What handgun should replace the Army's M9?

[jeff-10]

Why no go with the Sig P229 40sw they already have the contract as that's

I do believe it is time to get away from the 9mm which is now well over a hundred years old and first used by one of our greatest adversaries. Unfounded or not, its stopping power in the FMJ version has been questioned since first adopted.

I would choose the 40 S&W and call it 10mm NATO. Instead of the 229 though I would choose a Glock. Either the 22 or 23.

 

[kBob]

Troops carry what they feel they can get away with.

Nothing new about that.

Officially my last trip in in Peace Time Europe when there was a Red Menace no one was allowed PoW carry. That's right officially then Prisoners of War was PW and Privately owned Weapons were PoW.

My Regimental level CO and his Birds told me to carry anything in a "reasonable caliber" that I could pass the simple qualification test with whenever I felt it appropriate. In spite of USAEUR regs I could have been found at various times with a Colt Series 70 Mark IV, a H&K P7, a CZ75, P-1/P38 or a six inch barreled S&W Model 19 loaded with either GI .38 Special or copper washed 158 grain SMC .357 Magnum. I usually carried the Colt full of Speer 200 grain "Flying Ashtray" HPs.

Why would you trust an Officer with men's lives but not a handgun? That seemed to be his reasoning.

He was also aware that my load out bag contained a broken down Mini14 and a few loaded magazines.

Even earlier when I was Enlisted and the same regs applied in USAEUR our company XO and two of the four platoon leaders carried 9x19mm long before thoughts of a M9 crossed the big brass's minds. Several NCOs secreted various guns on or about their persons. A few Joe Snuffies occasionally carried "illegally" I have mentioned else where and when on THR that occasionally a Reproduction Colt 1851 cap and ball revolver went on patrols around an active Pershing site.

One evening in the Cannon Battery Officer's course at Ft. Sill we were shooting under flairs and someone woke up a Rattler. Within seconds said rattler had a .32 ACP round through it and a .25 ACP through it. The two "Young Shave Tails" involved were both over age for commissioning but for the fact they were prior service. Only comments from the Cadre was "Good shooting."

Reserve Captain that was in Iraq I know was given a BHP by someone leaving and when he left he passed it on to someone else.

Folks like handguns. It Happens. Get over it.

What troops carry or want to carry has little to nothing to do with procurement.

-kBob

 

[tarosean]

Makes me wonder about Sgt. Cowles there. The rest are high speed, low drag types,

Sure about that?? Not very good recoil control on pic #2...

 

[Zerodefect]

Judging from those pictures you can carry any firearm you would like, as long as it is a Glock 19...

I couldn't find M&P pics with a camel.

 

[Aikibiker]

Looks like the Army is abandoning the Hague agreement and will switch to JHP ammo in the new handgun.

Another article.

Given that I would like to see the Glock 19 with night sights and some flavor of 124 grain bonded hollowpoint be issued.

 

[AZ Desertrat]

Think simplicity and ruggedness: Glock 17 or 19.

 

[GAMEOVER44]

I think the military would be silly not to go with Springfields XDM.. customization for each members hand, all the bells and whistles, with stock high cap mags.

 

[FinnComm]

Pistols play almost no role in modern warfare ..

Sorry to snip a section of your post, but I agree with this point

All the talk of stopping power between ,45 and 9mm is relatively meaningless.

Anyone care to guess what % of enemy contact situations call for a handgun?

And in what % of those situations would the difference betwen ,45 and 9mm have been noticeable or made any real difference to the outcome?

 

[Deaf Smith]

Sorry to snip a section of your post, but I agree with this point

All the talk of stopping power between ,45 and 9mm is relatively meaningless.

Anyone care to guess what % of enemy contact situations call for a handgun?

And in what % of those situations would the difference betwen ,45 and 9mm have been noticeable or made any real difference to the outcome?

When it's your posterior that is on the line... think back to that term 'meaningless'.

Stopping power is a relative term and not absolute, but it defiantly is there.

As I've posted many times, larger diameter bullets TEND to stop better, faster bullets TEND to stop better, heavier bullets TEND to stop better, good bullet placement TENDS to stop better, and more bullets on the target TEND to stop better.

Pick the most powerful weapon you can control and carry daily (and conceal if need be.)

Deaf

 

[R.W.Dale]

It's only a matter of time before even the most backwards meathead jihadists figure out that body armor might help them live a little longer as most armies have already figured out.

Something similar to the fn5.7 will be in order.

No current handgun in the usual suspect calibers offers ANY measurable improvement over the current m9 if modern JHP ammo becomes standard issue.

In the past 30 years since the m9's adoptions the only improvements we've seen in handguns relate to materials, mostly manifesting in a slight weight savings.

 

[Barry the Bear]

I'd like to see the Army adopt the model 29!!! Nothing like the enemy seeing an army of dirty Harrys coming at em! But in all seriousness I'd like a version of the m&p series to get the contract

 

[Zerodefect]

It's only a matter of time before even the most backwards meathead jihadists figure out that body armor might help them live a little longer as most armies have already figured out.

