Army wants a harder-hitting pistol

[beeb173]

How about a 10mm Glock?

that or the 9x25 dillon!!!

 

[armedwalleye]

Army wants a harder-hitting pistol

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I apologize if this has already been posted. I have been out of the loop for a while.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...2887570&rank=1

Quote:
The U.S. Army is moving forward to replace the Cold War-era M9 9mm pistol with a more powerful handgun that also meets the needs of the other services.
As the lead agent for small arms, the Army will hold an industry day July 29 to talk to gun makers about the joint, Modular Handgun System or MHS.
The MHS would replace the Army's inventory of more than 200,000 outdated M9 pistols and several thousand M11 9mm pistols with one that has greater accuracy, lethality, reliability and durability, according to Daryl Easlick, a project officer with the Army's Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Ga.


Methinks they previously abandoned what they now want to get what they presently have.....

 

[Old Fuff]

The Old Fuff really doesn't want to get into this one, but he will point out that the last time Uncle Sam's Army bought any new 1911A1 .45 pistols was mid-1945. By the time Viet Nam arrived most had gone through at least one rebuild & refurbish. By 1982 when the M9 Beretta was adopted it was not unusual to find 1911A1 pistols where the only original part was the frame. Those that were really worn out generally had been used in a training context of some kind.

 

[JTQ]

Sam1911 wrote,
Look, Ernie Langdon's sure been around a long, long time, and he deserves a lot of recognition from the practical shooting community. But much of what he said in that article sure sounded like someone out of touch with the current state of practical shooting, and someone floundering around for something relevant to say. (And not quite finding what he was looking for...)

I don't know Ernest Langdon, and he certainly may be "floundering around for something relevant to say", but I didn't see anything in his comments that sounded out of touch.

Vern Humphrey wrote,
The modern Army puts MORE rounds downrange than we did.

Sam1911 wrote,
Gonna have to see some stats on that, Vern. When are who shooting handguns in the military enough to wear them out?

If you don't know, that's fine.

I know I don't know, and I don't have any stats, but just about every article, and forum post I've read from knowledgeable guys in various forums have said the Beretta is getting a lot more use than they were expected to get when they were first contracted.

I'd think this would be easy to expect, as the introduction of the M9 seemed to coincide with the increased popularity of "action pistol" competitions. No doubt some of the training and "tactics" spilled over from the civilian competition community.

Any old guys like to comment on how many rounds per year they shot back in 1950's, '60's, & '70's, and anybody currently shooting USPSA or IDPA like to say how many rounds per year they currently shoot. I suspect the current expenditure of handgun ammo is significantly higher, even for those of us that are paying for it ourselves.

 

[Sam1911]

I was referring to several of his comments:

The heavier bullet and greater recoil over time resulted in frame damage to well respected makes such as Glock and Beretta, according to Ernest Langdon, a shooting instructor and respected competitive pistol shooter who has worked for gun makers such as Beretta, Smith & Wesson, and Sig Sauer.
"Most of the guns in .40 caliber on the market right now were actually designed to be 9mm originally and then turned into .40 calibers later," Langdon told Military.com.

While it's certainly true that many pistols have been adapted to fire the .40, just like they've been adapted to fire the .45, I don't think it is legitimate to insinuate that Glocks batter themselves apart when chambered in .40 S&W. If he wants to say that about the Berettas, I wouldn't argue the point. But it seems to me he/they are glossing over the rather irrefutable fact that several of the modern striker-fired polymer designs can run on .40S&W or .45ACP well in excess of any reasonable "service life" expectation. The competition and civilian shooting world has been running these guns hard for decades now and this just doesn't appear to be a problem worth mentioning. (How long will a Glock 20 run without battering its frame apart? Has anyone even managed to do that yet? If it can run as a 10mm, it can sure run as a .40.)

As a reason to ditch the M9? Well, ok, I'll buy that. They've not been terribly popular in 96F guise, and .45 was right out. Not a problem -- at all -- with a Glock or M&P.

