View Full Version : Another M9 replacement program planned...
Does it really take three years to find a better pistol?:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130727/NEWS04/307270003/Testing-M9-replacement-start-next-year
I'd say give the AF a fnx/fns-9 depending on if the critera. They are accurate, reliable, and ambi.
Many troops were unhappy when the U.S. gave 22,000 Smith & Wesson Sigma 9mm pistols to Afghanistan’s National Army and National Police. The troops who delivered these weapons preferred the Sigma over the Beretta they carried — and the Sigma is the low performer in its family.
This part made me chuckle a little.
According to the article, Congress wants the services to adopt a modified/upgraded M9 (much as the Marines adopted the M9A1, I suppose). The most current evolution of the Beretta 92 platform is the 92A1, and I'm not sure that it offers enough of an improvement to satisfy everyone. In the end, Congress holds the purse strings. I would imagine they could just direct that a modified M9 be adopted (over everybody's objections).
The British military bought 25,000 Glock 17's to replace their long-serving Browning Hi-Powers and that barely made a blurp in the news. I think our program is going to be heavily political and controversial, if history is any guide.
Magic_Salad0892
07-28-13, 17:29
They should just do what the Brits did, buy some Glocks, and make it easy.
Or adopt the FNX-9.
Why don't they just buy some good sand resistant magazines and keep using what they have?
There is no other pistol out there that is substantially better than the M9 as a service pistol.
I disagree. Some issues have already been discussed in the article. The issues with cracking locking blocks and slides is a big deal.
It's also much more labor intensive. Alas, I doubt anything will happen and it will be another money pit like the M4 program.
Why don't they just buy some good sand resistant magazines and keep using what they have?
There is no other pistol out there that is substantially better than the M9 as a service pistol.
Considering how the Armalite has gone to rails and lights and lasers I could see the M9A1 taking over the M9's place with some kind of visible light/laser/IR laser bolted on.
I suspect even with the hate for it the M9 is going to carry on like the M16 did after the mess in Vietnam and be here fifty years later.
For anyone interested, the British trials seemed rather short and sweet:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-11/u-k-army-get-nypd-pistol-as-glock-bests-browning-after-46-years.html
The problem with the beretta as a service pistol is the fact that there are over 70 parts in it, 25% of which require 4 hands to install. The other is that it's just bulky. It's not horrible in a standard service rig, but why carry anything that wide if it doesn't buy you anything?
I disagree. Some issues have already been discussed in the article. The issues with cracking locking blocks and slides is a big deal.
It's also much more labor intensive. Alas, I doubt anything will happen and it will be another money pit like the M4 program.
The locking blocks have been revised several times to fix that issue.
That being said, are handguns worth the money?
decodeddiesel
07-28-13, 19:08
I doubt anything will happen and it will be another money pit like the M4 program.
DING DING DING
But hey, what's a couple hundred million $$ between friends? :rolleyes:
As much as I would like to see a G17, PPQ, M&P9, or P30 end up in the holsters of those going into harm's way, it's just never going to happen.
I'm really not an M9 hater. Yeah, it's huge and DA/SA is difficult to train, but I found that with proper maintenance and good magazines it was reliable and solid. Did it's job when I needed it to YMMV.
...I suspect even with the hate for it the M9 is going to carry on like the M16 did after the mess in Vietnam and be here fifty years later.
The M16 mess was due to poorly considered decisions by bureaucrats, not because the design was flawed.
Because I don't know what I don't know, I ask this- does a general issue service pistol (special forces requirements not withstanding) need a rail? Is the ability to mount a weapon light/laser useful to the general troop?
mkmckinley
07-28-13, 19:31
My guess is they'll spend more on the trials than it would cost to just buy some known-good 9mm and we'll stick with the Beretta anyway.
Magic_Salad0892
07-28-13, 19:35
Because I don't know what I don't know, I ask this- does a general issue service pistol (special forces requirements not withstanding) need a rail? Is the ability to mount a weapon light/laser useful to the general troop?
I'm not going to pretend I know anything about military requirements, as I've never served, but...
If it doesn't add cost, and it's already apart of the design, not doing it is a step backwards. (If they adopt a new weapon, or upgrade the old ones.)
And Samuse, about no pistol being substantially better than the M9... no... just... no.
Locking Block Failures
Open top slide design
Manual safety/decocker (on the slide)
Durability
Weight
Size
Cost
Those are probably the biggest problems with the design overall, though if it was a G model, then the slide mounted decocker isn't so bad.
Glocks, HK, and FNs are better service autos, IMO. The Beretta is a good choice for better trained individuals, but for people who have little to no experience shooting... the Beretta sucks. Though I'm sure that's not what the Army cares about.
They care about cost.
In the end cost may be the driving factor, especially in this fiscal environment. Congress may simply direct that a modified M9 be procured. The M9A2, or whatever.
If the handgun is issued only to a few people in limited categories, then I question the urgency in replacing the Beretta and say that the funds would be better spent on the rifle.
The FN-P series is not yet proven. Remember that FN requires that their pistols be sent back to them for repair--thus there's little data floating around about reliability and maintenance issues.
If a Glock is ever adopted, condition 3 carry will likely be the rule again.
What about this: 9mm, 10 shot single stack mag, striker fired, frame mounted safety, excellent sights, no firing pin safety block, titanium frame, robust and simplified design, and Hk quality magazines...?
decodeddiesel
07-28-13, 20:40
If the handgun is issued only to a few people in limited categories, then I question the urgency in replacing the Beretta and say that the funds would be better spent on the rifle.
The FN-P series is not yet proven. Remember that FN requires that their pistols be sent back to them for repair--thus there's little data floating around about reliability and maintenance issues.
If a Glock is ever adopted, condition 3 carry will likely be the rule again.
What about this: 9mm, 10 shot single stack mag, striker fired, frame mounted safety, excellent sights, no firing pin safety block, titanium frame, robust and simplified design, and Hk quality magazines...?
10 rounds?!? Dear lord why??? No, given the general lack of pistol marksmanship that is prevelent in the military, why reduce the ammo capacity by 33%? How about a polymer framed pistol that holds 17+1 and is properly designed to not have the ergonomics of a 2x4.
Titanium framed? What does that offer over a polymer frame other than quadrupling the cost? Also titanium has a nasty habit of developing stress fractures and other fissures at areas of stress concentration. Not great for a service pistol that could fire 50,000 in it's lifetime.
In the end cost may be the driving factor, especially in this fiscal environment. Congress may simply direct that a modified M9 be procured. The M9A2, or whatever.
I'd imagine they could get glocks for pretty damn cheap though. Unfortunately, I think they are stuck on manual safeties.
A replacement for the M9 should be:
1) Durable
2) Easy to use by rank and file personnel
3) Easy to repair
4) Reasonably accurate
5) Cost effective
In addition to endurance testing, there should be operational testing by a large number of personnel with limited firearm skills to see how quickly they can learn the manual of arms of the pistol.
People who can shoot will master whatever you issue them and they want an accurate, dependable, pistol they can use under stress. Selection should not be a popularity contest among firearm collector's.
decodeddiesel
07-28-13, 20:57
I'd imagine they could get glocks for pretty damn cheap though. Unfortunately, I think they are stuck on manual safeties.
There are Glocks that come with factory safeties to fulfill requirements such as this.
Unfortunately, I think they are stuck on manual safeties.
I'd say for very good reasons.
It isn't just operators who carry pistols, everyone can and they get the minimum amount of training necessary to check the box.
When I was in I saw some of the finest people I'd ever care to meet. I also saw the opposite end of the spectrum. As in all walks of life it takes all kinds.
If you were in you know "exactly" the type I'm talking about. Heck, I'd be very nervous about something as simple as watch relief if they were carrying a pistol without a safety.
I was involved with several "shotgun dives" during my service.
I wouldn't want to get within 10 miles of any base that issued a pistol without a safety. Stuff happens and it would happen more often without a safety.
What about this: 9mm, 10 shot single stack mag, striker fired, frame mounted safety, excellent sights, no firing pin safety block, titanium frame, robust and simplified design, and Hk quality magazines...?
As a civilian, I'd love that pistol, but with a polymer frame. If I were back in uniform, no ****ing way. Soldiers need hi-cap mags.
Okie John
Magic_Salad0892
07-28-13, 21:06
What about this: 9mm, 10 shot single stack mag, striker fired, frame mounted safety, excellent sights, no firing pin safety block, titanium frame, robust and simplified design, and Hk quality magazines...?
Hell no on the magazines. And why titanium?
I actually think a V1, or V3 HK P2000 wouldn't be a bad choice.
Other militaries use the Glock, and they receive less training on firearms than U.S personnel.
Our problem is that we don't teach REAL firearms use and we don't make personnel carry locked and loaded. If we required all personnel to carry hot weapons and and beat firearms safety in their heads it would be a non-issue.
In the Coast Guard for example- all handguns are carried locked and loaded, safety off in the holster. That is the standard method of carry and all personnel are trained that way.
I'd say for very good reasons.
It isn't just operators who carry pistols, everyone can and they get the minimum amount of training necessary to check the box.
When I was in I saw some of the finest people I'd ever care to meet. I also saw the opposite end of the spectrum. As in all walks of life it takes all kinds.
If you were in you know "exactly" the type I'm talking about. Heck, I'd be very nervous about something as simple as watch relief if they were carrying a pistol without a safety.
I wouldn't want to get within 10 miles of any base that issued a pistol without a safety. Stuff happens and it would happen more often without a safety.
That is the standard method of carry and all personnel are trained that way.
So I was in under Ronny (Thank God)....Perhaps things have changed dramatically since then.....Didn't know that about the CG....But I'd imagine the larger services still don't train "most" well enough.
...striker fired...no firing pin safety block...
If it's striker fired, a "firing pin" safety block is needed, especially if the striker is even partially cocked
Magic_Salad0892
07-28-13, 21:35
If it's striker fired, a "firing pin" safety block is needed, especially if the striker is even partially cocked
Must be a 1911 guy.
I was under Ronny as well and then Bush and then Bush Jr. You are correct about the other services with few exceptions.
The Coast Guard teaches this because of their law enforcement functions as well as military operations.
I remember it creating problems in Iraq and Kuwait because other branches were walking around with empty pistols and we wouldn't because it violated the COMDTINST.
So I was in under Ronny (Thank God)....Perhaps things have changed dramatically since then.....Didn't know that about the CG....But I'd imagine the larger services still don't train "most" well enough.
decodeddiesel
07-28-13, 21:48
When I carried an M9 it was always in the same condition as my other weapons given the weapon status of the mission. ie, if we rolled with the other weapons in "condition red" I would lock and load my M9, decock, come off safe and reholster. Typically while I was inside the perimeter of my given FOB or compound we would clear our weapons, unless on guard duty. The only folks I knew of who always had their M9s loaded no matter what were the guys who guarded or interrogated prisoners.
This is how the 101st operated as far as I knew up to 2006. Not sure how things are nowadays.
I think it would be a hard sell to get the military as a whole to move away from a manual safety on their sidearm.
Must be a 1911 guy.
I am, but the striker block serves a different purpose than the firing pin block on a 1911. The firing pin block is to keep a 1911 from firing if dropped. The striker block serves the same purpose as the half cock notch on the 1911 hammer. As the half cock sear keeps the hammer from firing the pistol if the hammer sear should fail, the striker block keeps a striker fired pistol from firing if the striker sear should fail. If the striker sear should fail, the striker block is the only thing to keep the PPQ from firing. It's also one of the systems that keeps the PPQ from firing out of battery and I think it's also part of what keeps the PPQ from firing full auto
I don't care if a 1911 has a firing pin block or not. But it damn well better have a working half cock sear and striker fired pistol better have a working striker block!
All made sensible responses to my 10rd mag pistol with titanium frame and no fp safety, and you were correct--so let's go with a Glock 17.
I gotta say, a standard issue military sidearm ought to have an external safety. I've seen too many NDs to forgo the external safety feature.
Which proves that safeties don't work. What does work is establishing a standard and ENFORCING firearms rules and training personnel.
We did the same thing with 3 shot burst. Install a mechanical device instead of training personnel to control their rates of fire.
The NYPD did this by installing the atrocious NYPD+ triggers on Glocks which is probably why they have such a shitty shots fired to hit ratio.
I gotta say, a standard issue military sidearm ought to have an external safety. I've seen too many NDs to forgo the external safety feature.
decodeddiesel
07-29-13, 00:35
I gotta say, a standard issue military sidearm ought to have an external safety. I've seen too many NDs to forgo the external safety feature.
I agree an external safety is necessary, but no external safety would have prevented any of the numerous ADs I witnessed in the Army. Just saying.