Something similar to the fn5.7 will be in order.

No current handgun in the usual suspect calibers offers ANY measurable improvement over the current m9 if modern JHP ammo becomes standard issue.

In the past 30 years since the m9's adoptions the only improvements we've seen in handguns relate to materials, mostly manifesting in a slight weight savings.

I don't know. 5.7 compares well to 9mm when shot from a 10" barrel. P90 vs Mp5, I'll take the P90 all day long. PS90 vs 9mm AR, I'd still prefer the PS90.

But the pistol? I'd have to see more testing. I'm a 9mm hater. But I want to see the brick heavy M9 gone, not really the caliber. A 9mm pistol shouldn't weigh 10 pounds and have a weird open slide and corny safety lever. I just hate the M9, and DA/SA triggers.

A 5.7 Glock would be neat though.....

 

[1911 guy]

3. It must be ergonomic enough for women to use effectively. (Bye-Bye .45 ACP)

Absolutely wrong. There are a lot of handguns available now that alter capacity to keep the same grip frame size throughout the range of calibers available.

JHP ammo is out, even if the OP wants it to be included. Even buying in the bulk required by DoD, the cost is far more than hardball. They're going to stick with hardball except for special circumstance and special issue.

For my money, the choice should be between .40S&W and .45ACP. Several models would be suitable, my top choices are the M&P and XD.

 

[Water-Man]

Sig P320 makes the most sense to me.

 

[2wheels]

Meh.

As an active duty soldier who is issued an M9 (in addition to an M4), here's my 2 cents.

Choose whatever, it doesn't matter. Realistically all the choices these days are solid, it just comes down to caliber and personal preference. M&P, Sig, Glock, HK... I don't care! Then take that handgun and my rifle away from me, and give me a PDW like an MP7!

Two birds one stone! And so much less crap for me to carry.

 

[Deanimator]

New M9s

Way too big for the caliber and with a positively gruesome trigger. No thanks.

Glock, S&W M&P or M1911.

 

[tarosean]

Way too big for the caliber and with a positively gruesome trigger. No thanks.

Glock, S&W M&P or M1911.

Now thats funny. One is deemed "gruesome" then you continue to name two of the worst stock triggers out there.

There is a reason that there is a cottage industry for trigger improvements with Glock and M&P....

 

[Deanimator]

Now thats funny. One is deemed "gruesome" then you continue to name two of the worst stock triggers out there.

There is a reason that there is a cottage industry for trigger improvements with Glock and M&P....

Actually, as long as it's not that hideous "New York" trigger, the Glock trigger is just fine. You just have to know how to use it. Of course with a tube of Flitz, a few Q-Tips, and about an hour's labor watching TV, you can have a really NICE Glock trigger.

The Beretta D/A? That's a lost cause. The best I can say for it is that it's not as bad as the Colt All American 2000...

 

[Zerodefect]

Now thats funny. One is deemed "gruesome" then you continue to name two of the worst stock triggers out there.

There is a reason that there is a cottage industry for trigger improvements with Glock and M&P....

I hate the stock Glock trigger as well. But it works fine for me. Just feels terrible. So I run a Zevtech trigger, and that new flat trigger looks interesting as well.

The M9 trigger feels awful, and I don't shoot it well at all.

 

[JR24]

Now thats funny. One is deemed "gruesome" then you continue to name two of the worst stock triggers out there.

There is a reason that there is a cottage industry for trigger improvements with Glock and M&P....

Everyone has their opinions of course, I'll personally take a stock Glock trigger over any DA/SA trigger that I've tried.

 

[tarosean]

Everyone has their opinions of course,

Of course. I own multiple Glocks and multiple 92's. So while they may be part of the elite group of the "Most hated" on the internet.. I dont share that opinion.

Course my purchases of a handful of drop in trigger groups for glocks and m&p's definitely isn't keeping all those people employed either.

Apparently a whole lot of people share my opinion..

 

[TruthTellers]

1) It's not the "only alternative". That's just silly.
2) Actually, last I checked, .40 S&W > .45 ACP in terms of price.
3) You can't use JHP (Hague Convention) in war. If we could, they'd be using 9mm in JHP and they wouldn't need an alternative.
4) More lethal is a joke. Lethality comes first from accuracy. And the difference in cost for the civilian market between 9mm and .40 S&W isn't worth the very few percentage points of claimed "lethality" it presumably has. Take a look at the link below.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866

Honestly, if they want something that hits harder (all other factors being equal, and especially since this is going to be FMJ) but still fits in a more compact grip, .45 GAP. But lethality comes from accuracy first, second (due to military environment and being limited to FMJ) from how large a hole you punch in them.

The above stats from soldiers who express their gripes are mostly not even worth evaluating because they're only opinions. Again, I've spoken with several USAF who have engaged enemies with their M9 in combat and they came away with an appreciation for the gun because it is lethal when they aim.