Larger calibers, such as .40 S&W, have significantly more recoil than the 9mm making them much harder for the average shooter to shoot accurately, he said.

Just overblown, and he should know better than to make a mountain out of that molehill. We aren't talking about pocket cannons here, but full-sized service pistols. It isn't "much harder" for the average shooter to shoot a Glock 22 or M&P40 than it is to shoot a 17 or M&P9. And the .45 is actually EASIER to shoot for most people.

 

[JTQ]

Sam1911 wrote,
While it's certainly true that many pistols have been adapted to fire the .40, just like they've been adapted to fire the .45, I don't think it is legitimate to insinuate that Glocks batter themselves apart when chambered in .40 S&W. If he wants to say that about the Berettas, I wouldn't argue the point.

The article specifically mentions the Glock and Beretta relative to .40S&W, so in that light…

The reason we have the Gen 4 Glocks is because of the problems with the .40S&W models. The backstrap and mag release were throw-ins because they had to change the frame anyway to "fix" the problem with the G22. All the Gen 4 G17/G19 problems were as a result of them trying to fix the G22. Glock is a good company, and they sorted it out, but it really did take them until Gen 4 to get the G22 "right".

The G20 and G21 are different frames and can't really be compared to the G22 which was based on the G17.

Hilton Yam Modern Service Weapons http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=171

Same with .40 – the M&P was designed for the .40, with steel chassis for increased rigidity and none of the durability or function issues of the Glock 22. Oddly, the 9mm was shoehorned into the M&P platform rather than the reverse which is true for Glock, and it is therefore the weakest model of the M&P.

http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=7556

If you are shooting .40 because of departmental constraints, then the playing field has leveled out a bit with the production of the Gen4 Glock, which offers a purpose built dual recoil spring system which significantly softens the recoil and promotes greater longevity than the Gen3 guns. Function with attached weapon lights is also dramatically improved in the Gen4. Only 2 years ago, the clear choice in .40 was the M&P, but now users have the added option of the Gen4 Glock 22 or 23.

The Beretta 96 is out of production. The 96A1 comes with a buffer, I suspect because it needed it. The 92A1 has one too, but I suspect it is just because they already had to put it in the 96A1 so it was just easier to do it to the 92A1 also.

 

[tarosean]

While it's certainly true that many pistols have been adapted to fire the .40, just like they've been adapted to fire the .45, I don't think it is legitimate to insinuate that Glocks batter themselves apart when chambered in .40 S&W. If he wants to say that about the Berettas, I wouldn't argue the point. But it seems to me he/they are glossing over the rather irrefutable fact that several of the modern striker-fired polymer designs can run on .40S&W or .45ACP well in excess of any reasonable "service life" expectation.

In the beginning they were all 9mm ported to 40. However now a days the reverse is the case, all 40's ported to 9.. Case in point, gen 4 Glocks was for that reason, not silly backstraps.

These companies didn't change "just because".


It's a moot point anyhow we are broke...

 

[barnbwt]

By 1982 when the M9 Beretta was adopted it was not unusual to find 1911A1 pistols where the only original part was the frame. Those that were really worn out generally had been used in a training context of some kind.

You don't suppose these guns get worn out by being constantly serviced/inspected by recruits and armorers? I've often wondered about that context with regards to the crown wear some milsurp rifles have due to cleaning. Have a slovenly/careless recruit clean your gun 5X a day for ten years, and I wonder how worn just about everything would be

TCB

 

[gunnutery]

I don't believe I've seen anyone mention training yet. I think what the Army WANTS is a laser pistol that is instantly deadly in any situation and in any one soldier's hand (and has infinite battery life). What the Army NEEDS is to actually train it's troops in more handgun experience. I've talked with many veterans, both my age and older, and the vast majority had little to no handgun training. Obviously Marines and elite units from all branches get good hands-on training, but in general, troops aren't getting enough or any training.

I have a Beretta 92fs that I like a lot, though I prefer a full sized Glock (which I also have). As much as I think Glock may be a better gun in terms of fewer parts and maintenance and simplicity of operation, I think sticking with the M9/M9A1 is a much better financial decision.