Yeah I'd want a manual safety too. Would the M&P9 not be a good choice? American for one, and you can get them with a safety I think?
Which proves that safeties don't work. What does work is establishing a standard and ENFORCING firearms rules and training personnel.
We did the same thing with 3 shot burst. Install a mechanical device instead of training personnel to control their rates of fire.
The NYPD did this by installing the atrocious NYPD+ triggers on Glocks which is probably why they have such a shitty shots fired to hit ratio.
That alone doesn't prove that safeties don't work, it just shows they aren't perfect at stopping every ND.
But as of a year ago or so, the usaf only uses the safety on the m9 as a decocking lever. It's carried safety off, hammer down.
Which proves that safeties don't work. What does work is establishing a standard and ENFORCING firearms rules and training personnel.
We did the same thing with 3 shot burst. Install a mechanical device instead of training personnel to control their rates of fire.
The NYPD did this by installing the atrocious NYPD+ triggers on Glocks which is probably why they have such a shitty shots fired to hit ratio.
I agree. Train your people to be professional, they'll be professional. Train them to be idiots, they'll be idiots
That alone doesn't prove that safeties don't work, it just shows they aren't perfect at stopping every ND.
But as of a year ago or so, the usaf only uses the safety on the m9 as a decocking lever. It's carried safety off, hammer down.
Correct. AF personnel have been carrying the M9 with a round chambered, hammer down, and safety off since I've been in. I imagine it's how they carried the M9 when it was first introduced. It's how I carry when I fly.
If DOD actually gave a real hoot about how they spend their $$$, they would adopt the G17. How much simpler a sidearm can there be? How much more robust a sidearm can there be? How much more dependable a sidearm can there be? How much more aftermarket support for a sidearm can there be? Even the most rudimentary analysis should show that the cost of converting to the Big G would prove highly beneficial down the road in initial investment and long term maintenance costs. Makes one wonder where their priorities actually lay.
This is one area where they could learn an invaluable lesson from the civie market side.
decodeddiesel
07-29-13, 01:21
If DOD actually gave a real hoot about how they spend their $$$, they would adopt the G17. How much simpler a sidearm can there be? How much more robust a sidearm can there be? How much more dependable a sidearm can there be? How much more aftermarket support for a sidearm can there be? Even the most rudimentary analysis should show that the cost of converting to the Big G would prove highly beneficial down the road in initial investment and long term maintenance costs. Makes one wonder where their priorities actually lay.
This is one area where they could learn an invaluable lesson from the civie market side.
Aftermarket support is not a factor.
Issues right off the bat with an out of the box G17s that would need to be addressed:
It would need the available manual safety
It would need better sights
It would need to not be a Gen 4 (unless they have fixed it, haven't been keeping score)
Glock would need to demonstrate they could produce the number of weapons necessary for procurement domestically (not as issue I'm sure)
I for one would rather see them adopt the M&P9, simply for the sake of supporting a US company.
I said this on another forum I go to and I think I can say it here too.
Nothing wrong with a Glock just it's a lousy choice to hand to a non-gun person and say "here you're going to learn to shoot and carry this" face it a lot of soldiers are like cops and have never been around a gun.
It's basically a single action with no external safety but a trigger blocking stub,great gun to blow yer nuts off unless you do Israeli carry or know what the hell you're doing.
Even with a safety I'd not care to be around a person who may or may not care enough to pay attention to how easy it is to set the gun off when they've go the safety flipped off and the ol' adrenaline is flowing i.e. I'd be much happier if the gun has a ten or twelve pound DA pull.
Overall I like the M9 and would be happy if you gave me one as I already carry it,but if you stuck a Glock in my hand and told me to use that I'd be just as happy.
Failure2Stop
07-29-13, 01:31
If someone can't safely carry a Glock in a holster, they shouldn't be carrying a gun at all.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
Maybe we should just issue throwing knives and katanas. You can't ND with one.
Newsflash- many police depts. hire personnel with very little to no firearms experience, put them in academies and end up in departments with Glock pistols. I'm not saying Glock is the only firearm, but it's certainly better than an M9.
Again, it all comes down to training. I think personnel stateside should be armed at all times and spend more time handling weapons. If they did so it would be a huge step forward.
One thing I always ask when the hatefest of the M9 starts up:
If the whole laundry list of things about the M9 is true then where's all the reports of failures? just like with the ones who hate on the Armalite all these years where's the long list of bad things that have happened in use? :secret:
It gets quiet because there is none-true the guns aren't perfect,but then none are,however they work well enough for the job at hand.
Being that I work on these for a living and am now teaching entry-level US Marine Small Arms Repairmen to work on them, I figured I'd chime in here and give my thoughts...
1) Since the PQDR for the locking block was finalized and the revised version went into service, I have seen zero cracked locking blocks. The new ones just don't crack. We're slowly getting rid of the old ones, but we're not replacing them until they fail. The main improvement to the locking block is the roundes corners of the lugs. But the plunger is also thinner which give the locking block more overall mass. It sucks to replace the old ones though because we have to replace the plunger too and it doesn't come as a kit.
2) I have been working on M9s for 15 years and I've only seen 2 cracked slides. I wouldn't call that an issue. I've worked at an Intermediate Maintenance Activity 3 times and that's where any cracked slides would come for replacement. My Marines and I have processed thousands of M9s.
3) You absolutely DO NOT need 4 hands to work on an M9. It's one of the easiest pistols to work on IMO. If I can teach an entry-level student who has never touched a gun in his/her life to work on one in 2 days (detailed dis/ass/diagnose), then I consider that an easy weapon.
With all that being said, I do think there are better pistols out there. But the M9 fulfills the US Military's needs.
When I was stationed in Bahrain I was responsible for all the small arms in the command. That meant everything from MK19 GMG's down to the Beretta M9's. I rebuilt all 60 of our M9 pistols which had been in theater for about 18 months.
During that time I discovered several cracked locking blocks, 2 cracked slides, and one cracked frame (grip screw hole).
The finish did not hold up to the salt water and constant daily use.
When I worked at the armory detachment we had plenty of issues with them as well.
When I was in Iraq we used Glock pistols and most every contract I was on had Glocks. The issues encountered with them was small in comparison. JM2CW.
One thing I always ask when the hatefest of the M9 starts up:
If the whole laundry list of things about the M9 is true then where's all the reports of failures? just like with the ones who hate on the Armalite all these years where's the long list of bad things that have happened in use? :secret:
It gets quiet because there is none-true the guns aren't perfect,but then none are,however they work well enough for the job at hand.
When I was stationed in Bahrain I was responsible for all the small arms in the command. That meant everything from MK19 GMG's down to the Beretta M9's. I rebuilt all 60 of our M9 pistols which had been in theater for about 18 months.
During that time I discovered several cracked locking blocks, 2 cracked slides, and one cracked frame (grip screw hole).
The finish did not hold up to the salt water and constant daily use.
When I worked at the armory detachment we had plenty of issues with them as well.
When I was in Iraq we used Glock pistols and most every contract I was on had Glocks. The issues encountered with them was small in comparison. JM2CW.
First off I've never been in the military so props to you for your service.
Second with SWThomas's post above yours I have to ask were these new M9's or some older beat-to-hell ones? remember that any design has bugs and the military has this habit of taking stuff and knocking the living shit out of it then wondering why it's not working (even the vaunted 1911 had a bad rep with the rebuilt hundreds of times,used since WWI guns)
Lastly I agree the Beretta isn't the newest or the best but it's an older design that I'd trust enough to be comfortable with in a bad situation....if I knew it was new and not some worn out thing that had been used to death.
Gary1911A1
07-29-13, 03:42
If 65% of LE can be trained to carry a striker fired, non manual external safety pistol I would think military personnel could also be trained to. The problem mostly is the quality of the training. I once tried to detail strip a Beretta 92F based on a VHS Tape. What a nightmare. Never did it again.
Grand58742
07-29-13, 03:56
Alas, I doubt anything will happen and it will be another money pit like the M4 program.
I tend to agree with IG on this one. They've been talking about it for years. I recall talking to Brig Gen Hertog during a visit back in the 2008/2009 timeframe about it the last time the idea of "replacement" came up and we were looking for one. She stated they were looking at 9mm, .40 or maybe even a .45. Never went any further than the drawing board. I actually think there was an RFP that went out, but we shut down the program since the Army was talking about replacing the M9 back then and we were going to piggyback on their program.
Now here we are down the road and they are talking about it once again? Problem in the USAF is if it doesn't fly and drop bombs, they really don't care. We have no small arms development program for the most part and typically go with whatever the Army happens to be issuing. Furthermore, the individuals making the decisions concerning small arms development are so out of touch with what is available in the COTS world it would astound you. I mean, we are the service where the outside the wire troops in Afghanistan were told year before last they were not allowed to use P-Mags and had to go back to the issued magazines which happened to be the old black follower style. And the same service that categorized the M249 as an "automatic rifle" for years instead of a "machine gun" even though the receiver was clearly marked "machine gun." And outfitted and mandated every M4 have a three point sling when the two point is the way to go. That right there should tell you plenty about the knowledge base of people making decisions.
As for the safety, I'll echo the other posters that we do carry in condition red all the time. And while we have a share of NDs, when you take into account how many pistols are carried on a daily basis around the world, the percentage is probably so small it's not even worth mentioning. Plus, the Sig P228s have no safety and they've been carried for years without issues.
Here's something that got my attention:
The 9mm round also lacks the stopping power most soldiers need. And an improved M9 would need a modular grip, integrated rail, night-sight capabilities and the ability to suppress fire.
Night sights are something that will be highly useful along with rails and modular grips. As for stopping power, I would assume they are talking a caliber change. Which again was discussed some years ago that eventually led nowhere. I'm not sure if there is a DODIC for .40 in the system already, but would imagine if the USCG is using it, there probably is and it might have been vetted by the legal beagles.
But like IG said, I feel we will be spinning our wheels in the USAF by "testing" and in this age of budget cuts, eventually staying with what we have. Like others stated, three years is a long time for funding to go to "higher priority" items and this will eventually be a waste of time. It really doesn't take three years to test an "off the shelf" system. Or, at least it shouldn't. I'm curious what the RFP will say and if they are going to stray away from the manual safety and go with a striker fired.
I'll be long retired by the time this one (hopefully) rolls off the production line but hoping we field a decent pistol for the generations that follow me.
Second with SWThomas's post above yours I have to ask were these new M9's or some older beat-to-hell ones? remember that any design has bugs and the military has this habit of taking stuff and knocking the living shit out of it then wondering why it's not working (even the vaunted 1911 had a bad rep with the rebuilt hundreds of times,used since WWI guns)
It depends on the type of unit. The vast majority of M9s don't get beat to hell. I'm not sure about other services, but Marines tend to take better care of items their lives depend on. Although, some of the non-infantry units don't instill a high level of weapons discipline in their Marines.
MSG Battation comes to mind as a unit with very high use of their M9s. They're on a continuous training cycle with the students there to become embassy guards. When I was working at the Ordnance Maintenance Section aboard Quantico (where MSG Schools is) we would condemn and demilitarize about 50 M9s a quarter. 99% of them were due to cracks on the receivers. All of them that had receiver cracks were in the exact same spot every time; the front left rail where the locking blocks cams into it.
Other than that and short of infantry units, they really don't see a whole lot of use now days. Pistol quals and the occasional combat pistol course are about the extent of it.
If 65% of LE can be trained to carry a striker fired, non manual external safety pistol I would think military personnel could also be trained to. The problem mostly is the quality of the training. I once tried to detail strip a Beretta 92F based on a VHS Tape. What a nightmare. Never did it again.
It's definitely all about the quality of instruction. Like I said earlier, we train 18yo kids who've never touched a gun how to detail strip, diagnose malfunctions and detect defects, and reassemble to a testable standard in about 2 days.
Grand58742
07-29-13, 04:16
One thing I always ask when the hatefest of the M9 starts up:
If the whole laundry list of things about the M9 is true then where's all the reports of failures? just like with the ones who hate on the Armalite all these years where's the long list of bad things that have happened in use? :secret:
It gets quiet because there is none-true the guns aren't perfect,but then none are,however they work well enough for the job at hand.
I don't disagree with you, but "well enough" doesn't mean it's the "best." Look at the M16 FOW. The TDP is a living document from what I understand and innovations have been tested and included since it's introduction in 1962. Even the M4 is currently undergoing a PIP which keeps it at the top of the heap so to speak.
Problem is when the XM9 testing was underway, the polymer frame pistol was still a dream for the most part. The high capacity 9mm handgun was still relatively new in the late 70s when the initial trials were undertaken by the USAF (when we actually did firearms testing). And during the repeat of the tests by the Army, the Sig and Beretta were designed well enough to withstand the test.
