M14 Forum banner
1 - 20 of 85 Posts

·
Inquisitor
Joined
·
11,356 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
By Lance M. Bacon

The Army has a new pistol in its sights. After 25 years of action, the M9 is on its way out as officials are confident they can give soldiers a better pistol at a better price. The goal is to replace all 239,000 M9s and the concealable M11s.

“The M9 is at the end of its lifecycle,” said Maj. Art Thomas, small arms branch chief at the Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Ga. “It is an old weapon. We can do a lot better with what technology can provide us now.”

Lethality is among the M9’s several “limitations,” said Daryl Easlick, project officer for close effects. The requirement for a new pistol calls for “an increase in permanent wound channel,” which suggests something more powerful than a 9mm may be on the horizon.
Read the whole story at http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/08/army-pistols-with-a-shot-at-replacing-m9-82811w/.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,408 Posts
I'm guessing the .40 S&W. HI CAP while still compact.
Strange the life cycle of the M9 was about 30% of the 1911.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,081 Posts
Hopefully they will at least go back to the .45ACP and drop the "Squat when you pee caliber" 9mm.
 

·
Retired
Joined
·
4,820 Posts
One problem I see is that 9mm is NATO standard. So will our NATO allies also need to change pistol calibers, or will we just unilaterally change ours? I don't personally see a big issue with that, due to lack of Soviet military threat, but other operations, such as Afghanistan, could slightly complicate things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
191 Posts
There is plenty "wrong" with the 1911, most notably the magazine capacity. It's not concealable, and it doesn't react well to sand.

The guys that can carry whatever they want, carry the P-226NSW and it's the best combat pistol in the world.

In a time of shrinking ammo budgets, this is not the time to move to a caliber that is going to be 30% more expensive to train with. We have enough trouble affording ammo to get our guys qualified as it is. Going to the .40 is a step in the wrong direction.

If they want better lethality, just issue personal defense ammo instead of that ty ball ammo. Nobody we fight against follows the Geneva Convention anyway, so what damn difference does it make.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,595 Posts
If they want better lethality, just issue personal defense ammo instead of that ty ball ammo. Nobody we fight against follows the Geneva Convention anyway, so what damn difference does it make.
Exactly. And I don't think the geneva convention prohibits HP ammo. It's some luxemborg accord or some crap. If they're worried about permanent wound channel they're going to have to stop using FMJ in the first place. Or shoot rifles...RNGR2
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
516 Posts
I'm guessing glock or more likely H&K USP/P2000 based on uncle sam's recent purchasing tendencies. I'm hoping S&W M&P's though, to at least keep things domestic. I wouldn't expect the caliber to change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,726 Posts
I like the M9 myself. I'm quite comfortable with one. Proper ammo gives the 9mm plenty for most situations.

I really am not a huge 45acp fan. I have them, but hands down my personal favorite is the 10mm. Actually had no issues with the Delta Elite 1911, but team that cartridge in a Glock, you now have something. Expensive though and limited. It will never happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,312 Posts
My understanding is that nobody 'in the know' actually expects anything to come of this, just like the last few times the Army wanted a new pistol. And while I'm no fan of the M9 or the 9mm cartridge, handgun design has moved on since 1911. Don't hate me - I'm a died-in-the-wool 1911 fan, but really, I fell that there are better choices for many applications!

