that or the 9x25 dillon!!!How about a 10mm Glock?
that or the 9x25 dillon!!!How about a 10mm Glock?
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.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...)
Vern Humphrey wrote,
The modern Army puts MORE rounds downrange than we did.
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.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.
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.)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.
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.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.
The article specifically mentions the Glock and Beretta relative to .40S&W, so in that light…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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are many 9mm high lethality non hollowpoint rounds available now and most of the new stuff will penetrate most level lV body armor.
Sam1911 said:Of the military folks I know personally, a large majority seem to recall having hardly ever shot a handgun, even to qualify.
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.
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.Very low on the priority list considering how few soldiers carry handguns
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.Of the military folks I know personally, a large majority seem to recall having hardly ever shot a handgun, even to qualify.
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.here was a recent time when Langdon & pistol-smith; David Olhesso, www.Olhesso.com were the top Beretta 92F/96F experts in the US.
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 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).
There are many 9mm high lethality non hollowpoint rounds available now
Of the military folks I know personally, a large majority seem to recall having hardly ever shot a handgun, even to qualify. .
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.
“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.”
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: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.