Fast forward fifteen years and polymer handguns finally were mature enough to become viable weapons, but the military was still filling orders for the Beretta. Nobody wanted a replacement since they were still "new" and the cost of replacing a pistol less than 10 years after adoption would never have passed muster in the Armed Services Committee.
The Beretta, while a good design for the time, has been passed up by modern polymer frame designs. Just like the 1911 was and still is a good design and an effective combat pistol, the M9 is still a viable defensive weapon to this day. While I still carry one on a daily basis and feel somewhat comfortable in the capabilities, it's still not "the best" and the design has been surpassed by more modern designs that can and probably will improve the overall effectiveness.
It depends on the type of unit. The vast majority of M9s don't get beat to hell. I'm not sure about other services, but Marines tend to take better care of items their lives depend on. Although, some of the non-infantry units don't instill a high level of weapons discipline in their Marines.
MSG Battation comes to mind as a unit with very high use of their M9s. They're on a continuous training cycle with the students there to become embassy guards. When I was working at the Ordnance Maintenance Section aboard Quantico (where MSG Schools is) we would condemn and demilitarize about 50 M9s a quarter. 99% of them were due to cracks on the receivers. All of them that had receiver cracks were in the exact same spot every time; the front left rail where the locking blocks cams into it.
Other than that and short of infantry units, they really don't see a whole lot of use now days. Pistol quals and the occasional combat pistol course are about the extent of it.
I'm going to second this post.^
Even in the military, the percentage of users who put their pistols through high round count firing schedules is rather few. The other 95% of the military that even gets a pistol simply carries it around, shoots it a few times a year on courses for a total of about 100 rounds per outing, cleans them, and puts them back into their holsters or turms them into the armory(if stateside). If they have good leadership, they'll keep them clean as well(if deployed). I keep mine clean. And remember, not everyone gets one. There are even plenty of soldiers that are still issued an M-16, just because we still have them.
Since virtually no one inside the wire EVER chambers a round anyway, it hardly matters if it has a manual safety or not. I like safeties, but mine goes off while I draw the weapon and rack the slide. If I'm carrying in "Conidition Red" it goes off during the draw. I see no personal difference in the time it takes me to rack the slide on my M9 vs a Glock 17, or in the time making hits between the two platforms from the holster. Anything your average soldier can't do with 15 shots from an M9, the won't likely accomplish with 17 shots from a Glock 17. I've ran range detail enough times to see that.
But I still think the military would be best going to something like the Glock 17, M&P9, or maybe an H&K of some type, etc, if they are going to replace the M9. Not because of the issue concerning having a safety in place, but because I believe that those choices are better weapons than the M9. The Sig 226 seems to do well, and the guys I meet that are issued them like them quite a bit better than the M9(so do I). But when you look at the role the M9 plays, it does the job well. And the single action side of the trigger isn't bad at all.
I highly doubt we're going to see much change with the issued pistol anytime soon. I've only been in one branch, but I figure the equation to often go something like this:
CHANGE=You mean stay the same?
There is ammo in the system.
MK 308 MOD 0 (JHP) DODIC- DWGW
MK 309 MOD 0 (FMJ) DODIC- DWGX
I tend to agree with IG on this one. They've been talking about it for years. I recall talking to Brig Gen Hertog during a visit back in the 2008/2009 timeframe about it the last time the idea of "replacement" came up and we were looking for one. She stated they were looking at 9mm, .40 or maybe even a .45. Never went any further than the drawing board. I actually think there was an RFP that went out, but we shut down the program since the Army was talking about replacing the M9 back then and we were going to piggyback on their program.
Now here we are down the road and they are talking about it once again? Problem in the USAF is if it doesn't fly and drop bombs, they really don't care. We have no small arms development program for the most part and typically go with whatever the Army happens to be issuing. Furthermore, the individuals making the decisions concerning small arms development are so out of touch with what is available in the COTS world it would astound you. I mean, we are the service where the outside the wire troops in Afghanistan were told year before last they were not allowed to use P-Mags and had to go back to the issued magazines which happened to be the old black follower style. And the same service that categorized the M249 as an "automatic rifle" for years instead of a "machine gun" even though the receiver was clearly marked "machine gun." And outfitted and mandated every M4 have a three point sling when the two point is the way to go. That right there should tell you plenty about the knowledge base of people making decisions.
As for the safety, I'll echo the other posters that we do carry in condition red all the time. And while we have a share of NDs, when you take into account how many pistols are carried on a daily basis around the world, the percentage is probably so small it's not even worth mentioning. Plus, the Sig P228s have no safety and they've been carried for years without issues.
Here's something that got my attention:
Night sights are something that will be highly useful along with rails and modular grips. As for stopping power, I would assume they are talking a caliber change. Which again was discussed some years ago that eventually led nowhere. I'm not sure if there is a DODIC for .40 in the system already, but would imagine if the USCG is using it, there probably is and it might have been vetted by the legal beagles.
But like IG said, I feel we will be spinning our wheels in the USAF by "testing" and in this age of budget cuts, eventually staying with what we have. Like others stated, three years is a long time for funding to go to "higher priority" items and this will eventually be a waste of time. It really doesn't take three years to test an "off the shelf" system. Or, at least it shouldn't. I'm curious what the RFP will say and if they are going to stray away from the manual safety and go with a striker fired.
I'll be long retired by the time this one (hopefully) rolls off the production line but hoping we field a decent pistol for the generations that follow me.
It depends on the type of unit. The vast majority of M9s don't get beat to hell. I'm not sure about other services, but Marines tend to take better care of items their lives depend on. Although, some of the non-infantry units don't instill a high level of weapons discipline in their Marines.
MSG Battation comes to mind as a unit with very high use of their M9s. They're on a continuous training cycle with the students there to become embassy guards. When I was working at the Ordnance Maintenance Section aboard Quantico (where MSG Schools is) we would condemn and demilitarize about 50 M9s a quarter. 99% of them were due to cracks on the receivers. All of them that had receiver cracks were in the exact same spot every time; the front left rail where the locking blocks cams into it.
Other than that and short of infantry units, they really don't see a whole lot of use now days. Pistol quals and the occasional combat pistol course are about the extent of it.
Although I agree with your assessment of the M9
Marine Corps Embassy Security Group has had a relatively short history with M9s since DoS was required to provide them with 357s (loaded with 38 Spc) for longest time and the MSG students fired the DoS qualification course vice the USMC ELT course of fire and until recently the MSG school classes were relatively small with some under 100.
A better indicator was TBS were you had 200-250 new Lts ever six weeks shooting the ELT plus an intro to combat pistol shooting.
Although I agree with your assessment of the M9
Marine Corps Embassy Security Group has had a relatively short history with M9s since DoS was required to provide them with 357s (loaded with 38 Spc) for longest time and the MSG students fired the DoS qualification course vice the USMC ELT course of fire and until recently the MSG school classes were relatively small with some under 100.
A better indicator was TBS were you had 200-250 new Lts ever six weeks shooting the ELT plus an intro to combat pistol shooting.
Could be. When I was there from 2005-2007, MSG school was using only M9s for sidearm training.
I wouldn't know about TBS as they had 3rd/Limited 4th Echelon of maintenance and we didn't work on any of their gear.
If someone can't safely carry a Glock in a holster, they shouldn't be carrying a gun at all.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
This.
I never had the honor of serving (medical DQ in my teens), so my thanks to those that did/do.
That said, I consider myself pretty high-drag/low-speed.
My questions:
If I can keep my booger-hook off the bang-switch, is there a logical reason why anyone can't?
If I can remember, practice and teach the 4 universal rules (where breaking *2* @ once is really the danger spot), why can't soldiers?
If I feel the need to be armed, going to the grocery store, why don't we give sidearms and training to every deployed soldier? Risk is obviously higher and a fighting chance is better than no chance at all.
As for caliber, if we go to .40, why not go to .45 or 10mm? .40 was created so that bureaucrats didn't have to take the blame for training/equipment deficiencies, imo. If bigger really is that much better...go bigger!
As a civilian who loves his freedom and thanks all veterans, it really bugs the ... out of me when we do things that make their lives less safe.
If someone can't safely carry a Glock in a holster, they shouldn't be carrying a gun at all.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
Yep. I don't see how officers can go through the post academy without a trend of NDs shooting glocks, but people assume it will happen in the military.
As for the 10mm, no. For a whole laundry list of reasons that I'm sure have been discussed hundreds of times.
This topic comes up about as frequently as my colonoscopies, and about as entertaining (not for lack of good talk here but rather how often DOD/Big Army brings it up).
M-9 = double stack 1930's P-38 IMO .. meh. great for the 30's and 40's.
unergonomic POS
No US Mil units proficient with pistols use it. Italy hasn't done us any favors in foreign policy, screw em'.
A glock, M&P, or whatever would be just fine.
I did notice the question of 9mm, .40 and .45. Correct me if I'm wrong but if the we're going to carry ball anyway it doesn't make a big enough difference to make the change from 9mm to XXX.
I like my Beretta 92G but a Glock, M&P, P-30 makes more sense.
Best,
19852
anachronism
07-29-13, 09:06
These discussions come up every time there is even a suggestion of changing military sidearms. You could see much of the same material when the 1911 was replaced by the M9, and when the 38 Colt revolvers were replaced by the 1911s, when the 38 Colts replaced the 1873 Colts. History keeps repeating itself. Nobodys ever happy with anything, probably because there is no perfect answer. Personally, I don't believe any U.S. Military weapon should ever be manufactured in another country, and when I'm President, I will make that a reality :).
It's definitely all about the quality of instruction. Like I said earlier, we train 18yo kids who've never touched a gun how to detail strip, diagnose malfunctions and detect defects, and reassemble to a testable standard in about 2 days.
This.
When I was a DoD cop, I worked side-by-side with Navy MA's, and the level of weapons handling skills displayed by many of them left me genuinely fearful for my safety on a few occasions. I got poked fun at by a lot of them for wearing my vest on range days. One of the MAs that gave me static for it shot himself in the foot with his M9 while standing a fixed post one night. I felt a bit vindicated.
if m&p designs the barrel to slide back more before unlocking - that would be a great fit for this.
Which proves that safeties don't work. What does work is establishing a standard and ENFORCING firearms rules and training personnel.
We did the same thing with 3 shot burst. Install a mechanical device instead of training personnel to control their rates of fire.
The NYPD did this by installing the atrocious NYPD+ triggers on Glocks which is probably why they have such a shitty shots fired to hit ratio.
After excoriating--repeatedly--soldiers to keep their fingers out of the trigger well, on an M4, with a external safety, we still managed to see NDs. That takes a deliberate effort to flick off the safety, then depress the trigger.
People with the safety disengaged were smoked. People who ND'd were smoked (and Art. 15'd), yet it still happened.
External safeties are there for a reason: to prevent accidental discharge. M4s or 249s without external safeties is a bad idea. Why then, when it comes to pistols, is it suddenly ok?
legumeofterror
07-29-13, 11:41
After excoriating--repeatedly--soldiers to keep their fingers out of the trigger well, on an M4, with a external safety, we still managed to see NDs. That takes a deliberate effort to flick off the safety, then depress the trigger.
People with the safety disengaged were smoked. People who ND'd were smoked, yet it still happened.
External safeties are there for a reason: to prevent accidental discharge. M4s or 249s without external safeties is a bad idea. Why then, when it comes to pistols, is it suddenly ok?
Because it is convenient for supporting the selection of whatever handgun he likes best.
A DA/SA, probably with a safety, makes more sense for individuals being issued a handgun as part of their job, and who probably has little interest in learning to handle it beyond the basic instruction they receive. Just because safetis do not completely eliminate accidents doesn't mean eliminating them makes any sense.
I'm so over safeties... It's purely a training issue people, nothing more and nothing less.
This program is for a replacement pistol for the Air Force only. In other words, it doesn't matter. The Air Force was still using 6 shot .38 Special revolvers firing a 130 grain FMJ at 800 FPS up until the 1980's to give you an idea of what their standards on sidearms are. The only thing less news worthy would be if the coast guard had asked for a competition.
Last fall the Army ordered up 100,000 new M9's for the next five years. The M9 isn't going anywhere and will probably serve for 40-50 years before its dead and gone.
beschatten
07-29-13, 12:23
This program is for a replacement pistol for the Air Force only. In other words, it doesn't matter. The Air Force was still using 6 shot .38 Special revolvers firing a 130 grain FMJ at 800 FPS up until the 1980's to give you an idea of what their standards on sidearms are. The only thing less news worthy would be if the coast guard had asked for a competition.
Last fall the Army ordered up 100,000 new M9's for the next five years. The M9 isn't going anywhere and will probably serve for 40-50 years before its dead and gone.
That makes me genuinely sad.
