What sidearm should replace the U.S. M9?
- Thread starter cluttonfred
- Start date
- Status
OP
OP
cluttonfred
Member
ochmude, you make a great point!
As little as the M9 or other sidearms actually get used, I wonder if it really makes sense to issue them at all? Going back to WWII, the M1 Carbine was issued INSTEAD of the Colt 1911 pistol to officers, heavy weapons crews, drivers, etc. It was a huge success AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO A PISTOL, even though later experience showed that it had some shortcomings when used a primary infantry weapon.
I wonder if the solution to replacing the M9 is simpy...DON'T? Instead, we replace the M4 5.56mm carbines with a new rifle and caliber, one as effective or better than 5.56mm but with less flash, blast and energy loss from short barrels. Then we issue the full-size rifle with all the bells and whistles to the riflemen, and shorter, handier, simpler, lighter version to everyone else. Let the MPs, Special Forces and others that actually need pistols use whatever they want and otherwise get the M9 and 9mm out of the supply chain altogether.
If for some reason we decide that everyone should have a back-up gun as a last resort, then we issue every soldier a light, polymer-frame, single-stack compact DAO 9mm like a Kahr P9 or, even simpler, a DAO alloy-frame revolver like an S&W 642 in 9mm, either at half the weight of the M9.
As little as the M9 or other sidearms actually get used, I wonder if it really makes sense to issue them at all? Going back to WWII, the M1 Carbine was issued INSTEAD of the Colt 1911 pistol to officers, heavy weapons crews, drivers, etc. It was a huge success AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO A PISTOL, even though later experience showed that it had some shortcomings when used a primary infantry weapon.
I wonder if the solution to replacing the M9 is simpy...DON'T? Instead, we replace the M4 5.56mm carbines with a new rifle and caliber, one as effective or better than 5.56mm but with less flash, blast and energy loss from short barrels. Then we issue the full-size rifle with all the bells and whistles to the riflemen, and shorter, handier, simpler, lighter version to everyone else. Let the MPs, Special Forces and others that actually need pistols use whatever they want and otherwise get the M9 and 9mm out of the supply chain altogether.
If for some reason we decide that everyone should have a back-up gun as a last resort, then we issue every soldier a light, polymer-frame, single-stack compact DAO 9mm like a Kahr P9 or, even simpler, a DAO alloy-frame revolver like an S&W 642 in 9mm, either at half the weight of the M9.
Yes, it does.
EVERY soldier in an Airborne unit should have a pistol issued. Happiness is NOT de-rigging or trying to dig your rifle out of a 1950 after landing 20 feet from the enemy on a hot DZ and you need to fire NOW. With a drop holster all you have to do is remove the jump strap and you are in business.
EVERY open bolt weapon operator should have a pistol issued as well. With the inherent "issues" associated with the operation of open bolt weapons, and some organizations less than stellar maintenance of said weapons, a saw gunner should be able to pull a pistol to defend himself should his weapon go KA-CHUNK face to face with the baddies.
IMO, I can justify issuing a pistol to EVERY Infantryman. A pistol is simply a back up weapon for use at close quarters when your main gun goes down. It is far easier and faster to draw a pistol and shoot the baddy than it is to possibly have to perform remedial action on your gun to reduce the stoppage. There are plenty of common clearing problems encountered that are cleared more effectively with a pistol due to confined spaces.
AndABeer
Member
something venerable
10-Ring
Member
I've developed the opinion over the years that if an appropriate replacement existed, the M9 would have been replaced by now if the right replacement existed. I think the next US military sidearm will be of polymer configuration, modular for adjustability for large & small shooters and probably in 40 S&W for its capacity & effectiveness as a round. If I were to pick from today's handgun inventory, I'd probably go w/ either SIG 250, one of the poly HKs (P2000 or HK30) or maybe a S&W M&P
Yes, it does. There are multiple instances (too many to detail) of the issued sidearm being used by someone whose primary weapon went down, went dry, or otherwise went Tango Uniform, or by a person who "doesn't need a rifle" suddenly discovering that they kindasorta needed one. The M9 might only keep you alive for a few minutes more, but those few minutes might be all you need to fall back or have the cavalry come riding over the horizon.
