In 2009 the US Army bought 450,000 Beretta Model 92FS's....

[Chindo18Z]

Leaky Waders: The average staff officer who has been in the last 10 years has completed multiple trips to combat areas...

Hasn't everyone?

For every hard charger that "gets it" with regard to acquiring professional expertise with small arms, I can find 10 other Fobbits who are apathetic. Even getting shot at or doing convoys doesn't impart any particular expertise with pistols or other small arms. In any event, I never figured out how to stop a 107mm or an EFP with my 9mm.

Actually, my hardest chargers in the Joint arena were usually my USN & USAF staff officers. For the most part, very attentive quick learners who rapidly assimilated survivability skills, weapons instruction, and Common Infantry Tasks. I have routinely trusted my life to logisticians, comptrollers, and aviators from sister services. Why not? I made sure they were well trained.

But...there are still a lot of slugs (officer and enlisted) who probably shouldn't, in good conscience, be issued ammo. Much less a pistol.

Kudos to to the United States Navy for actually implementing an Expeditionary Warfare Culture!

The US military (to borrow an old Clint Eastwood line) realizes that "A man has got to know his limitations..." Training and weapons safety features have to be designed around the lowest common denominators. Thus the perennial requirement for a pistol incorporating a manual safety lever as well as other redundant safety features (DA/SA , grip safety, etc.). I used to think that DA/SA was an answer in search of a question. Later, when I was a lot closer to the problem, I realized that the concept was a legitimate solution to a two-part question: How to keep an amped-up combatant from firing inadvertently and how to allow the same adrenaline soaked combatant to safely secure their pistol after the drama was over. Decock. Reholster. Simple and damn near foolproof...even for someone with elevated pulse, rapid respiration, and shaking hands. All a person has to do is decock...even if they forget everything else they have been taught. The weapon is, at that point, inert. They can drop it, throw it, holster it, or continue to hold it...all without danger to any friendly standing nearby.

The Beretta remains one of the safest designs ever fielded for a large military force. With an M9, you really have to work at having an ND.

 

[Old Dog]

Off-topic, but Chindo18Z said

Kudos to to the United States Navy for actually implementing an Expeditionary Warfare Culture!

Thank you for noting this -- my last deployment as regular Navy was boots-on-the-ground over there (we were still calling them "IATs," Individual Augmentee Tours in 2003-4) -- I don't think folks realize just how many Sailors and Airmen (USAF types) are serving on the ground in Iraq and the 'Stan ...

 

[Papa_Woody]

When I enlisted we carried the m9 pdw. Half way we switched to the sig 229 dak. In .40 I thought it was a good choice but I am a shooter. Not all members of the services are shooters and probably less than a quarter carry a sidearm on a daily basis. The m9 saw alot of use on navy ships and coast guard cutters cause it is a safe reliable weapon. Multiple safety functions and that counts when the person following you down the hall wasn't raised with a gun in their hand. I liked the sig alot but when I got out, I bought a px4 cause I liked the similarities to the m9 and I trust it to be a solid defender of my home and in the hands of my family.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I wish the armed forces would get rid of all the 92's and replace them with .45 HK USP's. Now THAT's a much better pistol.

And THAT is an opinion, and an unqualified one. I've owned both, still have the 92FS. Sold the Stainless USP .45 at a loss to fund a S&W 1006, and couldn't be happier with the decision.

I bought into the HK hype for many years.........until I actually owned one. The krauts can keep their fugly, expensive guns (and cars)

 

[plunge]

with all the argument about accident or negligent discharges with our military i think it would be a bad idea for most of the military to have glocks. if soldiers can manage negligent discharges with an m4 they sure as hell with a pistol with basically no safety. there has been 2 negligent discharges with m4's resulting in serious injury in the last 3 weeks in my AO in afghanistan 1 resulting in a soldier getting his head blown off and another where a female got shot in the chest.

 

[mljdeckard]

Chindo, I hear what you are saying, but the soldiers I just trained to deploy would have been better off with Glocks. I have a lot of female soldiers with small hands, and many soldiers with absolutely no pistol experience at all. (When did they stop doing pistol familiarization in basic anyway?) I took some of them out on the weekend on my own dime and time to walk them through some more pistol basics. I had them shoot a few different pistols, including the Glock, and explained to them why I would prefer that they just heep a G-19 and use it, and they agreed with me. Much simpler to use, and you need to keep your booger hook off the bang switch no matter what pistol you are using. Or course I would prefer to take my Para SF-45. But for new guys, I would still give them a G-17/19.

