Previous Post
Next Post

TTAG Commentator SFC Jose A. Garcia offered the following analysis under the post Gun Review: Beretta 92A1 (Civilian M9A1):

“I’d like to reply to Mr. Carpenter and anyone else out there that might be hazarding a guess as to what the next US Military sidearm will be. I doubt very much that the Army and the Marines will adopt any other pistol besides the M9 or M9A1 for a very long time (20 years or so). My reasoning is this . . .

The search for such an item may well be underway, but *read the operational requirements very closely.* The US Army operational requirements specifically say (key words) *increased lethality.* Which is code speak meaning that the US Army at least is after something that will offer a significant leap ahead in terminal ballistic performance.

That being the case, and with the dramatic terminal ballistic performance improvement that the M855A1 offers (over M855 or other 5.56 ammo), I think the next “side arm” will not be a side arm at all. I think the US Army is after the H&K MP7, *BUT* with upgrades to its ammo that will copy the technology of the M855A1 round. I’m not going to get into that, just know it works.

Such a weapon firing that type of ammo will offer the increased lethality (better terminal ballistics) that the US Army is after, as well as inherently better accuracy at all ranges, and increased magazine capacity. The MP7 has also got some combat time under its belt with US forces already.

My bet is the future will see the military using fewer pistol all together. Those combat support and combat service and support, tankers, MP’s, command staff, etc., folks carrying pistols now-a-days will be carrying the MP7 or similar such weapon in the future.

Striker fire pistols are nice, but the Army is looking for leap ahead technology that a pistol just isn’t going to provide.”

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Sounds like unfounded FUD.The MP7 fires a small bullet that moves very very fast,which is not what you need when the bad guy is charging your truck during an ambush.A FMJ round that’s *smaller* than 9mm launched out of a gun that’s harder to holster and weighs more than the outgoing pistol ain’t the answer.

    The military should put in an order for 500,000 Glock 21s and have done with the matter.

    • The idea behind the ‘high speed grains of rice’ that the MP7 launches is defeating body armor. I doubt the little 4.6mm bullets will have great stopping power after they punch through the vest.

      The idea of a compact rifle replacing the pistol is a great one, they generally have better stopping power and range and are much easier to shoot. The M1 carbine was the first effective employment of the concept but it quickly became a widely issued main weapon. I’m willing to bet that many carried a 1911 with the carbine if they had access to one.

      If the American armed forces want another pistol replacement carbine then they should go with the FN P90 which is an older, proven design in a more effective caliber. I am willing to bet that the pistol will never be replaced, at least in my lifetime. There is no other weapon as small and easily carried and comforting to have riding on your hip.

    • If I were to choose Glock (which I wouldn’t; personal preference) I’d go with the Model 20 10mm. Military won’t adopt that caliber, but it’s equal to the .41 magnum, with more mag capacity, and hellacious terminal ballistics.

    • That’s why you shoot the bad guy with about a 5-round burst. Getting hit once with a 4.6mm round out of a pistol-length barrel might not stop his charge, but getting shot repeatedly will.

  2. The military should let soldiers, sailors, airmen, or marines purchase their own sidearm. Pick a few calibers, maybe set up a few kiosks at the PX for ordering, but let the damn user decide.

    The arguments against it are silly. What if PVT Smith has a Glock but SGT Johnson has a 1911. They can’t share magazines! It is a damn sidearm. If sharing magazines has become an issue, then fists and knives are about to be used. A sidearm gives you an antipersonnel capability while you are walking to the DFAC. When you need to clear a room and your long gun is too long. When you are hopping out of the MRAP to speak the local honcho and your PSD is covering you. It is NOT your primary weapon.

    The MP7 is a fine weapon. But it is not a pistol. If you need more than 15 rounds or armor-defeating bullets to defend yourself on the way to eat lunch, you need an assault rifle. Pistols allow you to work with one hand and in tight spaces. They allow you freedom of movement. But pistols are not replacable by PDWs and submachine guns.

    • Sid: It wasn’t that long ago that they did. When my dad deployed to Vietnam in 1966 he carried a Smith and Wesson Model 15, .38 special, that he purchased before leaving. It was pretty common among officers to do this and not at all unheard for for the enlisted guys.

      By the time I got into the military, the culture had shifted tremendously. On all of my deployments we were warned multiple times of the dire (legal) consequences of bringing a privately owned weapon into the combat zone.

