Army Times calls for 9mm to be dropped 45 brought back.

Status
Not open for further replies.
That might be worth checking out. I went though basic with the 1911 and transitioned to the M9 in the early 90s. I bought a Taurus PT-92 to practice with. When I retired I sold it, I have 2 1911 types instead. Dump the P*whipped 9mm.

TC
 
threefeathers, does it say anything about what pistol(s) they're thinking of specifically?

I've seen the paper on the shelves in the PX, but I cant justify 2.50 to read one article that doesn't have the info I want in it.

BTW... I'm really glad we've decided to go back to .45 instead of switching over to .40.
 
When it says 45 brought back, does that mean that we're using the 1911-style .45, or just using some new .45 ACP design? Or, knowing how the government does things, maybe it's going to be some reduced-power, not-worth-the-effort .45 cartridge, like the FBI did with the 10mm way back when :rolleyes:. Let's keep our fingers crossed :D .
 
So they want a .45ACP DAO with an external safety. Is there such a beastie? Granted, I'm sure that Ruger, S&W or any number of manufacturers will be more than happy to create a variant of their more popular models.
 
A Quote From The Article

Single-action-only pistols – like the 1911 design that require the hammer to be cocked before the first round is fired – have been ruled out as an option, Dean said.
Click to expand...

Ugh, when will they learn? Mark my words: they're gonna goof this thing up AGAIN! :uhoh:

StrikeEagle
 
The complaints about the M9 I've heard from vets out of Iraq center on reliability and caliber, not trigger mechanism.
 
There ya go. Who loves ya, baby?
March 21, 2005

The push for more pistol punch
Army tests new ammo, technology in search for future handgun

By Matthew Cox
Army Times staff writer


The Army is testing potent pistol ammo, including .45-caliber rounds, as a possible alternative for 9mm, the M9 pistol round often criticized for its lack of stopping power.
Since World War I, the 9mm cartridge has seen action in conflicts all over the world and is the standard pistol caliber for NATO forces. Still, soldiers have questioned the performance of the lightweight ammunition since the Army chose it as a replacement for the combat-proven .45 two decades ago.

Continued complaints from soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan since the war on terrorism began prompted officials at the Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga., to take a serious look at alternatives to the M9 pistol.

The feeling is that we need to assess a caliber beyond the 9mm, said Maj. Glenn Dean, chief of the small arms division at Benning, citing the most common complaint from soldiers: We'd like more stopping power.

Complaints about reliability and a lack of accessories also prompted Dean's office, the Army's proponent for small arms, to scour the commercial pistol market last summer for off-the-shelf options for a Future Handgun System. We are assessing the current technology to define what a future handgun should do, and send it to the Army, Dean said.

As a combat developer, Dean's job is to stay on top of the needs of soldiers and turn them into future small-arms requirements for the Army.

Since the U.S. military began operations in Afghanistan in 2001, small-arms officials at Benning have talked to soldiers who say they have little confidence in the M9 9mm in the combat zone, Dean said.

Under the Soldier Enhancement Program, Benning officials began looking for solutions on the commercial market. They started out with about 85 different semi-automatic handguns from major manufacturers such as Glock, Sigarms Inc. and Smith & Wesson.

The goal, though, was not to find a perfect pistol, Dean said. Instead, 14 pistols, in a mix of 9mm, .40 and .45 calibers, were selected for soldiers to shoot, so small-arms officials could study how individual features such as calibers and safety devices performed, Dean said.

Ten soldiers participated in two weeks of shooting tests. They were men and women, commissioned and noncommissioned officers. Their job specialties ranged from infantrymen and military police to drill sergeants and signal soldiers.

Officials examined collected data such as shot placement, qualification scores, reliability and safety, Dean said. Other factors studied included how fast soldiers could recover from the shot recoil, aim and shoot again.

Some of the features examined in the test that could show up in the Future Handgun System proposal are based on past complaints about the M9, Dean said. Some of these include magazine releases that can be operated easier while wearing cold-weather gloves and safeties and decocking devices mounted on the pistol frame rather than the slide for simpler, one-handed operation.

The test also looked at pistols like the M9 that feature double-action/single-action operation versus single- and double-action-only models.

