stuff and they will have their own handguns in their supply chain anyways.

    Then there is the money issue. It makes no sense to adopt a different cartridge and disrupt NATO commonality for no damn good reason.

    None of it makes sense. The Army has its head up its ass again and the good idea fairy has bitten somebody. This has already been attempted once (2013) and should have been left to the curb alongside FCS, the Crusader, UCP, and any other such wastes of money and time.

    1. avatar Retired LEO says:

      NATO commonality makes perfect sense as does doing what is best for America & getting out of NATO as we are the worlds policeman. While this country has gone to hell in a handbasket, we blow up a country to take tax $$ to rebuild it. If they pose a threat to us do it once & let al quaeda spend bucks to rebuild it. The Russians went bankrupt fighting in Afghanistan losing to bolt action WWI & II arms. They have been warring tribally for centuries rebuild our country 1st. They will conduct a million $ testing process & do nothing. If troops are being recalled why waste any money on this nonsense

    2. avatar Aaron says:

      The M9 is a little heavy for what minimal good it does.

      every lb counts.

  57. avatar dean says:

    This is a long FN thread. What are the Vegas odds on the FN FiveseveN. That’s my bet.

  58. avatar Retired LEO says:

    Dean if they go to 5.7 x28
    Would it not make more sense to also go to P90 or5.7 uppers on the m4? Get rid of 5.56 altogether.

    1. avatar S.CROCK says:

      If they go 5.7 it would make sense to use the p90 more but getting rid of 5.56 all together would be crazy.

      1. avatar Retired LEO says:

        If you go to 5.7 for a pistol
        since an upper for current m4 is available financially & logistically makes more sense 1 ammo. Out of a longer bbl better ballistics.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          Ballistics of 5.7 even out of a 16″ barrel are nowhere even near 5.56.

        2. avatar Retired LEO says:

          Face it the .308 is the better round for the type of combat in Afghanistan Iraq, even the Israelis used the .30 caliber platform in the desert in surplus mausers & AK’s. What gets to me is Israel has women that can handle 7.62 rounds as does Russia, Germany etc.. but the wussified U.S. forces need a light recoiling round in order to mostly effectively use a weapon. Other than 22lr. the 5.7 meets that qualification best. Our next war unless a replay of 1860’s will be fought like a video game.

        3. avatar Lance says:

          That’s because we have annoying feminist idiot who have no sense of combat or weapons and only enlist because idiots like Obama and gen Ordinaro want women to meet there AA quotas.

        4. avatar Michael says:

          Replace M9 with 5.7 pistol, replace some M4 with P90s and replace the rest with 7.62 weapons

  59. avatar The Stig says:

    My choice would be a Glock 19. Many SF Groups are already carrying them. They are lightweight and unobtrusive (because most of the time you’ll never need a sidearm), maintain a 15 round capacity, and are faster to deploy than the Beretta because they don’t have a manual safety (and the only time you’ll ever need a sidearm is the moment when you need it as fast a possible).

    For civilians who use it as a primary, sure, many will want something more than 9mm. For the military, 9mm is fine because you’re only going to be using it as a back-up.

    1. avatar Lance says:

      No most SFs use G-21 SFs G-17s area good choice but the Beretta can shoot under water unlike the Glock W/O modification and it has the same mag capacity. Not a real choice here.

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        Who is honestly shooting their duty weapon under water with any kind of regularity, or even accidentally for that matter? The correct answer is: whatever comes right before zero. That’s pure marketing hype and literally nothing more.

      2. avatar larry says:

        Lol because soldiers shoot under water all the time. What a bull shit requirement.

        1. avatar Lance says:

          Army maybe not BUT Navy and USMC YES. Worked on boats for years there would be situations you might fight for your life wet and in the water.

    2. avatar larry says:

      The G17 would be a better choice. It is better in every way compared to the G19 except conceal-ability….which is NOT a concern for soldiers. More barrel length, sight radius, mag capacity, handle for larger hands.

  60. avatar Ardent says:

    Let the caliber wars begin, but the last time the Army found a .38cal cartridge insufficient they returned to a .45 (in this case ACP as opposed to LC). I have little doubt they will do it again. While .40 offers more capacity and frankly 9mm should be sufficient (you really do have to hit well and hit often with a pistol to win) the Army knows the .45ACP and there are various offerings that have 15 plus round standard capacities. Since the Army will NOT have a pistol without an external manual safety, the GLOCK 21/41s are right out. Assuming the Army wont go back to a 7-10 round magazine, that leaves the FNX Tactical. If I were to invest based on what I know, I’d buy stock in FN today.

    1. avatar Lance says:

      No we may not buy FN crap. HK and Springfield XDs would compete. Beretta PX4 as well.

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        FN =/= crap.

      2. avatar int19h says:

        Still butthurt over the fact that FN is making M4 carbines for the army now?

        1. avatar Lance says:

          No because Colt gets all the royalties HAHAHA.

        2. avatar int19h says:

          What royalties? All the patents have expired ages ago.

