OilyPablo
Member
Glock 20SF.
Done.
Done.
ARMY rejects M9A3 proposal
- Thread starter LeftyTSGC
- Start date
- Status
xXxplosive
Member
Back to the .45 and 1911.......JMB.
MagnumDweeb
Member
It'd be great if we could go back to the 1911 with some modern improvements. Special operators who would likely rely on their handguns while in service ought to be allowed to pick their own (I understand that the Sig 226 is a coveted handgun for performance).
An American company could produce it. The .45 ACP is a good performer in ball. I don't see the downside.
An American company could produce it. The .45 ACP is a good performer in ball. I don't see the downside.
The 1911 and M9 didn't serve me at all. When push came to shove the service doesn't equip soldiers with pistols, they draw rifles from the racks to shoot at the enemy.
Pistols are presentation grade authority enhancements. Most wear one to add gravitas to their MOS. I was one, wore a pistol at the front gate of Ft Benning for 6 months looking at drivers license. None of the civilians were the threat. If the threat had tried to drive onto post, it wouldn't have been hard hitching a ride in a trunk, delivery truck, or just walking in from town thru the woods.
Pistols are rarely used in Armies, and many LEO's never fire their's in defense during their entire career.
The Pistol competition is about appearance, it's not about how well it works. That is a dog and pony show for the players dancing around budgets. If an actual DOD employee - civilian or military - wants to take a pistol into combat, it's already NOT the M9.
It's a SIG or HK or something else. Trying to come up with a enhanced M9 is just Beretta forcing Army's hand to show it's not a fair competition, just the same as when they got the contract because the government of Italy insisted if the military wanted a parachute regiment in the Med and a Navy refueling station, if it was in Italy then Beretta had the contract.
It's about who we are going to hand it to this time because they have the trump cards. Not which pistol is the latest greatest.
Even the Marine Corp bought 1911's for the pistol users. The rest get a showpiece that can shoot - but nobody depends on it in combat - they use a rifle.
Enjoy the show and watch the way the decision comes out. Nothing you say or do will make a difference. And no, they won't buy 500,000. There's 2.1 million in the armed forces - one in four aren't getting armed with pistols to go to war. More like one in ten, at the most.
Much ado about nothing. Army pistols are not all that.
Pistols are presentation grade authority enhancements. Most wear one to add gravitas to their MOS. I was one, wore a pistol at the front gate of Ft Benning for 6 months looking at drivers license. None of the civilians were the threat. If the threat had tried to drive onto post, it wouldn't have been hard hitching a ride in a trunk, delivery truck, or just walking in from town thru the woods.
Pistols are rarely used in Armies, and many LEO's never fire their's in defense during their entire career.
The Pistol competition is about appearance, it's not about how well it works. That is a dog and pony show for the players dancing around budgets. If an actual DOD employee - civilian or military - wants to take a pistol into combat, it's already NOT the M9.
It's a SIG or HK or something else. Trying to come up with a enhanced M9 is just Beretta forcing Army's hand to show it's not a fair competition, just the same as when they got the contract because the government of Italy insisted if the military wanted a parachute regiment in the Med and a Navy refueling station, if it was in Italy then Beretta had the contract.
It's about who we are going to hand it to this time because they have the trump cards. Not which pistol is the latest greatest.
Even the Marine Corp bought 1911's for the pistol users. The rest get a showpiece that can shoot - but nobody depends on it in combat - they use a rifle.
Enjoy the show and watch the way the decision comes out. Nothing you say or do will make a difference. And no, they won't buy 500,000. There's 2.1 million in the armed forces - one in four aren't getting armed with pistols to go to war. More like one in ten, at the most.
Much ado about nothing. Army pistols are not all that.
improperlyaged
Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2013
- Messages
- 422
Just a question but what happens to the surplus M9's? Do they get destroyed?
Aragon
member
This is very good advice. It's very sad that monstrous politics become part of the process. I suspect Glock (and perhaps others) could provide a superior product to the M9 at a significantly reduced price.
Each firm already has MOUNTAINS of test data for their guns. All that really needs to be done is to write-up a specification (and to do with with intelligence!), qualify vendors and then bid it.
Just sit back and watch this process become yet another CF.
MachIVshooter
Member
This.
