Air Force staying w/ the M-9

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rc135

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
174
Location
Near the Rockies
From www.StrategyPage.com:

THE IMMORTAL M9. (April 30, 2007): Congress has told the U.S. Air Force that they cannot go ahead and buy a new pistol, to replace the 9mm M-9 everyone in the Department of Defense has been using for the past two decades. Congress told the Air Force to get with the other services and come up with a new pistol for everyone. That's what everyone has been trying to do, without much success, for the last few years.

Numerous and frequent complaints from the troops have the DoD looking for a new pistol to replace the current M-9 9mm weapon. It's not just nostalgia. When the U.S. switched over from the .45 caliber M1911 pistol to the M9, in the 1980s, SOCOM (Special Operations Command) went to Heckler and Koch for a more powerful pistol. What resulted as the Mk 23 SOCOM. This .45 pistol has a 12-round magazine and the ability to carry a silencer. It is based on the Heckler and Koch USP45, which has been available for the civilian and law enforcement markets. The fact that there are several larger (than 9mm) caliber pistols out there for the law enforcement market gives you a hint at what is going on here.

It comes down to this. Most of the GI-s who have been issued a pistol will rarely have to use it. However, those who do, like Special Forces, want more power than a 9mm round can deliver. The ‘wonder-nine’ has been popular with police forces that don't encounter much opposition; but when the other guy is likely to shoot back, you want as much knock down power as you can get. Thus cops who shoot a lot, prefer 10mm and larger calibers (like the 11.4mm .45). The Special Forces, and SOCOM in general, have the authority to get any weapons they think they need, with no interference from anyone. SOCOM has many small unit operations that use pistols. The SOCOM operators believe that the 9mm pistol is not adequate, thus the adoption of the Mk23. Many key members of Congress are determined that the DoD will not end up with several different new pistols. If they don't like the M9, then agree on a new one. However, so far, the services have not been able to agree. Thus, the saga continues…
 
It seems to me that the XD-45 would make a good service pistol. I hope that one day it becomes one, so some number of years later I can get cheap surplus ones ;)

The grip might be a big large, if they want to get the 5-95 percentile covered. But my hands are certainly smallish, and it fits me fine. They have a Glock-style (and to me, pretty inscrutable) trigger-flange safety, but also a grip safety; whether you think that's important or not, I really like it, and if I were in the business of training thousands of people with wildly different backgrounds to shoot, I'd like a grip safety on their guns.

As as a tax-payer, I wouldn't want them buying SOCOM-style HKs for everyone.

timothy
 
If I was headed for the sandbox, I think I'd tuck a couple mags worth of +P or +P+ JHP away in my socks. That would give the old M9/M11 a little more stopping punch.
 
Just curious. how many times was the 1911 victim to an attempt to replace it?
IMO, since handgun is looked at as more a defensive weapon, I doubt there is muchthe urgency for the gov't to replace the M9. IMO, the M9 will be replaced in the next decade and no sooner :D
 
"As as a tax-payer, I wouldn't want them buying SOCOM-style HKs for everyone."

as a tax payer that EXACTLY where I want my money going. Screw gazilion dollar starwars super lasers of doom, boots and rifles baby boots and rifles.
 
*sigh* It's pretty obvious--congress won't let them get another pistol too readily because that makes congress admit "hey, we made a step backwards, it's our fault." Same reason they haven't let so many other things be adopted.

Test have been done--9mm is adequate when using HP or other rounds, most of which have been barred from military service. Troops have complained the entire time the M9 has been in service, and then when the branches want something else, they throw all the legal jargon at them.

Though, I'm curious as to what all the services cannot agree upon regarding a new pistol. They at least all agree that the M9 just ain't cutting it....
 
Remember it took about 8 years before all the branches of the US Military finally agreed upon the Beretta M-9. Even then there was dissension with some branches wanting the Sig-Sauer P-226. But, the lower cost Beretta won out in the end.

Almost everyone will agree that most modern 9x19mm JHP are proven man stoppers. However, JHP are prohibited from military use.

So, yes, all the branches in the US Military agree that the 9x19mm FMJ as a handgun round is not adequate enough as a self-defense round and have decided to go back to the proven .45 ACP FMJ round.

Currently, design specifications & budgetary concerns are what is impeading the search for a new standard issue side arm for the US Military.
 
I wish they would quit wasting tax payer money trying to change weapons and just stick with what they have til they wear them out.

I don't not have a problem with them gradually phasing out the M9 as they wear out, but just to throw them all away and melt them down into scrap is a shame.

Its too bad they are disappointed by the 9mm, but the Army has made similar mistakes before and should have learned from them. The 9mm hasn't gotten any smaller. They knew what they were getting when they went that route. Now they need to live with it.
 
I rented and shot the civilian version of the M-9.

What an under underwhelming experience. Poor ergonomics and mediocre accuracy, just a generally clunky gun.

I generally can find something likable in any handgun, not so with the M-9 civilian version.
 
I wish they would quit wasting tax payer money trying to change weapons and just stick with what they have til they wear them out.

I don't not have a problem with them gradually phasing out the M9 as they wear out, but just to throw them all away and melt them down into scrap is a shame.

Its too bad they are disappointed by the 9mm, but the Army has made similar mistakes before and should have learned from them. The 9mm hasn't gotten any smaller. They knew what they were getting when they went that route. Now they need to live with it.
Click to expand...

A vast majority of the Beretta M-9s are wearing out. That is one of the reasons why, the US Military is clamering for a new side arm. Remember the M-9s have been in service for about 20 years now without any upgrades.

Sure, the M-16 has been in service for about 40 years, but it's seen about 3 product improved upgrades through it's service. Not true about the M-9.

