What handgun should replace the Army's M9?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yo psyopspec,

It also says "MOD 92." It is one of the early ones, with the safety on the frame, similar to a 1911, (allowing C&L carry) not sure why that changed. Beautifully made, round trigger guard.

It was a good shooter with regular ammo, but it would jam with hot ammo. Installed a heavy duty Wolff spring, to no avail. Sold it.

Kinda miss it, but frame mounted safety PT92s are available from Taurus.
 
What handgun will likely be chosen- S&W M&P or the Springfield XDM 4.5 in 9mm. Sig may be a contender, but they usually get beat in the final price.

What I would choose- Glock 22.

Whether JHP's can be used, the heavier .40 will penetrate objects better than 9mm. .45 doesn't have the capacity or as good of range as the smaller 9 or 40. Leave the .45 to the spec ops boys and use the .40 as the main service round. With it's prolific use in the FBI and police in the US the past 20+ years, ammo manufacturers have the capacity to produce it as well as 9mm.

I don't want to hear any bologna about .40 S&W being "higher pressure" than 9mm. 9mm NATO is higher PSI than .40 S&W. If a low PSI is so vital to service life of the firearm, then maybe the Army should look at .380 ACP instead? Think about it: it would help the girls out a lot who shoot with it.
 
Dean1818 said:
M&P series fits the bill
Keeps an American made company going strong
Click to expand...

No, S&W does not deserve to keep going, period. They blatantly copied Glock and lost the inevitable lawsuit. Their influence on Walther, as well, resulted in a period of time during which Walther's quality suffered so badly that I wouldn't own anything from that time period.

Until S&W starts behaving like an American company (being ethical and innovative), I am boycotting them. So probably until 2020.

I'd entertain thoughts on Colt, Ruger, Remington, etc, but not S&W. Sorry, but that's how it is, at least for me.
 
The candidates list gets much shorter when the military rules out polymer frames as too fragile under extreme conditions. So either S&W and Glock re-engineer to build alloy frame pistols, or the race goes to CZ, SIG or HK. Or some other maker that remembers how to make guns without plastic.
 
3. It must be ergonomic enough for women to use effectively. (Bye-Bye .45 ACP)
Click to expand...

Why can women not effectively use a .45 acp? If they are strong enough to pass basic then they should be able to handle .45 acp from a full size pistol. If a women cannot effectively shoot a .45 acp then they are not strong enough to be in the military.
 
I'd go with S&W M&P if they improve their quality a little bit, such a great innovative product that deserves the attention from uncle sam.


If not the M&P, then Sigs M11-A1
 
Edarnold said:
The candidates list gets much shorter when the military rules out polymer frames as too fragile under extreme conditions. So either S&W and Glock re-engineer to build alloy frame pistols, or the race goes to CZ, SIG or HK. Or some other maker that remembers how to make guns without plastic.
Click to expand...

We have plastic airplanes now. They'll get over it.

It's going to be the General Dynamics M&P, or the made in USA Glock.
 
bullzeye8 said:
Why can women not effectively use a .45 acp? If they are strong enough to pass basic then they should be able to handle .45 acp from a full size pistol. If a women cannot effectively shoot a .45 acp then they are not strong enough to be in the military.
Click to expand...
It's not that women can't shoot it, it's that those double stack .45's are extremely thick on the grip. Girls got smaller hands then men and most will struggle to get a grip on them.
 
Cooldill I think they should do what the Marines recently did: go back to the M1911A1 service pistol.
Click to expand...
The USMC still uses the M9. Only certain units use the 1911.
Google "Marines adopt Glock" and your head may explode.;)



Combat Engineer
Dogtown tomGlock, SIG, Beretta, FN and many other foreign companies already manufacture firearms in the US."
Click to expand...
Does that mean that these foreign manufacturers earn nothing from their U.S. ventures?
Click to expand...
Of course not.
It means that they employ American workers, pay American taxes and contribute to the American economy.