Nom de Forum
Member
Pigs will fly and Hell will freeze over before the G20SF is chosen. Even the smaller SF grip is too large for too many soldiers for it to be adopted by the military. There is also the recoil that will be considered excessive. I really like my G20SF but it is at the limit for grip comfort for me and I am above average stature.
cluttonfred
Member
It's funny that the U.S. Army and the Ordnance Determined determined that a pistol was not an adequate weapon even for second-line, non-combat troops and ordered the development of a "light rifle" in 1938. That led, eventually, to the first M1 Carbines reaching the troops in the field in 1942.
Why are we even thinking of a new pistol in 2015? Why not bring back the PDW concept that the U.S. pioneered with the M1 Carbine? If someone is only carrying one weapon, then a PDW makes a lot more sense. Pick a caliber, maybe 5.7mm, and if you need a pistol, too, then make it that caliber as well and eliminate 9mm from the supply chain.
If we are talking about a secondary, backup weapon for soldiers that already have an M4, then there are any number of off-the-shelf pistols that would work fine. In fact, if that's the really application, then that's quite different from the traditional police/military service pistol. In fact, there would be an argument for a small, light pistol, perhaps a "pocket" size gun to keep it as light as possible.
Why are we even thinking of a new pistol in 2015? Why not bring back the PDW concept that the U.S. pioneered with the M1 Carbine? If someone is only carrying one weapon, then a PDW makes a lot more sense. Pick a caliber, maybe 5.7mm, and if you need a pistol, too, then make it that caliber as well and eliminate 9mm from the supply chain.
If we are talking about a secondary, backup weapon for soldiers that already have an M4, then there are any number of off-the-shelf pistols that would work fine. In fact, if that's the really application, then that's quite different from the traditional police/military service pistol. In fact, there would be an argument for a small, light pistol, perhaps a "pocket" size gun to keep it as light as possible.
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
M9 sidearms....
The topic of US military sidearms & replacements was a hot topic in 2014.
I still say S&W and SIG Sauer have the inside track on the new pistols.
A new M&P or a SIG 320 could meet the program requirements.
S&W & SIG Sauer already have pistols in the mandated FDE color.
A .40/10mm caliber may be T&Eed. The .40Super could be great. A .41AE or .400Corbon can be practical but may take longer than 2/3 FYs to field.
The topic of US military sidearms & replacements was a hot topic in 2014.
I still say S&W and SIG Sauer have the inside track on the new pistols.
A new M&P or a SIG 320 could meet the program requirements.
S&W & SIG Sauer already have pistols in the mandated FDE color.
A .40/10mm caliber may be T&Eed. The .40Super could be great. A .41AE or .400Corbon can be practical but may take longer than 2/3 FYs to field.
cluttonfred
Member
If it were up to me, I'd suggest adopting a truly portable PDW in 5.7mm or some other small-caliber, high-velocity round specifically designed for short barrels. It could be a "honey, I shrunk the M4" design for a familiar manual of arms (but with a true collapsible or folding stock) or something completely different like the bullpup P90. Let's say a loaded weight of 2 kg (4.4 lbs) with 30 rounds of ammo. Then adopt a small, pistol with about a dozen shots, something small enough for all hand sizes but long enough for the big guys to get all their fingers on the grip, about the size of the Kahr CT9. That would knock a pound or two off the load of every soldier carrying a pistol average soldier for the pistol and a lot of pounds off the load of the non-rifleman who doesn't need an M4.
mgmorden
Member
Makes sense to me. I personally think that the M9 is adequate and doesn't need to be replaced, HOWEVER, if they do want to replace it the M9A3 is basically the same gun with trivial "improvements". The M9A3 would just be throwing good money after bad.
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,308
I agree with Tirod: much ado about nothing.
AlexanderA
Member
Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have a standard 1911 than a Beretta (and I own multiples of both). As for the M9A3, it's an ugly gun. I guess I'm conditioned to the 1911 esthetics, or maybe I'm showing my age.
kBob
Member
I was a light weapons Infantryman that thought pistols were a good idea. I was for a bit an M60 gunner. Believe it or not, things can happen while trying to change barrels or even getting the Asst. Gunner to come up with his ammo. I felt a lot more comfortable with my issued 1911A1 than just the ability to scream and call for Mamma.