  3. Is there anyone here who respects the “stopping power” of a 5.56
    from a short barrel?!

    Screw politics and get some .45 ACP or .40 Smith with some good
    JHP or Critical Duty Style “barrier blind” rounds. Or a short – barrel
    6.8 SPC like the LWRC PSD. If you’re going to be handicapped
    by FMJ rounds, bigger is definitely better.

    The bad guys are shooting whatever they can get their hands on
    – typically 7.62 x 39 mm. There’s no reason, other than politics or
    stupidity (which are essentially the same) why we can’t do better.

    • +1 for 45cal
      Another +1 for 6.8 SPC

      Bonus points for the fact that up you just described my main weapons. (45 ACP 1911 and 6.8 SPC M4 carbine)

  4. Shouldnt that be a FiveseveN instead of MP7? The 5.7x28mm round has already been proven superior over the 4.6. I love my Fiveseven but I’m not foolish enough to prefer it over a rifle.
    I keep mine loaded with EA 50gr @ 2050fps, pretty good out of a pistol.

      • Because it’s a rimfire cartridge. From magazine/feed problems, to ignition failures, to the lack of bullet options – it’s not a good choice.

        Not to mention, Keltec keeping up with a military contract’s quantity demands? Not even something to dream about.

        It’s a neat concept, and the full auto proof of concept PMR-30 was a hoot to watch on Youtube, but it really isn’t a service weapon.

      • 5.7 from a pistol is similar to .22 WMR from a rifle. Not to mention .22 WMR is rimfire.

        That doesn’t make them similar rounds.

  5. The military needs to go back to the 45 ACP. Whether you think they should go back to the M1911 or procure a more modern firearm is beside the point. The 45 ACP was chosen for its superior ballistics and lethality. The human body remains a fragile as it was during the Philippine insurrection and any lesser round is inferior.

    • Just to clarify – As someone whose ancestors were on the receiving end of said .45 bullets, let me clarify that the .45 acp was *not* used during the Philippine-American War (Your Philippine Insurrection)

      Said “insurrection” happened from 1899 to 1902 – waaay before the acp was tested and adopted. (google is your friend)

      What your bad boys brought along (as personal sidearms – as the official US army sidearm at the time was a .38) was the good ‘ole Colt .45 Peacemaker. It was the stopping power of these privately owned sidearms (and the percievedinadequacy of the official .38 round) that resulted in the subsequent studies to find a more effective, and modern alternative.

      • That is also how I learned the history. The .38 was found to be almost useless in the jungle as many times it failed to penetrate the thick jungle foliage and hit the target behind it or to hit it with enough force to cause lethal damage. The resulting research lead to the adoption of the 1911. It is not clear from his post, but I think that is what he was referring to, we learned in the Philippines that we needed a more combat effective round and ended up choosing the 45ACP.

        • The pathetically anemic .38 Long Colt was found to be ineffective. To suggest that the 9mm Parabellum, which has roughly double the velocity of .38 Long Colt for the same bullet weight, has the same problems would be sheer ignorance. Given the choice between a 1911 and one of the modern hi-capacity 9mm handguns, I would (and do) go with the 9mm.

      • The Phillipine American war ended in 1902, but the period of the Moro rebellion lasted until 1913. This is the time generally referred to when talking about attempts to introduce the 45 ACP for it’s supposed edge over the .38. Just sayin’.

  6. Why not an UMP 45, as well as some other polymer framed handgun in a similar caliber? (I’m thinking FNP 45, b/c of the da/sa trigger, to replicate the battery of arms for the 92/m9 family.

  7. “Hello, H&K? Yeah, y’know those Mark 23s we use in small numbers? What kind of a deal can we get if we order, say, five or six million?”

    All problems solved. To those who can’t properly handle a large frame pistol, well, we’d have a crapload of M9s left over, and the likelyhood of them ever actually having to fire one outside of training is rather remote.

    • Might as well just carry a desert eagle if you’re gonna lug one of those monstrosities around.

      Offensive handgun = massive fail

      • The 23 is a proven pistol designed for people who might actually need to shoot one in anger, and not to meet silly hand-size and recoil requirements.

        Hence, big gun that always works for people who need them to, largely useless gun for people who don’t. Easy.

        Makes a heck of a lot more sense than tooling up everyone with a multi-thousand-dollar micro-machine gun that fires a round designed to do nothing you’d ever use a pistol for and takes a week to unholster.

