ARMY rejects M9A3 proposal

[wow6599]

1. Abandon the silly ban on HP ammo. That notion was based on flawed medical science and flawed battlefield tactics. HPs stop threats faster, which decrease suffering. HPs offer less over penetration too.
2. Stick with 9x19 (cost, availability, weight/size/capacity, recoil).
3. Pick an off-the-shelf tried and true weapon and go with it - Glock, Sig, CZ, SW MP, XD, whatever. ZERO need for testing. None. Nada. They work. They are rugged and reliable. Good enough. Extra credit if it's a polymer gun for 1 pound weight savings.

I agree with all of this except an option for another foreign company, and I don't care if they set-up shop in the States either.

S&W, Ruger, Colt, Springfield (I know they're an importer, but make them here; money stays here) Auto-Ordnance,......anyone else I'm forgetting?

M&P 45 would be my choice.

 

[razorback2003]

The Beretta is probably a good handgun for the purpose. The safety can be left on when loading and unloading. The gun has an external hammer that you can put your thumb on when holstering. The gun can be put on safe when holstering. Considering that a lot of the people in the military are not trained that well with firearms and especially handguns, the Beretta is probably the safest choice. I think that you would have to greatly improve military handgun training to issue something like a Glock or Smith and Wesson M&P.

The Beretta is a good gun for experienced shooters too because it has a long barrel, crisp single action trigger, and can be carried decocked with the safety off or with one of those decocker only G models. The gun is heavy but that helps when shooting.

I'd almost say if the military wanted a polymer pistol 9mm or 45, go for an H&K type gun with a decocker, safety, and exposed hammer. The USP or P30 would be light for the size and safe with the hammer, decocker, and exposed hammer. I can see the desire for exposed hammer, safety, and decocker when those handguns are loaded and unloaded frequently when checked in and out by multiple people.

 

[skt239]

I have to agree that this is all a silly waste of time and money. I agree, there is no need for a sidearm change and changing ammo seems like a more viable option. I also agree that if there is a real desire and need for change, there are plenty of options available that are already so well proven there is no need for all the hoops and headaches.

 

[crazysccrmd]

Glock 20 Gen 4. Nominal ammo, and hot ammo for the big boys.

Way too big and too much recoil for a large majority of users. There's no point in using a larger frame 10mm pistol if you just have to download the ammo to 40 S&W levels to make it usable. The FBI found that out first hand. Not to mention, with ball ammo the 10mm doesn't offer much over the 40 S&W anyway.

 

[lemaymiami]

Hope someone can correct me... I believe that hp ammo (for either long guns or pistols) is off the table by treaty?

As far as second guessing the Army procurement folks... good luck with that. As an Army brat who grew up around the world on one base or other I've watched various versions of this dance repeatedly - and all of that was before I went in myself (1968).

 

[CNobbe]

I believe you are correct.

 

[Billy Shears]

If the Berettas in inventory are wearing out, and if a new pistol can be selected without it costing billions of dollars, it would make sense to go ahead and replace it. Given how proven some of the modern pistols are, I can't see any good reason why a reasonable test couldn't be run at reasonable expense (of course, that won't be the case when politics gets in the way, as it will).

One benefit to a new pistol, for those authorized to carry them, would be decreased weight (the specification should be for a polymer frame gun). As a former infantryman, and I can say that you are eager to shed every extra ounce on those long, tactical foot marches with the 100lb (or more) rucksack. A pistol that weighs almost a full pound less would be a Godsend to those who have to carry them.

 

[Kiln]

IF they replace it, my bet is that they'll go polymer framed and striker fired. Weight reduction, simplicity, and ease of maintenence are the reasons.

Personally, I think the poster who mentioned letting officers buy their own sidearms would be the best option. The Army would save tons of money if they didn't have to keep refurbishing the vast number of Beretta handguns in use now.

One thing you can count on, the military M9's will never see the civilian market regardless of whether they get replaced or not.

 

[leadcounsel]

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.

There's always someone...

Heck, why not use a .357 magnum revolver? lol

I love the design but it's just no longer competitive in weight or capacity, and is much too complex and unreliable compared to the competition, plain and simple. A pound or two heavier may not seem like a big deal, and 8 shots versus 17 may not seem like a big deal, but trust me they are.

Finally, anyone truly honest about the 1911 platform will admit that most 1911s need some tuning to make run reliably.

We need a BIG step forward, not a step back a century...