        3. avatar Lance says:

          No as a deal Colt get money if the Army contracts with other makers for Colts M-4 design.

    2. avatar Aaron says:

      apparently some of our allies have just recently fielded Glocks, The people working this project almost certainly know that.

  61. avatar J Star says:

    1 – Big Army ain’t gonna drop the M9. You all will talk about it for years, they will do some stupid tests, and Beretta will improve the slides and that will be it. See also M4 replacement.

    2 – It’s still going to be a pistol. Unless we start issuing sidearms that have 10″ barrels and shoot rifle rounds, it’s still going to suck compared to your rifle. Especially if we still refuse to use HP ammo.

    Personally I say give them 5.7 pistols. Yeah, the round isn’t an improvement over the 9mm, but they can issue 30 round magazines. I’d take 30 of anything over 15 of something any day. (centerfire, you jokers.)

    1. avatar Lance says:

      I think your 100% on. Unless we goto a new caliber that’s none NATO the M-9 would stay on.

  62. avatar publius2 says:

    Might be interesting to do an informal TTAG comparison, of a new 9 vs updated 45.
    I can see the need for smaller grips and caliber for female soldiers, and the NATO commonality is a big hurdle to overcome. The P320 has all the “modularity” and caliber buzz words that sound very similar to the wording in the announcement.
    https://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProductDetails/p320-carry-nitron.aspx

    What new 9mm ammo has come on the scene lately, that could enhance the “lethality”
    for the 9mm platform, beefed up to handle it, to improve the comparison to the 45?

  63. avatar Michael says:

    How many people, enemy, actually get shot with the pistol?
    Some LE agencies are dropping the .40 and going back to the 9mm, for increased hit ration.

  64. avatar Chris says:

    @Seans; I own and shoot a lot of pistols most of the pistols that are talked about in this thread I either own or have a fair amount of trigger time on. I’m also not a pistol shooter or really fan either way, I view them as tools like a DeWalt screw gun. I’m a rifle guy.

    The M92 and M96 are just as good at throwing lead as any steel pistol, and the plastic crop is all about the same. IMHO buying a modern plastic pistol is like buying a Toyota or a Honda, its all the same and will work just as well. Throw me a Glock, H&K, M&P, FN, whatever its all the same. I really don’t see a massive gain in an institution like the US Army changing.

    Having said that I have not found the M9 to be unable to throw lead down range or falling short in any way. Maybe in adverse war situations it has failings but I’m a civilian so I can’t speak to that. I just know a properly kept example will shoot just as well as any other steel 9mm full size pistol.

    To be honest my favorite full size 9mm pistol is the Browning Hi Power.

    1911’s are always great but they are not a suitable modern military firearm, to much time has past since their design, and they are expensive. If you want to kill someone in a hell hole with little fuss just pick up one of the above mentioned plastic Honda Civics of the pistol world and do it. IMHO going to 1911’s would be a step back and it won’t happen anyway because again, NATO, 9mm and all that.

    1. avatar seans says:

      Chris, my background is I used to be a small arms instructor and armorer. As for now, I shoot around 25000 rounds a year of 9mm if I am not deployed. The M9 is a good pistol, not a great pistol, and a lot of things went into why it was adopted other than the actual testing, most of them negative. I know this from talking to people who are responsible for the P226 being adopted in NSW. It’s problems was never throwing lead. It was its ergonomics and the amount of wear and tear it could take. It crushed the standards of what was needed for the trials, but the standards weren’t low, they just were outdated within two years.

      1. avatar Lance says:

        Seems you love your SIG and hate the fact it lost to Beretta in 1985. The reason SIG lost was it was not accurate at longer pistol ranges. SiG had no US factories and effused to make one. It didn’t do as well in salt water conditions as the M-9. It lost get over it.

        1. avatar Scrubula says:

          SIG lost because of price, plain and simple.
          Their military package (handgun+ a few mags and some extras) was more expensive than beretta.

        2. avatar Lance says:

          No it came 2nd to Beretta in some test as well. Long range pistol accuracy is one.

        3. avatar seans says:

          Lance what is your background out of question. I am a NSW qualified armorer. Got my qual from people who were at NSWC Crane at the time the M9. Guys who were part of the the revaluation of the M9 after Navy learned some of the details about why the Army chose the M9.

        4. avatar Lance says:

          @SEAN

          You must been there before the FS version and improvements were adopted. the first M-9 was a M-92F and NSW help modify the weapon to reduce wear and shoot underwater and hence all M-9s and commercial Berettas became the M-92FS. Problem was solved maybe after you left..

        5. avatar seans says:

          Lance you really are delusional about a lot of things here. Look up all the open source info on the M9 trials. Here are some key facts.