The M9 allows soldiers to shoot in double-action mode — pulling the trigger with the hammer in the down position — and in single-action mode, in which the hammer is cocked to the rear before the first shot to make the trigger easier to pull. Revolutionary improvements in triggers over the past five years could fix this, Dean said.

In both modes, the hammer remains in the rear position after each shot and requires a decocking device that lets the soldier drop the hammer safely while a round is in the chamber when the shooting is over.

A double-action-only operation eliminates the need for a decocker since the hammer remains in the down position after each shot, Dean said.

The data gathered from the experiment will likely be ready sometime in March, Dean said. If his office decides to make a recommendation, Dean said it could go before the senior leadership by this summer.

If the Army decides to move forward, weapons developers hope to invite commercial pistol makers to participate in an open competition to select a new service pistol.

We do expect to release a [request for proposal] by late summer for a Future Handgun System, said Col. Michael Smith, the head of Army's Project Manager Soldier Weapons. It really is an exciting time.

Dean remains optimistic but knows that the program will have to compete against other expensive programs, including an effort to replace the Army's M16s and M249 squad automatic weapons.

The challenge is actually getting the requirement approved, Dean said. To be realistic, no army has won a war based on a pistol.

Many see fewer pistols in the Army's future, Dean said, describing how ultralight, compact carbines may replace pistols for tank crewmen and other soldiers who operate in tight places.

On the other hand, carrying a pistol as a backup weapon has always been a top priority among American soldiers.

Ever since the Revolutionary War, all the soldiers have wanted a pistol and a big knife, said Charlie Pavlick, project officer for individual and special purpose weapons. Soldiers have found ways to get them whether they were authorized them or not.

But the Army's current pistol has never truly won the confidence of soldiers since the Army chose it as a replacement for the M1911A1 .45 automatic pistol in 1985.

The lighter 9mm round gave soldiers 15 rounds, compared to the seven-round capacity of the 1911. But it came at a cost of knock-down power.

The Army adopted the M1911A1 to fill the need for greater stopping power after the .38 service revolver often failed to put down determined Moro warriors during the Philippine Insurrection at the turn of the century.

Soldier complaints about the M9 often deal with unreliable magazines and a lack of mountable accessories such as some type of integrated laser sight system, Dean said.

Special operations soldiers are the ones using pistols most often in combat, but a desire for more hitting power, Dean said, is a common complaint his office could not ignore.

There is a certain percentage of those comments, we think are echoing other comments, but we have heard it enough from folks that are actually operators, Dean said.
Click to expand...
 
I just love this...

Ah here we go again. Rather than blame lax training, lack of wide options of weapons, let's blame the caliber.

Let's face it: there is NO one caliber for everbody. Sorry. :barf:

You know what they oughta do? Ditch that "standardized pistol" garbage and let the troops select from a range of Glocks, Sigs, 1911s, XDs, etc.

Hey, you say you want them to kill more effectively, right? Well let's let them choose the guns they feel most comfortably with. Let's face it: the M9 is FAT. FAT. I cannot comprehend someone whose hands fit most comfortably with a 1911 shooting a M9. :eek:

Oh. And don't forget the revolvers either. Hey 6 hits of .357 or .44 are better than 15 misses. And let's not stop at the pistols--let them choose like a Counter-strike thing:(minus the $ $ $ of course, because the taxpayers after all have DEEP pocket$ ) Go in with a SMG of your choice, rifle of your choice, etc... :uhoh:

After all, if the guy shoots best with a 1903A1, might be best tactically to give him the thing :neener:

Brick
Who reclines confortably on his "Armchair Commando" rank...
 
My opinion is that it ain't gonna happen. Period. This takes big bucks and I believe they'll be ordering Humvees or other systems before they upgrade sidearms. Oh, and they'll have to work on recruitment and retainment as well. Anyone here signing up? :rolleyes:

Now, if I am wrong and we do go to a .45, I might like the 1911 idea, but I totally understand why they want something more "modern." I can see why they'll want DAO only and such. Me? I'd take my HK USP and my 1911 as a backup. :neener:
 
Whatever it will be has to be made in America by the OEM or licensed built. As of today, that wouldn't leave many competitors for "off the shelf" acquisition.
 
