Army wants a harder-hitting pistol

Status
Not open for further replies.

FitGunner

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Messages
175
I apologize if this has already been posted. I have been out of the loop for a while.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...hitting-pistol.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=1
The U.S. Army is moving forward to replace the Cold War-era M9 9mm pistol with a more powerful handgun that also meets the needs of the other services.
As the lead agent for small arms, the Army will hold an industry day July 29 to talk to gun makers about the joint, Modular Handgun System or MHS.
The MHS would replace the Army's inventory of more than 200,000 outdated M9 pistols and several thousand M11 9mm pistols with one that has greater accuracy, lethality, reliability and durability, according to Daryl Easlick, a project officer with the Army's Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Ga.
 
Just another example of unbridled government waste.

There is no handgun in the world (regardless of caliber) that represents a significant enough improvement over the M9 to justify its replacement. That is money that could be much better spent in so many other ways to benefit the modern warfighter.
 
They can't agree on adopting a significantly updated main battle rifle -- that front line troops actually use in large numbers to shoot the enemy -- but they'll dive into major improvements to the back-up sidearm carried by a few troops and used to actually shoot the enemy a mere handful of times each year? That makes sense. :rolleyes:

I don't see this going ANYWHERE.

The irony is that, somewhat UNlike (maybe) the situation with assault rifle development, the civilian shooting world is already miles and many decades ahead of the military in handgun development and training. They really don't need to develop anything or go to any great lengths to study anything. Just look around and see what's working the "bestest for the mostest", and place their order.
 
"It's a total system replacement -- new gun, new ammo, new holster, everything," Easlick said.
The MHS will be an open-caliber competition that will evaluate larger rounds such as .357 Sig, .40 S&W and .45 ACP.
:uhoh: So I guess by NEW they mean ...not used? Yes, the military should use new ammunition.

Army officials, however, say the M9 does not meet the MHS requirement.

"The M9 doesn't meet it for a multitude of reasons," Easlick said. "It's got reliability issues; the open slide design allows contaminates in.
Wow, you're just now noticing the open slide? :confused: How did that get past them way back when the pistol was adopted?
 
Army want a harder-hitting pistol

Properly used it removes fingerprints .... and everything else.....:evil:
 

Attachments

  • BlackWhitePhaser.jpg
    BlackWhitePhaser.jpg
    25.8 KB · Views: 112
:uhoh: So I guess by NEW they mean ...not used? Yes, the military should use new ammunition.

I'm guessing they mean "new" as in something other than what they're using now.

While there are a whole host of guns I think would be marginally "better" than the M9 (of which I'll admit I'm not a fan of), I don't think any of them are ENOUGH of an improvement to justify the cost of replacing them.

I agree with Sam1911 in that the M4 really needs to be what is looked at for replacement. It in its basic form (the M-16) has been around for 52 years now. There are better more modern designs available.

It also might have a side benefit to us - if the AR-15 doesn't look exactly like what most of the military is totting around, it might diminish it's reputation as a "weapon of war" and start to become more recognized as a civilian weapon in the eyes of the public, much likes the bolt action rifles of WW2 have become.
 
Stories like this appear at least once a year. The fact is that the Armed Services stopped new pistol development a few years back and ordered several hundred thousand M9s. This is probably wishful thinking on the part of those that never got over the adoption of the M9 and the 9x19mm cartridge in 1985.
 
First issue, how is this getting around NATO agreements on commonality of pistol ammo? Do we suddenly not care, or did I miss the memo about breaking away from that?

Second, we can't get Army to fix the camo issue without adopting a prior generation version of Multicam to spare themselves a $25 million buyout. So, in the light of pressure to reduce spending, where does a new pistol acquisition fit in? We are downsizing and money is being taken off the table as it is. That trend has been ongoing since SOCOM dropped further testing of the SCAR and racked them.

Of the calibers mentioned, which are largely "open tip," where does the full metal jacket versions fit in ballistically? I'm quite aware under Hague that hollow points are considered anathema, but it's already been declared by JAG that "open tip" designed exclusively for aerodynamic purposes is legal. It's not going to go well discovering those aren't even available on the market, so, expect FMJ round nose and hollow cavity at best. I see lots of issues in this aside from a thousand posters online getting all the details wrong.

Who's driving the train as the acquisition buyer? Last time it was the Air Force. Same again, with the Army as a partner, but this article from January that the SF has a lot of input, and what they have been using of late: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine....sContinuetoReplaceArmy,AirForceSmallArms.aspx

Seeing the M9 as being at the end of it's service life is where the biggest justification lies. The budget mongers can play the game of expense, but it's really a small potatoes acquisition when we pay almost three times more for a fighter plane. 238,000 pistols at 500 each is $120 million, the F22 Raptor was $350 million apiece and we bought 187 of them.

I see plastic framed with some compromise in caliber possible. Stay tuned.
 
The U.S. Army is moving forward to replace the Cold War-era M9 9mm pistol with a more powerful handgun that also meets the needs of the other services.
As the lead agent for small arms, the Army will hold an industry day July 29 to talk to gun makers about the joint, Modular Handgun System or MHS.
The MHS would replace the Army's inventory of more than 200,000 outdated M9 pistols and several thousand M11 9mm pistols with one that has greater accuracy, lethality, reliability and durability, according to Daryl Easlick, a project officer with the Army's Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Ga.


Outdated – The Beretta M-9 and SIG M-11 are both in current production in their civilian dress.

Accuracy – mechanical or shooter. The Beretta is very accurate and capable of 2 -3” groups at 25 yds. As for the shooter there is no substitute for practice.