I wonder how those with smaller hands deal with the M9? I think the M11 (if polymer was a no-go) would serve as a better sidearm. If not, H&K 45 or P30.
After excoriating--repeatedly--soldiers to keep their fingers out of the trigger well, on an M4, with a external safety, we still managed to see NDs. That takes a deliberate effort to flick off the safety, then depress the trigger.
People with the safety disengaged were smoked. People who ND'd were smoked (and Art. 15'd), yet it still happened.
External safeties are there for a reason: to prevent accidental discharge. M4s or 249s without external safeties is a bad idea. Why then, when it comes to pistols, is it suddenly ok?
Because the pistol lives in a holster. Keeping the triggerguard covered is the additional layer of safety.
Long live the m9....
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
This program is for a replacement pistol for the Air Force only. In other words, it doesn't matter. The Air Force was still using 6 shot .38 Special revolvers firing a 130 grain FMJ at 800 FPS up until the 1980's to give you an idea of what their standards on sidearms are. The only thing less news worthy would be if the coast guard had asked for a competition.
Last fall the Army ordered up 100,000 new M9's for the next five years. The M9 isn't going anywhere and will probably serve for 40-50 years before its dead and gone.
So you're saying that the AF hasn't changed in 30 years?
The AF has changed tremendously in the last decade alone, providing a lot of ground forces to augment the Army.
Wasn't it the AF that first acquired the M16? And the AF has arguably less use for a rifle/carbine than a pistol.
[QUOTE=SWThomas;1708233]3) You absolutely DO NOT need 4 hands to work on an M9. It's one of the easiest pistols to work on IMO. If I can teach an entry-level student who has never touched a gun in his/her life to work on one in 2 days (detailed dis/ass/diagnose), then I consider that an easy weapon.
QUOTE]
OK, yes, I was exaggerating about the difficulty, but compared to a Glock, which you can teach to someone in less than a full workday, even with a 2 hour USMC PT lunch, the Beretta is indeed complicated. If you don't think so, would you bet a paycheck you could completely detail strip down to the last part and reassemble an M9 faster than a reasonably competent Glock armorer could do the same to a G17?
As much as I love my Joes and my Glocks, there's also the need to depress the trigger when you field strip a Glock. That's another potential avenue of NDs there.
So you're saying that the AF hasn't changed in 30 years?
The AF has changed tremendously in the last decade alone, providing a lot of ground forces to augment the Army.
Wasn't it the AF that first acquired the M16? And the AF has arguably less use for a rifle/carbine than a pistol.
So you're saying that the AF hasn't changed in 30 years?
I have no idea. Please let me know.
My point was clear to me anyway. From what the article states its AF only so unless it involves the Army and Marines any new pistol program is small potatoes. Sorry.
I believe this is a joint service program, with Picatinny Arsenal involved.
Then its going to be a big deal, just like the last one in 2007 that helped bring about handguns like the HK45. It will be nice to see if any new handgun developments come from this before they decide to stick with the M9 till the next failed replacement trials.
So you're saying that the AF hasn't changed in 30 years?
I have no idea. Please let me know.
My point was clear to me anyway. From what the article states its AF only so unless it involves the Army and Marines any new pistol program is small potatoes. Sorry.
Did you read the article?
Did you read the article?
Did you read my last post right above yours?
No US Mil units proficient with pistols use it.
To my knowledge, this is absolutely true, and very telling. It also shows its flip side as well; that the military issues lots of pistols downrange to units or elements within units that most likely will never use them. Hence the training deficiency. As much as I would like to think that every uniform that ever draws an M9 from the armory can utilize it, I've seen them issued to individuals who haven't or CANNOT even qualify on the range with it. Most M9's I've ever seen in combat zones ride leather shoulder holsters from offices on base to the chow hall and back....most will never see a legitimate need to chamber a round. So, all mechanical and ergonomic arguments against the M9 aside, why spend the time and money to replace it? It isn't my favorite either, but it gets the job done. The reality is that it probably should be a dollars decision.
Grand58742
07-29-13, 15:42
This program is for a replacement pistol for the Air Force only. In other words, it doesn't matter. The Air Force was still using 6 shot .38 Special revolvers firing a 130 grain FMJ at 800 FPS up until the 1980's to give you an idea of what their standards on sidearms are. The only thing less news worthy would be if the coast guard had asked for a competition.
Last fall the Army ordered up 100,000 new M9's for the next five years. The M9 isn't going anywhere and will probably serve for 40-50 years before its dead and gone.
Let's see...
USAF was the first service to purchase the relatively new AR15 in 1962 to replace the M1 Carbine for nuclear security missions. Obviously that program didn't go anywhere...
USAF was the first service to start trials for what would become the XM9 in the late 1970s to replace the revolvers in the inventory and came up with a winner before the results were challenged by the Army. Check out Appendix 1 here (http://archive.gao.gov/d4t4/130439.pdf) to see the historical background, but the USAF would have had a new pistol in the early 80s has the tests been scientifically controlled. A new competition came about and the Beretta still came out on top which was purchased by all the services. And in turn, the .38 revolvers went another decade or even longer in some places before being replaced.
So yes, from time to time the USAF has led the way in small arms development. As stated before, I'm not holding my breath as we have lost our way when it comes to small arms development, but perhaps we can lead the development once again.
I have no idea. Please let me know.
Then why post up the drivel you did? Do you know something about the Air Force I don't know?
My point was clear to me anyway. From what the article states its AF only so unless it involves the Army and Marines any new pistol program is small potatoes. Sorry.
Let's see...80,000 units to replace. Probably add a couple of thousand more with the replacement of the M11 if they choose a compact model which they probably will.
Not exactly small potatoes. 80,000 weapons on contract as well as being the manufacturer to claim they are now a "military issued" weapon? I'm reasonably certain most of your big boys are going to jump at that chance.
Plumber237
07-29-13, 15:45
I wish we'd just follow in the footsteps of the Brits and adopt the Glock 17 gen4, and phase out the M9 in chunks.
MountainRaven
07-29-13, 17:03
I think this thread shows why we can't have nice things: Even the gun people on this board can't agree whether or not our .mil trigger-pullers are smart/intelligent/responsible enough to carry a handgun.
Having said that, my vote is H&K P30S/P30LS with LEM. You get a safety (which can be ignored by advanced users or removed by their armorers), you get "double action", and you get a consistent trigger pull from shot to shot. You also get to assuage the wounded feelings of our German allies.
Failing that, Glock 17. Or 19.
Either way, you get the consistent trigger, you get a lighter-weight handgun, and you get the ability for the more advanced trigger pullers to attach lights without modification to the pistol.
M-9 = double stack 1930's P-38
No US Mil units proficient with pistols use it. Italy hasn't done us any favors in foreign policy, screw em'.
The Army SF ODAs I worked with in Iraq used them, as did the Direct Action Platoon (MSPF Light) from the last MEU I was on, and numerous MSOCs.
Army Chief
07-29-13, 18:13
We're very nearly back to the point where we need to buy toilet tissue and copier paper off-post and bring it into work with us on our own dimes. An acquisition program like this strikes me as a fairly vacant headline.
The M9 isn't great. The M9 isn't terrible. The M9 is nicely mediocre in a mostly-capable sort of way, and that more than meets the bar we've traditionally set for our military sidearms. Carried often. Shot very little.
AC
Cheif, here I was thinking you were no longer Active Duty, no reason why, just a bad assumption. You're just a youngster! :)
Grand58742
07-29-13, 18:33
Pulling out my crystal ball here. Off a COTS list, I feel this would be an accurate assumption of who might enter. Providing this is a wide range of calibers and assuming the RFP wouldn't specify the action type. All have full sized and compact model available.
H&K with the P30 (maybe the L version) and/or H&K45
Smith and Wesson M&P series
Glock 17/19, 22/23 or 21/30 (probably in slim frame)
Sig P2022 (not seeing the legacy series entered)
Springfield XD or XDm
Beretta PX4
FNH FNX or FNS
Probably some iteration of Taurus, likely a 24/7 G2 (included since they were going to bid on the SOCOM contract before it was cancelled)
Not saying I agree with the options or that they are even good choices, just figuring these will be likely candidates as all have been developed and in service long enough to work out most bugs. Also looking at the plants in the US in place to produce them which favors Glock, Smith, Beretta and FN. Sig and H&K have plants, but added cost of retooling the production line to get it going. I'm sure the others can tool up quickly, but will add to overall costs.
Most expensive: H&K
Least expensive: Taurus
Ready for US production with minimal time: Glock, S&W, FNH, Beretta
Troop favorite: P30 in 9mm
Troop hates: XD45 (bulky and muzzle flip)
Dark horse: FNS9
Passes tests with flying colors: Glock, S&W, H&K, FNH
Passes tests and everyone says WTF: Taurus
Most likely to file GAO complaint against competition: Boeing
Most likely to start marketing version of entrant early: Springfield
USAF final choice: Hi Point
Okay seriously. Glock, FNH, H&K and S&W are probably finalists. Then cost per unit comes into the picture which probably takes H&K out of play. Glock 21 taken out due to large grips (females can have a hard time with them) but 17 and 22 in contention. Likely contenders, S&W, Glock or FNH in 9 or 40. Dark horse is FNH.
Army Chief
07-29-13, 18:35
Cheif, here I was thinking you were no longer Active Duty, no reason why, just a bad assumption. You're just a youngster! :)
Sitting on the doorstep of 30-years of service, and I have located a current copy of the retirement regulation, but for the moment, I'm still suiting-up and lacing my boots.
Once I actually do retire, the plan is to change my user name to an indecipherable symbol, and go by "the artist formerly known as Army Chief."
AC
.46caliber
07-29-13, 19:00
Once I actually do retire, the plan is to change my user name to an indecipherable symbol, and go by "the artist formerly known as Army Chief."
AC
That was awesome.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
I think this thread shows why we can't have nice things: Even the gun people on this board can't agree whether or not our .mil trigger-pullers are smart/intelligent/responsible enough to carry a handgun.
Having said that, my vote is H&K P30S/P30LS with LEM. You get a safety (which can be ignored by advanced users or removed by their armorers), you get "double action", and you get a consistent trigger pull from shot to shot. You also get to assuage the wounded feelings of our German allies.
Failing that, Glock 17. Or 19.
Either way, you get the consistent trigger, you get a lighter-weight handgun, and you get the ability for the more advanced trigger pullers to attach lights without modification to the pistol.
My own choice would be the HK USP but I get get P30 is it's successor,ether would be a fine choice for military use.
I think the P30S would be great. Or the M&P9FS. But I'm biased. :D
I've been using a FNS 9mm since they came out. Currently at 4500 rounds with only 3 cleaning sessions. I use it as both my daily carry and as my pistol for 3gun. I switched to the FN platform from the M&P platform because of a couple things. The factory trigger in the FNS makes everyone else's striker fired factory trigger look even worse than they already are, 2 the gun shoots amazingly accurate and 3, after seeing the FN Pro team use them, I was sold.
Plumber237
07-29-13, 22:24
My own choice would be the HK USP but I get get P30 is it's successor,ether would be a fine choice for military use.
For a USP I'd stay away from 9 mil. I bought a recent 9 mil USP and it was the most erratic ejecting pistol I've ever seen...left, right, forward, straight back, no ejection. It definitely pissed me off, as a USP in 9 mil was my fallback during the late gen 3 glock issues.
Heavy Metal
07-29-13, 22:31
Because the pistol lives in a holster. Keeping the triggerguard covered is the additional layer of safety.
Yep, the Holster is the Safety.
Army Chief
07-29-13, 22:52
Yep, the Holster is the Safety.
Concur in principle and daily practice in civilian life, but the military doesn't have the strongest record when it comes to selecting and fielding pistol-carrying stuff. I've carried a handgun as an aircrew member for virtually my entire career, and have seen almost laughable diversity when it comes to holsters ... not that it matters a whit, anyway, since there are never enough to go around. Most often, you either improvise, or you buy something out-of-pocket to solve the problem. I don't have a major problem with that, since I realize that sidearms are viewed as a a very low priority in the grand scheme of things; that said, if we began fielding striker-fired pistols without external safeties, the results would be disastrous unless the holster issue was addressed and resolved as a precondition to anyone strapping on their new heaters. My faith in that happening is what might best be referred to as "stupid low."
AC
Briman1001
07-30-13, 12:54
I just read all five pages and have a few comments.
19 yr Army/NG Officer. PBO/S4 Command time etc...
The vast majority of Army units have very few MTOE authorized pistols. Whether or not an ONS is approved to deploy with them is a different story. We have 12 in a unit of 375 and this is actually typical from what I have seen. IMO few MOS/Units have a high number of authorized pistols anymore as a lot of MTOE's that had both M16s and M9s shifted to only M4's because they were smaller.