I firmly agree that issuing pistols, M9 or otherwise, will not have an impact on whether the war is won or lost, or even if a given battle is won or lost...but it might be the difference between life and death for any one individual soldier, airman, or marine.
Mike
icebones
Member
damn straight on the g21sf, but it will never happen, why, the glock dosent have a "real saftey" as far as brass in concerned. and the bean counters will cry and gripe about throwing away "perfictly good" m9's
as much as i love glocks, the sw m&p 45 has the best bet. they are pretty fine weapons, but some people still carry a grudge against S&W.
you wont find this on any magazine or newspaper, but i remember hearing about some army tank crews being issued ruger P345 handguns if memory serves.
i dont care much for ruger handguns, except the MKII and MKIII
and the revolvers, but id rather have a ruger 45 over a beretta 9mill anyday.
that being said a handgun is a defensive tool, if i need to drop my rifle and pull out a handgun the SHTF, and when the bullets are flying, a wound maker (9mm) cant compare to a man-stopper (.45), nuff said...
i personally know a man who was shot in the leg while in desert storm with a 9mm handgun. according to him, it REALLY pissed him off.
the sad truth is, we can talk about it till doomsday, but the .45 caliber JCP program was killed before it ever begain, just like the XM-8 rifle program or the RH-66 scout helicopter. seems the government would rather spend money on things we dont need...
i would have loved to see the XM-8 get issued and a .45 service handgun, but unless something drastic happens, we are stuck
as much as i love glocks, the sw m&p 45 has the best bet. they are pretty fine weapons, but some people still carry a grudge against S&W.
you wont find this on any magazine or newspaper, but i remember hearing about some army tank crews being issued ruger P345 handguns if memory serves.
i dont care much for ruger handguns, except the MKII and MKIII
and the revolvers, but id rather have a ruger 45 over a beretta 9mill anyday.
that being said a handgun is a defensive tool, if i need to drop my rifle and pull out a handgun the SHTF, and when the bullets are flying, a wound maker (9mm) cant compare to a man-stopper (.45), nuff said...
i personally know a man who was shot in the leg while in desert storm with a 9mm handgun. according to him, it REALLY pissed him off.
the sad truth is, we can talk about it till doomsday, but the .45 caliber JCP program was killed before it ever begain, just like the XM-8 rifle program or the RH-66 scout helicopter. seems the government would rather spend money on things we dont need...
i would have loved to see the XM-8 get issued and a .45 service handgun, but unless something drastic happens, we are stuck
Ivy Mike
Member
It should be an American designed and built gun. 9mm is fine but lets help out American manufacturing.
Ruger and S&W would probably jump at the chance to produce such a weapon.
Ruger and S&W would probably jump at the chance to produce such a weapon.
Ruger Vaquero in 45LC.
All kidding aside, I think the next sidearm should be:
1) 45ACP
2) American made
3) Consider tupperware
Having said this, I'd say XD45, S&W MP45, FN45, or Springer 1911.
edit: I would say Glock except for the American-made thing.
All kidding aside, I think the next sidearm should be:
1) 45ACP
2) American made
3) Consider tupperware
Having said this, I'd say XD45, S&W MP45, FN45, or Springer 1911.
edit: I would say Glock except for the American-made thing.
HorseSoldier
Member
There seems to be a growing interest in switching to .40S&W in various military circles, including the USAF besides the SOF community.
The next pistol that's likely to be procured will be whatever SOCOM replaces the Beretta with (well, a widespread replacement -- various SOF units have already gotten rid of them). Big Army involvement managed to delay and then kill the Joint Combat Pistol project, but the SOF community is still calling for something besides the M9 and still have an in house project to replace it.
As that organization is less afraid of troops with weapons than the Big Army, Big USMC, etc., look for Glock to be a front runner, though I don't think a 100% final decision has been made yet. It looks quite unlikely that it will be a .45 caliber pistol at this point, in any case.
No. The M9 lacks durability and mechanical reliability if the pistol is used as anything besides a holster-stuffer. The tendency of locking blocks to fail pretty consistently (as well as various springs breaking as well) is why the pistol has such a dismal reputation in the SOF community.
As an end user, I'd rather have the best pistol than an American made pistol, if they're not the same thing.
