In 15 Years the Military Will be fielding which handgun?

[Nushif]

The new gen 4 Glocks have interchangeable backstraps, which helps shooter with smaller of larger hands, so the sizing shouldn't be an issue. In fact, it's probably one of the more elegant solutions out there.

While I do think you're right, the logistics behind those backstraps issued to people are ugly an unelegant. Remember, they have to be accounted for, stay with the pistol at alll times, serialized and maintained.
Read:
You have to carry all of them with you, even if you only use one, they are an accountable item that you need an LOC for is you dare lose one, they are a high cost item because of all the man hours involved in them, and while living in a tent people are bound to screw up the serial numbers on them, leading to great confusion while de-issuing the gun. Or they fall out of their pockets in the field. And that needs a lost tool report or worse a lost weapon report.

 

[jahwarrior]

Hi Point CS9.

 

[19-3Ben]

Given the direction that this country is headed in, I'm going to guess our military will likely be issued Type 54 pistols and QSZ-92's.


(Of course, commands will be issued in Chinese.)

 

[Chindo18Z]

wow6599: 5000 rd service life?

The military specified a 5000 (five thousand) round minimum service life for the XM9/XM10 JSSAP trials (which selected the Beretta M9).

 

[golden]

Beretta m9

The most important thing to remember is that the military DOES NOT CARE ABOUT PISTOLS. They are for use by military police, pilots who are supposed to fight with their aircraft, support troops who are supposed to fight with big weapons like mortars, artillery and armored vehicles.
They are also being issued to officers who really have no need for them. The MARINE CORP has announced that it will issue rifles or carbines to field officers and non commissioned officers as pistols do not provide them with sufficient protection.

Really, they just signed a contract for nearly half a million of them. I do not think they will run out and buy anything new.
What about a new rifle or carbine to replace the M4.
How about more light armored vehicles to use in AFGHANISTAN or the next STAN we fight in.
What about more DRONES. That is where money is going to go.

Pistols require you to be close to the enemy. That results in friendly casualties. I do not see our military wanting anything to do with buying new handguns until the M9 is nearing a withdrawal date.

Besides, there is not anything out there that will be a game changer, is there?

Also, I do not see this administration opening up the purse strings for a new pistol when it could spend the money on something that it approves of.

Jim

 

[Sgt_R]

Just for fun, I'd have to say the S&W M&P9 (w/ external safety, w/o mag safety). It can do everything that the M9 does currently, and benefits from the last 20 or so years of improvements made in the realm of the modern service pistol (polymer frame, ergo-grip, interchangable backstraps, etc). However...

How about more light armored vehicles to use in AFGHANISTAN or the next STAN we fight in.
What about more DRONES. That is where money is going to go.

This has been my experience as of late.

As to the OP, we'll most likely still be using the Beretta M9, or some minor varient of same (A1, A2, or most likely a mix of all three). The cost incurred by moving to a new platform (not just the cost of the units themselves, but also of replacement parts, spare mags, holsters, training all of our armorers to maintain the new weapon, and training all of the end users to use the new weapon) would be seen by many, myself included, as a huge waste of time and money that could be better spent elsewhere.

R

 

[VP]

Hi Point CS9.

If the "lowest bidder" thing holds true

It's going to be the M9. The military needs something that is Joe (idiot) proof. In my few years in the military and few years contracting, I never once pulled my side arm. I don't remember even coming close to pulling it. I heard of two cases in where someone actually fired it in combat. I never witnessed it first hand.

The M9's from last I saw are mostly carried by people that are lucky enough to get one and are too lazy to carry a rifle (or crew served i.e. 240) to the chow hall, and complain about how heavy their body armor is the once a month they have to go outside the wire.

 

[merlinfire]

Han's DL-44

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

 

[ToraBoraBlues]

If the "lowest bidder" thing holds true

It's going to be the M9. The military needs something that is Joe (idiot) proof. In my few years in the military and few years contracting, I never once pulled my side arm. I don't remember even coming close to pulling it. I heard of two cases in where someone actually fired it in combat. I never witnessed it first hand.

The M9's from last I saw are mostly carried by people that are lucky enough to get one and are too lazy to carry a rifle (or crew served i.e. 240) to the chow hall, and complain about how heavy their body armor is the once a month they have to go outside the wire.

