What Would You Choose As the M9's Replacement?


PDA






RLZIII
February 17, 2012, 06:07 PM
The topic says it all: What would you choose as the M9's replacement in the various military branches? There's been a lot of talk about the military replacing the M9, and several announcements to the same effect (when this will actually occur is up in the air of course). This is just to see some opinions and whatnot; I understand that most people here don't have the ability to test these guns to the extent that the military would have to in order to see how they function in various conditions. This thread is for discussion's sake only.

The poll only allows you to select a manufacturer (and is there for a general overview), but please post in the thread listing the specific gun that you think would be suitable and why.

My pick: Glock 21 Gen4. A full-size gun chambered in .45 ACP that holds 13+1. It's obviously very reliable and has great accuracy. And of course Glocks have been able to prove themselves in various conditions, which unfortunately the M9 has had some problems with.

If you enjoyed reading about "What Would You Choose As the M9's Replacement?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Vern Humphrey
February 17, 2012, 06:19 PM
M1911A2 -- the standard Colt Government with beavertail safety and "speed bump" plus better sights.

Weedy
February 17, 2012, 06:47 PM
Who voted to replace the M9 with a Beretta? :)

beatledog7
February 17, 2012, 07:15 PM
I've had some experience in military requirements and procurement, and I'm pretty sure of four things:

1) The M9 will remain the standard sidearm for at least another 6-8 years.
2) Its replacement will be a US-manufactured gun.
3) Its replacement will still be chambered in 9mm.
4) Its replacement will still be a metal-framed DA/SA design with a manual safety.

My Pick: Something that has not yet been designed. If it were a horse race, my money would be on Ruger to win, S&W to place, Springfield to show.

Mike OTDP
February 17, 2012, 07:37 PM
You've really got two questions here.

Which Caliber? and Which gun?

If we stick with 9mm, I don't see anything with enough of an improvement to warrant a change. The Beretta 92 is in the system as the M9, the Sig P228 is in the system as the M11. You might go to the Sig over the Beretta.

In .45ACP? Fight's on. My money would be on the FNP-45. DA/SA, made in USA.

ritepath
February 17, 2012, 07:46 PM
P220

marksman13
February 17, 2012, 08:47 PM
I love the Glock 21, but it will never win a military contract for the same reason that the G20, and G21 are not popular as LEO issues guns, they are too big for many people to shoot comfortably.

If it were my money to spend I would issue Glock 17s and be done with it if we didn't already have a side arm. However, since it is my money, as a tax payer and we have a sidearm that currently works, I vote we leave it as is and put that money towards reducing the national deficit.

mgmorden
February 17, 2012, 08:57 PM
This topic comes up all the time, but realistically we're the ones window shopping - the military ain't that interested. I can't say I blame them either. If I was choosing a new gun from scratch then I'd never issue the M9, but we're not starting from scratch. Any replacement has to not just be better but be ENOUGH better to justify the replacement cost. Nothing has really come along that warrants that type of expenditure.

For the sake of grins and giggles though, if we were buying again I'd like to see the contract go to an American company (both "Made in America" and a company under American ownership - not one or the other). I'm not all that big of a "buy American" person, but IMHO when it comes to our tax dollars being spent there should be a great effort to keep that money within our own economy. As such I'd like to see either the Ruger SR9 or the S&W M&P.

I agree with Beatledog on several things though: no matter what, any replacement will still be 9mm, and it'll definately sport a manual safety. Not sure on DA/SA being certain, but I can guarantee that straight SA (or single-stack) is out. They ain't bringing back the 1911.

dogtown tom
February 17, 2012, 09:06 PM
beatledog7 I've had some experience in military requirements and procurement, and I'm pretty sure of four things:

1) The M9 will remain the standard sidearm for at least another 6-8 years.
2) Its replacement will be a US-manufactured gun.
3) Its replacement will still be chambered in 9mm.
4) Its replacement will still be a metal-framed DA/SA design with a manual safety.

My Pick: Something that has not yet been designed. If it were a horse race, my money would be on Ruger to win, S&W to place, Springfield to show.
And you would lose your shirt....Springfield Armory is an importer- and doesn't manufacture anything. If you believe your #1 above Springfield better build a factory here.;)

Fremmer
February 17, 2012, 09:47 PM
S&W m&p 9mm

Hondo 60
February 17, 2012, 09:55 PM
It is my firm belief that we went with the Beretta simply to have a better political "in" in Italy.
The only advantage the 9mm has over the 1911 is more ammo in the magazine.
Personally, I'd much rather carry a couple of extra magazines.

And I believe that if/when the M9 is replaced it'll once again NOT depend on ballistics, but on politics.

FIVETWOSEVEN
February 17, 2012, 10:27 PM
Why change? It's good for now and the DoD just bought a bunch more. If anything, they should switch to the 92A1. Glocks don't meet the requirements to be considered for standard issue.

wlewisiii
February 17, 2012, 11:16 PM
Glock 17.

SouthernBoy
February 18, 2012, 12:00 AM
In no particular order, Glock 17 or 22, or M&P in 9mm or .40S&W.

Autolycus
February 18, 2012, 12:18 AM
I would love to see the US military issuing a Glock 17 or Smith and Wesoon M&P9 but it won't happen. And they could issue Glock 19s to their investigative division or M&P9cs if they went with the Smith and Wesson.

But the fact is that it won't happen and I think we are stuck with the Beretta 92FS for now. From all reports it is not a bad gun, it is just bad magazines.

beatledog7
February 18, 2012, 12:54 AM
Springfield Armory is an importer- and doesn't manufacture anything.

I was not aware of that. But I stand by my win and place bets.

Dogtown,

What do you know about horse racing? Losing my show bet wouldn't necessarily cost me my shirt.

Black Butte
February 18, 2012, 01:08 AM
M10

Seriously though, maybe the Glock. Light, swappable parts, easy to strip and clean, reliable, durable, and low production cost.

mljdeckard
February 18, 2012, 02:31 AM
Of course I would prefer my 1911. But to train new shooters to go into a harsh environment, I would prefer that they had Glock 17/19s.

SniperStraz
February 18, 2012, 02:43 AM
I voted for glock. It'll never actually happen but it would be a nice improvement. Before we start fixing what isnt broken however, I vote we replace our militarys rifles for something in a more substantial caliber that doesnt choke on sand.

Unfortunately, we will most likely spend more money on fashionable new BDUs with nifty velcro pockets that come in the same color but some other ridiculous design.

el Godfather
February 18, 2012, 03:28 AM
I would chose Beretta for M9's replacement. What a joke!

Anyways, Sig Sauer may be a good option if there must be a change- However, nothing wrong with the M9 despite all the crtics arguing against it.

Robbins290
February 18, 2012, 06:36 AM
The m9 is a mighty fine pistol. Used it in the core. If they were to replace it. I would want them to take on the sig p226.

Rustinthewheel
February 18, 2012, 06:58 AM
FNP Series offer the light weight of the Glock/M&P with the manual safety and de-cocking feature, all made in the US, by a company we already have multiple contracts and a long history with.

They have the rails, optic mount and the suppressor threading already installed.

gunnutery
February 18, 2012, 09:23 AM
1) The M9 will remain the standard sidearm for at least another 6-8 years.
2) Its replacement will be a US-manufactured gun.
3) Its replacement will still be chambered in 9mm.
4) Its replacement will still be a metal-framed DA/SA design with a manual safety.

I voted for Glock, but I agree with the quoted text above. Actually my guess is that the M9 will be around longer than 6-8 years. With major defense cuts ahead, and the additional M9 contract still being met (I think), I think a new pistol is the least of their concerns. As long as we stay within the 9mm NATO confines, we may as well stick with with the M9.

NG VI
February 18, 2012, 01:10 PM
We won't be dropping the M9 for a very, very long time. For ease short and long term maintenance, the Glock makes a lot of sense, and the consistent trigger plus a nice sharp useable reset fits very well into the training we already give with the rifle. Beretta triggers don't really behave like M-16 triggers, while the Glock's is actually pretty similar.

Lighter, simpler, less fiddly bits to snag on things and Joe to screw around with, less parts to break, less springs and small, complicated metal pieces means less parts for the armorers to keep stocked, and for troops like special forces whose role by definition includes long-endurance missions, a small parts replacement kit would be very lightweight and small.

I don't think the Beretta is going anywhere though, and the trials that all the competing pistols went through were so well documented (and repeated) that I think we can safely rule politics out as the reason we went with the Beretta. I don't think the Beretta offers the best platform for a service pistol, but it is the archetype of mid-end of 20th Century service pistols. I think we (the civilian side, especially gun gamers) have learned an awful lot about combat handgunnery in the last twenty years, but not all of it is really relevant to large-scale government procurement and use.

Besides, it's just a pistol.

FIVETWOSEVEN
February 18, 2012, 01:22 PM
Besides, it's just a pistol.

This, I'm pretty sure that they'll be getting new rifles before a new handgun as that would be one of the last things on their list of things to replace. It's just a pistol, meant to get you back to your rifle.

larry starling
February 18, 2012, 01:36 PM
p-229

NG VI
February 18, 2012, 01:49 PM
FIVETWOSEVEN, I think I might actually disagree with you that we'll be getting a new rifle first. The only way I see us replacing the M-16/M4 series rifles as our general issue service weapon, is if the LSAT program is reinstated and becomes a practical success. Even then I can easily see us just chambering LSAT ammunition in either the M-16 or in an M-16 with just enough modifications to allow the new ammunition to work.

I can see us trading for some other pistol before that happens. The M-16 is too ideal a service rifle to replace with anything possible to produce today, and likely anything possible before the end of the next decade at least.

needmorecowbell
February 18, 2012, 08:47 PM
It's time for a CZ fanboy to jump in. I think the best would be a nice steel frame, sa/da, CZ SP01 or one modified with a lighter alloy frame. Or if you want something smaller the P01. I agree the military is staying with 9mm.

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
February 18, 2012, 09:14 PM
I would say either a Glock 17 or 22. I can see us using 9mm again, but there's always the possibility of switching to .40 cal. I really don't see us using .45 again, so I don't understand why I see people still voting for it, when we get awesome capacity from 9mm and .40 cal.