Any pistol adopted Army-wide or DoD-wide would have to be manufactured here in the US, in any case, so any country of origin would still mean American jobs. It just might mean the stockholders of Ruger or S&W (if they're American in the first place) might not make as much money.
Nope. US Army Tank and Automotive Command purchased a bunch of Ruger pistols as part of an equipment package for the Iraqi and/or Afghan defense forces, not for use by US forces.
Every soldier in units that realistically can expect to do an actual mass tac onto a hostile DZ under enemy fire are issued pistols. Not sure what non-Ranger units are doing, pistol-wise these days.
The next pistol that's likely to be procured will be whatever SOCOM replaces the Beretta with (well, a widespread replacement -- various SOF units have already gotten rid of them). Big Army involvement managed to delay and then kill the Joint Combat Pistol project, but the SOF community is still calling for something besides the M9 and still have an in house project to replace it.
As that organization is less afraid of troops with weapons than the Big Army, Big USMC, etc., look for Glock to be a front runner, though I don't think a 100% final decision has been made yet. It looks quite unlikely that it will be a .45 caliber pistol at this point, in any case.
No. The M9 lacks durability and mechanical reliability if the pistol is used as anything besides a holster-stuffer. The tendency of locking blocks to fail pretty consistently (as well as various springs breaking as well) is why the pistol has such a dismal reputation in the SOF community.
As an end user, I'd rather have the best pistol than an American made pistol, if they're not the same thing.
Any pistol adopted Army-wide or DoD-wide would have to be manufactured here in the US, in any case, so any country of origin would still mean American jobs. It just might mean the stockholders of Ruger or S&W (if they're American in the first place) might not make as much money.
Nope. US Army Tank and Automotive Command purchased a bunch of Ruger pistols as part of an equipment package for the Iraqi and/or Afghan defense forces, not for use by US forces.
Every soldier in units that realistically can expect to do an actual mass tac onto a hostile DZ under enemy fire are issued pistols. Not sure what non-Ranger units are doing, pistol-wise these days.
Concur. AFAIK, when a "non-American" company wins a contract, the weapons end up being produced here, like the M9 and various FN weapons. This keeps production in the USA, with all of the economic benefits from that, and also enables the gov't to have the capability of seizing the production facility should we get in a shooting war and the manufacturer decides he doesn't want to play along. To me this is the second-best possible scenario, as I am NOT a fan of "well, this really is the best product, too bad it wasn't designed here."
The best scenario, of course, is the one in which the US manufacturer has the best product and wins the contract.
Mike
DougDubya
Member
There's 5000 Ruger P95D's and 5000 Sigpro 2022's in the mix now too.
Either of those would be good. I particularly like the 2022, but wouldn't lament a P95.
Either of those would be good. I particularly like the 2022, but wouldn't lament a P95.
Fishman777
Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2007
- Messages
- 520
Dream on...
It would be too expensive to switch away from the M9. Contrary to popular belief, the M9 is a pretty damn good pistol. In the M9 pistol trials, it had fewer malfunctions that any other pistol in the trials, including the Sig p226. Besides, wars aren't fought with pistols; wars are fought with rifles and heavy artillary among other things. Not only that, it would not be practical to switch to .45 acp, unless of course, we intend to fight all of our wars on our own soil, and we convince NATO countries to switch over to .45 acp instead of 9mm.
It would be too expensive to switch away from the M9. Contrary to popular belief, the M9 is a pretty damn good pistol. In the M9 pistol trials, it had fewer malfunctions that any other pistol in the trials, including the Sig p226. Besides, wars aren't fought with pistols; wars are fought with rifles and heavy artillary among other things. Not only that, it would not be practical to switch to .45 acp, unless of course, we intend to fight all of our wars on our own soil, and we convince NATO countries to switch over to .45 acp instead of 9mm.
icebones
Member
the main reason the m9 has problems with locking blocks wearing out is the 9mm nato rounds used.
the m92fs was designed for commercial 9x19mm rounds, but military issue 9mm NATO rounds are loaded to higher pressures and higher velocity than commercial ammo, thus inducing more stress and wear on the handgun. 5.56mm NATO rounds are loaded to higher pressures and velocity too.
