ARMY rejects M9A3 proposal

[LeftyTSGC]

Not directly Military, but a good read on FBI going 9mm.

http://www.themodernsurvivalist.com/archives/3882

if its true.

Lefty

 

[herrwalther]

I absolutely do not imagine that the military intends for individual soldiers/sailors/airmen to be switching out components of their guns.

If they do allow swap out components, it will be to a select few. I am allowed to do minor work on firearms even though I am not the official armorer because I know what I am doing on minor repairs. The issue would arise during qualification. A young private will grab the same ammo as his buddy and may not recognize the difference. If they are shooting different calibers, if the system is that modular. If they stick with 9mm with different size frames, slides, and barrels based on shooter size and job then my worry is moot.

 

[C0untZer0]

Beretta Pushes Back on Army Rejection of M9A3 Pistol

It amounts to simply asking again:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/1...istol/?intcmp=ob_homepage_US&intcmp=obnetwork

On Jan. 30, the maker of the M9 service pistol sent a letter to Army officials, "requesting reconsideration," said Gabriele De Plano, vice president of military marketing and sales for Beretta USA.

 

[Girodin]

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

Unfortunately its not as simply as just making a unilateral decision to do so. I believe and have written arguing that there are certain conflicts those categorized as Non international armed conflict (NIAC), the US could lawfully use expanding ammunition in. However, in others, international armed conflict (IAC) the US is arguably constrained by international law. Contrary to what the ignorant typical write on this and other forums the US is not constrained by the 1899 Hague Convention Declaration III On The Use of Bullets That Expand or Flatten Easily. However the US is bound by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998. That treaty makes the use of expanding ammo a war crime. However, it only applies to IAC and not NIAC. Arguably customary international law also constrains the US when it comes to IAC. Some also argue that Hague Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land constrains US from using HP ammo. I do not agree with that assessment. While US could likely "get away with" telling the world to pound sand because international law lacks effective enforcement mechanisms, it is a problematic approach for a variety of reasons.

Trust me there are a lot of people that understand how stupid these proscriptions are.

Why do people wish to continually give high profile, high dollar stuff to the Europeans.

Typically its a form of patronage or a quid pro quo for getting some other thing we want. Support us on issue A . . . you end up with a big contract to produce Y. Play nice with us on having bases in an important location get a big contract for X. Very often it has everything to do with doling money out to certain people more than getting the best product at the best price.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Round & round....

Forum members both here and on other sites can pontificate or speculate all they want, .
Most of the topics and comments have already been covered, over & over & over.

The DoD/military MHS(modular handgun system) plan is a huge waste of $ but by most accounts the F35 JSF aircraft is far worse.

Id add that the "Beretta leaned on NATO & the US DoD to get USAF bases in Italy" rumors were debunked in the late 1980s.
It sounds pat and rational but in reality Beretta USA won the M9 trials & even had 2 different T&Es that met the DoD/military requirements.

If(and there could still be a change or political acts that cut the $$$) the DoD picks a new sidearm, I think it will be a .40 caliber & have a OD or FDE color.
SIG Sauer, FNH(FN America), Glock & Smith and Wesson have the strongest chance of being selected.
As for the holsters or accessories, Id bet on Safariland's new holster line, the AS7. It's a polymer design that won't lose its shape or wear on the firearm surface. It's not as modular as the well made Bianchi M12 holster but it's good.

 

[JDR]

Seriously, if the DOD went to the Gen4 Glock 17 tomorrow they'd be better off & they wouldn't miss the M9 in the slightest. Take a lesson from the NATO troops in Afganistan using them now, namely the British & Swedish armies. But politics gets in the way of making sure our war fighters have the best practical weapons systems to use in harms way. We know it's not going to happen and we know why!

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

Seriously, if the DOD went to the Gen4 Glock 17 tomorrow they'd be better off & they wouldn't miss the M9 in the slightest.

If they don't it's Glock fault for not putting a safety on it and submitting one for consideration (if that is all that is the only design change needed). Funny how there is no real effort on Glocks part to get the contract even without a safety! Can't let Uncle Sam take all the blame...simple, supply what is demanded.