The push to adopt the 9x19mm & 5.56x45mm was in order to be NATO compliant in regards to logistical support for a common ammo.
 
Since Congress has now decided that they just might fund the war effort in little batches and there is a far more desperate need for other types of material, rest assured that any pistol replacements will be long and far down the road from now.
9s for the masses and .45s for the very special few for now.
 
In my opinion it is a matter of which pistol cartridge would you like to depend on for your life, 9 mm or .45acp. In my opinion it is 45acp. Both the 9 mm and the 45 acp have been around for almost 100 years and given the restrictions as far as bullet type I would feel way safer with a 45 acp pistol. As far as having common ammo types as your allies, I say who is really going to fight with us, think about it. Why should we tailor our ammo to a bunch of questionable allies, rather than the other way around?
 
"...trying to change weapons and just stick with..." That'd destroy the military-industrial complex. You wanna wreck the economy?
"...tailor our ammo to a bunch of questionable allies, rather than the other way around?..." That's how the Beretta was selected in the first place. Other NATO countries were complaining about the balance of trade in military equipment between them and the U.S. The stock of Colt Government Models was wearing out anyway, but like most other military decisions, it was a political decision. The M-9 is a good pistol, but it doesn't fit small hands well. It's difficult to tell a small statured troopie they must qualify with a pistol that they can't hang on to properly. And it's not only women.
"...The push to adopt the...5.56x45mm..." NATO logistics had nothing to do with it. The 5.56mm was jammed down NATO's throat just like the 7.62 NATO. Both cartridges were invented Stateside. There were several new military cartridges being developed in Europe(the Brits mostly) that the U.S. Government refused to have anything to do with when both the 5.56 and the 7.62 NATO were new. The U.S. Government used its financial clout to have its way.
 
Gaucho Gringo said:
Why should we tailor our ammo to a bunch of questionable allies, rather than the other way around?
Click to expand...
After WW2 and up until the end of the Cold War, enemies and allies were know and joint defense plans required a common ammo for logistical support in case of another WW.

Since, the Cold War ended, allies and enemies have not been clearly defined. So, a joint ammo is no longer a required factor when determining logicstical support. This would be one of the reasons why, the US is looking at going back to the .45 ACP for sidearms and was looking at 6.8mm & 6.5mm rounds for as a possible new rifle round.

It's true the US forced the 7.62x51mm and 5.56x45mm down the throats of NATO, but the US also gave into NATOs demand for the 9x19mm as the standard pistol and submachinegun caliber.
 
I am not sure how much a pistol contract costs but lets say $700 a pistol times 1,000,000 units (just a rough guess here with nice round #'s for easy math). That is only $700,000,000. Yes a lot of money for anyone but William Gates and Warren Buffet, but pennies for the Federal Goverment. Yes I realize nothing is ever easy for the goverment but I can't see test trials and study groups that would run over another $100,000,000. Total $800,000,000. I can't imagine any R&D costs as they would probably by an off the shelf pistol. Altogether thats is less than the cost of submarine, destroyer and a stealth bomber. About the price of five F-22 Raptors I believe. Doesn't seem like such a big deal for country currently fighting two infantry/MOUT type of wars with no peace in sight. The military never replaces everything at once they normally phase things out, even in wartime. So it that figure would probably be over a couple of years not an upfront cost.

Now I believe I read somewhere that Berreta's contract was over a billion so my numbers may be off but I can't see them too far off. I realize you will also have magazine and parts costs.
 
With a service rifle that's been in service for almost 60 years I can under stand why replacing a handgun that's only been in service for 20 wouldn't be given a high priority.

Besides within 20 years we'll see technologies perfected that'll render cartridge firing weapons obsolete.

So yes as a taxpayer I feel they should wait until something better comes along. Changing from 9mm to 45 just isn't going to accomplish anything in the grand scheme of things. But going to multiple shot solid state firearms where the only moving part is the trigger or better yet a laser:D , now that will be an improvment
 
The M9 isn't going anywhere soon. Just a few months ago Beretta announced that the Defense Department had ordered several thousand more M9's. Go to Berettas's website and you'll find the announcement.

For the standard, no-frills, troop a handgun is not veiwed as being an essential piece of equipment. The rifle is considered to be the primary weapon when it comes to self-defense. Then the radio which is used to call for more troops, artillery, mortars, air-support etc.

A hard working, everyday infantryman is not Delta Force, SEAL etc. The line soldier in an infantry battalion probably dosen't ever come into contact with a handgun in official capacity. The snakeaters use handguns in an offensive role, depending on the mission, and therefore are allowed greater leeway when it comes to ammo, make and model etc.

Armies and other military bodies are not into handguns.
 
The AF's needs in a pistol are a little different than the Army or Marine's needs IMO.
 
Poor ergonomics and mediocre accuracy, just a generally clunky gun.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you handled a worn out range gun. I'll agree about ergonomics, I'm not a huge fan of the grip of the M9, but they are generally VERY accurate out of the box guns, and built with closer tolerances than most current production semi-autos.

Why are they being shot so much, and what are they shooting them at?
Click to expand...

Hey! This is the Air Force we are talking about:rolleyes:

-Though I never shot an M9 at anyone:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Air Force hand gun replacement (again)
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Alphazulu6
A
T
  • Locked
Replacing the USAF M9
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Robert
Robert
N
  • Locked
Question about Mil. Weapon
Replies
18
Views
1K
MM
M
K
  • Locked
Should I Buy a 9 or a 45?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
BioDemon
B
S
  • Locked
US Army looking for a new pistol
2 3
Replies
53
Views
3K
bountyhunter
B
Back
Top