Really, the limit is Hague conventions. If we can get them to re-evaluate hollow points and approve hollow points that are guaranteed to 99% of the time not separate into individual pieces (which was their main gripe, the humanity of the round), this would be a non-issue, and 9mm would continue.

But even then, on top of this, the logic of depending on any handgun in combat is silly. You'd want your rifle first, as they have more power and more range. The M9 is supposed to be a backup in a combat zone.

My vote (since any ammunition is going to be mass produced by the military through contract, thus making any round cheaper) is .45 GAP. Widest bullet in a compact grip.

IMO, .40 is the only alternative because of the things both you and I listed. It is less expensive than .45 ACP and .45 GAP, it is a heavier bullet that does more than the 9mm, it has better capacity than the .45's, it's smaller than the .45's, it has a better effective range than the .45's, it already has a large manufacturing base because of law enforcement usage the past 25 years, and it the 180 grain bullet loading, it's a subsonic round and can be more effectively suppressed and more accurate with the lack of a transition from supersonic to subsonic velocities.

The military will not be able to justify changing the caliber to .45 because it is the highest alternative, while .40 is a little bit more, but more war capable than 9mm.

You put a 9mm and a .40 cal in the hands of a General and have him take some practice shots at various targets and show him the results of shooting through barriers and objects, his face gonna look like this when you show him what the .40 does:

 

[Fiv3r]

I'm a fan of the .40. It's my carry round of choice, but I wonder if the "it kicks like a mule and beats guns to death faster" mantra has reached the ears of Top Brass? Of course, most folks who shoot .40 don't really find it hard to control out of anything but the smallest of pocket pistols, and modern materials and engineering mean that most guns offered in .40 are designed to handle the round first and foremost and then scaled down to 9mm instead of the other way around like when the cartridge first hit the scene 25 years ago. Even so, it's probably going to be a tough sell to get away from the 9mm for a general duty pistol due to our close ties to NATO.

That said, if the army was going to go to something larger than the 9mm, the .40 probably does make the most sense. The round is smaller than .45 in terms of taking up space, and is a little lighter (about .3lbs lighter per 50 rounds on bullet weight alone, of course not factoring in brass or powder weight), and the guns can be closer to 9mm in size.

I do like the .45 as well. I think it's a fine round that is very capable of doing the job, I just wonder about soldier hand size when you start talking double stack pistols. Glock 21s and FNX-45 Tacs are big honkin' guns to get your hands around. I don't have huge hands. I wear a size large glove, but I much prefer the grip size of a 14 round .40 to a 13 round .45. Just preference of course.

The one thing that seems to be in the .40s favor is that it is a very divisive round. Between people either thinking it will lift a man clear out of his boots as it smashed through a car windshield and those calling it the .40 Short and Weak as the stumpy little runt to it's 10mm big brother, it's one of the most love it or hate it calibers in spite of its nearly 3 decades of success in terms of sales and adoption. It seems that the military can't ever do anything that pleases everyone, so they adopt something that will almost be a guaranteed convoluted controversy with the aim of making the most people upset. The .40 seems like the "logical" compromise that will tick off just enough people like the adoption of the M9 did in the 80's

I will say, that the .40 S&W really would get more traction on the international front if we dubbed it 10mm NATO like another poster mentioned. It would stroke the egos of the metric minded European allies and potentially open the door for other big bore pistols to make it to the front lines for other countries.

I still think the next pistol will be a polymer striker fired 9mm with a manual safety that is modular enough to cheaply fit a variety of soldier hand sizes. It's just going to come down to money and back scratching, of course. As long as we are going to use ball ammo, it makes more sense to throw a bigger bullet that might penetrate enemy armor better than the 9mm. If we're talking about going to an expandable bullet that can put the most energy on target, then I totally agree that the 9mm is fine when it comes to that role.

 

[TwinReverb]

Troops carry what they feel they can get away with.

Maybe in the Marines, but not the rest of the services, not on duty.

 

[TwinReverb]

I'm a fan of the .40. It's my carry round of choice, but I wonder if the "it kicks like a mule and beats guns to death faster" mantra has reached the ears of Top Brass? Of course, most folks who shoot .40 don't really find it hard to control out of anything but the smallest of pocket pistols, and modern materials and engineering mean that most guns offered in .40 are designed to handle the round first and foremost and then scaled down to 9mm instead of the other way around like when the cartridge first hit the scene 25 years ago. Even so, it's probably going to be a tough sell to get away from the 9mm for a general duty pistol due to our close ties to NATO.

Yeah because when comparing 9mm to .40 S&W in FMJ, .40 is only .05" wider. That's not going to make a big enough difference in FMJ in my opinion.

I say they should either go with something much wider, as wide as they can, if they're using FMJ (like .45 ACP). That or get Hague to re-evaluate the ban on expanding ammunition, as it is completely possible to manufacture JHP to not separate, or at least not separate 99% of the time, etc. I think that was their main objection to it.

But I don't think they should even care, as grenades that fragment are accepted: why not ammunition that does? Really, I think the ammo ban is the root of the problem.