Crew served weapons folks need a back up gun. As much as I love the M-1 carbine, I can not imagine lugging one with a GPM. When I was in the Artillery later as an officer a couple of men on each M109 were issued pistols and the rest M-16A1s The pistols were so some of each crew had a weapon on them and not stashed in the turret someplace if they had to leave the vehicle in a hurry.
When I flew as an observer in OH58 helos I wore a handgun. Putzing around with a rifle would have been difficult and unless you redesign the front seats and such of a helo a PDW is gonna be in the way and there for not to hand if one has to rapidly abandon the aircraft. A pistol in a shoulder holster or a cheap holster zip tied to my survival vest is going out with me with out additional though or action.
A few folks have mentioned the unlikely hood of ever even drawing a pistol "in Combat" it is truly unlikely. It is even more unlikely you will need a protective mask. Want to not have a protective mask when you need one?
Believe it or not there have been gate guards that used their flap holster pistols to stop crime or attacks. Believe it or not there have been even female Air Force bus drivers use a hand gun successfully in combat in the the SWA games.
A pistol on your person beats a rifle leaning against a tree on the other side of where you are digging a fighting position when the Sargent Major stand calmly drawing his own side arm and saying "Gentlemen, prepare to defend yourselves."
Now as to do we need a new pistol. We need to replace ones wearing out with new ones or repaired ones......it really helps if we all have the same handgun, but there are different needs for different jobs.
Price issues? Sure those German guns are expensive to you. Want to guess what the US tariffs on German produced guns are? Here is a clue, in the seventies when an HK91 cost around $500 bucks in the US the same gun cost $169 at the US rod and gun clubs in Germany.
In the 1980s the P7 PSP that cost around $600 here sold down town in Hannau West Germany for about $350.
Remember the US government gets a free ride on tariffs. Do not compare the street price in the US of two guns to decide which would be most expensive for the government to purchase
Some of us fought tooth and nail to not get the M9 in the first place. We lost. I think the real deciding factor was the belief that the M9 would have fewer negligent discharges. The accuracy thing? I see especially women and smaller men just learning to shot get better scores with a 1911A1 than with an M9 or Glock. I have even see a couple of women tell their husbands after a few minutes with the 1911A1 that tell the husbands the would rather have the 1911A1.
Most "problems" with the 1911A1 in military use were because of "a louse screw behind the grips" that is to say operator issues and failures. The most common failures where entirely in the minds of the shooters. I mean when you have instructors on line telling kids the things kick brutally (they don't) and that they are totally inaccurate (they aren't) and they might hurt you (OK they might IF YOU HOLD THEM WRONG OR DROP THEM) folks are not likely to shoot well. I had a unit in support that shot ammo from my storage that insisted that the guns and ammo were so bad that they should be excused from qualifying their pistol shooters. An actual Captain insisted the ammo would not even penetrate the cardboard kneeling man targets at 25 meters. He said this in front of his troops, who as a target acquisition battery was heavily armed with handguns. When I later pulled the partially empty ammo cans of the ammo they had used and shot three of their 1911A1s to score nice hits and oh look they not only shot through the cardboard at 25meters but the wooden supports as well I was told not to undermine the leadership of a fellow officer.
That same year I found guns in the arms room red tagged that had NOTHING actually wrong with them. One Major was very vocal about the inability of the 1911 to function reliably and his pistol was red tagged. When I found their was nothing wrong with it he insisted I had no idea what I was talking about for he had never gotten more than two rounds between malfunction and "the gun is a piece of crap" I took it to the range and insisted he fire it with me as coach. Any old farts here remember the tea cup hold? For the youth it was a two handed hold where one placed the firing hand and weapon (tea cup) on the flattened non firing hand palm (Saucer) one then curled the non firing finger up the right side of the firing fist and the thumb up the left grip near the front. Where does this place the tip of the non firing thumb? When you push up on the slide stop while the weapon is cycling what should happen? I tried to explain to the major what was happening and he angrily informed me that a match shooter had taught him to shoot that way. I took his weapon and fired two magazines rapid fire in to a smaller group than he had with his few functioning slow fire rounds. He stormed off without being excused from a hot range and within minutes the Colonel was giving me a talk about how embarrassing a Major in front of enlisted folks could be considered "Disrespect for a Commissioned Officer" I damn sure disrespected an officer that destroyed troop confidence in their issued weapons as a result of his on inability to follow instructions or preform to standard.