Actually, the idea of allowing a soldier to carry his or her own personal weapon isn't such a bad idea. Make 9mm the minimum caliber and allow them to choose the weapon that they are most comfortable with from there.
Make it their responsibilty to purchase their own approved ammunition if their weapon doesn't use the standardized round.
 
Army Times calls for 9mm to be dropped 45 brought back.
Click to expand...

From the title, I would have thought that there would have been some sort of writing concerning why the Army needs to go back to the 45, but this isn't the case at all.

Wow, I am not sure how much more wrong this title statement could have been. If there was a call for the .45 to be brought back in Army Times, it would be by the author, not Army Times itself. In this case, it would have been by Matthew Cox.

However, neither Cox or Army Times is calling for the 45 to be brought back. The article is simply an article about various caliber and gun tests by the Army in the hopes of coming up with a better combination to potentially be adopted sometime in the future.
 
It is not going to happen. The simple fact is, there is not another pistol out there that is heads and shoulders above the Beretta right now and any change would be a minor one. From what I hear about the mags, the Gov bought cheap mags that have been causing most of the reliability problems. Put cheap mags in any gun and you are going to get poor results.

Do you really think a Glock, SIG or H&K is going to do any better than the Beretta? Combat brings out the worst in guns and after they have been used for 20 years with a variety of swapped out parts and not cared for, they are going to be beaters. Most people would never treat their gun the way military handguns are treated. The closest thing to compare them to is a beat up old rental gun. I have heard of every brand of rental gun being a POS so I truely think that a Glock or a SIG is going to be just a bad as a Beretta if not a little worse. I have jammed my SIGs and Glocks but I have never jammed my Beretta 92FS.

I would still take a Beretta over any other gun I can think of just because of the 100% reliablity it has shown me.
 
I think the Beretta is fine... I also think 9MM is fine. But 9MM in FMJ only configurations are a bad combination. While I do like .45, I'm not sure that going back to .45ACP is a good idea. .45ACP can be stopped with light body armor... something that is becoming quite popular with the bad guys. They are even wearing it under their C-4 Vests. We need a caliber that has punch... 9MM is good for this, and it gives us a good magazine capacity. But the problem is that 9MM Nato as we have now isn't good enough - in ball form as required by the military.
Solution? 9X23MM. Hits like a real .357 Magnum, punches armor, has a beefy mag capacity, is accurate, is reliable, has a nice flat trajectory so it's easier to hit with at longer ranges... There you go. Now what gun do you put it in? The Beretta? Yeah, you could put it in the Beretta, but you wouldn't want to put in in the 92. What about Beretta's new pistol? Or an HK? The platform options are many. But the caliber is ideal.
The Marines were testing 1911's in 9X23 and they loved them.
 
Here's one of the reasons for going to the DA/SA format as explained to me by a weapons instructor when I was in the Navy. The SA 1911 was carried without a round chambered. The scenario he told was let's say a MP on patrol had to investigate an unlocked building he has to chamber a round in the 1911 then he would have to back to the armory to clear the weapon. With the Baretta you would just un holster then holster again. BTW he hated the 9mm and loved the 45 mainly due to it's poor stopping power doubled by over penetration of the 9mm ball round. Another thing I found out was in Europe sidearms are issued to military officers mainly as a status symbol here we issue them for self defense.
 
Allowing soldiers to pick there weapons even if you standardise the caliber is DOA. From a spare parts and logistics angle, it is unsupportable.

I also wonder if this isn't another attempt by the Army to select HK's by writing the requiremnents based on a HK design which nobody else can meet. I do a lot of defense contracting work, and I see very similar games played almost every week. A solicitation is released, with exact specifications of Acme Tech, model XXXX. From a contracting prospective it is illegal to specify Amce Tech as a sole source vendor, so the model XXXX is handed to engineers which write a requirements document that only Acme tech can ever meet, then passed back to Govt contracts, and the only vendor that can bid the work is Acme Tech.

This is pretty standard Gov't hanky panky, done ever day, and completely legal. If the contracting officer, words it right they even get around the Buy American Act, because the only source is a foriegn manufacturer.