Damn truth right there. Was in Bagram briefly and saw a grossly obese AF officer with a M9 in a shoulder holster. Slide and barrel dirty and rusted, and a granola bar and sunscreen in the the magazine pouches.

 

[Bobson]

If Obama has anything to do with it, in 15 years this will be our military sidearm: [Picture of ridiculously old-looking cap and ball revolver]

That and a quick-reference card with an apology written on it, so we can be quick to apologize for fighting back every time someone attacks us.

Edit:

Was in Bagram briefly and saw a grossly obese AF officer with a M9 in a shoulder holster. Slide and barrel dirty and rusted, and a granola bar and sunscreen in the the magazine pouches.

I was enlisted in the AF from '04 to '08. That sounds about right, but AF officers don't do the rest of the AF any justice. Seriously, go online and find pictures of Air Force officers. Second Lieutenants are always squared away. The higher rank they earn, the more they slip. Just look at the Generals. Most of em look like complete crap in their baggy, unpressed uniforms.

It's the opposite with enlisted guys. Airmen typically look like crap, but Senior and Chief Master Sergeants look immaculate, all day every day.

 

[22lr]

M9 isn't going anywhere. There is nothing wrong with it, we just need to replace the worn out units with newer ones. The M9 will run with any of the newer pistols and leave them begging for mercy.

But its like others have said, pistols are not combat weapons anyways.........

 

[VP]

Bagram made me sick the few days I spent there. Salute this, salute that, moving in formation, and people doing organized PT. I'd take the Korengal Valley again any day.

I actually worked with a few AF NCO's in Iraq that were really squared away. I think they were doing some PRT work. And of course our TACP's were always on point.

While the pistols are not a combat weapon, I'd trust the M9 in combat any day. I felt better when I carried a Glock 19 over there, but that's a different story.

 

[Obsidian]

It will be the M9 at least for the reserve type of units.

Everytime they do a trial for new pistols or say they might look, they want similar things. Ideally something with an external hammer. Ideally something that has a decocker in it. They have entertained .45 ACP a few times as a possible round to use. However all this is money. Same as replacing rifles. And they are unwilling to spend the money (Especially with how things are now and unknown if we will have money to do anything) on something that is not a significant upgrade. (While the M9 new vs 1911 new upgrade arguments abound, yes the M9's new were an upgrade to the worn out 1911's) And yes as others have stated the 450000 M9's ordered (Why they did not all go to the A1 style is beyond me) are to replace the inventory of worn out pistols and the large amount of pistols (largely worn out) Transferred to the National Guard inventory. There is also a slight uptick in total amounts that are inventoried I think if I remember correctly, as some rumors are out there that side arms may become more prevalent to units period.

New pistol designs? I don't think it is anything we are currently seeing out there now. And certainly something with out major modifications we wont see anything that is out there today, based off the last several requirements they have had. Caliber may change more easily however than different pistol designs.

 

[crazysccrmd]

The most important thing to remember is that the military DOES NOT CARE ABOUT PISTOLS. They are for use by military police, pilots who are supposed to fight with their aircraft, support troops who are supposed to fight with big weapons like mortars, artillery and armored vehicles.

Pistols require you to be close to the enemy. That results in friendly casualties. I do not see our military wanting anything to do with buying new handguns until the M9 is nearing a withdrawal date.

I'm not sure where you get this info from but it's just straight wrong. I have carried a pistol every day of every deployment as a front line combat solider. I have used my pistol up close and personal because that's what combat soldiers do - close with and destroy the enemy. While they are never the first choice the ability to quickly transition weapons instead of working to clear the M4 is a huge tactical advantage.

That said, I'm not a fan of the M9 because the grips are wide for me but I practice enough to shoot it well. Everyone in the Army is capable of shooting well if they are given the range time to practice (whether that happens depends on the unit of course). The M9 is also dependable and rugged; two key aspects in repeated deployments in rough conditions. I have seen an unloaded M9 double as a hammer to mount .50s, drive small tent stakes, and any number of things that should never be done to it. I've later watched those same pistols function flawlessly. Of course, none of my soldiers have ever had any piece of equipment look like some M9s described so far in this thread.