          -The Sig scored slightly higher than the Beretta.
          – Beretta dropped it’s price 18% at the last minute, presumably because it may have obtained leaked price info from the Sig bid. Originally the total cost for the Beretta contract was $84 Million, and the Sig bid was $75 Million. When told to resubmit data on prices, Sigs remained the same, while Beretta handed in a typed document with the prices written by hand after Sig submitted theirs.
          -The Sig pistol was cheaper even after the 18% price drop. The difference in cost on the final contract was only $3 Million, all in the cost of magazines and spare parts. Sig sued the US on the basis that the number of replacement parts was not aligned with reliability figures. The significantly more reliable P226 required no replacement parts in 5,000 rounds, yet the pricing quotations stipulated a set number of parts, and in some instances those parts were double counted due to being difficult to field fit, small in size (easily lost), and other variables. The trial was thrown out.
          -The Sig suffered in the dry mud environment, but scored more than 50% higher on the standard reliability testing than the Beretta. Which both the Airforce/Army and the goverment investigation into the trials admitted that the dry mud test had no scientific value do to testing procedures. The Sig P226 scored a 2,877 to the Beretta’s 1,750 to the Colt M1911A1s 162. The numbers reflect the average number of rounds fired between stoppages. In the 1984 reliability testing, the Sig P226 had only one malfunction that required an armorer and finished with a total of 12 stoppages. The Beretta had 20 stoppages, with 9 of them requiring an armorer.

          Also love you telling me about my experience at the NSW Armorers school, and how I missed some stuff. And as for shooting underwater, I would love to hear how NSW is responsible for that, and why that is even important, cause its not, and this opinion is coming from a guy who has had to dive against the navy dolphins. Also Sigs are not accurate, news to me, cause last time I took it shooting past a hundred I put 7 out of 10 shots on the silhouette at 115yards.

          And this brings me back to my original point, the M9 is not a great pistol, its a good pistol and a acceptable combat pistol, but not a great one.

        6. avatar Lance says:

          Strange I read the SIG failed reliability and it wasn’t too swell in on long range accuracy. haven carried one and shot both I ditch the crappy SIG in a instant. If you want a tiny pistol SIG is fine but for a combat pistol M-9 is a lot better.

        7. avatar Lance says:

          Well Sean you got your preference if you love your SIG to your heart fine. But it isn’t superior to the Beretta that’s your personal taste. I do know the M-9 was improved from F to FS and the Navy issues ended. The SIG could not be modified to what the SEALs wanted in there own test in the late 80s hence Beretta was adopted then it was the Mk-23 then the M-1911 made a comeback and the Glock made a personal appearance in SOCOM. Even elite units have taste in pistols not every one loves SIG many have different taste. I knew men in Army SOCOM who ditched the Mk-23 for the Beretta. SO go on love SIG to your hearts content but continuing to whine to me because I don’t agree with you isn’t constructive lets part was and say we agree to disagree on the best 9mm sidearm.

        8. avatar Tom says:

          Here. I’ll give botha’ ya’ a common enemy. Browning High-Power. G’night, and the blessings of Liberty on botha’ ya’.

      2. avatar seans says:

        Not a single SOF unit in Socom that has DA as a role uses the Beretta. They use either Sigs or Glocks. The MK23 was meant as a offensive weapon, not to be used for defensive use. And I wouldn’t be referencing Socom when you don’t even know that Cag(delta) dropped the 1911s and went to a 40cal a long time ago. The fact that you are ignoring the fact that even the M9 trials showed the 226 was more reliable than the Beretta is telling. How bout you show that data that the Beretta is more accurate, other than what your opinion is. Again the trials showed the SIG was the better option.

        1. avatar Lance says:

          SEAN your being a wacked out SIG love go drool with it on your own time not on here. Navy chose the M-9, your SiG failed the water test it failed the mud test. Get over it pal. I do know of Army SOCOM who used M-9s I know of one on History Channel and Discovery Channel who said they had M-9s in Desert Storm. strange your siggy poo was not mentioned.

          The Army passed on the Mk-23 it was too firiggen BIG. Some SF in Iraq used Glock 21s but it was on there own dime not standard issue. And Delta uses .45 not .40 Your navy you claimed how the heck do you know what Army Delta uses. Think your going ballistic over your stupid sig fantasy. Drop it and move on pal.

        2. avatar seans says:

          Okay let’s see you are going off a history channel as your source, referencing a war from over two decades ago. How bout you use Google and see what Socom units have been using for over the last decade now. Army SF and the Ranger Recce guys have been using 9mm Glocks for a while now. I know this from physically shooting they guns while in Afghanistan. They were standard issue for them As for Cag, yes they did transition to 40cal Glocks a while ago. How would I know this, one this is open source knowledge that has been know for a while, and I know this from my job having spent time with them. As for my love of Sig, where did I state that. All I stated was Sig was the superior pistol, which the military’s own data will support, and that it has more than acceptable accuracy. If you got something more than lies and your own opinion to support your claims I would love to hear it.

        3. avatar Lance says:

          Sorry I got military channel History channel friends who where in the Army you can squawk about your pride all you want. I also try reading about the pistol trial. Now disengage and lets leave each other alone. You got your love and your data I got mine and its on TV.

