US Army handgun

[FL-NC]

Well, it looks like Uncle Sam is re-visiting (again) the idea of upgrading the standard issue pistol for our guys and gals. I've been somewhat out of the loop for the past couple of years, but it seems like Gen. Miley (Army COS) is getting directly involved in the process, and has expressed his frustration of the broken acquisition process. In SOCOM, we started replacing our M9 pistols with Glock variants over 10 years ago, and they have been doing just fine (and which are purchased for the princely sum of around $325 each). From various conversations I have had in the past with "experts" from "big army", they seem to have a serious case of Glockaphobia. The reason I heard repeated more than once is the fact that the Glock pistols don't have a safety like the M9 (I always called it an off switch) and were therefore a recipe for disaster. The fact that the Glock has been adopted by LE and military world wide seems to be conveniently ignored. My personal observation is that the only firearm a poorly trained Soldier (or anyone else) could be guaranteed not to have an accident with would be a firearm rendered mechanically inoperable. IMO, the best choice would be a striker fired pistol, and my preference would be a Glock in 9mm, either 19, 17, or a hybrid. Like a 19 sized gen 4 frame with a 17 sized gen 3 top. I think its more likely that the S&W M&P variant would be chosen (and still a good choice, and a darn sight better than the M9) as a commercial off the shelf (COTS) replacement for the M9 for a few reasons: 1) currently available with optional "off switch" (apparently Glock has done this in the past, and with the opportunity for a major contract for a major customer, maybe they would do it again) 2) easily convertible backstraps for users with different sized hands. Of course, there are the other considerations that go into projects of this sort, such as: Ability to deliver the product on a specified timeline, factory support and warranties, training for armorers, Delivery of ancillary items like bench stock replacement parts and magazines, the approval processes (more contracts and testing) for products not necessarily provided by the maker of the gun like holsters, lights, etc., more testing under more conditions than most people care to read about, and probably the most important factor of all- even though it shouldn't be- the bill. Followed by another round of justifications over the whole project. Since the 1911 has gone the way of the dodo (at least for "big Army", along with the rest of the conventional line units in the DOD, does anyone else see other viable replacements for the M9? Why do you think so?

 

[M-Cameron]

i dont really know why the army is bothering to replace all their pistols anyways........

how often do military pistols get used outside of training?.......and more importantly, what would a new crop of pistols do, that the current stuff doesnt do?

you could argue that the pistol is one of the least important weapons the military uses......no war has ever been won or lost because of choice of pistol.......seems like a lot of hubbub over nothing.

 

[BSA1]

Oh boy.

ANOTHER Glock vs. Beretta M9 thread.

 

[Warp]

i dont really know why the army is bothering to replace all their pistols anyways........

how often do military pistols get used outside of training?.......and more importantly, what would a new crop of pistols do, that the current stuff doesnt do?

you could argue that the pistol is one of the least important weapons the military uses......no war has ever been won or lost because of choice of pistol.......seems like a lot of hubbub over nothing.

How often does any group use their pistol anyway?

Most private citizen carriers will never use a gun outside of the range. Most law enforcement officers will never fire their duty gun. You are saying military pistols don't get used enough to matter.

Why even have the darn things, let alone care what they are or how they work? Who needs 'em?

 

[Old Fuff]

So far as Glock is concerned, decades back in the past the Army expressed some interest in the company's products, but one requirement was that they would be given free use of Glock's patents. Gaston told them, "Thanks, but no thanks." My feeling is that he hasn't changed his mind.

 

[HighRoadRover]

There are lots of good reasons soldiers need handguns... There are MPs who patrol installations just like police patrol neighborhoods. There are soldiers assigned to crew-served weapons who need a backup at their side while operating the primary weapon. There other people who have their hands full with whatever they are doing, but need a handgun nearby as a margin of safety: staffers, mechanics, cooks, couriers, etc., whether in work areas, in vehicles, walking on compounds shared with perhaps untrustworthy allies, etc. The handgun is not a substitute for the rifle, but it would be a mistake to think that military personnel don't need or want handguns available to them for all the times when they can't or don't have a rifle with them, especially since we don't have "linear" battlefields so much anymore.

As to which pistol... I think what the Chief of Staff was saying was -- just make a good choice and go with it; avoid the 371 page request for proposals and make a common-sense choice. I'm neither for or against Glocks in this role, but striker-fired polymer pistols can be had for half the price the Army is paying for the M9. Many types of modern pistols are sufficiently reliable for this role and are or can be manufactured in the USA.

