Army wants a harder-hitting pistol

So is the Colt SAA. Doesn't mean it's fit for service.

I happen to think they should just keep the M9. It IS a dated design, but that doesn't make it demonstrably less effective than a polymer striker-fired pistol, which seems to be the new modern standard.

 

After cancellation of the Joint Combat Pistol program, Beretta was awarded a contract to supply the US Military (Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps) with 450,000 Beretta M-9/M-9A1.

In 2012, the US Army ordered 100,000 more Beretta M-9 and has an open contract until 2017.


When they cancelled the SOCOM & Army Joint Combat Pistol program and the subsequent Air Force Combat Pistol program, Congress told the US Military that all the branches (Air Force, Army, Navy & Marine Corps) must utilize the same sidearm in order to get funding for it.

Since, the Modular Handgun System program is an Air Force & Army program, Congress may eventually cancel it because the Navy & Marine Corps is not on board with it.

 

I have a hard time thinking of the M9 as a "Cold War-era" pistol. It was adopted in 1985, forty years into the Cold War and five years from the end.

 

I may be in the minority here but IMO, the M9 is one of the finest pistols ever made. I own many handguns and revolvers and my 92 still sits in my bedside drawer. Just because something is old, doesn't make it inferior.

Having said that, there are reasons that I could see them justifying other options. Being limited to FMJ ammo (which I just shake my head at), limits the 9mm severely. Other handgun calibers are not much better but I suspect they may be looking for something "New" in the hopes that one or more manufacturers will be innovative and come up with some kind of round that IS as effective as HP ammo but meets Geneva Convention requirements.

Weight would be another consideration. I love the M9 but light, it is not.

 

No, they don't . They just have to keep dangling that bacon strip in front of the military-industrial-complex suppliers periodically in order to keep them interested in putting up with government work regulations. If they only sought proposals every 20 years or so, everyone without a contract would have long since turned their sights internationally or to civilian/leo business and there'd be no new blood to service the military. IIRC, there used to be a 'wartime readiness board' or some such thing that monitored and lobbied for business compatibility/capability with regards to military projects, but it was abandoned 30 or so years ago and now the same task is done with hair-brained phony product competitions. The military is more than aware of what is available out there relative to its current needs, without these costly and wasteful proposals, but it keeps all parties interested.

TCB

 

The M92 dates from ca.1975.

 

I've never been a fan of the Beretta M9/92 platform. The primary reason is the double stack design (don't see how small-handed folks can do weak, or one-handed shooting), and the slide-mounted safety. But, it's been in use since 1987, and it seems its earned its "spurs" especially since the standardization to 9mm NATO.

As a couple others have mentioned, it's the ammo, and not the pistol. 9mm hardball seems the worst choice. A HP design would be superior against un-armored personnel. But, it is what it is.

I guess the question I have, is would a striker-fired gun be a better choice? Not advocating for such necessarily, but over the long haul (round count) would one be cheaper to maintain (less complexity, etc.)?

 

My understanding is that most reliability issues with the M9 are due to defective worn out magazines, not any failure with the weapon. The fault I see with the weapons system is the large grip which is difficult for smaller folks to deal with and the long reach DA first shot. Beretta already addressed the grip issue in their commercial line with a trimmed down model (Vertec?) and IIRC also developed a very good DAO trigger. I have no idea how they can make ball ammo significantly more effective while maintaining reasonable recoil regardless of what handgun caliber they would use. A larger diameter caliber would adversely affect capacity and significantly higher velocity would come with an commensurate increase in recoil and also noise, plus additional battering to whatever weapon platform they use. Not sure what would work to gain significant improvements without incurring other liabilities.

 

Considering how Washington has worked in my lifetime it would not surprise me that if the Dept. of Defense and the Whilte House decided that we "NEEDED" Cruise missile bases in Croatia or South Korea, our next service pistol would be made in Croatia or South Korea. It worked out pretty well for Italy. The old Potomac Two Step.

 

Lot of revisionist history in this thread.

As one who was deployed in 1990-1991, I recall that the only people who even thought about what pistol they were issued were the old dinosaurs who still worshipped the 1911 (I was one of them) ... As the anticipation was about going to war, rather than the weapons, the whole M-9 thing was really a non-issue. Of course, I was in a unit that still had 1911s (most folks don't seem to recall that for a couple branches of the military, the transition to the M-9 wasn't complete 'til 1994 or thereabouts). Oh, and some of the youngsters decried the decrepit ol' slabsides, wondering why we couldn't have the new coolness that was the Beretta.

And some of us had a lot of experience with our old Gov't Models (we knew the reality at the range), and actually wondered what it'd be like to have a pistol with lotsa bullets that was reportedly far more reliable that what we were "stuck with."

 

The reality of the Beretta 92 is its 5,000 round expected service life...
add to that it does NOT have enough rails for the new Land Warrior/FELIN (?) system to utilize...