        4. avatar seans says:

          I just realized you stated that the Beretta was adopted by the Seals, then they transitioned to the MK23 then to a 1911. Dude you really need to do some reading. Seals adopted the P226, have been using it ever since, and recently upgraded to the MK25. NSW never adopted the Beretta, and definitely didn’t use go to a 1911. Where are you even getting your data?

        5. avatar Lance says:

          History Channel Military channel, discovery channel lets see books Wikipedia and ect ect you just got your word. No I said some seals used M-9s some SOCOM did not every one most choose there own pistol and not all use SIG… SIG LOVER

        6. avatar LC says:

          Why the Glock 22 over the 19 or 17?

          To me, that doesn’t make any sense.

  65. avatar outwardhound says:

    Replacing the M9 with another pistol is the stupidest waste of military resources. They’re asking the wrong questions and all the answers are therefore wrong.

    The M9 does need to be replaced, but not with another pistol, but rather with a PDW along the lines of MP7, FN P90, or similar. Non-combat troops, staff officers, tanker crews, and others need a light, easily carried weapon capable of select fire and able to defeat light body armor – a pistol is next to useless in combat (in my experience anyways – 6 combat deployments over 22 years service).

    Besides:
    “If successful, it would result in the Defense Department buying more than 400,000 new pistols during a period of significant defense-spending reductions.” They ain’t got the money to do it. This is just some project officer trying to justify his job. This “let’s replace the M9” comes up every other year it seems… Yawn

    1. avatar int19h says:

      A handgun would still be useful as a secondary backup gun for those who do have a proper one (i.e. a rifle). But yes, it would make much more sense to adopt, say, FN P90 as a PDW, and then the Five-Seven as a sidearm. It’s flatter and lighter, too.

    2. avatar Random Internet User says:

      Bullseye.

      This is all about office politics and budgets. Big Army will throw a few million into a study that will go nowhere and do nothing, then announce that the M9 continues to meet the requirements.

      We don’t have the money to buy 400,000 new pistols. Plus all of the magazines, holsters, spare parts, training for armorers, training for trainers….

      And a new pistol is at the bottom of the list of what the .mil needs to be buying.

  66. avatar Hoots says:

    Browning buckmark. With a NY reload of the same variety.

  67. avatar Lance says:

    @ some SIG lovers
    I dislike SIG because they are short barreled and have very BIG grip they are less accurate and are over hyped by SiG lover on online forums who bash every other handgun out there which its not better than anything else.

  68. avatar Andy says:

    Even though I love both the .45acp and 9mm , I feel that the next military handgun will still be in 9mm caliber as the NATO handgun caliber is 9mm , and that is why we went to the 9mm in the first place Standardization with all NATO members , there will still be .45acp handguns used by specialized troops in our military but not by the everyday troops , I really don’t see .40 S&W as a major military caliber except here in the States by specialized military cops , such as NCIS , Army investigators , and Air Force investigators , it would really surprise me if the military went with the 40 . Be prepared and ready . Keep your powder dry .

  69. avatar rogue_rager says:

    So I thought some of you would be interested in knowing the “why now” about the current M9 pistol replacement. And while we have been down this road before there is strong case as to big Army following thru this time. Also I happen to be in the unique position of being close to someone in the project so I will do my best to keep up on pistols submitted for testing and caliber selected. First off the reason why as explained to me. Money and maintenance.. The M-9 parts kit and SARP orders are now close to running the same cost or more than the of majority of the inventory’s M-9 themselves. Along with added waste in time, manpower and dollars to continually maintain and repair. Making them cost ineffective for a weapon platform that is not considered to be priority. Current Unit cost of the M-9 is 386.00, parts kit are going from 350-400 depending on supplier. M-9 is a contracted cost but the parts kits and SARP are not contracted the same. The bean counters caught on to this and that opened up the discussion. That discussion lead to the eager project team to put together a analysis, testing and feasibility brief that was mandated to include 3 different calibers for comparison. Based upon many factors that brief went with the three more powerful rounds and briefed the highers earlier in this year, which that brief was well received. Thus funding was forwarded to continue down this trail. Current rumors from my source indicate Glock is interested, with a possible modified Glock with a gas pedal style safety. The external safety vs no external has yet to be sorted out as a requirement.(maybe by now) Also they are looking to extensively test striker vs hammer in their totality of combat use, operator maintenance, and organizational maintenance.

    1. avatar Aaron says:

      $386 unit price for M9s in bulk does not seem like a good deal. I vaguely recall M9s being listed as less than half that on my hand receipt when I was a company commander, although that was nearly 20 years ago.

  70. avatar ChrisCorvus says:

    What I think is that what they need are a) why not a ****ing Desert Eagle
    Or b) make a new kind of round. Maybe one that has the penetration of a 5.56×45mm NATO round that also has a threaded tip. If drill can penetrate walls, then why can’t threaded bullets penetrate through armor, flesh, and bone, all in one shot. One shot from a bullet like that and the that bogie is dead, simple.

