New US armed forces/DoD XM9 contract; CNN.....

[Nom de Forum]

"Burst fire is not a good idea unless controllable enough to limit dispersion and that is hard to achieve in a pistol."
What the heck, Youtube? How is there not one video of a full auto five-seven (legal or otherwise) uploaded anywhere? I won't claim such an animal would be controllable, but I am very interested in how it stacks against select fire Glocks and Berettas (and what its rate of fire might be, as well). Someone with an SOT get on this, already! :banghead:

I've stood next to a Beretta rep demonstrating a 93R and was not impressed with the accuracy. These things are really only good as elevator guns for use by assassins.

"The 5.7mm bore size is going in the right direction ballistically but needs some improvement."
Agreed. The 5.7 was designed, first and foremost, for a short carbine with a barrel of some 10 inches. That a pistol was possible in the same chambering doesn't mean it is similarly optimal. Apart from capacity and the fact the round is still serviceable as a duty round, I agree improvement could be made (though at a significant design cost, since a true locked breech would then be needed, with attendant complexity, size, weight, and cost)

"A cartridge that is shorter but larger in than the 5.7 mm FN along with a reduction in magazine capacity to permit narrower stacking in a double column magazine or 10 round single column magazine is needed to limit grip size."
I asked in the reloading forum a while back if there was ever an attempt to 'beef up' the wimpy case head of the 30 Carbine for a high pressure chambering. I think Johnson was really on to something with his PDW cartridge, but the case head simply can't do very high pressures without the primer pocket letting go (same as the 5.7 if you run it even hotter). A 30 Carbine case sharply necked down to ~22/25, with the overall length of 7.62x25 or 5.7x28, then cranked up to 60ksi like 5.56, would be one heck of a bad day for anything. At those pressures, such a little bullet would be accelerated so fast a pistol would get them well above the velocity beyond which Kevlar no longer matters. The slightly larger case diameter would ensure brass strength. As quality as the 5.7x28 is, it's a 25acp diameter head drilled for a small rifle primer, and holding back 50,000psi --there's simply no way to reinforce it further.

Yeah the .22 Spitfire was way ahead of its time but still not going to work well in a pistol.

Functionally, I think the round would be like the Boz or 4.6, though; obnoxiously loud and flashy, hard to control with gas (or recoil!) systems, hard to contain in a small package due to enormous focused bolt thrust, and having painfully short brass and firearm life. Maybe a recoil operation with gas-damping/delay could make things more viable, but H&K's MP7 experience (and lack of pistol offering) indicates a very difficult hurdle when it comes to developing platforms for these 'super' rounds. I think that's why FNH backed off on the pressure like they did, and stuck with more easily tuned blowback actions as best they could.

Nobody said it would be easy! If it was easy, it would already exist.

I think it'd be tragic to force everyone into using the same platforms, if the diversity of something closer to true freedom of choice was in fact not such a terrible burden in the first place. It'd actually be quite interesting to see what kinds of true optimization would take place in such an environment (like we see with our Special guys, who actually get something akin to choice, then "somehow" manage to ferret out the best tools and equipment for their job). Personally, I think you'd see a lot of guys away from the front not waste their allotment on side arms.

Get ready for tragedy because whatever the next pistol is it probably will for the vast majority of pistol using soldiers have at best different grip sizes. You are correct that many soldiers would not choose to carry a pistol in addition to their rifle.

 

[Torian]

It happens all the time. The vast majority of the Army aren't combat Soldiers, they are the guys who take care of all the support crap so the real Soldiers can go out and take care of business.

Sorry but this stuff gets me riled up...and someone just had to go down the rabbit hole on it! I've had multiple deployments to include Iraq and Afghanistan as a non-combat arms MOS, and I was outside the wire almost every day, on mounted and dismounted patrols. We were an SFAAT element, and we took IEDs, got shot at, and took casualties just like "real Soldiers".

By "support crap" you mean the guys that might very well save your life if you get wounded or need a medevac? Like a blackhawk pilot or a flight medic? Or maybe you are referring to the fuelers or other logisticians that had to convoy supplies along enemy and IED laden routes to ensure "real soldiers" had what they needed to do their jobs? What about that FA section sitting on the FOB manning the 155mm guns and 120mm mortars so you have immediate fires if you find yourself in a TIC?