You are correct that the SOF community gets to choose often their sidearm. Operators IME tend to go Sig, HK, or Glock or 1911. In my Group there were primarily Glocks and 1911s. I actually handled a very low serial number 1911 that the Operator insisted he researched and it dated back to WWII, and that it had never been issued but had been located in some warehouse and issued to him. Dunno if that's true...

As for the 9mm FMJ and M9. Lackluster in my experience and view. They *can* work. I dated a woman who was a medic and got a purple heart and CAB. She was treating some Iraqi enemy combatants and one of them attacked her with a knife and she was stabbed, and she drew her M9 and put him down on the spot.

The .45 and 10mm are simply out of the question for general use IME. Too big, too expensive, and too much for the average Soldier to handle. Understand we have a growing female and effeminate military force with perhaps a 1/3rd of Soldiers being small and relatively physically weak individuals, and probably 2/3rds of all troops having from zero to minimal experience or interest in guns or shooting sports.

So the 9mm and M9 can work - it's just far from the best on many levels in my view. It's one of those things in life that you can see the obvious answer but politicians and generals cannot or refuse to.

 

[Zerodefect]

If the Berettas in inventory are wearing out, and if a new pistol can be selected without it costing billions of dollars, it would make sense to go ahead and replace it. Given how proven some of the modern pistols are, I can't see any good reason why a reasonable test couldn't be run at reasonable expense (of course, that won't be the case when politics gets in the way, as it will).

One benefit to a new pistol, for those authorized to carry them, would be decreased weight (the specification should be for a polymer frame gun). As a former infantryman, and I can say that you are eager to shed every extra ounce on those long, tactical foot marches with the 100lb (or more) rucksack. A pistol that weighs almost a full pound less would be a Godsend to those who have to carry them.

The Glocks are going to be cheaper. I'll bet the US gov could get two Glocks for the cost of a single Beretta.

These pistol tests don't cost much. It's not very complex like a F35 or DDG1000.

 

[Seven High]

I predict that the DoD will keep the M9 or a close variant based solely on their desire to keep ballistic missiles and Aviano A B open in Italy. I see no problem with this arrangement.

 

[Welding Rod]

Makes little difference. The Army won't see any significant benefit from a new firearm at basically the same technological level until they stop using guns and magazines that have been damaged or worn out.

 

[DougW]

I believe it was the Hague Convention of the 1920's that banned hollow point bullets, poison gas, and serrated bayonette's.

One of the new bullets available today is a JSP that expands like a JHP, and is even legal in New Jersey! Better ammo today can be had that is more effective. And, maybe Colt, S&W, or Ruger (P90!) could produce a replacement pistol acceptable to the Army.

 

[vaalpens]

It seems to me that the Army this time will pick something that is really modular, hence the Modular Handgun System. Irrespective of the gun they select, the initial purchase price will probably be about the same for all the entrants, but the deciding factor will probably come down to maintenance cost again, assuming the gun made it through the trials. My feeling is that the only truly modular gun at this time is either the SIG P320 or P250, but it probably depends on how the Army defines modular. To me timing is everything, so it seems that SIG brought out the P320 just in time for the 2014/2015 trials, after the RFI went out in January 2013. It seems like they designed the P320 specifically with the MHS in mind. I know we are talking about our tax dollars, but as a gun owner, this will be interesting to watch.

I wonder if there is a list of all the competitors that have committed to submit a gun for the MHS program trials.

 

[MotorCraft]

anyone else I'm forgetting?

Hi Point

 

[leadcounsel]

Want "Modular?"

A Glock .357 Sig - swap out the mags and barrel and voila you have a 9x19 or just the barrel and you have a .40.

 

[kBob]

...and I am back, fortunately for you guys it is time for lunch so I will not write a book.

The various conventions and agreements are between nations that may be a war with other nations.

Nothing actually prohibits their use against terrorist in someone else's nation. My understanding is that some of the Special Ops folks people keep bringing up have used HPs in combat in SWA.

The issue came up officially in SWA because of the use of "HP" bullets in "sniper" weapons after a good bit of research it was determined that the Hollow point in 7.62 NATO ammo in question was an "Artifact of construction" and not a feature to cause undue pain and suffering. Since then it has been argued that terrorist with no national recognition or overt backing are criminals and not soldiers........ Though it has not happened one or more of the oft sited treaties allows summery field execution of these sorts......maybe we should follow that treaty......

I may go story time this evening on the other similar topic though I am peeved that THR ate a "kBob Post" despite it initially appearing to have posted and apparently commented on. grrrr.....

-kBob

 

[RustyShackelford]

UK/MoD Glock 17 9mmNATO ....