It all comes down to personal preference for which weapon feels the best. I love my FNS-9 but my bump in the night gun is my P226 with NS.
I have run/seen lots of different weapons ranges and agree that a safety is a necessity. Holsters wear out, get lost/stolen, and you cannot always ensure for a given range or training event that there will be enough to go around. Also don't forget that it is not just the infantry we are talking about here as EVERYONE will use this pistol. Whatever is selected will be used by Active duty, National Guard, and Reserves also. The safety is a training issue, but one that will never be solved as we are currently configured.
My .02
PatrioticDisorder
07-30-13, 14:27
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20110828/NEWS/108280315/Pistols-shot-replacing-M9
After reading the newer Air Force article & this article... This is the second time I've read the M&P40 is the front runner. Been saying the M&P40 is my favorite gun ever since I shot one last year, recoils like a 9mm. The only quirky thing is, it adopted by the military, it will almost certainly have the stupid batwing safety on it.
On a side not, I wonder how many would jump ship from 9mm to .40 if .mil adopts the caliber?
Grand58742
07-30-13, 14:31
Anyone actually have stats on the amount of ND/AD that happens in the .mil by year and by weapon type?
Is it really that serious of a problem percentage wise to continue to warrant a manual safety being installed on a pistol? Or is it just an historically ingrained lack of trust and something we've always "done."
Again, for the amount of pistols carried daily by members of the Armed Forces, contract guards and DoD Police both in deployed areas and back home, I would be willing to bet the ND/AD rate is surprisingly low.
beschatten
07-30-13, 14:34
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20110828/NEWS/108280315/Pistols-shot-replacing-M9
After reading the newer Air Force article & this article... This is the second time I've read the M&P40 is the front runner. Been saying the M&P40 is my favorite gun ever since I shot one last year, recoils like a 9mm. The only quirky thing is, it adopted by the military, it will almost certainly have the stupid batwing safety on it.
On a side not, I wonder how many would jump ship from 9mm to .40 if .mil adopts the caliber?
With the price of 9mm being 30-40 cents a round for non-reloaders, I don't even see the purpose of sticking with it at this point. I'm finding .45ACP for 40-50 cents and 40S&W for 30-34 cents a round.
My Glock 17's got 4 fully loaded mags and just sits on the night stand. Got a couple hundred practice rounds I've kept since pre-2013 but I've adopted the 1911 since the skyrocket in prices.
PatrioticDisorder
07-30-13, 17:17
With the price of 9mm being 30-40 cents a round for non-reloaders, I don't even see the purpose of sticking with it at this point. I'm finding .45ACP for 40-50 cents and 40S&W for 30-34 cents a round.
My Glock 17's got 4 fully loaded mags and just sits on the night stand. Got a couple hundred practice rounds I've kept since pre-2013 but I've adopted the 1911 since the skyrocket in prices.
9mm isn't exactly much cheaper either and .40 is about the only thing I ever find, thankfully I was able to shoot last weekend, first time in a long time. If I owned 9mm or .45 I would have been SOL.
Of course, civilian cost of ammo is a non-issue for the military.
No one is getting any new guns in the military. They can't even find the budget to pay folks to fly their jets. Haha!
A total non-issue. The military purchases millions, if not 10's of millions or rounds of ammo at once. They aren't paying what we pay.
For example- DODIC A360 NSN 1305-00-855-5991 (Cartridge, 9MM FMJ) is 0.27 cents per round according to WebFLIS.
With the price of 9mm being 30-40 cents a round for non-reloaders, I don't even see the purpose of sticking with it at this point. I'm finding .45ACP for 40-50 cents and 40S&W for 30-34 cents a round.
My Glock 17's got 4 fully loaded mags and just sits on the night stand. Got a couple hundred practice rounds I've kept since pre-2013 but I've adopted the 1911 since the skyrocket in prices.
A total non-issue. The military purchases millions, if not 10's of millions or rounds of ammo at once. They aren't paying what we pay.
For example- DODIC A360 NSN 1305-00-855-5991 (Cartridge, 9MM FMJ) is 0.27 cents per round according to WebFLIS.
A260 Ctg, 9mm Jacketed Hollow Point $0.25
A363 Ctg, 9mm Ball M882 $0.21
A475 Ctg, Cal .45 Ball M1911 $0.51
A482 Ctg, Cal .45 Wadcutter $0.42
A483 Ctg, Cal .45 Ball M1911 Match $0.52
AA16 Ctg, 9mm Frangible MK254-0 $0.18
AA49 Ctg, 9mm Ball (Commercial Pack) $0.21
MountainRaven
07-30-13, 20:28
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20110828/NEWS/108280315/Pistols-shot-replacing-M9
After reading the newer Air Force article & this article... This is the second time I've read the M&P40 is the front runner. Been saying the M&P40 is my favorite gun ever since I shot one last year, recoils like a 9mm. The only quirky thing is, it adopted by the military, it will almost certainly have the stupid batwing safety on it.
On a side not, I wonder how many would jump ship from 9mm to .40 if .mil adopts the caliber?
Apart from the 40-caliber cartridge, the thumb safety is really the only selling point of the M&P over, say, a Glock, to me.
Not because I want or need a safety. But because I like having the thumb safety to put my thumb on top of.
Also: 40 doesn't have a reason to exist, any more, IMHO. 9mm does everything a pistol cartridge needs to do and it doesn't do it any worse than the 40. But the 9mm does the recoil, capacity, and price things better.
That and half the practical reason for why we went 9mm in the first place was ammunition commonality with our NATO allies. Going to 40 seems a step back in that regard.
Psalms144.1
07-30-13, 20:42
A bit of background so you know my perspective: First, I was an Active duty Army officer for 12 years, and was involved in the New Equipment Training for the M9 for my Brigade when we first fielded them. When I transitioned over to Federal civilian LE status, my first team was still using M9s, though we converted to M11s within the first year I was there. Subsequently, I've graduated from the FLETC Firearms Instructor's course, Reactive Shooting Instructor's course, multiple commercial "name" shooting schools funded by USSOCOM, and have armorer's certifications from Sig and Glock. I've been issued and extensively shot the M9, M11, P229R DAK (.40), G19, and HK45CT; and the G19, G23, P226R (9mm) personal weapons on duty.
First, financial reality check: the initial XM9 trials selected the P226 as strongly preferred in all categories over the 92; but Beretta came in at something like $16/unit less than Sig, and won the bid. That was in the late 80s, while the Cold War was in FULL SWING, with Uncle Ronny at the helm, spending the Evil Empire into an early grave. Today's military just took a 20% across the board budget cuts, and, as a federal civilian enjoying one day of unpaid furlough per pay week for the rest of this fiscal year, I can tell you, money IS an object in today's DOD. In case the rest of you haven't heard, we've already been told to expect similar reductions next year; notices of impending civilian Reductions in Force and continued Furloughs have already gone out - things are going to get worse in the next couple of years, NOT better.
WRT the specifics of the M9, it is a VERY accurate pistol, with one of the better DA/SA triggers on the market. The placement, operation, and durability of the safety/decocker all leave something to be desired, and the track record of the pistol from a reliability perspective has been less than stellar. Lastly, it's a VERY large pistol, hard for small-handed shooters, and isn't very "size efficient" given it's current "payload."
Does that mean it urgently needs to be replaced, compared to a MULTITUDE of other competing requirements for military money? Given the fact that the sidearm is, honestly, a very "niche" weapon that is NOT widely used in the General Purpose Forces, I honestly feel that our scarce money would be better used leaving well enough alone, OR making SMART, targeted improvements (like routine maintenance, buying GOOD magazines, etc). In fact, I think that the OVERWHELMING majority of TO&E "billets" for pistols would be, in fact, much better served with a "PDW" that's capable of increased lethality at increased range without dramatic increases in "convenience" of carry. Units with a dedicated NEED for a "better" pistol have separate procurement and funding procedures, and can pretty much get whatever they want for sidearms...
Having said that, if USA & USAF decide to go for a new pistol, I'm fairly certain that a few things are "givens." First, as much as I'm a huge fan of HK pistols, and think the LEM (specifically the "standard" LEM) is damned near perfect as a trigger on an issue weapon that gets put in the hands of marginally trained shooters, HKs are just too darned expensive.
Next, I believe that the military's inherent distrust of it's own personnel, and it's systemic refusal to properly train folks, will mandate a pistol with a manual safety of some sort. I think that this impediment alone will knock Glock out of the picture. PLEASE NOTE, I'm not saying that I believe that soldiers can't be trained and trusted to carry a loaded Glock on duty, just that I don't believe that the "brass" will buy into it. Hell, I had a line Infantry Company Commander, fresh out of a tour in Iraq in '06, tell me that soldiers shouldn't be allowed to have a round chambered in their rifles when outside the wire on patrol. "There's plenty of time to chamber a round as you react to contact - and it's SAFER!" If, by some miracle, saner heads prevail and the decision is that a manual safety is unnecessary, than I would bet my next reduced paycheck that the mandate will be for a DA trigger with a HEAVY pull for the first shot.
I also think that the desire to "buy American" would heavily sway the decision making process, sort of a DOD "stimulus" program. I really think that the clear advantage here goes to S&W - yes, Glock and FN are "Made in America," but, by God, they're not A-MAR-ican companies...
WRT caliber selection, I think it's a VERY long shot that the replacement pistol would be in any caliber except 9mm. Until/unless NATO decides to break from that standard round, I simply can't see the US military adopting something different. As far as cost goes, I can tell you that our current issued 9mm JHP costs three times per round what we pay for .45 ACP; and current stocked .40 S&W is close to half the cost of A260; BUT, (and this is a biggie) we have a metric ass-ton of 9mm ammunition in stockpiles worldwide, but not so much the .40 S&W. And, as alluded to earlier, since the good old USofA pretty much is THE logistics backbone for NATO, we're going to have to continue to maintain a huge stockpile of 9mm for the foreseeable future.
SO, with all that being said, I think the likelihood of a replacement pistol being procured anywhere in the next several budget cycles is minimal. If the process does go through, however, my crystal ball REALLY likes the chances of the S&W M&P 9mm (FS for issue, Compact for "concealment" use) with manual thumb safety to be DOD's next pick.
Of course, my crystal ball has LOTS of cracks in it by now, so my opinion is worth precisely what you paid for it.
Regards,
Kevin
vicious_cb
07-30-13, 21:42
A bit of background so you know my perspective: First, I was an Active duty Army officer for 12 years, and was involved in the New Equipment Training for the M9 for my Brigade when we first fielded them. When I transitioned over to Federal civilian LE status, my first team was still using M9s, though we converted to M11s within the first year I was there. Subsequently, I've graduated from the FLETC Firearms Instructor's course, Reactive Shooting Instructor's course, multiple commercial "name" shooting schools funded by USSOCOM, and have armorer's certifications from Sig and Glock. I've been issued and extensively shot the M9, M11, P229R DAK (.40), G19, and HK45CT; and the G19, G23, P226R (9mm) personal weapons on duty.
First, financial reality check: the initial XM9 trials selected the P226 as strongly preferred in all categories over the 92; but Beretta came in at something like $16/unit less than Sig, and won the bid. That was in the late 80s, while the Cold War was in FULL SWING, with Uncle Ronny at the helm, spending the Evil Empire into an early grave. Today's military just took a 20% across the board budget cuts, and, as a federal civilian enjoying one day of unpaid furlough per pay week for the rest of this fiscal year, I can tell you, money IS an object in today's DOD. In case the rest of you haven't heard, we've already been told to expect similar reductions next year; notices of impending civilian Reductions in Force and continued Furloughs have already gone out - things are going to get worse in the next couple of years, NOT better.
WRT the specifics of the M9, it is a VERY accurate pistol, with one of the better DA/SA triggers on the market. The placement, operation, and durability of the safety/decocker all leave something to be desired, and the track record of the pistol from a reliability perspective has been less than stellar. Lastly, it's a VERY large pistol, hard for small-handed shooters, and isn't very "size efficient" given it's current "payload."
Does that mean it urgently needs to be replaced, compared to a MULTITUDE of other competing requirements for military money? Given the fact that the sidearm is, honestly, a very "niche" weapon that is NOT widely used in the General Purpose Forces, I honestly feel that our scarce money would be better used leaving well enough alone, OR making SMART, targeted improvements (like routine maintenance, buying GOOD magazines, etc). In fact, I think that the OVERWHELMING majority of TO&E "billets" for pistols would be, in fact, much better served with a "PDW" that's capable of increased lethality at increased range without dramatic increases in "convenience" of carry. Units with a dedicated NEED for a "better" pistol have separate procurement and funding procedures, and can pretty much get whatever they want for sidearms...