Lethality – real world results prove that all FMJ bullets perform the same in stopping power.

Reliability – After 30 years the Beretta hasn’t proven itself to be reliable???

Durability – The SIG lifespan is rated at 50,000 rounds, I don’t know about the M-9 but I would expect it to be the same or greater.

The Army has been beating this dead horse since the beginning of WWII with the M-1 carbine program.
 
Besides the obvious violation of treaties, they would be better served by using HP ammunition than changing calibers and equipment.
 
Is the M9 really a cold war pistol? Seems like the tail end of the cold war at best, unless they're counting our latest trouble with the Russians as a continuation or resurgence of the Cold War?

They can't agree on adopting a significantly updated main battle rifle -- that front line troops actually use in large numbers to shoot the enemy -- but they'll dive into major improvements to the back-up sidearm carried by a few troops and used to actually shoot the enemy a mere handful of times each year? That makes sense.

Yep.

This is about as important as finding a new type of tent pegs.
 
So closing in on what, 30 years of service life, the M9 is due for replacement? Sounds more like some manufacturers trying to drum up new business from a big buck government contract, along with some government officials (a.k.a. shills), looking for a hefty kickback.

Sounds like Beltway Business as usual.
 
Last edited:
While I have complete disdain for the M9, and find it mostly inferior to many other pistols, I do not see the need for the upgrade. It's current use, or lack of use, does not justify it.
 
I thought the Army just bought another 165,000 M9s a short while ago. I find no fault with ongoing testing and evaluation of arms, but there's no pressing need for a new pistol.
 
There is no handgun in the world (regardless of caliber) that represents a significant enough improvement over the M9 to justify its replacement.
So Fishbed77 nails it with the first post in the thread!

"The M9 doesn't meet it for a multitude of reasons," Easlick said. "It's got reliability issues; the open slide design allows contaminates in.
Oh, yes, we have so many documented reports of M-9 failures during battle ... Oh, wait -- never mind.

As one who has a bit of experience with the 92FS/M-9 both in the military and law enforcement, I can only add ... who cares? (Well, except for the American taxpayer ... because most of those in the military who actually might have to depend on a handgun already have other options.)
 
One thing to remember too - many years ago the Army might hope to recoup some cost of the Beretta's by surplus sales. I'd be willing to bet that today they would simply be destroyed. That makes replacement even more expensive of a proposition.
 
It would be more practical to dismiss the limitations of the Hague Convention and use expanding ammunition if an increase in stopping power is desired. Switching to a new pistol caliber would have little to no effect, especially with fmj ammo. Add to the fact that a sidearm is seldom used and this idea seems ridiculous.

I do believe that the m9 and m11 are old clunkers that could stand to be replaced by a more modern pistol design. An update to the m4 would also make sense. The calibers used are very practical and still effective within their intended purposes.
 
Looks like an excuse to play with new guns. Those military Project Managers need to protect their jobs same as in the private sector.
 
The military had the pistol to fit all their needs and specs until 1985. Some idiot decided to replace the wonderful 1911 for the inferior M9. Why do you think a lot of special units are going back to the 1911? Only one reason I can think of, they work and work well against the enemy.
 
But the Brass will get to go to Hawaii to see the Demos of the candidate weapons. 12 Congressmen (women) will claim that the new weapon will bring jobs to their districts. 12 more will block the expenditure claiming that they have saved the taxpayers 42 million bucks at least, and in the end, the Army will place an order for 250K brand new 1911s that no one in the field really asked for. And some big corporation will get a 12 million dollar contract to determine what it is that the Army actually DOES need.

Its all good for the economy.
 
$$$/T&Es....

Doesn't Beretta USA have US Army & USMC contracts until 2016? :confused:

Also, I thought the DoD/JCS said the military had no $. :mad:

Well, if the "head shed" wants to try it again, Id push for the .40Super. It's fast, high KE level, doesn't wear out parts or guns like a 10mm, it feeds/cycles great, and it offers high magazine caps(14-16 rounds).
It was in the early 1990s era with the .41AE, 10mm, 9x23 Winchester, .356TSW, .40S&W, .400CorBon, etc.
Triton Arms was one of the few US firms to market a .40Super. They sold ammunition for several years. The US interest seemed to grind down by the late 1990s as the .40S&W and .357sig gained in support.
 
I've head that the M9 was going the way of the dinosaur for what, 15 years now at least?

The fact of the matter is, like others have said, the M9 is a serviceable and "good enough" weapon for the current methods of war. I'm a fan of the M9. I finally picked one up myself. However, I understand it's limitations. I mostly wanted one because they are beautiful, accurate, and an iconic piece of American military history whether you love it or hate it. I have plenty of "modern" handguns, but I simply WANTED a 92FS to add to my collection.

I still think that the soldiers would be better served with a lighter weight more modern firing system, but I wouldn't spend tax payer dollars for it. The handgun just isn't used much in modern warfare. On top of that, as has been mentioned, the use of ball ammo negates a lot of ANY handgun's potential stopping power.

I will agree that the M9 is a bit outdated, clunky for it's caliber, and all the other gripes people have about it. However, for its current role of a non Special Force side arm, it does the job well enough.
 
Doesn't Beretta USA have US Army & USMC contracts until 2016?

That means until Oct 2015, or approximately 15 months away. Not much time to find a new pistol.

Other posters were right about the issues with NATO and that this story continually resurfaces. Still one day they will likely adopt a new cartridge/handgun and it will likely be more powerful than a 9mm as it has garnered a lot of complaints, valid or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top