[Newton]

I hear that the military has cancelled the JCP competition, that was to produce the new .45ACP military handgun, and replaced it with another request for a much smaller number of weapons for special forces only.

Is this true ?

[psyopspec]

Let me guess, you heard it in a gunshop.

[Seven High]

As I understand it, the military is going to retain the 9mm for general issue and purchase a small quantity of 45acp for special operations personnel. The military just ordered an additional 70,000 Beretta 9mms.

[WT]

Probably because they are running out of money.

The US Army is looking to disband another division, possibly next year, to save money. Haven't announced which division, though.

[psyopspec]

The military just ordered an additional 70,000 Beretta 9mms.

That was a few months back. The JCP isn't intended to replace the M-9 for another decade or so.

[Lebben-B]

As of MAR 06, there is no more JCP. The program was given back to USSOCOM (who originated the proposal to begin with) and is now known simply as the Combat Pistol Program.

[Newton]

In the last year or so the military has bought new M9s for the Air Force and USMC (the M9A1 - a M9 w frame rail). They have contracted for up to 70,000 more M9s w up to 14 million more mags.

As of 10 Mar 06 the JCP no longer exists. The solicitation has been modified to the CP (Combat Pistol).

The CP will not be for everybody, just SOF (special operations forces).

The max quantity has been reduced from 645,000 to 50,000.

Still a .45 ACP, still a commercially available NDI (non developmental item).

Specs still call for DA/SA, DAO, or SFA (striker fired action). The original specs for the SOF CP (before it merged w the Army's Future Handgun System/FHS to become the JCP) allowed SAO (single action only) pistols like 1911s to compete, but so far does not look like they are back in the game.

The Army's FHS may be back in one form or another in the future.
================================

True or not ?

[Vern Humphrey]

You know, we did this once before, going to a smaller caliber (the .38 Long Colt) and paid the price for that. Why do we have to keep re-learning the same lessons over and over?

[isp2605]

In 1954 the military set out to replace the 1911 with DA 9mm. After testing had begun they changed their mind and scrapped the idea, sticking with the 1911.
For the military to test equipment with the intention of buying and then backing out is SOP in military procurement and testing.

[psyopspec]

It appears that I stand corrected. Thanks for the update!

[Hkmp5sd]

A CWO friend of mine working in Tampa has a memo stating that the military is in fact going back to the 1911 in .45ACP. I had the memo, but dumped it. I'll get another copy next week.

[jc2]

Since somebody three or four posts up mentioned the .38 Long Colt in comparison to the 9x19, we ought to point out there is considerable in performance betwen the old .38 Long Colt and 9mm NATO. It's really not a very apt comparison (or a very good parallel to draw).

[Croyance]

The fact that some Special Forces groups are using the .45 ACP doesn't mean the general miltary is going to. Remember those people go through signifcantly more combat training.
Testing goes on all the time. Special Forces groups can buy stuff that isn't on the general approval list.

[KurtC]

You can find the latest on the proposal here:http://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/USSOCOM/SOAL%2DKB/H92222%2D05%2DR%2D0017/listing.html Be sure to read everything to fully understand the timeline of events.

It started with SOCOM looking for something better than then the M9 or Mk23. When the regular Army started considering going back to a .45, someone piggybacked the project on the SOCOM evaluation to save time and money. As the SOCOM requirements became more stringent, the regular army withdrew interest in that particular proposal.

The SOCOM proposal for 50,000 units is moving ahead. The regular army is still interested in a .45, they just haven't finalized their requirements and released a proposal. It wouldn't surprise me if they wait until after the SOCOM contract is awarded, so that there is commonality of critical items such as magazines.

The Beretta contract is nothing special. They will continue to order the pistol that is on the TO&E until a different one appears on the list. "Up to 70,000" means just that. One pistol could satisfy the order. :rolleyes: Units with special funds can order limited numbers of just about anything they like, in the meantime.

[Croyance]

Who care's if its American, I just want effective.
The training is the point. That is money and generally troops only get so much of it.