I wish they (Glock) would submit one with a safety. Was there another change that Glock needed to do to meet the design perimeters? I recall something being mentioned but how viable it was I can't recall (because I can't recall the mention ) .

 

[JDR]

The British started replacing their "L9" which is the Ministry of Defense (Mo D) designation for the Browning Hi-Power, with the standard Gen4 Glock 17, a little more than a year ago. The BHP had been in British Military service since 1967 and many of these were worn out. The Mo D small arms trials selected the Glock mainly since they do not fire unless the trigger is pulled, and it already has 3 safeties built into it. The British troops were having problems manipulating the safeties on their BHPs. No such problem with the Glock, it can be carried "at the ready" since the British troops are trained to keep their trigger finger out of the trigger guard until they are ready to fire their weapon. I wouldn't argue with a British Royal Marine and his capability to effectively deploy a Glock 17 in combat, and I don't think anybody else should either.

 

[Old Fuff]

At one time the Army was experimenting/testing some Glock 17's. They entered into some informal discussions, and it came out that the government would expect Gaston to wave some of the patents and procedures he used and had relative to polymer molding technology.

He told them... No! He didn't need they're business.

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

They entered into some informal discussions, and it came out that the government would expect Gaston to wave some of the patents and procedures he used and had relative to polymer molding technology.
He told them... No! He didn't need they're business.

Keyword informal? Rumor is all I ever heard of this. No documentation from any reliable sources...is there any you know of?

Also polymer molding technology is not uncommon among many of the injection molding companies that have existed for decades. Formula on the other hand may not have been. Yet the formula was nothing out of the ordinary for the 80's. By then most all had the same polymer knowledge. The strength and flexibility were not hard to copy. The patents were not either for that matter, just illegal.

We were building stealth fighters at the time, flying them by computer because they were to unstable to not have the computer make adjustments that a pilot was incapable of (IE "hopeless diamond"). There was no secrecy in the design at all that could not be reverse engineered or understood by any other gun maker or many gunsmith's.

The key to the success was a simple design that happened to be cheap and easy to manufacture. Uncle Sam could have had a much cheaper weapon with cheap parts (free) at will. key is had they wanted it. Why need a patent information without the ability to replicate it? Why need to replicate anything with such a warranty?

 

[mgmorden]

At one time the Army was experimenting/testing some Glock 17's. They entered into some informal discussions, and it came out that the government would expect Gaston to wave some of the patents and procedures he used and had relative to polymer molding technology.

Patents last for 20 years after filing or 17 years after granting - whichever is longer.

Glocks have been out for ~35 years now. Any patent used in the original design has long since expired. Besides - given the high number of other successful polymer framed guns on the market these days I'm guessing the process behind it has been pretty well figured out.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Post #107, Glock, lawsuits....

I agree with the remarks in post #107.
Glock 17s/19s could be a great pick but Id bet a dozen hot Krispy Kremes the DoD/armed forces will opt for a .40 or 10mm round like the .41AE or .40Super for improved ballistics.
Even 007 in the last modern era novel picked a .40S&W(Walther PPS) .
Change is good.
I find it telling that S&W recently rolled out new FDE color M&Ps and FN America made a compact FNS pistol.

The new MHS will be a radical change but over time, it will win favor much like the Glock 17, M&P, M9/92F series.

Id add that some forum members may not recall or know how Glock made a huge stink over the S&W SIGMA pistols & took them to court, .
I hope the 2015/2016 MHS trials will be error free & without bias but I highly doubt that.

 

[Revolver Ocelot]

Interesting. The Army must have a design that they like already. There is no other logical reason that they wouldn't stick with an improved and existing weapons system.

The pistol did not fill the needs of what was being requested, the Army had specific requirements of which the pistol baretta submitted met very few. I honestly wonder how they expected that to be selected frankly.

 

[mgmorden]

Id add that some forum members may not recall or know how Glock made a huge stink over the S&W SIGMA pistols & took them to court, .

Remember that the Sigma was introduced in 1994. I'm not sure when Glock actually filed suit but I'm seeing that the suit was settled in 1997.

There are several Glock patents that were filed at various times in the mid-1980's. These would have been quite in effect at the time the Sigma was introduced (and hence the ability for Glock to file suit), but are all expired now.