        • I’ve always heard that most everyone who shoots on the two way range hates that thing and that it never gets checked out. I have to believe it, I know if I was going to have to carry and fight with a .45 acp there are a lot of better, lighter and thus more practical options. The Mk 23 is the pistol equivalent of the Tiger II tank, another overweight, over engineered German blunder.

        • The Mk 23 pistols see very little actual use. The SOCOM “operators” that it was designed for hate the thing.

  8. Was ambushed once in 1967 on a mine sweep. My M14 was in the 3/4 truck and I had hopped out to walk with the sweepers. That was the last time I ever left my rifle anywhere (yeah, I know, even 21 year old 2LTs make mistakes) and the last time I didn’t have a pistol, even if at times it was a tiny .25.

  9. The M9 is a pile of shit, but luckily, it’s heavy, so you can probably bruise the piss out of haji with it once it jams (50-50 chance every trigger pull, in my experience).

    The Army has its head in the sand over the goddamn thing, but as much as I’d like to see them go to Glocks, it’s not a priority for command, and I understand why. Sidearms are a civilian thing. Yeah, a few of us are “supposed” to carry pistols, but if we are in any sort of real danger, we carry an M-4 and be done with it. In these discussions people seem to assume that we’re having Custer’s Last Stand every other day where sidearms make a difference, but the reality is, pistols are for shooting feral dogs. Rifles are for fighting wars. Carry your damn weapon to the DFAC, and stop whining about 6-7 pounds.

  10. Why not the S&W M&P in either 9mm or .45? It has adjustable backstraps for small or large hands, its ergonomic, its made in the US by a US company, and it has been proven reliable.

    Plus it looks cool.

  11. I seem to remember that the idea of a PDW was done before, and was abandoned. See “Grease Gun.”

    Also, the reason the military will not go to HP ammo is because of treaties. We have to use FMJ, them’s the rules. I do hope they get a new rifle before they spend money on a new pistol.

    • The Marine Corps MK 318 SOST 5.56 sure isn’t an FMJ, nor are the MK 262 or MK 319, or 7.62 sniper rounds. We can call them open tipped match instead of hollowpoints to make Oprah feel better.

      Certainly you don’t want to bring a handgun to a gunfight, but why not pack the best possible secondary if your M4 is out of commision.

        • the hague convection only mentions lawful combatants can be shot with FMJs and nothing else, insurgents/terrorists/freedom fighters/criminals/basically anyone not in a military uniform dont fall under this law. I remeber reading some where that the 75 grain TAP rounds were in use with some Special forces Units. I could be talking out of my ass so liberally apply salt

        • As I was, Special Ball was what we were SUPPOSED to use, only problem being there wasn’t any, and we were banned from using our Match ammo because of the false “hollowpoint”. We wound up having to put de-linked 240-B shit in our M-24s. As for pistol ammo, we were limited to Ball.

  12. In Vietnam I served in an armor unit, a calvary unit and an infantry unit as a combat field medic 91 Bravo ( I think that designation has changed).
    I carried both M16 and .45 Colt.
    As any 91 Bravo with field experience will tell you, we are only combat soldiers until the first casualty. That is when we start to work. At that point the battle becomes secondary.
    I employed my M16 until called to work.
    When I was in the track units I grabbed my bag and headed in the direction of the voice calling me, my M16 stayed with the vehicle.
    When I became an infantry medic, my M16 stayed with the first casualty and was retrieved after the fighting ended.
    The .45 was carried in case I should need a weapon either while working or on the move.
    It never left the holster.
    The only times I ever used the Colt was for plinking. Which I enjoyed a great deal and is the reason I own one today.

    It may be different today, but I never saw a single NVA or VC soilder shot with a pistol.
    In fact I never saw a pistol out of it’s holster, except for plinking.

    • While that may have been your experience, that was not the case for other fighting men. Perhaps the most famous use of the M1911 in combat occured on October 18, 1918. When Sgt Alvin York ran out of 30-06 for his Springfield he had to resort to his sidearm. He shot down a squad of approaching Germans with his pistol.

      During the Second World War all airborne troops carried a M1911 when they jumped because many soldiers lost their rifles when the shock from the opening chute snapped the line that held their rifles. Airborne troopers used their 45s until they found a replacement rifle.

      • I am sure this is true.
        It may also be true of WWI and Korea.

        I should have mentioned that I was one of the few to carry a .45 as they were not standard issue. I was issued a M16 and had to request the Colt.