It may even be feasible to buy a couple of different types of pistol -- striker-fired weapons are robust and have fewer parts, such that the maintenance and parts burden is not so great that everyone has to have the same make of pistol... Whichever company or companies "win" the competition will enjoy a boon of commercial (civilian) sales, so perhaps there is a benefit for all if their prices for the Army's pistol are relatively low.

The 9mm vs. .45 vs. .40 issue is related but shouldn't put the pistol procurement on hold while that old issue is debated... With JHP ammo now approved for use by the military, 9mm can work well for the "average" soldier and specialty units that need more power can go with .40 or .45 -- and they already do.

 

[MAKster]

General Milley's comments about let's just pick the Glock 19 and skip the procurement process has been rejected. The public dismissal of his comments by subordinates was very telling. Read yesterday's article in military.com.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...h-pistol-program-despite-chiefs-pushback.html

 

[TTv2]

The Army's new handgun will be based on whether or not jhp can be used. If yes, it'll stay a 9mm, if no... well, idk. I don't think a .45 FMJ does a lot of damage and I don't think the teenage girls that are going to be infecting the Army in the future will like shooting it.

I'm beginning to feel that if jhp isn't allowed, it may end up being a 5.7 or .22 TCM with a steel penetrating tip. if they can't get hollow points, I figure the Army's gonna look for armor penetration capability and 5.7 and .22 TCM or it's 9R variant, which would likely be preferable as it can be switched to 9mm.

And I don't see what the Army is looking for that Glock doesn't offer besides the safety, a safetyless gun like Glock that has been carried by millions of police with little issue.

 

[Skribs]

Comparing civilian handgun use to military handgun use is like comparing how often a bus driver and a formula 500 driver go around 100 MPH. One doesn't use the handgun because the need to use a firearm is low; the other doesn't use a handgun because there are much better options available as standard issue.

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

The "broken acquisition system" has been setup by Congress, the General Accounting Office, and several Inspector Generals in order to preclude favoritism in the process.

If you, or the General, have a problem with it then I would suggest working with Congress and the other entities involved to reform it.

Complaining on an Internet forum does nothing. The Army can only follow the process as required by Federal Law.

I would postulate that the Army is attempting to preclude getting into the same situation that they had with the 1911 - old, worn out pistols.

The Beretta has been in the inventory for 31 years. I'm sure the Army could continue to rebuild and replace as needed. But, at some point it becomes more cost effective to replace the gun over a specified time period.

The Army wants to own the Technical Data Package for the pistol so that they are not tied to a single manufacturer. They don't want to get into the 5% royalty situation they currently have with Colt and the M4. That's totally different than just buying COTS equipment.

There are more requirements for the program than just buying new pistols. But, of course, it's so much easier on the Internet to criticize what's being done than there is to understanding everything involved in the total procurement.

 

[FL-NC]

mcameron- The fact is that the M9 pistol has not lived up to the expectations of the Army, and in my personal opinion, as a result of lots of use, the pistol has more than a couple of design flaws. For that reason, the Army is considering (again) the possibility of replacing them. Whether I agree with the decision or not (and I do), its a project above most people's pay grades. Regarding the question of how often a pistol gets used (shot?) outside of training, the same could be asked of any weapons system. MOST service members in any branch never actually SEE the enemy, or take part in missions "outside the wire". Still even fewer who do go on missions have the "opportunity" to directly engage the enemy with small arms. In fact, in the last several years, most of our service members who have been unlucky enough to be engaged by the enemy were attacked ON BASE by local personnel who up until that time were thought to be "good guys". If you went to any US/allied base in Afg. right now, you would see more people carrying loaded sidearms than ever before.

 

[FL-NC]

BSA- I didn't intend for this to be a M9 vs anything thread. I just tried to start a discussion on the M9 replacement project conceived within the DOD.

 

[FL-NC]

buckhorn- the process you are referencing as it relates to mil equipment in general and small arms in particular was streamlined through SOCOM for "white" SOF units to more efficiently get equipment into the hands of end users. As a result, the small arms for SOF are mostly handled through CRANE, from conception to birth. The benefit of this (not perfect) system is that improvements in lethality "trickle down" from SOF at a faster rate to the conventional forces- more quickly and efficiently than if similar efforts were "born and raised" within the "big mil" families. And yes, competitive products from various manufacturers are considered. This process (along with satisfactory performance) assisted in bringing into the "mainstream military" items such as the M4 carbine, most of the items in the M4 SOPMOD inventory, the M110 SWS, the M107 (Barrett), and other upgrades in night vision, body armor, communications abilities, etc.