 

[plunge]

not sure when they quit pistol familiarization in basic, but i went to basic training almost 10 years ago to be 13B field artillery and never even saw a pistol. never saw or used one until i was in an MP company, then we all had M9's

 

[armsmaster270]

The U.S.Coast Guard is a Federal Law Enforcement Agency and one of the 5 Armed Forces and they issue & carry Sig Sauer's in 40 Cal.

 

[armsmaster270]

double post delete

 

[Papa_Woody]

^^^^
Only after a campaign to find a .40 so they could interchange ammo with other dhs departments. And still less than 10 percent of them carry on a daily basis

 

[F-111 John]

The military could simply specify the NY2 trigger springs and have a pistol that is as safe as any DAO revolver.

Specialized units could put in lighter trigger springs and/or connectors for tactical applications.

 

[plunge]

and it still wouldnt have an external safety so that you can physically see it is on safe

 

[Ash]

That still presupposes the need to replace the M9, that any replacement would be worth the expense in changed doctrines, retraining of personnel including armorers, replacement parts, destruction of currently new inventory of pistols (don't live in any fantasy that the M9 will be surplussed to us in the peanut gallery), and replacement of support equipment like holsters.

Even were that to happen, we would still end up with an arm that still is the most insignificant arm on the battlefield. A missile, while more expensive, does carry far greater offensive capability than all the Glocks that could be purchased with the same amount of money.

 

[Shipwreck]

On this thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_5_15/114976_Army_M9_Replacement.html

The following was a response to AD's that happen just from the M9... Compare the Glock to a revolver all ya want - the trith is a revolver generally has a long, heavy1 st shot pull... Like the 1st shot of the M9. Throw out Glocks, and you'll have tons of ADs with them...

'm guessing you don't read Army Preliminary Loss Reports often. Seven-Shooter isn't really pulling this out his ass. I can't say I've tracked any kind of actual statistics or anything, but it does seem that the M9 is involved in more injury related NDs proportional to the number issued than any other weapon system we use. The M9 seems to bring out a special kind of stupid in Soldiers.

 

[tipoc]

At the end of the Second World War the U.S. military made an effort to transition to a new sidearm and leave the 1911 behind. The effort was derailed due to the need for more battleships, armored vehicles, canons, missells, etc. They did get a new rifle, though it did take a number of years to do that.

The Army in particular had been greatly impressed by the Walther P38. The P38 was one of the maybe 5 most influential pistols of the last century. It had weaknesses but it was the first widely used and successful da/sa military sidearm. It proved the concept and the Army liked what it saw. The U.S. Army drew up it's own concepts on what a new sidearm should be. Some of these criteria were; a 9mm sidearm with at least a 10 round capacity, a light weight aluminum alloy frame, an external decocker with a hammer block, so that with one hand, the gun could be made safe. A da/sa firing system with an external hammer so that a long heavier trigger pull for the first shot helped to prevent nds and bad shootings when men were nervous, amped up, scared, etc. while still retaining a single action capability for a well aimed, precise shot. These were some of the major criteria along with the standard endurance tests, etc. But they could not get a new sidearm at that time and the 1911 soldiered on through Korea and Viet Nam and other actions even though no new guns were purchased from Colt or anyone else.

These major criteria though, with some revisions, were in place when the tests of the early 1980s were done and the M9 adopted and in place by the late 80s. The Sig guns also met these criteria.

These decisions helped to push through the transition in U.S. law enforcement from revolvers to semis. The immediate beneficiaries of that change were the second and third gen guns of S&W and Berretta and to some extent Sig, which dominated the holsters of U.S. law enforcement semis till the mid 1990s or so. It seems easy for some to forget the extent to which S&W semis dominated the police handgun market in the U.S.

In the early 90s Glock came to dominate in the holsters of law enforcement here and continued in that role till the middle of the last decade or so. Glocks were and are excellent sidearms and their price point could not be beat by anyone. Remember it was 1982 when the G17 was adopted by the Austrian military to replace the P38. From the 1980s into the 90s Glocks were the revolutionary design to beat.

They have been losing market share in the law enforcement arena in the U.S. for the last 5 years or so as other manufacturers rose to the challenge. S&W in particular has regained a good piece of what they lost to Glock. Sig has not rested on it's behind either. Springfields XD has made deep inroads in the civilian market as well in territory that was considered Glocks 10 years ago.