There are many 9mm high lethality non hollowpoint rounds available now and most of the new stuff will penetrate most level lV body armor.

Onmilo, I think you'll have to expound on what rounds penetrated what armor. Level IV is a hard rifle plate and all NIJ rated soft armor is rated for 9mm.

 

[gazpacho]

Modular Handgun System

AKA Jack of all Trades handgun
AKA a LEGO gun
AKA We don't know what we want

See: Joint Strike Fighter

If you follow this line of thought to it's logical conclusion, you end up with a large caliber PDW, not a handgun. Imagine replacing the M9 with a KRISS.

 

[herrwalther]

Of the military folks I know personally, a large majority seem to recall having hardly ever shot a handgun, even to qualify.

I'll attest to that. I have been in just a few months shy of a decade and have only qualified (with live ammo) once on an M9. And that was at mobilization station before going overseas. There are electronic trainers, which is just over glorified "Duck Hunt" game with hoses attached to simulate recoil. But that just isn't the same.

 

[Big Shrek]

Have to agree, I had to seek out the base armorer and request to take the pistol & shotgun tests to get my ribbons.
But, got some very intensive training because I was one of the few who did...
NAS Millington had a VERY nice shotgun & skeet range in the 80's!!

One thing similar about the Navy & Army, extra instruction is Always Available if you Ask...

 

[RustyShackelford]

Langdon; David Olhesso.....

I wouldn't refer to Ernest Langdon as out of touch either. As a USMC veteran, cadre of small arms schools/PSD & a noted pistolsmith, Id think his input is still worth merit.
I don't fully agree with his statements either but he's worked for major firms(Beretta USA, S&W, etc) more than I have.
There was a recent time when Langdon & pistol-smith; David Olhesso, www.Olhesso.com were the top Beretta 92F/96F experts in the US.

I still think this pistol nonsense is a lot of smoke & mirrors. The military will sit around, do power-point displays, make charts & graphs, then some new SECDEF or Chairman of the JCS will scrap the whole plan.
Beretta USA & SIG Sauer will keep cranking out sidearms for another 10/15 years.

Rusty

 

[tnxdshooter]

Why not go back to the tried and true battle proven 1911? They don't call the .45 ACP the "flying ash tray" for nothing.

 

[tnxdshooter]

First issue, how is this getting around NATO agreements on commonality of pistol ammo? Do we suddenly not care, or did I miss the memo about breaking away from that?

Second, we can't get Army to fix the camo issue without adopting a prior generation version of Multicam to spare themselves a $25 million buyout. So, in the light of pressure to reduce spending, where does a new pistol acquisition fit in? We are downsizing and money is being taken off the table as it is. That trend has been ongoing since SOCOM dropped further testing of the SCAR and racked them.

Of the calibers mentioned, which are largely "open tip," where does the full metal jacket versions fit in ballistically? I'm quite aware under Hague that hollow points are considered anathema, but it's already been declared by JAG that "open tip" designed exclusively for aerodynamic purposes is legal. It's not going to go well discovering those aren't even available on the market, so, expect FMJ round nose and hollow cavity at best. I see lots of issues in this aside from a thousand posters online getting all the details wrong.

Who's driving the train as the acquisition buyer? Last time it was the Air Force. Same again, with the Army as a partner, but this article from January that the SF has a lot of input, and what they have been using of late: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine....sContinuetoReplaceArmy,AirForceSmallArms.aspx

Seeing the M9 as being at the end of it's service life is where the biggest justification lies. The budget mongers can play the game of expense, but it's really a small potatoes acquisition when we pay almost three times more for a fighter plane. 238,000 pistols at 500 each is $120 million, the F22 Raptor was $350 million apiece and we bought 187 of them.

I see plastic framed with some compromise in caliber possible. Stay tuned.

They canceled the contract on scar in .223. The scar heavy is still being looked at and actually being fielded by Army Rangers in 7.62x51.

