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

[tarosean]

The Brits picked the Glock 17 to replace their BHPs. They've served on the same battlefields we have for years and their needs aren't any different than ours.

The Brits last upgraded their handguns in 1967!!! I would say the BHP served them well, but it was time to upgrade. Plus they only ordered 25,000 17's. While it's true we often field the same battlefields, our numbers and requirements would be far greater.

 

[JR24]

When the Brits switched I recall being baffled when one soldier said something like "now we can safely carry with a round chambered" with the Glock over the BHP.

 

[RustyShackelford]

SIG Sauer, SAS, sidearms....

Id add too the elite SAS T&Eed many brands and calibers for their special operations.
After lengthy field tests, they picked the SIG Sauer P series: P226, P229, P239, P220.

Rusty

 

[Sergei Mosin]

The British Army has made extensive use of the P226 in Afghanistan, not limited solely to SAS troopers. An acquaintance of mine was issued one in addition to his rifle, but says he preferred the bayonet for close work, if it came to that.

 

[mgmorden]

When the Brits switched I recall being baffled when one soldier said something like "now we can safely carry with a round chambered" with the Glock over the BHP.

That definitely is baffling. A stock BHP has a trigger pull about twice as heavy as a G17. Carry it cocked and unlocked and you're still not that bad off. Guess the hammer just makes people nervous .

Admittedly though while I love the BHP and it is worlds more classy than a G17, if I actually had to go into BATTLE I'd be grabbing up the Glock.

Overall though I personally still stand by the idea that the M9 - while one of my least favorite guns - simply isn't outdated to the point of needing to be replaced yet. There are better things to spend the money on.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by mgmorden:

Overall though I personally still stand by the idea that the M9 - while one of my least favorite guns - simply isn't outdated to the point of needing to be replaced yet. There are better things to spend the money on.

You seem to beliveve that the cost of sticking with the M9 would be lower than that of switching to a new COTS pistol.

Do you have a basis for that belief?

 

[mgmorden]

Posted by mgmorden:

You seem to beliveve that the cost of sticking with the M9 would be lower than that of switching to a new COTS pistol.

Do you have a basis for that belief?

Replacement cost. Replacing all pistols currently in inventory is going to be a significant investment. The new guns will not be without maintenance costs themselves.

If that investment can be made up over time then I'd say "sure", but realistically I think the burden of proof is on those who would claim replacement would be cheaper - not the other way around.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by mgmorden:

Replacing all pistols currently in inventory is going to be a significant investment.

Ultimately, all of the M9s and all of whatever might replace them will be replaced, and the former will likely be relaxed a lot sooner. The M9 service life is said to be a little longer than 10% of that of a Model 1911 in terms of rounds fired.

If that investment can be made up over time then I'd say "sure", but realistically I think the burden of proof is on those who would claim replacement would be cheaper - not the other way around.

The Army knows what it is taking to keep the M9 in service, and I suspect that is a driver in the search for a potential replacement.

For a new one, they well have fixed price contracts, which may be significantly lower than the price of M9s, and documented service life test results.

I don't have a factual basis for this, but my opinion is that there are probably several modern pistols with much lower production costs and much longer service lives than the M9.

And there are potential operational advantages, too.

 

[Zerodefect]

400,000 pistols bought over the next 5-10 years at $300 per pistol is $120 million.

Pocket change. Have to pay to play, pretty smart investment as usual.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Strange....

What I find strange is how when the Beretta M9 9mmNATO first came out in the mid 1980s, it's open slide format was highly praised by the US armed forces & gun industry wags for preventing jams or problems.
Now, in 2014, the military and DoD claim the M9s are outdated & the open slide is prone to sand/grit problems.

Rusty

 

[1911 guy]

The M9 replaced the M1911, we all know that. What some people DON'T know is that the Army (or entire military) hadn't taken in a single new 1911 since the 1940's. That's right, the newest pistol in the U.S. arsenal was at least 40 years old when they were replaced. They were ugly, beat up, worn out and so on, but they worked.