    1. avatar seans says:

      Can’t tell if trolling or just have no idea what they are talking.

  71. avatar D.G. Cornelius says:

    My intuition tells me that the replacement for Beretta will be of US origin, calibers will be multiple/flexible platform, and a former German company that recently abandoned the medieval Old World(good for them, wise choice) for establishing it’s base in US, is probable winner.
    Long story, short: P 320/ something based on it or a future evolution of it.
    Beretta has big chances to be taken put of the race, simply because apart from Romania and Poland, no EU country stated clearly their position against Russian hooligan. Italy, as many other EU countries, as proven by the recent events, has a debatable loyalty towards US and NATO, leaning more towards Moscow or not being very clearly against Moscow(which is complicity with Russia, nonetheless)

    P.S. Next relocation of a German company in US might relate to a company that supplies to US military market already, company that has the future of the contract under the question mark, since the alliance between Russia and Germany is admitted as a reality by the US Department of State.
    Also, today, in Germany, a new law has passed: for the first time in their history, Germany will have a minimum wage, the amount being 8.5 euro/hour, which is higher that US or UK. Useless to say that such a measure will make a lot of companies to look for better places for business, and Germany might get really fast to be called the Soviet Republic of Germany.
    BTW, in Hitler’s time, the German economy consisted in state owned enterprises and a few large privately owned enterprises, that were in partnership with the state.
    With the measures that are taken from some time there, seems that all micro, small and medium enterprises will vanish, due to over regulation and high cost of operations, getting Germany right back to national-socialist era. And in that era, Hitler and Stalin were best friends for quite some time, also.
    P.P.S. NATO might became a quite smaller alliance, as things progress around here, in EU. It wouldn’t be such a surprise to see a NATO without many of the present members of the alliance.

  72. avatar Aaron says:

    meh. pistol caliber debates are pretty irrelevant when Soldiers have rifles, machine guns, hand grenades, grenade launchers, mortars, artillery, Apaches with 30mm cannon, rockets, and missiles, tanks with 120mm cannon, etc

    IMO if the Army is going to replace the M9 they should just replace it with something lighter yet reliable. The M9 gets kind of heavy for what little utility it provides, when a Soldier is also carrying/wearing body armor, helmet, ruck, radio, a MG barrel or mortar plate, etc. etc

  73. avatar Brian says:

    My bet is that the government will do the most backwards procurement anyone has ever seen. something like…a pistol in 45 GAP but the rounds have to be slower spec because of too much recoil…..10 round single stack mag to get capacity up but the mag will hang out the bottom of the pistol……and the pistol will look like a smaller 1911 but will have to have 2 extra safeties built in.

  74. avatar Gregory says:

    Excedrine, I realize they changed the magazine releases. I had the newest ones in my M&P’s. I am talking about what I believe to be a design flaw. To release a magazine from a M&P takes very little travel by the release. Put a full magazine in your M&P, bump the button, make sure you foot is out of the way or you will get a sore toe. I believe guns with magazines that are easy to release are great for competition and target shooting. I believe the same guns are a liability when it comes to being a duty or combat weapon. Now, this is only an opinion I have and just like they say, they are just like a-holes. To put it in simple terms, as a LEO, I would always be apprehensive about carrying a M&P. If S&W would make a change to the magazine release design, (will never happen) I would toss my Glocks and replace them with M&P’s.

  75. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

    Well, after slogging my way through all these comments and taking the arguments into account, I think I have the solution …

    Get them PMR30’s. It’s got 30 rounds in the magazine and packs more punch than .22LR.

    And it might get Kel-Tech to ramp up production…

  76. avatar Wheel Gunner says:

    By switching to a caliber that nobody else uses, they leave themselves open for supply problems and compatibility issues with UN forces
    9MM is the most common round in the world so it was an easy choice
    The SIG P226 in 357 SIG would be a VERY powerful and capable weapon and would FAR exceed the capabilities of 45ACP in both energy and barrier penetration but then again 357 SIG ammo is also rarely used world wide

  77. avatar Tom says:

    Anybody out there familiar with the 22 TCM ? (Not entirely sure what the acronym is for) Looks like a 10 mm case necked down to, well, 22 cal. Anyway, it puts 22 WMR Rifle, (and I mean like 20″ barrel ) ballistics into a 1911 pattern pistol, with a dbl column magazine. LOW recoil & LOTSA’ rounds. Kinda’ like shooting one of those Kel-Tec 22 WMRs, but with, like I said, rifle barrel kinetic energy. Great feed reliability due to the bottleneck shape of the ammo. Looks ver-r-r-r-y interesting.

    1. avatar int19h says:

      The parent case for .22 TCM is actually .223. And in terms of ballistics, it’s very similar to 5.7×28 (huge surprise there, eh?). For the military, I think that using a round with a history of testing and real world use, and with weapons already designed for it that have also seen real world use and are liked, would be superior.