The U.S. military has not yet adopted universal new criteria on a new sidearm to replace the M9 and Sig. There last round of talks on this did not include the Glock design though. Many of the criteria from 1948 remain in place which would exclude the Glock from consideration.

tipoc

 

[tipoc]

I'm going to see if I can attach a link to 2009 a report here from the NYPD which is available on their web site...

http://home2.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/AFDR200920101101.pdf

The report is their 2009 Annual Firearms Discharge Report. On pg. 55 the section on unintentional discharges begins. The report notes that in 2009 there were 22 incidents of what they call uds. This was an increase from the 15 that occurred in 2007 and 2008. Of these 22 incidents 8 occurred during "adversarial conflict". 14 happened during unloading, cleaning, making safe the gun etc. The report notes on page 55 (31)...

Also notable is the fact that the remaining
nine firearms were manufactured by Glock
(five model 19s and four model 26s). This
most likely has to do with the fact that the
handler must depress the trigger to disassemble
the firearm.

It is worth noting that (page 57, 33)...

While Glock pistols predominated
in purely unintentional discharges,
in unintentional discharges during
adversarial conflict Smith & Wesson firearms
were the weapon in five of the eight incidents.

The NYPD has it's choice of Glocks, Sigs or S&Ws. I do not know what models of the latter. It could be looked up of course. For a single year the figures are notable but not necessarily significant. But over a period of years they are of note. UDs are fairly notable for Glocks in the NYPD and not there alone.

This is a matter of record and is not meant as a slam against Glocks.

tipoc

 

[Chindo18Z]

mljdeckard: ...but the soldiers I just trained to deploy would have been better off with Glocks.

Agreed. I think that Glocks are much better duty pistols than M9s (and that they fit a wider range of hand sizes).

But... YOU gave them good training and had an honest sense of their ability level. Do you think that the today's entry level military training would adequately prepare all of them to go downrange with loaded Glocks? I don't.

Glock 19s for everyone would work...if we completely revamped and improved pistol training for everyone in the force. 'Cause it would take a higher order of training than institutionally provided today to offset the predictable self-inflicted casualties that a Glock equipped force would endure.

Given time, money, and training authorities, I could teach a platoon of chimps to safely carry and employ Glocks. But I'd be doing them a disservice to simply run them through familiarization fire and then tell them that they are GTG for combat. And frankly speaking, that's what a lot of our folks get for training.

Simply buying new Glock pistols is something we could easily afford, but the funding needed for truly adequate training would far exceed the cost of purchasing the weapons. If we did buy them, but maintained our currently low level of pistol training across the entire force, we'd need to do a cost/benefit analysis after about ten years.

I suspect that we'd find that the cost of medical treatments for self-inflicted wounds, property damage, disability payments for the medically retired, and the outlay of life insurance/death gratuities ($500k per person) would easily exceed the cost of actually buying 450,000 new pistols. All it would take is about 20-25 fatal NDs per year, spread across a decade, and out of a total military force exceeding a million personnel. Unfortunately, that figure is easily achievable if the some of the below linked articles are any indicator:

http://www.stripes.com/news/disturb...-discharges-of-weapons-in-afghanistan-1.22443

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-09-shootings_x.htm

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-89765.html

http://www.ehow.com/facts_6883684_weapons-training-accidental-discharges.html

http://www.dvidshub.net/news/12275/negligent-discharges-they-affect-service-members

With regard to LEO experience with Glock NDs, there are lots of articles and discussions on the web:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/dcpolice/deadlyforce/police4page1.htm

http://sleepless.blogs.com/george/2005/04/accidental_poli.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/729088/posts

http://www.hk94.com/hk/topic/27154-3-glock-ads-for-1-danbury-police-department/

NOTE: If you read the links, don't bust my chops for the content. I didn't write them.

A lot of folks in shooting forums excuse law enforcement Glock NDs by noting that there are so many more Glocks in police holsters than any other type of handgun. Thus a higher total of NDs. I'll merely note that revolvers once dominated those same holsters...and that the national LEO ND rate was astronomically lower.

My own anecdotal sense of military pistol use over the years is that friendly casualties from NDs or bad aim have probably equaled or exceeded enemy casualties by pistol fire. No way to prove it, but when I think of how many bad guys I'm aware of who fell to pistol fire in recent US conflicts...I realize that I'm aware of many more deadly accidents involving friendlies.