Compare this to the M9. In service 30 years and has been a loser since its beginning. The design is not conducive to hard use, the materials used in construction were not up to the round count these pistols encounter during a service life and slides and barrels are considered consumeable items.

If new slides and barrels had been fit to existing M1911 pistols, we'd still be using them. But instead, we decided to go to a NATO round, buy an inferior pistol to shoot that round and then pay massive amounts of money repairing pistols, replacing worn parts and stitching up soldiers and sailor who caught the slides in their face. No fatalities thank goodness, but the last one I was aware of cost almost 30 stitches in the face and dental surgery.

In short, 9mm with hardball is a loser. The M9 is a loser. The combination was atrocious. They tried to save a little money with aftermarket magazines, that was the Checkmate debacle.

My own answer would be to either refit the military with the 1911 or go straight to a Glock with a contracted thumb safety. I don't like Glocks, but that's a personal opinion based on fit. They do work and work well.

 

[1911 guy]

Rusty, remember the old saying that the military always gears up to fight the last war? The open slide may not have been an issue in S.E.A. or Europe, but they never envisioned going to war in a desert unlike any desert we have here in the U.S.

Conversely, the next time we go to war in a different environment, we'll have great gear. For the M.E. but it will be almost useless anywhere else due to over-specialization.

 

[cluttonfred]

The problem is that true innovation requires freedom to innovate, and that's expensive because it could mean a new caliber, new logistics, new training. What's the realistic distance that a handgun is used in combat? Let the military define performance only--penetration through barriers or body armor, amount of energy on target at a certain distance (without specifying number of projectiles), number of targets to be engaged with a loaded weapon, weight of that loaded weapon, dust/grit tests, corrosion tests, etc. but not specify a caliber. Then let the manufacturers big and small slug it out, with a royalty to the winning design but a separate process to award the production contract for the weapon and ammunition.

I can easily imagine, for example, a small-caliber machine pistol using maybe a 5mm straight aluminum case, performance comparable to the FN 5.7mm but full velocity out of a short barrel with long, thin bullets that tumble for maximum damage with ball ammo. 30 rounds in the gun like the Kel-Tec .22 mag pistol, optional burst fire at something like 1200 rpm, say three rounds a pop, and a fiber optic/tritium day/night holographic sight. That might actually make a real difference in terms of hit probability--only the rounds on target really matter. Perhaps the old Mauser C96 forward magazine form factor would make a comeback. Han Solo would be proud!

 

[Fiv3r]

I've often thought that the true next generation sidearm would be a small caliber high velocity round like Owlnmole suggests. It seems like it would fit the modern needs of warfare a little better.

 

[herrwalther]

You seem to beliveve that the cost of sticking with the M9 would be lower than that of switching to a new COTS pistol.

Do you have a basis for that belief?

You are forgetting the most important part of the cost equation. Retrain cost for supply and armorer personnel to maintain the new pistol. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone in the military is a gun nut. It will take more money than the straight up contract cost of a new pistol to update inventory, create training manuals and field manuals. And teach armorers and supply chains to maintain the pistols, accessories, and parts. Even if the military changed to a Glock, a relatively common platform, the training cost would be higher than sticking with the M9.

Now, in 2014, the military and DoD claim the M9s are outdated & the open slide is prone to sand/grit problems.

Not a whole lot of testing was done on the strength/benefit of the open slide design, at least none I am aware of. It could be that someone thought the open slide would be more reliable to keep debris out of the action. And Iraq/Afghanistan showed the error of that thinking. During the 80s and Cold War, I doubt much thought was put into war fighting in a sandbox. Everyone was focused on arctic or jungle warfare.

I've often thought that the true next generation sidearm would be a small caliber high velocity round like Owlnmole suggests. It seems like it would fit the modern needs of warfare a little better.