Don357
February 18, 2012, 09:34 PM
The US will never adopt a Glock until they at a minimum add a manual safety and revise or do away with the unsafe "safe action" trigger system. And like has already been said, the Beretta M-9 will be around fro a long time due to the amount of money already invested in ammo and replacement parts. However, standard issue should join "spec ops" and switch to the Sig or possibly a CZ. They could even stay with the 9mm, but should go with a more effective caliber, not that the 9mm is not effective, it has served well for over 100 yrs, but there are better.

NG VI
February 18, 2012, 09:38 PM
What's unsafe about their trigger?

Don't say "lack of a safety" because there are literally dozens of other pistols and every revolver but a couple of oddballs that don't have separate, on/off safeties.

earplug
February 18, 2012, 09:43 PM
If I get to pick, that means i'm in charge.
All my officers and NCO's get $700.00 and can have any production 9mm on my list.
At the end of their service they keep the pistol, which is A-ok anywhere in the USA.
Enlisted service members take home their issue weapon.
No more bitching about big grips, i'll feeling triggers, worn out weapons and the money saved in testing and lobbying for a new weapon is saved. Recruitment and retention is improved.

marksman13
February 18, 2012, 10:10 PM
Earplug, you just suggested an absolute, logistical nightmare that would never work in a modern military the size of ours.

What do your officers and enlisted men do when they are in the mountains of Afghanistan and a spring in their pistol gives up the ghost? You going to keep parts in your supply chain for every pistol on your list? What about combat situations when one soldier's pistol runs dry and he needs a mag for his G17, but the man on his right is carrying a P229 and the guy on his left is running an XD?

Sounds like a good concept, but it quickly crumbles when you start applying Murphy's Law to it.

FIVETWOSEVEN
February 18, 2012, 11:07 PM
FIVETWOSEVEN, I think I might actually disagree with you that we'll be getting a new rifle first. The only way I see us replacing the M-16/M4 series rifles as our general issue service weapon, is if the LSAT program is reinstated and becomes a practical success. Even then I can easily see us just chambering LSAT ammunition in either the M-16 or in an M-16 with just enough modifications to allow the new ammunition to work.

Well the DoD did recently purchase another bunch of M9 so they'll be hanging around for awhile. I have at least heard that there is a new requirement for the new service rifle and that it has to have hyper burst capability like the Russian AN 94.

The US will never adopt a Glock until they at a minimum add a manual safety and revise or do away with the unsafe "safe action" trigger system.

It's not standard issue but our military uses Glocks. USAF Pilots are issued Glock 19s and SOCOM also plays with the Glock 19. The Glock's trigger is safe, it only fires when the trigger is pulled just like a revolver.

amprecon
February 18, 2012, 11:24 PM
I shoot the Glock 21 the best of them all, so that's what I'd have. As for what everybody else should have? Well, I'm not so sure, but I like Glocks.

rkammer
February 19, 2012, 01:29 AM
Smith & Wesson M&P full size .45 ACP. We need to get back to American handguns for our military and Smith & Wesson is finally making military quality semi-autos.

T.huynh
February 19, 2012, 02:52 AM
Fnp-45.

sigpro
February 19, 2012, 03:47 AM
Mossberg Cruiser in shoulder holster.

rikman
February 19, 2012, 05:27 AM
1911


Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

usp9
February 19, 2012, 06:57 AM
Is there some reason to change sidearms?

GMHAYESUSN
February 19, 2012, 10:12 AM
I would love to see a S&W .40 M&P but seeing what my guys do to our issuedM9's Im not sure a polymer frame could take the abuse from these chuckleheads

Onmilo
February 19, 2012, 10:19 AM
I would choose the H&K Tactical in .45 acp with a suppressor included with every weapon but that's me.

gspn
February 19, 2012, 10:31 AM
The m9 is a mighty fine pistol. Used it in the core. If they were to replace it. I would want them to take on the sig p226.
I dunno about you...but it was spelled CORPS when I was in....

jim243
February 19, 2012, 10:36 AM
My pick: Glock 21 Gen4. A full-size gun chambered in .45 ACP that holds 13+1. It's obviously very reliable and has great accuracy. And of course Glocks have been able to prove themselves in various conditions, which unfortunately the M9 has had some problems with.

Untill Glock puts manual safeties on their guns, it will not happen. My choice would be something made in the US today, the FNP-45 Tactical.

Jim

Smith357
February 19, 2012, 10:46 AM
Maybe I'm just an old jingoistic fart, but I feel the American military should use American firearms in American calibers. The S&W M&Ps and the Springfield XDs have proven themselves on the street, it's time the US Military bean counters to get rid of those sub caliber Italian pieces of crap and bring in an American made .45.

marksman13
February 19, 2012, 11:31 AM
I thought XDs were imported from Croatia...

CombatArmsUSAF
February 19, 2012, 12:08 PM
Quote:
beatledog7 I've had some experience in military requirements and procurement, and I'm pretty sure of four things:

1) The M9 will remain the standard sidearm for at least another 6-8 years.
2) Its replacement will be a US-manufactured gun.
3) Its replacement will still be chambered in 9mm.
4) Its replacement will still be a metal-framed DA/SA design with a manual safety.

My Pick: Something that has not yet been designed. If it were a horse race, my money would be on Ruger to win, S&W to place, Springfield to show.
And you would lose your shirt....Springfield Armory is an importer- and doesn't manufacture anything. If you believe your #1 above Springfield better build a factory here.

Ever heard of Geneseo, Illionois? Springfield Armory has a factory there.

Inebriated
February 19, 2012, 12:14 PM
Hi Point.

NG VI
February 19, 2012, 04:12 PM
Today, 10:46 AM #45
Smith357

Maybe I'm just an old jingoistic fart, but I feel the American military should use American firearms in American calibers. The S&W M&Ps and the Springfield XDs have proven themselves on the street, it's time the US Military bean counters to get rid of those sub caliber Italian pieces of crap and bring in an American made .45.

The XD is imported from Croatia. Beretta has a plant in Maryland, pretty sure they make a good number of M9s there.

Tomcat47
February 19, 2012, 05:40 PM
Be hard to replace something that replaced the 1911! Big shoes to fill, however in my opinion it filled it for a few simple reasons that are well known.

1) NATO compliance ,everyone else in alliance was using 9mm.
(actually makes sense in regards to the alliance)
2) More Capacity and less weight/carry ammo ratio
(obvious)
3) Easier to Field Strip
(obvious again)
4) SA/DA (my opinion here is each his own - I love cocked and locked on 1911 - and do not mind either platform - Bit 1911 triggers are a dream)

Just to name a few. It is above all a proven platform, and has proven itself in the field for 20 years now. With that said I think any DA/SA contender would suffer the same criticisms that the M9 has.

Maybe a SA only 9mm on 1911 platform with 15 rd capacity could compete, but I doubt it. It would seem that the powers that be decided SA only is not the best choice.

So to the questions:

1) The M9 will remain the standard sidearm for at least another 6-8 years.
Affirmitive.....probably a lot longer!
2) Its replacement will be a US-manufactured gun.
Oh politics!.....don't bet on it!
3) Its replacement will still be chambered in 9mm.
It will either be 9mm or most likely a Photon Plasma Generator! :D
4) Its replacement will still be a metal-framed DA/SA design with a manual safety. Most likely with exception of Photon Plasma Generator..it could probably be polymer.....:scrutiny:

golden
February 19, 2012, 05:52 PM
The Defense Department just signed up for a huge buy of M9's, so I doubt we will see an replacements, expecially with the military planning to shrink in size.

That said, I would bet on a S&W SD9 with night sights. Price will be the issue here. Once a final price is agreed upon, the military may try to upgrade by asking for a best price from GLOCK for model 17, RUGER for a best price on the SR9 and S&W for prices on the M&P9.

Any of the above UPGRADE pistols would do the job and have really low prices when they want to win a contract.

Failing that, the S&W SD9 could win on a purely low price bid.

In the end, it would be less about which is the best pistol, than it would be about which is the best for the money.

I would rather see the money spent on an M-4 carbine replacement. It would be a much better use of money.

Jim

FIVETWOSEVEN
February 19, 2012, 09:37 PM
Ever heard of Geneseo, Illionois? Springfield Armory has a factory there

Ever look at the slide of an XD? It has HS Produkt Karlovac Croatia on it. They are made in Karlovac, Croatia by HS Produkt.

Fishslayer
February 19, 2012, 11:06 PM
Who voted to replace the M9 with a Beretta?

Ummm.... pssst!

Berretta makes other guns besides the M9

allaroundhunter
February 20, 2012, 12:25 AM
I would love to see the M9 replaced with a 1911, but due to cost, I never see it happening.

I also never see the M9 being replaced with a Glock. I do not see the military adopting a pistol without a manual safety, just ain't gonna happen.

Kush
February 20, 2012, 12:33 AM
In my opinion if the m9 was to be replaced it should be replaced with something that could also be used in possible future conflicts against soldiers wearing body armor. I would even go to the extent of suggesting something more like the H&K mp7 instead of a pistol for the people who normally just get a pistol. As for the troops who get a pistol to go along with their rifle, I really don't see the point, for the argument of it's something to use if their rifle breaks, they would probably be just as screwed with or without a pistol(from the video footage I have seen of the war an Afghanistan/Iraq and what i heard on the news it seems to be happening at a longer range than 25 or even 50 yards, and at such a range I would prefer to just sit behind cover than attempt to use a pistol at far beyond the range that it is effective) and the money would be better spent keeping the rifle from breaking in the first place.

FIVETWOSEVEN
February 20, 2012, 12:46 AM
I really don't see the point, for the argument of it's something to use if their rifle breaks, they would probably be just as screwed with or without a pistol(from the video footage I have seen of the war an Afghanistan/Iraq and what i heard on the news it seems to be happening at a longer range than 25 or even 50 yards, and at such a range I would prefer to just sit behind cover than attempt to use a pistol at far beyond the range that it is effective) and the money would be better spent keeping the rifle from breaking in the first place.

Someone I know ran out of ammo in his M4 and had to draw his pistol. It has a legitimate purpose.

Kush
February 20, 2012, 01:13 AM
Someone I know ran out of ammo in his M4 and had to draw his pistol. It has a legitimate purpose.