I saw variation on that sort of crap every where near the end of the 1911A1 normal service life.
Add to that the bitchings and moaning of the troops daddy's Granpa's and Uncles grand and not so about how awful the 1911A1 was and troops just "knew" they were no good before they even saw one. Most of those WWII and Korea guys never fired as many as 60 rounds through a 1911A1 on that after an hour mechanical training a thirty minute class spent in some uncomfortable weather and with one another for coaches, a lot of them fired no more than 14 rounds for familurization and some never actually shot one at all, but they all had their 1911A1 horror stories to tell poor little Snuffy to "warn" him of the horrors awaiting his encounter with the 1911A1.
Now folks are claiming that we should ditch the M9 for something "better"
How about we train to use what we have.....what ever it is..... and keep it going as long as we can? We have better things to spend our tax dollars on than more fruitless studies.
-kBob
Crew served weapons folks need a back up gun. As much as I love the M-1 carbine, I can not imagine lugging one with a GPM. When I was in the Artillery later as an officer a couple of men on each M109 were issued pistols and the rest M-16A1s The pistols were so some of each crew had a weapon on them and not stashed in the turret someplace if they had to leave the vehicle in a hurry.
When I flew as an observer in OH58 helos I wore a handgun. Putzing around with a rifle would have been difficult and unless you redesign the front seats and such of a helo a PDW is gonna be in the way and there for not to hand if one has to rapidly abandon the aircraft. A pistol in a shoulder holster or a cheap holster zip tied to my survival vest is going out with me with out additional though or action.
A few folks have mentioned the unlikely hood of ever even drawing a pistol "in Combat" it is truly unlikely. It is even more unlikely you will need a protective mask. Want to not have a protective mask when you need one?
Believe it or not there have been gate guards that used their flap holster pistols to stop crime or attacks. Believe it or not there have been even female Air Force bus drivers use a hand gun successfully in combat in the the SWA games.
A pistol on your person beats a rifle leaning against a tree on the other side of where you are digging a fighting position when the Sargent Major stand calmly drawing his own side arm and saying "Gentlemen, prepare to defend yourselves."
Now as to do we need a new pistol. We need to replace ones wearing out with new ones or repaired ones......it really helps if we all have the same handgun, but there are different needs for different jobs.
Price issues? Sure those German guns are expensive to you. Want to guess what the US tariffs on German produced guns are? Here is a clue, in the seventies when an HK91 cost around $500 bucks in the US the same gun cost $169 at the US rod and gun clubs in Germany.
In the 1980s the P7 PSP that cost around $600 here sold down town in Hannau West Germany for about $350.
Remember the US government gets a free ride on tariffs. Do not compare the street price in the US of two guns to decide which would be most expensive for the government to purchase
Some of us fought tooth and nail to not get the M9 in the first place. We lost. I think the real deciding factor was the belief that the M9 would have fewer negligent discharges. The accuracy thing? I see especially women and smaller men just learning to shot get better scores with a 1911A1 than with an M9 or Glock. I have even see a couple of women tell their husbands after a few minutes with the 1911A1 that tell the husbands the would rather have the 1911A1.
Most "problems" with the 1911A1 in military use were because of "a louse screw behind the grips" that is to say operator issues and failures. The most common failures where entirely in the minds of the shooters. I mean when you have instructors on line telling kids the things kick brutally (they don't) and that they are totally inaccurate (they aren't) and they might hurt you (OK they might IF YOU HOLD THEM WRONG OR DROP THEM) folks are not likely to shoot well. I had a unit in support that shot ammo from my storage that insisted that the guns and ammo were so bad that they should be excused from qualifying their pistol shooters. An actual Captain insisted the ammo would not even penetrate the cardboard kneeling man targets at 25 meters. He said this in front of his troops, who as a target acquisition battery was heavily armed with handguns. When I later pulled the partially empty ammo cans of the ammo they had used and shot three of their 1911A1s to score nice hits and oh look they not only shot through the cardboard at 25meters but the wooden supports as well I was told not to undermine the leadership of a fellow officer.