[jibjab]

If it ain't broke, fix it till it is :confused:

['Card]

.45ACP? Yes.
1911? No.

Just my opinion, but there are much better things on the market now for military applications than the 1911.

Speaking as an XD-45 (and Glock 21) owner, I think too many people assume 1911 when they hear .45, and that simply isn't the case anymore.

[C-grunt]

There is nothing wrong with the 9mm. There is nothing wrong with the Berreta either.The mags the Army bought are CRAP. The reason some of the Berretas are breaking is because they are old, mistreated, and generally caried by people who dont know how to care for a weapon. Most of the SF guys I worked with used Berretas and had nothing but praise for them.

With a COM hit, there is not much of a difference between 9mm and .45.

With a non COM hit, there is not much of a difference between 9mm and .45.

[psyopspec]

There is nothing wrong with the 9mm. There is nothing wrong with the Berreta either.

Agreed. Didn't hear any complaints from MP's, Infantry, and SF my unit worked with. Had none myself, except for magazines. I brought my own.

Most of the criticisms of the Beretta as a combat pistol seem to come from people who never used one in their time in service or never served, period.

[MCgunner]

Most of the criticisms of the Beretta as a combat pistol seem to come from people who never used one in their time in service or never served, period.

Or, are .45/1911 freaks or used the .45 in the service and whether they saw action or not, believe it "blows 'em off their feet". A service sidearm is NOT a primary weapon of war. The Spec Ops pistols, well, they're more a combat weapon than an MP's sidearm. But, neither the 9mm ball or .45 ball is much of a combat effective round compared to a rifle.

Anyway, I thought spec ops already used the HK USP???? I admit I don't keep up with such stuff. All the caliber wars concerning sevice pistols don't interest me.

[Onmilo]

Again I find it quite bizzare that the Military would want to go back to the .45acp when there are several modern military 9mm cartridges that are capable of defeating any body armor up to threat level three.
No .45acp cartridge is capable of this level of performance.

The only reason the Military might be considering a return to the .45acp and specifically why the SOCOM group would want a return is the fact that .45acp is easier to suppress and quieter than most 9mm suppressed versions while retaining greater impact energy than a 9mm cartridge set up for suppressor use.

These suppressed pistols are used to shoot out lights, disable communication arrays and shoot sentry dogs.
Suppressed pistols are generally NOT used for the elimination of human targets, that task is left for the far more powerful suppressed rifles,,,,,
One might note that one of the requirements on the list of options is a threaded muzzle or the capability for adding a muzzle threaded barrel to the platform.

On another note, the biggest complaints about the M9 in service is the fact that a weapon mounted light cannot be emplaced, (corrected with the M9A1 contract), and the junky replacement magazines,(addressed with factory direct replacement magazine contract).
There is very little actual complaint about lack of stopping power and these complaints are generally shown to involve deployment against human targets that are found to be wearing body armor.
(This is being addressed with testing of possible replacement of M882 ammunition with armor piercing capability cartridge.)

[RM]

Why is it that when people talk about military pistols, it is always in terms of the 9mm or 45 acp? Shouldn't the .40 cal S&W get some consideration? Many police departments use this round. It seems to me (as a non-expert) a good compromise of bullet size and weight vs. stopping power.

[Deer Hunter]

To my understanding, the argument was that when limited to FMJ ammo, the .45 was a better performer.

[CAnnoneer]

It seems to me if the military are really unhappy with the 9mm, they would not buy another shipment of 10s of 1000s of them, would they?

Also, if armor-piercing is a requirement in a pistol, why not just use FN5.7 ?

Perhaps they should first identify exactly what features they want and then start looking for caliber and make. Logical, no?

[isp2605]

" Shouldn't the .40 cal S&W get some consideration? "

.40 is not a NATO compliant rd.
Neither is the 5.7.

[Croyance]

What is makes a cartridge NATO complaint?

[isp2605]

"compliant" is probably not the right word. It was late.
The .40 is not a NATO accepted rd. 9mm is.

[psychophipps]

Neither is the 5.7.