You could carry 2 more magazines for your rifle instead for the same weight as the m9, unless you are saying that instead of reloading he switched to his handgun. Also was the enemy close enough that he used his handgun?

Bill_Rights
February 20, 2012, 01:46 AM
FN! I agree with RustInTheWheel: http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=7968677&postcount=22. Ideally FNP-45 or FNX-45 (in .45 ACP). Superb firearm! At least $100 and possibly $200-300 less than the Sig, Glock, etc. I call for a tax-payer revolt if we over-spend on this one!!

Inebriated
February 20, 2012, 01:51 AM
As for the troops who get a pistol to go along with their rifle, I really don't see the point, for the argument of it's something to use if their rifle breaks, they would probably be just as screwed with or without a pistol(from the video footage I have seen of the war an Afghanistan/Iraq and what i heard on the news it seems to be happening at a longer range than 25 or even 50 yards, and at such a range I would prefer to just sit behind cover than attempt to use a pistol at far beyond the range that it is effective) and the money would be better spent keeping the rifle from breaking in the first place.


So you want to just not issue handguns because you think they're screwed either way, without the rifle? Would you be happy if that's what they told you before sending you out?

You could carry 2 more magazines for your rifle instead for the same weight as the m9, unless you are saying that instead of reloading he switched to his handgun. Also was the enemy close enough that he used his handgun?

And then when the rifle has a permanent failure, he's got a lot of ammo to throw at the enemy.

1911 guy
February 20, 2012, 01:52 AM
I'd like to see it replaced with the Springfield XD in .45ACP.

Of course, since we have to play nice with NATO and such, it'll never happen. They're too stuck on using the single worst performer (in FMJ) in common centerfire handgun calibers. I'll leave it at that before I start getting political and torquing off the rest of the world. Who seem to think we need to cater to their inferiority complex. Nevermind.

Kush
February 20, 2012, 03:25 AM
So you want to just not issue handguns because you think they're screwed either way, without the rifle? Would you be happy if that's what they told you before sending you out?



And then when the rifle has a permanent failure, he's got a lot of ammo to throw at the enemy.

If that's the case then why isn't everyone issued a handgun to go along with their rifle instead of just certain people?

hifirock57
February 20, 2012, 04:21 AM
Eff it, throw a 6920 in a drop leg holster and call it a day

alaskanativeson
February 20, 2012, 06:06 AM
I voted H&K, I'd say the HK45 would be my first choice, followed by the USP in 45. Third place goes to the Springfield XD Tactical, Also in .45 Auto. I'm with Sam1911, why should we settle for inferior because the Europeans decided to?

Tcruse
February 20, 2012, 08:35 AM
Springfield imports only. Closest thing to manufacture is some custom fitting on 1911s from Brazil. Mostly Springfield uses confusion about it's name to claim quality. XDx seem like good guns, not especially better than other midrange polymer guns. It is interesting to me that when they were imported as a $300 gun they were not successful.

AT2
February 20, 2012, 08:36 PM
IMHO glock will never be a suitable replacement. Why you ask? No external safety. Ya have to remember this isn't the 40's any more, most kids going into basic have never touched a firearm in their life. I know for a fact in the Navy I have seen people on the range qualifying (or rather trying to) that had no business with a M9 in their hand and were kicked off the range in short order. Yeah most were officers and a few Masters at Arms sprinkled in (had one MA2 tell me that the M4 kicked too much for him, he was a SAMI).

Kush
February 20, 2012, 08:56 PM
I'm just gonna point out that Glock has made limited runs of pistols with external safetys for governments and police departments that have requested it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/hotrod9mm/G22S-1a.jpg

mljdeckard
February 20, 2012, 09:22 PM
Simplicity is exactly the reason I want to issue Glocks. When they gave us our (brief) CQB training, they were so redundant as to make us put the M-9 on safe when it locked empty. A Glock would have two less steps in an emergency reload.

Also, I found when I had many hours to practice reloads with a couple of magazines I took the followers out of, that the overhand grip on an M-9 has a significant risk of pushing the pistol 'on safe' when you rack the slide. NOT something I want to train new shooters to avoid. (I taught myself to release and rack the slide by pulling on the indents at the front of the slide.)

For new rookie soldiers, simplicity is better. I'll be sure to mention this when I am named Secretary of Defense.

BTW, a frame-mounted safety like the one shown above, would solve these problems.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 20, 2012, 09:31 PM
In my opinion if the m9 was to be replaced it should be replaced with something that could also be used in possible future conflicts against soldiers wearing body armor. I would even go to the extent of suggesting something more like the H&K mp7 instead of a pistol for the people who normally just get a pistol. As for the troops who get a pistol to go along with their rifle, I really don't see the point, for the argument of it's something to use if their rifle breaks, they would probably be just as screwed with or without a pistol(from the video footage I have seen of the war an Afghanistan/Iraq and what i heard on the news it seems to be happening at a longer range than 25 or even 50 yards, and at such a range I would prefer to just sit behind cover than attempt to use a pistol at far beyond the range that it is effective) and the money would be better spent keeping the rifle from breaking in the first place.

I used my M9 a number of time while looking in crawlspaces and under stairwells in Afghanistan. The military application of a pistol is NOT just to "fight your way back to your rifle" as some say.

alaskanativeson
February 20, 2012, 09:46 PM
My wife's XD is the one that has a manual safety. We just happened to get a good deal on it.

If I may point out a serious pet peeve of mine: If you're too stupid to use a firearm without a manual safety, you're WAY too stupid to be a cop. Or a soldier.

mljdeckard
February 20, 2012, 09:57 PM
Ragnar, it is for the vast majority of soldiers who carry them. For soldiers in situations much more serious, I would prefer to see unit-level discretion in procurement and training.

FIVETWOSEVEN
February 20, 2012, 10:19 PM
I'm just gonna point out that Glock has made limited runs of pistols with external safetys for governments and police departments that have requested it.

That's an after market safety, this is a real Glock factory safety:
http://i27.tinypic.com/nvysn5.jpg

funnelcake
February 20, 2012, 10:22 PM
"What's unsafe about their trigger?"

The comparison to a DAO revolver is largely invalid unless the average Glock has a 10-12lb.+ trigger. When asked for advice by casual users (especially those looking for a suitable weapon to carry concealed) I counsel strongly against any striker-fired pistol or similar with a 4.5 to about 7.5lb. trigger that doesn't have some type of manual or separate (from the actual trigger) safety.

I often hand them my 1911 with the heaviest trigger (5.2lbs.) and ask them if they'd be comfortable carrying the weapon with a round chambered, hammer back, the "thumb" safety off, the grip safety tied down, and tucked against a lower cheek? Not a single "Yes" to date. If they practice often and are very diligent - maybe it's a better choice. IMO - unwise and unsafe.

Also, does quality design and (assume) construction for LEO and armed citizen use make a good military sidearm? Maybe..

Funnel

drunkensobriety
February 20, 2012, 10:41 PM
"This is my safety sir." *wiggles index finger*

And since we're all responsible people who all have firearm handling we all know the instructions our Dear Colonel Cooper gave us DON'T we boys and girls?

Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.

Trigger locks simply provide one more thing to fumble around with when fine motor skills dissolve into goo with the rest of your brains once the adrenal glandes kick in.

Wasn't the original intent of the Glock design to create a redundantly safe yet incredibly streamlined to operate semi automatic? Seems like they're violating their own mantra.

Anyone who -doesn't- have enough training to -not- be pulling the trigger when they don't intend to fire: shouldn't be handling a firearm.


Further thought: it's looks a little too much like - and sits a little too close to the magazine release. That's exactly what i want to happen in a dangerous situation. I go to make the gun capable of firing and kerplunk - my magazine is on the deck at my feet. That's a *GREAT* idea, why didn't someone think of that sooner?

Go over the logic of this with me:
People are having misfires because they don't have propor training: so Glock designs a trigger block safety to make misfires less likely to happen. This trigger lock however sits an inch away from and is shaped the same as the magazine release. Somehow: this German company thinks that the people not trained well enough not to pull the trigger by mistake are going to be trained well enough to distinguish the two buttons apart under stressful conditions. You know: ordinarily German engineering is pretty sound. This isn't one of those instances....

marksman13
February 20, 2012, 11:16 PM
I had a catastrophic failure on my M4 while conducting a raid on a house in Iraq. My M9 saved my life when my rifle's safety lever broke off as I attempted to switch from safe to fire. A pistol serves a purpose much more important than fighting back to a rifle. Until you've been sent into harm's way in a non-linear battle field you don't have the right to an opinion about how side arms are issued in such situations.

I would much rather be stuck in the mountains of Afghanistan with a broken rifle and a pistol that is ineffective past 50 yards, than to be stuck in the same situation with no pistol and a rock that is ineffective past 10 yards. Any weapon beats no weapon when someone else is trying to end your existence. If nothing else, a sidearm gives the individual a fighting chance at defending himself until other members of his squad can get to him.

FIVETWOSEVEN
February 20, 2012, 11:17 PM
The comparison to a DAO revolver is largely invalid unless the average Glock has a 10-12lb.+ trigger. When asked for advice by casual users (especially those looking for a suitable weapon to carry concealed) I counsel strongly against any striker-fired pistol or similar with a 4.5 to about 7.5lb. trigger that doesn't have some type of manual or separate (from the actual trigger) safety.

I often hand them my 1911 with the heaviest trigger (5.2lbs.) and ask them if they'd be comfortable carrying the weapon with a round chambered, hammer back, the "thumb" safety off, the grip safety tied down, and tucked against a lower cheek? Not a single "Yes" to date. If they practice often and are very diligent - maybe it's a better choice. IMO - unwise and unsafe.

Trigger design is different as the 1911's is shorter and does have the trigger safety plus a lighter trigger than a standard issue Glock. The only way a Glock could go off is if the trigger is pulled by something in the trigger guard. If you are smart and carry with a holster and be smart about reholstering your gun then no problem.