Highly doubt it. The military is going to stick with the cheapest option. Because bean counters see dollar signs and not lives. The military also knows how few pistols are used in combat. They will fight to keep the 9mm NATO. A specialty cartridge like the 5.7 would cost far more than it would benefit. The military would have to find a company to contract to make the new ammunition, instead of sticking with an established 9mm standard.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Can I have one of those 20,000 M9's when Beretta doesn't win the contract. I have a few hundred bucks in my sock drawer I won't miss.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by herrwalther:

You are forgetting the most important part of the cost equation. Retrain cost for supply and armorer personnel to maintain the new pistol.

I'm not forgetting it, but I do not think it is that significant. We are discussing a common handgun with simple mechanical components, not a PAC-1 missile system.

It will take more money than the straight up contract cost of a new pistol to update inventory, create training manuals and field manuals

.Of course.

I suggest that for anything in the running, the text for the manuals exists. Printing and plug-in memory are cheap.

And teach armorers and supply chains to maintain the pistols, accessories, and parts. Even if the military changed to a Glock, a relatively common platform, the training cost would be higher than sticking with the M9.

It takes a day or two to certify a Glock armorer. And they have to teach new armorers for the M9 all the time anyway, due to turnover.

Of course, all of that will be evaluated, and frankly, it has undoubtedly benen discussed at length in the justification of the strategy to replace the M9.

 

[jamal28]

How can beretta compete for a new contract when there not even finished with the current m9 order.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

.40 S&W? US military won't adopt it. Too many females. Law enforcement agencies are dumping it in favor of 9mm.

All that needs to be done is to adopt a flat nose/truncated cone FMJ bullet to increase 9mm "lethality".

 

[pearsonm]

In short, 9mm with hardball is a loser.

That is a given. Was it the NYPD who immediately had problems with rounds zipping through targets when they went to Glocks? Those problems went away as soon as they went to hollow points.

If we're going to follow NATO and they require hardball then I don't know of any caliber as effective as .45. There are reams of ballistic data out there.

One factor I believe is getting overlooked is weight. The M9 is a heavy chunk of iron. It has no reliability or durability advantage over modern polymer weapons. Assuming all other factors are equal I can't imagine any soldier in the field saying 'Yea, I'll take the heavy one'.

 

[dogtown tom]

Originally Posted by JR24
When the Brits switched I recall being baffled when one soldier said something like "now we can safely carry with a round chambered" with the Glock over the BHP.

I think he may be referring to the lack of a firing pin safety on early BHP's.
Carrying your pistol "Cocked & Locked" typically was frowned on by the military (theirs and ours).

 

[RustyShackelford]

New posts....

There are a few good, new posts here.
I agree the M9 wasn't really organized for the wars/missions the armed forces went on to face.
FWIW: I also heard the US Intel agencies thought the USSR would run until 2025.
The Beretta M9 is what it is, I think it's time to move on.

 

[herrwalther]

.40 S&W? US military won't adopt it. Too many females. Law enforcement agencies are dumping it in favor of 9mm.

Very few combat units are issued M9s. And even fewer combat units (especially Army) have females as they are closed out of 11, 13, 18 series for at least a few more years. Even with that in consideration you are probably right, .40 is not a likely option.

It takes a day or two to certify a Glock armorer. And they have to teach new armorers for the M9 all the time anyway, due to turnover.

Unit level armorers are not taught "peace meal" with small courses that can be taught in a day or two. They have to be TRADOC certified in order to have the slot. To be TRADOC certified it needs to be an MOS. To be an MOS that is a whole 6 weeks at Ft. Lee, VA. A big Army change like a sweeping sidearm change, the backlog for retrain would be tremendous. In that regard, simple Glock courses would be easier for maintenance, if Glocks were chosen.

 

[cluttonfred]

Here's a thought...what about a 5.7mm Glock?

 

[RustyShackelford]

Sidearms, women....

The point about women and sidearms is important.
It's true that female service members & officers can't be in some positions but those regulations & SOPs are changing. The DoD & POTUS both want as many military occupations filled by men & women. This includes pilots & special operations.
Women sued the DoJ & FBI in the early 2000s in a class action lawsuit over pistol qualifications/weapons. This led to major changes.

The new M9s or pistols would need to be used by service members, both male & female.