Incorrect. The 5.7x28mm round was developed by FN under strict guidelines provided by NATO. The fact that it has yet to be adopted by this agency has nothing to do with the fact of wether it's "NATO accepted" or not.

Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )

[Crosshair]

Is it just me or does it seem like everyone (In the military) is afraid of SA designs? I fail to see why people are wary of them because every military rifle that I know of is a SA design. Why is SA OK for rifles, but not pistols?

/Just wondering

[Retro]

good point... how come no DA rifle exists? I never thought of that.

[KurtC]

Rifles are offensive weapons, intended for precision shooting, therefore single action. A double action rifle would require extensive marksmanship training.

Pistols are intended as a last line of defense, and a double action is preferred to prevent accidental discharges. It is difficult under combat conditions to control the disposition of a short barreled sidearm, and every possible safety measure is recommended that still allows instant use. In plain English, it means that nobody feels like getting killed because some sh** for brains was screwing around with a loaded single action pistol. It is hard enough trying to maintain barrel discipline with rifles and machine guns.

I liked the 1911 that I carried, even though it had been rebuilt many times, but I am 100% in favor of DAO pistol for general issue.

As I recall, some years ago Mossberg experimented with a Double Action shotgun for the military. I don't think it caught on.

[isp2605]

"The 5.7x28mm round was developed by FN under strict guidelines provided by NATO."

It may be developed under the NATO guidelines but that does not make it an accepted NATO rd.

[tegemu]

IMHO the .40 Cal would be out of consideration for the additional ammunition acquisition costs and commonality issues, while current .45 ACP or 9MM are currently in the supply system and suffice for the military's requirements..

[Crosshair]

If you can't trust someone with a SA pistol, then what are you doing trusting them with machine guns, gernades, rockets, etc. If that sh** for brains can't handle a SA pistol then how do you know he won't throw the pin and drop the gernade, or put the rifle on full-auto instead of safe. Dismissing designs like the XD and others outright because they are SA is irresponsible and a bad idea. Thinking like that resulted in magazine cutoffs, missle-only fighters, etc.

/Not trying to troll, just trying to generate discussion on this topic.

[CAnnoneer]

"DAO for safety reasons" seems to me silly as well. If some guy is screwing around with a gun, discipline the bum, not the gun.

I shoot SA far longer and more accurately than I can DA. Never had an accident either.

Policemen like the DAO because they want to shave off the second it would take to flip the safety. They also do not expect to shoot 100s of rounds in the same day either. The military are in a completely different situation.

[Sgt Stevo]

I looked into this and get more different answers then I can count. It seems that everybody has there own favorite handgun and wants it to be the next issue piece.

I used Berettas for twenty years and they work fine. we broke some, but we were not easy on these things.

But I trusted my life to them a lot. I feel the .45 is better at stopping targets. But the one shot stop does not mean much if you empty your gun though a door at BG who just shot at you. something with a smaller grip for females would be good. Lighter is always better. Nite sites? sure. Double action or single, as long as there is manual safety. It would be ok.

I think if the XD-45 had a manual safety it would be about right. Most brit troops still carry the p-35.

So what the average 19 year troop needs is not what the seasoned CCw/hobby shooter needs. And would not be safe with it. I have been trained to higher level, POST, etc. But most the troops just Q with the M-9 and the M-4. In a support unit, it is only a couple of times a year. Right or wrong this is way it is.

Sf guys are better trained then anybody, they can carry anything and be safe. So what they want or need is not an issue. They are in there own world. they earned that right by going though ungodly amounts of training. I never fired an M-P -5 until a cop buddy let me shoot his a couple of years ago. I also never got to grow a beard in the field.

[Azrael256]

Is it just me or does it seem like everyone (In the military) is afraid of SA designs? You know, you'd think that... and you'd be wrong. Evidently losing parts off their M9 is a favorite pastime for soldiers, so there are more SA M9s than you might believe.

[444]

"The only reason the Military might be considering a return to the .45acp and specifically why the SOCOM group would want a return is the fact that .45acp is easier to suppress and quieter than most 9mm suppressed versions while retaining greater impact energy than a 9mm cartridge set up for suppressor use."