I will believe it when I see it on the Army moving back to the 45, the round has body armor penetration issues, which would need to be resolved, ( maybe possible with Teflon coating or a high speed sabot projectile ) before I would expect much traction on any shift.
 
Maybe just maybe they will ask SoCom for their opinion

Perhaps they won’t look any further than Special Ops. They tested the living and not so living Hell out of the MK23 Socom final choice. It is impressive in its effective killing range. It does take a size large hand to shoot, but it is real impressive when it makes no noise when going off. During my tour or so in S E asia we were very envious of SF with silenced weapons, they could engage the bad guys in a fire fight killing most of them before their location was given away. No one was spraying them with automatic fire!

WEAPON Point Close Effective Long Extreme Dam ROF Ammo
MK23 SOCOM 5 23 50 100 180 Wn3 1/S 12

Sometimes referred to as "The USP on steroids", the MK23 SOCOM pistol could be the finest handgun currently available on the market. The Mark 23 provides exceptional accuracy without the need for hand-fitted parts common in custom-built match pistols costing thousands of dollars more.
One of the most thoroughly tested handguns in history, the MK23/Mark 23 project originated in August 1991 when Heckler & Koch, Inc. and Colt's Manufacturing Company were awarded contracts with the US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) for the development of an Offensive Handgun Weapon System (OHWS). USSOCOM directs the activities of some of America's most elite military units, including the Navy SEALs, Air Force Special Operations Wing, and the Army Green Berets, Rangers, and Special Operations Aviation. The "OHWS" consists of three components: a .45 caliber pistol, a laser aiming module (LAM), and a sound and flash suppressor.
Since December 1996 when it entered military service, a civilian version (dubbed Mark 23) has been sold by H&K dealers, although these limited production weapons are currently very difficult to find.
Despite its impressive performance, the MK23's major drawback is its large size, which approaches that of the Desert Eagle. This makes it fairly unsuited for concealed carry, and agents will usually elect to use smaller pistols for the job. Many members of the special ops community have even expressed a dislike for the gun and abandoned it for other sidearms.
A number of these discarded weapons have been appropriated by Aegis cells, although they are widely considered too large and bulky for daily carry. The accuracy and stopping power of this weapon however, ensures that it will remain a useful tactical tool for Aegis personnel in the future.
 
9mm +P+

If they dont change caliber, Perhaps a change of ammo, 9mm +P+ would do the job much better than standard pressure.....
 
Another typical beauracratic boondoggle coming up. Instead of concentrating on training with the issue handgun, they want to spend the big bucks to "upgrade" to something else. Just like so many police forces have done in the last two decades (.38 to .357 to 9mm to .40 to .45 to .357 SIG ad nauseum). :fire:

If they would train our GIs to use their handguns properly - and obtain quality aftermarket parts (e.g. magazines) this would be a non-story. :banghead:

The 9mm round and Beretta/Sig pistols are excellent cartridge/weapon combinations capable of doing anything that is required of a combat handgun. Teach our soldiers how to shoot before you start moaning and b*tching for new weapons systems.
 
Now if they'd just issue a USP in 9x23mm, and let you keep the pistol after your discharge, they'd probably have one less person needed to meet the recruiting goals - I'd be in! :) Actually, as far as them writing specs so that an HK will be picked, well, the 'mag release easier to use with gloved hands' requirement would implicate an HK, but the 'no decocker, double-action, with manual safety' combination implicates the taurus 24/7, and the LEM HKs I guess, so that could be what's going on... not that they'll ever get the budget to do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
The Army's new MHS and the fate of 9mm.
Replies
9
Views
1K
ugaarguy
ugaarguy
C
  • Locked
So did the army get it right when they picked the M9?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
141
Views
9K
mljdeckard
mljdeckard
C-grunt
  • Locked
45 ACP price drops at Walmart
Replies
21
Views
3K
MCgunner
M
J
quick check regarding 9mm prices
Replies
10
Views
603
JDeere
J
ol' scratch
  • Locked
My new to me $200 pistol.
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Smaug
Smaug
Back
Top