So the foreign companies get no share of the profits, despite their R&D, Marketing, Management, etc. overhead? If that's the case, its a good deal, otoh if profits are leaving the USA...
Click to expand...
Uh.....they ain't making the guns for free.:scrutiny:
It will surprise you how many US military weapons are made by foreign companies.

I really don't care where the profits go as long as the weapon works.
 
Also, another reason I don't see the Army going back to the .45 ACP is it's a larger cartridge and weighs more. One of the reasons the Army went to lighter bullets was to maximize how much they could transport to combat zones. True, .40 S&W may be larger and heavier than 9mm, but it's lighter than .45 ACP and the power that .40 has in barrier penetration compared to 9mm along with just general stopping power in JHP makes the .40 a better cartridge to choose. IMO of course.
 
@Combat Engineer

That's a very interesting piece you have. I love it when old finds turn up in military armories, but am very surprised that would be your issued pistol. Unlike the turning up of the occasional 1911 with different branding, you're describing a piece with a different manual of arms than most soldiers would train on.

For an M9, the "MOD" marking you describe is a civilian marking, and in your case pre-92FS (or FS would also appear). On the same place (right side of the slide IIRC) an M9 should say something like "ASSY xxxxxxx-65490".

Anyway, interesting find in your unit's armory, and extremely rare.
 
malmute said:
With better ammo now acceptable, there isnt much point of a 45 over a 9, with all the attendant downsides of a 45 in gun size, ammo weight, grip size, and training.
Click to expand...

I would agree, but we're only allowed non-expanding FMJ on the battle field, per the Hague conventions. Now 9mm is plenty lethal, and I've spoken with military members who've had to kill using their M9, but when you can only carry FMJ, I'd say .45 ACP or something wider at least. But that's just my opinion.

I agree with your Glock sentiment.
 
Aikibiker said:
The M9's are nearing the end of their lifespan and when the Army ordered 250,000 new ones they discovered that given advances in design and manufacturing that it is actually cheaper to buy a new pistol then continue with the M9.

Heck just just look at the price of a civilian M92FS vs a Glock or M&P in your local gunshop.
Click to expand...
Most M9s are no where near the end of their life span. If they get fired at all, it's but 50-100 rounds at the range per year. Very, very, few get fired in combat or by security/military police, and that number of rounds fired is miniscule. Most M9s sit in an armory or depot in extended storage.
 
Most M9s are no where near the end of their life span. If they get fired at all, it's but 50-100 rounds at the range per year. Very, very, few get fired in combat or by security/military police, and that number of rounds fired is miniscule. Most M9s sit in an armory or depot in extended storage.
Click to expand...
I'm not an M9 expert, but recall this old post from a forum member who is, Chindo18z.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=8029182#post8029182
The body of originally issued pistols (1985-1995) wore out a lot quicker than anticipated. Despite factory claims of exceptional longevity, in reality, the weapons were only designed to meet a military specification that called for a 15K round service life. Which made sense in a Cold War peacetime training environment where the average pistol was expected to fire only 200-300 rds per year. It was anticipated that they would last for at least 50 years.

That paradigm changed in the late 90's when a lot of units began to run the guns a lot harder. A decade of post 9-11 combat deployments have added heavy firing during pre-mission train-ups and a lot more opportunity training ammo fired while actually deployed. The weapons have simply worn out under hard use in 20-25 years. About half of the originally anticipated service life for the model. Not from shooting bad guys...just from being fired more during training, knocked around hard in the field, and being assembled/disassembled more frequently. This because they actually live on peoples hips 24/7 instead of being safely snuggled inside the arms room (and only seeing the light of day a few times per year).
Click to expand...
 
Moxie,

Did you just try to apply logic to anything involving the Army?

The M9 has a designated service life and by God and George Patton whether the M9 in question is some beat up junker that has been passed from unit to unit going through rotations in Afghanistan or a pristine, still in the original box from the factory piece that has sat on a shelf for 20 years both pistols have outlived their service life specified in the TA and need to be replaced.

May as well buy something just as good that is a bit cheaper and will work just a little bit better for more soldiers.
 