Can you expand on this ?
I have never heard a .45 ACP suppressed handgun fired but I have read that they are significantly louder than a suppressed 9mm handgun. I own a suppressed 9mm handgun (Glock 34/AAC Evolution9 suppressor) and was very impressed with it. After hearing a DeLislie (in .45 ACP) I decided that I needed to buy a .45 ACP suppressor but everything I read said that they were NOT as easy to suppress as a 9.
The second part about impact energy is obviously quite true.

[leadcounsel]

First, I think the 9mm and the Beretta 92FS have no place as a sidearm in the military.

This caliber is probably about 4th or so on the list of effective common calibers after the 10mm, .40, and .45 and .357 Sig. Women and small men can't shoot it? Too bad. Train them to be stronger and better soldiers. In the Service that I want protecting us, there is no place for a "lowest common denomiator" bullet.

As far as the platform, sure the 92FS is okay, but there are several BETTER platforms such as Glock, Sig, HK, CZ, 1911s, and the list goes on and on. I understand that one requirement is a decocker on the sidearm. We don't have a decocker on our M4 rifles do we? Not necessary for a sidearm.

So, we can do better with the caliber and the platform.

NOW, let's talk about practicality. I don't think that the sidearm in the normal military is a HUGE priority and I don't care to spend a lot of money on the transition. I would be fine with a slow transition into a new caliber and round. I'd rather have that money earmarked for projects that have more practical effect on combat. How many battles are won and lost on the caliber of our handguns?

Not a lot of testing is really even necessary for the common calibers and handguns available because there is plenty of data on these. My thinking is to just research available data on caliber and platforms, run some tests and switch 'em out. It's not rocket science.

[buzz_knox]

good point... how come no DA rifle exists? I never thought of that.

There was a 5.56 DA rifle in the '80s, the LAPA, out of Brazil if I recall correctly.

[jc2]

This caliber is probably about 4th or so on the list of effective common calibers after the 10mm, .40, and .45 and .357 Sig.
The differences in common handgun calibres is seriously overrated. There's really not a whole lot to suggest/support any differences in effectiveness between any of the calibres you cited (particulary with FMJ ammunition) while logistics, capacity and training favour the 9x19.

The M9 is perfectly adequate--as good as anything else available--as a general issue military handgun. Personally, I would prefer the M11, but personal preference is all it would be.

[TX1911fan]

I just want the .45 adopted so the price comes down!

[Vern Humphrey]

If you can't trust someone with a SA pistol, then what are you doing trusting them with machine guns, gernades, rockets, etc. If that sh** for brains can't handle a SA pistol then how do you know he won't throw the pin and drop the gernade, or put the rifle on full-auto instead of safe.

Some people really can't be trusted with things like grenades. Max Cleland ("I never really said I had a Purple Heart, but if people want to think I do, hey, who am I to argue with them?") is a sterling example. John Kerry is another.

[Flame Red]

The story is featured in this month's Rifleman magazine.

What I find funny is that all the big pistol manufacturers are mentioned as possible candidates - except for Colt!

[cavman]

So what are your guesses? Do you think the new sidearm will be a plastic or a metal one?

My guess (based on almost nothing) is that is would be a plastic one.

have a great day,
cavman

[Croyance]

I don't think that the sidearm in the normal military is a HUGE priority and I don't care to spend a lot of money on the transition.This is combined with the idea of training soldiers until they are good with the .45 ACP? I think soldiers get minimal training so they can meet some qualification score. The extra training time is $$$.

Of course this arguement is on the level of being primarily concerned with the color of a new car, when there are a lot of things more important.

[Newton]

I think the military could do a lot worse than the XD45 Service model (4 inch bbl).

It's torture test tough, not sensitive to the environment, has a good level of safety, a Melonite corrosion resistant finish, high capacity, it's suitable for smaller hands, comparatively cheap - and of course it holds 14 big fat .45ACP rounds.

I would choose it over an M9 any day of the week, and twice on Tuesdays.