      1. avatar LC says:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Spitfire

        Have you seen this? i ran across it when i was reading the M1 carbine page. Apprently they made a M1 carbine chambered in it.

        1. avatar Tom says:

          Thanks. Had been unaware of this rd. Y’know, the more I look into this TCM, its compact length, and thick case walls and being made pretty much on existing machinery with existing components, . . .I’m thinking it makes too much sense to succeed. Pardon the quality of my French. Que Sera Sera (?)

      2. avatar Tom says:

        Hey ! What the heck are you doing on this site ! ? I mean, you just said something besides “My 9’s better than your 9, so nyah , nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah” Hope we never have to face a barbarian horde to find out brother.

  78. avatar TheYetti says:

    Wow. It would be cool if something actually came of this. If it does I’m hoping for something in .40 but we’ll likely end up with something in 9mm again. BUUUUT if .45 makes a come back, well, you’ll never hear me complain.

    1. avatar Tom says:

      Oh, hey, this ol’ intestinal gas expulsion has owned a total of 4 1911s in his life. Still got one. And 20 magazines. And 1,000 RDS of FMJ in storage. (Where ain’t nobody’s business). A plain ol’ BIG bullet, that doesn’t do anything but make one uncomplicated BIG hole, through whatever you need to put a BIG hole through, might be a simple, useful answer when there’s no time for thinking about clothing thickness and velocity and hollowpoint design and magazine capacity and etc, etc, etc.

  79. avatar Paul W. says:

    please please please do a 357 sig or a 10mm, pretty pretty please? I want a potent semi auto with cheap milsurp ammo!

  80. avatar Michael says:

    Only replace pistols when they are totally worn out.
    If I had any full size Sig, glock, Beretta, S&W, FN, or CZ with 9mm NATO I would feel fine.
    The 9mm, 45ACP, .40S&W, 357sig, 10mm all offer similar performance.
    Only going to 5.7×28 or 4.6 give us any advantage. or maybe 7.62×25
    Very few soldiers ever use a pistol in combat.
    Stick with 9mm but maybe instead of buying more M9s look at Glocks, but don’t ditch the M9s that still work.
    My ideal would be a Glock like pistol firing 7.62×25, with light/laser and a Mini red dot on top.

  81. avatar PT Clay says:

    I seriously doubt the military will actually change the service caliber–9mm is far cheaper than any of the other available candidates (which matters a great deal more to Congress, who controls the military’s budget and is generally firearms ignorant to start with), the higher round count will be seen as an advantage, and then there’s that whole “NATO standardization” thing to deal with. So aside from the usual “M9 remains military sidearm supplier after program cancellation” result, I can see one of at least three other outcomes (none of which will really address the underlying issue of the military’s abysmal pistol maintenance/training regimen):

    1. A S&W M&P. It can be had with a manual safety which will greatly please the Army despite its insistence that sidearms be carried with an empty chamber at all times, can be purchased fairly cheaply at what I assume to be government-only prices, and is solely U.S. in origin and manufacture. It’s lighter than the Beretta, and simplifies training with its DAO-only trigger system–the military in general will REALLY love this, as their pistol training program is, as mentioned earlier, exceptionally lacking (SOCOM units excluded) and anything that requires less work and effort on the administrative side of the military will likely be looked at far harder. S&W prides itself as being a “premier police supplier” and would probably love to have its latest wondernine become the official U.S. military sidearm, and would no doubt spare no expense in the effort.

    2. A SIG Sauer design. I won’t begin to speculate on model, but a lot has changed with SIG Sauer since the M9 trials in the 1980s. A great deal of its sidearm manufacturing has moved to the U.S., and the company in general is now more U.S. based than German. They already have an “in” on the government procurement process and are familiar with what it takes to actually meet a government contract, through their M11 contract and the P226s they provide to the Navy’s SEAL teams. In addition, the company also maintains a well-respected training center, even offering training courses for firearm types they don’t even make (like shotguns and revolvers), and could offer said services to the government at a reduced cost should they adopt a SIG design. This would help address the government’s continual problem of piss-poor pistol maintenance/training, so this benefit could actually work against SIG as the government is loathe to actually do anything useful or sensible. More likely, though, the government will simply overlook SIG’s training capabilities and remain largely ignorant of pistol maintenance beyond the obligatory “adoption training” phase, going so far as to purchase non-OEM aftermarket magazines as it currently does for the M9.

    3. An FN design, probably the FNX-9. FNH already has several contracts with the government for M240s, M249s, the beloved M2 .50-cal, and has been making M16s for the government for at least the last twenty years. It wouldn’t be much of a stretch for them to eventually get a pistol into the government’s hands, provided it could pass the trials and compete well against other manufacturers for cost. Like SIG, they have knowledge of what it takes to produce arms under government contract–a great deal more experience than SIG, actually, considering the wider variety of weapons they provide. It’s nothing like selling a few hundred (or thousand) pistols to a police agency, but is an intimately more involved process with government-mandated constant, random quality/safety checks of a great deal of components and finished products–any time a part or finished firearm fails a check, the entire lot is removed and inspected and/or discarded, if what little I’ve read up on the process is accurate (would actually love to hear more about it from anybody that knows more). FNH has been doing this for not one or two, but literally several different weapon systems since at least the 1980s. I think this would ultimately work in their favor in the goverment’s eye (they’re half-blind by nature, y’know).