        Medics usually carried one or the other, mostly M16. Some carried no weapon.These were men who opposed war and the draft, but chose to serve in a non-combat role rather than become “draft dodgers”. I am so glade no one must make that choice today.

        I carried both because then as now I liked to be prepared.
        Had I found myself in need of the .45 I would certainly have used it. That is why I requested it. But I never did, nor did anyone I know of.

        As I said it may be different today.
        I have a nephew who did three (3) tours in Iraq as a field medic.
        The next time I see him I will inquire as to his knowledge of military handgun use in Iraq.

    • You’re correct.

      Pistols almost never see use in combat.

      Been that way since they first came around, and its still that way today.

      • Hi Larry,
        The Tunnel Rat.
        Very true, but born of necessity rather than desire.
        Just as the job went to the smallest guy due to confined space. ( Unless he happened to be a FNG, then he might get a months reprive, might not.) He took the smallest weapon that was practical.
        Some tunnels were so small the only way to crawl through was on your belly with both arms in front. Which made pushing a long gun way to difficult. Or so I was told. Never had to do it myself.
        Having a Colt in hand instead of a long gun also made it much easier if you found it advisable to di di mau.
        Even so the guys I knew would have much prefered a long gun if it had been possible. First choice, combat shotgun.

  13. If the real issue is a lack of lethality here is my modest proposal: Pass an executive order that allows the use of expanding point ammo against “illegal combatants.” When some Al Qeda plant IED’s or hide behind civilians or shoot at red cross marked medical vehicles. We switch from FMJ to 60 grain V-Max and 124 grain Gold Dot. You cannot tell me that there is any question about the lethality of loads like these. This simplifies the logistics of training, re-equipping soldiers, buying new mags and carriers, etc. If on the other hand, you have signed and follow the rules of Hague, then it’s FMJ all the way. Problem solved, problem staying solved.

    • And where are the hundreds of millions, perhaps even billions, of dollars going to come from?

      Do you honestly think that Hornady and Speer can keep up with the ammo manufacturing demand?

      Research real quick how much ammo the U.S military buys a year. There is no way smaller companies like Hornady and Speer can keep up with that output.

      • Maybe so. My point, however, was: the cost associated with going to a new bullet is going to be far less than the costs associate with going to a new rifle and pistol in new calibers, using new magazines, requiring changes in use and maintenance training. One idea suggested above, allowing soldiers to supply their own pistols means that there will be no magazine interchangeability between soldiers.

        Allowing the maunfacturers of military ammo to come up with a standard expanding point bullet, is the least expensive option of any of the others suggested.

  14. Hahahah, no.

    There is no way in HELL the DoD or even the Army will replace a $263 pistol with a much more expensive PDW.

    And there is no way they’re going to replace the hundreds of MILLIONS of rounds of 9x19mm.

    The 9mm as a service cartridge is here to stay for a good long time.

    You all forget that the brass care more about saving money than they do about saving lives.

    The pistol is a backup weapon. What makes more sense is to issue rifles or carbines to EVERYONE.

    Take your rifle with you everywhere. Screw carrying only a pistol, even when you’re back at base. You dont know whats going to happen. I hate lazy officers and SNCOs who carry a pistol that they qualify with once a year and act like they’re going to be able to defend themselves.

    At its very best, a pistol is a back up weapon. The armed forces need to issue less of them, and make sure that those who need them actually get them.

    • Which is a very good argument for adoption of this class of weapon. Pistols–including .45s–will not penetrate body armor, and all pistols are only a backup. But the mounted troops (truck drivers, tankers, etc.) have had problems storing their M-4s and getting them into action. These short but powerful alternatives are a solution to the lack of an effective battle weapon for these troops, and are far superior to any handgun. Ture, they are bulkier and cannot be holstered, but the have accuracy, range, and armor piercing that pistols cannot match.

  15. The military needs to reconsider the use of hollowpoint pistol ammo.

    No, expanding ammo was not banned under the Hague Convention. Declaration III only prohibits the use of expanding ammo by the “Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.” The Declaration goes on to state that “[i]t shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power.”

    Moreover, the US didn’t sign the Declaration, although we’ve shackled ourselves to it.

    I don’t know if hollowpoint pistol ammo would help. I’m sure that the military knows, but they’re not talking. What does that tell you?

    • I don’t think an HP will penetrate body armor any better than an FMJ, so what would be the reason for a change? Especially if no one, per the comments above, emplys their side arm?