It's safe and has been proven to be safe for the 25+ years it's been around.

alaskanativeson
February 20, 2012, 11:19 PM
"This is my safety sir." *wiggles index finger*

I really like that. I don't use safeties. There's no reason to trust them, for me. If I can't trust my brain to tell my finger to do the right thing, I ought not carry anything more complicated than a rubber band gun. I'll say it again: If you're too stupid to use a gun without a safety, you're too stupid to be a cop or a soldier. Or a Marine. Or a sailor. Or an airman.

coolluke01
February 20, 2012, 11:28 PM
The U.S Army has been providing the Glock 17 to the Iraq police. It has had great reviews. The reasons for this choice of weapon were ease of use and care for those that are not highly trained.
I can see the Military going Glock. When they do switch they will be one of the last holdouts.

Tomcat47
February 20, 2012, 11:32 PM
In the vote.....I wonder how many that voted Glock have Military Combat backgrounds??

I would bet less than 1/2.........

Owen Sparks
February 20, 2012, 11:39 PM
I don't understand the point of your poll. It only lists manufacturers, not models or calibers. I want to see the military adopt something in .45 ACP. The brand is secondary although the Springfield XD would be a good choice if they can't go back to the 1911.

marksman13
February 21, 2012, 12:29 AM
Tomcat, I'll be your Huckleberry. I've got combat experience and voted Glock. What angle are you going for there? I didn't have an issue with my M9, but I much prefer the simplicity of the Glock when the adrenaline is high and fine motor skills go out the window.

Disassembly is easy with both. The Glock is lighter and holds 2 more rounds. The Glock is less affected by the elements, namely sand. The Glock is easier and faster to engage targets because there are less steps involved. It is easier to train a new shooter on for the same reasons.

NG VI
February 21, 2012, 12:40 AM
The standard connector might be rated at 5.5#, but the trigger is more like 7-8# after everything is said and done.


The 1911 was designed to have a shorter trigger and both a thumb safety and a grip safety, though the grip safety wasn't an original part of the design. The Glock was designed to not need either of those things and still be safe to carry.

The answer isn't NYPD-style 13# triggers, or an abundance of unnecessary off switches on pistols that only 'need' them because they were common on other designs and people got used to seeing them.

skt239
February 21, 2012, 08:25 AM
It is my firm belief that we went with the Beretta simply to have a better political "in" in Italy.
The only advantage the 9mm has over the 1911 is more ammo in the magazine.
Personally, I'd much rather carry a couple of extra magazines.

And I believe that if/when the M9 is replaced it'll once again NOT depend on ballistics, but on politics.

Why on earth would we need a better political "in"'with on of Europe's poorest countries?

NG VI
February 21, 2012, 09:55 AM
Why on earth would we need a better political "in"'with on of Europe's poorest countries?

Yeah, that theory has been pretty heavily debunked at this point. The M9 trials were very well documented, somehow Sig actually had a lower price per pistol in their bid, but the total package ended up being more expensive, so we got Berettas. It's easy for people to forget that for a government, you aren't just buying the guns and a few magazines. They're buying lots of magazines, parts, training on both use and repair, the total package ends up costing much more than the cost of the guns.

coolluke01
February 21, 2012, 10:25 AM
^^^^ Another +1 for Glock then

SlamFire1
February 21, 2012, 10:28 AM
The Program Manager who took the 9mm pistol program through downselect briefed my gun club on the process.

No one in their right mind wants to reopen that can of worms. It is way too political and too many eyeballs and too many contractors with political connections to gum up the procurement.

Does anyone remember how long it took to finally select a fuel tanker? http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-x.htm

There were two pistols that were deemed acceptable in the 70’s pistol trials. The SIG lost out due to spare parts costs driving the overall life cycle costs. Life cycle costs were too high. I think the SIG is an excellent design and would make an excellent service pisto.

I hate to tell the M1911 fan boys, but the Army is never going to adopt a single stack, single action auto pistol ever again.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 21, 2012, 06:19 PM
I hate to tell the M1911 fan boys, but the Army is never going to adopt a single stack, single action auto pistol ever again.

True. Especially when you look at the figures regarding rounds fired vs. hits in combat, crippling yourself with 8 rounds can be a disaster.

mljdeckard
February 21, 2012, 07:39 PM
I dunno. For a sidearm, I think that if I ever have to fire 15 rounds without a chance to reload, I might be out of luck anyway.

I would be perfectly satisfied with a standard-capacity 1911, but I would take my SF-45 if I were allowed.

It looks FMR/SOCOM units are closer to picking a single-stack 1911.

Vern Humphrey
February 21, 2012, 09:58 PM
Especially when you look at the figures regarding rounds fired vs. hits in combat, crippling yourself with 8 rounds can be a disaster.
We don't have any good data on the number of rounds fired from handguns in combat. What data we do have comes from police use of handguns, and what it shows is that regardless of how many rounds you have on tap -- from 6 to 18, you get about the same number of hits, total.

warbirdlover
February 22, 2012, 12:41 AM
My pick: Glock 21 Gen4. A full-size gun chambered in .45 ACP that holds 13+1. It's obviously very reliable and has great accuracy. And of course Glocks have been able to prove themselves in various conditions, which unfortunately the M9 has had some problems with.

+1 on the Glock

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 22, 2012, 01:48 AM
We don't have any good data on the number of rounds fired from handguns in combat. What data we do have comes from police use of handguns, and what it shows is that regardless of how many rounds you have on tap -- from 6 to 18, you get about the same number of hits, total.

Granted the plural of anecdote is not data, but the times I needed my M9 I was glad I had more than 8 rounds. YMMV.

skt239
February 22, 2012, 06:38 AM
Well if it were up to me, I'd go with the P229/P226 or the Glock 17/19.

CombatArmsUSAF
February 22, 2012, 09:28 AM
Ever look at the slide of an XD? It has HS Produkt Karlovac Croatia on it. They are made in Karlovac, Croatia by HS Produkt.
Yep, I have! The XD is one line of pistols they make. The statement was made that springfield is strictly an importer, and that's simply not true.

Pyro
February 22, 2012, 09:47 AM
Hi-Point .45
Free replacement parts for the whole army.

Fishbed77
February 22, 2012, 09:55 AM
There should be an option for "don't replace the M9."

I can't think of many military programs that would be a greater waste of money than seeking an M9 replacement, escpecially since the military just ordered a pretty huge contract of new M9s.

dogtown tom
February 22, 2012, 10:15 AM
CombatArmsUSAF Quote:
Originally Posted by FIVETWOSEVEN
Ever look at the slide of an XD? It has HS Produkt Karlovac Croatia on it. They are made in Karlovac, Croatia by HS Produkt.
Yep, I have! The XD is one line of pistols they make. The statement was made that springfield is strictly an importer, and that's simply not true.
So what handguns does Springfield actually manufacture?:scrutiny:

Even their "custom shop" 1911's are built with foreign made frames.

460Kodiak
February 22, 2012, 11:02 AM
Fnp-45

CombatArmsUSAF
February 22, 2012, 11:43 AM
So what handguns does Springfield actually manufacture?:scrutiny:

Even their "custom shop" 1911's are built with foreign made frames.
And if you think every single part on the M9 is manufactured 100% in the states, you'd be sadly mistaken.

Alot of their parts actually come from Italy.

The point was, SA is not only an importer. So what if they forge their frames somewhere else?? 99.9% of the actual work does take place here in the states.

As a side note, there is no requirement to currently have a US factory anyways. The requirement is that the company will have a factory in the US, meaning if they build a factory after the contract has been rewarded, then they meet the requirement. (Beretta actually did exactly this)

FIVETWOSEVEN
February 22, 2012, 01:15 PM
Yep, I have! The XD is one line of pistols they make. The statement was made that springfield is strictly an importer, and that's simply not true.

XDs aren't made in the US, their 1911s come from Brazil made that way with some models and the custom shop done here in the US on Brazilian forgings. As I recall, the BATF requires where the gun was made to be stamped on the gun and if most of the work is done in one location, that's the location stamped on the gun. Most work is done out of country overall. Lots of their 1911s have Imbrel, Brazil on the side or, on some of them, hidden under the grips.

mooner
February 22, 2012, 01:44 PM
S&W M&P9

American made by an American company. Reliable, accurate, and lighter weight than an M9.

Available with a safety, if they still use that as a requirement.

CombatArmsUSAF
February 22, 2012, 01:46 PM
XDs aren't made in the US, their 1911s come from Brazil made that way with some models and the custom shop done here in the US on Brazilian forgings. As I recall, the BATF requires where the gun was made to be stamped on the gun and if most of the work is done in one location, that's the location stamped on the gun. Most work is done out of country overall. Lots of their 1911s have Imbrel, Brazil on the side or, on some of them, hidden under the grips.
Except for the ones that have an NM prefix in the serial number and are stamped "Geneseo, IL" "Made in the USA"

Which is about half of the run of the mill springfields you'll run into. More than just their custom shop guns are assembled here. It's about a 50/50 split on their production level guns. The only line of 1911's that aren't split between the two factories is the "GI .45", and that may even be split without me knowing about it.

StockKahr
February 22, 2012, 02:06 PM
Where's the option for Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulators? ;)

steveracer
February 22, 2012, 02:11 PM
Of all the currently made handguns for the application we use in the US Navy (can't speak for the other branches) the gun I would choose, without hesitation...











M9.

NG VI
February 22, 2012, 02:49 PM
And if you think every single part on the M9 is manufactured 100% in the states, you'd be sadly mistaken.

Alot of their parts actually come from Italy.

The point was, SA is not only an importer. So what if they forge their frames somewhere else?? 99.9% of the actual work does take place here in the states.



Beretta frames or slides or other parts may be made in Italy, but they are completely made by the same company. And for Springfield, the only pistols they sell that would be eligible for a service contract are the ones made by a different company in Croatia. We'll never issue the 1911 again. What special little groups who get to choose whatever they want pick has absolutely no bearing on the rest of the service.

Nicky Santoro
February 22, 2012, 06:43 PM
As long as the gun is reliable does it really matter which is chosen? Does anyone here personally know someone (other than a Spec Ops type who seemingly get what they need based upon the mission) who has fired a handgun in combat? I didn't when I carried a 1911 in addition to my primary weapon. I don't recall even chambering a round in a 1911 after basic.

mljdeckard
February 22, 2012, 07:35 PM
I have actually known a couple. They were MI, not combat arms.