 

[HighRoadRover]

Okay, a couple of quick thoughts.

Obviously, the industry is aware of this coming competition, which apparently will require a striker-fired design: Thus new Sig's P320 and HK's new VP joining FN's relatively new FNS, etc., and joining S&W's M&P and of course Glock's 4th Gen family of G-pistols. Most or all of these designs have the option of safeties, provisions for lanyards, etc., which apparently will be required.

The Army should settle on a magazine design, and tell interested companies to incorporate it in their design. (The mag would be proprietary and belong to the US Govt., and no company could produce a variant for the civilian market with that magazine design). Then buy any company's product if 1) their pistol meets the reliability test and 2) is made in the USA. The only thing the troops need interoperability for is the mags. Different models could be assigned en group to different units, to enable armorers to focus on individual models -- but with a pistol, the best thing to do with one that doesn't work is evac it to depot-level maintenance and issue a substitute, rather than have some kid in the arms room try to tinker with it.

Another idea: what the Army really wants is something other Army's have, which is a SMG. I think the AR design could yield a "short barreled rifle" or a SMG-style design that would be almost as easy to use as a pistol, and I think it would be ideal for soldiers who need a sidearm for protection while performing another task in or near the battlefield. Operators of crew served weapons, drivers, EOD techs, etc., could carry this SBR or SMG slung on their side. The M4 is halfway there, but there are even shorter/more compact designs available. The Sig MPX is awfully intriguing.

There may still be a need for pistols as a backup weapon. 9mm is adequate (and easier to train with, easier on pistol frames, and even less expensive) if we can move to a fairly zippy JHP round (going to one of the 9mm rounds that Police are finding so effective). The argument against "dum-dum" bullets from the 1900's is not germane; the rationale for abandoning the old treaty is that the enemy now often wears body armor and that combat often takes place in urban areas, where innocent civilians can be hurt by over-penetrating FMJ bullets. We can walk away from the rule about only using ball ammo if we want to, that simply, as long as we have a good reason.

Certain units in Iraq/Afghanistan involved in clearing targets went to .40 over their long-preferred .45 because of the increased magazine capacity (.45 is still viable for some types of ops where prolonged exchanges are not expected, e.g., where they are not clearing large or successive buildings). 9mm was apparently not considered because 9mm ball is pretty useless (it certainly can kill people but they have to be shot a lot of times or in critical areas - otherwise, they can be mortally wounded but it takes time for them to die, and they can kill you back in the meantime). Interestingly, MPs in the combat zone apparently carry law-enforcement grade JHP ammo...

Summary: A proprietary US pistol magazine; multiple types pistols as long as they meet the requirement for design and reliability; a SMG or SBR for at least some of the folks currently armed with pistols.

 

[Bobson]

Very low on the priority list considering how few soldiers carry handguns

This is my first thought every time I read things like this. How many people in the service actually carry the M9 anyway? Maybe one out of every 50 airmen/marines/soldiers/seamen? When I deployed, anyone issued a rifle wasn't issued an M9. It was one or the other.

Of the military folks I know personally, a large majority seem to recall having hardly ever shot a handgun, even to qualify.

This was my experience. In five years, I shot the M9 on two different occasions: once for qualification in Basic Training, and again to re-qualify with it immediately before deploying to Iraq two years later. And like I said, I wasn't even issued one on my deployment.

I don't like the M9, but this is still a gross misappropriation of resources.

 

[Sam1911]

here was a recent time when Langdon & pistol-smith; David Olhesso, www.Olhesso.com were the top Beretta 92F/96F experts in the US.

That would certainly be a not terribly recent time, as I SO'd for David at the IDPA Nationals back in '08 and he was already winning his Division ...with a S&M M&P.

 

[gunnutery]

Summary: A proprietary US pistol magazine; multiple types pistols as long as they meet the requirement for design and reliability; a SMG or SBR for at least some of the folks currently armed with pistols.