    Fortunately for the majority of us, none of this has any real bearing or scientific “backing”–it’s just my own personal thoughts of what might actually go down based largely on my limited reasoning skills and data. I was bored, had little else to do, and spent a bit of time thinking this over before typing this out. Ignore it, comment, flame away and tell me how off/badly informed I am for choosing “X” company over “Y” company, whatever floats your boat! 😀 I don’t really care, because I honestly don’t spend a lot of time obsessing over what hurtful things strangers choose to type out at their keyboards. And it’s always interesting to see what conclusions/speculations others have come to anyway (whether they’re well-informed or not).

    1. avatar Lance says:

      Hope not a SIG they suck big time so many times they try with every pistol competition, they fail every time not just 83-85 but in CP, and JCP and ect. Think MP is good but I thin like ICC this program will die since if they don’t adopt a new caliber it make no sense to go with a new pistol. Much like 5.56mm and the M-4 last year.

      1. avatar Jay Williams says:

        Hope not a SIG they suck big time

        You sound like a broken record. Also, you should take an introductory English writing course at your local community college. It’s excrutiating to read your writing.

    2. avatar LC says:

      That was actually a excellent breakdown.

      My first choice (besides obviously leaving the M9 in service and forgetting about this), would be the M&P 9. It is a reliable 9mm handgun that is basically a US produced glock with ergonomic improvements.

      That was a good evaluation of FN too. Their FNS and FNX seem like decent handguns, although i haven’t messed with them too much to compare them to the beretta.

      1. avatar int19h says:

        I would say that FNX is a “model” DA/SA handgun that’s basically reliably and boringly mediocre. It does everything you’d expect such a thing to do, but there’s nothing about it that really stands out. Strangely enough, that’s exactly what I like mine for.

        Compared to Beretta, it does have swappable back strap, and of course being a polymer handgun it’s way lighter.

        I also like the fact that its safety has a decocker, but it’s up to you to use it or not. So you can carry cocked and locked, or you can drop the hammer.

    3. avatar Tom says:

      A comment from someone with practical knowledge, an evidently 3 figure IQ, who maintains a sense at least a fragment of humor remaining despite the flood of opinion from closet commandos ? I am offended Sir ! In the process of chortling over the quality of your response, I spit out a mouthful of my morning coffee ! Nicely put.

  82. avatar pat says:

    This ain’t the Cold War anymore. NATO compatibility will not weigh heavily on the minds of planners, considering that the U.S probably buys more ammunition than most of NATO combined.

    We also went with the 5.56 when everyone else in NATO used the 7.62…and many continued to do so long after we adopted the M-16.

    Plus the Marines have already purchased a large number of .45’s.

  83. avatar Hapkiyoosool says:

    I say let’s go MP7 and just have a SBR that act like a pistol if needed. Small and can also reach out and touch someone at mid range. The best gun I have ever shot. Accurate, fast, and hold plenty of ammo. Ammo being the difficult part. The gun in highly adaptable and easily modified.

    1. avatar Tom says:

      Y’know, that is NOT a bad idea at All. With short barrela and modern single-point attachment slings. . .Leave handguns for LEO & CCW use ? Might be a genuinely useful application of the K.I.S.S. principle. Issuing handguns to the military Was a decision made before modern firearms design. I can Really see a range of barrel/stock lengths in the same cartridge, for EDC, and issuing a limited number of light machine-guns and designated marksmen rifles for action. A’course, there’s likely some things I couldn’t call myself an expert on.

  84. avatar Oxygenthief says:

    Wow, lots of replies on this topic. 9mm vs 45 mostly it seems. Sad, because both seem equally bad from a military standpoint.

    Though I doubt anyone will read all the posts before mine… My vote is for the 357 Sig.

    Neck down cases cycle better, meaning less FTF problems. Plus the added speed of the, essentially, 9mm round at triple +p speeds means flatter trajectory and more energy transfer upon impact. Then there is the issue of penetration…

    45 ACP isn’t the best choice for any sort of penetration, that is why so many people choose it as their home defense weapon. 357 sig is better since the projectiles are smaller in diameter, again a 9mm on speed. If it was me in a fire fight and the enemy was hiding behind a vehicle, I’d want something that could go through a body panel or door if need be. I would imagine 40 S&W would fall somewhere in the middle.

    For the obvious problem of recoil, I’ll say this. I have a 9, 40, 45 and 357 sig from various manufacturers. My carry weapon is a 357 sig. I shoot it straighter, longer and more consistent than any other caliber. (truth be told I’ve never shot a FN FiveSeveN, so keep that in mind) Yes, there is recoil, but it is manageable.