UN and NATO are the main reason we have been inflicted with a 9mm in the first place. one thing the 9mm actually does better than a .45 is penetration. has anyone else seen that thing on the history channel about .45 handguns not piercing german steel helmest in WWII,
but 9mm rounds easily penetrating?
the military is more concerned about penetrating the target than knocking it down, why do you think they switched from lead core 55 grain rounds to 62 grain SS190 rounds in the 5.56mm?
and good luck with convincing NATO to go to the .45, the .32acp is still used by some police officers in europe, even when the moderate 9mm far surpasses the .32 in power.
in his farewell adress George Washington stated "beware entangling alliances" if you want to help america out, lets resign from the UN and NATO. the quickest way to make enemies is to help a nation that has enemies. (Israel for one)
the m92fs was designed for commercial 9x19mm rounds, but military issue 9mm NATO rounds are loaded to higher pressures and higher velocity than commercial ammo, thus inducing more stress and wear on the handgun. 5.56mm NATO rounds are loaded to higher pressures and velocity too.
UN and NATO are the main reason we have been inflicted with a 9mm in the first place. one thing the 9mm actually does better than a .45 is penetration. has anyone else seen that thing on the history channel about .45 handguns not piercing german steel helmest in WWII,
but 9mm rounds easily penetrating?
the military is more concerned about penetrating the target than knocking it down, why do you think they switched from lead core 55 grain rounds to 62 grain SS190 rounds in the 5.56mm?
and good luck with convincing NATO to go to the .45, the .32acp is still used by some police officers in europe, even when the moderate 9mm far surpasses the .32 in power.
in his farewell adress George Washington stated "beware entangling alliances" if you want to help america out, lets resign from the UN and NATO. the quickest way to make enemies is to help a nation that has enemies. (Israel for one)
Billy Shears
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,020
By that logic, it was not practical for us to use the .45ACP M1911A1 or the .30-06 M1 Garand in WWII. Nor was it practical for us to switch to the 5.56mm during the Vietnam era.
Frankly that's a fairly absurd statement, given that there is very small likelihood of us having to beg ammo off of one of our NATO allies in the (unlikely) event that they happen to sign on to some future conflict with us, especially pistol ammo of all things, which is relatively little used in actual combat.
If we switch to a new pistol and/or a new caliber, the primary consideration should be what puts the most effective weapon into the hands of our troops, not whether or not the rest of NATO can use the same ammo.
FLoppyTOE
Member
Xd .45
subirex, of the guns you listed only the S&W is made in the USA.
I see no reason to replace the Beretta. It would not be my personal preference, but I cannot find enough fault to justify replacing it at this time. The only legitimate complaint I have heard of the Beretta was caused by faulty aftermarket magazines and has been corrected.
After researching it appears the FN is made in the USA as well as S&W. The XD is made in Croatia and Springfield 1911's are assembled here from parts made in Brasil.
I see no reason to replace the Beretta. It would not be my personal preference, but I cannot find enough fault to justify replacing it at this time. The only legitimate complaint I have heard of the Beretta was caused by faulty aftermarket magazines and has been corrected.
After researching it appears the FN is made in the USA as well as S&W. The XD is made in Croatia and Springfield 1911's are assembled here from parts made in Brasil.
Last edited:
mgregg85
Member
XD in 10mm.
Vern Humphrey
Member
M1911A2. Similar to the M1911A1, but with better sights, lowered and beveled ejection port and a bump on the beavertail grip safety for positive disengagement when shooting two-handed.
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
and don't forget the M-11....
The big brains at the DoD also gave the compact pistol contract to the SIGsauer P-228 9mmNATO,....
Would the US Army/DoD need a new M-11 pistol too?...
That to me is dumb!
But what do I or 1,000s of other US military veterans know....
RS
The big brains at the DoD also gave the compact pistol contract to the SIGsauer P-228 9mmNATO,
....Would the US Army/DoD need a new M-11 pistol too?...
That to me is dumb!
But what do I or 1,000s of other US military veterans know...
.RS
MT GUNNY
Member
If Nato has a problem with .45 why cant we call it the 11.5mm
Its been done with the ,223 (5.56)
Its been done with the ,223 (5.56)
- Status