I'm not sure what your are basing your opinions on, but I doubt it is anything related to real world experience.

 

[crazysccrmd]

I never said the support MOS guys aren't awesome, I love them. They made it so we could concentrate on the work that needed to be done and not worry about the back end stuff so much. Support crap was a bad way to word it, sorry. Should've put it as support stuff. Everyone in the Army is a Soldier, but not all of them are Soldiers, who take the fight to the enemy rather than rolling convoys and getting blown up. My opinion is from experience in both countries, so very much related to the real world.

There are guys who have real jobs/skills and can pick up a rifle if needed, and there are guys who's sole job is to carry that rifle. Remember the movie 300? This scene kind of explains what I mean.

http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=lIr8u0j08gU

 

[Nom de Forum]

I never said the support MOS guys aren't awesome, I love them. They made it so we could concentrate on the work that needed to be done and not worry about the back end stuff so much. Support crap was a bad way to word it, sorry. Should've put it as support stuff. Everyone in the Army is a Soldier, but not all of them are Soldiers, who take the fight to the enemy rather than rolling convoys and getting blown up. My opinion is from experience in both countries, so very much related to the real world.

There are guys who have real jobs/skills and can pick up a rifle if needed, and there are guys who's sole job is to carry that rifle. Remember the movie 300? This scene kind of explains what I mean.

http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=lIr8u0j08gU

If you are basing your argument on a scene from the Hollywood movie "300" you are in a minefield of misunderstanding of the reality of Spartan/Greek Hoplite warfare. Here is some help from a "support MOS guy" to clear that minefield so you don't completely blow yourself up. Those "Spartans" in "300" are not wearing the full panoply of armor of a Spartan/Greek Hoplite in battle. More importantly there is no depiction in "300" of the support troops (slaves and retainers) that would carry that panoply to the battlefield for the "real soldiers" to don immediately before the battle. The movie "300" is a fantasy.

 

[crazysccrmd]

I was using that as an attempt to illustrate my point. You have the Soldiers who's sole job is to carry a weapon and fight (Spartans in the clip) and the Soldiers who's job and technical skills are focused in a different role, but can pick up a rifle when needed (the other guys). I know the movie is a fantasy and doesn't accurately represent the subject, it was just meant as an easy way to explain a thought.

Edit: Maybe a better explanation: Take a scout platoon and put them in a fight and they'll get it done. Do the same with a maintenance platoon and the results will be far different. Ask that same scout platoon to fix an Abrams engine and they'll be lost in the sauce, but the mechanics will get it done.

 

[Onmilo]

Support personnel are the folks MOST likely to carry a handgun as a personal defense weapon.
I've seen everyone from Helicopter pilots to truck drivers, ammunition supplymen for artillery, and supply clerks issued and packing handguns in non hostile (Friendly-non combative) environments.

Most grunts don't seem to carry handguns much nowadays, they're already saddled with enough gear.

I would think if they had to carry one they would pick something small and large bore as if they had to use a pistol it would be in very close combat and last ditch.

 

[herrwalther]

Support personnel are the folks MOST likely to carry a handgun as a personal defense weapon.

No. Pistols are usually given to command personnel first. Commanders and high ranking NCOs. Priority after that are crew serve weapon soldiers, M240B gunners and their 1-2 assistant gunners if there are enough pistols in the unit. In my experience, the vast majority of rear troops have never seen, shot, qualified, or carried a pistol in military service. On the other hand my wife, who was in Criminal Investigations (Army) did more M9 work than M4 work. So it depends on MOS somewhat.

Sorry but this stuff gets me riled up...and someone just had to go down the rabbit hole on it! I've had multiple deployments to include Iraq and Afghanistan as a non-combat arms MOS, and I was outside the wire almost every day, on mounted and dismounted patrols. We were an SFAAT element, and we took IEDs, got shot at, and took casualties just like "real Soldiers".

I hear ya brother. And I have seen it go both ways. We had mechanics and even cooks go out with us (infantry) and get shot at, shot, and blown up with us. They get CAB. Yet a field artillery gunner will get the same award for putting a round in a howitzer shooting at a target 11km. Or another soldier get a CAB because a mortar hit within 100m of the base while he slept in his bunk. But that is an off topic discussion.

