I know it'll never happen, but I would love to see the AF change to a compact 9mm. Maybe a 239. No reason for aircrew to carry a full size service weapon. The Army and Marines and those that will actually use them as a combat sidearm appreciate the extra capacity, longer sight radius, etc. Aircrew aren't issued pistols for the same reason.
Air Force staying w/ the M-9
- Thread starter rc135
- Start date
- Status
quote by Jimmie : I know it'll never happen, but I would love to see the AF change to a compact 9mm. Maybe a 239. No reason for aircrew to carry a full size service weapon.
every round gonna count if an aircrew ended up behind enemy lines. you will understand , if you have watch Black Hawk Down.
every round gonna count if an aircrew ended up behind enemy lines. you will understand , if you have watch Black Hawk Down.
Mainsail
Member
During the Gulf War a few of us tried to get Glock 19s for the aircrews heading over. During the process, we found out what the DOD was paying for those M9s, it was just under $200 a copy.
Ah, of course. Black Hawk Down. I'll just fight my way to the Green Zone with my M9 vs. AK-47s and RPGs. If they're actually concerned with aircrew fighting off an enemy force on the ground, qualify 'em on long guns. And then train them in ground combat.
If we can't give our troops a .45, then let them use JHPs.
Much is made by the bad guys of injured bystanders. JHPs would be an excellent way to reduce one cause of that. Any bad guys that prefer not to be shot by JHPs just need to not attack the good guys.
Much is made by the bad guys of injured bystanders. JHPs would be an excellent way to reduce one cause of that. Any bad guys that prefer not to be shot by JHPs just need to not attack the good guys.
Someone pointed out the "9mm hasnt gotten any smaller." While this is true, it is also true that the number of body armored foes have risen. Kevlar and other "bullet proof" armor has been invented, refined and improved upon in the last 20 or so years.
Who knows what they will do. The FMJ 9mm is just not cutting it according to the troops. They should have what ever they need to keep themselves safe out there.
Who knows what they will do. The FMJ 9mm is just not cutting it according to the troops. They should have what ever they need to keep themselves safe out there.
SigfanUSAF
Member
They ARE trained on the M16A2 AND sent to survival school. What they are issued during a flight and choose to apply from their schooling is a different matter.
The Unknown User
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 712
Out of curiosity, what would happen if soldiers purchased their own sidearms? Or what if a family member were to buy one for a soldier they know and mail it to them?
I've heard of special forces groups requesting that they be issued .357 revolvers or autoloaders other than the M9.
I've heard of special forces groups requesting that they be issued .357 revolvers or autoloaders other than the M9.
kungfuhippie
Member
I've shot the m-9 at the range during my quest for a new pistol, and it I liked how it felt in my hand. I hated how it shot, disliked the trigger, it failed to extract (stovepiped) a few times. The place I shoot at keeps their rentals in tiptop shape. Even when worn they are not worn out. I preferred the G19 that we rented at the same time. I think our troops need better pistols, but I agree they should have a standard pistol among the the different branches. Maybe something in S&W40-then I can get surplus for cheap.
I love my Beretta 92. For me, the ergonomics are very good and it gets decent accuracy.
I would NOT be comfortable using ball ammo only though. In 9mm, make mine hollowpoint. If I was stuck to ball ammo, I agree that .45 ACP is a better choice.
I would NOT be comfortable using ball ammo only though. In 9mm, make mine hollowpoint. If I was stuck to ball ammo, I agree that .45 ACP is a better choice.
Rob87
Back in 94 there was a soldier in my unit (1-4 Infantry; CMTC Hohenfels,Germany) who took his Ruger GP 100 out into the field with him on an FTX. He didn't have any ammo for it, but thought it would be "cool".
Within a couple hours of having rolled out into the training area out his sergeant learned of it and he was arrested and recieved an Article 15. He was reduced from E-3 to E-2, recieved 30 days additional duty and 30 days of being confined to the barracks. Meaning that he didn't get to go home to his family. He also got in trouble because he hadn't registered the handgun with the installation and wasn't storing it in the company weapons vault.
Absolutely no privately owned weapons with you in the field, either in peace or war.