Word is some top Army & USMC brass want a railed pistol...top and bottom, for use with the new computer gear...
and a bigger caliber...again. That was expected...they've all had quite enough of 9mm.

Heck, I wouldn't mind seeing something TOTALLY different in .40S&W or .45acp pop out!!
Rails are going to be the new necessity...

I also think Sgt. Alvin York demonstrated it best about why a pistol may be necessary in modern combat...
especially given the CQ/Urban fighting done now. More relevant than ever.

 

OK, who wants to volunteer to go before several Congressional committees and explain why YOUR favorite handgun is so superior to the M9 that the fate of the world depends on spending tens of millions on a new gun and a whole new logistics tail (parts, training, etc.). For a secondary weapon that rarely is used in combat.

And that the U.S. should now forget about the Hague convention (which it pledged to follow) and adopt a hollow point bullet that some gunzine writer claims expands to the size of a basketball.

Or abrogate our agreements with our allies and go to .357 SIG or .40 S&W or whatever your favorite is, or back to .45 ACP.

Quick, now, explain to Mr. Issa or Ms. Feinstein why the Army just has to do what YOU want and scrap all their pistols and ammunition, immediately.

Jim

 

If that is a published number somewhere, by anybody that is somehow connected to the Beretta or US military, my guess is nearly every Beretta 92 or M9 has successfully exceeded that number.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue8_uN0OIVs

 

If I get to go, I'm pushing for Calico Tactical Liberty III's.



100-rd per magazine weapons make 9mm worthwhile!! Also available with 50-rd mags...
Talk about clearing a building!! Can you imagine the difference they would have made in Iraq/Afghanistan??
IF YOU GOT A SIDEARM LIKE THAT, YOU ARE DEFINITELY GONNA USE IT!!

 

What, precisely, was the conduit for all the information claimed by everybody from Cooper on down to those here on this forum today regarding widespread unhappiness with the Beretta/9mm and nostalgia for the 1911/.45acp? I suspect these tales don't even rise to the level of being anecdotal. FOAF stories and little more.

 

Finally a good reason for the P227.

 

My mistake. I was thinking of the 1985 adoption date. Still, by my reckoning, 1975 is 2/3 of the way through the Cold War.

 

Really?

People often say that because it is in fashion to say so, but actually they only say that because they're not the one being stuck with it.

It's a feigned wisdom with no real substance. What constitutes "significant enough" improvement anyway? While in the military, I shot my M4/M16 better with iron sights than most infantry troops shot with Aimpoints. So, are you going to argue that those Aimpoints that can cost nearly more than half as much as the gun should not be bought because the improvement is not "significant enough" too?

I can tell you right now that if there were two of me, and they fought against each other in completely equal condition with one holding M9 and the other holding my pistol of choice, the winner being the one holding the M9 would be very improbable. I don't know what constitutes "significant" for you, but that is significant for me.

Why don't you walk upto NAVY SEALS who took down Bin Laden and tell them how their HK416 is unjustifiable since its improvement over M4 is insignificant too? Can you explain that?



There are number of major manufacturers: SIG, H&K, S&W, Glock, Beretta.

Out of dozens of pistols pumped out by them, Beretta come out as bottom of the heap when it comes to agency choices outside of the army.

As far as cost and priority goes, as long is it is off the shelf, I cannot see any significant cost increase associated with it.
Why? Because the military ALWAYS needs to buy some pistols. Even if no new model is adopted, military is always buying replacements and parts. And, from what I've seen, M9 requires significantly more maintenance than pistols like Glock 17. I would not be surprised if M9 would exhaust a whole lot of replacement parts or broken parts before a Glock 22 would need any part replaced. I am not a fan of Glock, it is just a frame of reference.

 

357 Sig would be good, but I really hope they pick 45 GAP.

For every time someone has posted:

"answer to a question nobody asked"
or
"solution looking for a problem"

Oh please let them select 45 GAP

 

Tirod,

You also realize that operating and maintaining a fleet of 5th-generation stealth fighters is much more important to national security and maintaining our place in the world as a superior military force, than a handgun, right? Militarily speaking a handgun is the most insignificant weapon. It can save a life but it won't change the tide of battle.

 

No, the Army wanted to do the buyout. The company that owned the design refused to sell for a one time payment on their only product. They said it would have been the end of the company. They'd rather have large amounts of regular income from the royalty payments.

This is the 3rd or 4th time the Army announced trials to replace the M9. That's why the HK45 is built in New Hampshire. Each time they canceled the competition midstream and just ordered more Berettas. In the current environment of budget cutbacks and shrinking the military, I highly doubt they will by a new pistol system. But the civilian market has gotten some pretty cool pistols as a result of their "competitions".

 

I think that we should all remain calm and leave this matter in the capable hands of Dear Leader. (If he has any questions, he can ask Joe Biden.)

 

How about a 10mm Glock?