By and large, a M9 replacement is a drop in the bucket as far as military budget goes. The Navy just unveiled a laser weapon on a destroyer. The Air Force gets a $6 trillion stealth plane that may or may not work. The Marines are struggling just to get enough money to repair broken ACOGs. And the Army is considering changing a pistol that probably only 25% of the Army would ever use.

 

[HorseSoldier]

I was using that as an attempt to illustrate my point. You have the Soldiers who's sole job is to carry a weapon and fight (Spartans in the clip) and the Soldiers who's job and technical skills are focused in a different role, but can pick up a rifle when needed (the other guys). I know the movie is a fantasy and doesn't accurately represent the subject, it was just meant as an easy way to explain a thought.

Edit: Maybe a better explanation: Take a scout platoon and put them in a fight and they'll get it done. Do the same with a maintenance platoon and the results will be far different. Ask that same scout platoon to fix an Abrams engine and they'll be lost in the sauce, but the mechanics will get it done.

soldier (noun), essentially from the Latin meaning "guy in the army who gets paid in solidus" (a late Roman coin). Term was used generically back then for guys at and not at the sharp end, sense hasn't really changed in English. (Which is why we have evolved slang terms like "boonie rat," "REMF," "Fobbit" etc to internally draw the line between the guys who are -- or we think are -- pulling their own weight in the fight and those who are not -- or we think are not -- doing so.)

Which is why I tell people I was a cavalry scout, not a soldier

 

[fanchisimo]

Which is why I tell people I was a cavalry scout, not a soldier

Yeah, us tankers had specials names for cav scouts, too. We call'd you all wannabe tankers and/or track grease. Lol. I think the name calling is just competition between all MOS's.

Anybody not infantry was a P.O.G. (People other than Grunt), infantry were too dumb to do anything else, etc, etc. It's good natured ribbing for most people. When it came down to it, tankers are glad that infantry can help keep us from getting a rocket in the rear and infantry are glad when tankers can destroy a fortified enemy or enemy armor. So relax, combat troops are thankful for the support elements.

 

[Dr.Rob]

There were a LOT of non 11B soldiers that got training real quick in country. I know a couple of motor pool specialists that spent a tour kicking doors in Iraq. That happened a lot.

Neither of them ever used a sidearm in anger, though one carried an M9 as an NCO.

Big Green needs a mighty BIG reason to replace the Beretta, I doubt the $$ is there for it to happen.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Dr. Rob:

Big Green needs a mighty BIG reason to replace the Beretta, I doubt the $$ is there for it to happen.

Yeah, the DoD has a short planning horizon and a very near-sighted view on economics.

If you look at a notional annual funding profile for a typical major new system, you will see that the total expenditures for each succeeding phase are usually greater than for the one before. Those would comprise Material Solutions Analysis; Technology Development; Engineering and Manufacturing Development; Production and Deployment; and Operation and Support.

The problem is, if you imagine the profile as a series of foothills and mountains, a person standing right at the foot of the foothills can see only the foothills;even though the biggest mountains are on the other side that's the way the Government really looks at funding decisions.

For the COTS pistol program, There will be no technology Development phase and no Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase; where will be only a study and a T&E program before Production and Deployment. But the problem is the same--they have find a way to fund the testing and Production and Deployment.

It stands to reason, almost without any detailed analysis at all, that over a long enough planning cycle, the Total Ownership Cost for sticking with the M9 would exceed, probably by quite a bit, the cost for moving to a new design. That's simply because the new designs were designed for production, and the M9 was not; the vast majority of the cost numbers are baked in before a prototype is ever constructed.

But funds for the testing and for a new inventory will be hard to come buy.

On the other hand, a pistol program is small change; major police departments undertake them all the time. Their endurance and field reliability tests are less rigorous, but the Government, too, can use manufacturer's test data in its evaluation.

 

[Zerodefect]

Here's my issue with the Smith. While the M & P series make a great .40 and a very good .45, there 9's have been plagued with accuracy and QC issues. They are on their third Bbl design for the full size Nine, and evidently according to Chris Costa, still don't have it right.

http://monderno.com/news/chris-costa-reports-smith-wesson-mp-problem/#comment-66894


Glock designed their gun around the 9mm and consequently had some issues with the .40. I believe the same argument could be made about the Smith in reverse.

I don't think the S&W has a design problem. I think it's just a metallurgical flaw or manufacturing bug that needs worked out.