Of course, folks ND all sorts of weapons and always have. There is no way to make an armed population 100% safe with their weapons. The best you can do is to:

1. Give them the best training you can afford
2. Issue something as safely designed as is practical and for use by amateurs
3. Inculcate a culture of adherence to the Four Rules of Firearms Safety.

I simply question the idea of issuing a weapon that does not forgive accidentally pressing or snagging the trigger (and has no manual safety or decocker) to a large body of marginally trained folks.

My unit issues Glocks and generally has had no problems with their employment, because we train our folks intensely. Nevertheless, I'm aware of Glock NDs that have occurred in the hands of extremely well trained SOF personnel. Human beings screw up. It happens.

Now magnify that occurrence across a million-plus folks who have no particular handgun experience or training beyond the basics.

The Glock's lack of a manual safety lever is quite simply a built-in human factors design flaw which manifests itself with large groups of users.

I'm not bashing Glocks. I love Glocks. I've owned, carried, been issued, and fired Glocks since 1985. But, based upon my several decades of experience as a military leader and small arms trainer...I am unwilling to equip the entire armed forces with the damn things... unless we are willing to pay for significantly increased training, premium issued holsters, and possibly the addition of a manual safety.

 

[Philo_Beddoe]

I guess that pistols and rifles just aren't as sexy as a multi-billion J-35 fighter-bomber program, a billion dollar base construction project, or a new naval vessel.

Or bring money and jobs to a powerful legislators district or have lobbiest with an insane amount of $ to spread around. The answer to 99% of why washington does stupid things is follow the $

 

[john5036]

I have experience with both the 92FS and G19, and while I appreciate the civilian applications that a Glock has over the 92FS, it would not bother me one bit to carry an M9 as my secondary combat arm via the standard issue.

I can understand the need for SF units to go for something a little more suited to their tasks, their line of work doesn't require a manual safety. Also, SF units make up a small percentage of the military, and as previously mentioned, the DoD has to essentially adopt a pistol that will fit a general need, not a special one.

 

[vaherder]

Where are Glocks Made?

Is Austria a member of NATO? Now Glock fan boys why would the US buy Glocks from a country that is not a member of NATO and does not have a factory in the US?

Military contracts equal jobs for a member of Congress. That is why the military is forced to buy stuff they dont need or want but have to because Congress authorized it. USAF will say they dont need any more C5s but Congress will still authorize several more to be built each fiscal year. Pork yep.
And both parties do it and that includes many Tea Party members and Republican presidential candidates.

Last thing you want is some JAG officers carrying Glocks. Lawyers and thinking just dont mix.

 

[wacki]

Not to jump on anyone's high horse but Glock introduced at least two things to firearm market that revolutionized it. Gaston Glock was an engineer with extensive advanced materials experience and no firearms experience so these should not come as a surprise:

1) cheap nylon base polymers that are actually more resilient that carbon steel
2) Tenifer corrosion resistance treatment or ferritic nitrocarburizing

Because the frames were so darn cheap the factory could spend a lot of money on the few parts that were critical. That said a lot of other companies have started to used these same materials. In a competitive market one fact will forever hold true: "If a competing company has an engineering advantage... others will copy or improve upon it as soon as the patents expire."

And far as I know, Glock has lost all of their advanced materials advantages. However, they were first to market with these advancements and outperformed everyone in early 1980 military tests. In the world of advertising that is a surprisingly powerful (even if irrational) advantage that persists long after patents expire.

Is Glock still the best? If they were it would show up as statistically significant in *current* durability tests. If they were we should be able to point to patents or specific materials that give one gun a definitive advantage over another. There should be easily quantifiable empirical evidence that shows one make/model is better than another. Judging somethings quality by how many people buy it is a very poor metric. Anyone in the computer, audio or even applied life-science field knows this all too well.

As of right now I'm not aware of anything that meets the above criteria. So unless new evidence comes to light I'm going to assume all of the newer guns (Glock, FNP40, Springfield XDM, etc) are about the same.

 

[Chindo18Z]

Just to stir the soup...

When SOCOM was looking to procure a new pistol circa 2003-2004, the solicitation for bids was creatively written with a laundry list of very specific features.

If you read it, you'd have seen a nominally fair description of requirements, allowing any manufacturer to submit a candidate pistol.

In actuality, the document exactly described a modified .45 ACP HK USP. No other vendors were seriously expected to submit anything as the "fix" was already "in" for buying the HKs.

The money and impetus for that program dried up and the effort was shelved by about 2005/2006.