 

[Panzerschwein]

There are many who believe the M1911 should return to service as the standard sidearm.

The USMC has recently adopted the M45A1 1911 as standard for there MARSOC and SOF guys. They adopted many thousands of them.

 

[M-Cameron]

How often does any group use their pistol anyway?

Most private citizen carriers will never use a gun outside of the range. Most law enforcement officers will never fire their duty gun. You are saying military pistols don't get used enough to matter.

Why even have the darn things, let alone care what they are or how they work? Who needs 'em?

in a nutshell.....yes ....and no......

look at your current crop of "military handgun" possibilities.......even more specifically....look at the Glock 17.

does the G17 do anything significantly better than the M9?....is the M9 really that bad that you need to replace all the guns in the fleet? is the cost of replacing them going to be justified by the performance increase we see from a replacement?

for most people in combat rolls, a pistol is a secondary, hell, sometimes a tertiary weapon........

its kind of like saying, " im not happy with my cars spare tire, i want to replace it with a new one"..........why?

 

[Steve in Allentown]

Just a few quick comments.

I'm now offically an old, big-Army tanker. We carried Colt .45s and .45 M3 sub-guns. While on manuvers in what was then West Germany the tanks were loaded with full basic loads of main gun rounds plus .50 and 7.62 ammo. We were ready to rumble. One of our fears was of groups like Baader-Meinhof hijacking one of our tanks. You can imagine what damage could be done. So, we all carried .45s with the directive to not allow such a thing to happen. The point is a handgun is probably the best weapon to have in and around vehicles.

My son is a snake-eater with two tours in the sandbox. His outfit carries Glock 9mm in one size or another. I raised him so he's very familiar with 1911s but he has complete faith in his combat tupperware and is an excellent shot. He hates M9s.

Everyone has their own preference but for up close and personal encounters of the worst kind I'm a .45 1911 guy. I know that my judgement is clouded by my many years of experience carrying 1911s professionally.

If I had to pick a new sidearm for Army issue, I'd be fine with the Glock 21. If we were allowed to carry hollowpoints, I'd be fine with the Glock 17.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

The US military is now using more Glocks than in the past, especially among Special Operations troops. The Seals recently adopted it, supposedly as a substitute for the SIG P229, P228, and P226. They will continue to use other handguns, too. (Some Seals [who are "content experts" on the AR15.COM] felt it was the Glock 19 good choice.) None of these folks consider their handgun the most important part of their arsenal -- unless they're doing stuff that requires a silencer or they're going up a rope to while stealthily boarding a ship.

The US Govt wants to own the designs for the new modular gun and, as best I can tell, then contract it out to the lowest bidder. Not every gun maker is willing to spend the time and effort to develop a gun that meets the government's specs -- knowing that the likelihood of winning the competition is quite small.

Ruger announced about a year ago that they didn't want to go the "competition" route, even though their new American pistol seems to be designed to meet the government's specifications. They seem to feel they have a good gun, and that they will do better if they stay in control of it. All of the reviews I've read, thus far, have been pretty good.

 

[HighRoadRover]

GEN Milley's comments on the pistol procurement -- paraphrased as "let me make this decision, and I'd just go to Cabela's..." -- was not meant to be taken literally. He was just making the case for faster, simpler acquisition... and for an increased Service (e.g., Army, for ground systems) role in the acquisition of what is in this case a very basic weapons system, at a relatively low cost, involving a mature technology. Note that within two weeks of his statement, the SECDEF announced a number of institutional reforms involving the Joint Chiefs of Staff... one of which is to put more "service" related acquisition back in the hands of the Services, and get JCS and DoD out of the services' business of equipping their forces. Certainly GEN Milley knew that was coming...

Would there be a problem if GEN Milley just picked the Glock? Yep. Questions would arise quickly -- why a foreign company (even if they have an assembly line in Georgia)? Does GEN Milley own a Glock? Did he pay full price, or did he get a "special" deal on it? Does he live in Georgia? What about all of those problems with the Glock GEN 4 -- why do you want to put the soldiers' lives at risk with an inferior foreign product? Etc. If you don't believe that Congressmen whose districts are scorned don't have a lot of fury, Google the case of the Army, Palantir, and DCGS. These kinds of objections, some well-founded and some not, would arise no matter which pistol were selected. Does anyone remember the accusations that the Army chose Beretta (an Italian company) as a payoff because the Italians supported the fielding of GLCMs in Europe? Seems far-fetched now, but it was believed then.