That same year I found guns in the arms room red tagged that had NOTHING actually wrong with them. One Major was very vocal about the inability of the 1911 to function reliably and his pistol was red tagged. When I found their was nothing wrong with it he insisted I had no idea what I was talking about for he had never gotten more than two rounds between malfunction and "the gun is a piece of crap" I took it to the range and insisted he fire it with me as coach. Any old farts here remember the tea cup hold? For the youth it was a two handed hold where one placed the firing hand and weapon (tea cup) on the flattened non firing hand palm (Saucer) one then curled the non firing finger up the right side of the firing fist and the thumb up the left grip near the front. Where does this place the tip of the non firing thumb? When you push up on the slide stop while the weapon is cycling what should happen? I tried to explain to the major what was happening and he angrily informed me that a match shooter had taught him to shoot that way. I took his weapon and fired two magazines rapid fire in to a smaller group than he had with his few functioning slow fire rounds. He stormed off without being excused from a hot range and within minutes the Colonel was giving me a talk about how embarrassing a Major in front of enlisted folks could be considered "Disrespect for a Commissioned Officer" I damn sure disrespected an officer that destroyed troop confidence in their issued weapons as a result of his on inability to follow instructions or preform to standard.
I saw variation on that sort of crap every where near the end of the 1911A1 normal service life.
Add to that the bitchings and moaning of the troops daddy's Granpa's and Uncles grand and not so about how awful the 1911A1 was and troops just "knew" they were no good before they even saw one. Most of those WWII and Korea guys never fired as many as 60 rounds through a 1911A1 on that after an hour mechanical training a thirty minute class spent in some uncomfortable weather and with one another for coaches, a lot of them fired no more than 14 rounds for familurization and some never actually shot one at all, but they all had their 1911A1 horror stories to tell poor little Snuffy to "warn" him of the horrors awaiting his encounter with the 1911A1.
Now folks are claiming that we should ditch the M9 for something "better"
How about we train to use what we have.....what ever it is..... and keep it going as long as we can? We have better things to spend our tax dollars on than more fruitless studies.
-kBob
Jim Watson
Member
I would not be as extreme as Barry, but I would adopt the old British model. An officer would supply his own sidearm (Ballistic badge of rank according to some.) and carry whatever suited him that took a caliber in the supply system.
The tiny minority of specialists who might actually shoot at a foreigner with a pistol on purpose would get whatever their unit thought suitable off the shelf.
That leaves the pilots, heavy weapons crews, etc. who will need an issue pistol. OK, pick one and issue it. Finish out the contract with Beretta and use up the guns on hand and in the pipeline; then go with somebody else's prejudices.
The tiny minority of specialists who might actually shoot at a foreigner with a pistol on purpose would get whatever their unit thought suitable off the shelf.
That leaves the pilots, heavy weapons crews, etc. who will need an issue pistol. OK, pick one and issue it. Finish out the contract with Beretta and use up the guns on hand and in the pipeline; then go with somebody else's prejudices.
hot chili powder
Member
Buy American
I bet Ruger could give the military what they want at the best price but the govt seems to want expensive out of country production pistols with high maintence costs........go Ruger for price, dependability and made in the USA.
I bet Ruger could give the military what they want at the best price but the govt seems to want expensive out of country production pistols with high maintence costs........go Ruger for price, dependability and made in the USA.
Lycidas Janwor
Member
Glock 18 for the win!
Willie Sutton
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,025
Why not bring back the PDW concept that the U.S. pioneered with the M1 Carbine?
Simple:
It takes up a hand needed to do other things.
Try flying a fighter, or running a boat, or driving a vehicle, or operating a crew served weapon, or dishing out chow in a field kitchen, or digging a hole, or driving a bulldozer with a rifle in your hand.
"A pistol on your person beats a rifle leaning against a tree on the other side of where you are digging a fighting position when the Sargent Major stands calmly drawing his own side arm and saying "Gentlemen, prepare to defend yourselves."
Wise words for those wanting to avoid an ass-kickin'.
Willie
.
Simple:
It takes up a hand needed to do other things.