M&P's have been kicking butt for a while now. This is just a bad batch of barrels. Easy fix for them.

 

[burk]

I don't think the S&W has a design problem. I think it's just a metallurgical flaw or manufacturing bug that needs worked out.

M&P's have been kicking butt for a while now. This is just a bad batch of barrels. Easy fix for them.

I personally believe it's a design problem, they have a real short barrel lock up with 9mm. Like I said, this is their THIRD bbl redesign for the full size 9mm. And Costa is having problems with the latest model. They've been having problems since day one, I remember when they first came out issues were coming up with LE armorers all over the old 10-8 forum. Do a goggle serch and it'll light up.

Like I said I'm not condemning the whole line, and the 9C, seems to be OK. The .40 is a great gun and the .45 a very good one. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the M&P line in general but not the 9mm service size.

 

[Zerodefect]

The latest model has it's crown falling apart. That's an easy fix.

I think the mil should consider .40 now as well. Plenty of better .40 ammo has better ballistics than .45.

 

[USAF_Vet]

There were a LOT of non 11B soldiers that got training real quick in country. I know a couple of motor pool specialists that spent a tour kicking doors in Iraq. That happened a lot.

For that matter, there were a lot of non 11B non-soldiers that got training in country, too. Like USAF and USN personnel, me being one of them. TBH, we did get training prior to deployment, but real world experience beats the pants off a training environment. Rolling convoys and kicking in doors was a daily experience for this USAF aerospace maintenance craftsman.

Neither of them ever used a sidearm in anger, though one carried an M9 as an NCO.

I carried an M-9 during that tour in Iraq. Never used it, but it was on my orders to be issued one, so I carried it. I figured if I was ever going to be in a fire fight, I wasn't gonna get killed over a lack of shooting back.

 

[moxie]

For perspective, keep in mind that the last American serviceman killed in Vietnam was a 19 year old Airman First Class helicopter mechanic.

He was killed early in the morning on the flightline at Tan Son Nhut Air Base about an hour before the cease fire went into effect on Jan. 28, 1973. It was frag from a 122mm rocket hitting the ramp that got him. The last rocket attack of the war.

Note this was an A1C helicopter mechanic. Not an infantryman. Not a fighter pilot. Not a Green Beret. Not a SEAL. Just an Airman doing his job who happened to be the last poor guy killed in that war.

I was there. And I'm telling you that all this hoorah about Soldiers with a capital S and the pointy end of the spear is just so much bunk. A distinction without a difference. Dead is dead.

 

[pearsonm]

I think the mil should consider .40 now as well.

Per the information I've read that would mean developing a platform around the caliber since, as the FBI discovered, current .40's are just hot rod 9mm's that wear out too fast. When considering the ballistic characteristics, recoil, accuracy and round count of the .40 I will be surprised if that's the direction they go.

I think the DoD is going to have to choose one of two bad options - let NATO dictate what type of projectile we use (ball) or go our own way (hollow point) and piss off the other member countries. If they stick with the 9mm but go hollow point there are obviously a gazillion existing off-the-shelf platforms with proven track records. If they choose to stick with ball ammo but move up in caliber it's hard to beat the ballistics of the .45.

 

[pearsonm]

And I'm telling you that all this hoorah about Soldiers with a capital S and the pointy end of the spear is just so much bunk.

I'm not former military or police but I have friends and family who were and are. In Harms Way is In Harms Way. What role doesn't matter.

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

Why not just go with a pistol that can shoot +P or ++P 9mm ammo and call it a day? Hell, the Glock 17 (I could be wrong here) was not designed to shoot +P ammo but that doesn't mean a polymer pistol can't be designed to withstand the pressure of the +P or ++P ammo and still last for 10k rounds. Also, the DoD could save boat loads of money by going with a Glock like design where all you have to do is yank the slide off and replace the barrel, maintenance is a snap. Any moron can work on a Glock (myself included) or a glock-like polymer/steel configuration pistol.

 

[Zerodefect]

It would pretty much be the same as a .40 then.

As long a Glock doesn't quality drift, they'd be a great choice. We've actually swapped barrels in Glocks. Zero didn't change at all. Modern machining is awesome.