SharpsDressedMan
February 22, 2012, 07:39 PM
Glock 20, 10mm. But that's just me. The military probably doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell getting a tought, powerful gun like the M20 as a replacement. I'd settle for letting individual soldiers being able to provide their own "PDW" handgun, if they choose to. After all, it is THEIR life on the line.

marksman13
February 22, 2012, 07:41 PM
Nicky, yes.

allaroundhunter
February 22, 2012, 07:51 PM
Does anyone here personally know someone (other than a Spec Ops type who seemingly get what they need based upon the mission) who has fired a handgun in combat?

Yes, I do. His issued sidearm is/was an M9 and he detests it. He said the stories coming back about the M9 being underpowered are true, and he wishes that the military would adopt at least a .40 S&W, if not a .45 ACP.

skt239
February 22, 2012, 09:06 PM
Glock 20, 10mm. But that's just me. The military probably doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell getting a tought, powerful gun like the M20 as a replacement. I'd settle for letting individual soldiers being able to provide their own "PDW" handgun, if they choose to. After all, it is THEIR life on the line.

I think that would cause a lot of problems with ammo compatibility between soldiers. Keeping everything uniform is a very important part of the way an army functions.

SharpsDressedMan
February 22, 2012, 09:46 PM
I might agree with you, but pistols are so seldom used, that once the soldier exhaust his person issue or carry of ammo (in WWII, it was often 21 rounds of .45), he is probably dead anyway. I know a guy in Viet Nam that carried a personal S&W M&P .38 special, and only had what ammo he could scrounge...not much of a standard issue for him at the time, and he was a LRRP. He in fact used that revolver to kill an enemy when his Colt XM177 ran dry. He emptied his revolver, also. He never ran out of .38 ammo during his tour. If you expect to use a pistol a lot, and be issued ammo, you'd better stay with any issued round. Myself? If I were to be in a combat zone, had a Glock 20 and two boxes of ammo, and based on how much ANY grunt shoots his pistol in a fight, how many rounds do you think I'd be bringing home after a one year tour?

FMF Doc
February 22, 2012, 10:04 PM
The US built a Beretta factory here and bought Beretta pistols so that the Italians would let us but missels in Italy. It was a hugely political move that got little to no attention outside of the Armed Forces Oversight Committee.

USMC and some of the SF guys have been using M9A1 (myself included) and liking it. As far as I know, the new M9 orders have all been for M9A1s. I don't really see a need to replace the M9 as I think it works quite well. If I could find a NIB M9A1 for a decent price I would grab it up quick. The only flaw I see in the M9 is the ammo, ball. And that isn't going to change no matter what platform does or does not replace it.

Lastly, with the changing face of modern warfare, the pistol is emensly useful, and more than just something to fight back to your rifle with.

allaroundhunter
February 22, 2012, 10:04 PM
If I were to be in a combat zone, had a Glock 20 and two boxes of ammo, and based on how much ANY grunt shoots his pistol in a fight, how many rounds do you think I'd be bringing home after a one year tour?

I guess it would depend on how many soldiers there had never shot a Glock or a 10mm ;)

marksman13
February 22, 2012, 10:05 PM
Sharps, you'd probably bring home both boxes in all honesty, but if I know I'm going into an area where people want me dead, I want to give myself every possible advantage. I can't imagine any thing much worse than ending up on Al-Jazeera in an orange jump suit because I needed one more mag. I know we can't possibly prepare for everything, but I always had a mindset that when I went outside the wire I was going to carry more ammo and water than I could imagine using.

I think standard combat load was 210 rounds of 5.56 and 30-45 rounds of 9mm when I was in theatre. I always carried 330 rounds of 5.56 and 75 rounds of 9mm. Overkill? Maybe, but I never had to do the mad dash back to the truck for ammo.

I see your point, and no, I never came close to using 75 rounds of 9mm in my entire tour (range time excluded), but I'd rather have it than not.

FMF Doc
February 22, 2012, 10:17 PM
Sharps, you'd probably bring home both boxes in all honesty, but if I know I'm going into an area where people want me dead, I want to give myself every possible advantage. I can't imagine any thing much worse than ending up on Al-Jazeera in an orange jump suit because I needed one more mag. I know we can't possibly prepare for everything, but I always had a mindset that when I went outside the wire I was going to carry more ammo and water than I could imagine using.

I think standard combat load was 210 rounds of 5.56 and 30-45 rounds of 9mm when I was in theatre. I always carried 330 rounds of 5.56 and 75 rounds of 9mm. Overkill? Maybe, but I never had to do the mad dash back to the truck for ammo.

I see your point, and no, I never came close to using 75 rounds of 9mm in my entire tour (range time excluded), but I'd rather have it than not.
Seems a little light to me, though I guess it depends on where you were and how long you were going to be outside the wire for. I carried 570 of 5.56 and 135 or 9mm. Used several rounds for the M9, though admittedly most were on chaarging dogs in Afg. I had some buddies in Irq. that used their sidearm almost as a primary for house clearing. It all depends I guess.

marksman13
February 22, 2012, 11:07 PM
FMF DOC, where in the world did you put 19 mags? I guess it would depend on your vest, but I can't imagine where I would have put many more mags. Most of what we did in sourhern Iraq was mounted, so I kept 30 loaded mags in the truck for my AR and didn't worry about keeping as many on my person.

Once we moved closer to Syria I started putting six extra M4 mags in my ruck which brought me up to 17, but they weren't easily accessible.

I used my M4 or a Mossberg for house clearing, but my M9 saved my bacon once. That 12 gauge was a game changer inside a building.

We've taken this thread a long way from which sidearm we prefer. I still say Glock 17, just to get it back on topic.

Coop45
February 22, 2012, 11:49 PM
There is no such thing as too much ammo.

Jeff22
February 23, 2012, 04:43 AM
Lots of people complain about the Beretta 92/M9 series. Mostly what they don't like is that the grip has a wide circumference and the reach from the backstrap to the face of the trigger is long, and it is difficult for shooters with "average" size hands to shoot the gun well when in double action mode.

But, your average GI doesn't know much about guns, so rather than say "that gun is too big for my hand!" they say "this gun sucks". Okay, if you have small hands, that's probably the same thing... but one should try to be accurate and specific in their complaints.

GIs bitch about everything usually without knowing anything. In my military career I carried the S&W 15 revolver, the M1911A1 and the Beretta M9. I liked all of them. I shot all of them well. Other guys in my unit(s) had complaints about all of them, and the base reason was that they couldn't shoot very well and blamed the equipment rather than try to improve the operator.

Given a choice between carrying an M1911A1 in condition 3 (hammer down on an empty chamber) or a Smith & Wesson Revolver or an M9 with a loaded chamber and the safety "off", the M1911A1 looses every time. (I was in the ANG when we got the M9s -- the Air Force ALWAYS carried those guns with a live round in the chamber and the safety "off". I understand that the Army sometimes did that differently).(As an SP then an MP then a CATM instructor, the handgun was always my primary weapon)

Not to keep beating the same dead horse, but there are a few things to remember about military use of the handgun:

(1.) Most troops NEVER get training on a handgun and never carry one. Of the few that DO carry a handgun, most only get about 8 hours of training, and sometimes less than that. So whatever system is chosen has to be "GI proof" for use by 18 year old kids without much training. That's the reality of the world.

(2.) Cocked & Locked (condition one) carry is TOTALLY out of the question for a general issue handgun. Go back to point #1 above. You can't train somebody to be safe with cocked & locked carry in 8 hours. Or 4 hours. Or 2 hours. The SEALS and Delta Force and other special units get LOTS of training and are given wide latitude in the equipment they use. The majority of the people in the Army are in support functions and their primary mission is NOT to engage the enemy directly in combat, but to support the forces that do. Combat Service Support Units generally don't get a lot of range time, and what time they do get would be better spent learning how to shoot their rifles.

mljdeckard
February 23, 2012, 08:31 AM
Jeff is pretty much right. I took troops to Iraq who were issued an M-9, NEVER having fired one before. And the army doesn't trust anyone to carry with a round chambered. (Inside the wire at least.) There were a few nights when I had to walk a couple of miles at oh-dark-thirty on Camp Slayer, listening to the jackals yipping and the call to prayer, and I had the willies just enough to break that rule, but bottom line is, you are going to have to load and rack pretty much any time you use it. I told my guys to carry empty, safety off, and told them to train in their spare time to load quickly.

PabloJ
February 23, 2012, 09:01 AM
the economy is bad our military budget outrageous and there is absolutely nothing wrong with PB 9mm pistol. i can understand different platforms for special operations troops but see zero reason to change secondary weapon in regular units when the one they have work. replacement at this time is hollow pipe dream.

allaroundhunter
February 23, 2012, 01:37 PM
And the army doesn't trust anyone to carry with a round chambered. (Inside the wire at least.)

Actually, they do trust some to. A friend of mine was stationed at an FOP in Iraq, and his unit (all issued M9's) were allowed to carry with a round in a chamber, hammer down.

My friend's complaint about the M9 wasn't just that "it sucked". They were legitimate. He hated the trigger in DA mode, compared to the M1911 SAO which he has carried in service. The other thing that he didn't like about it was, as jeff said, the circumference of the backstrap. (I'm not going to get into the 9mm thing, b/c that is not a complaint against the M9 per se, just the round)

In his 20 years of service, he has had plenty of training on the pistol, and is a great shot. Being a soldier, he will carry what he is issued, and he will be proficient with it, but that is not to say that all of the complaints coming back from overseas are BS coming from GI's who don't know a thing about a gun...

Jath
February 23, 2012, 02:00 PM
FNX 9, from FNH. FN won the rifle contract, and they have a great shot at the carbine contract... I don't know why you didn't list them. Glock and Ruger have pretty much already been disqualified. They won't be going with any striker fired pistols, to springfeild and smith an wesson are out. Beretta is Italian, They are pretty much gone... FN, HK, and Sig, are the only three that have a chance. I personally think the lower priced FNs are better guns then their higher priced counterparts as well.

Jath
February 23, 2012, 02:02 PM
and the 1911 will never again be used in service. It is a beautiful artistic workhorse, but it is also obsolete.

allaroundhunter
February 23, 2012, 02:07 PM
Beretta is Italian

....That has a manufacturing plant in the US.....I would hardly consider them "gone"

Heckler and Kock don't even have a manufacturing plant in the US, it is in Germany. They just have a US based distributor.