  16. Father and Father In Law were offered 1911 pistols but both chose to carry Thompson SMGs as a defense weapon. Dad really was not very impressed with pistols in combat. M1 Carbines were developed because most soldiers were lousy shots with a pistol.

  17. I would really be surprised to see a PDW issued instead of a pistol. The NATO PDW request was sent out in 1990 — here we are 22 years later with a couple of in-production PDWs (P90, MP7), a couple of prototypes that could be in production (Knight’s KDW, for one), and very few in anyone’s hands. This is pretty much because the weapons designed under the PDW RFP are answers to problems that have not been encountered since the RFP went out.

    The Glock 21 would be an excellent choice, but there are a few others to consider. The FN FNX series, S&W M&P, Springfield XD and Beretta Storm would seem to have a reasonable shot, and if it was for 500,000 units I’m pretty sure Ruger could tool up as well. Anything without an external safety will probably not make the cut, Glock could whip up one with an external safety if they wanted the business but they already sell about all they make. My money would be on the FN because FN already supplies about everything in military small arms as-is, they’re a known quantity. The Storm functions a lot like the 92, so retraining would seem to be minimal, a bonus for Beretta.

    As far as caliber goes, .45ACP would definitely be what I would prefer, only because they don’t make a .46. The FNX-45 can hold up to 15 rounds of .45 ACP, making it comparable with the Beretta 92 in ammo capacity and half-inch holes bleed more than third-inch holes. We have yet to face anyone wearing body armor on a regular basis (at least, as reported so far), so shooting a pencil lead than penetrates body armor is really not a mission-critical deal for a handgun. For people that are recoil-sensitive, give them a M11 (P228).

    The PDW of the day is the M4. Even gussied-up with an ACOG and sling, it’s not all that heavy, it’s handy and it hits hard enough for even Martin Fackler in urban combat (under 50 yards). The SOST/M855A1 might extend the effective range significantly. Given the choice between an M4 and a pistol I’d take the M4. Given a pistol, I would pick up an AK at the first opportunity.

    The most significant issue raised so far is the cost of the ammo conversion. The millions of rounds of 9mm have to go somewhere. I think that Winchester/whoever could probably do a deal to exchange military 9mm for new-loaded military .45 ACP and take the stocks of GI 9mm off the government’s hands for a cost-difference deal. There’s probably not a whole lot of difference between GI ball and Amercian Eagle or Winchester White Box, and there is plenty of use in the civilian market for 9mm FMJ. The ammo supplier could be pretty sure of recouping their discount by reselling the GI 9mm.

    All that being possible, the time has passed for this question. The JCP program has been dead for years and is unlikely to resurface in a time of declining defense budgets and troop levels. Like it or not, when things are over in Afghanistan folks are coming home and largely staying here. The SF/Special Ops people will still be out there, and they can get almost anything they want as-is, because there are only a few thousand of them active at any given time and supplying them is not a big deal from a budget standpoint.

    We have what we have.

    • It must be mentioned that while the military issue weapons are utter crap, civilian Berettas are not bad pistols.

      I handled a Beretta 92F , and after 20 years of police duty it still was in infinitely better shape than the M9s I handled in the Air Force. Folks coming out of uniform have good reason to hate the M9s in service, but that isn’t a slam on the entire lineup. No one has ever been caught stealing the M9s , because any pawnbroker that looks at one will laugh his a$$ off before calling the feds.

      Military issue weapons are abused and seldom maintained, which is why in the next war the D.o. D. should just cancel pistol quals entirely and teach people how to throw the loaded weapon instead Tomahawk-style at the enemy’s head. If the bad guy is still active after being hit in the head you’ll be close enough to deliver the coup de grace with the one shot the pistol is capable of. After the action is over the GI can spend the ride back to base on the process to remedy the stovepipe jam or frozen magazine.

    • Biggest difference between military 9mm ball and the commercial stuff is the crimped primer pocket. Required on most military ammo as part of the moisture proofing and reliability specification. No real difference in use though it makes reloading a pain.

      • Actually, Uncle, I hate to correct you, but the reason for the crimp is to prevent the primer from backing out in open-bolt SMG’s.

        • Actually, if you think about it, with modern podwer and tech you could make a superposed load, with ten shots stacked on top of one another, each set off electrically. Accuracy was never in question anyway, and it would be butt-simple to make. You could compress the podwer into shaped briquettes and just seat to depth at the electrode locations. The barrel could be made out of a thin piece of steel with a stamped frame welded on and a single battery and capacitor inside to spark and light the charges, a tiny circuit to stage the next charge.