About 2 years ago the UK/MoD chose the Glock 17 & 19 sidearms in 9x19mm for RA(Royal Army) troops.
I think this was Glock's gen 04 version in standard black. Not OD or FDE.
Any "squaddies" or forum members know what led the UK to this pistol choice?

 

[Taroman]

Why bother with a newish pistol?
With handgun training and practice almost non-existent, a new design would have little effect anyhow.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Surprise, surprise, the military now hates the very safety layout they
forced Beretta to make just for them years ago...

That started with the 92S, at the request of Italian law enforcement. The 92FS and M9 were later derivations.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

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.

Because Germany threw a hissy fit on behalf of H&K when the 5.7x28mm spanked their entry in NATO evaluations. So now instead of everyone having Five-Sevens and P90s we have... well.. this.

 

[cluttonfred]

Here's a random thought...

The original 9mm Parabellum was made by straightening out the bottleneck 7.65mm Parabellum (.30 Luger). Let's take it back to it's roots! Has anyone ever produced a bottleneck cartridge which was basically a .9mm Parabellum necked down to .32, .25 or even .22? It would basically be a big brother to the .25 NAA (.32 ACP based) and .32 NAA (.380 ACP based) and a little brother to the .357 Sig (.40 S&W based). Interestingly, the .30 Luger case capacity is almost identical (just slightly bigger) than the 5.7x28mm. You'd be able to split the difference between the 9mm and 5.7mm, closer to one or the other depending on how much you neck it down.

Kept within the same overall length, it ought to be a flat-shooting, lower-recoil round that would function in almost any 9mm pistol with just a new barrel and possibly a tweaked magazine and recoil spring. You could even convert the M9s that are worth keeping to the new "modern" cartridge (even if its roots go back to the late 19th century). Heck, optimize the loading for short barrels and you'd have a great alternative load for all those jumpy 9mm pocket rockets while you're at it. ;-)

PS--And put that bottleneck round in something like a B&T MP9 with a holographic sight and you have a pretty dandy, holsterable PDW good to at least 100 yards.

 

[leadcounsel]

Why bother with a newish pistol?
With handgun training and practice almost non-existent, a new design would have little effect anyhow.

Totally false. If you're issued a pistol, like I was, training occurs. Albeit not frequent, but far from non-existent.

Handguns are prevalent and carried by a lot of people, from guards to MPs, to officers and senior enlisted, to pilots, gunners, drivers, etc. The military had hundreds of thousands of pistols in the services. I carried a pistol on 3 of my 4 deployments as a JAG, traveling often in country.

Ranges - especially on deployment - are generally available. While training is not as frequent or frankly as good as you'd think, anyone with some initiative can get to the range especially in a deployed environment.

They are a valuable tool to the individual. Again, not to win any wars with pistols. But when you need one, you need one.

 

[maxxhavoc]

...Has anyone ever produced a bottleneck cartridge which was basically a .9mm Parabellum necked down to .32, .25 or even .22?
...
Kept within the same overall length, it ought to be a flat-shooting, lower-recoil round that would function in almost any 9mm pistol with just a new barrel and possibly a tweaked magazine and recoil spring. ...

Like the Rock Island 22 TCM? It's a little longer than a 9mm, but keeps the rest of your ideas. You can even buy one with 9mm and .22 barrels for quick conversions.

 

[leadcounsel]

Here's a random thought...

The original 9mm Parabellum was made by straightening out the bottleneck 7.65mm Parabellum (.30 Luger). Let's take it back to it's roots! Has anyone ever produced a bottleneck cartridge which was basically a .9mm Parabellum necked down to .32, .25 or even .22? It would basically be a big brother to the .25 NAA (.32 ACP based) and .32 NAA (.380 ACP based) and a little brother to the .357 Sig (.40 S&W based). Interestingly, the .30 Luger case capacity is almost identical (just slightly bigger) than the 5.7x28mm. You'd be able to split the difference between the 9mm and 5.7mm, closer to one or the other depending on how much you neck it down.

Kept within the same overall length, it ought to be a flat-shooting, lower-recoil round that would function in almost any 9mm pistol with just a new barrel and possibly a tweaked magazine and recoil spring. You could even convert the M9s that are worth keeping to the new "modern" cartridge (even if its roots go back to the late 19th century). Heck, optimize the loading for short barrels and you'd have a great alternative load for all those jumpy 9mm pocket rockets while you're at it. ;-)

PS--And put that bottleneck round in something like a B&T MP9 with a holographic sight and you have a pretty dandy, holsterable PDW good to at least 100 yards.

Like the 762x25 Tokarev or .357 Sig? The Tok is longer but the same concept, much more potent than 9x19.