At this point S&W could build a literal copy of a Glock that you could swap parts between and they'd be fine - they just couldn't do so in 1994 .

It's the same reason Colt can't do anything about the bazillion 1911 copies there are out there - the patents are expired.

Trademarks (which unlike patents don't expire) also can't cover the pistol itself. Names, logos, etc can't be used without permission (ie, you couldn't make a copy of a Glock and stick a Glock logo on it), but the basic design is fair game.

 

[short barrel]

I for one am very interested in what they will choose. If they must by international policy shoot hardball, I think they will go to a modern platform in .45acp. No other hardball is worth much for fighting.

 

[RustyShackelford]

10mm ....

I disagree with the .45acp choice.
Remember the new MHS has to be modular.
It has to be quickly converted to fit or be shot reliablely by service members of different skill levels, genders, sizes, etc.
I say a .40 or 10mm bullet(caliber) could do this much better than a .45acp sidearm.
Look at the early 1990s HK Mk23 .45acp weapon. The US Special Ops Command wanted a new pistol that could do "everything". The end product was the Mk23 .45acp pistol. How'd that do?
Now, don't misunderstand, I don't hate the milspec .45acp caliber. I've owned 2 in recent years, a Glock 21 gen 04 & a M&P Compact. Both great guns but you need to be ready to train or handle a .45acp not just have a sidearm you lug around or only shoot 50 rounds out of every 12mo.

 

[USAav8r]

Both great guns but you need to be ready to train or handle a .45acp not just have a sidearm you lug around or only shoot 50 rounds out of every 12mo.

There is the problem right there. Training. The army does a pitiful job training its soldiers in basic soldier skills. I can't speak for the infantry, but as a pilot the only weapon I could count on having in the event of something going wrong was my M9. I qualified once a year and despite many requests we could do nothing besides qualify. The qual by the way is only thirty rounds. That thirty rounds was enough to let me know I could not trust it. I have several friends that knew their weapon was only good for one magazine, or that their weapon would require malf clearance on every couple rounds. Personally, I think sending us into combat with them was criminal.

Wow, didn't realize I was ranting and didn't even get into the training topic. Bottom line:
-M9 needs to go
-something better than 9mm should be used given the hardball restriction
-training needs to be fixed. I sit through enough sexual harassment and equal opportunity classes that we could drop a couple and do some actual training
-finally, I would propose something groundbreaking- that upon assignment into an MOS, a soldier would be issued the equipment necessary (weapons, tools, etc.) and these would stay with him through his career. This would give soldiers a sense of ownership and accountability. At least it briefs well.

 

[Fiv3r]

I think the future is going to be a modular striker fired pistol, obviously.

It's a shame that someone hasn't come up with a more robust modular swappable firing system like found on the SIG 250/320. I rather like both pistols, but in the extended combat role, that one little thing spring that hangs out there looks mighty suspect if the firing system is removed in the field.

In theory, it looks pretty good. Swappable lengths and sizes and calibers etc. Even adding features demanded by top brass mid-run could be handled without having to ship entire guns. It would also probably be a logistical nightmare.

I'm kinda interested to see if they go with a .40 or 10mm, but that sounds pretty expensive.

All I know is that as a civilian, I'm picking up one of those new models when they start hitting selves. I really really l like the gun.

 

[Old Fuff]

Keyword informal? Rumor is all I ever heard of this. No documentation from any reliable sources...is there any you know of?

At the time Glocks patents covering the pistol and manufacturing procedures were still in force. I considered my source to be reliable at the time, and still do. The discussions were informal because again - at that time - the Army had no trials planed and no intention of replacing the M9 Beretta.

Today things may be different, but I notice that they're hasn't been any evidence available to the public, that Glock is interested in getting a U.S. Military service pistol contract. One problem he doesn't have is lack of business.

 

[Fiv3r]

I could see Glock not really pushing for a huge military contract. You've got a customer who is going to be requiring the entire lucrative deal based on minute margins of bulk orders. EVERYTHING is going to depend on the lowest bid that meets the required specifications. That means that "Perfection" or marketing or guys on youtube burying the gun for 2 years, digging it up and shooting it or any other intangible fanaticism (and I don't mean that as a dig toward the gun at all) isn't going to mean a hill of beans to Army brass.