Having said that, if USA & USAF decide to go for a new pistol, I'm fairly certain that a few things are "givens." First, as much as I'm a huge fan of HK pistols, and think the LEM (specifically the "standard" LEM) is damned near perfect as a trigger on an issue weapon that gets put in the hands of marginally trained shooters, HKs are just too darned expensive.
Next, I believe that the military's inherent distrust of it's own personnel, and it's systemic refusal to properly train folks, will mandate a pistol with a manual safety of some sort. I think that this impediment alone will knock Glock out of the picture. PLEASE NOTE, I'm not saying that I believe that soldiers can't be trained and trusted to carry a loaded Glock on duty, just that I don't believe that the "brass" will buy into it. Hell, I had a line Infantry Company Commander, fresh out of a tour in Iraq in '06, tell me that soldiers shouldn't be allowed to have a round chambered in their rifles when outside the wire on patrol. "There's plenty of time to chamber a round as you react to contact - and it's SAFER!" If, by some miracle, saner heads prevail and the decision is that a manual safety is unnecessary, than I would bet my next reduced paycheck that the mandate will be for a DA trigger with a HEAVY pull for the first shot.
I also think that the desire to "buy American" would heavily sway the decision making process, sort of a DOD "stimulus" program. I really think that the clear advantage here goes to S&W - yes, Glock and FN are "Made in America," but, by God, they're not A-MAR-ican companies...
WRT caliber selection, I think it's a VERY long shot that the replacement pistol would be in any caliber except 9mm. Until/unless NATO decides to break from that standard round, I simply can't see the US military adopting something different. As far as cost goes, I can tell you that our current issued 9mm JHP costs three times per round what we pay for .45 ACP; and current stocked .40 S&W is close to half the cost of A260; BUT, (and this is a biggie) we have a metric ass-ton of 9mm ammunition in stockpiles worldwide, but not so much the .40 S&W. And, as alluded to earlier, since the good old USofA pretty much is THE logistics backbone for NATO, we're going to have to continue to maintain a huge stockpile of 9mm for the foreseeable future.
SO, with all that being said, I think the likelihood of a replacement pistol being procured anywhere in the next several budget cycles is minimal. If the process does go through, however, my crystal ball REALLY likes the chances of the S&W M&P 9mm (FS for issue, Compact for "concealment" use) with manual thumb safety to be DOD's next pick.
Of course, my crystal ball has LOTS of cracks in it by now, so my opinion is worth precisely what you paid for it.
Regards,
Kevin
I get what you are saying but it just that their reasoning doesnt make sense. The Army JUST bought 100,000 new M9s. They could have just ran a COTs competition and those 100k new pistols could have easily been the replacements. Not to mention Beretta is an Italian company and other companies like FN or HK with small arms contracts who already have manufacturing capability within the US already as does Glock.
I would like to point out, respectfully so, stating the Glock has no safety is untrue. The Glock has an integrated safety. Please remember this crucial fact. A thumb actuated safety does not negate stupid. Proper training, selective culling, and Darwin's theory can though.
PatrioticDisorder
07-30-13, 21:53
Also: 40 doesn't have a reason to exist, any more, IMHO. 9mm does everything a pistol cartridge needs to do and it doesn't do it any worse than the 40. But the 9mm does the recoil, capacity, and price things better.
It's pretty much universally agreed .40 is better with intermediate barriers, I'd include bone as a barrier as well. I've never really understood the whole recoil debate, that's a joke, I barely notice a recoil on my M&P .40s, capacity is damn close in the same size package (where with .45 it's significantly less in a larger package), prices are damn close as well and availability greatly favors the .40... But there isn't anything wrong with 9mm either, as it does 90% of what a .40 will do. I do get tired of the .40 bashing after a while though, very good caliber that has it's place, particularly with law enforcement or anyone concerned about being able to fire an effective projectile through barriers.
Going to a 40 for a general issue handgun for masses of poorly trained individuals would be a horrible decision... They'll probably do it in the name of knockdown power or some crap.
As for glock - as its been said, you can get a glock with a thumb safety. I don't see them issuing a non-thumb safety handgun for .mil.
Does anybody knows if the G19s currently in use by SFs outnumber all other non M9 pistols (M45, P226, M11, HK45C, etc.) in the US .mil?
I really don't see change coming too soon, due to all the reasons posted by Psalms, and add all the legal bitching between contenders that is going to follow any service pistol competition.
Psalms144.1
07-31-13, 10:56
I get what you are saying but it just that their reasoning doesnt make sense. The Army JUST bought 100,000 new M9s. They could have just ran a COTs competition and those 100k new pistols could have easily been the replacements. Not to mention Beretta is an Italian company and other companies like FN or HK with small arms contracts who already have manufacturing capability within the US already as does Glock.Vicious - the purchase of the replacement M9s was made before Sequestration. Lots of things have changed since then, none of them for the better.
Plus, there are economies of scale to be considered. The DOD is already set up to train and maintain issued M9s to its personnel. A new duty pistol comes with LOTS of ancillary expenses - holsters, magazines, replacement parts, training for armorers, etc, etc.
Regards,
Kevin
PatrioticDisorder
07-31-13, 11:46
Going to a 40 for a general issue handgun for masses of poorly trained individuals would be a horrible decision...
This is comical, if you can't shoot a .40 worth a damn, a 9mm isn't going to magically make you a good shot.
This is comical, if you can't shoot a .40 worth a damn, a 9mm isn't going to magically make you a good shot.
No, but more recoil slows down follow-ups and induces flinch in many novice shooters. Scores are worse with 40 than 9mm.
If you train often you can get the difference down to negligible, but as I understand it, your average military person doesn't really get valuable range time or real training like SOF do.
post # 40 - https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=133543&page=2
Post # 11 - https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=100152
Post # 7 - https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=111255
PatrioticDisorder
07-31-13, 17:54
No, but more recoil slows down follow-ups and induces flinch in many novice shooters. Scores are worse with 40 than 9mm.
If you train often you can get the difference down to negligible, but as I understand it, your average military person doesn't really get valuable range time or real training like SOF do.
post # 40 - https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=133543&page=2
Post # 11 - https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=100152
Post # 7 - https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=111255
I honestly don't notice the recoil of the .40. Seems 9mm users have given the .40 mythical recoil characteristics, but in all reality there ain't much difference. I certainly understand some of the reasons for going with a 9mm, I'd feel perfectly comfortable carrying one myself. I just don't get everyone who knocks the .40, particularly for it's recoil, almost all of whom have zero to minimal experience with the caliber, seems a bit irrational if you ask me.
I honestly don't notice the recoil of the .40. Seems 9mm users have given the .40 mythical recoil characteristics, but in all reality there ain't much difference. I certainly understand some of the reasons for going with a 9mm, I'd feel perfectly comfortable carrying one myself. I just don't get everyone who knocks the .40, particularly for it's recoil, almost all of whom have zero to minimal experience with the caliber, seems a bit irrational if you ask me.
I had a Sig 226 in .40 and the recoil was more noticeable then any 9MM I've shot,now just how bad? I'm afraid I'm not the guy you wanna ask that since I've been known to shoot a .500 one handed :eek:
but I can say the recoil impulse was sharper then the nine,and that's just a plain fact.
One thing though was the fact that that 226 was the most oddly heavy gun I ever picked up,the slide seemed to make it drag my trousers down more then any I've had before or since,even the M9 doesn't drag my pants down like that.
So maybe the weight slowed it down some,never shot any poly framed .40's yet.
PatrioticDisorder
07-31-13, 21:19
I had a Sig 226 in .40 and the recoil was more noticeable then any 9MM I've shot,now just how bad? I'm afraid I'm not the guy you wanna ask that since I've been known to shoot a .500 one handed :eek:
but I can say the recoil impulse was sharper then the nine,and that's just a plain fact.
Don't know about the whole "sharper" part as the .40 recoil doesn't even feel close to sharp for me. I do know that the recoil from my old G19 with 124gr. +p HST's actually feels a little snappier than my M&P .40 with 180gr. HSTs. Neither of them have any kind of crazy unmanagable recoil and I can shoot both quickly.
I think a lot of guys get fooled into thinking the recoil on the 9mm is significantly better because they'll compare the watered down 115gr. 9mm target loads to some blazing hot 155gr. 40 load and under those circumstances the .40 will be snappier. Then I'll hear the rationalizing about how bullet technology has come so far (as if it hasn't improved for the .40 or .45) and only 9mm is needed, but why rely on a magic bullet?
Bottom line for me, 9mm is good and you can certainly practice cheaper, but I prefer the .40 (in 180gr.) for better ammo availability & the improved intermediate barrier penetration, including bone.
I get what you are saying but it just that their reasoning doesnt make sense. The Army JUST bought 100,000 new M9s. They could have just ran a COTs competition and those 100k new pistols could have easily been the replacements. Not to mention Beretta is an Italian company and other companies like FN or HK with small arms contracts who already have manufacturing capability within the US already as does Glock.
Beretta builds M9s in the US.
Army Chief
08-01-13, 06:26
Beretta builds M9s in the US.
Accokeek, Maryland, to be exact.
Not to jam our own guys, but I find it interesting how a US-built M9 lacks pretty much all of the elegance and refinement that you tend to find in the Italian-built 92 series. I owned a 92FC (compact) once upon a time, and while it was still on the large side for a Nine, it was a well-constructed, extremely well-finished sidearm that had perhaps the smoothest, glassiest action on any pistol I've eve had in my hands. Shot well, hit accurately and left nothing to be desired.
My service-grade USGI M9s? Capable and reliable guns, all, but just not crafted to the same level, for obvious reasons. Interesting how building to a particular price point (contract vs. retail) can alter the nature of the same basic product. There is likely an associated lesson here in Old World craftsmanship, but I would expect the Italians to consistently swing deep for the fences for as long as they've been producing and refining this particular design.
I guess we learned a similar lesson with the whole P99/SW99 debacle once upon a time, but those ended up being sufficiently-different guns so as to at least shed some light on why one turned out to be a chickenhawk, and the other, a chicken.
AC
I've only handled the civvie M9's sold at gun stores, etc. Once I examined one right next to an Italian-made 92. Visually at least, I couldn't tell any difference between fit and finish. I know some guys prefer the Italian ones in the belief that they're a bit better made.
Army Chief
08-01-13, 07:06
I've only handled the civvie M9's sold at gun stores, etc. Once I examined one right next to an Italian-made 92. Visually at least, I couldn't tell any difference between fit and finish. I know some guys prefer the Italian ones in the belief that they're a bit better made.
All superlatives aside, I think the guns coming out of Italy are just subtlely nicer from the inside out, rather than it really being a case of external finishes, or anything you would glean from a cursory examination. For me, it was more of a "feel" thing than anything else, but I am admittedly comparing peaches to nectarines here, because the 92F and the 92FC are not identical guns. To put it in 1911 vernacular, it's more a case where the Commander just happened to feel a whole lot slicker than the Government Model. Real, but admittedly somewhat subjective.
I honestly don't notice the recoil of the .40. Seems 9mm users have given the .40 mythical recoil characteristics, but in all reality there ain't much difference. I certainly understand some of the reasons for going with a 9mm, I'd feel perfectly comfortable carrying one myself. I just don't get everyone who knocks the .40, particularly for it's recoil, almost all of whom have zero to minimal experience with the caliber, seems a bit irrational if you ask me.
I agree, I have a .40 right now (getting a 9 conversion bbl when saved up). I shoot my mp40 better than my bros g19 because I have more experience on it, death grip it, and focused the about 1k rounds in a short period to master recoil management.
However, we are talking about people who will most likely put a few rounds down range to pass a test, and not really shoot outside of that other than saving their lives.
The .40 S&W is a good cartridge. The ammunition would not be compatable with 9mm sub-machine guns in the U.S. Military supply system or pistols from NATO countries.
I think the U.S. Military will stick with the 9mm cartridge for a while.
The Army wants a harder hitting pistol...
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/07/03/army-wants-harder-hitting-pistol/?intcmp=features
Perhaps something in 454 Casull or maybe something in unobtanium with an anvil attached that could be thrown hard at the enemy to enhance knock down power....
Until I see new handguns in holsters, I won't believe it. If I had a dollar for every time someone announced that the military was going to replace the M9, I'd be set to retire.
Until I see new handguns in holsters, I won't believe it. If I had a dollar for every time someone announced that the military was going to replace the M9, I'd be set to retire.
The new hand gun will be the M9A1; both grounds services have contracted to buy thousands of them
Does it really take three years to find a better pistol?:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130727/NEWS04/307270003/Testing-M9-replacement-start-next-year
How long did it take to find a replacement for the M16-M4? Oh wait....:confused:
If companies were smart, they'd tell the mil to go eat a dick. Every time these imbeciles put out this kind of shit, every idiot in the gun industry dumps a fortune into a product development, then these idiots in the military NEVER pick a design anyway.