Yo psyopspec,

The 1911 frame style thumb safety equipped, 'Made in Italy' Beretta 92 was bought (in used condition) at auction. Whether it was originally civilian, military, or police, is unknown to me. Serial number B17XXX.
 
Glock 35, solid slide, .357 Sig, manuel Beretta style safety on the slide, and kyndex holster that doubles as a shoulder stock.

With modern polymers one can make a holster where the back side has a telescoping tab that fits into a slot on the butt of the gun. Holster won't be any larger than a regular sized one made for the 35.

Polygon rifled .357 Sig 5.5 inch barrel would get a 125 gr fmj at 1600 fps. 100 gr slug would be near 2000 fps and thus defeat alot of body armor without resorting to ap ammo. Add a threaded barrel for a silencer to boot (hence the 5.5 inch bbl.) Add a holo sight with BUIS.

That way a GI has a pseudo rifle if no service rifle is available. And the Glock would still work as a plain handgun without the stock. Plus female GIs could grip and shoot well that size of weapon (note: I have a 35 with .357 Sig barrel and it kicks only a bit more than a Glock 17.)

Deaf
 
Last edited:
Yo psyopspec,

The 1911 frame style thumb safety equipped, 'Made in Italy' Beretta 92 was bought (in used condition) at auction. Whether it was originally civilian, military, or police, is unknown to me. Serial number B17XXX.
Click to expand...

Ah, so not an issued M9 after all but a civilian 92. That does nothing to diminish an amazing handgun, although it explains where we got our wires crossed. With the exception having proved the rule, again, all *issued* M9s are US-made.
 
Well if it can't be a 45, then I don't see anything wrong with the Sig 226 or 229.
Aside from size and weight, I also see nothing wrong with the CZ 75 SP-01.

The Sig 226 Elite (in stainless) and the CZ 75 SP-01 are heavy and stout, but they are built like tanks and resilient!!!


If 45 was an option (as per the rules) Sig 220 Match Elite, CZ 97B, and FNX 45 Tactical would be my choice for that round.
 
The M9 is not going anywhere, anytime soon. The issues the military have with the M9 were addressed in the M9A3 and that model was still rejected. The military does this every few years lately, they want to change something but they don't want to spend money in an uncertain financial future when the purse strings can easily be cut by politicians fresh from election.

The vast majority of M9 will never be used in combat, unless the next few years of OPTEMPO radically changes. Despite that, the military has this craw about weapons fitting as most people as possible. I was able to put about 500 rounds through my issue M9 before deploying, it fits me well enough for use but not my favorite firearm by any means. And mine was actually carried on patrol and cleaned along side my rifle every time.

9mm NATO isn't going anywhere anytime soon either. Just like the M4, the military does not want to go through the cost of retraining everyone...from supply NCOs, armorers, down to the average joe how to redo everything. Given these two constants, the Sig P250 fits the bill best.
 
tarosean said:
The case was settled out of court.
Click to expand...

Yes, and S&W paid Glock out of court. That means S&W conceded to Glock. Whether out of a guilty conscience, a need to preserve their good name (lol), or any other reason, when you settle out of court and pay the other party, you lost.

I want American companies to take the high road and behave ethically and responsibly. S&W didn't do that, so I am using my economic power (my wallet) as my vote.

Surely we all know Glock isn't perfect (despite their slogan) and has done some stuff that's less than exemplary. It bothers me, but there's not really any shame in it. The shame of S&W doing it is they made American companies look bad, hence they shamed our country.

But is there even a gun manufacturer that has a clean reputation any more? Maybe Keltec....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
US Army to Seek New Service Handgun
Replies
2
Views
428
RustyShackelford
R
O
  • Locked
  • Poll
What should US army do?
2 3 4
Replies
81
Views
3K
hnm201
H
R
  • Locked
New US armed forces/DoD XM9 contract; CNN.....
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Replies
280
Views
16K
herrwalther
H
M
  • Locked
New Steyr Handgun
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
twoblink
T
M
  • Locked
The Army's new MHS and the fate of 9mm.
Replies
9
Views
1K
ugaarguy
ugaarguy
Back
Top