Back in 94 there was a soldier in my unit (1-4 Infantry; CMTC Hohenfels,Germany) who took his Ruger GP 100 out into the field with him on an FTX. He didn't have any ammo for it, but thought it would be "cool".
Within a couple hours of having rolled out into the training area out his sergeant learned of it and he was arrested and recieved an Article 15. He was reduced from E-3 to E-2, recieved 30 days additional duty and 30 days of being confined to the barracks. Meaning that he didn't get to go home to his family. He also got in trouble because he hadn't registered the handgun with the installation and wasn't storing it in the company weapons vault.
Absolutely no privately owned weapons with you in the field, either in peace or war.
Why all this talk of using JHP 9mm on enemies wearing body armor? It seems the expansion and increased surface area would decrease pressure (force/surface area) and penetration. So that point seems odd to me. To my knowledge, I thought JHP didn't penetrate as well.
Also, as far as penetration goes, how well does .45 ACP penetrate body armor? Sure, it has more force (mass x acceleration), but I'm wondering whether the force is enough to overcome the larger surface area to penetrate well. It may well be. Does anyone here know?
I understand both sides of the argument on this matter. I've never been in a combat scenario to know how well 9mm vs. .45 ACP perform against real people. I'll leave that decision to someone more knowledgeable on the subject. I think our troops should be armed with good weapons that are capable of getting the job done. If the M9 isn't cutting it, then upgrade. The problem, as someone mentioned, is that sidearms probably don't get much use from the vast majority of armed forces personnel as their rifles are their primary weapons.
I've fired a Beretta 92 FS at the range, and I like its ergonomics, but I was much less accurate with it than with my CZ 75 (similar size & weight). I also plan on buying a .45 ACP at some point in the future. If the army does go back to .45 ACP, maybe the ammo price will come down. For now, I enjoy my 9mm prices.
Also, whoever said the armed forces is paying $700 per M9 is probably grossly overestimating. To fill a contract order that large, there's no way they'd shell out $700 per gun. I'm sure it's more like $200. Otherwise, any number of other guns would have won the contract. Hell, for $700/gun, they probably could have gotten Mark 23 SOCOMs for everyone with a contract that size.
Also, as far as penetration goes, how well does .45 ACP penetrate body armor? Sure, it has more force (mass x acceleration), but I'm wondering whether the force is enough to overcome the larger surface area to penetrate well. It may well be. Does anyone here know?
I understand both sides of the argument on this matter. I've never been in a combat scenario to know how well 9mm vs. .45 ACP perform against real people. I'll leave that decision to someone more knowledgeable on the subject. I think our troops should be armed with good weapons that are capable of getting the job done. If the M9 isn't cutting it, then upgrade. The problem, as someone mentioned, is that sidearms probably don't get much use from the vast majority of armed forces personnel as their rifles are their primary weapons.
I've fired a Beretta 92 FS at the range, and I like its ergonomics, but I was much less accurate with it than with my CZ 75 (similar size & weight). I also plan on buying a .45 ACP at some point in the future. If the army does go back to .45 ACP, maybe the ammo price will come down. For now, I enjoy my 9mm prices.
Also, whoever said the armed forces is paying $700 per M9 is probably grossly overestimating. To fill a contract order that large, there's no way they'd shell out $700 per gun. I'm sure it's more like $200. Otherwise, any number of other guns would have won the contract. Hell, for $700/gun, they probably could have gotten Mark 23 SOCOMs for everyone with a contract that size.
denfoote
Member
Second only to George Bush, the Democrats in Congress hate the military.
Whenever they are in power, that's the first thing they gut!!
Well, this time, that action is treason and if we get hit because these socialist fools have taken away one thin dime of the military's budget, there will be hell to pay, even revolution!!
I say give the military whatever it wants!!!
Whenever they are in power, that's the first thing they gut!!
Well, this time, that action is treason and if we get hit because these socialist fools have taken away one thin dime of the military's budget, there will be hell to pay, even revolution!!
I say give the military whatever it wants!!!
