[mickmten]

Found this today:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/wm1560.cfm

They state:
"More troubling is that the Air Force is ignoring technological advances pertaining to the M9's 9mm round. New technology has improved the round's stoppage power and could be deployed immediately to frontline airmen and other troops."

I don't follow the technological developments in 9mm ammunition all that closely -- does anyone know what they're referring to in the article? I would imagine it would be something other than hollow-points since that's not new technology at all.

Also, "Finally, the Army and the Marine Corps--the services most likely to use the weapon in combat--have shown no desire to switch back to a .45 model." I think the Corps still uses the 1911, is that correct?

Mick

[Regolith]

Also, "Finally, the Army and the Marine Corps--the services most likely to use the weapon in combat--have shown no desire to switch back to a .45 model."

That's funny, cause the way I heard it USSOCOM are opting for the HK Mk 23 (AKA HK USP) in .45 over the standard issue M9's, and they are the ones who are most likely to use a handgun in combat.

[748]

9mm is fine as long as you don't have to use it.

[DMK]

hey state:
"More troubling is that the Air Force is ignoring technological advances pertaining to the M9's 9mm round. New technology has improved the round's stoppage power and could be deployed immediately to frontline airmen and other troops."

I don't follow the technological developments in 9mm ammunition all that closely -- does anyone know what they're referring to in the article?Probably Hollow Points. 15 rounds of Speer Gold Dots are a lot more effective than FMJ.

They might even be be referring to EFMJ.

[Jim Watson]

Hmm, ammunition with "stoppage power". I don't think I want that. Where I come from, "stoppage" is a malfunction.

I do agree that the USAF has more pressing needs than a new pistol. Like replacing airplanes older than their pilots.

[lee n. field]

technological advances pertaining to the M9's 9mm round.

It's called .40S&W. :D

[Jimmie]

Probably Hollow Points. 15 rounds of Speer Gold Dots are a lot more effective than FMJ.
They might even be be referring to EFMJ.
While Gold Dots are definitely more effective, it's most certainly not hollow points. While we didn't sign it, Hague (1899) declares we won't use:
bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.
The EFMJ it could be.

[Phantom Warrior]

I'm going to stick in a post to mark this thread. I may come back and chime in later. For now, Jim Watson has hit the nail on the head.

[SWMAN]

The authors need to be more specific of what they speak. One of the services just recently put in an order for more M9s and Beretta came out with the M9A1 per USMC request. Right now there is too much $$$ invested in new pistols, repair parts and 9mm ball ammo to just deep six the investment in 9mm small arms and start buying new .45 autos, parts and ammo.

[goon]

Would it be possible to slow the twist down on a 9mm so that when the bullet hit it would have a much better chance of immediately tumbling?

Wouldn't EFMJ also violate the Hague?

[owen]

Considering the program has been more or less killed, isn't this author beating a dead horse?

[Regolith]

goon....no, we never signed onto that particular agreement, contrary to popular belief. What we signed was an agreement not to use munitions that purposely cause undue suffering. http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

[DevilDog0402]

The Marine Corps actually just changed the T.O. (Table of Organization) weapon for all officers (O-5 and below) and SNCOs to the M4. Col (O-6) and above will still carry the M9.

MARSOC (Marine Corps Special Operations Command) does have a 1911 that is essentially the Kimber Desert Warrior.

[Black Knight]

I'm a Dept of the Army Civilian Police Officer and a couple of years ago we requested EFMJ. We were told asbolutely not. We were to continue with the same round as the rest of the Army. If we could get our ammo from outside sources we would not be using ammo needed by our troops overseas. Unfortunately the powers that be don't care and force us to use the rounds that could be sent to the soldiers.

[jkomp316]

The Hague states that it is forbidden "to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering."

That and FMJ feeds better. 1 dead soldier removes 1 from the battle, 1 wounded soldier removes 3 from the battle.

I guess none of this applies to "terrorists".

[Macpherson]

The Hague convention makes no sense, wouldn't a hollow point do more damage and thus be more likely to kill its target, causing less suffering?

[AndyC]

1 dead soldier removes 1 from the battle, 1 wounded soldier removes 3 from the battle.
That's more of a strategic preference, whereas the guys on the ground would prefer to kill the bugger right there and then. To the foot-soldier, it's pretty irrelevant if it takes 1 or more of opposition's buddies to drag a wounded guy away.

Pardon the OT opinion ;)

[armed85]

Jim Watson, you are correct. I'm stationed at Little Rock AFB and we have some C130 E-model planes that need to be retired. I doubt it's going to happen though. Those 1960s planes are going to fly until they literally fall apart.