    Follow-up shot times “feel” about the same as my 40 and 45, 9mm being the champ, of course.

    The only undeniable downside to the 357 sig is the muzzle flash as it is tremendous. Night vision systems will be affected and if an enemy combatant didn’t know where you were before at night, they certainly would after the first shot of a 357 Sig. Still though, I’d rather have it than any other caliber in my sidearm while deployed.

  85. avatar Wayne says:

    If you’re going to change, change to a .45 acp that has a higher capacity mag. Otherwise just change the ammo and keep the M-9. The Beretta 92FS (civilian M-9) is a fine weapon.

  86. avatar Tom says:

    The longer the argument goes on, the more I’m thinkin’ that, like the system (& truly Hideous expense) of foreign embassies, that really has no place in a time of instant electronic communication with someone on the other side of the planet and jet planes, that handguns are a redundantly redundant redundancy for the modern military. With the new “micro” carbines and single-point slings, the carry of a handgun should be made a voluntary option, with the individual bearing the burden of choice and cost and obtaining a CCW if they don’t want the issue weapon. Handguns for true SOG units I understand, but Everybody ? Naaaaaaah.

  87. avatar Sid says:

    Don’t replace the M9. Hear me out.

    Pistols have a real role in the modern military. For those of you who have not deployed in recent times, our service members stay armed 24 hours a day. In those circumstances, having a sidearm makes life just a little bit easier. Carry a M249 to chow, the latrine, and the shower point for a few days and tell me you would not have preferred a sidearm.

    Every deployed service member should have a sidearm. E-4 and below should be issued the M9. E5 and above should purchase and carry a sidearm of their choice. I simply will not listen to the cries of those who argue that “everyone must carry a common handgun so ammo and magazines are shared.” A service member down to their last magazine in a handgun…. seriously?…. If that even sounds realistic you are too far into COD for me to discuss this issue. A service member needs a handgun for self-defense. If they shoot through the first magazine they have to be moving and headed to their buddies with rifles. A second magazine is a must but only because magazines fail and a reload may be in order.

    Officers should purchase their own sidearm. Senior NCOs as well. I really don’t care about the caliber. If CPT Smith wants to carry a peculiar caliber, that is fine by me as long CPT Smith budgets for the ammo. 9mm, .40, and .45ACP will be supplied at the semi-annual qualification. If a service member wants to carry .22WMR, then they supply their own ammo for carry and qual.

    It is not about weapon design or caliber science or contracting or any other hot button issue. Service members deserve the right to self defense and the deserve to carry the handgun of their choice. I would much rather service members become more proficient with ANY handgun than to continue to have the WHICH handgun argument.

  88. avatar Sam Rudolph says:

    What will happen? It’ll be a costly snipe hunt resulting in several dozen companies taking the bait and spending money and time coming up with a new service pistol design, then going nowhere as they discover that the program disappears or that like the carbine trials, the Army doesn’t ACTUALLY want a new gun.

  89. avatar Great Scot says:

    In my opinion, they should drop 9mm. altogether. Bring back .45 ACP and then we’ll talk. Oh, and, fuck the Hague Convention, JHP all the way. I don’t understand the Hague or the Geneva Conventions. All’s fair in love and WAR, you know. I’ve always advocated JHP, shooting fleeing Taliban and torture, as long as it’s war. Those opposed to expanding rounds are deluding themselves if they think it’s any more ‘humane’ to shoot someone with a bullet more likely to maim than to kill than ne that will get ‘er done quicker. Those Terry are going to fight another day, you know, so let’s save some lives by eliminating them now. Torture is a touchier subject, but when some enemy soldier is withholding information that could win you the war, what else are you going to do? Threaten to put them under oath? No.
    No that I’ve had my little rant, I’d like to see the HK45 adopted standard-issue, unlikely due to price, the Marine’s 1911 as an option, but I’m unsure what for small handed soldiers in .45. Any suggestions?

  90. avatar Gymowner says:

    They will go with 9mm again. I shoot 45 and 9mm exclusively. I have carried a gun for 45 years now, everyday. I have used most every round ever made, and the 9mm gives us the ability to carry more rounds in and out of the weapon. Going to 45 will not change the outcome of a battle.
    It will only weigh down the troops. The 10mm load does no more than the 40 does, unless you load it to its full potential, which then makes it innacurate for many of the troops who realy aren’t into shooting, “other than when they have to”. So I don’t see that being in the game at all. Unless they go to a modified 357, it’s going to be 9mm again for sure.
    If the seals and spec-ops guys went to 9, the rest will folow. Probably the Glock 17 or 19, because of price, reliability, and proven sucess in the field for 20+ years. If they went to 45, it would probably be a Glock 21, or FN. The FN makes a nice 45 caliber gun, but the price is going to be much higher than the Govt. wants to spend. It would be nice to see the FN with an Optic built in. But that’s too much to ask for.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email