WeThePeople
Member
Actually, second to education, arming our armed forces would get the bulk of my money if I had anything to do with it. I'm not going to digress (too much) but there are way too many people on the welfare roles at the expense of our deployed troops. The troops deserve the best and the welfare "people" simply don't.
trueblue1776
Member
ha ha ha, DOD can't buy a ballpoint pen for $200, those M-9's were going for near MSRP 3 years ago.
quote by trueblue1776 : ha ha ha, DOD can't buy a ballpoint pen for $200, those M-9's were going for near MSRP 3 years ago.
I created a database of small arms use by US Army yrs ago from http://tech.military.com/equipment/subcategory/4/5/weapons/small-arms.html.
the Army bought Beretta M9 for $263 each, dun know how truth this is.
the cost of the M9 is no longer shown.
http://tech.military.com/equipment/view/89047/m9-9mm-pistol.html
I created a database of small arms use by US Army yrs ago from http://tech.military.com/equipment/subcategory/4/5/weapons/small-arms.html.
the Army bought Beretta M9 for $263 each, dun know how truth this is.
the cost of the M9 is no longer shown.
http://tech.military.com/equipment/view/89047/m9-9mm-pistol.html
Last edited:
I think staying with the m-9 is fine idea as long as the funding is used for training.
the m-9 is a pretty average pistol in terms of accuracy, reliability, etc, and chances are the problems individuals have with the pistol/caliber have a lot more to do with bad shot placement than the weapon itself.
on the bright side, all those interesting candidate weapons developed as possible replacements will find a warm welcome on the civilian market
the m-9 is a pretty average pistol in terms of accuracy, reliability, etc, and chances are the problems individuals have with the pistol/caliber have a lot more to do with bad shot placement than the weapon itself.
on the bright side, all those interesting candidate weapons developed as possible replacements will find a warm welcome on the civilian market
MrAcheson
Member
Those are just your projected procurement costs. You have left out almost all of the lifecycle costs like retraining and refitting all the armorers in the US military or, more importantly, retraining every single grunt on the new pistol. And it's even worse if we switch calibers because we have a whole supply chain changeover from 9mm.
If the military is going to spend a billion dollars on guns, I would much rather they spend it on, say, a rifle round that will properly tumble and fragment instead of the M855. Soldiers are actually trained to hit things with their rifles after all. Or a replacement for the SAW. Pistols? I don't care about them so much.
That is assuming the military has the money to spend on small arms at all. It doesn't. The money the military does have to spend is generally being put towards threats that are actually killing soldiers. When was the last time you heard of a bunch of soldiers dying because they lost a firefight?
Joe Demko
Member
I doubt that.
moxie
Member
I'm ex Air Force. I don't like the 9mm round in general, and I specifically don't like the M-9 pistol. Having said that, the combination is far more effective with the 9mm NATO round than the old S&W Combat Masterpiece with the anemic 130 grain FMJ-RN ball bullet. Nice gun, crummy round. It might have hit 700fps with a strong tailwind. Nice target gun, though.
The JHP 9mm isn't going to penetrate well, but 9mm is far superior to .45 in penetrating vests. Some flak jackets will stop .45 due to the large frontal area and slow velocity.
It is a mistake to change rounds in the belief that just because this current enemy doesn't have body armor means that the next one won't.
The thing about military or law enforcement special ops is that we have the option of switching between 5.7, 9mm and .45 according to the mission plan. Regular forces will not.
No flyboy who shoots 70 rounds in their career will be effective with any pistol no matter what you give him or her.
Shadow Shock
Member
I don't know about anyone else, but if I was in a downed aircrew, I would shoot an enemy and pick up his AK. Then, I'd hole up somewhere and wait for the calvary to arrive. But a 30 round mag of 7.62, with the option of full auto certainly beats a 14 round mag of 9mm or less of .45, fired 1 bullet at a time. IMHO
Quiet
Member
nemoaz said:
UCMJ forbids use of JHP rounds by US military personnel.
The discussion should be which is a more effective round 9x19mm FMJ or .45 ACP FMJ.
The belief that future enemies the US would encounter would be wearing body armor was based on the fact that the Cold War was still in effect. Which was based on the belief that governments would be willing to spend vast sums of money to armor the basic infantry solider. Something in todays political/economic situation is unlikely to happen on a large scale for a vast majority of the world.
- Status
