Previous Post
Next Post

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]

Previous Post
Next Post

380 COMMENTS

    • 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.

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

        • 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.

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

          It takes a village!!!

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

      • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

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

    • 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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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.

    • 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.

  3. CZ 75 P09, please.

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

        • “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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

        • 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.

    • 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.

      • Hague Convention, not Geneva, of 1899, so you math people can calculate how out of date it is.

        • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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.

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

      • 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. 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.

        • @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?

        • @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.

          • 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 . . .

          • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

    • 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.

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

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

    • 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.

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

        • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

  6. 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.

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

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

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

        • 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.

        • 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).

        • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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.

  7. 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.

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

      • 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.

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

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

  8. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

      • @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

        • 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.

        • #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.

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

        • 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.

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

    • 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?

      • 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.

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

      • 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.

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

          • 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.

        • 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.

    • 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!

    • 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 “

      • Yeah, or “Military grade semi-automatics.”

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

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

  9. 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.

    • 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!

    • 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.

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

    • 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.

    • There you go, making sense again.

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

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

  10. 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.

    • 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?

      • >> 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).

    • 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.

    • 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.

  11. 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.

    • 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.

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

        • 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…

          • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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.

  12. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

  13. 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!

    • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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.

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

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

      • 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.

    • 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.

  14. 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.”

    • 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.

      • 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?

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

        • 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/

        • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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

  15. 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.

    • 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.