Basically, Glock has plenty of contracts in the LE market as well as smaller contracts with other armed services that like the guns pretty much as is or with minimal modification. On top of that, it has a huge following who will pay non-discounted premium prices in the civilian market without having to jump through hoops to sell his wears at pennies on the dollar.

Also, as will pretty much all good quality polymer pistols, a service contract probably won't be huge money makers as the guns are pretty dang tough to break/wear out. I am a huge fan of the M9/92fs. It is probably my favorite firearm that i own, but I will admit that the pistol does have a lot of moving parts compared to a Glock.

Mentioning the SIG 250/320 again, I can't even imagine keeping a highly trained armorer on payroll. The hardest thing to take apart in that pistol is getting the firing pin out, and that doesn't seem that challenging. The entire firing chassis has 2 springs to make the gun go boom, and we're not even talking about a firearm that is touted to be a bombproof as others.
Striker fired guns just don't need much maintenance. Might be good for Brass, but it's not THAT big of a draw for a manufacturer who has a service contract carrot dangling in front of it compared to Beretta or someone building a similar gun of traditional design that requires a lot of rebuilding to keep them running.

 

[RustyShackelford]

117...

I agree with the points of 117.
I hear what you are saying; loud & clear.
Training issues & the lack of organization was one of the reasons I left active duty, .
My unit(second duty station) had access to a FATS system(video simulator) that we never used, .
We only did re-quals once a year.
Our M9s were in decent shape(1991-1993 era). My issue M9 never had misfires or problems but I did see other M9s break on ranges.
My MP company never did quals on the SIG Sauer M11 9mmNATO so I can't say how well they did. I did ask a CIDC special agent who packed a new one & he said many SAs liked them.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Personally, if we are gonna get rid of the M9, how about going to SOMETHING that does more than just a pistol yet is the same size.

Say a Glock with aimpoint that has a kydex holster that doubles as a shoulder stock if needed.

Glock can add a safety switch on the slide and slot in the back for the stock. Maybe in such as .357 Sig or 9x25 Dillon (yes way more power than a 9mm.)

That way pilots, tankers, truck drives, etc.. that have just a pistol will have more than just a pistol, and those who are issued M4s and a handgun still can use it as a handgun.

Deaf

 

[Zerodefect]

If they don't it's Glock fault for not putting a safety on it and submitting one for consideration (if that is all that is the only design change needed). Funny how there is no real effort on Glocks part to get the contract even without a safety! Can't let Uncle Sam take all the blame...simple, supply what is demanded.

I wish they (Glock) would submit one with a safety. Was there another change that Glock needed to do to meet the design perimeters? I recall something being mentioned but how viable it was I can't recall (because I can't recall the mention ) .

Glock has 2 different style safeties available. A 1911/M&P style lever, and a frame mounted push button. (pushed flush is hot, sticking out either side is safe)

I still give the edge to the M&P, but I'd rather see a Glock as a .mil pistol. Would be nice if the .mil asked for more expensive aluminum Zevtech style trigger bars for a better trigger feel.

 

[dakota1911]

I almost think they will do nothing. Yes elite units will get what they want but the general gun will probably stay the same.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

Over the past 10-20 years, bullet design has probably done more to increase the effectiveness of handguns more than anything else. While the military can't adopt any of the modern hollow point designs (without the political fallout from undoing a 100 years of treaties), I don't see why the military can't adopt a hard-core penetrator type round. While I have no experience with this type of ammunition, I would assume it has a similar wound channel to FMJ. Also, it has to be better for penetrating barriers and body armor. While people scoff at penetrating body armor, pictures of the Ukrainian conflict show that it is almost ubiquitous now. I'll bet the Ukrainian MP/police/security guard below wishes he had AP when the guys in black showed up. Similarly, if anyone in the army is actually going to use a pistol - it will probably be in a similar situation. The Russians have done a tremendous amount of work in developing these cartridges, we should at least take a look at copying them:


http://www.lveplant.ru/pages_en.php?id=08