I work on the J-model. Even with the newest, coolest technology I play with everyday, I'm more amazed that the old ADIs, HSIs, analog indicators, etc. in the E-models still work. No LCD screens or computers. It's all motors and and mechanical moving parts. I love it. It's like walking back in time.

As for the topic of a new handgun for the Air Force. I say no thank you. In the rare event that I need to be issued a weapon, I'd rather my fellow airmen have a shotgun. I'd personally love to be issued an MP5 or a PDW, but I doubt that's going to happen ha ha :D

No one's asking me, but I think shotguns are much better for a defensive tool for us poorly trained non combat folks. Me on the other hand, hand over the MP5.

The Marines and Army could benefit from a new pistol. Give the new gun money to them.

[RonSC]

The Air Force has always been a "day late and a dollar short". They didn't start adopting M-series vehicles untill the mid 80's. The issue M-16's were 4-5digit SN's (original run) with no forward assist, untill the mid -late 90's and only recently adopted the M4. Yet they want to retire the A-10 ( the best Ground attack/support airframe we have) for something more high-tech. The USAF is at the top of the heap when it comes to spending big $$$ for expensive solutions to non-existent problems...:rolleyes:

Ron

[Josh Aston]

Very few people in the AF actually use their M4/M16, much less their M9. And even with the M9, I trust it do it's job well enough if I do mine. Also, like several other people have mentioned there are much more pressing needs than buying new pistols.

[TimboKhan]

I am not trying to flame the Air Force here, but I really couldn't care less about what the Air Force chooses for it's handguns. There are obviously a few airmen that have a stake in the argument, but overall, the average airman has about as much use for a handgun as I have for a glass skull. For those that do, I would think that the M9 would be perfectly suitable for the tasks at hand.

Further, how much time does the Air Force actually spend teaching marksmanship to it's members as a whole? I am not talking about the Special OP's personnel or MP's. I am speaking to the average crew chief, or pogue or whatever. I actually don't know the answer to this question, but my guess is that is is pretty minimal. I would guess that it is even more minimal when it comes to teaching pistol marksmanship. Like I say, I don't know, so if I am wrong, please tell me.

I actually think the idea of arming non-combat personnel with a shotgun is a pretty good one. Although we all know that using a shotgun isn't as simple as just pointing and pulling the trigger, we can all agree that the manual of arms is, on the whole, pretty simple. Considering that maintenance on a shotgun is pretty easy, that the guns are rugged and proven in extreme conditions, and that they are adaptable to many situations, I think that the shotgun is the way to go.

[Josh Aston]

The qualification requirement for the average airman is once a year or every two years if the get expert. Other than a few AFSC's (MOS) they never even get a chance to qualify on the M9. I don't about the other AFSC's that use M9 (or M11s for that matter) but security forces are only required to qualify every 6 months on a ridiculously easy course of fire. The only practice time we're actually alotted is the few rounds we get to fire before the qualification.

[Geronimo45]

MARSOC (Marine Corps Special Operations Command) does have a 1911
What? Did they rename Recon or just change command structure up a bit?

Some Marines do get 1911s... Recon/MARSOC/whatever they call 'em nowadays.

SOCOM in general has a lot more leeway in buying weapons than the other guys do. A lot fewer of 'em, a lot more money's been invested in their training and such. They're getting FN's SCAR, IIRC. If they decided that their official uniform from now on was a wedding dress and pink fuzzy bunny slippers, there'd be all sorts of tests run to see who made the best dress/slippers.

[mickmten]

I'm interested in this topic because I'm ex-Air Force and I was issued an M-9 back in the early 90's. I was a pilot serving with the Army as an Air Liaison Officer (ALO) and it was a time when we in the Air Force had the M-9 and our Army counterparts were still with the 1911. The Army 1911's were Korean-war vintage and really looked like they were relics (I think they were issued C&Rs along with the weapon). I agree with many of the thoughts expressed here -- there are probably better things that the Air Force could buy.

When I was on active duty the average Air Force pogue didn't have the need to get to the range on a periodic basis. Only those who were in an assignment that required arms got the training. I really think that the training we received was just to familiarize us with the weapon, the basics of range safety and how not to be anxious around a loaded weapon. Let's just say that many Air Force people had their first and last experience with a personal weapon on the range. I think that attitude has changed in the last few years and I applaud that development.

I read recently that handguns are the ultimate "point and click" user interface. Thanks for the input folks, this is a great forum.

[RCouch]

I'm with those that say leave the handgun as is and concentrate on the overaged aircraft. If you read the AFA magazine, the down time % on some of our fighter groups is beyond the critical range.

[McCall911]

Wouldn't EFMJ also violate the Hague?