Ryanxia
February 23, 2012, 02:42 PM
I'm with OP, Glock 21 .45ACP 13+1.

SharpsDressedMan
February 23, 2012, 03:06 PM
In all reality, the Glock 21 would be a GREAT replacement for the M9. I just happen to like the 10mm a bit better for punching through things, AND, the Glock 20 holds two more in the mag/gun with ease. I could do with the G21, especially if .45 ammo became as available as 9mm in a combat zone. Then I wouldn't have to carry all that 10mm ammo around. :D

marksman13
February 23, 2012, 03:52 PM
We didn't carry on large FOBs with a round in the chamber or even a mag in the weapon, condition Green, if you will. Out in the Firm Bases, however, we were cocked and locked at all times.

The M9 is fine as a combat pistol. That said, I've got gorilla hands. My only issue with it was the weight/size. That pistol gets heavy even in a good drop-leg holster.

mljdeckard
February 23, 2012, 09:57 PM
The 1911 is so obsolete.......that Marine Recon is finishing up trials for a new one.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 23, 2012, 10:16 PM
The 1911 is so obsolete.......that Marine Recon is finishing up trials for a new one.

What any sort of special operations unit does is not and never will be comparable to what general military units do or should do. It's not apples and oranges. It's apples and light-bulbs. There is no comparison.

Powerglide
February 23, 2012, 11:07 PM
Colt 1911

mljdeckard
February 24, 2012, 11:05 AM
Still difficult to blanket them as obsolete.

marksman13
February 24, 2012, 04:50 PM
The 1911 is far from obsolete, but there are better pistols available for military use. I like 1911s, Glocks, CZs and Berettas, but if I was starting fresh with a military (as in there had been zero weapons issued) I would go with a Glock 21 SF. If our current crop of Berettas goes down the drain, then I say go with a Glock 17 because of all the 9mm ammo we already own,.

That said, we have a sidearm that is perfectly funtional and I would rather my tax dollars be spent on other things.

FIVETWOSEVEN
February 24, 2012, 04:55 PM
To those saying 1911, why would the military choose a 1911 over a Glock? 1911s have more parts, aren't as durable, don't hold as many rounds, and I can't imagine them being more reliable in the sandbox than a Glock. Why would the military do that? Simplicity and cost is what they would be looking for.

allaroundhunter
February 24, 2012, 05:09 PM
To those saying 1911, why would the military choose a 1911 over a Glock?

Because the standard issue sidearm to our military will have a manual safety. As others have pointed out, soldiers do not get much training with a sidearm, and the military prefers the better safe than sorry path. Fratricide is one of the worst things for the military to deal with, and there are more AD's with Glock's than any firearm with a manual safety.

45_auto
February 24, 2012, 05:17 PM
To those saying 1911, why would the military choose a 1911 over a Glock?

Same reason all the top competition pistol competitors shoot a 1911 platform. The special operations military units value performance (quickly, accurately and reliably placing rounds on target) more than cost.

For general military issue, it really doesn't matter. A pistol is just a "feel-good" item at that level. If your primary weapon system is down and you're reduced to using your pistol, it's not going to make any difference.

coolluke01
February 24, 2012, 07:17 PM
there are more AD's with Glock's than any firearm with a manual safety.
Gonna have to throw the BS flag on that one. I would like to see you data on that one. Maybe total number? But that would be because Glock has 60% market share.
Besides some carry their M9's with the safety off anyway. This need for a safety ignorance needs to stop. It's kinda getting ridiculous. Some may feel safer with one and that's fine. But it's just that, a feeling.

Same reason all the top competition pistol competitors shoot a 1911 platform. The special operations military units value performance (quickly, accurately and reliably placing rounds on target) more than cost.
Man its thick in here tonight. The 1911's Top competitors use are $5000 and up. No way is the military gonna spring for that. Plus many top competitors do use Glocks.

Heres a list I found of most popular guns used by pros.

Open Division: Everyone is shooting some wild race gun built on the 1911 platform, except for 2 guys with Tanfoglios. You're also starting to see more and more "Open" Glock 35s, and with S&W releasing a .40 S&W M&P pistol with a 5 inch slide, that should start showing up as well.

Limited Division/Limited-10: Again, a lot of super trick 1911 style guns with double stack magazine wells will be the most common guns in this division; but Dave Sevigny and others have been making inroads with Glocks and other polymer guns.

Production: At the top levels, this division is dominated by Glocks and M&Ps, although Ben Stoger shoots a Beretta Elite IIA; the Glock 34 and M&P Pro 9mm are very popular here.

Revolver division: 99.9% of shooters at the top level are shooting S&W 625s in .45 ACP, although you'll see one or two guys running a 686 cut for moonclips.

Single Stack: 5 inch and shorter 1911s only are the only guns allowed in Single Stack division. Originally this was a league of its own, but it was acquired a few years ago by USPSA.

Kingofthehill
February 24, 2012, 07:50 PM
M&P 9mm IMO is where its at.

clance
February 24, 2012, 08:19 PM
If they're going to stick with the 9mm Luger then the CZ 75 SP-01Phantom http://schouvapen.no/sitefiles/site26/shop/cz-75-sp-01-phantom-9mm-polymer-frame2.jpg(http://www.cz-usa.com/products/view/cz-75-sp-01-phantom/)

I find it highly unlikely that they will return to the .45acp due to the difficulty some of the recruits had with shooting the .45acp as well as the exchangibility of ammo with Allies who all use the 9mm Luger. It makes more sense for the military if they are going to leave the 9mm behind to go with the intermediate or midrange caliber, the likely canidadate would be the proven .40S&W as it has been the choice of most US Law Enforcement Agencies and proven itself capable. In that case the Glock 22 has more then proven itself.

Jaymo
February 24, 2012, 11:06 PM
CZ75.

Zombiphobia
February 24, 2012, 11:16 PM
Red Rider BB guns. Gonna shoot their eyes out anyway, might as well prevent full-blown de-braining.

Jaymo
February 24, 2012, 11:27 PM
If they can't "handle" shooting the .45 and .308, they either need more training, become cooks, or get drummed out. If a soldier can't handle shooting a serious (non-poodle shooting) caliber, they have NO business being a soldier.
The military is not an equal opportunity employer. They exist to defend our country.

1911 guy
February 24, 2012, 11:42 PM
I find that the people who have an issue with .45ACP recoil are the ones who have it already in their heads that it's a beast and psyche themselves into handling it poorly. I've let gradeschoolers (and my then five year old son) shoot a 1911. I just tell them to "hold it like this and the kick won't bother you." They believe me and guess what? They smile like, well, gradeschoolers and ask to shoot it again.

allaroundhunter
February 25, 2012, 12:29 AM
Gonna have to throw the BS flag on that one. I would like to see you data on that one. Maybe total number? But that would be because Glock has 60% market share.
Besides some carry their M9's with the safety off anyway. This need for a safety ignorance needs to stop. It's kinda getting ridiculous. Some may feel safer with one and that's fine. But it's just that, a feeling.

The lack of a manual safety, and a 5-6 lb trigger pull make the Glock go bang accidentally more often than any other handgun (percentage wise per the number carried). I read a report on it, I will try to find it for you. The M9 decocked still requires a 10 lb pull, so yes, it is more resistant to ND's than a Glock. That is the safety of a DA/SA pistol, the first round is intentionally harder to fire.

Glocks have a large number of their ND's among the Law Enforcement community. These men and women get about as much (maybe more) training on how to use their handgun than military men and women. So, if you were to put a weapon like that into the hands of men and women with even less training on how to safely use it, the ND's will just add up.

Look at this (http://www.stripes.com/news/disturbing-trend-seen-in-negligent-discharges-of-weapons-in-afghanistan-1.22443) link. It shows the number of AD's that were reported in the military in past years. That is with weapons with manual safeties. I don't want to see what would happen if a weapon without a manual safety was introduced, and I don't think those in charge of choosing a sidearm do either.

Honestly, if the Glock was so perfect for a military role, the "elite" units in the US military that have more leeway in choosing firearms would be using them....The "obolete" 1911 still gets the call by the elite units before the Glock....



And fwiw, I carry a Glock 19 or an M&P9, neither with a manual safety. I trust that I am competent enough to handle the lack of a manual safety, but the military will continue to issue firearms with them before they will issue firearms without them. It is for this reason that S&W added an optional manual thumb safety to their M&P series. IMO, it is something that makes their handgun much more marketable to a military than a Glock.

dagerv
February 25, 2012, 12:51 AM
Glock 21. Power of the 45 with decent capacity. I have heard rumors that some spec ops use this but I could be completely wrong

FIVETWOSEVEN
February 25, 2012, 01:06 AM
Because the standard issue sidearm to our military will have a manual safety. As others have pointed out, soldiers do not get much training with a sidearm, and the military prefers the better safe than sorry path. Fratricide is one of the worst things for the military to deal with, and there are more AD's with Glock's than any firearm with a manual safety.

ADs with Glocks are training errors, not the guns error.

Same reason all the top competition pistol competitors shoot a 1911 platform. The special operations military units value performance (quickly, accurately and reliably placing rounds on target) more than cost.

I could not imagine a high end 1911 like the ones you see being used in those pistol competitions working with too much dust in the gun.

For general military issue, it really doesn't matter. A pistol is just a "feel-good" item at that level. If your primary weapon system is down and you're reduced to using your pistol, it's not going to make any difference.

I know someone that having an M9 saved their life because his M4 ran empty, that must have been feel good that he lived. If pistols don't matter, why would they need something that is highly accurate and I don't see how a high end 1911 is quicker or more reliable than a Glock. Explain that please.

allaroundhunter
February 25, 2012, 01:12 AM
ADs with Glocks are training errors, not the guns error.

I never said they were the gun's error. The fact that it doesn't have a manual safety does make it more prone to being less forgiving of operator error.

The Glock is a heck of a gun. It works exactly as it should. The trigger gets pulled, the gun goes bang. However, without the manual safety, and with soldiers who aren't trained extensively in its safe use, that can be a bad thing.