PatrioticDisorder
07-05-14, 09:08
If companies were smart, they'd tell the mil to go eat a dick. Every time these imbeciles put out this kind of shit, every idiot in the gun industry dumps a fortune into a product development, then these idiots in the military NEVER pick a design anyway.
That usually turns out pretty well for civilians though...
How long did it take to find a replacement for the M16-M4? Oh wait....:confused:
Exactly!
Like molasses in January...
Straight Shooter
07-05-14, 12:26
If companies were smart, they'd tell the mil to go eat a dick. Every time these imbeciles put out this kind of shit, every idiot in the gun industry dumps a fortune into a product development, then these idiots in the military NEVER pick a design anyway.
RIGHT ON.
MadAngler1
07-05-14, 20:24
The Army wants a harder hitting pistol...
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/07/03/army-wants-harder-hitting-pistol/?intcmp=features
And of course, the Rupert Murdoch Network even fails to state that the military can't use JHP roads that makes 9 mm just as effective as .40 and .45.
Having said that, the military should just adopt the HK45 or 45c. If they want a striker fired pistol, I'm sure they could adapt the new VP9 into a .45 model with a 4.5-4" threaded barrel (I am hoping and praying H&K does this for my own benefit). After all, the HK45 was meant to be the M9 replacement. 10 rounds of FMJ .45 ACP is an excellent choice if one is forced to use FMJ loads for either 9 mm, .40 or .45. Of course, Ken Hackathorn stated on one of the LAV's special forces handgun episodes (season 2, episode 10) that Delta was or is using .40 cal Glock 22s with extended magazines. Ultimately, shot placement and training is the key, but having a larger caliber slug helps when forced to use FMJ.
Ultimately, shot placement and training is the key, but having a larger caliber slug helps when forced to use FMJ.
Why does a larger caliber slug help?
According to the article, Congress wants the services to adopt a modified/upgraded M9 (much as the Marines adopted the M9A1, I suppose). The most current evolution of the Beretta 92 platform is the 92A1, and I'm not sure that it offers enough of an improvement to satisfy everyone. In the end, Congress holds the purse strings. I would imagine they could just direct that a modified M9 be adopted (over everybody's objections).
The British military bought 25,000 Glock 17's to replace their long-serving Browning Hi-Powers and that barely made a blurp in the news. I think our program is going to be heavily political and controversial, if history is any guide.
staying with the beretta seems like an awful awful idea. it seems the camouflage acquisitions have shaken out at least semi favorably for effective patterns. the method by which they reached the final selections were circuitous and inefficient, but maybe there will be a circuitous and inefficient appropriation for a new, better sidearm.
DreadPirateMoyer
07-08-14, 14:33
staying with the beretta seems like an awful awful idea. it seems the camouflage acquisitions have shaken out at least semi favorably for effective patterns. the method by which they reached the final selections were circuitous and inefficient, but maybe there will be a circuitous and inefficient appropriation for a new, better sidearm.
Why does it seem like an awful idea? Very, very few people actually use their sidearms in combat, and many of the ones that do ultimately have a choice of other pistols. If the process is going to be circuitous and inefficient for something that's rarely needed, that seems to me like an awful idea.
This is on top of the fact that the Beretta 92 is just fine, and there are threads on the front page of this very forum discussing it.
Why does it seem like an awful idea? Very, very few people actually use their sidearms in combat, and many of the ones that do ultimately have a choice of other pistols. If the process is going to be circuitous and inefficient for something that's rarely needed, that seems to me like an awful idea.
This is on top of the fact that the Beretta 92 is just fine, and there are threads on the front page of this very forum discussing it.
I guess I don't think the beretta is just fine. it's the largest gun on the planet, maybe excluding the hk mk23 which was a .45 caliber, and the desert eagle which is a .50 caliber.
it's heavy due to it's large size and aluminum construction. it's also not ergonomically ideal for people due to it's large size and it's architecture.
the modern world of firearms is moving toward ergonomics, compatibility, ambidexterity, modularity and the like. the beretta is offering few of these benefits.
i believe that as unfortunate as it may be, the acquisition process for just about all military stuff besides the stuff for the very tip of the spear, is going to be circuitous.
the camouflage program was slow and inefficient, some would say wasteful. however it fixed a key problem, it got people out of ucp, a camouflage patter that was a mistake. I'm grateful for that, it moves the industries forward and it enables people who are doing things in dangerous places.
I'm willing to make the same concession for the beretta. if a circuitous process is what gets a modernized sidearm into the hands of people who may need it, fine.
I would like to see them move to a striker-fired polymer gun, slimmer and lighter, simpler to use and let the soldiers focus on more important things.
brickboy240
07-09-14, 10:52
That new HK striker pistol would make a fine replacement....wouldn't it?
Actually so would the Glock 17.
Our military needs to get past the "we gotta have a safety" nonsense.
wildcard600
07-09-14, 12:56
That new HK striker pistol would make a fine replacement....wouldn't it?
Actually so would the Glock 17.
Our military needs to get past the "we gotta have a safety" nonsense.
well... alot of cops cant keep from ND'ing all kinds of firearms. And cops are better trained on handguns than the average soldier.
i still think that a fullsize pistol is pointless for line troops anyway. YMMV.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/02/07/mod-adopts-glock-takes-stand-on-side-arms/
Article is British MOD adopts GLOCK
Glock family, 17, 19, 26 for different jobs, yet the mags are all interchangeable from the 17 down anyway. Any way you cut it its a secondary firearm.
The US Govt should have done this whole thing with the primary, instead of the secondary. New Caliber for Primary weapon with no restraints on fitting into the m4 platform. One Caliber that fits in a new Carbine, DMR, Light MG and keep the residual medium MG the 240 to expend the remaining 7.62 in stock. A good start point would be something like the 7x46mm UIAC from Chris Murray "Infantry half mile"
crusader377
07-09-14, 14:19
I don't know why the Army is wasting millions of dollars on another program which may or may not go anywhere. In this era of decreasing budgets, does the Army really need a new pistol? That said, if the army truly needs a new pistol, why don't they look at COTS solution which would vastly simplify and speed up the process. If I was running the program, I would buy maybe 25 M9A1 as a control as well as 25 pistols of each of the following which have existing manufacturing facilities in the U.S capable of producing the numbers that the Army would require.
S&W M&P
FN FNX or FNS
Glock 19
and perhaps one more (Does HK produce any pistols in the U.S.?)
These pistols would be bought going through either commercial or law enforcement channels to ensure the pistols received are an accurate picture of the quality of pistol the manufacturer produces.
Then I would test and run the pistols hard through a variety of different climates and environments and determine if any of the new pistols is significantly better than the control M9A1s and go from there. Probably the entire selection could be done under a half million in total cost and accomplished in a few months time.
MountainRaven
07-09-14, 21:21
H&K makes parts for the HK45 and HK45C in the US.
I don't know why the Army is wasting millions of dollars on another program which may or may not go anywhere. In this era of decreasing budgets, does the Army really need a new pistol? That said, if the army truly needs a new pistol, why don't they look at COTS solution which would vastly simplify and speed up the process. If I was running the program, I would buy maybe 25 M9A1 as a control as well as 25 pistols of each of the following which have existing manufacturing facilities in the U.S capable of producing the numbers that the Army would require.
S&W M&P
FN FNX or FNS
Glock 19
and perhaps one more (Does HK produce any pistols in the U.S.?)
These pistols would be bought going through either commercial or law enforcement channels to ensure the pistols received are an accurate picture of the quality of pistol the manufacturer produces.
Then I would test and run the pistols hard through a variety of different climates and environments and determine if any of the new pistols is significantly better than the control M9A1s and go from there. Probably the entire selection could be done under a half million in total cost and accomplished in a few months time.
You're making waay too much sense here...
H&K makes parts for the HK45 and HK45C in the US.
I believe all of the HK45 and 45Cs are now assembled in the US with both US and German parts.
Makes sense, as we're the only market for .45ACP pistols.
I believe all of the HK45 and 45Cs are now assembled in the US with both US and German parts.
Makes sense, as we're the only market for .45ACP pistols.
HK45 and HK45C are also made in Germany for European market. When HK started to make them, they well made in Germany and small number of them was sold in Europe (I own HK45C from this batch), then HK shipped frame moulds to US and started to make them for US market only with US made frames and German made other parts. Due to big demand for those pistols outside US, last year HK decided to restart manufacture of complete pistols in Germany. They made new moulds and pistols are available at HK dealers in Europe in 3 fashionable colours.
BTW Unfortunately my suggestion to add pink version was not taken seriously. Even one to make accessory kit of replaceable grip parts in pink. They are becoming more market oriented, but still do not quite grasp fastest growing demographics in firearm ownership. Oh well... :)
crusader377,
If you look at any of the various briefs floating around the time line tells you they want COTS. While they could in theory purchase the way you said procurement laws don't allow it. This is the cumbersome way this shit gets done.
The services have been working on this program for over a decade, so industry preety much has COTS examples on the selves ready to submit. SOCOM had this, then the Air Force, now back to the Army.
As for the money issue some have discussed I'm will to bet it was ear marked in the POM a few years ago.
I believe all of the HK45 and 45Cs are now assembled in the US with both US and German parts.
Makes sense, as we're the only market for .45ACP pistols.
Not necessarily, There are a few countries where a 9mm is considered a "military" round, and thus the citizens aren't allowed to own pistols in this caliber.. I remember over at HK Pro, there was a poster from I believe Italy, who was using a HK45, because Italy had this same law... According to him .45acp was getting popular. Another end-around is to use a 9x21... Alan's armory (C&R dealer) has Walther P-1's in 9x21..Some of which are nearly new..
The entrants have been in testing for a month as of this week. Little to no news out of New Jersey, but I figured I'm not the only one keeping an eye on the direction the US military is going to take with the next handgun... So:
The Internet's favorite is the P320, but my money is on a modular fire control M&P.
In the meantime while there is no actual news; It seems the General Dynamics and S&W partnership is paying off for the M&P line which will be getting new hammer forged barrels from GD.
http://www.aerotechnews.com/blog/2016/03/02/general-dynamics-ordnance-and-tactical-systems-awarded-gun-barrel-production-contract/
RAM Engineer
03-11-16, 09:27
The entrants have been in testing for a month as of this week. Little to no news out of New Jersey, but I figured I'm not the only one keeping an eye on the direction the US military is going to take with the next handgun... So:
The Internet's favorite is the P320, but my money is on a modular fire control M&P.
In the meantime while there is no actual news; It seems the General Dynamics and S&W partnership is paying off for the M&P line which will be getting new hammer forged barrels from GD.
http://www.aerotechnews.com/blog/2016/03/02/general-dynamics-ordnance-and-tactical-systems-awarded-gun-barrel-production-contract/
1. The PROPOSALS from the offerors have been in govt possession for a month. That does not equate to hardware being tested for a month. Hell, it doesn't even equate to govt having possession of hardware for a month.
2. How can your money be on something you have never seen, that is competing with other things you have never seen or handled? And how do you square that with the fact that you have no clue as to the cost & schedule content of any proposal?
Primus Pilum
03-11-16, 09:43
Smith cant even make quality barrels in house and need,to partner with a big boy to have a chance...that is telling. 90% chance this goes nowhere like the last 10 trials. With the current budget situation, it will get cancelled. Need ships planes and bombs more than an officers bling piece. Anyone who already needs a better pistol already gets issued one COTS.
2. How can your money be on something you have never seen, that is competing with other things you have never seen or handled? And how do you square that with the fact that you have no clue as to the cost & schedule content of any proposal?
Oh how indeed!? It's a small industry you know. I don't have any super special info, just a hunch that partnering with GD wasn't some quick light decision made over drinks and rough figures. I guess we'll just have to wait.
Still... I'm extremely confident that future M&Ps will at the least come with hammer forged barrels.
Smith cant even make quality barrels in house and need,to partner with a big boy to have a chance...that is telling. 90% chance this goes nowhere like the last 10 trials. With the current budget situation, it will get cancelled. Need ships planes and bombs more than an officers bling piece. Anyone who already needs a better pistol already gets issued one COTS.
People seem to forget that the FNS/X, M&P, HK45, and other guns have directly come from submissions to these proposals. I'm pretty confident this one is going through, but even if it wasn't, doesn't mean you still won't get something from it.
Gen. Milley apparently has his own thoughts on the program. Sounds sensible:
The U.S. Army's chief of staff said Thursday that if he had his way, he'd abandon the bureaucratic Modular Handgun System effort and personally select the service's next pistol.