The SMG suggestion is one I agree with. It seems many in the "gun culture" here in the US think that SMGs are dead and obsolete. I disagree, at least for civilian and LE, I think there's still applications where they're very useful. For the military it's a little different. I could see in certain types of combat issuing one SMG/SBR per squad or platoon just to be able to easily switch to entry type maneuvers. OR issue them to logistical units behind the scenes. As nice as that sounds on paper though, it's just easier to issue either a rifle or handgun and skip all the extra training on a different system.

As far as issuing specific magazine dimensions for the upcoming trial guns, I don't think that's a good place to start. At least not for the Army. That should be left up to the industry since the Army doesn't really know what it wants, they just want something...better and "more lethal." Considering this is only a secondary weapon for much fewer troops, I doubt any gun company is going to be constructing a weapon from the ground up for the trials. They'll be entering guns that are already in production or tweaking them slightly to meet requirements. The Army will simply buy loads of mags for whatever firearm wins the contract...assuming they actually get that far this time.

 

[JTQ]

Sam1911 per Vern's point about wear on the current pistols.

from forum member Chindo18Z
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=8029182#post8029182

The body of originally issued pistols (1985-1995) wore out a lot quicker than anticipated. Despite factory claims of exceptional longevity, in reality, the weapons were only designed to meet a military specification that called for a 15K round service life. Which made sense in a Cold War peacetime training environment where the average pistol was expected to fire only 200-300 rds per year. It was anticipated that they would last for at least 50 years.

That paradigm changed in the late 90's when a lot of units began to run the guns a lot harder. A decade of post 9-11 combat deployments have added heavy firing during pre-mission train-ups and a lot more opportunity training ammo fired while actually deployed. The weapons have simply worn out under hard use in 20-25 years. About half of the originally anticipated service life for the model. Not from shooting bad guys...just from being fired more during training, knocked around hard in the field, and being assembled/disassembled more frequently. This because they actually live on peoples hips 24/7 instead of being safely snuggled inside the arms room (and only seeing the light of day a few times per year).

 

[Onmilo]

ARKADY I did get my threat level wrong and should have noted Threat Level lllA body armor.

7N21+P+ is the golden boy ammo but the exact maximum pressure has never been disclosed.

 

[tomrkba]

There are many 9mm high lethality non hollowpoint rounds available now

I reviewed several sources of the 1899 Hague treaty and it truly seems we're stuck with non-expanding ammunition. This does not bode well for the 9x19 124 grain FMJ bullet.

It seems to me that a high velocity flat point FMJ bullet would be more effective than a round nose FMJ bullet. Wouldn't it make sense to move to a much heavier, higher velocity 40 to 45 caliber bullet with a flat tip for a larger permanent wound channel? What about going with a 255 grain flat nose bullet in 45 ACP if high velocity is not necessary?

Does the M9 withstand the rigors of training? I heard years ago that it was prone to parts breakage at lower round counts. Organizationally, this is a problem. I found this on chuckhawks.com: http://www.chuckhawks.com/beretta_M9_pistol.htm

Once again, the military makes a boneheaded decision and doubles down on it for a few decades. If the military does not follow the recommendations for magazines, care and lubrication from Beretta, is it any surprise that the M9 fails?

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

Of the military folks I know personally, a large majority seem to recall having hardly ever shot a handgun, even to qualify. .

Certainly true. Outside of the "cool guys", we rarely had Marines in the more advanced pistol courses.

I would have loved a replacement for the M9, but I had something better anyways.

 

[Tirod]

I'm getting quoted, which I have to accept as better than getting ignored.

In terms of budgeting, the point I was making about the costs of accepting Crye's offer of a $25 million buyout and the expense of a $250 million gun contract is to point out that in today's Army, it's apparently NOT about the money. What they claim as "too expensive" on one hand is ignored in the arena of weapons acquisition in another. If hundreds of $387 million dollar planes can be purchased, that much can and will be found in the budget to replace a 25 year old service pistol with some known issues. The M9 isn't perfect according to the 1911 fans, and if you shoot a Glock, nothing else equals that.