FIVETWOSEVEN
February 25, 2012, 07:28 AM
I never said they were the gun's error. The fact that it doesn't have a manual safety does make it more prone to being less forgiving of operator error.

That's why Glock would most likely add one for the trials.

allaroundhunter
February 25, 2012, 11:51 AM
That's why Glock would most likely add one for the trials.

In the past 30 years they have been against it. They have already entered their pistols into military trials without a manual safety.

dogtown tom
February 25, 2012, 11:57 AM
allaroundhunter Quote:
Originally Posted by FIVETWOSEVEN
That's why Glock would most likely add one for the trials.
In the past 30 years they have been against it. They have already entered their pistols into military trials without a manual safety.
Go back and read the entire thread.....'cause you missed the pic of the Glock with FACTORY thumb safety.
Glock Inc HAS produced models with manual safeties.....all you need to do to get one is buy a few thousand.

coolluke01
February 25, 2012, 12:56 PM
In what military officials call negligent discharges, last year troops mistakenly fired their weapons 24 times in Afghanistan, injuring 18 and killing four.
Your going to tell me that they AD their firearms 24 times and hit someone 22 of those times?!?! 4 of those resulted in a death!! Maybe those weren't accidents! A person could spin in circles in the middle of a base firing the whole time and not get 22 hits out of 24.
There are other issues here. In what military officials call negligent discharges And we are going to trust the army to call it as it is?

FIVETWOSEVEN
February 25, 2012, 01:25 PM
A person could spin in circles in the middle of a base firing the whole time and not get 22 hits out of 24.
There are other issues here.

They were most likely close range like in the same room and someone who is careless about where the muzzle is pointed, pointed it at someone and pulled the trigger.

coolluke01
February 25, 2012, 01:30 PM
Even in a room. The chance of hitting someone is low. Not even close to the approx 85% that was reported. I see this is as far more malicious than careless. Maybe i'm just a sceptic, but the numbers are too strange to use this as a basis for number of ND in the military.

SharpsDressedMan
February 25, 2012, 04:06 PM
So, 24 AD's in Afghanistan last year. And this is with a gun WITH a safety, but we are WAY past safeties here: obviously loaded, safety off, maybe cocked, definitely doing something stupid, and finger on trigger, aiming at something not intending to shoot or kill (which rule is that?). And, how many troops do we have there, armed, stressed, working under tough conditions, required to be READY to shoot at any time, and we have a problem with 24 AD's? That number might be low under the circumstances, and it would not matter WHAT KIND OF WEAPON the AD came from. In fact, that 24 MIGHT include the issue rifle, machineguns, and other weapons, not just the M9. Interesting statistic that needs further statistics to make it understandable.

NG VI
February 25, 2012, 04:46 PM
We lost a young Soldier a few years back who came in from a patrol, exhausted, and fell asleep without clearing his rifle. Somehow it ended up being discharged while he was sleeping, either from falling over or maybe he manipulated it in his sleep, and he did not survive the incident.

About as unlucky as you can get, and could have happened with any weapon. Can't be going to bed with a chambered firearm, people do all kinds of weird things in their sleep.

NG VI
February 25, 2012, 05:03 PM
If they can't "handle" shooting the .45 and .308, they either need more training, become cooks, or get drummed out. If a soldier can't handle shooting a serious (non-poodle shooting) caliber, they have NO business being a soldier.
The military is not an equal opportunity employer. They exist to defend our country.


Having served for four years, I'm taking issue with this statement that the U.S. military is not an equal opportunity employer. You've clearly never been anywhere near a post, because they ALL have an Equal Opportunity Office, every unit has Equal Opportunity staff, and it's not a wink-wink nudge-nudge equal opportunity. Even when don't ask don't tell was in effect giving someone a hard time based on their sexual orientation, real or peceived, was grounds for an Article 15.

The military is the definition of an equal opportunity employer. If you work hard and show competence in your field, there's not much that will get in the way of success for you.

And there are TONS of reasons not to use the bulky, overweight .45 and .308 cartridges for service weapons. .308 rifles can deliver a kill against a man-sized animal to a greater distance than 5.56 rifles can, sure, but who can outshoot their 5.56 rifles without controlled conditions and a rifle setup that's below subprime for close combat anyway? at ranges less than 500 meters the 5.56 is basically an ideal combat round, 6x45 or 6.8 SPCII may be a somewhat more capable round, but not enough to outweigh the momentum and other advantages the 5.56 has.

Zombiphobia
February 25, 2012, 05:12 PM
Since AD's and ND's are being brought up I'd like to call up on other military memebers, particularly Army and Marine Corps to back me up in testifying that during BCT we have it beat into us repetedly about firearms safety.


AD's and ND's happen because of some DS(not 'drill sergeant') not paying attention to what they're doing and blowing off the drill instructors' warning/lectures of safety. If you DS/DI did not beat it into your head, they were being lazy and have failed you. it's their job to teach you how to kill the enemy, not yourselveas and eachother thru carelss mishaps.

Basic friearms safety principals are NOT limited to specific types of arms, so 'lack of training' on the model XYZ is NOT any sort of excuse for this happening, regardless of external safety devices. It's because someone's being a dummy more often than not.

And yeah, I agree that if there's that many hits(22 hits of 24 shots fired), they're not accidents or negligent, they're deliberate. A good portion of them, anyhow.

Zombiphobia
February 25, 2012, 05:16 PM
don't ask don't tell

don't forget the "don't harrass" part.

NG VI
February 25, 2012, 05:20 PM
Quote:
don't ask don't tell

don't forget the "don't harrass" part.


Bingo. How many pushups you can do or what kind of heavy-caliber rifle you think would be a good service weapon gives you no excuse to create a hostile working environment for fellow servicemembers, even if they do find the M16 a good rifle, and the M9 an adequate handgun.

SharpsDressedMan
February 25, 2012, 07:06 PM
I'm going to go on record saying this: If a soldier cannot effectively fire a .308 battle rifle, or a .45 caliber sidearm, they probably do not have the strength, stamina, or co-ordination to be an effective soldier. Even if we ISSUE lower powered, shorter range weapons, the ABILITY level required to be effective with the higher powered weapons could be used as a "pass-fail" for combat MOS or weapons carrying soldiers. The rest of you can set the bar wherever you want, based on sexual orientation, race, creed, religion, whatever, but physical skill level with firearms is STILL a "stay alive/ priority" level issue, and cannot/should not be ignored for political reasons.

mljdeckard
February 26, 2012, 03:29 AM
I carried mine with the safety off. In condition 'green'. If I ever needed to use it, I wouldn't want to have to draw it, load it, rack it, AND take the safety off for a DA pull. I practiced frequently loading quickly from condition green.

GunNut
February 26, 2012, 01:25 PM
US made Glock, S&W M&P or FN FNX/FNS.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 26, 2012, 01:43 PM
Guys....that's 24 NDs that ended up hitting someone. Not 24 NDs total, all of which hit someone. The total number of ND's in Afghanistan, including the "harmless" ones is much much much much larger. And that's even just the reported ones. I was on a fairly small camp last year, and there were 7 in just our area.

24 NDs total for the entire theater? Not a chance.


I'm going to go on record saying this: If a soldier cannot effectively fire a .308 battle rifle, or a .45 caliber sidearm, they probably do not have the strength, stamina, or co-ordination to be an effective soldier. Even if we ISSUE lower powered, shorter range weapons, the ABILITY level required to be effective with the higher powered weapons could be used as a "pass-fail" for combat MOS or weapons carrying soldiers.

I'm curious as to what the practicality is of training and testing soldiers on our ability for fire a weapon we don't issue or use.

Snowbandit
February 26, 2012, 02:14 PM
First off, the Beretta isn't going to be replaced anytime soon. It's a fine weapon that perfectly suits the needs of our military as currently configured. Costs of the gun, parts availability and maintenance are well known and in line with what the military considers reasonable.

Secondly, and the Glockaholics can whine till the cows come home :cuss:, no striker fired pistol that requires the trigger to be pulled as part of the disassembly process will ever be adopted by a thinking person for issue to troops. There is too much risk, and no benefit, to issue weapons like the Glock. Then there is the requirement of US military weapons being manufactured in the US to further exclude Glock.

Even if some idiot was to approve a Glock-like weapon down the road we already have the Smith & Wesson which is everything the Glock is for the same or less money. FN is being made in the US, is already an approved military contractor and has suitable pistols a few ounces lighter than Beretta. The differences aren't enough to justify the costs of a change however. Beretta is going to be around for the foreseeable future.

GunNut
February 26, 2012, 02:19 PM
Then there is the requirement of US military weapons being manufactured in the US to further exclude Glock.



Glock is producing some completely American made guns for export to countries that don't allow importation from Austria.

armoredman
February 26, 2012, 02:22 PM
StockKahr, the Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator was pulled from trials, as it was proven too easily stolen by tall animated rabbits.

SharpsDressedMan, I qualified with the M-14 and 1911A1 in the Navy several years back, good enough? ;)

My "selection", being phased in as a military sidearm in one country right now. I doubt the US Military will leave the M-9 in a tough economy, but I can dream. :D

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/CZ%20posters/CZreallythatgood.jpg

SharpsDressedMan
February 26, 2012, 02:52 PM
Ragnar D.: " I'm curious as to what the practicality is of training and testing soldiers on our ability for fire a weapon we don't issue or use." ME: I could make a case for training with weapons that are more difficult to shoot, then issuing lighter, easier weapons to shoot. If you gain the skill to shoot well with, or qualify (depending on the "quality" of your qualification) with, a more difficult weapon, it SHOULD translate into being even MORE efficient with an easier weapon. Training and skill does not end with intial training, and another added "plus" would be being cross-trained on other weapons right off the bat. Let's say we require training with the M14. A soldier learns marksmanship with a difficult weapon. IF he qualifies on the M14, then he is issued the M16A2, etc. Let's make a RIFLEMAN out of him first, learning how to aim and control the M14, all basic ranging and marksmanship skills, etc, and then afterwards, do the same with the M16. Do you REALLY have a problem understanding the merits of that? If you DQ a person on that basis, you haven't lost very much. There are MANY soldiers that CAN be taught that way....anyone who can't can be excluded for combat arms duty. Woosies or people who develope mental blocks in training do not belong in the combat ranks. It is that simple. Anything else is bad theory or politics; it certainly isn't logic.

mljdeckard
February 26, 2012, 03:01 PM
Commanders really aren't in much of a position to say who they will and won't take to war with them. It's not like they can make a list of the soldiers they do or don't like and trust, and leave half of them home. If they are legally and physically qualified to go, they will go.