Since that time, certain SOCOM units that had been using .45 ACP 1911s switched to Glock 22s in .40 S&W. Those pistols (and the newer caliber) have worked well in combat.

If and when we ever get new pistols for the entire command, it will be interesting to see whether we go with .40 or .45. My bet is that we would go with .40 and probably in a Glock 22/23 format.

For now, with the Services providing SOF forces with essentially free M4s & M9s, SOCOM does not have to spend its own Joint budget on anything new. That's a powerful $$$$ argument for not changing a thing and just hanging on to the M9.

As our current wars wind down (and the economy remains distressed), Washington is going to chop a lot of DoD money. Their will be little appetite for new procurement to replace things that are already working well or good enough. The Beretta M9 is here to stay for the wider force.

As Philo_Beddoe mentioned... follow the money.

 

[tipoc]

In actuality, the document exactly described a modified .45 ACP HK USP. No other vendors were seriously expected to submit anything as the "fix" was already "in" for buying the HKs.
The money and impetus for that program dried up and the effort was shelved by about 2005/2006.

Some knew that that was not going to happen but it did not stop the usual suspects, gun writers and others from raptureously speculating on the return of the .45acp and the demise of the 9mm in military service. A number of SF units, SEALS and some others, both before and after, though have used the HK SOCOM gun.

The same is true as far as using both the 1911 and various Glocks in different calibers.

Periodically in each branch of the services and them all combined, over the decades, the variety of approved sidearms, long and short and various ammo for each of them, as well as spare parts, holsters, magazines, etc. becomes both a logistical headache and an obstacle to efficiency. This has happened many times in the history of the U.S. services and the militaries of other countries. Inevitably a housecleaning takes place and the number and variety of guns and calibers is reduced. Of course the process begins again.

It begins again and again. The least of it is the search for better weapons and ammo. The real push comes from the manufacturers of such and the desire of a good number of officers on many levels for long careers after they leave military service in the private sector as consultants and specialists.

I agree that the M9 and the 9mm will stick around for the foreseeable future. I disagree that it is because wars are winding down and military spending will face deep cuts. Military spending will be cut some but in general it will continue to increase as it has for 20 years and more now. Drones and missiles are quite expensive. Wars will continue, they are a permanent feature now. The M9 and the 9mm will stay for awhile because they continue to do the job expected of them and there is nothing else right now so clearly superior that it is worth the cost, effort and fight to change. But here and there in some units other things will be used.

tipoc

 

[Chindo18Z]

I disagree that it is because wars are winding down and military spending will face deep cuts.

Wait and see. I've lived through two of these very big cuts over the course of my career. The effects were horrendous. After reading the entrails...all the signs are there...absent some unforeseen ramp-up to a majorly expensive new war.

SECDEF Panetta has already been tasked by his boss with cutting at least $400 billion out of the Pentagon's $550+ billion annual operating budget over the next 12 years. That figure is just for starters (and has nothing to do with separate Iraq/Afghanistan war funding). I suspect that cuts will be significantly larger...closer to 16-17% when all is said and done.

$220 million already spent for 450,000 new M9s? Chump change. Check that block done. No more pistol issues to worry about in an era of looming procurement cuts. The pistol issue has been solved (financially speaking) by purchasing replacements ahead of budget cuts.

 

[tipoc]

We will see.

I'm looking at the increasing militarization of the CIA and it's extended presence in Africa and that of the UI.S. military in Africa. (Panetta did not move for nothing and agreement from both sides of the aisle was about unanamous on that move.)Drone strikes in Somalia, Yemen, and other areas have been increasing.

The concern over Pakistans agreement with China for the construction of a Naval base which would allow China greater movement in the Arabian Sea.

The step up in U.S. presence in the China Sea to counter China's higher profile there.

The increase of a U.S. military presence in South and Central America.

The cost cutting and elimination of fat from the Pentagon budget is in many ways a continuation of what was begun during the Bush administration. A leaner and quicker all volunteer military. This process will continue and some monies will be cut in some areas. Given the straight out many millions in waste there a good deal can be cut with no harm to the machine. But on the whole the trend to more military actions and increased reliance on advanced and expensive weapons systems will not be reversed.

But we will see about that as well.

But I agree the M9 ain't going away anytime soon. My point here is that if they thought that they needed to upgrade the handguns they would, money be dammed. They will spend a billion or more over the next few years on upgraded anti hacking software alone. Not to mention the next generation of drones.

tipoc