Acquisition rules are designed to syndicate the risk, and make no one person responsible -- and are cumbersome to say the least. The 371 page RFP for the next pistol says it all. But the old saying in contracting is: do you want it fast, cheap, or good? Pick any two.

That's why I'm suggesting maybe the answer is to have a basic reliability standard (x number of rounds between failures) and then buy P320s, M&Ps, FNS-9s, Glock 19s, XD's, etc. as the "standard" and "substitute standard." Sort of like the Army bought Colt and S&W revolvers in .45 acp in WWI when we didn't have enough M1911's. We got through that war somehow...

No one is saying the pistol is the primary weapons system on the battlefield -- although it is the weapon of choice in a few close-quarters scenarios. It is a symbolic issue in many ways, but service members (and government civilians who accompany them in the combat areas and are not allowed to have "offensive" weapons like rifles) do like and benefit from having pistols along in a lot of situations.

 

[FL-NC]

Cooldill- There is a world of difference between MARSOC or other SOF units in the DOD and their brothers and sisters in the conventional forces, which represent the bulk of our military power. MARSOC's choice of a 1911 variant was reflective of their needs and mission requirements, along with, most significantly- their level of training and the resources they will invest into sustaining their level of proficiency. A handgun chosen for the "masses" must fit into several niches. The least common denominator being the level of training and experience for MOST end users, along with considerations like weight, recoil, firepower, etc. Remember, many of our service members aren't the guys that look like they should be on a contract with the NFL. Some of them are females or just plain little. For that reason, a 1911 or a Glock 21- or dare I say any .45- probably wouldn't be the best choice.

 

[FL-NC]

Mcameron- as someone who did a career of 23 years in the mil, and who was issued several different types of handguns, the M9 was the worst. Striker fired pistols (not exclusive to Glock) eliminate the need for training personnel to employ 2 different trigger strokes for the same handgun, along with the necessity of de-cocking the pistol prior to re-holstering. I have seen female users who had difficulty using the DA trigger at all during the presentation shot. Of all the small arms in the inventory, the M9 was the one that broke the most often: locking blocks (I personally broke 3, and replaced dozens), trigger springs, and other small parts. They are very sensitive to dust and other particulate matter. Magazines reliability has always been an issue- while some are better than other, none of them are "great". They can be unreliable with any grips besides the factory ones. They aren't ready out of the box for mounting lights or other accessories. So, yes, they are outdated, if for no other reason, the fact that much better designs are available.

 

[FL-NC]

Allentown- it sounds like your son (an actual do-er) is convinced and confident in his side arm. Prayers for him and his missions, now and in the future.

 

[FL-NC]

Walt- I can attest that Glock pistols started entering the "mainstream" Army SOF units in about 2005, and are now standard issue in most if not all of the "kinetic" units. I started using one in '06 and never looked back. The guys I know who are still in are happy with them. Of course, this doesn't mean that other striker fired guns like the S&W M&P, or the striker HKs shouldn't be considered.

 

[FL-NC]

High road- the "foreign design" seal has long since been broken, regarding small arms: M249 SAW; Belgium. M9 pistol; Italy M240 mg; Belgium (where it was produced in 1958, but beat by the inferior US made M60 due to it being "foreign"), USMC Benelli shotgun; Italy HK416 variant as used by USMC and SOF; Germany SCAR rifle system; Belgium. M11 (Sig 228 pistol) and MK25 (Sig 226 as used by NAVSPECWAR); Switzerland (or Germany?).

 

[Rinspeed]

Goodness, I've seen another one of these goofy threads for like five days now.

 

[cougar1717]

Some questions for thought: who wants to have the loss leader on the government contract to increase sales to the civilian market? To be worthwhile, any manufacturer is banking on increased sales through a "military grade" ad campaign. They would have to calculate the breakeven point to see if it was worthwhile.

But then, what about the myriad of handguns other than the M9 that were adopted by military authorities with the power to choose? Would that still be in effect? Does that reduce the desirability of the contract?

If the patent rights are involved, who in their right mind would give up those? Unless the patent had run out or was about to run out, it means immediate product dilution. It would be even worse if the "winning design" creator had to bid against other manufacturers to create their own product.

All in all, the selection process will have some drama. There will probably be some head scratching as well. No matter what decision is made, forums will buzz and someone will cry foul. The final decision may not even correspond to the testing data, but the government will maintain that they have made the best choice.