Try flying a fighter, or running a boat, or driving a vehicle, or operating a crew served weapon, or dishing out chow in a field kitchen, or digging a hole, or driving a bulldozer with a rifle in your hand.
"A pistol on your person beats a rifle leaning against a tree on the other side of where you are digging a fighting position when the Sargent Major stands calmly drawing his own side arm and saying "Gentlemen, prepare to defend yourselves."
Wise words for those wanting to avoid an ass-kickin'.
Willie
.
OilyPablo
Member
N de F said:
Glock 20 Gen 4. Nominal ammo, and hot ammo for the big boys.
Maybe they should go with the Sig P229 R DAK 40 S&W since they already have the contract with Sig and the weapon has been in the field with many U.S. agency's. The
P229 and Mags and parts in the armory are in use.
The U.S.C.G. dropped the M9 8 or 9 years ago and went with the P229 its a solid PDW good capacity hard hitting and very reliable I trusted it 100% when I was in.
Remember the Government's contract cost is not what shelf price is.
I personally felt the P229 is far superior to the M9
P229 and Mags and parts in the armory are in use.
The U.S.C.G. dropped the M9 8 or 9 years ago and went with the P229 its a solid PDW good capacity hard hitting and very reliable I trusted it 100% when I was in.
Remember the Government's contract cost is not what shelf price is.
I personally felt the P229 is far superior to the M9
BSA1
member
In regards to size the Army has preferred large handguns since 1900.
After the Spanish-American War the Army reissued the Colt SAA 45 Colt to Officer's and soldiers after the 38 proved inadequate against the Moro's. The SAA was a big jump up in size and weight compared to the puny 38. (The 30-40 Krag often failed to stop the Moros also).
The 1911 is a large, heavy due to being all steel, long 5" barrel and long grip frame.
The Colt New Service and S&W 1917 substitute standard in W.W.I are large, heavy guns with long 5" barrel.
The 1911A1 has the same weight, size and barrel length of the 1911.
In W.W.II small arms of all types were pressed into service. Howevemr for mass-production the military choose handguns already in production. The K-Frame Victory Model .38 was issued to Navy aircrews and, from what I have read, with tracer ammunition intended for signaling rather than self defense. They were also standard issue or second-line troops and civilians back homes such as defense plant guards.
So the Beretta is just a continuation of Army handguns.
Since concealment is not required in combat if I was issued one I want a full size gun with 5" barrel for longer sight radius and double stack magazine. The longer sight radius for better accuracy at reach out and touch them distance and, as I know there is a whole lot of shooting in combat, I want as many bullets in the gun as practical.
After the Spanish-American War the Army reissued the Colt SAA 45 Colt to Officer's and soldiers after the 38 proved inadequate against the Moro's. The SAA was a big jump up in size and weight compared to the puny 38. (The 30-40 Krag often failed to stop the Moros also).
The 1911 is a large, heavy due to being all steel, long 5" barrel and long grip frame.
The Colt New Service and S&W 1917 substitute standard in W.W.I are large, heavy guns with long 5" barrel.
The 1911A1 has the same weight, size and barrel length of the 1911.
In W.W.II small arms of all types were pressed into service. Howevemr for mass-production the military choose handguns already in production. The K-Frame Victory Model .38 was issued to Navy aircrews and, from what I have read, with tracer ammunition intended for signaling rather than self defense. They were also standard issue or second-line troops and civilians back homes such as defense plant guards.
So the Beretta is just a continuation of Army handguns.
Since concealment is not required in combat if I was issued one I want a full size gun with 5" barrel for longer sight radius and double stack magazine. The longer sight radius for better accuracy at reach out and touch them distance and, as I know there is a whole lot of shooting in combat, I want as many bullets in the gun as practical.
Last edited:
They already buy guns made in the U.S. M9, 96A1, P226, M11, all made stateside but originate in Europe.
They seem to want to change calibers, drop 9mm and go in another direction. I read somewhere they aren't crazy about the open slide design of the Beretta anymore, perhaps one of many reasons they scrapped the idea of another M9 variant. Who knows.
I admit I'm not an expert on the old S&W metal framed autos like the 5906 and all the variations/calibers of those guns but lose the mag disconnect for military use and they are fine durable weapons.
Last edited:
- Status