The army neglects training for pistols because it has little benefit to THE ARMY. The benefit to the individual soldiers is the soldier's problem. The thing is, when you need a sidearm, you need it VERY BADLY. You are in big trouble. This is the time you really need to know how to save your own life.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 26, 2012, 03:25 PM
Training time, resources, and money is limited. I wouldn't take a CPL holder to the range and say "learn to shoot this Desert Eagle. It will make shooting your G26 easier". I'd spend that money and range time on actually shooting the carry weapon.

I would spend all of my available training resources training soldiers to be proficient with the weapons they would actually use against the enemy. You can be a rifleman with an M16. There are American Rifleman right now in Afghanistan shooting and killing the enemy with M4s as I type this post. And you don't need to issue 2 types of rifles, 2 types of ammo, and train on 2 platforms to do it. Any time spent on the M14 is time not spent on the weapon they will actually fight the enemy with. That's bad.

Emotional attachment to a weapon system does not belong in combat arms either. You train to fight with the weapons you have and will have when the fight is real. You do not squander training to satisfy a desire to go back to the old days.

SharpsDressedMan
February 26, 2012, 04:19 PM
For the time it would take to weed out the soldiers that could not qualify with the 1911 and M14, it would be time well spent, eliminating the potentially weak soldiers who would also, most likely, have greater difficulty dealing with much greater challenges in combat. I, for one, would want the the best riflemen I could get in my infantry or combat unit. The cost of losing some soldiers in training is WAY less than losing them in combat, due to poor shooting skills or the propensity to "hang up" or have deficiencies with short learning curves on the battlefield. Better to find that out before throwing people away in combat. Sure, it is NOT the practice in use right now, due to perceived costs of training, etc, but forget what the SOP currently is, and look for a BETTER way to put the right people in the right jobs in the military. FWIW, we had MANY soldiers who transitioned from M14 training to the M16, with little or NO training on the new M16 in Viet Nam. It would cost little more to give current troops an additional two weeks of weapons training to qualify with the M16 (that is probably about all they get now in basic). As stated, the M14 & .45 requirement would be primarily used to screen qualified combat soldiers, and give them cross traing at the same time. Why use the lowest challenge of weaponry to weed out unfit soldiers? It only goes down from there.......let's set the bar a little higher.

mljdeckard
February 26, 2012, 05:34 PM
That model didn't work very well when those WERE our issue weapons. Insisting on making men carry a heavy rifle that is very difficult to control in automatic fire would eliminate MOST of our armed forces now.

I have petite female soldiers in my squad, like, sub-100 lb soldiers. They can barely handle an M-16, and I insisted that they be issued M-4s. Before you say they shouldn't be in the army, I will let you know that they are among the best in the world at what they do, and replacing them would take YEARS. The weapons we have work. I could train them to use 1911s. There's no way they could handle M-14s.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 26, 2012, 05:48 PM
I still don't get why you're assuming there is some challenge level with M16/M14 and M9/1911. Are the fundamentals of shooting different between the two sets? Is a shooter who is proficient with the M16 or M9 somehow a worse shooter than one who uses the M14 or 1911? What exactly makes the M16 or M9 easier in your eyes, and thus not as good of a training tool? Do you honestly believe that you can get better at shooting a certain gun by training on something other than that gun better and faster than training on that gun itself?

Have you by chance deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan? I am uncertain why you are assuming that the M4/M9 wielding soldiers who are fighting right now are inferior to soldiers who would be using M14s or 1911s.

The rifle does not make the soldier. A heavier rifle with bigger bullets does not turn a soldier into a better one. And that seems to be the falsehood you are writing under. Being proficient with the weapons and skills that he actually uses to fight makes a soldier better, not the weight of his rifle. And certainly not training to use something he won't use. Teaching Drill and Ceremonies for instance can certainly make a soldier stand straighter, take more pride in his appearance, and follow precise orders better. But it doesn't enhance his skills on the battlefield. Learning to march in a straight line doesn't make a soldier keener eyes when scanning for IEDs.

Yes the skills one learns while becoming good with the M14 will translate over to being good at the M16.

But the skills one learns while becoming good with the M16 will also translate over to being good at the M16. Because it's already done. That's what you were already training on. So why not skip the extraneous weapons you won't carry in battle and get good at those you will?

SniperStraz
February 26, 2012, 06:19 PM
I agree that the more weapons a soldier can qualify on the better rounded that soldier would be. However, as was previously stated, training time is short and precious. Better to train with a weapon they will serve with so as to have better muscle memory during actual combat.
Honestly what it boils down to is that our soldiers need better training, not better weapons.
We spend so much money on technology and not enough on learning the basics. I would rather have a team of rangers with hi-points and open sighted m16 a1s fighting with me than your average grunts with decked out 1911s and m4s with crazy optics and lasers.
Our boys just need more training!

mljdeckard
February 26, 2012, 06:37 PM
Ragnar, are you asking me or Sharps?

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 26, 2012, 07:24 PM
Sharps.

chili555
February 26, 2012, 07:28 PM
For the sake of grins and giggles though, if we were buying again I'd like to see the contract go to an American company (both "Made in America" and a company under American ownership - not one or the other). I'm not all that big of a "buy American" person, but IMHO when it comes to our tax dollars being spent there should be a great effort to keep that money within our own economy. As such I'd like to see either the Ruger SR9 or the S&W M&P. That's a tiny bit troublesome if the company is publicly owned like Ruger. What percentage of the shares are held by US stockholders? What about institutional owners?

Ruger says they are not pursuing military business because it is zero or even negative-margin business for them.

I agree entirely that it would be desirable to use US made product from a US company, however you define that. Assuming the SR9 fully satisfied all reliability tests, are you willing to spend more taxpayer dollars to get them? How far into Federal purchasing should this extend?

NG VI
February 26, 2012, 08:31 PM
IF he qualifies on the M14, then he is issued the M16A2, etc. Let's make a RIFLEMAN out of him first, learning how to aim and control the M14, all basic ranging and marksmanship skills, etc, and then afterwards, do the same with the M16. Do you REALLY have a problem understanding the merits of that? If you DQ a person on that basis, you haven't lost very much. There are MANY soldiers that CAN be taught that way....anyone who can't can be excluded for combat arms duty. Woosies or people who develope mental blocks in training do not belong in the combat ranks. It is that simple. Anything else is bad theory or politics; it certainly isn't logic.


Rifle training is not a remotely appropriate way to try to determine someone's physical ability to serve. There are medical screenings and fitness tests and the various required ruck marches to determine if a Soldier Sailor Airman or Marine is fit, use of a rifle that isn't issued in a caliber that is only used for medium machine guns and very limited distribution marksman rifles as a general fitness test is absurd.

SharpsDressedMan
February 26, 2012, 08:42 PM
Girls can't handle the M14? Ever been to Camp Perry? They will make a liar out of you. The M14 is not fired on full auto. It can be, but it is a wasted effort. Anyone that does is either wasting ammo, or doesn't know what it is designed for. Except for designated squad gunners, maybe one or two per squad, most units that employed the M14 removed the selectors to disallow the bulk of the soldiers or grunts such use, wasting ammo, etc. It was never quite the full auto rifle that it was intended to be, so training and use pretty much omitted full auto over the time of its service. There will be 100 lb. female soldiers that decide they can't shoot the M14, as will there be 175 lb. males that fail to qualify, because the recoil is just too brutal. :rolleyes: I am willing to let them wash out. If you don't agree, and fell you, too, would fail to qualify, don't apply for membership in a military combat role. It might be too demanding. Raise the bar. Deadly combat, infantry readines, etc, is not for everyone.

mljdeckard
February 27, 2012, 01:17 AM
Exactly. If you use an M-14 on full auto, you are wasting ammo.

In my field, what is in their heads is much more expensive and rare than their rifle skills. It cost a half a million to train them, so whether or not they can run a rifle that the U.S. Army loved so much they kept it in service for a grand total of eight years isn't even on the list of criteria of whether or not they are qualified to be soldiers.

FIVETWOSEVEN
February 27, 2012, 03:27 AM
so whether or not they can run a rifle that the U.S. Army loved so much they kept it in service for a grand total of eight years isn't even on the list of criteria of whether or not they are qualified to be soldiers.

You probably already know but I'm just saying this to clear up future confusion The Army still uses the M14 setup as a DMR. It's no longer standard issue or meant to be used on full auto but it's still there.

marksman13
February 27, 2012, 11:12 AM
Sharps, I don't think anybody is claiming that girls can't handle the M14. What's being pointed out is that they don't have to. As much as I like the M14 it and the 1911 have very limited roles in today's modern military. The M14 is great in Afghanistan where longer engagements are more routine and I would not take issue with troops that are stationed in the more remote mountainous areas being issued and trained on the M14. In fact, that makes an awful lot of sense, but to make a blanket statement that all troops should train on weapons that are no longer in the system is a little ridiculous isn't it?

I would rather see troops spend more time, effort and money training in real world scenarios with the weapons they will actually be issued. Wasting time and money on 4 types of firearms and 4 different types of ammo is a monumental waste of tax dollar that we don't have. You and I have generally seen eye to eye, but I just can't wrap my head around the argument you are making here.

What is to be gained from troops using the M14 and 1911 as opposed to using the M16 and M9 besides weapon familiarity? Surely you aren't saying that the use of the less accurate M14 will make a soldier a better rifleman.

What does the 1911 bring to the table that the M9 does not, besides the obvious caliber difference? Diminished magazine capacity? I'm a 45 ACP fan but there are better options in that caliber for modern military use.

GunNut
February 27, 2012, 11:19 AM
Can't you guys take the rifle talk to the rifle section or PM's?

I'm pretty sure this thread is about picking a handgun and some of you have taken it so far off topic.

Justin
February 27, 2012, 11:34 AM
This thread has gone completely off topic.

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk

If you enjoyed reading about "What Would You Choose As the M9's Replacement?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!