Big Army is going to be squeezing nickels here pretty quick, and I don't expect any significant changes in small arms or ammo for several years. That includes the effort to replace the M16/M4, also. They're going to be struggling to buy repair parts and ammo for what they already have, let alone switching weapons and/or cartridges.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
789 Posts
Strange the life cycle of the M9 was about 30% of the 1911.
I would just point out that the 1911A1 was produced in large numbers - over 2 million I believe. In the past 20 years, due to increased operational tempo, the M-9's have had quite a workout. I remember when we exchanged our 1911's for the M-9 back in 1988. While we still had new, in the wrapper, factory magazines for the 1911's - the pistols themselves had seen better days. Every few years the military talks about switching sidearms - if money permits - and every few years the 1911 die-hards come out claiming "vindication" of their beliefs that it never should have been replaced. I would just point out in 2009, Beretta recieved a 5 year contract for 450,000 new M9A1 pistols. If the militay switiches, it will be an "off the shelf" model as the article states - and it won't be a 1911 rather one of those new generation "plastic" models that seems to work so well. I agree, the ammo is the main culprit here. A 9mm with quality defense loads is nothing to sneeze at and, while the US is "obsessed" with large calibers, the rest of the world is content with the 9mm as a defensive cartridge. GI2
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
A 1911A1 saved my life in Vietnam, and I shoot them to this day, and own three 45 cal handguns two of which are 1911's. I have one 9MM and it is a Smith and Wesson M&P and in my opinion it is a weapon for those who "Squat to Piss", even worse than the 38's that the AF used to issue. Since we set the tone for NATO weapons, I don't see the problem with a 45 Cal NATO or the metric equivalent. The only folks who are going to object are the Italians who will think their national pride is injured.

The M92's have not been without their problems. The load has been lessened on the 9MM cartridge because the frames were developing cracks. Other issues have surfaced as well.

I served in Vietnam from 1965 to 1966, my second week in country I found myself faced with a VC Troop who was a boy about 13-14 years old, he was carrying a type 44 Arisaka carbine with a rather nasty long bayonet on it. He managed to hit me under the right arm pit with the damn bayonet and then he freaked when he saw the blood that the wound brought. In that time I was able to unholster and fire my 1911A1 (Don't ask, Adrenalin is a wonderful thing), and removed him from the game forever. That one round was the only round that I ever fired out of that weapon the whole time I was there, but I was sure glad that I had some training on the 1911 and that my dad insisted that I run a few boxes through his WW II Bring home. Being with an advisory team, I also fired the M1 Carbine and the M1 Garand at different times. After my first couple of months I was sent to a Signal Unit where I had an M14 which I only fired a couple of times and I never saw touched an M16 until I joined the Army National Guard a few years after leaving the Army.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
465 Posts
We beat the couple M9's we have shooting IDPA never a jam, no complaints (my older boy has yet to clean or lube his) but they sure are not 1911's

With the economy the way it is & the military being cut back big time I would not expect the m9 to be replaced for many years.
 

·
Rest in Peace
Joined
·
17,536 Posts
As Old Sarge said, 9mm is the NATO standard. So eveyone's idea is one pistol for our NATO troops & another in 40 or 45 for the others? And that helps how since 9mm would have to be used in Iraq & Afghanistan.

HH
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,846 Posts
According to my countries battle doctrin a pistol is a last ditch defence gun. Not even a PDW. Battle rifles are only for infantry troops. The rest, Artillery, Tanks, Recce, Supply and Support, Medicals, MP and so on will soon be equipped with MP 7s PDW for ambush defence. 4 times the NATO penetration requirements and much lighter and smaller than a main battle rifle.
Wolf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,081 Posts
According to my countries battle doctrin a pistol is a last ditch defence gun. Not even a PDW. Battle rifles are only for infantry troops. The rest, Artillery, Tanks, Recce, Supply and Support, Medicals, MP and so on will soon be equipped with MP 7s PDW for ambush defence. 4 times the NATO penetration requirements and much lighter and smaller than a main battle rifle.
Wolf
I've read some about this, 4.6 x 30mm. 26 grn bullet at 2400fps. Personally I'd rather have a Thompson SMG in good ole .45 ACP. I know we suck and HK hates us, but couldn't they have at least used the 5.7 x 28mm. Oh but FN developed that so no HK coukldn't use that. Or hey, novel Idea here the 7.92 X 33 Kurz, maybe updated to a 7.62 x 33, heck even a 22lr uses a 36 to 40GRN bullet.................geez.
 
1 - 20 of 85 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top