    • +1 for the Clint Smith reference

      “A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him ‘Why do you carry a 45?’ The Ranger responded, ‘Because they don’t make a 46.'”

  18. Gents,

    You’re wrong.

    Go out and read up on the M855A1. The Army has cracked the code on outstanding terminal ballistics from the 5.56 mm round. The M855A1 also defeats body armor and makes short work of most “cover.”

    I believe that the US Army is going to use this same technology in the 7.62mm. Right now the M855A1 out performs M80 ball 7.62 mm ammo. The future is this type of bullet fired from polymer cased cartridges, polymer links.

    The ballistic “sacred cows” are limiting your thinking. Time was mankind believed he would never fly, or travel faster than 20 mph, speeds of 100 mph were unthinkable. No one believed a small, light, fast projectile could inflict damage at most ranges, or still be terminally wicked after penetrating barrier or body armor. That time has arrived.

    Yes, ferocious terminal ballistics are coming from 5.56 mm ammo.

    The average American may never get their hands on M855A1 ammo because it is so effective. It’s not a stretch to imagine legislation against it. It renders personal body armor useless; it pentrates body armor AND THEN goes inside the soft human tissue and performs like a spinning hook in human guts. It is wildly effective. It does not “fragment,” it bends nearly in half and spins at tens of thousands of RPM’s inside the torso. It does not overpenetrate. This is not re-hashed Vietnam or Cold War era technology. I’ve witnessed the tests; I’ve read the battlefield reports. It would terrify those depending on body armor, and rightly so.

    You don’t have to believe me. Go and read the open source material out there about the M855A1. Read the operational requirements for the next US Army sidearm. They are available. Check out the NDIA and Small Arms Symposium; The US Army Small Arms Capabilities Based Assessment.

    All of those sources support what I am saying. The military wants increased lethality (CNS interruption within 2 seconds on any exposed human target within 50 meters). That’s the goal. That performance is not coming from a pistol; not now not ever. Call me crazy. You’ll come around eventually. I know, because I said the same things all of you are saying.

    A redesign of either the 4.6mm or 5.7mm cartridge using the M855A1 technology is where I believe the Army is going. I suspect that the HK MP7 will be chosen because it is already operational, and receiving good reviews. I’ve fired it. The operator controls are well thought out. I have absolutely no experience with the FN P90, and haven’t heard of or seen it in use.

  19. All this talk of defeating body armor but I cannot remember hearing or seeing one report of soldiers encountering insurgents in body armor. Hell WE couldn’t even supply OUR soldiers with body armor in the beginning of the wars. I feel that is another solution in need of an issue.

    By the way, the majority of soldiers are not issued sidearms. Of the top of my head you have Command Staff (and other not near the line so why carry a rifle types), SF operators (they usually have 1911s and use them), pilots, tank commanders and others in small/limited spaces. Lets ignore SF since as already noted they get what ever toys they ask for. Currently if you are one of those who would get issued a pistol you usually have the option, pistol or M4 carbine, your choice. (What I have heard from the sandbox is most still go M4 but that is not based on actual record keeping or the like.)

    Now I’m not saying this due to my personal affinity towards the 1911, but it is almost a no brainer IMHO. The U.S. Army alone has enough 1911s in armory storage to replace the majority of the M9s in the field. They also have ammo on hand and armorers are still trained on the 1911. It is as close to a turn key situation as you can get. Add in over 100 years of combat proven effectiveness and reliability.

  20. I’m confused. Our Nasty Guard battalion still has M-16A2s, but even we have received the M11 (Sig Sauer P228). FM 3-23.35 describes both the M9 and M11, and that’s several years old.

  21. I like all this talk about new to this stuff and i have been looking at different sites to learn more..but your guys general bs is great info for me…just purchased the m9a1..4 more days to pick it up i cant wait..

  22. Excellent post. It is a joy to read these types of posts so detailed and so well explained. It is a quality item. Nowadays you have to be very careful with weapons, since anyone can have them. From my company we congratulate you for the great work done in this post and in the blog in general.

  23. What a great post. The issue is very complicated to address and investigate, with weapons you have to be very careful today, in many countries it is legal to carry weapons, but I think it is not a good idea. In my company we are against weapons in all its senses.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here