Sure would, because EFMJ does expand. It doesn't seem to penetrate worth a flip, but it does expand:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=289520&highlight=EFMJ
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=289512&highlight=EFMJ
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=289211&highlight=EFMJ

[chris in va]

The qualification requirement for the average airman is once a year or every two years if the get expert

Actually, we qualified ONCE with the M16. I had never even heard of an M9, much less shot one. This was 92-96. We certainly were NOT allowed to shoot it full auto.

[mickmten]

For those not familiar with the M9:

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/history/true_story_m9.htm

[JonP]

Currently, it's once every two years for M16 if you qualify expert. You qualify with the M9 additionally if you're expected to carry it on a deployment (which I did). Both courses of fire are ridiculously easy.

[jkingrph]

I'm interested in this topic because I'm ex-Air Force and I was issued an M-9 back in the early 90's. I was a pilot serving with the Army as an Air Liaison Officer (ALO) and it was a time when we in the Air Force had the M-9 and our Army counterparts were still with the 1911. The Army 1911's were Korean-war vintage and really looked like they were relics (I think they were issued C&Rs along with the weapon). I agree with many of the thoughts expressed here -- there are probably better things that the Air Force could buy.

When I was on active duty the average Air Force pogue didn't have the need to get to the range on a periodic basis. Only those who were in an assignment that required arms got the training. I really think that the training we received was just to familiarize us with the weapon, the basics of range safety and how not to be anxious around a loaded weapon. Let's just say that many Air Force people had their first and last experience with a personal weapon on the range. I think that attitude has changed in the last few years and I applaud that development.

I read recently that handguns are the ultimate "point and click" user interface. Thanks for the input folks, this is a great forum.

I'm also an ex Air Force officer. I was active duty from 1968 to 1979. As a medical(pharmacy) officer the only firearms training I received was qualification in basic training with the M-16 and with the S&W 38 in OTS.
I "joined" the active reserve in late '90, just in time for Desert Storm, and got my "qualification with the M-9 only after returning from overseas. I find it an ok handgun, a bit bulky. If I had my preferances I would choose a 1911 platform in 40 or 45. It I had to choose a 9mm it would be the Browning P-35.

Actually one of the Para-Ordance LDA formats would be good, considering the trigger is consistant from the first to the last shot. It would need a lot of testing for reliability.

[DMK]

That and FMJ feeds better. 1 dead soldier removes 1 from the battle, 1 wounded soldier removes 3 from the battle.1 wounded soldier means a guy who could shoot or frag you when you move on thinking he was dead.

[GunTech]

Also, "Finally, the Army and the Marine Corps--the services most likely to use the weapon in combat--have shown no desire to switch back to a .45 model." I think the Corps still uses the 1911, is that correct?

I guess that explains why the military was considering a new Joint Services Pistol in .45. One of the main reasons being complaints of the effectiveness of 9mm ball in combat.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/jcp.htm

Currently on hold.

[Gewehr98]

Currently, it's once every two years for M16 if you qualify expert. You qualify with the M9 additionally if you're expected to carry it on a deployment (which I did). Both courses of fire are ridiculously easy.

Your frequency of recurring weapons qualification is based on the category that they assign to you and your AF Form 522 qualification card. Security Forces get to qualify M16 and M9 every year. Bomber/Recce Crew dawgs like myself qualified every year on M9, and M16 not so often. That was changing before I retired last year, because they consider the M16 to be your aircrew ground/tent city weapon now. If you get identified for an AEF deployment, you may get tagged to qual fire M16 and M9 again prior to shipping out, especially if your Form 522 drops dead sometime during the duration of your deployment.

The quals are fairly easy, and they finally do the Mozambique drill now for M9. I qualified Expert *almost* every time I had the opportunity, through 20 years and 2 months. I had a couple really sloppy Colt AR-15 slickside rifles that could have seriously used a rebuild or been sent off to a museum somewhere, the bullets did not always go where the front sight said they should. I wonder if Curtis LeMay used them himself?

You only get the one ribbon, and a bronze star to wear for the second weapon's Expert qualification, one Expert qual for rifle, one Expert qual for handgun. Over the years, I qualified expert on the M38, M1911, M9, and and various flavors of M16. That still only entitled me to one ribbon, and one bronze star device.

[Alphazulu6]

As for the topic of a new handgun for the Air Force. I say no thank you. In the rare event that I need to be issued a weapon, I'd rather my fellow airmen have a shotgun. I'd personally love to be issued an MP5 or a PDW, but I doubt that's going to happen ha ha


I agree with jragsdale post about the AF not needing new firearms. I also agree with 748 and his post that

9mm is fine as long as you don't have to use it.