The link posted to the January news item (making this announcement a latecomer) related that small units were carrying a lot of Glocks in the field and what about that?

Here's a quote with some idea of number of rounds to mean failure, from the National Defense Magazine:

The lifecycle of an M9 is about 17,000 rounds, though the Army only requires that they last through 5,000 firings. The new pistol is expected to have a 25,000 round service life. Special Forces troops reach those thresholds fairly quickly, but even conventional troops are finding fault with weapons that are decades old.

“While a conventional force may only shoot 200 rounds a year, [Special Forces] especially can do 2,500 or more. It’s kind of unreasonable to expect them to last decades when you’re replacing everything every two years or so,” he said.

And specifically what I'm alluding to, the use of Glocks:

“I have seen a lot of Glock 19s floating around the military recently,” the Special Forces captain said. “Of course, Special Forces uses them, but I have seen both Air Force and Navy personnel with them.”

So, who's authorizing that? Sounds like it's out of the SOCOM ball park, they aren't financing it. As for the SCAR in .308, there's not much other choice other than the AR10, they already have SCAR's, and spending even more to replace them is a bit much. Of course they are still being used, same as a M249 or HK. It depends on the mission.

The Marines recently broke away and readopted the 1911, but don't take that as a blanket application. Marines don't carry it, even officers, under the rank of LTC. A field Marine officer who is being shot at carries a rifle, same as the Army. Even in MP units, if the mission is area defense, you don't trot out to a road crossing or set up a checkpoint with just M9's on your hip. We took our M16A2's, Mk 17's, etc and were armed better than the average Infantry squad. Pistols were for duty at the front gate stateside checking ID.

The requirement to have a pistol that can both serve in peacetime LEO duty and in CQB is going to be a conflict of interest. Same will go for the pistol adopted. I don't see single stack for the average officer or MP being recommended. Multiple safeties will still be required - even Glock supplies one model with that - and the use of polymer to keep the price down is very likely. As long as we have had the M9, the Glock has been in service with LEO's, and the track record is pretty clear it's doing the job. If anything, the alloy frame of the M9 hasn't been a bed of roses.

What is an issue is the assumption that the DOD is actually downsizing at all. One review of the Selected Acquisition Reports - what the services plan to spend money on - shows that the number of projects and amount of money is going UP, not down. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/winsl...gates-terminate-30-dod-programs_b_871270.html

Which goes to why are we cutting benefits and payroll when expenses aren't being touched at all?

 

[barnbwt]

"which apparently will require a striker-fired design"
Just in time for that format to become passé (i.e. in another few years when this "request" would actually be fulfilled) . In that case, maybe there is something to the rumours; we all know the selection would be overpriced and antiquated at the time of adoption . My money's on the VP9, now.

"Pistols were for duty at the front gate stateside checking ID."
To be honest, I think the 1911 would be great for that. Makes sense to put a good looking, but still functional piece in your most visible positions. Not to the extent of an honor guard, of course, but the same idea of looking 'neat' where you need to impress while doing the job

Summary: A proprietary US pistol magazine; multiple types pistols as long as they meet the requirement for design and reliability; a SMG or SBR for at least some of the folks currently armed with pistols.

Ugh. We've been down this road, and it ends with H&K stamping their feet until the German delegation queers the deal on NATO adopting a common PDW platform . Maybe this time the 6000$ wundergewehr will beat out a 1000$ plastic blowback gun :banghead:

"What is an issue is the assumption that the DOD is actually downsizing at all. One review of the Selected Acquisition Reports - what the services plan to spend money on - shows that the number of projects and amount of money is going UP, not down."
That's been the case, at least in my area. A lot of it was just that contract awards were delayed by the phony sequester posturing last year. The military kept generating proposals, humorously enough, but they waited a year before blowing them all out to industry (so now we're making more redundant programs than ever )

"Which goes to why are we cutting benefits and payroll when expenses aren't being touched at all?"
benefits aren't tied to the M-I complex, that's why (just the lesser military-pharmaceutical complex )