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

I personally believe it's a design problem, they have a real short barrel lock up with 9mm. Like I said, this is their THIRD bbl redesign for the full size 9mm. And Costa is having problems with the latest model. They've been having problems since day one, I remember when they first came out issues were coming up with LE armorers all over the old 10-8 forum. Do a goggle serch and it'll light up.

It was one barrel. Also short barrel Lock-up No different than many of it's competitors and irrelevant to accuracy. Barrel lock up is "good" and short is a term used for overall distance to unlock when referring to "Lock-Up". The bullet is gone by the time the barrel unlocks. The way that Lock-Up affects accuracy is if the barrel wiggles and doesn't lock tight when in battery. What I gathered from reading most of these statements was that the problem was in the twist and it affected accuracy (I don't don't buy it, you will see why). The change was made in twist and Hood to Breech face gap and the accuracy improved (25 yds+). Two other barrels (Storm Lake and KKM) had more twist as well as less twist and the accuracy in them was better than factory barrel prior to the change in 2011 production barrel changes.That was 3 or 4 years ago. The evidence is obvious that the Hood to breech face Gap allowed for more barrel movement than necessary affecting 25yd+ accuracy. IOW Lock-up was not good enough to prevent enough barrel movement while in battery.

It is funny how things start and how they finish. "the tales grow taller on down the line" comes to mind. The effect of bad fit affected the accuracy at longer distances, twist changed problem fixed, old news and irrelevant to the new DOD contract. Dang internet:banghead:

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

It would pretty much be the same as a .40 then.

As long a Glock doesn't quality drift, they'd be a great choice. We've actually swapped barrels in Glocks. Zero didn't change at all. Modern machining is awesome.

yah but a .40S&W is a different caliber and there is a boat load of 9mm everywhere and all around the world.

I should have been more clear--the glock 17 was not (again, I'm pretty sure on this, but not 100% sure) designed to handle the hotter +P or ++P 9mm rounds. What the DoD should do is have Glock, or Sig, or Berretta, or General Dynamics, or Ruger, or whoever wants to get in on the bid process design a polymer pistol that has a large capacity magazine that is stupid easy to maintain and do things like barrel swaps. So, here is what I'd list as requirements for this new pistol for our military.

--Can shoot regular 9mm AND +P, ++P (can handle all of it and function properly)
--polymer/metal (for easy barrel swaps, etc.)
--reasonably compact and light (3.9" barrel, 12oz unloaded weight)
--large capacity magazine
--10k barrel life
--can work in mud, crap, crude, underwater and it outer space, blah, blah, blah
--cost no more than $400 per unit with these specs, for an initial order of 100k pistols

So in essence, it can shoot hotter 9mm rounds and any crap a soldier may find just laying around. However, the hotter +P ammo is the stuff that I'd have issued to the military.

 

[cluttonfred]

I see a number of problems with the "hot 9mm" solution. For one, would it be safe to fire in the existing M9s (which will likely still be around for some time) and/or the 9mm pistols of other NATO allies? If not, then introduction an unsafe but interchangable load will almost certainly result in some unfortunate incidents.

Second, a hot-loaded 9mm will likely have the same recoil issues as .40 S&W or .45ACP in law enforcement circles, namely, that control is difficult for soldiers with smaller hands and lighter builds, including many women. This would logically lead to the same conclusions that law enforcement is drawing, namely, that anything short of a hand cannon cannot guarantee a one-shot stop, and the more powerful the round, the harder it to get proficient at getting the first shot on target and the longer it takes to recover from the recoil to put the second or third shot on target.

I would argue that what's needed, if not a move to a new small-caliber hyper-velocity round, is actually a low-recoil 9mm load with enhanced lethality. As has been mentioned, that means bucking the old Hague Convention ban (which the United States never ratified) on expanding bullets, which would irritate our NATO allies because many of them did ratify it, or developing something new like a high-velocity load with a long, light bullet with a light forward core to promote tumbling on impact. The latter solution could also be used to develop an effective load light for use against body armor at short range if, for exampe, that light forward core were made of hardened steel or tungsten carbide or something like that.

 

[Eb1]

Screw NATO, and go back to the .45 ACP or something new like the 5.7 20 round mag with the magic bullets.
I know these are total opposites, but I am so sick of NATO this and NATO that. Put this country back to work.

 

[Field Tester]

What is ++p ammo? I've never heard of it before. I'm familiar with +p & +p+, but not ++p. How does it differ from +p+?