Speaking at the Future of War Conference 2016, Gen. Mark Milley said he has asked Congress to grant service chiefs the authority to bypass the Pentagon's multi-layered and complex acquisition process on programs that do not require research and development.
"We are not exactly redesigning how to go to the moon, right?" Milley said. "This is a pistol. ... And arguably, it is the least lethal and important weapon system in the Department of Defense inventory."
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/03/10/army-chief-wants-power-to-select-new-pistol.html
turnburglar
03-11-16, 16:48
It's about time the m9 get replaced, but what 'modularity' is need in a handgun? Replaceable sights? Accepts WML? I hope they don't mean that they want a huge parts list for a multical pistol. But that's probably exactly what some O type thinks is a good idea.
I'm with Noodle, my bet is on the M&P, and no Primus I don't have any info that you're bringing up, yet my money is still on the GD/S&W tandem for other reasons that we can all consider. As for GD making the barrels, I don't think it's that S&W can't make them (the .45's and 40's are accurate) I think it's that they can't make the necessary design changes and implement them cheap enough to get the accuracy/reliability they need without increasing costs, possibly because the guns were designed as .40's. Making a pistol barrel is child's play for a company like GD and they know how to efficiently manufacture high quality items at better cost. I wouldn't be surprised if these are some of the best made production barrels in the world when released. While I agree that there's a good chance that the program will be cancelled, even if it is it has the potential to produce Glock's without those stupid finger grooves, proprietary rail, and pretty darn accurate 9mm M&P's which will then be my new carry gun. Either way, I look forward to it.
call_me_ski
03-11-16, 20:36
While I agree that GD definitely has the biggest dick to swing around they were not even part of the down select for the M27 IAR with their entry.
I find myself agreeing with the Army CoS, why not find something COTS to run. Doing this huge dance over the least lethal weapon short of a pen or bayonet doesn't make much sense when there are several very good and well supported weapons already available. Glock 17 and 19 and Sigs P320 series would be my first stops if I were in his shoes.
War is a racket.
For how little the pistol is used/carried... why the heck did they turn down Beretta upgrade offer? Is it really that important that the pistol shed 10 ounces and become modular?
For how little the pistol is used/carried... why the heck did they turn down Beretta upgrade offer? Is it really that important that the pistol shed 10 ounces and become modular?
Politics.
I'm rooting for the S&W and hope it proves to be what is needed simply because I want to see American guns carried by American service members.
But I agree that it is an exercise in stupidity to not simply pick something COTS or just do the Beretta upgrade. Especially for something that isn't really used by front line soldiers.
For how little the pistol is used/carried... why the heck did they turn down Beretta upgrade offer? Is it really that important that the pistol shed 10 ounces and become modular?
To me, the modular thing just creates damaged and lost parts. I think they should just overhaul the Berettas that are still good and buy a bunch more. Buy good magazines and train on how to use it.
I'm a Glock guy, but I'm here to tell anyone that a Glock suffers in sand just as much as the M9, maybe more.
KalashniKEV
03-12-16, 10:59
For how little the pistol is used/carried... why the heck did they turn down Beretta upgrade offer?
Beretta is terrible as a company and the M9 has a terrible item manager.
They could have kept the M9 in service forever if they submitted ECPs to dovetail the slide, standardize 18 round MecGar mags, create a universal slide that accepts G parts, or go to railed frames.
Instead they played "surprise!" with plastic lanyard loops and BS and now they get to lie in the bed they made.
Beretta is terrible as a company and the M9 has a terrible item manager.
They could have kept the M9 in service forever if they submitted ECPs to dovetail the slide, standardize 18 round MecGar mags, create a universal slide that accepts G parts, or go to railed frames.
Instead they played "surprise!" with plastic lanyard loops and BS and now they get to lie in the bed they made.
Would the "G" decocker only configuration really save any lives or make anyone more effective in combat?
Among all the militaries in the world, why do we seem to generate the most drama when it comes to selecting a pistol?
Would the "G" decocker only configuration really save any lives or make anyone more effective in combat?
I'd say so. It keeps a soldier from accidentally putting the pistol on safe during immediate action. Especially important since most soldiers aren't going to spend much time training with handguns. Also, folks with shorter fingers can have a hell of a time taking it off safe because it's in such a stupid location (slide instead of frame) and not ergonomic. It's why when I was in the Air Force we just used it to decock. We weren't allowed to use it as a safety.
Primus Pilum
03-12-16, 17:21
I'm with Noodle, my bet is on the M&P, and no Primus I don't have any info that you're bringing up, yet my money is still on the GD/S&W tandem for other reasons that we can all consider. As for GD making the barrels, I don't think it's that S&W can't make them (the .45's and 40's are accurate) I think it's that they can't make the necessary design changes and implement them cheap enough to get the accuracy/reliability they need without increasing costs, possibly because the guns were designed as .40's. Making a pistol barrel is child's play for a company like GD and they know how to efficiently manufacture high quality items at better cost. I wouldn't be surprised if these are some of the best made production barrels in the world when released. While I agree that there's a good chance that the program will be cancelled, even if it is it has the potential to produce Glock's without those stupid finger grooves, proprietary rail, and pretty darn accurate 9mm M&P's which will then be my new carry gun. Either way, I look forward to it.
No way in hell they pick the M&P, Even the army isn't that Stupid. -Former Solider
All of SOCOM is running COTS pistols. Glocks, HK's and some Sigs....for a good reason. Given the choice only a fool would chose an M&P over any of those 3. If anything, just adopt the M9A3, its one of the finest pistols out at the moment if they stay DA/SA.
Nothing is going to happen anyway. Lots of money wasted, program office gets a boost and some ossifer gets a MSM. No reason to replace the M9 for non spec ops. Complete waste of money.
Primus Pilum
03-12-16, 17:22
Politics.
and stupidity. Can't make bullet points on an OER without going through the motions.
They could COTS the Glock by dovetailing into the SOCOM Program (but only after SOCOM's initial buy is made, please!), but a bunch of GS types would be butt hurt.
(Good) RumInt says the AF tried to go M&P .40 a few years ago and was stopped by the Army.
I think .40 will be a non-starter.
KalashniKEV
03-14-16, 09:40
Would the "G" decocker only configuration really save any lives or make anyone more effective in combat?
Yes.
Even better would be to go back to the original design, which was far superior.
brickboy240
03-14-16, 10:46
All this teeth gnashing...
Just adopt the Glock 17/19 and call it good.
Seriously, anything else is just dicking around at this point. LOL
Yeah.....
please go on a tour of a NYPD precinct.
Even with their NY mandated 50 pound trigger...they have ADs.
Now multiple that with the military.
sorry...
lots of nice dreamers on it...though.
maybe we should go back to the revolver.
it's nice and safe.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Yeah.....
please go on a tour of a NYPD precinct.
Even with their NY mandated 50 pound trigger...they have ADs.
Now multiple that with the military.
sorry...
lots of nice dreamers on it...though.
maybe we should go back to the revolver.
it's nice and safe.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
After 34 years with the Army I can safely say that they could replace at least 50% of the M9's with non-firing replicas and no one would ever know.
after 13 years of service, I can safely say the m9 I was issued did it's job and went bang everytime with no issues at all.
I can't say that with the work station and laptops we were issued but the m9 we were issued with at the Corps of Engineers, it worked fine.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
For how little the pistol is used/carried... why the heck did they turn down Beretta upgrade offer? Is it really that important that the pistol shed 10 ounces and become modular?
Politics.
Not politics. Good bad or ugly there's a process that legally has to be followed. As a PM, you don't follow it at your peril. You risk having to pay back Uncle Sam all the $ you wasted if things go south or even possibly jail time.
The PM identified a capabilities gap. When you have an identified capabilities gap, you can't just choose what you want to fill it, even when talking about a modified system you already have. You then develop written requirements to fill the capabilities gap.
Once you've done that, you go through the full Analysis of Alternatives. They compare every feasible possibility for meeting the requirements. In this case new pistol, modified M9, just buy more M9s, refurbish the old M9s, COTS pistol, etc etc etc. If a modified M9 had met the requirements at a lower cost, the process would have stopped there and they would have bought the M9A3.
Problem is that one of the primary requirements as I understand it, is 5-95 male/female compatibility from a human factors perspective. The M9A3 does not meet that requirement. When it comes to requirements, about the only way you can get relief from threshold requirements, is if it turns out they were just not physically possible, or they can't be achieved within budget. If you can achieve the requirements within budget, legally you must do so. Choosing something that doesn't meet the requirements is a good way to get to all the bad stuff I outlined above.
And everybody saying "Just hop on the SOCOM program" well SOCOM has different requirements and they have a lot more leeway in how they meet those requirements. There's a big difference in how you have to run a program that's buying 20k pistols and one that's slated to buy a half million minimum.
As far as picking and procuring a pistol, it has to happen eventually. The Berettas are nearing the end of their service life so unless you decide to just not have handguns in service, you gotta buy something.....
Heck, a bulk buy of Turkish-made Canik TP9v2's would probably run you $25 a pistol :D
brickboy240
03-14-16, 13:59
Don't tell them about those Turk pistols....our govt will go buy them! LOL
Although it might be better than a pistol that is designed for the average NBA player's hands, and has a 3ft long trigger and a safety located yards from any normal person's fingers! LOL
After 34 years with the Army I can safely say that they could replace at least 50% of the M9's with non-firing replicas and no one would ever know.
I used to have a battalion commander who came to us after serving with CAG back when it had a different name. He showed up at a formation one time with a 1911 and got his ass chewed by the Group commander because he was supposed to be rocking the M9 he had been issued. So the LTC went to the toy store, bought an M9 replica and kept it holstered on a pistol belt hanging on the coat rack in his office. He wore it for formations and carried a 1911 for business.
We LOVED that guy.
Okie John
Nightstalker865
03-14-16, 14:07
Would the "G" decocker only configuration really save any lives or make anyone more effective in combat?
Yes, the factory setup on the M9 can make for a dangerous situation. Shooter goes through an malfunction clearance and comes up with a dead trigger.
Most units don't train much with the M9 anyways, so a situation like this could be horrific in the right circumstances. I know the odds of this are slim to none, as they don't get used much, but there is always the possibility given the factory configuration.
The G series slide is an easy swap for Beretta and makes the gun much more user friendly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not politics. Good bad or ugly there's a process that legally has to be followed. As a PM, you don't follow it at your peril. You risk having to pay back Uncle Sam all the $ you wasted if things go south or even possibly jail time.
The PM identified a capabilities gap. When you have an identified capabilities gap, you can't just choose what you want to fill it, even when talking about a modified system you already have. You then develop written requirements to fill the capabilities gap.
Once you've done that, you go through the full Analysis of Alternatives. They compare every feasible possibility for meeting the requirements. In this case new pistol, modified M9, just buy more M9s, refurbish the old M9s, COTS pistol, etc etc etc. If a modified M9 had met the requirements at a lower cost, the process would have stopped there and they would have bought the M9A3.
Problem is that one of the primary requirements as I understand it, is 5-95 male/female compatibility from a human factors perspective. The M9A3 does not meet that requirement. When it comes to requirements, about the only way you can get relief from threshold requirements, is if it turns out they were just not physically possible, or they can't be achieved within budget. If you can achieve the requirements within budget, legally you must do so. Choosing something that doesn't meet the requirements is a good way to get to all the bad stuff I outlined above.
And everybody saying "Just hop on the SOCOM program" well SOCOM has different requirements and they have a lot more leeway in how they meet those requirements. There's a big difference in how you have to run a program that's buying 20k pistols and one that's slated to buy a half million minimum.
As far as picking and procuring a pistol, it has to happen eventually. The Berettas are nearing the end of their service life so unless you decide to just not have handguns in service, you gotta buy something.....
The Marines ( have the same Congressionally mandated acquisition rules) have been buying the M9A1 for years, and the contract could have easily been modified to get that pistol.
I no longer have a dog in the hunt, but I hope they take more than money into account this time.
The Marines ( have the same Congressionally mandated acquisition rules) have been buying the M9A1 for years, and the contract could have easily been modified to get that pistol.
Yes they have. And the Marines identified their own capabilities gap years ago, defined the requirements for it years ago and those gaps and requirements are different from what the Army has identified now. Different requirements can result in vastly different results in the analysis of alternatives 10+ years after the fact.
Look, I get it better than most. I work in the process every day. The process is a steaming pile of shit but it's not optional.
If they had not identified a capabilities gap, they probably could have justified buying M9A1s as 1 for 1 replacements as M9s reached their end of life and hopped on the USMC contract. Once you have the capabilities gap and associated requirements, the PM is obligated to meet those requirements. Going out to buy a product you know doesn't meet requirements is a good way to get on the wrong side of a congressional investigation....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.